Without God Life Has No Purpose

[man]

I Googled that phrase and came up with this.

https://www.google.com/#q=without+god+l ... no+purpose

This is what religious people are being taught by their leaders. So we have all these people walking around thinking that there is an empty hole inside them that can only be filled by god and without god there lives have no purpose or meaning.

The thing that strikes me as being strange is I have always regarded all religions as myth and I am not a believer of any of them, but at the same time I don't have this empty hole inside me they talk about. I have never felt that my life has no purpose or meaning and in fact all of the things that these religious people say I need don't ever even cross my mind.

There is so much interesting REAL stuff to learn that I am so busy reading, working or doing whatever I happen to be interested in at the moment to have time to even think about this hole I am supposed to have inside me that I can't find. If anything I need a bigger hole to fit all of the things that I occupy myself with, my hole runneth over!

Anyway, I started thinking about teaching people that nonsense and it struck me as being a cruel thing to do. It's tantamount to saying, hey there is something wrong with you (when there isn't) and then telling them that you have the cure.

The phrase snake oil salesman comes to mind.

[OnceConvinced]

. Most people I know seem to want to live for some purpose. I have a hard time believing that you actually don't want your life to mean something.

My life means a great deal to me. I just don't believe that there is any meaning behind me being here to begin with. I don't see why there has to be. The reality is you plant baby seeds and you get babies. It's up to us to give our lives meanings. It's up to us to give our lives purpose.

In any case, that purpose is not fluffy kittens and snowflakes. For a lot of people, the existence of a just God means eternal damnation.

In someone's imagination, maybe.

I just don't see why life without an intended purpose would be considered a tragedy. We can determine what gives our lives meaning ourselves. We can determine our own purposes in life. I see nothing tragic about me being born for no intended purpose or reason. I consider it a privilege to be here.

[OnceConvinced]

But you must give God all of the credit for the reason why you are trying to live righteously.

Why should I give an imaginary being credit for anything? Human beings are quite capable of working out what works best in society. Which ways are the best to live and how to treat other human beings. No god is needed for that.

Telling me to give thanks to God would be like telling a child to give thanks to Santa Claus for the gifts he left under the Christmas tree.

Because without His teachings, what will you be doing at the moment?

I would have learnt some valuable life lessons based on experience. In fact I HAVE learnt many lessons based on trial and error. From just living life for nearly 50 years. I learnt that I felt bad when I hurt or bullied another person. I learnt that being stolen from, or abused or put down was something that made me feel bad, thus I should not do those things to others or they will feel bad too. All these things I learnt just by living and interacting with others. I didn't need God to teach me those things.

I also learnt that many of God's so-called morals were harmful to myself and to society. Many bible morals should be rejected.

Before the Laws, that it were normal to have sex with you Kin-folks and animals.

I have never had any desires to take part in such activities. Have you?

In fact I have no desire to commit many horrific or disgusting acts. That is not because of bible teachings, it's because I find them repellent. Many activities (others you have not mentioned that would be considered just as immoral), I would loathe to even consider due to the fact that if I did them, I would harm others and I would not be able to live with myself if I did. I would be absolutely disgusted in myself.

All one needs is empathy and compassion. Even with a belief in God and the bible, those things aren't guaranteed. IN fact just look at the many things Christians say on this site. Many of them show they lack compassion and empathy. It's no wonder that they need the bible to guide them through life.

But until we had received the Laws, it has turn some of our hearts from that direction. You might stray away into the valley for a moment but seeing all the ones that has never known the scriptures will cause you to turn back because you know from right and wrong, and seeing everyone doing unlawful acts will make you leave from them because you are not accustom to it. And so you should be thankful that the laws were brought to us, or else you would be making love every night to your mom and dad.

All this talk about the law and it being brought to us is nothing but a big preach session. Please check the rules of the forum when it comes to preaching. This is a debate site.

Seriously, I don't need any bible laws to work out what is harmful and what is not. I learnt many of those lessons as a small child.

If I were to go by bible morals I would be killing witches, homosexuals, etc etc etc. I would be endorsing slavery. I would be ok with human sacrifice. I would be beating my children with rods. I would be demonising all those that didn't see things my way.

[Wissing]

[Replying to post 31 by OnceConvinced]

So you have a purpose, it's just not a God-given purpose. It's a self-created purpose. Why does it have to come from God, you ask. I won't give an exhaustive list of reasons, I'll try to keep it to a few examples.

For one thing, God is a source outside myself. If were to derive my purpose from within myself, according to my own internal feelings and thoughts, I wouldn't be anchored to anything. I would be a free spirit. I would be an island, independent from external influences on my direction in life. That's not a problem if your purpose happens to be good (and for any who were influenced by Christian teaching as a child, it is hard to know if it would have been good otherwise). But so often, our natural thoughts and feelings are not okay. They are often internally inconsistent (the desire for pleasure of sweet tastes and the pain of toothache, for a simple example from my own life), or they conflict with the society around us in ways that cause hostility and disagreement (a psychopathic murderer feels that his innate purpose is to kill, and he can't help it, and yet it is still wrong).

I think that mankind is not naturally fine. We need to improve, both socially and individually. We are guilty of personal sins and collective sins, and God points these things out to us. We need to get better. To err is human. If we think we are fine the way we are, we cannot improve. We become blind to our own flaws. That is true, at the very least, of religious people. I think it's true of everyone else too. Nobody's perfect.

Finally, we can't just improve by arbitrary self-defined standards, or we would all define "better" differently. There has to be unity. God is unity. He indwells all who truly trust him (in thought, word, and deed) with his own spirit. All in Him are one.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 31 by OnceConvinced]

So you have a purpose, it's just not a God-given purpose. It's a self-created purpose. Why does it have to come from God, you ask. I won't give an exhaustive list of reasons, I'll try to keep it to a few examples.

For one thing, God is a source outside myself. If were to derive my purpose from within myself, according to my own internal feelings and thoughts, I wouldn't be anchored to anything. I would be a free spirit. I would be an island, independent from external influences on my direction in life. That's not a problem if your purpose happens to be good (and for any who were influenced by Christian teaching as a child, it is hard to know if it would have been good otherwise).

In my case, it is some of the teachings of my Catholic background that actually drove me away from religion: it's stance on homosexuality, sex being sinful, inherent sin and the concept of hell.

I found some of the beliefs morally repugnant, biases leftover from a very barbaric time.

In my opinion, people pick and choose which morals align with them, and which don't. We see it happen all the time.

But so often, our natural thoughts and feelings are not okay. They are often internally inconsistent (the desire for pleasure of sweet tastes and the pain of toothache, for a simple example from my own life), or they conflict with the society around us in ways that cause hostility and disagreement (a psychopathic murderer feels that his innate purpose is to kill, and he can't help it, and yet it is still wrong).

Humans are social creatures by nature. It makes sense that those traits that allow for societies (large groups of humans) to thrive would be passed on: cooperation, empathy, love, charity, etc.

No god required.

I think that mankind is not naturally fine. We need to improve, both socially and individually.

And we have done so, despite (surprisingly) religion's dogmatism.

We are guilty of personal sins and collective sins, and God points these things out to us. We need to get better. To err is human. If we think we are fine the way we are, we cannot improve. We become blind to our own flaws. That is true, at the very least, of religious people. I think it's true of everyone else too. Nobody's perfect.

Christianity has (typically) taken stances against the following: same sex rights, equality for women, ending slavery, science (evolution), abortion rights, church-state separation.

Opposition to these issues does not, imo, better society. It hinders its prosperity.

Finally, we can't just improve by arbitrary self-defined standards,

Who says its arbitrary?

or we would all define "better" differently.

We (here in the US) already do. Given we have a multi-cultural society, how can we not? It is inevitable.

There has to be unity. God is unity. He indwells all who truly trust him (in thought, word, and deed) with his own spirit. All in Him are one.

And who, pray tell, is the final arbiter in what god meant and said? Which denomination of Christianity got it right? And how do we know this?

-all the best

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 31 by OnceConvinced]

So you have a purpose, it's just not a God-given purpose. It's a self-created purpose. Why does it have to come from God, you ask. I won't give an exhaustive list of reasons, I'll try to keep it to a few examples.

For one thing, God is a source outside myself. If were to derive my purpose from within myself, according to my own internal feelings and thoughts, I wouldn't be anchored to anything. I would be a free spirit. I would be an island, independent from external influences on my direction in life.

That does not appear to be anything different than someone who believes that their purposes come from God. Have you ever noticed that a person who believes they have godly purposes end up with purposes that are important to them? Every person has desires and leanings and they move towards ministries for instance, that line up with those desires and leanings.

Most of my purposes I had as a Christian, that I believed were as a result of God, I still have. eg, being the best partner I can be, the best father I can be, the best person I can be, the best employee I can be.

And what is wrong with being a free spirit anyway? Does that take away purpose? No it doesn't. Purpose is purpose. It doesn't need to be divine in origin.

That's not a problem if your purpose happens to be good

Purpose is purpose whether good or bad. Satan's purpose for instance, is to destroy all Gods works. To destroy lives. It is still purpose. And it wasn't God who gave Satan that purpose, was it? Or was it?

But so often, our natural thoughts and feelings are not okay. They are often internally inconsistent

Agreed. If you study personalities you will see that there are 4 basic personality types and we can fall into each one of them to a certain extent. This can create problems when certain parts of our personality clashes. I see this all the time in my life. For instance, the stronger Melancholy side of my personality requires a lot of alone time, however the weaker Sanguine side of me still requires regular human contact. So the problem is juggling both sides so that both will be satisfied. That is very hard especially if you have people in your life who require a lot of contact. So it would not be surprising if purposes clash and are inconsistent. That is only natural and would be the same for Christians too.

I think that mankind is not naturally fine. We need to improve, both socially and individually

We all have weaknesses. We all have areas for improvement. So what do we do? We determine that we are going to improve in a particular area. We make that a goal... a PURPOSE! Christians will claim that God has laid that area on their heart and that he wants you to deal with that. So it becomes a purpose. For non-Christians we identify a problem and realise it needs work, so we work at fixing that problem. We make it a purpose. There really is no difference. One says it's God who gives them the purpose. The other determines the purpose for themselves.

. We are guilty of personal sins and collective sins, and God points these things out to us.

Some require a father like figure, ie God to point out issues to them. A mature adult requires no such thing. They can see these areas need fixing for themselves.

As an atheist, I am able to identify areas in my own life WITHOUT God having to point them out to me. I can see what is obviously harmful to myself and others and I work at dealing with it. As a mature adult, I don't need a god to point them out to me.

We need to get better. To err is human. If we think we are fine the way we are, we cannot improve. We become blind to our own flaws. That is true, at the very least, of religious people. I think it's true of everyone else too. Nobody's perfect.

Agreed. However no gods are needed for us to know when we need to improve. No gods are needed to set a goal or a purpose for us to make some kind of change. Even if we don't want to critique ourselves, there are always others out there who will critique us for us. We will be told what things we need to change from someone! It doesn't have to be a god.

Finally, we can't just improve by arbitrary self-defined standards, or we would all define "better" differently. There has to be unity. God is unity. He indwells all who truly trust him (in thought, word, and deed) with his own spirit. All in Him are one.

People have been bettering themselves for centuries without the need for any god. Since I lost my faith in God I have improved in several different areas.

The thing is with humans a lot will not change unless they hit rock bottom. Once they are at the lowest of the low and have had a guts full of their situation. That's when they get the motivation to change. Some use religion as a aid for that. After all it's great to have a new outlook on life and to believe that you have a supernatural entity rallying behind you. It's no wonder that some people believe that it's God who has helped them and changed them. Christianity can be a powerful placebo.

[Wissing]

I am going to try to sum up some of the things both OnceConvinced and KenRU have said. I'm sorry if I unfairly summarize your posts, but if I responded to every statement this thread would grow exponentially. Please forgive a cursory and meager representation of your ideas.

Point: Human improvement happens in spite of God, and not because of God.

I think this point is on topic because human improvement is a purpose, and one that many of us can agree on. The disagreement is whether God need be involved.

Here is one example of a person who was raised in the Christian faith, fell away, developed his own purpose, and only later discovered why he needed God. Sergei Bulgakov (1871-1944) grew up in a Christian home, but lost faith and began a career as a Marxist economist. By the time of the 1905 Russian mini-revolution, he had returned to faith in Christ. He then considered himself a Christian socialist, and was affiliated with the liberal Kadet Party. By 1909, though, he was disillusioned with politics. He eventually went on to be a priest. In the quote below, he contrasts two sets of ideals: those of a particular branch of Christianity*, and those of a particular secular ideology. I have underlined some key points of contrast for clarity.

Political freedom, freedom of conscience, and the rights of man and citizen were... proclaimed by the Reformation.... Protestantism, especially in the Reformed Church, Calvinism, and Puritanism... molded individuals fit to become the leaders of a developing national economy. Modern learning, and especially philosophy, also developed primarily in Protestant areas. And all these advances proceeded with strict historical continuity and gradualness, without chasms or avalanches....

The spiritual current which proved decisive for the Russian intelligentsia emerged at the same time. ... the humanistic Renaissance revived classical antiquity, and with it some elements of paganism. ... a neo-pagan individualism that extolled natural, unregenerated man grew up. It viewed man as inherently good and beautiful, human nature being corrupted only by external circumstances. All that needs to be done is to restore man's natural condition, and this will accomplish everything. Here is the root of ... modern doctrines of progress and the power of external reforms alone to resolve the human tragedy, and consequently, all of modern humanism and socialism.

Heroism and Asceticism, Vekhi (1909), p.24

*Please note that, thought the quote refers strictly to Protestantism, I do not believe that other Christians (Othodox, Catholic, etc) are excluded from its implications. I believe that denomination and unity are compatible.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 36 by Wissing]

Wissing,

Apologies, but I am not (I think) completely getting your point. Religion often acts as a "crutch" or a necessary tool for many to give their lives meaning. This does not mean that it is true, or that god exists and that heaven awaits the believer.

How does your response address the concept that a non-believer's life has just as much, if not more, purpose as a believer's?

-all the best

[Wissing]

[Replying to post 37 by KenRU]

After posting that I realized it might not have been completely clear why I did. I'll try to explain.

What I'm seeing in this thread are some subjective statements. For instance, OnceConvinced said, "I can see what is obviously harmful to myself and others and I work at dealing with it. As a mature adult, I don't need a god to point them out to me." The truth of statements like that can't be affirmed or denied without really knowing the person.

Also, there have been several statements that, frankly, need some sources if they are to be considered. For instance, KenRU, you said that cooperation, empathy, love, charity, etc, are traits that allow for societies to thrive. You also implied that mankind has progressed in spite of Christianity. They may or may not be true, but it doesn't really help the discussion if I can't look for myself to see where you're getting your information. If they are true, it would be interesting to find out how true.

I am faced with general statements and assumptions, and I find myself making more general statements and assumptions. That just doesn't seem helpful. My purpose in presenting a specific person, from a specific point in history, was to demonstrate one specific, verifiable example of a man who believed that society improves because of Christianity, not in spite of it. His reasons for believing that are good reasons. He was part of the collapse of his society. Soon after he wrote that, one of the largest atheist states in modern history took over Russia, and it didn't bring human progress. Bulgakov contrasts secular progress and Christian progress. I will admit people can have a "purpose" without God (Marx did, Lenin did, Stalin did), but I am discussing the nature of that purpose.

Again, this is only one example. I'm no historian and the evidence is not irrefutable. But I had to start somewhere, so I'm starting here.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 37 by KenRU]

After posting that I realized it might not have been completely clear why I did. I'll try to explain.

What I'm seeing in this thread are some subjective statements. For instance, OnceConvinced said, "I can see what is obviously harmful to myself and others and I work at dealing with it. As a mature adult, I don't need a god to point them out to me." The truth of statements like that can't be affirmed or denied without really knowing the person.

Agreed.

Also, there have been several statements that, frankly, need some sources if they are to be considered. For instance, KenRU, you said that cooperation, empathy, love, charity, etc, are traits that allow for societies to thrive.

I did. Do you agree with this statement? In other words, do you agree that more humans will survive when cooperating together then if they are competing against one another?

You also implied that mankind has progressed in spite of Christianity. They may or may not be true, but it doesn't really help the discussion if I can't look for myself to see where you're getting your information.

Often, Christianity, historically, has often been at odds with science (heliocentric solar system, evolution, The Dark Ages, etc). Progress (culturally and scientifically) has been made by man despite the opposition.

If they are true, it would be interesting to find out how true.

Examples today include opposition to same-sex marriage, birth control and a separation of church and state.

I am faced with general statements and assumptions, and I find myself making more general statements and assumptions. That just doesn't seem helpful. My purpose in presenting a specific person, from a specific point in history, was to demonstrate one specific, verifiable example of a man who believed that society improves because of Christianity, not in spite of it. His reasons for believing that are good reasons. He was part of the collapse of his society. Soon after he wrote that, one of the largest atheist states in modern history took over Russia, and it didn't bring human progress.

A lack of belief in god does not compel one to do anything – other than to not believe. Religion has specific rules and instructions contained within their holy books which inspire all sorts of things, both good and bad.

Atheism has no holy book. Just a dictionary definition.

So, for a theist, this “purpose� is just as arbitrary as a non-believers, imo.

Bulgakov contrasts secular progress and Christian progress. I will admit people can have a "purpose" without God (Marx did, Lenin did, Stalin did),

You know there were other examples you could have chosen, lol. Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein or Alan Turing just to name three.

Shall I compare the purpose of a believer’s life with those of Tomás de Torquemada and Pope Urban II (who ordered the first crusade)?

but I am discussing the nature of that purpose.

The nature of a self-assigned purpose? Sure, how would you like to proceed? You gave an example of one person's purpose, which can easily be contrasted with another, say mine, for example. But the point, I believe is what differentiates a purpose gleaned from religion from one that is self-assigned.

Again, this is only one example. I'm no historian and the evidence is not irrefutable. But I had to start somewhere, so I'm starting here.

I am no historian as well, so no worries there.

Perhaps it would be wise to examine what purpose you believe religion/Christianity gives to an individual. In your opinion, what is the difference between the two?

-all the best,

[Wissing]

[Replying to post 39 by KenRU]

I'm not so sure that compassion does allow societies to survive, honestly. It seems to make more sense that brutal societies would dominate by force. I think the idea that modern societies live on because of their compassion is a myth. Compassion, by itself, is a competitive disadvantage. We live in a very competitive world. Manipulative and evil people are often very successful at the expense of well-meaning compassionate people.

You don't have to be moral, or even hard-working to survive. Some people rob and cheat their way to the top, and they do it because it's "smart" and it "works". When I was in college my marketing professor asked the class if they thought it was right for a big Walmart store to move in to a small town and displace all the local businesses. 99% of the class said it was. One aspiring young man in the back explained himself: "business is business" he said.

Unfortunately, what goes around doesn't always come around in this lifetime. So, if you think compassion is a survival advantage, I'd like to see where you're getting your information.