Would life be worth living if there was no God?

[tonyrey]

Thank you danserr for the link. It ties in quite well with what I’ve always thought, that is, for some people, the idea that this is what we’ve got and we better make the best of it, or waste the one chance we have at life, is too much.

So we (they) create a system which allows them to believe they can live on forever.

For Christians, this is believing in Jesus and a certain way of behaving.

For others, it’s whatever gods or dieties they’ve been brought up to believe in.

Sarah x

Forgive me, Sarah, but I can’t resist pointing out that many people have been brought up to believe in - and worship - their diet!

 

[tonyrey]

From where I stand the hypothetical question asked here seems to be the world in which we live now. I’ve not encountered any deities as far as I can tell and I find my life to be not only of value to me, but of value to others. (Similarly I also value their lives too).

That’s not to say that the answer would be the same for every one. There currently are people that even now don’t find value in their own lives.

They may not value their lives but they must value their opinion that their lives are without value! Otherwise they wouldn’t be so sure…

 

[atheistgirl]

Forgive me, Sarah, but I can’t resist pointing out that many people have been brought up to believe in - and worship - their diet!

Lol

I’m worshiping a lovely crab louie salad at my desk right now

Sarah x

 

[danserr]

I think you’re quite wrong. If I think my life has meaning, it has, regardless of ANYTHING else.

I don’t believe in the existence of any hight beings, powers, or gods, and they have no bearing what so ever on the worth or meaning of my life.

If you think your life has meaning it does? I know that may sound comforting and I can appreciate that, but consider the flip side. If you think your life does not have meaning, then it does not! If you think your life does not have value or purpose, then it does not!

Anyway, this just shows what I have been saying, that if God did not exist, then any meaning, value, and purpose to life is wholly subjective. That is to say, it is dependent on what human beings think or perceive. That means, a student who finds meaning in drinking himself into a stupor is just as meaningful as a a scientist who works to better the human race. So, if God did not exist, then drinking oneself into a stupor can be just as meaningful as working to cure cancer. Surely, that is absurd?

I dont understand how refering to a higher being makes anything more objective. Everything is subjective and relative. Everything. It’s even relative to relate to gods because the one you believe in is not the same as the one a Hindu believes in, or a Muslim, or a Buddist. So their so called ‘objective’ reference to their god is only relative really, considering the number and kinds of different dieties people believe in all over the world.

Because, if God does exist, then the value, purpose, and meaning of life can be objective, by which I mean, independent of what human beings think or perceive. In this case we have God, who is a Greatest Conceivable Being, a being worthy of worship, to serve as an objective standard of value, purpose, and meaning.

As to believing in other Gods, remember what I keep saying, the issue is not belief in God or other gods, but whether or not the Judeo-Christian God exists. If He does (as I would say the evidence indicates), then human life can have an objective meaning, purpose, or value. If not, then these things are wholly subjective, that is, dependent on what human beings think or perceive.

To the individual no but to the society they live in, yes

But I thought you said that the individual determined what was meaninful, are you saying now that society has veto power and decides meaning and value.

As to value, you suggest two different things, one that you have value just by being you, the other, that “everything is subjective and relative.”

Now, I agree that you do have value just by being you, because I am a theist, but I think that if God did not exist, then your second statement would be true. Human beings would simply be clever animals, evolved over a long time, and our values the result of socio-biological conditioning. That is, our moral values would be wholly subjective, ie, *dependent on what human people think.
*
But if our moral values are wholly subjective, how can you have value just for being you? Values would be determined by what people thought, so if you or society thought you did not have value, then you would not have value.

Actually, this probably explains the problem of youth bullying and suicide. Most youth do think moral values are subjective, ie, dependent on what people think. In this case, though, it becomes overwhelmingly important what people think, and if society (their high school/circle of friends etc.), think they do not have value, well, then they don’t.

If Christianity is true, though, then such a person can know that they do have moral value for themselves because they know that they were created and loved by an good God, who died for them, and who intends them for eternal life. Which belief system seems to you to provide a better basis for human value?

I don’t believe anything we do has an eternal bearing whatever.

And I think everything we do does, because we have both God and the hope of eternal life.

Thank you danserr for the link. It ties in quite well with what I’ve always thought, that is, for some people, the idea that this is what we’ve got and we better make the best of it, or waste the one chance we have at life, is too much.

So we (they) create a system which allows them to believe they can live on forever.

I think the message to take away rather is something that we both seem to admit, that without God, there is no possible objective meaning, purpose, or value to human life. People, however, cannot live happily with this view, so great is the human need for such things, as a consequence, people who deny God must deceive themselves into thinking that human life does have meaning, value, or purpose. They are thus logically inconsistent, because they try to live as if life does have objective meaning, purpose, and value, but they admit they have no basis for it.

This is why Dr. Rue suggested (in the article I provided to you), that while moral relativism is certainly the case (or so he thought), we must deceive ourselves by means of a “Noble Lie” into thinking the universe still has meaning, value,and purpose, because “without such lies, we cannot live” (here).

Or else, one could live consistently and happily if Christianity is true.

 

[domandcarols]

 

[atheistgirl]

Or else, one could live consistently and happily if Christianity is true.

You seem to be saying for the Christian, their worth is only relative to the existence of the Christian God.

I didnt agree with you that without God life would have no meaning, leaving the belief issue to one side.

Without God, live will carry on exactly as it is for people right now.

We will be born, live and die. That’s it.

I think I’ve posted about this before, elsewhere on here, but for me, the very idea of being eternal is just a complete delusion.

Personally, I do not want it. I can not imagine what is involved in this notion and it goesa against everything I believe in and can understand.

For that reason, death holds no fear for me what so ever. It is a natural part of living and life. And I understand it.

Eternity I don’t, and to be absolutely honest, I don’t want any part of it either if it were to be real (which I don’t believe it is).

I want to die when my time is up, and that’s it.

Sarah x

 

[Qoeleth]

Meaning and worth are nece**ssarily subjective. Meaning to whom? Worth to whom?

Without the dative (“to whom”), meaning and value cannot exist.

Also, the assumption that value and meaning are related is not always true. I might enjoy a sandwich. It has no meaning. So what? I might read a novel, which might be full of meaning. It doesn’t mean I (or anyone else) must value it.

Are our lives merely script or text, that they must have meaning? Meaning to whom? To other people? To ourselves? To God?

Forget meaning. The greatest source of joy is to remember that in 10,000 years, none of this will mean anything. “The dust returns unto the earth, and the breath returns to God from whence it came.”

 

[atheistgirl]

Anyway, this just shows what I have been saying, that if God did not exist, then any meaning, value, and purpose to life is wholly subjective. .

Even if I assume God exists, I still see where Christian believers think certain lives are relatively valueless.

We execute criminals. Society has determined it’s not worth letting these people live. The value and purpose of their life is entirely relative to their contribution (or lack of in that they committed serious crimes) and is wholly subjective.

Why is every church in the world not demanding the ending of the death penalty and some Christian church groups actively support it, if everyones life is objectively valuable?

I happen to think every life is valuable and I’ve stated my objections to abortion, euthanesia and the death penalty here.

But you seem to be saying my value is only relative and baseless as I don’t beleive in any God or gods.

But the objective value of life that Christians see, and know, and believe in, seems only relative to me when these same people support the death penalty.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Because, if God does exist, then the value, purpose, and meaning of life can be objective, by which I mean, independent of what human beings think or perceive. In this case we have God, who is a Greatest Conceivable Being, a being worthy of worship, to serve as an objective standard of value, purpose, and meaning.

But we’re talking here about interpretation, and this has to be subjective.

For example, there are Christian groups today in parts of the world who burn people alive, accusing them of being witches and homosexuals.

These people, according to their subjective interpretation of their Bible, should not be allowed to live, and they will quote the scripture passages to prove their point, and that God indeed does want these peoples lives destroyed.

Where is the objective value and worth in this case?

There is none.

It’s all relative and subjective.

Sarah x

 

[Robert_Sock]

For example, there are Christian groups today in parts of the world who burn people alive, accusing them of being witches and homosexuals.

Mind citing a source here?

 

[maximus]

Life is precious and each breath is a privilege. I obviously believe that there is a God, so randomly generated life by a chance combination of chemicals is hard to conceptualize. If no God then life becomes a quest of self gratification and positive experiences.

 

[tonyrey]

I think I’ve posted about this before, elsewhere on here, but for me, the very idea of being eternal is just a complete delusion.

Personally, I do not want it. I can not imagine what is involved in this notion and it goesa against everything I believe in and can understand.

“There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy”…

For that reason, death holds no fear for me what so ever. It is a natural part of living and life. And I understand it.

Eternity I don’t, and to be absolutely honest, I don’t want any part of it either if it were to be real (which I don’t believe it is).

I want to die when my time is up, and that’s it.

In other words you want to say goodbye to your loved ones forever and ever, amen. Somehow I don’t think they would be very impressed…

 

[atheistgirl]

In other words you want to say goodbye to your loved ones forever and ever, amen. Somehow I don’t think they would be very impressed…

It has nothing what so ever to do with what I want. It’s to do with the facts of life.

And you think wrong! My loved ones are very impressed.

We all know we get this one shot at this one life, and make the best and most of it.

They know they won’t be seeing me again with I die, and I won’t be seeing any of them that go before me, so we don’t live our day to day life as if there were an afterlife, we max out on making every day count right here.

We’re realists, and very impressed with the reality all around us.

We don’t need to suppliment it.

Sarah x

 

[ThinkingSapien]

itullian;9211840:

in a few short generations no one will even know you were here.

And I won’t be here. So I won’t care

Some one told me a pastor told them the same thing the other day. I’m not sure how true the statement is given that many of us document our own existence without even trying as a consequence of how deeply digital devices are now embedded in our lives. When my parents are gone they will leave behind their photographs (both prints and digitals), letters, e-mails, their facebook accounts, digital cameras, and more. We also have some information on our DNA (thanks to 23andme.com) and future generations would have information on from which ancestors their inherited certain segments of their DNA. These records are not created in isolation; many of them sync to our devices and we keep them replicated. My Nephew (the youngest member in our family) will be inheriting these records. And we generate records of him to including the digitals of the ultrasound photographs of him before he was born. If the chain of inheritance doesn’t break his children will have the stored memories of ancestors whose lives ended before theirs begin; they will be able to hear their voices, find out who they knew, where they lived, shopped, ate, went for leisure, and more.

The forgotten in 100 years statement seemed a lot more plausible before digital devices and Internet became common place. But I’ve got my doubts about how that will be for future generations.

 

[atheistgirl]

Mind citing a source here?

Look up the Congolese Christian church groups and kindoki for starters.

There is tons of information out there.

Sarah x

 

[danserr]

You seem to be saying for the Christian, their worth is only relative to the existence of the Christian God.

Sarah x

In the same way that something can be a meter long relative to a meter measuring stick. Or that a description of New York City in a Novel can be accurate as it relates to NYC. Obviously to measure anything, we need an objective standard. In God, we have that objective standard. Hence, if God exists, we can affirm that life does have meaning, purpose, and value.

Yet, if God does not exist, then you are right and meaning, purpose, and value are wholly subjective.

or as you say:

It’s all relative and subjective.

Eternity I don’t, and to be absolutely honest, I don’t want any part of it either if it were to be real (which I don’t believe it is).

Why would you not want to live forever in eternal happiness united to a God who loved you and made you to know him forever?

I would guess because you have some misguided view of heaven as floating on clouds, which would get boring after a while? If that is your concern, then think of it this way, does a man who marries a perfect woman get bored? Does he want another woman? In God, we find perfection and couldn’t get bored, we would have found the perfect goodness, joy, and holiness to satisfy us.

But you seem to be saying my value is only relative and baseless as I don’t beleive in any God or gods.

I completely deny ever having said any such thing!

I have stressed repeatedly, the issue is not belief!!! The question is not if you believe in God! On the contrary, I think you have tremendous moral value, because you are made in the image and likeness of a loving God who died for you and made you for eternal happiness.

What I said is that if God does not exist (not if you don’t believe He exists), then no one has objective value, because, as you yourself agreed everything would be relative and subjective!

Why is every church in the world not demanding the ending of the death penalty and some Christian church groups actively support it

Christians still hold to the moral value of even those souls that undergo the death penalty. Just as we held the moral value of the Nazi SS troops who slaughtered so many Jews and waged war on the world. We believe that they too were made in the image and likeness of God and loved by Him (even though they willfully perverted that image).

That we support the death penalty and occasional need to kill some people is not because we deny the moral value of those who must die, but because we admit the moral value of those who we need to protect!

I happen to think every life is valuable and I’ve stated my objections to abortion, euthanesia and the death penalty here.

Excellent. I agree with you. I simply think that if atheism is true, there is no objective basis for considering human life to be objectively valuable (you yourself admit that everything is relative and subjective). Christianity, however, does provide a solid basis for the moral values that we both hold dear.

These people, according to their subjective interpretation of their Bible, should not be allowed to live, and they will quote the scripture passages to prove their point, and that God indeed does want these peoples lives destroyed.

Where is the objective value and worth in this case?

The objective value and worth is in every person, whether they perceive it or not. You must distinguish between two things, what philosophers call moral epistemology and moral ontology. The latter concerns the existence of objective moral values, the former concerns perceptions of them.

The fact that some people who you mention may fail to recognize the objective moral value of some people, is not evidence that those people do not have objective moral value or that any does not exist. (to think this is to confuse moral epistemology and moral ontology).

On the contrary, it is simply the case they are mistaken. That is all. And they can be mistaken and we can affirm this because we know that objective moral values do exist!

Take an example.

Situation A: I draw a picture of a New York City skyline. Well, it is possible for someone to criticize that and say that I did a bad job. In this case, we can compare it to the actual NYC skyline. I can then affirm that they are mistaken, because NYC is a real place (actually exists!), and my picture compares well to it.

Situation B: I draw a picture of the fairyland Macadamia. Obviously I cannot affirm that I did a good job, because Macadamia is not a real place.

The same is true of objective moral values. If they actually exist, (which they do), then we can affirm that people are wrong in failing to recognize others’ moral value, if they do not, then obviously no one can be wrong in consider another person as lacking moral worth.

 

[atheistgirl]

In God, we have that objective standard. Hence, if God exists, we can affirm that life does have meaning, purpose, and value.

That’s doesn’t necessarily follow. This God/god might be a monster. Deists don’t believe in a personal god or a god that gives two hoots about them. Even if a God/god existed, it doesn’t follow our lives would have any more or less meaning. It just means a god exists. This god be a god who let’s us all just be annihilated anyhow. That’s not what Christians believe I know, but what I’m saying is the existence or non existence of a God does not change anything for me.

Why would you not want to live forever in eternal happiness united to a God who loved you and made you to know him forever?

Why would I want to live forever with a complete stranger. I don’t. And I don’t want to live forever. Anywhere.

I completely deny ever having said any such thing!

I apologize if I’ve misunderstood you.

That we support the death penalty and occasional need to kill some people is not because we deny the moral value of those who must die, but because we admit the moral value of those who we need to protect!

Right! So this so called objective worth of the prisoner of SS trooper is actually only relative to the other worth of those we deem to protect from them. If we believed in the absolute objective worth of the prisoner, we would never condoned killing them.

if they do not, then obviously no one can be wrong in consider another person as lacking moral worth.

I can’t get my head around the philosophical terminology. It’s too much for my little brain! I’m confused how you (not you personally), I should perhaps just say a person can say everyone has a moral value/worth, and yet agree with killing someone. That’s saying, you’re a very valuable person and possess objective value and worth, in the eyes of God, but hey, we’re gonna kill you anyhow because we don’t like what you just did and we want to protect everyone else from you ever doing it again. To my mind, if we really valued this person, we’d keep them alive, and allow for the possibility of redemption.

Sarah x

 

[Ladervijd]

There surely are many “things” to be occupied with,
without much or any meaning, mostly so-called materialism (technically idolatry of things material i think),
and with meaning, mostly of social nature, foremostly family, tho also arts and science and any real contribution really.

Tho, and here is where views are likely to vary way more than with the previous sentence, arguably that does not mean that God is meaningless to anyone when there is higher occupation, and that not only in the “credit” of having given, but also in being present. Nor does it mean that God would be as a opiate to anyone without occupation, albeit it could be laid out as such, but i would say that there is way more to it, respectivly that truth isn’t material-based.

So yeah, me eventually being “O-gal-lala” could be laid out as being “merely” of sexual nature, tho i would think that such is from love with derivations thereof what life is about, but ultimately not what everything is about. And yes, it surely is possible to talk about all-encompassing love in the first place, but to many it may seem abstract to equal lack of love to tough love, respectivly and more importantly in this to equal evil to (form of) love, particularly as so-called self-love is (arguably) no love at all which brings us back to the point of that difficult to talk about everything being love when there are many examples of no real love, which further could be extrapolated that so-called self-love is in fact (self-)hate (and therefore hate of anyone and anything else), but again, hate not being a sub-set of love (or vice versa for that matter) then love (or hate) can’t be everything there is (either each on its own - not meaning that hate, especially physical expression thereof, would be anyhow necessary, albeit arguably hate is a/the destructive force which has its place but should as such have limits and be dealt with only by “pros”).

These things surely being deeper topics tho, and arguably in the view of not only humans being logos- and eros-centrical, that such is not necessarily a reflection of universal principles, respectivly that the dualistic “logos and eros” have a common source, respectivly that it isn’t an extensive “description”. But hey, humans have been on about these things for millenia, and i am not sure if there is any point in any complete dogmatic definition thereof, and even if, then it is arguably not necessarily helpful to particularly any philosophical-spiritual student for finding not only themselves.
So or so, these things evidently depending on premises, as well on settings (of mind), by which i surely don’t mean that truth is merely rationalization, and albeit these things are surely also enjoyable, human does not merely live on every word that comes from the mouth of God (Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4).

Surely not meant as extensive explanation or such, merely tried to offer talking points.

 

[Ladervijd]

I can’t get my head around the philosophical terminology. It’s too much for my little brain! I’m confused how you (not you personally), I should perhaps just say a person can say everyone has a moral value/worth, and yet agree with killing someone. That’s saying, you’re a very valuable person and possess objective value and worth, in the eyes of God, but hey, we’re gonna kill you anyhow because we don’t like what you just did and we want to protect everyone else from you ever doing it again. To my mind, if we really valued this person, we’d keep them alive, and allow for the possibility of redemption.

That touches also on the issue of euthanasia really. As for what you specifically mentioned, if anyone, excuse the example, would rape e.g. you, with or without assumption of that you would forgive him at a later point for such, i would tend to “want” to “punish” him for that, and that not really in your name nor to do you a favour nor out of “jealousy” nor because of eventual feel of guilt such as not having been there respectivly as having failed you or anyone nor to impress you or anyone, but more or less “simply because”, albeit arguably not only me would do surely better with being there for you. And also, besides the issue of him possibly having been savage animal if such was not anyhow premediated nor planned nor as in exploit (therefore meaning vaginal rape, and that with assuming that among animals physical rape as such actually exists), and as such him in human morales terms not being fully responsible for what he did - for which he should surely be prisoned a) to prevent any further harm to you and/or anyone, and b) to “develop” - there is the issue of me in such over-authorising myself over authorities who should overally have looked after that such thing a) wouldn’t have happened in the first place mainly due to that he should have had self-control and be civilized, and b) should have dealt with him themselves; and also the issue of the (alleged) rape having being possibly been used as whatever pretense. And also, albeit not that usual in western justice systems, the punishment from my side may be way less (or more for that matter) than what e.g. you in the named example would want as punishment, which is part of the reason why it is such in these justice systems, as e.g. you in the example would be way too forgiving (e.g. making excuses or such) or even way too harsh in a comparative sense (tho not sure what would be worse than rape and that even without regard to whichever aftermath results).
Similary, in a clear case of gang rape, it could be argued that not everyone in such was fully responsible (as in one or more having been gang pressured into it, tho with responsibility therefore not anyhow magically disappearing), but i don’t think there is any evidence for gang rape among mammals anyhow, meaning that each of them is more responsible than the named example above.

That said, any rapist/s wanting to talk himself/themselves out of what he/they did based on what they intellectually know surely is not talking in favour, imo, and arguably points to him/them reoffending when finally chance therefore, with the reoffense being even worse than the first time especially after proper correctment efforts (regardless of how effective they are or are not deemed). So yeah, unfortunately sometimes there just happen to be hopeless cases (where no punishment of any kind does in the long-run any good), which arguably may still be saved by the grace of God, but that is pretty much often on the level of very unlikely miracle.

But i do certainly think that capital punishment is not the worst punishment there is, and for many wrong-doers it is actually something hoped for.

So all in all, it depends on the circumstances and even in civilized developed society there may be arguably instances where execution is a merciful thing to do however absurd it may sound (which is relevant to the mentioned issue of eutanasia), besides the arguable right for “eye for an eye” punishment. On the other hand, as you yourself named, many “authorities” having had the possibility thereto have evidently abused such (for whichever reason including possibility of unintentional false judgement). And in a view about reincarnation and karma and baptism not cleaning personal “bad karma”, it could be argued that an offender should clean themselves (with guidance) from “bad karma” in this life instead of taking it into the next where it would arguably cause more havoc. So yeah, various religions probably have (slightly) different interpretations of such, but the point surely isn’t for any wrong-doer to receive any free-pass nor for others to blame themselves and/or being blamed for what was not in their responsibility respectivly to not be too hard on themselves, nor for wrong-doers to make any excuse for eventual (situational) lack of responsibility of anyone else, e.g. as if ‘so-called shifting blame would make them free of personal responsibility here and in the thereafter’, similarly to many other non-sense in the heads of humans.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

That touches also on the issue of euthanasia really.

I initially started to think of Osama bin Laden when I read it.

Sometimes the concept of objective value/worth for one’s life sounds like a semantics game; it’s like “objective value” is an idiom for the value that a specific entity (or entity concept) has for the object being valued (which would make it a special case of a subjective value).

I’ve sometimes heard that “objective value” refers to some something that has value in and of it self and I’ve never been able to meaningfully interpret that. The seems like the most fitting definition of “value” implies a relationship between a valuer and an object being valued. But what does it mean for something to have value without a valuer.