Would life be worth living if there was no God?

[danserr]

That’s doesn’t necessarily follow. This God/god might be a monster. … 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…

But as I have said repeatedly, of course it is not just that a God exists, but that the Judeo-Christian God exists. When I say “if God exists, then life has objective meaning, purpose, and value,” of course, I am talking about the Judeo-Christian God, who is by definition a being worthy of worship. Obviously, the existence of Zeus would not make life meaningful, but that it totally irrelevant here.

The issue, if the Judeo-Christian God exists (who I simply call “God” for the sake of simplicity), then life has objective meaning, purpose, and value. If He does not, then all is, as you say, “subjective and relative.”

I can’t get my head around the philosophical terminology. It’s too much for my little brain!

I probably just did a bad job explaining it, but give this some attention because it is very important for explaining our disagreement.

Moral ontology- The *existence *of objective moral values

Moral epistemology- The perception of objective moral values. Or how we come to know objective moral values.

So moral epistemology concerns how we come to know the existence of objective moral value, and moral ontology concerns their actual existence.

The point is that they are two different things. It is one thing whether or not something exists, and another whether we know or believe that it exists. The fact that some people might not believe objective moral values exist is not evidence that they do not exist any more than the fact that people in the 13th century did not believe America existed proves that America did not exist.

This is important, because I am saying that if God (the Judeo-Christian God) does not exist, then life has no objective meaning, purpose, and value.

You typically try to refute this by giving some example of Christians behaving badly and saying “aha!, see how can these Christians do this if they think that human life has objective moral value.”

But, now you see that at most this would prove that those Christians don’t believe that human life had objective moral value. But this would be no evidence against the idea that if God did not exist, then objective meaning, purpose, and value would not exist. All that would follow would be that some people didn’t believe that they exist.

But as I have continued to say, the issue is not belief in objective meaning, value, and purpose, to human life, but whether or not they actually exist (which if God exists, they would, independently of whether people believed in them or not).

Hopefully now you see then why your attempt at counter-examples (bad Christians who support killing people, but claim to believe in moral value) is not relevant. At most this would show that those Christians are mistaken in acting as they do if they believe that people have moral value, or that people do have moral value and these Christians are failing to recognize it.

That being said, I would like to address you example anyway:

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… 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.

No. My willingness to kill the SS trooper does not mean that I deny his objective moral value. I still think that be is made in the image and likeness of God, who suffered and died for him, and hope for his cure. My willingness to kill is not because I deny the SS’s trooper’s value, but because I admit to the demands of justice.

I do not see that the murderer and rapist whose knife is about to fall on an innocent girl, should not be shot to prevent that. I don’t see how anyone can think otherwise. This does not mean I deny the moral value of the rapist. On the contrary, a good Christian would shoot the man wishing he did not have to, praying and hoping for his repentance even to the point of death. But he would also recognize that justice (whose demands are from God) demands that he protect the innocent girl.

To my mind, if we really valued this person, we’d keep them alive, and allow for the possibility of redemption.

I agree. This is why the Catholic Church admits the death penalty only as a last resort, when it is not possible to hold the person safely (which is not much the case in 1st world countries today).

Lastly, you want here to criticize the people who support the death penalty for failing to recognize human moral value. But on the other hand, you claim that moral value if totally “subjective and relative.” Well, how can you criticize people for failing to recognize others’ moral value, if it is totally subjective. It would be like criticizing me for doing an inaccurate drawing of the fairyland Macadamia!

 

[danserr]

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

I don’t think that’s it. Pardon my directness or if I am being presumptuous. Do you avoid meeting new people today because you don’t want to have to be with a stranger? Even if God were a stranger, do you think He would long remain so? When you met your husband, did you refuse to ever consider marrying him because you didn’t want to spend your life with a complete stranger? God made you in his image and likeness, suffered and died for you, and wants you to enter into a loving relationship with Him. Do you really think this would be like spending eternity with a total stranger?

Why don’t you want to live forever? Is it because you have convinced yourself for so long that it is impossible, that you have made a virtue of a necessity and tried to convince yourself how much better it is to die anyway?

 

[atheistgirl]

Why don’t you want to live forever? Is it because you have convinced yourself for so long that it is impossible, that you have made a virtue of a necessity and tried to convince yourself how much better it is to die anyway?

I’m not ignoring your other points in the post above, I’m just really pressed for time today and can only make a quick response to this one until I get home tonight.

I haven’t convinced myself it’s impossible to live forever. Everything we know says it is.

It’s more a case of I’ve never been convinced otherwise.

I didn’t give a great example with the ‘stranger’ but to try and reply, I meet strangers every single day of the week. The great thing is, having dealt with them, and dispatched them, unless there’s a very good reason, that’s it. They’re done. I don’t need to think about them any more and I certainly don’t and wouldn’t want to spend more time than necessary with them. I want to get back to my family, and my work.

My husband - I posted here a long time ago, I chased him, until he caught me It was lust at first sight, we dated, married, started our family, and have a wonderful marriage. We spent time getting to know each other, a lot of time. He was the man I wanted to spend the rest of my life with, and I was very lucky I was the woman he wanted to spend the rest of his life with. We were not strangers when we made that committment.

God is a stranger to me.

Re God, thanks for your explanation re how you see the Judeo/Christian God. I say God/gods, because as an atheist, all gods are the same to me. I mean no offense by saying this. It’s just how it is.

You must appreciate that a devout Hindu will tell me their monkey god is real, a Muslim will tell me their Allah is real, a Christian will tell me their Judeo/Christian God is real. They will also tell me of the validity of all their holy literature.

From my position, none has any more or less valitity than the other.

Again I want to stress, I’m explaning why I use the terms I use, I mean absolutely no offense by this, I’m just explaning.

Sarah x

 

[JDaniel]

Lol, I’m as sure as sure can be

Of course I have ups and downs, good and bad days and family and work issues like everyone else, but underlying all this is a deep sense of joy at being alive, of loving my family and being loved by them, a deep sense of achievement and satisfaction at running a successful business and creating employment and security for others, and a deep sense of worth in both what I have achieved, helped my family achieve, what others have helped me achieve and what I give back.

Hello, AG:

I just wanted to say that I felt all of those things too, when I was riding the crest of the wave of my own business - for nearly 17 years. I’m a tad older now and have discovered that those “feelings” are quite fleeting. I pray that you will never be relieved of those feelings. But, then comes along the death of a loved one. Then another. Then you discover that the “world” is insufficient to take us to where and what we know exists: i.e., the desire for perfect love, perfect truth, perfect beauty, etc. These are impossible to find anywhere on this planet. And if you do not know this by now, you will.

God bless,
jd

 

[Ladervijd]

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.

i haven’t really read much into what you meantioned nor talked about it myself, in this life-time. Tho, i think that i never really considered anyone else as what use they are to me or similar, so not only because of that i would agree that it is non-sense to ultimately consider anyone to have more or less value than anyone else, which arguably surely also has to do with upbringing. Tho true, e.g. looking for a secretary or spouse myself or by someone, i sure would “prefer” someone who is fit for such to me and my respectivly our life/lives, which doesn’t mean that any other person isn’t fit for any other position and/or person.

As for the “objective value” you mentioned as in definition of “value in and of it self”, that surely is relevant to the issue of eutanasia, as the person ought to be killed ought to be not only consensual about it but also to want it in the first place themself, and that also with other persons’ consideration of the circumstances. Tho, the “want of suicide” arguably is in many cases an expression of nihilism and/or e.g. being pressured into it for inheritance or for revenue of provider, or similar.

Regarding value without valuer, in worldly terms that sounds as non-sense imo, assuming that e.g. even the mass value of an object has to be valued/measured in order to be determined, tho the mass still is as it is even when not measured/valued. And e.g. children surely have (non-physical) value even without their value being measured and without their value being dependant on the view of a valuer. All in all, i think it is a bit too much of a soup of terms and definitions in the first place. But yeah, it surely is worth differentiating between that e.g. sexyness (as something that arouses sexually) of spouse is an, or the, important (subjective) “value” to many, tho sexyness not necessarily being a social value, nor any value universally and/or before God (unless there somehow is importance of relevance of that in relation to spouse, which arguably is somehow partially socially-physically, in direct relation to spouse - not as show-off, tho not individually, and arguably mere valueness of spouse based on sexyness is very superficial and physical in the first place, and barely or of no real relevance).

So or so, i do understand the concept of “social value” (particularly as civil motivator), which tho can be difficult to define which is arguably why many define it by the amount of income, respectivly by the show-off thereof, which can be very misleading as the existence of income, or wealth, does not really say anything about the quality thereof (especially where economy isn’t based on such). Besides the issue of meaningness/relevancy of “social value”, there is also, as mentioned, the topic of definition thereof. Which surely also is a broader topic, as e.g. definition of an individual’s ‘social worth’ by how many friends and family such individual has can make sense to an extent, but surely friends/family wouldn’t be/aren’t happy about paying, and working, for such individual in return for a clap on the back. And these things also possibly being ‘delicate’ not only in regard to persons who are not capable physically, mentally, and/or socially to work or engage in any educational, cultural, and/or social activity. Tho myself, i don’t see a point e.g. in ever increasing productivity (on backs), nor in e.g. ‘work and shut up about eventual horrendous conditions thereof’. Albeit, i don’t see wrong with civil competition (at its places). And personally, “career” is more of a personal thing (in fair conditions), such as having meaning and joy in life aside from the financial “reward” thereof. Tho again, e.g. i would think that being a doctor is more fulfilling than being a waiter, but on the other hand, a waiter, while with responsibility has less responsibility than a doctor. So these things partially being dependant on social perceptions, but also on systems, and also on personal perceptions, such as many would prefer to work “only” 20 hours a week whereas others don’t mind at all working 50 hours a week without anyhow being forced thereto. So yeah, the “objective worth” of oneself, as mentioned surely has an important role, but things should be fair within and among professions, and also systematically. Which brings us further to topics such as that not everyone can be an astronomer making a living thereof, similarly universities can’t be merely focused on making to-be-trained-for-profession-courses available based on a want-to demand, effectivity, not always and everywhere is actually work available for everyone, persons who don’t work albeit capable thereto with opportunities shouldn’t expect to have the same “economical freedom” as e.g. working doctors etc., and particular personal failure (with fair measurements) does not mean that the person who failed would be worthless nor their life without meaning etc.

…

 

[Ladervijd]

…
All in all, surely room for visions of overall and particular improvement/s, but many things depend on the actual environment, circumstances, resources, and possibilities, besides the issue of many being kind of allergic to anything “centralized planned economic” which surely has substantial reasoning but doesn’t really itself offer alternative when it comes especially not only to the poor but also to the “spoiled” rich (usually kids of materially rich but not always and not everyone - not meant as hate or such, but as pointing out that because a parent/s worked hard does not make adult child/ren thereof living on parents’ economical fruits equal to parent’s/s’ “standing” in material based “social value” terms as mentioned above when talking about such); on the other hand even in a “free” economy can be substantiated criticism, such as criticism of capital increasment on the costs of employees and customers (tho again not necessarily with alternatives), which again tho are systematic issues including that customers themselves can often balance things out. And that here besides the issues of male and female (depending partially on social cultural systems, such as that probably in places females have two jobs - work and home, whereas males have one job and free time), and besides valuement or perception of e.g. so-called qualified and non-qualified work, and work with hands (qualified or non-qualified) and work with head, and with both etc. etc. (meaning that these things are not new topics).

Not meaning to complicate these things, merely trying to point out that it can and often is complex considering various viewpoints (and that here not even mentioned the issues of environmentality, and or physical and psychical “side-effects” of too much or no work at all), tho overally not bad in many countries, imo, albeit many things surely being (slightly) different in various countries from personal to social perceptions and social and company (work) cultures, and GDP often, i think, being considered alpha and omega of an economy is pretty much pointless when the system isn’t proper thereto in regard to safety, health, rights, nature, education, opportunities, and with (other) consideration of the long-term (such as that ‘clever’ businessmen using loopholes to create many companies, eventually make debt, eventual “war” against competition, drill-like hire and fire, etc. in short-term cycles is not really in the common and overall interest and arguably causes more harm than good - besides the view of those who make money of it for which they arguably in many cases have decades of workless nice living there or elsewhere for having exploited this or that in a rather short span of time).

Albeit myself being on so-called dole without other income, without academical and/or professional education (with diplom or such), without materially secured spouse (or any spouse for that matter such as her working and me looking after kid/s), without materially supportive mentor, with financial debt, and without real interest to pursue further job/s in hospitality (meaning hotels and restaurants) wouldn’t probably really be considered credible by many regarding these things, or any of it, in the first place.

 

[danserr]

I’m not ignoring your other points in the post above, I’m just really pressed for time today and can only make a quick response to this one until I get home tonight.

That’s fine, I know how busy it is once the week starts.

I haven’t convinced myself it’s impossible to live forever. Everything we know says it is.

I don’t see how this is true and actually I think the evidence indicates otherwise.

Re God, thanks for your explanation re how you see the Judeo/Christian God. I say God/gods, because as an atheist, all gods are the same to me. I mean no offense by saying this. It’s just how it is.

No offense taken, but and I can see why you like to say this, but I advise avoiding it and here is why.

My argument is that "if the Judeo-Christian God exists (who I call God for the sake of convenience), then life has objective meaning purpose and value.

Now it is no refutation of this argument to say “but if Shiva or Zeus exists, that doesn’t make life meaningful does it?” Obviously not, but that has nothing to do with the argument I am making.

You must appreciate that a devout Hindu will tell me their monkey god is real, a Muslim will tell me their Allah is real, a Christian will tell me their Judeo/Christian God is real.

Sure, but so what? Like I said, the issue is not one of belief, but existence. If God (the Judeo-Christian God) exists, then life has objective meaning, purpose, and value). What other people believe is beside the point.

My husband - I posted here a long time ago, I chased him, until he caught me…

That sounds like a great story, but my point is that surely your husband was a stranger when you first met? But as you got to know him, you were happy to spend more time with him.

Well God may (though I suspect He will not be) be a stranger to some extent when we meet Him after death, but why think that He would remain so? He created us, suffered and died for us, and wants us to know and love Him, I can’t see how coming to know such a being could be anything but desirable. You might doubt whether such a being exists, but I don’t see what is undesirable about coming to know Him if He does.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

As for the “objective value” you mentioned as in definition of “value in and of it self”

It’s a definition I’ve frequently been given, but it is also a definition that has no meaning to me.

that surely is relevant to the issue of eutanasia

I can’t really agree or disagree with you since the above mentioned definition isn’t meaningful to me.

Regarding value without valuer, in worldly terms that sounds as non-sense imo, assuming that e.g. even the mass value of an object has to be valued/measured in order to be determined, tho the mass still is as it is even when not measured/valued.

I think you are talking about a different meaning of value for a different context. Can you present the meaning of “value” that you are using that would be both applicable to the quantification of physical properties and to the previous discussion of the value of life?

All in all, i think it is a bit too much of a soup of terms and definitions in the first place.

I think you may be talking about the concept of a polyseme here where a word can have many related yet distinctly different meanings.

 

[atheistgirl]

But, then comes along the death of a loved one. Then another. Then you discover that the “world” is insufficient to take us to where and what we know exists: i.e., the desire for perfect love, perfect truth, perfect beauty, etc. These are impossible to find anywhere on this planet. And if you do not know this by now, you will.

Hi JDaniel,

I’ve already lost loved ones. I know the pain and deep sense of loss when someone who is part of your beating heart dies.

I must be odd, because I don’t believe there is such a thing as a perfect love, a perfect truth or a perfect beauty. I’ve experiences love truth and beauty that has literally taken my breath away, but nothing is ‘perfect’ and nothing lasts forever.

I’m odd I suppose because I’m perfectly happy in this knowledge.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

That’s fine, I know how busy it is once the week starts.

Thanks. It’s been a busy start to the week.

Anyhow, suppose we replace ‘Judeo/Christian God’ with Shiva, and say, ‘‘If Shiva exists then life has objective meaning purpose and value’’ where does that leave us?

In fact we can replace ‘‘Judeo/Christian God’’ and plug in any other god people believe in, and we get the same result.

Life has objective meaning value and purpose if xyz exists.

Now, in order for all these peoples lives to have objective value meaning and purpose, all their gods must exist, and they actually believe these gods exist, if they are faithful to their faith.

Otherwise, only one of those groups has objective meaning value and purpose, because everyone else is in error.

So you’d need to be able to work out which God/gods do actually exist.

And I don’t believe one can do that.

One can believe and have faith, but not actually know!

I know my life has meaning value and purpose. Whether someone calls it objective or subject, really, I don’t much care.

Someone saying my lifes meaning is objective or subjective changes nothing of any worth that I can see.

Sarah x

 

[Birdpreacher]

If there were no God we would be nothing more than bags of chemicals. Our opinions and lived would be the same value as dirt. With no Absolute, that is God, nothing has meaning ni matter how we feel since our thoughts and feelings would be the result of nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain. So, no, life would have no instrinsic value.

I think the point of existentialism is finding intrinsic value in the act of “being” a bag of chemical.

I am curious as to why you would say that if there is no God than life amounts to as much as dirt. Is there not value in loving others and experiencing all life has to offer (whether it be sky-diving or reading philosophy)

Most atheists would say that the lack of an afterlife is what makes this life so important. If this is our only chance to exist than we are called to make the most of it. Its very romantic view of existence despite the meaninglessness of life. (think last hurrah like the Alamo)

 

[JDaniel]

Hi JDaniel,

I’ve already lost loved ones. I know the pain and deep sense of loss when someone who is part of your beating heart dies.

I must be odd, because I don’t believe there is such a thing as a perfect love, a perfect truth or a perfect beauty. I’ve experiences love truth and beauty that has literally taken my breath away, but nothing is ‘perfect’ and nothing lasts forever.

I’m odd I suppose because I’m perfectly happy in this knowledge.

Sarah x

Sarah:

Yes; we all tend to fool ourselves, to create our own illusions, to place our desires and faith in all sorts of intangibles - except, for some, the intangible that is God. But, that’s OK. There are way more than enough of us to take up the slack left in your wake.

God bless,
jd

 

[danserr]

Thanks. It’s been a busy start to the week.

Anyhow, suppose we replace ‘Judeo/Christian God’ with Shiva, and say, ‘‘If Shiva exists then life has objective meaning purpose and value’’ where does that leave us?

In fact we can replace ‘‘Judeo/Christian God’’ and plug in any other god people believe in, and we get the same result.

Then I would say that the person is mistaken, since what we know about the concept of Shiva indicates that Shiva does not provide a basis for purpose, meaning, or value in life.

Plug in Zeus. Again, I would simply say that the existence of Zeus does not provide a basis for objective meaning, purpose, and value.

What about the Judeo/Christian God. Well, He is by definition a Greatest Conceivable Being, a Being Worthy of Worship, who created us, love us enough to die for us, and wants us to come to know Him in eternal happiness. I think it is easy to see how if such a God exists, than life can have objective meaning, purpose, and value.

Remember, this is just a if statement. I am not saying that God does exist, only that if He does, then life has objective meaning, purpose, and value, which seem obvious. Showing that God does exist is a different question.

Now, in order for all these peoples lives to have objective value meaning and purpose, all their gods must exist, and they actually believe these gods exist, if they are faithful to their faith.

Again no. Remember what I keep telling you, the issue is not belief in God. An atheist could deny the existence of God, but her life could still have objective meaning, purpose, and value if God actually exists. If God exists, people’s lives can have this value, if God does not, then human life cannot have objective purpose, value and meaning, no matter what people believe.

So you’d need to be able to work out which God/gods do actually exist.

And I don’t believe one can do that.

One can believe and have faith, but not actually know!

Wouldn’t the same apply to your atheism? Anyway, we certainly can know that God exists, and what his traits are. We know his existence on the basis of evidence like this, and we know that the Judeo-Christian God exists because of evidence like this.

I know my life has meaning value and purpose. Whether someone calls it objective or subject, really, I don’t much care.

Someone saying my lifes meaning is objective or subjective changes nothing of any worth that I can see.

Then let’s go over the difference again, because it is very important. At the end, I will give you an example to show how important.

By objective, I mean independent of what human beings think or perceive.
By subjective, I mean dependent on what human beings think or perceive.

For instance, I am writing from a library in New York. This is objectively true because it is true no matter what I think.

On the other hand, the statement “chocolate is delicious” is a subjective statement, since the truth of it depends on the person saying it. Chocolate isn’t really or objectively delicious, it’s just that the person eating it thinks it is.

So, if God does not exist, then meaning, purpose, and value are only subjective. That is to say, they are totally dependent on what people think or perceive (which you agree with).

Now imagine the consequences of this. Imagine 2 high school students. Student 1 is a good relativist. He thinks value and meaning are totally subjective, ie totally dependent on what people think. Unfortunately for him, he is bullied at school, very unpopular, and mocked by everyone. Because he thinks that moral values are dependent on what people think and everyone thinks he is worthless, then he really is worthless! He realizes this and commits suicide.

Student 2 is also bullied, but knowing that God exists who made and loved her, she know that she has objective moral value. That is, she has moral worth independent of what people think. So when people mock her, she is still sad, but knows that because moral values are not subjective, those who bully her are really wrong, and she still knows that she has moral worth regardless of what her classmates think. She is able to withstand the bullying and grows up happily.

If meaning, purpose, and value are objective, then we can call a person who fails to recognize another person’s moral value mistaken (just like since NYC really exists, we can call a person’s drawing of the NYC skyline mistaken). But if these things are all subjective, then we cannot declare a person mistaken who denies the moral worth of a human being any more than we can call him mistaken for his drawing of the fairyland Macadamia!

Whether objective meaning, value, and purpose exist, thus have tremendous importance in the modern world!

Remember some examples we’ve given earlier. If all these things are subjective, then a student drinking himself into a stupor is just as meaningful as a person who works to cure cancer because they each consider their actions meaningful. But to suggest that curing cancer has just as much value as getting drunk seems absurd. Yet if relativism and subjectivism is true, than that is what we must believe!

 

[danserr]

I think the point of existentialism is finding intrinsic value in the act of “being” a bag of chemical.

I am curious as to why you would say that if there is no God than life amounts to as much as dirt. Is there not value in loving others and experiencing all life has to offer (whether it be sky-diving or reading philosophy)

If God did not exist, then it would be hard to see how anything had objective value, meaning, or purpose. You seem to come close to agreeing below when you agree that life is meaningless without God.

reasonablefaith.org/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god

Most atheists would say that the lack of an afterlife is what makes this life so important. If this is our only chance to exist than we are called to make the most of it. Its very romantic view of existence despite the meaninglessness of life.

How could the lack of an afterlife make life important? If there is no afterlife, we all in the the same position anyway. Stalin and Mother Teresa came to the same end.

On the contrary, if there is an afterlife, then what we do here is of overwhelming importance!

 

[Birdpreacher]

If God did not exist, then it would be hard to see how anything had objective value, meaning, or purpose. You seem to come close to agreeing below when you agree that life is meaningless without God.

reasonablefaith.org/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god

How could the lack of an afterlife make life important? If there is no afterlife, we all in the the same position anyway. Stalin and Mother Teresa came to the same end.

On the contrary, if there is an afterlife, then what we do here is of overwhelming importance!

Who values life more a health teenager or a person with a month to live?
For some atheists, the recognition of the fact that they will cease to exist brings out a feeling of importance. Colors look more vivid/Food tastes more yummy 9note this are all subjective observations) and life becomes more precious.

Unlike the belief in an afterlife which espouses the notion that people will exist forever and thus engage in an infinite number of experiences, atheists believe that limited experiences one has on this earth must me maximized. (in other words that one must live life to its fullest)

 

[danserr]

Who values life more a health teenager or a person with a month to live?
For some atheists, the recognition of the fact that they will cease to exist brings out a feeling of importance. Colors look more vivid/Food tastes more yummy 9note this are all subjective observations) and life becomes more precious.

I never said that atheists cannot think that life is meaningful. I have maintained, (as the article I linked to points out), that if God did not exist, then life would have no objective meaning, value, or purpose, whether people would believe it did or not.

In short, if God does exist, then life has objective meaning, value, and purpose whether people think it does or not. If He does not, then life has no such meaning, value, or purpose, no matter what people think.

Unlike the belief in an afterlife which espouses the notion that people will exist forever and thus engage in an infinite number of experiences, atheists believe that limited experiences one has on this earth must me maximized. (in other words that one must live life to its fullest)

Living forever does not mean getting to do in an finite number of things. It means having one’s deepest desire (our need for God) eternally fulfilled and being united to Him forever in a loving relationship.

In this case, how one lives his life here can either gain him or lose him eternal happiness. Hence, if Christianity is true, it is hard to see how life could possibly have more significance!

If atheism is true, we all end at the grave with no meaning, purpose, or value. I don’t see that this gives us reason to maximize anything. For all it will matter after we die, we may as well have never existed.

Hence, on atheism, it’s hard to see how we would make any significant choices. Significance implies meaning and value, and these would not exist if God did not.

 

[shoe]

I think that without the existence of God, the world could not have any objective worth, and life would be just an insignificant and disordered thing. Life would not be worth any value in and of itself. And if that were the case, then in order to seek meaning and purpose for human life, human beings would have to talk themselves, via self hypnosis or whatever, into believing that life holds some kind of value. But life doesn’t become valuable simply because individuals say, wish, or believe it’s valuable. For instance, one person may argue that life has value, and another person may argue that it doesn’t; however, without God’s existence in play neither person’s point of view would be the correct one, since without the objective standard of values that only God can provide, life would lack all objective value.

 

[Ladervijd]

It’s a definition I’ve frequently been given, but it is also a definition that has no meaning to me.

I can’t really agree or disagree with you since the above mentioned definition isn’t meaningful to me.

Not meant as definition. Just tried to lay out as i understood it from what you mentioned, as personal “self-value” which doesn’t just have relevance regarding a person “interested” in being eutanasied, but overally regarding of one’s place and way in society/life.

Academically, it appears that “objective value” has different context whether in economics or in philosophy. e.g.:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value
oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Plato/plato02_objective_values.html

with (on the philosophical level), as mentioned, an arguement being whether “values”, such as truth, good and beauty, are (always) dependant on perception or belief.

I think you are talking about a different meaning of value for a different context. Can you present the meaning of “value” that you are using that would be both applicable to the quantification of physical properties and to the previous discussion of the value of life?

E.g. a nutritious piece of food surely could be quantified in physical-chemical terms, tho the (perception of) taste thereof to a person eating may vary not only by circumstances, such it tasting “better” to a person exhausted and hungry than to a person fed, but also vary among persons who are equally hungry, the perception of which tho arguably is dependant on long-term circumstances and psyché, which brings us to about whether anything (or many things) “subjective” isn’t (/aren’t) ultimately “objective” (in system/s of balance).

I think you may be talking about the concept of a polyseme here where a word can have many related yet distinctly different meanings.

Yes, that surely is relevant. Tho what i (also) meant is lack of clear distinctions, respectivly common lack of knowledge thereabout, among various “schools of thought” respectivly among “ways of thought” or “ways of perception” for that matter. And even with a nice “tree” of origin of terms and “ways of thought”, it does not necessarily mean that it [diagnosis or analysis] is comprehensive (systematically and/or in known terms-for-something used), or universally true, or every premise valid (such as that an academical fish in the ocean may perceive the ocean to be a closed environment and not capable of measuring in- and out-put thereof). So, arguably, different approaches, “trees”, are possible, and when we, here simply, assume e.g. that everything is ultimately objective (and measurable from an “outside view”), we may be pooring ourselves of subjective descriptive words and states of psyché which can’t be described in objective terms outside view or not, meaning that not necessarily every"thing" is describable in relation to 4-dimensions, respectivly that not all has (measurable) physical properties, and quantification thereof (in relation to “surrounding”).
And furthermore, when everyone knows what they are talking about, it does not necessarily mean that they are on the same page, not meaning that they would necessarily talk about different things, tho possibly yes without being aware of it.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

It’s a question that can’t be answered from a Catholic perspective. You might as well ask, “would the dollar have as much value if there were no United States?” In both cases, there is a direct link between the two objects: one is the source of the other, and without one, the other is impossible.

However, to play the game: assuming that, despite the lack of God, human life retained its inherent dignity, that something other than God enabled imperfect man even to be civil, that something other than God enabled us to strive for the good of the weak and impoverished, then yes – life would be worth living.

Unfortunately, without God, there is no source of good. To presuppose that men would be good to one another without God’s grace is to presuppose that man is the source of whatever goodness exists in the world, rather than the cause of all the evil in the world.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Ladervijd]

in perspective personal, a bit western-centric, as e.g. Buddhism talks about (the premise or conclusion) reincarnation, and of bad, and in some interpretations i think also of good, “feelings” being illusion, respectivly things to be overcome to achieve in the “long run” happiness. So, one thing is that in the view of reincarnation overally, positive is handed among each other to long-termly ourselves, an issue of which tho is that it can lead to egoism with fake positivity. And an other thing is that “ultimate soul searching” can be fatal respectivly not overally positive, such as so-called being someone’s ***** with the pretense that i ought to overcome my perception thereof. Which are things relevant to the nature of human and of society. (e.g. being angry about something is not necessarily a solution to the problem, but it sure helps to stress the point of that something is “wrong” besides being an eventual motivator - tho on the other hand, it is not necessarily the most effective way nor does it mean that anger would be always just, in particular when it is anger for the sake of it, such as the person being angry for own feel of something)
So or so, in the (philosophical) view of reincarnation, there are many arguements to purport approach to life, others and society, which are not hedonistic based, besides particular issues such as will, discipline, non-spoilment, etc.

And in the view of that there is no (personal) after-life whatsoever, still, arguements could be made to purport why to be just is way better than looking for “quick kicks”, one of which is to be on top in this life-time in terms of civilized competitevness, but not only - which bring us to mentioned up to nirvana regarding dharma, that is (arguably in a limited view) that “Mother” Nature has embedded into each of us “system” where the unjust will fail before or to death (and arguably with actions and even thoughts being imprinted into the “matrix” even when no second or third etc. viewer is around), with the overall purpose of each one being a part, and that ideally a contributive part, in the cycle of life (and in the view of a number of persons arguably mainly in/to society, albeit society would be nothing without life in the first place).
But yes, in a (personal) nihilistic (and egoistic) view of life and everything, bound or not to whichever feelings and/or emotions, there sure seems no (intellectual) overall objective meaning, tho such isn’t necessarily bound to the (intellectual) premise or conclusion of existence of God and/or reincarnation or lack thereof, and arguably many are overcomplicating things, respectivly are actually dealing with own trauma/s they project on everything or many things.
Another argument, in a physical interpretation, nothing is ever lost not meaning just that light travels like forever, but also regarding e.g. decomposition of a body after point of dead, so besides therapeutic approach, it could be argued (in particular in regard to the imprint mentioned) that nothing is lost ever. Tho, the issues around that are a bit in regard to psychology and especially ego, such as that in the view of that there is no end to existence after dead (for many), the ego may not like it as the ego is bound to die with or before death. Tho, overcomplicating it myself now in layman’s terms and with simplistic interpretation. The point i tried to make is that the view of theist (perceived and/or interpreted objective meaning) and atheist (perceived and/or interpreted no objective meaning) may be a bit short-sighted overally. Nevertheless, and again mostly talking on a philosophical-intellectual level i think tho not only, a point of (premise or conclusion of) God is that life and human society isn’t (just) about making babies, eating well, sleeping well, keeping things from falling apart, and being nice to each other, by which i don’t mean that God would be merely as in a scenario that makes more sense.