[david-gpu]

> And if God doesn't exist, then nothing matters anyways, so why worry?

I'm not trying to start a pointless debate, your comment really made me curious.

Let's imagine the Christian god doesnt't exist. How does that logically lead to nothing mattering?

As a lifelong atheist there are plenty of things that matter to me: the well-being of people (particularly those around me), peace, justice, climate change, etc. Are these goals not valuable in themselves?

[outworlder]

> And if God doesn't exist, then nothing matters anyways, so why worry?

I would argue the opposite: if god does exist, then nothing really matters anymore, except the whims of a powerful entity.

Not having a supernatural power meddling in our affairs liberates us to do great things.

[ghthor]

It's a shame that we've done such a poor job at teaching the wisdom brought to us from the abrahamic religions (judaism, christianity, islam).

The real seed of the message is that the one true God is not a noun, it's a verb. Can a verb have an agenda and a plan?

By my own experience, the common misunderstanding that God is a noun is nothing more then a projection of our human egos. In a way, using God(verb) to project through our minds and out our mouths/hands that there is one true Supernatural Organizer(noun) is idolatry.

By my beliefs you're acting at a very high level of spirituality by avoiding servitude to any Supernatural Organizer.

[Shorel]

I like your idea, and I will add a bit to it.

If we could have a potentially infinite afterlife, or potentially infinite reincarnations, then just one life doesn't matter much.

But if there's no such thing, if there's only this life and nothing after, then every single second being alive is the most valuable thing ever.

[m0zg]

An atheist myself, but I imagine this has to do with the lack of eternal life after death in that case. Religious people find the idea of life after death comforting, and it's easy to understand why: most people fear death and can't comprehend their consciousness ending at some point, for the same reasons why we can't comprehend things like the big bang or infinity. There is, by definition, no example that we could perceive to comprehend it.

[yters]

No, I mean something more practical, not based in religious reasoning. If you think about it, if God does not exist, then death has no threat, since once you are dead you cease to exist and no longer care about anything. I believe this was pointed out by Epicurus.

[dragonwriter]

> If you think about it, if God does not exist, then death has no threat, since once you are dead you cease to exist and no longer care about anything.

That is exactly the threat of death, if, while alive, you value your ability to continue existing and caring about things.

Threats inherently operate by reference to your preferences before they are realized, not your preferences after they are realized. Once you have the post-realization preferences, it can't be a threat any more, because there is no longer a possibility of not realizing the consequences.

If death is non-existence, you can't be threatened after death, but death can still be a threat. You can't use the complete indifference that comes with non-existence to say that death is not a threat: it is only not a threat if you are indifferent to death while alive, which is possible (as is it's opposite) whether or not death is non-existence.

[coldtea]

It was pointed out, but it was always a cheap parlor trick.

"You cease to exist after death, so what's to fear?"

"Well, my fear is that I will cease to exist, Einstein!"

Fear doesn't have to be with something in the future being painful. We also fear something not being how we want it to be (in this case, we want to continue existing, and death prevents that).

>since once you are dead you cease to exist and no longer care about anything

That's an argument about we wont feel fear after death.

It's not an argument about we can't fear death itself...

[Shorel]

Yes, but this reasoning seems to put too much value on the last moments of your life and the actual act of dying.

I would say it's all the other moments that make life valuable, not its end.

[sharkmerry]

why is death a "threat"? im not sure what you are intending to say.

Epicurus said death is the end of body & soul, therefore not to be feared. Im not sure I agree with that nor the inverse, if god exists, death is to be feared? Why?

[yters]

The notion of God and and eternal reward or punishment are quite often tied together. It is hard to see one without the other.

Hence, if God exists and there is eternal punishment, that is a little bit scary.

[RaceWon]

> The notion of God and and eternal reward or punishment are quite often tied together. It is hard to see one without the other.

The most brilliant marketing plan ever devised. It just awes the salesman in me... Brilliant!

[yters]

It is strange that a creator would understand the motivations of his creation.

[sharkmerry]

>Hence, if God exists and there is eternal punishment, that is a little bit scary

Eternal punishment only exists if you arent a good person right? Heaven isnt eternal punishment?

[yters]

According to Christianity (and a number of other religions), no one is good enough for heaven. We have to be perfect, and no one is perfect. So, if Christianity is true, one cannot be a 'good atheist' and hope to get an eternal reward, i.e. being a 'good atheist' is not a loophole that works in both worldviews.

[outworlder]

> Heaven isnt eternal punishment?

It could be. Think of all the boring people that would supposedly be in there. Now think that you get to spend infinity time with them.

[m0zg]

You can't think "rationally" about death. It's literally incomprehensible to a human mind, when the object of death is that mind itself.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

What do you mean when you say you can't think about it rationally? There are enough survivable experiences physiologically similar to death that we can make some pretty good guesses as to what the experience leading up to it is like. And it would be incoherent to talk about the experience of being dead, because it is no experience at all (as before we were born). We know quite a bit about what happens when we die, and we have literally billions of exemplars of the event. I would say in almost every meaningful way we can think about it fairly rationally. (Whether we choose to is another question.)

[m0zg]

But they aren't "death" death, like Whoopi Goldberg would say. You can't comprehend something that requires your consciousness to cease to exist in order to fully comprehend it.

In other words, "we" have some abstract ideas about what happens when "we" die, but it's fundamentally impossible for you, the individual, to imagine what happens when _you_ die.

[coldtea]

>What do you mean when you say you can't think about it rationally? There are enough survivable experiences physiologically similar to death

That makes no sense. There are some experiences of coming close to death, or what doctors consider death -- which is the mind/organs shutting down, etc.

There is (and can't be) no experience of actual permanent death though, nor has a dead person recounted their experience while a dead person.

The ones retelling the experience are always alive when they do it.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

Of course. But I would think the experience of falling into a coma after a hypoxic event would convey all the same conscious experiences of death. That would be what it would feel like, until you were unconscious. Then, by definition, you would feel no more.

[humanrebar]

> Let's imagine the Christian god doesnt't exist. How does that logically lead to nothing mattering?

The entire book of Ecclesiastes is about this. I wouldn't presume to summarize it all in a comment box, but it does cover a lot of grounds in different approaches to the meaning of life. It claims none of them really work all that well.

And no, it doesn't say, "But you die and go to heaven or hell anyway" over and over. It's not very supernatural at all, actually.

[Xc43]

Things that matter to you, as with anything else, do not matter by themselves.

Things are. Their value is determined by a mind. Only God's mind can determine the value of a thing. Whether God exists or not, the statement stands.

Because, we do not know all the consequences an action but God knows. By your own set of values, by some twist of fate, what you are doing could be counter-productive.

[NeoBasilisk]

Things can matter to you, but they are not things that objectively matter.

[dragonwriter]

That's true even if God exists; the fact that some things subjectively matter to God doesn't make them matter objectively. It may mean that there are consequences that matter subjectively to you for not prioritizing them, though.

[bryananderson]

Even if God does exist, why does that make anything objectively matter?

[chubbyrabbit]

Nothing objectively matters.

[chillwaves]

What does that even mean?

[coldtea]

>As a lifelong atheist there are plenty of things that matter to me: the well-being of people (particularly those around me), peace, justice, climate change, etc. Are these goals not valuable in themselves?

Well, they can be valuable subjectively. Then again, useless things can also be valuable subjectively (e.g. a person obsessing about hoarding BS at their home).

But objectively, and in the long scheme of things, everybody will just be dead forever, so what's the point?

At best it's better enjoying a small intermission bookended by an eternity of nothing.

The universe, for one, doesn't care. It could just throw some asteroid at earth, and kill everybody removing all traces of history, culture, civilization, etc too.

[chillwaves]

The point is that life has value, that good experiences have value and that you should build a future for the life to come and not be so self centered. Thank the ones who came before you to make your life possible.

[Shorel]

And challenge the political ways of these who came before you.

I inherited and wear my grandfather's hat, I remember him, I drink tea in his honour, but I fight against some of the things he believed and fought for.