Why do atheists pretend there's a point to life without God?

independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-people-who-cant-feel-pain-scientists-discover-cause-of-rare-inherited-condition-that-turns-off-10274604.html
If god doesn't exist then there's no point to anything. The world would be a void nest of nothing and I refuse to believe that.

nihilism isn't so bad once you get you to it

You only think that because you don't know anything else. Nihilism is quite liberating, but you need to take a step outside of yourself for a moment to see this.

if you aren't christian and you believe in """"god"""" there is a 100% chance that you are actually worshiping satan.

>hi, I live in a small planet of a fuckhuge universe I dont know about
>I just discovered how to clean my butt after pooping
>with such amazing scientific prowess you'll agree I'm in position to claim what exists and what doesnt

your book says some of the people jesus left behind would still be alive when he returned

Youre wasting your time, ours, and touching our balls.

why do religious people pretend there is a god?

why do people pretend?

Because they really want terrible things, or they're trying to avoid the former.

When I look at my son and daughter I realise they are more important than any "God" could ever be.

oh wow, this user has explored all there is!
pls tell us about your inter galactic and inter dimensional travels.

> why do atheists pretend there's a point to life without God?

Why do theists pretend there is a god?

you give your own life purpose. You are your own god.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof

You're the one with the imaginary friend, it's your duty to prove he actually exists. While you don't, let mankind focus on useful branches of knowledge instead of metaphysical masturbation.

>metaphysical masturbation.
Don't we have a board for that? Oh wait...

What's the "point to life" WITH god?

And if you believe in god because you want a "point", then you've already admittes a "point" is a good thing independent of god, therefore you don't need belief after all. See how that works?

Because they are so simple minded they don't even understand the question.

>you just make your own point man

>give me evidence
I owe you no explanation, furthermore you are to STFU as the known reality doesn't even ammount to 1% even without considering the many reports of metaphysical experience.
>t-they're insane
No, you are, since the ammount of reports is considerable

I don't.

The point is to have fun without harming others, it's not that complicated.

>Hur durr, Since all known reality is next to nothing compared how much there is that means you have to accept the possibility of a god in what isn't known
No, I don't. That's a non-argument and playing on ignorance. You can use that string of logic to allow the thought of anything, even the existence of a magical gingerbread man that watches you when you sleep.
>Reports of metaphysical evidence
Please share.

Atheism is skepticism, and there's one real rule in the debate that you clowns always overlook. When you make a claim, in your case that God exists, a burden of proof is to be met. This is the case in every other circumstance where someone is arguing for the existence of something, whether it be a scientist proposing his hypothesis in a scientific journal, or your friend when he found a four leaf clover. It's not my job, or anyone else's job to prove that god doesn't exist, it's on you to propose evidence that he does. My only responsibility in the exchange is to show why your evidence and arguments are flawed.

Simply 'being' is the point. There is no supernatural god in the sense of a skydaddy with omnipotence and omniscience. 'God' is the universe, existence, life itself, and as little manifestations of life itself, we should strive to perpetuate life-granting and creative endeavours, the golden rule and all that jazz, and shun destructive entropic forces. Choosing unity with god, the 'universe', helps in its own tiny way that we perpetuate 'God', and life itself.

From an atheist perspective, the point to life provided in say, Christianity, is fictitious.
Fictitious as it is, it serves well enough for the individuals who subscribe to the idea.
This means, being aware of this, I am in a position to create my own point or meaning.
My meaning is to provide for my family/help people/get as high as possible on heroin or whatever.

>deriving purpose, justification, etc. from the transcendent instead of the imminent

what are you doing with your life

Why do religious people pretend there is some kind of invisible purpose-producing machine?

It's illogical to not be -open- to it, but sure, the burden of proof is on the one making a claim.
Not the user you replied to.

At a guess, because otherwise you have to face reality, like in the painting/poem the scream. Life's pretty heavy man.

>not harming others
why though

because it's rude

Any "good" atheist would gladly accept the existence of a god if there was empirical evidence to support it. I simply dont see that evidence.

not to mention that religious people do not only require to present proof of god but also proof of the correctness of their religion

somehow every single argument in favor of religion always comes down to "god may exist, therefor my interpretation is correct", two statements with absolutely zero correlation

>have fun without harming others
> Not complicated

user that's complicated as fuck

Luckily for us I know there's a God because He revealed Himself to me and gifted me heaven.
I also have observed many people have a habit of cooperating against me since that day, including trying to blackmail me into accepting the devil, which is hilarious given how God told me to disregard doctrines, bible included; so thanks to this now we know to completely disregard atheists.

>jesusfags claim that it is impossible to have functional morality without belief in some all knowing sky fairy that will punish you if you don't follow his rules
>jesufags pretty much admit that they're subhuman animals that are only kept in check because they're afraid that they'll be punished if they don' behave

Do religious people operate on lower level when it comes to the ethics than atheists?

So you are a madman then?

It's essentially the might makes right argument. God is the strongest, so he makes the rules. They like to make arguments that he's inherently good, but it's wishful thinking.

I am open to literally anything, providing that it seems more than likely to be the case.

>jesusfags claim that it is impossible to have functional morality without belief

This is where you're wrong. Christians claim that you can't justify your morality without an objective standard that we would call God. It's an important distinction because there's nothing in it that says you must believe in God in order to be moral.

It's still not objective, even in that case. It's just God's morality, nothing objective about it.

>It's still not objective, even in that case.

Do you mean that nothing can be objective, that we can't know with full certainty that something is right or wrong?

Yep.

So you would say that there's a least a possibility that torturing a small child is a moral good? And here you were whining about how some Christians say that atheists are immoral.

All we can do is try to decide a basis for morality, which IS arbitrary, but we can then make objective statements about that particular basis.

Most people form the foundation akin to the golden rule, with minor variations. We can then make objective judgements about whether or not something adheres to that.

>literally no one mentioned morality

>There's a tiny possibility that torturing a small child could become a greater good.
>Therefore I'm pro-child torture.

Are you retarded?

All meaning is created, guy.

The idea is that you find your own reason for living.

>All we can do is try to decide a basis for morality

That's what theists do. They have this ideal of an objective standard in an all-good god and that's what they measure various actions up to. The 'golden rule' is inherently flawed and inconsistent because what's good for me may not be good for somebody else, and the rule itself says nothing to why it should be the standard for morality. This is what I mean by atheists not being able to justify their morality, they can't answer questions like "why is the golden rule good?"

Any system of ethics that holds even the possibility that torturing a small child could be considered a moral good is inherently immoral.

I suppose we must disagree here, then.

If you'll re-read my post, you'll see that I said most people use that, or some variation of it, not that it is the best universal code.

Also, I don't need to justify a basis, we need only agree to use one that seems to be the best for the most amount of people.

Why do Christians think live is worth living when Buddhism is the real way?

>we need only agree to use one that seems to be the best for the most amount of people

Would I be correct in interpreting this to mean that if a majority of people believe that something is a moral good, then it must be a moral good?

Do you think that without God there isn't such a thing as right and wrong?

No, that means that most people agree that it is a moral good. That's it.

Morality only exists in the minds of humans, and to certain degree other intelligent creatures.

I don't quite understand what you're saying. If the majority of people right now started to believe that slavery was a moral good, would it actually be a moral good?

...

Please, understand what I am saying.

If the majority of people believed that slavery was good, then that would mean that a majority of people believed that slavery was good. That is ALL that it would mean.

There is no objective set of moral goods and bads.

However, if the majority of civilizations agree to a moral basis, then we CAN make judgements like "slavery is bad" based on the foundation of "we should not violate the freedom of others." A basis that almost all first world countries have agreed to use already.

Would you object to me saying that atheists can't justify their morality then? It seems like everyone you believe to right and wrong has been borrowed from religion because otherwise there's no real basis for it. You can't tell me why it's wrong to violate the freedom of others.

I don't have to, religious people seem to be obsessed with a "basis" for a moral system. If there's any basis, it's in our genetics. We evolved to cooperate and empathize with one another, it facilitates our survival as a species. I borrow nothing from religion, as half the shit in any holy book I've ever seen seems incredibly arbitrary. You like the no killing and no stealing stuff, but I doubt you don't work on the Sabbath and you mix your fabrics.

You already decide your own morality by the things you ignore and don't ignore in your holy book, I'm just more honest about it.

Well I think it's a good practice to want to know why you believe the things you do, and not just blindly accept things.

If the reason slavery is immoral is found in our genetics then why did so many cultures all throughout history believe it wasn't immoral for so long? I think you're just closing your mind to the problem you don't like the answers you're finding. I know that you don't realize you're 'borrowing' from religion when it comes to morality but it's exactly what you're doing.

Since you want to bring up the bible despite this conversation having nothing to do with it, I'll take this opportunity to explain a common misunderstanding. There's roughly 3 types of laws in the bible, ones for all times and places, one regarding worship in the temple, and ones for the kingdom of Israel. The temple and kingdom no longer exist, so we don't follow those laws. We do however continue following the laws meant for all time and places. It may look like Christians arbitrarily pick and choose which ones to follow but this simply isn't the case.

I don't think you understand what that means. If they're three different kinds of laws that apply to different groups, then that means the laws are arbitrary. They are context dependent on time and peoples, much like our own moral system.

To answer your first point, you didn't enslave your own people, you enslaved your enemies. It's a form of tribalism, protecting your own. Something that continues to this day. Also, the Bible explicitly condones slavery. You seem to be against it.

Why are the faggots that keep making this thread over and over a single thread of faith away from being the most pathetic existential nihilists around?

How does it follow that a being context dependent make it morally arbitrary? No longer needing to follow a law that says we can only burn incense inside the temple a certain way because the temple no longer exists says nothing about morality. It just means the temple no longer exists.

I'm referring to chattel slavery which we would all be more familiar with. The type of slavery that you see in the bible is more akin to community service or jail time then anything. You're just dodging the question of morality, who enslaves who is irrelevant to the question of whether slavery is wrong.

I'm dodging no question, I think that slavery is wrong on the basis this: I think you shouldn't take away the freedoms of your fellow man. My reason and intellect tell me this, I need no more basis than this.

You specifically said that there were laws that only apply to certain peoples at certain times at certain places. That is the very definition of arbitrary.

You call slavery where you are allowed to beat them within an inch of their lives so long as they don't die after three days community service? Do you live in North Korea?

there's no point to life without a god.
there's no point to life with a god.
the existence of a deity doesn't effect whether or not our life has objective meaning.

>My reason and intellect tell me this

Would you say that it was written on your heart? That' sounds very Christian.

The very definition of arbitrary is that specific laws apply to specific places and specific times? That's an interesting way of looking at it.

Are you referring to the passage that is prescribing punishment for those that beat their slaves? I'm not seeing the encouragement to beat slaves that you do.

No, I said nothing like that. The heart is an organ that pumps blood, nothing else.

Sounds like you agree.

It doesn't seem like you took away what I did, you said it was like community service, I've never seen any community service where you received whippings regularly. You're saying it was moral because owners were discouraged from beating their slaves to death? I'm very happy not using your moral compass, thank you.

This has gotten very stupid. "written on your heart' is a poetic expression that's obviously not meant to be taken literally, and then you miss the obvious sarcasm in me reiterating how you describe SPECIFIC things as ARBITRARY. I know there's a large overlap between autistic people and atheists but maybe you're just being stupid on purpose.

I said the slavery of the bible is more akin to community service or prison, and it was not unheard for there to be corporal punishment in prisons up until very recently. In many countries it's still practiced and there's nothing inherently immoral about. Where in the bible does it say that you must whip your slaves regularly? How can you read these passages that prescribe punishment for people that hurt their slaves and say that it must take place?

It's interesting how people that can't definitively say that slavery is immoral will proclaim that the bible is immoral because it has slavery in it.

You're right, this has gotten stupid. I am used to arguing with stupid people, and I assumed you were being serious. My bad for being unable to pick up on sarcasm through the internet.

You dense motherfucker. If a law only applies at specific times, then the times must be CHOSEN, meaning they are ARBITRARY, as you CHOOSE when they apply.

You don't need to make a law against something if it's not a widespread problem. There's no punishment for hurting your slaves, there's punishment for KILLING your slaves. Hurting them is implied to be normal and allowed, meaning it must be ethical. The Bible is mostly don'ts, very few do's. It is implied that anything not forbidden is allowed.

You clearly are here to shitpost, as you haven't paid attention to anything being said, please leave.

These are people that believe people lived for hundreds of years, man.

Sorry about the last few posts, I shouldn't have gotten personal. I'm going to leave with this: I think our moral system is arbitrary, but utilizing a democratic method for deciding it tends to yield mostly positive results. I put no stock in any deity-based moral system for the same reason I put no stock in any moral system decided by a single person.

I'm sure you're a very nice person with good reasons for what you do, have a nice day.

Why do theists pretend there's suddenly a point to life if this universe was created by a God?

You depend on a lie of certainty: your god that is going to solve all your spiritual problems; and all you have to do is wait at the edge of a desert waiting to be carried. I understand, you're weak and need to believe someone's in control of you, will save you and will lead you on the path of light rather than into the darkness that is the consequence for ignorance.

There isn't
Morals built by man have no value

Because God literally tells what to strive to

Not that hard to undrestand

What is a traffic jam? Its the dynamic sum of car movement on a section of road.
Can you point to a "traffic jam" does a traffic jam exist as an object we can agree upon? No.
Is it omething we know exists and each person can spot it and percieve in his own way? yes.
Same with god. We can see some of the parts that make the whole and we know this whole exists, as we have known since always.
God is the sum of all things observed and non observed. Of movement materia and anything and everything else. God is the total proccess of existence and is not any one thing we can observe and yet everything is god.

Why do theists assume that a creator must have imbued a purpose on his creation?

>Can you point to a "traffic jam"
Yes?

Cuz then what's the point of caring about the creator?

And purpose exists obviously since we know it does, since we have an understnding of purpose and we use the word that signifies it.
Purpose comes from being part of something, from action and interaction.
Start doing something and you will have purpose.
Eventually we all do what is purposed to us and we only think of our purpose when we are at a loss, when we are confused and havent found a place in life.
Feel what is natural to you and follow it. Examine your own life and see what path makes sense based on who you are so far.

>fedoras missing the simplest points as usual.
Learn to comprehend what you are reading first.

This quest for purpose is the result of our hyper individualistic life where we are thrown into a pool of possibilities out of the family unit, asked to choose while having our basic needs remain relatively secure.
The more you analyze your position the more questions arise as life itself is not logical and is not a choice one makes.
We are thrust into a system by something and we choose the point of origin of the process which is our life.
no matter how much we look there is never any first cause, not in our early childhood nor in the descsion of our parents to create us.
There is no rational basis for life and analyzing the current point of origin will only shift it to another place that is no more "logical" or based.
We always choose how to live even by endlessly commiserating we are choosing and are fullfilling our prupose. The problem is when our life is clasing with the ideals of the society in which we live and we are unable to live up to these ideals.
The tension creates anxiety and a feeling of unfullfillment.

BRAAAAAAAAAP

>We are thrust into a system by something and we choose the point of origin of the process which is our life.

Quit trying to sound profound. It is not working and your nearly incoherent non-sense is annoying to try and read.

We do not choose to born. There is no rational purposful descision to our lives.
Each hold some axioms to be true as a relic of his life's history.
Analyzing them will reveal them as irrational and will simply move one's defining points and ideals towards something else which is equally as irrational.
Older more authoritarian sociatal systems defined much of life for us. We were born into a caste we were told who our life partner will be and so on.
Now we must find our way alone and if the transition from family life into individual solitary life is not gradual, moving the person smoothely towards a new limited system in which he can act, he will become confused about his place in life and try to analyze who he is and why he is where he is but he wil either be forced ot maek a choice by an external source or keep living in libmo since you are always controlled by irratioanl dessired and fears and can never "analyze" yourself out of them in some "rational way".

Because the lives of the young are so much more free they drift away from their family towards youth culture which is counter productive. Kids are essentially not the kids of their parents anymore but kids of society to a uch larger degree and youth culture does not structure the youth, it is instead built on exploitation by the more experienced of the less experienced to gain power and money.
For example big parts of the music industry that propogate a certain lifestyle to be amulated.
Youth s ibombarded with impossible ideals whci hthey cannot acheive since they are completely artificial.
As they waste their time chasing these ghosts their time and money is exploited.
So youth culture works against helping youth transition properly into adulthood.

The gibberish manifesto.