well being a Psychology and Bible/Theology major, i discuss these types of questions often in class. (as Ozy stated these are conclusions i've come to and i don't mean to say yours are invalid) 

as i've stated, i'm a Christian and thus think that there is a God who not only created mankind for a purpose, but is also involved in the world today. And as someone asked, how could we know this purpose? Only if God were to reveal it to us, which i think he has through the historical accounts found in the Bible. 

Due to these beliefs i live with a lot of hope and purpose. I fully expect an afterlife when i die (and if i were to be wrong, i'd be non-existent and won't care). I think the purpose of man is to love, know, and glorify God, and to love others and make God known to them.

Again, these are my conclusions (along with many others) and i hope not to offend. But they have lead to a very fulfilling life thus far!

Jigler wrote: 

Due to these beliefs i live with a lot of hope and purpose. I fully expect an afterlife when i die (and if i were to be wrong, i'd be non-existent and won't care). I think the purpose of man is to love, know, and glorify God, and to love others and make God known to them.

I'm a soft atheist, and interestingly enough, I live with a lot of hope and purpose precisely because I expect no afterlife (and I were to be wrong, I'll probably have pleased God anyway -- unless it happens to be a God that demands to be glorified, in which case I want nothing to do such a selfish being).

As far as our species is concerned, I don't know that it needs a purpose. I think we are most greatly rewarded as individuals when we give and share of ourselves with others (and not just humans). Otherwise we become islands of greed, where the more we have, and therefore the less we can truly love, the more alone and lonely we become.

In his writings, the Christian apologist C.S. Lewis, invoked such a paradigm for "purpose" (though he obviously came to a different conclusion regarding why it is so).  For this and other similar types of reasons, I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that it really doesn't matter what people believe at the theological macro level, so long as they respect the beliefs of others, and afford them reasonable liberties.

That said, and as a natural way to preserve my (non)-beliefs, I have less tolerance for Christians, Muslims, Atheists and Whatever-elseists that think that their way is the only way AND it is their mission to force (even mildly) their value or belief systems (either philosophically or scripturally based) on others. To me, this is a type of greed.

M57 wrote:

That said, and as a natural way to preserve my (non)-beliefs, I have less tolerance for Christians, Muslims, Atheists and Whatever-elseists that think that their way is the only way AND it is their mission to force (even mildly) their value or belief systems (either philosophically or scripturally based) on others. To me, this is a type of greed.

There's a balance here. On the one hand people should respect others' conclusions and beliefs and allow others to make their own decisions, and then be respectful of disagreements. On the other hand, without believing in subjective truth (which i certainly do not), there must be some things that are right/correct and some things that are not. If i believe that my faith will prevent harm and lead to a happier and more fulfilling life, wouldn't it be unloving of me never to tell people? 

Hi Jigler,

"Respecting other's opinions" means truly respecting their opinions.  I am generalizing, but I have found that a majority of religious people say they respect others but really feel that their opinion is superior, just the way that you expressed - so you do not really respect the opinion of those without faith.

There are other legitimate contrary opinions to those you hold.  In fact, I know of one theory in Evolutionary Psychology that says that the evolutionary purpose of religion is to facilitate warfare.  If this is true then I think most would agree that this would not lead to a more fulfilling life.

I feel like this is the most polite version of this conversation I have ever seen! Penn Jillette seems to agree with the statement ending in "...wouldn't it be unloving of me never to tell people?" I'm not sure that's a universal sentiment among nonbelievers, because a lot draw the line at proselytizing. But, in a conversation, "it is my opinion that___", is not proselytizing. And I'm always cool with that.

Finding purpose is difficult j-bomb: I've lived stretches of years with great purpose, and other stretches with almost none. The best wisdom I can muster is to keep learning about things you are passionate about. That's the only way I ever come to anything resembling direction!

Jigler wrote:

There's a balance here. 

Agree in principle. Sharing thoughts and beliefs in the context of healthy discussion or debate can be good exercise for all involved.  The process can serve to strengthen existing beliefs or open new doors; however, the line is crossed when a core tenet of a belief system compels, or worse, requires it's practitioners to "convert" others. 

SquintGnome wrote:

"Respecting other's opinions" means truly respecting their opinions.  I am generalizing, but I have found that a majority of religious people say they respect others but really feel that their opinion is superior, just the way that you expressed - so you do not really respect the opinion of those without faith.

Doesn't everyone think that their opinion is "superior," why else they wouldn't believe it? I don't have to agree with someone else  (or even endorse or support their views)  to respect them. I respect someone when they have sincerely sought for truth and purpose and have come to legitimate conclusions (though i still may not agree with their conclusions). 

(again, i hope to speak with as much respect as i can)

Doesn't everyone think that their opinion is "superior," why else they wouldn't believe it?

It depends on the person, but when most people adopt a belief they feel superior, they usually mean that it is superior for everyone.

It is possible instead to think that a certain philosophy is best for you, but not for everyone.  For example I believe in determinism, but I would not think that belief is suitable for those who's mindset (mental wiring) is strongly predisposed to a belief in free will -- it would create too much internal anxiety for them.

So, my response is no, I do not think that everyone thinks their belief are superior in the sense that they feel their beliefs are the best for everyone to espouse.

There's more than one path through the forest.

SquintGnome wrote:

It is possible instead to think that a certain philosophy is best for you, but not for everyone.  

So relativism; no absolute truths? 

This is certainly a growing worldview, especially in the western world. Some things are relative to each person sure, but if one person believes in... say... God or an afterlife and one doesn't, someone has to be right, no?

Agreed, someone will be right...which does not necessarily mean that the person who is 'right' should convince others they are 'wrong', especially given the inability to determine who is 'right'.

Also, I am not proposing relativism, as it is normally defined, I do believe there is an objective reality, but just that people's minds are predisposed to certain ways of thinking and are therefore more comfortable holding certain beliefs.  So, another way of saying it is that often it is 'right' for some to believe what is 'wrong'.

Jigler wrote: 

So relativism; no absolute truths? 

Belief in a “personal God” certainly has provided a tidy backdrop for the absolutist point of reference. Conveniently, God (or his proxy) makes the occasional appearance and further defines (and sometimes amends) right and wrong.

This paradigm for dealing with the unknown is much too superficial for me. I suspect that if there is a God, it probably isn’t a “personal” one, potentially making my ability to understand it even more difficult, if not impossible.  I'm much more comfortable placing concepts such as right and wrong, and truth on tenuous ground, leaving us as a community and as individuals to struggle with them.No one religion seems to have anywhere near a clear handle on truth. The scripture of most any religion is so tangled in metaphor and allegory that untangling literal meaning from it is a task for scholars, who still manage to come up with opposing points of view, which inevitably escalate to conflict. This is all consistent with what I observe in the world around me.

Cut to the chase: I find it much easier to envision us all living in an absolutist universe that demands a relativist perspective.

God or an afterlife and one doesn't, someone has to be right, no?

Define afterlife..  Does reincarnation count? Your "purpose" argument would still hold water, right?  ..and if so a pantheistic perspective could be included as well.  This all opens up a pretty wide range of possible truths, not to mention a continuum of "purpose."

I.e., everyone can be wrong.  Knowing that I can be wrong demands that I respect the "rights" of others. (pun intended).

true reality is so simple, and that is that we are in this world completely by accident, we do not have the purpose of existence, and death is the ultimate end of our existence.

what is here complicated to understand? :)

SquintGnome wrote:

Also, I am not proposing relativism, as it is normally defined, I do believe there is an objective reality, but just that people's minds are predisposed to certain ways of thinking and are therefore more comfortable holding certain beliefs.  So, another way of saying it is that often it is 'right' for some to believe what is 'wrong'.

Well stated. I think this is true to a lesser extent. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Christianity, but we talk about "personal conviction." When one person feels that some action is wrong, they shouldn't do it, but that doesn't mean it's wrong for everyone (although many actions fall in the black-and-white category and are not in question).

I have yet to see someone worse off after truly accepting Christianity than they were before. And this is what i'd expect. If God designed mankind, he should be able to best show us how to live and function. 

M57 wrote: 

Belief in a “personal God” certainly has provided a tidy backdrop for the absolutist point of reference. Conveniently, God (or his proxy) makes the occasional appearance and further defines (and sometimes amends) right and wrong.

Cut to the chase: I find it much easier to envision us all living in an absolutist universe that demands a relativist perspective.

Also very well stated. I think the most "convenient" belief is that there is no God. That way we have to responsibility for our actions and can really live however we like without consequences. 

Again, I think it's impossible for us to know about God unless he makes himself known. Which i think he has. Not only through history, but through reason, personal experiences of those who've encountered him, and through human nature (conscience, etc). 

Vidoviti Milan wrote:

true reality is so simple, and that is that we are in this world completely by accident, we do not have the purpose of existence, and death is the ultimate end of our existence.

what is here complicated to understand? :)

Haha! :) keep things simple huh?

well for what it's worth, i don't see how such a perfectly balanced and complex universe could be accidental. But that's really a completely new topic.  

Cheers!

But really, how can I believe in something that I can't experience with my five senses? God (in whatever form we imagine he/it) we can not see, hear, smell, taste, or touch? I can only imagine God with my mind that something like this could exist, because I am not able to understand the universe. So, what we do not understand we explain with God. And if God exists why we believe he/it is so good, full of love? It seems to me that this God is absolutely indifferent to humans.

Some people in this world are happy, lucky, rich or whatever but we have other hungry, ill, people with terrible fate. Who cares. Like when we humans step on a bug for fun, just becouse we are scared of them, or they are ugly. hwo cares, it's just a freaky bug.

Jigler wrote:

I think the most "convenient" belief is that there is no God. That way we have to responsibility for our actions and can really live however we like without consequences.  

It would be convenient if it were true.  But the fact is we live in a world that has many subtle layers of consequences, both internal and external. Knowledge of these is tightly woven into the fabric of our individual systems of values and ethics.

Externally, we have the laws of the land, which are a dynamic system of consequences, forged in step with the evolution of civilization.  Of course, these alone are a fair to poor motivator of responsibility. However, anyone who has ever given freely to another should be able to see that not giving has internal consequences. Anyone who has been loved or appreciated for who they truly are should be able recognize its value to them personally. ect..

It is just as true that the atheist who does not take the initiative to look inside for these truths is just as misguided as the theist who relies solely on the dogmatic rules of their respective religion for guidance in matters of morality, which is no better, and in some cases worse than corporeal law. The difference is that atheists must develop their systems of morality on an individual basis, and often from scratch.

Nonetheless, I will graciously cede the argument of convenience as a draw.

M57 wrote:

It is just as true that the atheist who does not take the initiative to look inside for these truths is just as misguided as the theist who relies solely on the dogmatic rules of their respective religion for guidance in matters of morality, which is no better, and in some cases worse than corporeal law. The difference is that atheists must develop their systems of morality on an individual basis, and often from scratch.

Nonetheless, I will graciously cede the argument of convenience as a draw.

True. God is not the only conceivable origin for morality. When one develops their own morality though, they still can do whatever they want with it, which really means no accountability or consequences. 

haha! sounds good ;) 

P.S. I am enjoying this discussion. Whenever i talk about this stuff with people who have different views and who are more intelligent than i am, it really makes me think! Thanks! 

Jigler wrote:

M57 wrote:

It is just as true that the atheist who does not take the initiative to look inside for these truths is just as misguided as the theist who relies solely on the dogmatic rules of their respective religion for guidance in matters of morality, which is no better, and in some cases worse than corporeal law. The difference is that atheists must develop their systems of morality on an individual basis, and often from scratch.

Nonetheless, I will graciously cede the argument of convenience as a draw.

True. God is not the only conceivable origin for morality. When one develops their own morality though, they still can do whatever they want with it, which really means no accountability or consequences. 

haha! sounds good ;) 

I think it is a serious misconception that a God is required for the development or adherance to ethics.  In fact, I think many of the traits humans have that are described as moral are merely expressions of our evolved nature.  By his evolved nature, man will help other group members even to the point of extreme self sacrifice.  This is because group fitness in general increases when group members help each other - so this is selected for during evolution.  A simple example of evolved altruism is warrior bees dying in defense of the hive.

Anyway...the point is that ethics can be intrinsic in the nature of humans without a God because being 'nice' and 'good' help your group survive.