Without God(s), what is the point?!

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm struggling to understand the purpose of life without God. Atheists, do you simply chase happiness and contentment with your days? Is that all there is without God?
When I was a Christian , I served a higher power and had a purpose. My actions and thoughts affected the metaphysical world. My purpose was to serve Jesus Christ and help reclaim the world for Him. Even after letting go of Christianity, still retaining some belief in God and karma, I served a higher purpose. The reclamation of this world for the benevolent yet not omnipotent God.
Now as I question my belief in God altogether, I am left wondering what my purpose would be without serving a god. My whole life revolved around my spiritual practice, and I am losing it. I don't see the point in life without a god. So perhaps I will be intellectually dishonest to myself and return to Christianity. Or perhaps many other things. Can become a polytheist or animist. Those would give me purpose too I think.
But if I were atheist, I fail to see how I would carry on. God has been my crutch since forever. Knowing that sky daddy is watching over me and taking care of me and has a plan for me is a powerful, motivating belief. Why do you think so many fail to ever let the God belief go?
Debate point: there is no point in life without God.
Someone told me that the point is to leave the world better than you left it for future generations. Perhaps that's true. But you're dead and unconscious, so so what. I'm just negative maybe.

The preacher of Ecclesiastes questioned the point of life. I resonate with him.
Maybe I just need to accept that I can live a simple life. No need for a higher grand purpose. Maybe finding contentment in simplicity is the point of life.

I find it hard to relate since I've never been a theist and thus have never grown up with this notion that there "is" or "must be" some "grand cosmic purpose" to everything. I've been raised with, in that context, only as notion "you are the master of your life... your life will be what you make of it". Coupled with the idea, off course, that certain things simply are not - and never will be - under your control.

But for the most part... life will be what you make of it. You make life-choices and those choices resonate through the rest of your life, mostly.


So, let's do a thought experiment.
Take a step back. Consider your average Joe theist. And I do mean an average Joe. Not a fundamentalist. Just a god believer who lives his life in society.

What keeps that person busy?
What are his worries?
What makes him happy?
Does he strive for happiness?


In what practical sense, is that person any different then an atheist who lives his life in society?

Do they not have the same worries?
Are they not on the same quest to find happiness?
How are their lives REALLY measurably different?


I find that a hard one to answer.
It seems to me that we worry about the same things, keep ourselves busy with the same things, plan ahead in similar ways (towards buying a home, settling down, retirement, careers, etc).

In my personal experience.... whenever theists talk about this "grand purpose" kind of thing that supposedly "has to" underpin life and / or existence itself... it always just sounds like hot air to me.
It's not really about anything. It's just words. Abstract concepts that they somehow consider terribly important, but which don't seem to have any type of detectable impact on how they actually live their lives.


To summarize it in an extremely simplistic point....

When a theistic woman loses her child... does she not mourn just like when the same fate befalls an atheistic woman? I've never seen a woman be "happy" that he child died because it's now "in a better place of eternal bliss in a state of pure love by the side of loving creator of the universe" and while believing that she'll see him again when she dies herself.

If that is truly what they believe, then their behavior of mourning does not fit that belief.
Why be so sad then? When my son gets drafted to go play for FC Barcelona destined to be a soccer superstar... I wouldn't be mourning or crying. I might be a little sad that I might not see him for a while unless I also move the barcelona. But I'ld know he's in a better place and I'ld know that one day I'ld see him again. "mourning" is not a proper reaction to such a situation.


So all that put together.... it tells me that the average theist doesn't actually REALLY believe that stuff about "cosmic grand purpose" and an "afterlife" and "eternal bliss" and "seeing them again one day" etc.

They say they do.... but their actual behavior is identical to people who don't believe such.


So... theists might hate or resent the idea of "no cosmic purpose".... but I don't see any difference in their lives as opposed to those who don't believe such. It seems to me that they live their life just like anybody else. So this beliefs (or lack thereof) doesn't seem to affect someone's life at all.

 

[Kharisym]

We are all "just animals". The only thing that makes us think we are different from other animals is our ability to think that we are different. It is really just arrogance and pride. Kinda how religionists think they are better than atheists.

Ironically its my lack of faith that makes me extra caring about the welfare of animals. I'm vegetarian because I believe animal minds have value (contrary to aquinas) and that they don't have an afterlife themselves (contrary to some more modern variations of Christianity).

 

[Wildswanderer]

Your statement here undermines your prior premise: "And, no I don't believe I'd feel any particular caring for others if I thought they were just animals. I think that, like many people, I'd just be selfish. To say what you believe doesn't affect your feelings about others is nonsense IMO. How would you know that if you don't believe in something?"

If everyone has faults but are still basically good and caring, then the idea that you would cease caring about people if you lost faith is undermined. It might be true that *you* could feel that way, but its self evident that such would not be the norm.

I used to be a Christian, so I know what it feels like to have faith, therefore I know that how I feel about people now is actually a *lot* more altruistic and caring than when I was Christian.

Per God giving everyone a moral compass, there's no evidence of this. And just as you called me out for presuming what's in your heart, I'll call you out on this--You have no idea what my motivations or reasoning are. Your claim is tantamount to 'You actually believe in God but just pretend not to' which is pretty offensive because it presumes superior knowledge about *me* than me.

Per your barbarians statement, society is not Christianity. Social behavior is a point of genetic adaptation for humanity. From a beginning of anarchy people would form social units for basic survival.

Per no crime or war if people are inherently good, this is undermined by my prior statement that people can have certain hereditary traits that undermine the essential social caring humans have, and also certain tragedies can undermine this as well.

Overall, I find the doctrine of us all being sinners to be deeply disturbing. It establishes two dangerous ideals: 1) Superiority to those outside the preferred group, and 2) That humans by default are cruel to each other. These are premise that can lead to atrocity.

Look around you. Read some comments on the internet. People ARE cruel by default. And it's humility that leads believers to right motivation for their actions, not superiority. The ground is even at the cross. Everyone is broken. If you think you aren't you haven't lived much or are in denial.

 

[Wildswanderer]

... and created the doctrine of hell

Hell is just separation from God, no need to create hell. People create hell for themselves.

 

[KWED]

Hell is just separation from God, no need to create hell. People create hell for themselves.

That concept of hell is utterly incoherent.
If a person does not believe god exists, how can being separated from that non-existent thing be any kind of suffering or torment.
No, that idea is just a feeble excuse by modern, liberal religionists who are uncomfortable with their loving, just god torturing people simply because he had them born into the wrong family.

 

[Link]

That concept of hell is utterly incoherent.
If a person does not believe god exists, how can being separated from that non-existent thing be any kind of suffering or torment.
No, that idea is just a feeble excuse by modern, liberal religionists who are uncomfortable with their loving, just god torturing people simply because he had them born into the wrong family.

I agree that concept is incoherent, but the greatest thing believers fear regarding hell, is separation from God:

"say I bear patience regarding the heat of its flames, how will I bear patience from separation from you?" - Du'a Kumail

 

[KWED]

Look around you. Read some comments on the internet. People ARE cruel by default. And it's humility that leads believers to right motivation for their actions, not superiority. The ground is even at the cross. Everyone is broken. If you think you aren't you haven't lived much or are in denial.

What are you on about? Look at the real world. Most people have never abused anyone or stolen anything. Most people just want to get on with their lives in peace, but are happy to help others when needed.
Maybe it's just your experience of other religionists that leads yo to conclude that people are generally cruel and broken? The people in my life are all kind, thoughtful and helpful. But then, they are all atheists.

 

[KWED]

In my 'all things considered' thinking, anecdotes are indeed evidence for consideration.

Your "I'll believe anything anyone says if it seems to confirm my conclusion" thinking is in no way reliable as a measure of what is or isn't true.

 

[KWED]

And there it is folks! Atheism doesn't actually have any ethics because it's a system where ethics are completely relative.

Oh dear god. Your failure to understand what atheism is? That's your "gotcha" moment?

Of course atheism doesn't have an ethical code! It is not "a system". It is simply the single-issue position of rejecting claims about the existence of gods. An atheist can hold any social, political, economic, ideological position - just as long as it doesn't require believing in gods.
This has been pointed out sooo many times that to keep asserting the same falsehood is either extreme stupidity or extreme dishonesty. I will not hazard a guess as to which it is in your case.

 

[KWED]

It's not and I never said it was. The only reason we have a moral compass is because we are made in God's image.

First you say that god is not needed for a moral compass.
In the next breath you say that we only have a moral compass because of god.
Which is it?
(This is what happens when you base your position on received dogma rather than rational thinking.)

 

[KWED]

You just affirmed that they are completely relative to the situation. You would perhaps give the homeless guy down the street a cup of coffee, because it doesn't really cost you anything significant. But if you were on your last loaf of bread and starving, you would guard it with your life and not share with anyone... and kill if necessary to keep it for yourself.

Jesus turned all that on its head. He said to do good to those who used you and to your enemy.
It's not natural of course. It's supernatural.

So, Jesus told you to give your last loaf of bread to the bloke down the street who has been stealing your mail, rather than feeding your own starving children?
What a twat!

 

[KWED]

Beliefs cause actions. That's true for everyone.
We don't act apart from our beliefs, we act on our beliefs. If I do something selfish that's the old nature that's natural in all people. If I do something selfless, that's the holy spirit working. I still have to choose which to follow, BTW...it doesn't make me a meat robot.

You said that without religion you would be selfish. Therefore you are innately selfish and it is your belief that prevents you from acting on your nature.
I have no religion but am not selfish. I have no need of something to stop me from doing something that I was never going to do.
I guess some people in society need these controls to prevent them from behaving unreasonably, whether it is anti-psychotic drugs, electronic tags, religion, etc. I suppose the rest of us need protection from the few.

 

[KWED]

People say a lot of things. That doesn't make them so.

That's a pretty desperate response, given that your entire worldview is built on believing what people are supposed to have said thousands of years ago.

 

[KWED]

No, he was truly good, not just when it was convenient for him. He forgave those who were torturing him to death.

People say a lot of things. That doesn't make them so.

 

[George-ananda]

Your "I'll believe anything anyone says if it seems to confirm my conclusion" thinking is in no way reliable as a measure of what is or isn't true.

I guess the difference between 'considering' and 'believing anything anyone says' is too subtle for you to grasp.

A quantity, quality and consistency of similar anecdotes is more to consider than one crazy person's crazy story. Or is it all the same level of consideration worthiness to you?

 

[KWED]

I agree that concept is incoherent, but the greatest thing believers fear regarding hell, is separation from God:

"say I bear patience regarding the heat of its flames, how will I bear patience from separation from you?" - Du'a Kumail

So why does Allah send disbelievers to hell?
Oh sorry, I forgot. You don't accept what is in the Quran. My bad.

 

[KWED]

Ironically its my lack of faith that makes me extra caring about the welfare of animals. I'm vegetarian because I believe animal minds have value (contrary to aquinas) and that they don't have an afterlife themselves (contrary to some more modern variations of Christianity).

@Wildswanderer thinks that if you say your life is better without religion, you are not telling the truth. How would you respond to that?

 

[KWED]

I guess the difference between 'considering' and 'believing anything anyone says' is too subtle for you to grasp.

A quantity, quality and consistency of similar anecdotes is more to consider than one crazy person's crazy story. Or is it all the same level of consideration worthiness to you?

It is irrelevant how many people make an extraordinary claim. If none of them can produce any evidence to support that claim, they can all be dismissed.
You are just giving them extra consideration because you want them to be true.

 

[George-ananda]

It is irrelevant how many people make an extraordinary claim. If none of them can produce any evidence to support that claim, they can all be dismissed.
You are just giving them extra consideration because you want them to be true.

Ahh, you are there contrasting the so-called 'Scientism' approach from my 'all things considered' approach.

You are fine with scientism (only believe what can be proved) but as I've said I think that is an impoverishing way to look at things.

I believe what becomes most reasonable to believe 'all things considered' and not what I think I wat to believe.

 

[Link]

So why does Allah send disbelievers to hell?
Oh sorry, I forgot. You don't accept what is in the Quran. My bad.

Salam

It's out of retributive justice, anger, and vengeance.

Believers greatest fear is separation from God, to them that is the worst part of hell. I did not say it would be disbelievers greatest torment.