"Without belief in God, there's no point living"?

jill_valentine · 31-12-2008 07:06PM #1

So, yeah.

Offshoot from another thread that caught my eye.

If, theoretically, you woke up tomorrow without God in your life, or had like... a sudden attack of atheism, would you be able to cope? Do you consider God - or rather, belief in God - your sole reason for living? If the unthinkable happened, do you have other things in your life that you know you could hold onto?

I swear it's not a trap, I'd like a good few Christian perspectives on it. I'm genuinely curious to know how representative the attitude is, and whether it's considered desirable or alarming by most folks?

philologos · 31-12-2008 07:54PM

Good question, and it's one that I might be answering too simply when I say this, but hear me out.

I disagree with the original statement that there would be no point living, but there would be less of a point to life without the mission and the goal I have of following Christ, and to grow somehow in that mission I guess, and to have a positive impact on others while doing so. So I agree with it in part, that I wouldn't be as fulfilled a person in one respect, but to suggest that there is no point living, or even go into the darker prospect that if I didn't have God I would contemplate ending my life, I don't think that is a reasonable suggestion either. Atheism isn't that bad, but it's bad enough in my view anyway. Not bad for people necessarily, just lacking in meaning etc.

PDN · 01-01-2009 01:04PM

My life was crap when I was an atheist. If I was to return to that condition then I see no reason why it wouldn't be crap again.

I think this is because I draw a lot of meaning from knowing that I have a purpose in life and that what I do has meaning. Without that I would find it difficult not to return to the nihilism of my punk days. As Johnny Rotten shouted at the end of 'Anarchy in the UK': "Get pissed! Destroy!" And if there's no future then why not?

Anyway, I doubt if a relapse into atheism is likely to happen.

MrPudding · 01-01-2009 01:15PM

PDN wrote: »

My life was crap when I was an atheist. If I was to return to that condition then I see no reason why it wouldn't be crap again.

I think this is because I draw a lot of meaning from knowing that I have a purpose in life and that what I do has meaning. Without that I would find it difficult not to return to the nihilism of my punk days. As Johnny Rotten shouted at the end of 'Anarchy in the UK': "Get pissed! Destroy!" And if there's no future then why not?

Anyway, I doubt if a relapse into atheism is likely to happen.

I think this is probably the part I find hardest to understand. There has to have been something wrong, other than atheism. As you may have worked out, I am an atheist, but my life if full of purpose and hope. My life is far from crap.

I know I am not the only atheist to be enjoying life, so when I see your, and others, comments about how crap your life was as an atheist I have to wonder was atheism really the reason?

MrP

philologos · 01-01-2009 01:47PM

MrPudding, although that may well be true for you. Many Christians, if not all have perceived there to be an increase in their quality of life since adopting the message, and accepting Christ as their Lord and Saviour, that we just can't imagine our lives without once having accepted it.

Apologies for any atheists who may get offended by this, maybe this is down to my own ignorance, but I really see atheism as just nothing. It doesn't offer anyone anything. If I'm right, and this is a common atheist line, that atheism is merely the rejection of God. I just don't see what is so empowering about it, or more importantly as we are all in the pursuit of some form of truth, what is so much more true about it?

Tim_Murphy · 01-01-2009 02:03PM

I just don't see what is so empowering about it, or more importantly as we are all in the pursuit of some form of truth, what is so much more true about it?

If somebody has been convinced that they need a crutch, if they absolutely believe this and are thankful that they have been given it then they may not be able to see what is so empowering about throwing the crutch away.
Of ciourse, throwing the crutch away in itself doesn't mean much, it where you go from there that can have meaning.

MrPudding · 01-01-2009 02:33PM

Jakkass wrote: »

MrPudding, although that may well be true for you. Many Christians, if not all have perceived there to be an increase in their quality of life since adopting the message, and accepting Christ as their Lord and Saviour, that we just can't imagine our lives without once having accepted it.

I don't doubt that, and it was not the point of my question. My question refers to the time before finding god. The time when several posters on this board were atheist and their lives were crap. The quesiton I am asking is what was causing the crappyness? Given that there are plenty of athiests out there that are: 1) Not depressed, 2) Have happy, fulfilling and nmeaningful lives 3) Aren't sociopathic, murdering rapist animals, 4) Seem to be doing just fine, what was it on top of atheism that was causing the lives to be crappy.

I guess what I am trying to say, in my typically inept way, is this: If you have an atheist who has a crappy life and is a crappy person who then finds god and suddenly becomes a happy fabulous person I don't think you can attribute the crappyness of their previous life to atheism. Just because they have found belief does not mean that unbelief was the root of their problems.

Jakkass wrote: »

Apologies for any atheists who may get offended by this, maybe this is down to my own ignorance, but I really see atheism as just nothing. It doesn't offer anyone anything.

It is not as easy as believing if you behave you will be rewarded with eternal life, that is for sure.

Jakkass wrote: »

If I'm right, and this is a common atheist line, that atheism is merely the rejection of God.

Atheists don't reject god. To reject something you have to believe that it exists in the first place. Do you reject the flying spagetti monster? Or unicorns? Or Griffins?

Jakkass wrote: »

I just don't see what is so empowering about it, or more importantly as we are all in the pursuit of some form of truth, what is so much more true about it?

What is empowering is the realisation that it is ok to live you life without the threat of eternal damnation. It is ok to live your life without having a requirement to worship at the feel of soem entity which is supposed to have created you and which you are hoping to please so you can live forever.

It is about behaving like a decent human being, not because fo the threat of what will happen if you don't, but because you know that is how you should behave.

As for the pursuit of truth, it is empowering to realise that you don't need to have an answer for everything we see, that it is OK to say I don't know, but we are working on it.

MrP

Morbert · 01-01-2009 03:19PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Apologies for any atheists who may get offended by this, maybe this is down to my own ignorance, but I really see atheism as just nothing. It doesn't offer anyone anything. If I'm right, and this is a common atheist line, that atheism is merely the rejection of God. I just don't see what is so empowering about it, or more importantly as we are all in the pursuit of some form of truth, what is so much more true about it?

Atheism is not a means of raising your happiness and comfort levels. So why be an atheist? Because the empowerment offered by any religion has nothing to do with whether or not that religion makes correct claims. I reject the claims of most theologians because I see no evidence for what they assert. Simple as.

Note: It's important to make a distinction between rejecting God and rejecting religion. This is why faith issues between theists and atheists are often misunderstood. Christians are not asking me to have faith in Jesus, they are asking me to have faith in them.

philologos · 01-01-2009 03:37PM

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

If somebody has been convinced that they need a crutch, if they absolutely believe this and are thankful that they have been given it then they may not be able to see what is so empowering about throwing the crutch away.
Of ciourse, throwing the crutch away in itself doesn't mean much, it where you go from there that can have meaning.

The crutch point depends on if I would define Christianity as a crutch. A crutch for the protection of reality? See from the get go that is the issue. You haven't convinced me that it is any more true, you've merely made an assertion that Christianity is a crutch to protect Christians from reality. If you believe this all well and good, but it doesn't make it more true that Christianity is a crutch merely because you say so. What exactly makes Christianity a crutch anyway? Christianity and applying ones self to the precepts that Christ had taught us is very difficult infact. The imagery given in the Gospels of the narrow way, the winding path is accurate in portraying the difficulty of following Christianity, and I think other Christians on boards.ie will agree with me on this one.

Your entire post is based on this assertion though. That doesn't make it any less true. Why the crutch at all? I could argue that atheism is a crutch against the reality which in my view would be Christianity. However, I wouldn't make that point due to how devoid of logic it is, and the same goes for what you have just posted. It's devoid of logic.

If you are going to discuss why atheism is more true than Christianity, invoking that Christianity is a crutch doesn't answer the question.

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't doubt that, and it was not the point of my question. My question refers to the time before finding god. The time when several posters on this board were atheist and their lives were crap. The quesiton I am asking is what was causing the crappyness? Given that there are plenty of athiests out there that are: 1) Not depressed, 2) Have happy, fulfilling and nmeaningful lives 3) Aren't sociopathic, murdering rapist animals, 4) Seem to be doing just fine, what was it on top of atheism that was causing the lives to be crappy.

I don't think I can relate to atheism. I had doubts and skepticisms about the Christian faith, but I think that would give me the title of agnostic more than atheist. I think the vast majority of people have been skeptical about faith systems in their lives. The only difference is that some do not adopt a system of belief in a higher power of some form, which would be you guys. I don't think I am really entitled to answer the question about "crappy lives". What I can tell you is that my life was worse before I accepted Christianity as my belief system.

As for your four categories, I do agree with you to an extent, not entirely. I do know some people who fit into all four categories in some way. I'm not sure about the second category. I don't think many atheists do have a meaningful life, I think they all fit into that category. However I don't think many atheists could answer me honestly and tell me that life does have a whole lot of meaning. I infact have been surprised to note that many of my friends who are atheists don't have meaning in their lives, many see the world as meaningless. You might have come across cases like this too. What is the meaning of life from your point of view?

MrPudding wrote: »

I guess what I am trying to say, in my typically inept way, is this: If you have an atheist who has a crappy life and is a crappy person who then finds god and suddenly becomes a happy fabulous person I don't think you can attribute the crappyness of their previous life to atheism. Just because they have found belief does not mean that unbelief was the root of their problems.

Perhaps not, but what I think it is safe to attribute in that case is if you use the laws of cause and effect, that if their lives have gotten better after finding God, you can attribute the happiness to them finding God, or in your view, claiming that they have found God. Would I be correct in your opinion to say this?

MrPudding wrote: »

It is not as easy as believing if you behave you will be rewarded with eternal life, that is for sure.

No it isn't. I never claimed it was, infact I think that is a gross over simplification of Christianity. I think if you read the Scriptures you will find that it is nowhere near as simple as what you have just described. You've been on here posting for people to give atheism a fair assessment (i.e not claiming that atheism was the result of a saddened life), and I agree with you, but you must also be willing to give Christianity the same opportunity of fair assessment.

However, just on the topic we are on about atheism being the means by which ex-atheists convert to Christianity. Do you think in cases that some atheistic doctrines can have severe negative affects? For example in Finland there was a school shooting a few years ago, by studying the student's journal they found that he was influenced very heavily by social Darwinism, and thus led him to such a degree of arrogance that he genuinely thought that he had the right to scurge the world of inferior beings. Do you not agree that in situations like these it can be a very negative influence to some? I know this is the extreme of the extreme, but it can be attributed to some forms of atheism. I know the same can be said of Christianity, but it's something to think about none the less.

MrPudding wrote: »

Atheists don't reject god. To reject something you have to believe that it exists in the first place. Do you reject the flying spagetti monster? Or unicorns? Or Griffins?

I don't think that this is a reasonable assessment considering that there is considerably more evidence by indication to support Christianity than such ridiculous means of antagonism such as the FSM, or comparing it to unicorns. It's a tired argument. A lot of study based in philosophy, science, theology, archaeology, history etc has suggested that there is quite a strong case to accept that the Biblical record is actually quite accurate. By science in this case, I am not referring to creation science just to get that out of the way, but in terms of the fine tuning that took place at the beginning of the universe, and into cosmology and other things. Infact that would link in to philosophy in the sense of more modern arguments of cosmological and teleological arguments for God's existence.

Let me explain the difference between evidence by indication, from evidence by proof with an example. If in a criminal investigation at the site of a murder if they found your jumper next to the body would they be correct to suggest that this was evidence that you may well have been involved in the murder? Yes, certainly. However, is it proof? Certainly not. However the more of these indications one receives for the existence of God or for the accuracy of the Biblical text, it would be fair to say the more probable it is that it is indeed true. The same would apply for a criminal investigation of a murder if they found many more indications that you were indeed involved.

MrPudding wrote: »

What is empowering is the realisation that it is ok to live you life without the threat of eternal damnation. It is ok to live your life without having a requirement to worship at the feel of soem entity which is supposed to have created you and which you are hoping to please so you can live forever.

It really isn't empowering. Just because one doesn't believe in eternal damnation doesn't mean that it isn't a real prospect. I could well not believe that jails exist in this country, and yet be thrown into one. I think PDN made this example before, just to give credit where credit is due. I don't think it's empowering in the slightest.

Whereas to believe that you can find existence from the being which made the cosmos, is rather empowering indeed. Like in the first case it mightn't make it any more or any less true I guess, but if you seriously seek God, and seek for the indications which back Him up, it most certainly will empower you that you have found that unlike what many atheists propose there is real meaning to be had in the current life.

MrPudding wrote: »

It is about behaving like a decent human being, not because fo the threat of what will happen if you don't, but because you know that is how you should behave.

This is precisely another logical fallacy. You assume that all Christians believe in their God due to the prospect of eternal damnation, or that they follow divine law due to this. Certainly not, well it couldn't be much further from where I view it. I follow God's law, firstly because I love God, and secondly because I love God's creation, my fellow man, and my life. I wholly agree with you that people should be acting right not out of fear. I think God can also discern when this is or isn't the case. However, I do believe that the assumption you made was entirely unwarranted.

MrPudding wrote: »

As for the pursuit of truth, it is empowering to realise that you don't need to have an answer for everything we see, that it is OK to say I don't know, but we are working on it.

Again, MrPudding, another assumption! When do Christians, or indeed the Bible suggest that we have an answer for everything! Infact many prophets in the Bible, and many modern Christian figures such as Alister McGrath have argued that we don't have the answers, but a very very small percentage of them have been revealed to them. The reason we don't have the answers? We can't understand them. Infact the Bible is only what has been revealed to us that is indeed explicable in human terms. It's a translation of some form of divine understanding into human terms so that we may find some spiritual truth in it.

So if it is okay to say you don't know, that isn't even an argument for why atheism is even preferrable to Christianity.

rockbeer · 01-01-2009 04:02PM

Interesting points you raise Jackass, but you seem to be using two expressions interchangeably which I suggest are quite different. The contention in the the thread title is that without god there is no point in living. You then go on to explain at great (and often convicing) length why atheists' lives often have no meaning.

No meaning and no point are not the same thing.

There doesn't have to be any 'meaning' to life for it to have a great deal of point. The pursuit of happiness, creativity, learning, invention, material gain; all these things can give a 'point' to life without having to have 'meaning' in the sense you seem to imply.

Anyway, life isn't obliged to have a meaning just to make us feel better about it.

Phototoxin · 01-01-2009 04:26PM

This is kinda pervese but I think there is something lacking.. perhaps I was just used to relgiion yet it has caused me so much pain the last few years so as I've mentioned.

Life is still liveable. I once thought that there would be no point to life without God but I think its irrelavant once you try to help people and have morals. Argubly these are 'christian' morals but many belief systems have similar sets of morals only some are more, or less, 'flexable' than others.

Life is like a computer game, there is no real point to it but its fun and challenging in places and if you get bored you need to change tac or the game you're playing.

PDN · 01-01-2009 04:34PM

MrPudding wrote: »

I think this is probably the part I find hardest to understand. There has to have been something wrong, other than atheism. As you may have worked out, I am an atheist, but my life if full of purpose and hope. My life is far from crap.

I know I am not the only atheist to be enjoying life, so when I see your, and others, comments about how crap your life was as an atheist I have to wonder was atheism really the reason?

No, I don't think for a moment that atheism was the reason why my life was crap. My life was crap because I saw no point or meaning to any of it.

My relationship with Christ is what gave me a reason to live. Take that relationship away and I really don't see much point to life at all. If we are just animals that eat, procreate & die then I'd rather just get round to the dying sooner rather than later. So while atheism was not the cause of my misery, it offered nothing to get me out of my misery.

Het-Field · 01-01-2009 04:40PM

I dont know....but having God in my life has enriched me.

I think where God is necessary, is for people with long term illness or long prison terms. If I was in either of those position, I would like to think that there is something beyond the four wall of my life.

UU · 01-01-2009 04:42PM

Well I actually used to be religious (Christian) before and lost my faith gradually over the spam of a year or two. It dawned on me that I really didn't deep-down believe in what I thought I believed in. But the only meaning of our lives is the meaning we provide through the actions that we take and the choices that we make. We cannot create meaning of somebody's else's life because we can never live their life. But that also applies to the Christian, if the meaning of their life is found in their belief in Christ, then that is the meaning they have chosen to provide for their life. Even the religious person is faced with these existential choices. We all are.

Although, Buddhists for example don't seem believe in god (or at least the question of whether there is a god or not (or gods) is irrelevant) yet they have a point of living too. Likewise, the point of living is contained in the meaning the individual has provided is his/her subjectivity. In other words, just because one doesn't believe in god, doesn't mean that their life lacks any meaning. Likewise, the same could be said if one were to change religion. It's a very interesting existentialist question which has been explored since the famous Greek philosophers.

robindch · 01-01-2009 04:50PM

PDN wrote: »

My life was crap because I saw no point or meaning to any of it.

Would you have found islam or judaism just as inviting? They offer similar belief-based relationships and similar rewards.

PDN wrote: »

If we are just animals that eat, procreate & die then I'd rather just get round to the dying sooner rather than later.

That's a depressing outlook -- why not enjoy the world, study it, learn about it, appreciate art, literature, cooking, music, engineering, travel, make friends, do all of the million things one can do to help develop one's own meaning for life, without making the mistake that it's all only meaningful if somebody else -- imaginary or otherwise -- tells you it is?

ElCrapula · 01-01-2009 05:03PM

PDN wrote: »

No, I don't think for a moment that atheism was the reason why my life was crap. My life was crap because I saw no point or meaning to any of it.

My relationship with Christ is what gave me a reason to live. Take that relationship away and I really don't see much point to life at all. If we are just animals that eat, procreate & die then I'd rather just get round to the dying sooner rather than later. So while atheism was not the cause of my misery, it offered nothing to get me out of my misery.

You could have found many reasons to live,you happened to pick Christ,he makes you more fulfilled or gives you a purpose,but that doesnt make him more valid than other choices.Most people chose their family or their work or their friends or their lovers which I think are far more sensible options.To boil life without god down to four words like that is horrible.If you think like that.........well.
As for jesus or god.
I dont love god.I refuse to love him.I refuse to love a malevolent dictator who treats man and animal with contempt.He does not have the interest of humanity at heart and uses mankind as a plaything to inflict pain and suffering upon.I did not ask to be born,yet he went ahead and created me,and brought me into his twisted game.Not only that,he created me sick and commanded me to be well.He told me I was born a sinner and I should spend my life on bended knee trying to atone and if I dont, I will not be beside him eternally.

Tim_Murphy · 01-01-2009 05:05PM

If you are going to discuss why atheism is more true than Christianity, invoking that Christianity is a crutch doesn't answer the question.

I didn’t suggest that it did. As for atheism being as you say “more true”, as a position it simply has more logic and evidence on its side I’m afraid. The only way one will come to think of Christianity as containing truths is if one invokes faith. If you want to do that then that’s fine, I wouldn’t bother trying to debate it. Others will invoke faith for all kinds of other religious ‘truths’ as well.

The crutch point depends on if I would define Christianity as a crutch. A crutch for the protection of reality? See from the get go that is the issue. You haven't convinced me that it is any more true, you've merely made an assertion that Christianity is a crutch to protect Christians from reality. If you believe this all well and good, but it doesn't make it more true that Christianity is a crutch merely because you say so. What exactly makes Christianity a crutch anyway? Christianity and applying ones self to the precepts that Christ had taught us is very difficult infact. The imagery given in the Gospels of the narrow way, the winding path is accurate in portraying the difficulty of following Christianity, and I think other Christians on boards.ie will agree with me on this one.

Of course if a person doesn’t realise what they have it a crutch, it makes it all the harder to throw away.

I didn’t mention Christianity at all. What about all the other religious faiths? What about all the Muslims who gain comfort from praying to Allah? Or Jews? Or those praying to any other particular god?

PDN · 01-01-2009 05:05PM

robindch wrote: »

Would you have found islam or judaism just as inviting? They offer similar belief-based relationships and similar rewards.

No, because my experiences of those involved in such religions held out no prospect of them giving me what I was looking for. However, I met numerous Christians who appeared to have experienced genuine change for the better in their lives.

That in itself would not have been sufficient to make me become a Christian, but it was a powerful incentive for me to look further into the claims of Christianity.

That's a depressing outlook -- why not enjoy the world, study it, learn about it, appreciate art, literature, cooking, music, engineering, travel, make friends, do all of the million things one can do to help develop one's own meaning for life, without making the mistake that it's all only meaningful if somebody else -- imaginary or otherwise -- tells you it is?

Because there is much more to be sad about than to enjoy. Just thinking about what is going on in the Congo at the moment outweighs any of the pleasure I could derive from a lifetime of art, literature, cooking, music travel etc. What is the point of spending a lifetime learning stuff only for all that learning, and all your memories, to be snuffed out at death. If I really thought that was all there was to look forward to then I'd rather just call it a day now.

As it is my faith, and my conviction that I have a purpose and meaning in life, enables me to truly enjoy the good things in life. Not only that, it helps me see that by building an orphanage in the Congo I am making an eternal difference in people's lives - not just wasting my time on a few drips of good that get swallowed up without trace in a sea of misery.

philologos · 01-01-2009 05:15PM

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

I didn’t suggest that it did. As for atheism being as you say “more true”, as a position it simply has more logic and evidence on its side I’m afraid. The only way one will come to think of Christianity as containing truths is if one invokes faith. If you want to do that then that’s fine, I wouldn’t bother trying to debate it. Others will invoke faith for all kinds of other religious ‘truths’ as well.

Well, that's the very crux of the issue. Generally Christians like me will believe that there is more evidence on the side of Christianity, theres now a whole other thread on this emerging, so I will leave you to take the discussion there.

See your discussion about invoking truth is just as true for atheism, Christianity doesn't invoke truth. The Bible is a hypothesis, which is to be proven or disproven. There isn't any way we can do this objectively through proof, as you and I should have realised by now. The other option is to look for evidence through indication.

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

Of course if a person doesn’t realise what they have it a crutch, it makes it all the harder to throw away.

I didn’t mention Christianity at all. What about all the other religious faiths? What about all the Muslims who gain comfort from praying to Allah? Or Jews? Or those praying to any other particular god?

See this is again another issue. God isn't about the "comfort". God to us is a reality. For some theists He may well be a comfort, but the primary thing to be taken from Christianity is that God is seen to be very much a reality, and not just a reality, but one that is clear for all to see if they genuinely try to do so.

As for other religious faiths, indeed? What about them? What is the objection? We don't measure the accuracy of truth based on what comfort you receive from it. You seem to have assumed that in your post, but that isn't the way it works.

jill_valentine · 01-01-2009 05:16PM

It's alarming to me to hear somebody shrug and say "Yes, if I didn't have X in my life, I'd wish I was dead!" like that's no big deal. It doesn't matter what that thing is, that degree of dependancy is troubling to me.

I'm not saying y'know, "You're all stupid for not thinking like I do!" but... for the people who are saying that they couldn't live without God/ religion/ etc, are you content with that? Does it concern you at all?

Tim_Murphy · 01-01-2009 05:29PM

Generally Christians like me will believe that there is more evidence on the side of Christianity

Of course you do, and it would be pretty easy to find a young Muslim who also believed that about Islam. You could both be put in a room to argue it out and the smart money says that you would both leave still believing your own religion was true.

See your discussion about invoking truth is just as true for atheism,

How? If, as you rightly point out, atheism ‘offers nothing’ then how can it be described as a crutch?

The Bible is a hypothesis, which is to be proven or disproven.

How is it a hypothesis? How can it be proven or disproven?

See this is again another issue. God isn't about the "comfort". God to us is a reality.

The gods of other religions are equally ‘real’ to those who worship.

God is seen to be very much a reality, and not just a reality, but one that is clear for all to see if they genuinely try to do so.

If it is that clear why then do so many people who seek god end up worshiping non-Christian deities?

We don't measure the accuracy of truth based on what comfort you receive from it.

I wasn’t suggesting you did. How do you measure the accuracy of truth?

Húrin · 01-01-2009 07:07PM

"Without belief in God, there's no point living."

If there is no God, then the universe is meaningless. Our lives take place in that universe. Thus, if there is no God, then there is literally no meaning, or point, to life.

Which is different from the notion that life is worth living or not, or the question of whether true happiness is possible without God.

jill_valentine · 01-01-2009 09:57PM

That's fair enough Hurin, but I don't think that's how everyone means it. There's plenty of people, even just in this thread, who say "There'd no point living", really sincerely mean "It wouldn't be worth living" too; that they wouldnt see any point in putting one foot in front of the other any more.

It bothers me a lot to hear somebody say something like that, because that's a kind of profound despair to me. I'm aware that I see in Atheist-O-Vision, so I know my attitude to this comes from an atheist perspective, but I can't help thinking what would happen if somebody in that frame of mind did suddenly have a change of heart.

In the other thread, somebody compared it to having a partner disappear on you, and I can understand that comparison, but people survive that. I don't doubt it's hard, but it's possible. Do the people saying Yes to this question really think that they wouldn't be able to do that if God suddenly wasn't a factor anymore?

MrPudding · 01-01-2009 10:17PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think I am really entitled to answer the question about "crappy lives". What I can tell you is that my life was worse before I accepted Christianity as my belief system.

That is fair enough. I just think it is sad that people can't find reason enough to live and turn their lives around without resorting to the supernatural,

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think many atheists do have a meaningful life...

How very arrogant of you.

Jakkass wrote: »

However I don't think many atheists could answer me honestly and tell me that life does have a whole lot of meaning.

I suppose it depends what you consider "to have meaning" is.

Jakkass wrote: »

I infact have been surprised to note that many of my friends who are atheists don't have meaning in their lives, many see the world as meaningless.

Is that because they are atheists or have crappy and unimaginative lives?

Jakkass wrote: »

You might have come across cases like this too.

All the atheist I know have very happy and fulfilling lives. But then, I have not met all the atheist in the world.

Jakkass wrote: »

What is the meaning of life from your point of view?

What do you mean by meaning of life?

Jakkass wrote: »

Perhaps not, but what I think it is safe to attribute in that case is if you use the laws of cause and effect, that if their lives have gotten better after finding God, you can attribute the happiness to them finding God, or in your view, claiming that they have found God. Would I be correct in your opinion to say this?

My point was, and this was confirmed by PDN, just because god made you life better does not actually mean that previously not believing in god made it bad.

Jakkass wrote: »

No it isn't. I never claimed it was, infact I think that is a gross over simplification of Christianity.

Yes, it was a gross oversimplfication, but that is how many look at it.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think if you read the Scriptures you will find that it is nowhere near as simple as what you have just described. You've been on here posting for people to give atheism a fair assessment (i.e not claiming that atheism was the result of a saddened life), and I agree with you, but you must also be willing to give Christianity the same opportunity of fair assessment.

I will gladly accept that people turn their lives around after finding god. As I mentioned earlier, I find it sad that people can't simply find something worth living for without resorting to the supernatural.

Jakkass wrote: »

However, just on the topic we are on about atheism being the means by which ex-atheists convert to Christianity. Do you think in cases that some atheistic doctrines can have severe negative affects? For example in Finland there was a school shooting a few years ago, by studying the student's journal they found that he was influenced very heavily by social Darwinism, and thus led him to such a degree of arrogance that he genuinely thought that he had the right to scurge the world of inferior beings. Do you not agree that in situations like these it can be a very negative influence to some? I know this is the extreme of the extreme, but it can be attributed to some forms of atheism. I know the same can be said of Christianity, but it's something to think about none the less.

Yes, the same can be said of christianity and I am sure if we compared figures we woudl find that christianity, and religion in general has a lot more to answer for.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think that this is a reasonable assessment considering that there is considerably more evidence by indication to support Christianity than such ridiculous means of antagonism such as the FSM, or comparing it to unicorns.

My children believe in santa. They write him a letter and ask for certain things. They see him in shopping centres. They leave food for him on christmas eve. When they get up in the morning the food is gone and, in some cases, the stuff they asked for is under the tree. Pretty compelling evidence. No? Do you believe in santa?

Jakkass wrote: »

It's a tired argument. A lot of study based in philosophy, science, theology, archaeology, history etc has suggested that there is quite a strong case to accept that the Biblical record is actually quite accurate.

There have been many threads on this and many discussion on this board and elsewhere. Perhaps I am biased, but I think the atheists have it. I don't think the evidence is in the slightest compelling. That is why, you know, I am an atheist.

Jakkass wrote: »

By science in this case, I am not referring to creation science just to get that out of the way,

There is no such thing as creation science.

Jakkass wrote: »

but in terms of the fine tuning that took place at the beginning of the universe, and into cosmology and other things. Infact that would link in to philosophy in the sense of more modern arguments of cosmological and teleological arguments for God's existence.

But these agruements are rubbish circular crap. They have been debunked on many threads and by many people.

Jakkass wrote: »

Let me explain the difference between evidence by indication, from evidence by proof with an example. If in a criminal investigation at the site of a murder if they found your jumper next to the body would they be correct to suggest that this was evidence that you may well have been involved in the murder? Yes, certainly. However, is it proof? Certainly not. However the more of these indications one receives for the existence of God or for the accuracy of the Biblical text, it would be fair to say the more probable it is that it is indeed true. The same would apply for a criminal investigation of a murder if they found many more indications that you were indeed involved.

Let me just check something here. Am I being lectured on evidence and proof by someone that bases their entire life around a book the origins of which, or indeed the veractity, are not fully known?

Jakkass wrote: »

It really isn't empowering. Just because one doesn't believe in eternal damnation doesn't mean that it isn't a real prospect.

Agreed. But to be honest I feel much better knowing that I am a good person simply because I want to be, rather than someone like Wolfie who has said himself that were it not for god, and by extension the carrot and stick of heaven and hell, he would be something close to a homicidal maniac.

Jakkass wrote: »

I could well not believe that jails exist in this country, and yet be thrown into one. I think PDN made this example before, just to give credit where credit is due. I don't think it's empowering in the slightest.

If you did not believe in jails you would be pretty stupid. They are quite easy to see, there is plenty of evidence to show their existence and the news is full of people getting sent there. You might even personally know someone that has been there. When was the last time you saw a news report about someone going to hell?

Jakkass wrote: »

Whereas to believe that you can find existence from the being which made the cosmos, is rather empowering indeed.

No. It is not empowering at all. It is subservient.

Jakkass wrote: »

unlike what many atheists propose there is real meaning to be had in the current life.

There we are again. You christians are so much better that us poor sad atheists. Why do we even bother?

Jakkass wrote: »

This is precisely another logical fallacy. You assume that all Christians believe in their God due to the prospect of eternal damnation, or that they follow divine law due to this. Certainly not, well it couldn't be much further from where I view it.

Certainly not all, but some.

Jakkass wrote: »

I follow God's law, firstly because I love God, and secondly because I love God's creation, my fellow man, and my life. I wholly agree with you that people should be acting right not out of fear. I think God can also discern when this is or isn't the case. However, I do believe that the assumption you made was entirely unwarranted.

So the threat of hell has no effect on you? If there is not need for the threat of hell, if loving god is enough then why is there threat of hell there in the first place?

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, MrPudding, another assumption! When do Christians, or indeed the Bible suggest that we have an answer for everything!

No, that was not my assumption, or indeed my point. I meant it from the "god of gaps" position. We did not have the answer so me invented a supernatural being and attributed everything we did not understand tp it.

PDN wrote: »

No, I don't think for a moment that atheism was the reason why my life was crap. My life was crap because I saw no point or meaning to any of it.

Very sad.

PDN wrote: »

My relationship with Christ is what gave me a reason to live. Take that relationship away and I really don't see much point to life at all. If we are just animals that eat, procreate & die then I'd rather just get round to the dying sooner rather than later. So while atheism was not the cause of my misery, it offered nothing to get me out of my misery.

It is so sad that with all the wonders of the universe and all the wonderful things we can do with our lives that without a supernatural being you could not find any reason to live.

Húrin wrote: »

"Without belief in God, there's no point living."

If there is no God, then the universe is meaningless. Our lives take place in that universe. Thus, if there is no God, then there is literally no meaning, or point, to life.

Why?

Húrin wrote: »

Which is different from the notion that life is worth living or not, or the question of whether true happiness is possible without God.

I suppose that would depend on your definition of true happyness. I suppose if your definition revolved around loving god and being loved by him then there would be no true happyness. If my mine, you definition was somewhat less fancyful it is possible.

MrP

Húrin · 01-01-2009 10:54PM

MrPudding wrote: »

Why?

It would be silly to say that there is a meaning to the universe if the universe was not created by a being with a mind, but rather came about by chance. Minds have purposes, but chance does not.

That is fair enough. I just think it is sad that people can't find reason enough to live and turn their lives around without resorting to the supernatural

In fairness you are in no place to lecture anyone on this.

Fanny Cradock · 01-01-2009 10:58PM

jill_valentine wrote: »

That's fair enough Hurin, but I don't think that's how everyone means it. There's plenty of people, even just in this thread, who say "There'd no point living", really sincerely mean "It wouldn't be worth living" too; that they wouldnt see any point in putting one foot in front of the other any more.

It bothers me a lot to hear somebody say something like that, because that's a kind of profound despair to me. I'm aware that I see in Atheist-O-Vision, so I know my attitude to this comes from an atheist perspective, but I can't help thinking what would happen if somebody in that frame of mind did suddenly have a change of heart.

In the other thread, somebody compared it to having a partner disappear on you, and I can understand that comparison, but people survive that. I don't doubt it's hard, but it's possible. Do the people saying Yes to this question really think that they wouldn't be able to do that if God suddenly wasn't a factor anymore?

I'm reminded of a scene from The Sopranos where Carmela, wife of the Tony Soprano, is over in Paris with a friend. At a certain point, due to various pressures of being married to a mob boss, she sort of looses it while walking around some Parisian architectural wonder. What cause her this great upset (other than the obvious) was the realisation that all those countless people throughout the ages who had walked the very same streets are now gone. No matter who they were or what they achieved it is all eventually lost forever in time - just like it will for us.

Though probably not as bleak in their final analysis, I believe that many(?) Christians take a similar view to the character of Carmela. So, while it may be largely a hoot for the lucky ones, life is undeniably fleeting and legacy is wholly insufficient when compared to eternity.

What you seem to be doing, Jill, is concentrating on a statement of what may happen if somebody loses their faith. Surely, though, this statement is only valid in relation to the belief at the time of posting - that is to say a belief in a perfect and loving God who interacts with us here and now. One comes across stories on the internet from the joy of the atheist turned believer to the relief of the believer turned atheist (and everything else in between). All their feelings are only given in relation to what they previously believed. Doe that make sense?

On a personal note, if I was to lose my faith I probably would adjust eventually (some may not). I may even find a new purpose and happiness in life , maybe even leave a small legacy. However, despite this, I believe that I would be all the poorer for the loss of ultimate purpose and love that I now get from my faith in Jesus.

MrPudding · 01-01-2009 11:01PM

Húrin wrote: »

In fairness you are in no place to lecture anyone on this.

Why not? There seem to be plenty of people that think my life is worthless because I don't believe in the supernatural. And besides, am I not qualified to say what I think is sad?

MrP

robindch · 01-01-2009 11:07PM

PDN wrote: »

What is the point of spending a lifetime learning stuff only for all that learning, and all your memories, to be snuffed out at death.

Because the alternative is to spend no time learning about the universe, and no time helping the people and other organisms and systems, that inhabit it -- contributing in the best way one can can to the grand sum of human progress.

And even in your own belief system, in which you believe that you are immortal, everything in your brain will still be lost to this world upon your death. No difference between us there. We either achieve something by the time we die, or we don't.

PDN wrote: »

As it is my faith, and my conviction that I have a purpose and meaning in life, enables me to truly enjoy the good things in life.

I'm sure it does. Most religious people report very similar feelings of grand purpose, whether they're jewish, islamic, whatever. However, for you to be right, most of them must be wrong, and that should worry you, since it suggests that you may be wrong, and therein, building the castle of your life not upon a Petrine rock, but upon a cloud.

Neither does your conviction require any supporting reality either. As you say, it's your belief that provides you with your purpose, and human minds are nothing if not sublime imagineers.

robindch · 01-01-2009 11:09PM

Húrin wrote: »

If there is no God, then the universe is meaningless. Our lives take place in that universe. Thus, if there is no God, then there is literally no meaning, or point, to life.

If purpose can only come from above, then who gives god his purpose?

Fanny Cradock · 02-01-2009 12:03AM

robindch wrote: »

However, for you to be right, most of them must be wrong, and that should worry you, since it suggests that you may be wrong, and therein, building the castle of your life not upon a Petrine rock, but upon a cloud.

Well, if you are merely arguing on the weight of numbers, it could similarly be argued that you are wrong and at least one of the religions is correct - or at the very least the thesis of a God(s) is correct.

ElCrapula · 02-01-2009 12:24AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

On a personal note, if I was to lose my faith I probably would adjust eventually (some may not). I may even find a new purpose and happiness in life , maybe even leave a small legacy. However, despite this, I believe that I would be all the poorer for the loss of ultimate purpose and love that I now get from my faith in Jesus.

What is your ultimate purpose?

"Without belief in God, there's no point living"?

Comments