Quick recap before debate question:

In the Who created God? thread it came about that Billy Jean asked for a rational explanation for why so many people might search for something more and create gods if there weren't already some in existence.

My response was one tied into evolutionary psychology drawn from but a single source which can be viewed in it's entirity HERE. The specific quotes can be viewed following the first link back to that topic, so as not to take up anymore space on the site than necessary. At any rate, following the explanation provided, Billy Jean responded:

Now, I want to be clear that I am not attempting to single Billy Jean out as any kind of target or focus of discussion for this debate. I cite her only because of the questions asked, which I would now like to present for debate here. Those who describe themselves as atheist or agnostic are probably best suited to answer them, but people of all walks are free to toss in their two cents.

• If humans are not the product of divine intervention -- indeed if there is no divine spirit -- what gives an atheist a purpose in life to succeed or be a decent human being?
• From that standpoint, is life nothing more than a hollow struggle to survive and die?

Those highlighted are the questions for debate.

Speaking personally, I do. I give myself purpose to succeed. I choose to strive to be what I consider to be a decent human being, not because of the pressure of others (although, being human, I am just as prey to the desire for apporval as anyone else), nor because of notional post mortem reward or punishment.

I do it because I want to, and because I get treated better when I behave "well".



It's a stuggle to survive. Maybe not so much for us lucky Westerners who dont have to worry about imminent starvations and death (although the worst-hit famine areas tend to be less religiously devout than those with some comforts, as there simply isn't the time for worship until the harvest is in).

I expect you meant to put in "then you" into between the last two words - I don't think there are very many atheists who are struggling to die. Some fundamentalists of various religions, certainly, but not many atheists.

But "hollow"? How can anyone truly be alive and think that life, on it's own, with no added inventions, is hollow?

To succeed - self preservation, desire to improve the world, curiosity, boredom ...

To be a decent human being - Instinct, reason, emotion, society...

These questions could be answered in so many different ways.



Not in the least. I find my life to be very fulfilling. I have many aspirations, and I'm inspired by the world that I live in. I don't require the presence of god for inspiration. The world is beautiful and ugly and strange.

Sorry Wertz, I quess my fingers and brain weren't cooperating at the time!

I have faith in what I can see on earth. What I see here is that I have a responsibility to my fellow man. Actions are so much more important that beliefs on Earth. Why would it be different in the eyes of God? In the end other people will judge your life and they will only see your actions. They won't judge based on what books you read or what building you went to every week. In the end everything on Earth is defined by What effect did it have on everything else. I want the effect of my life to be a positive influence. If God loves rat chump jerks and crazy baldheads because they believe everything they read in the Bible and hates me because I look for greatness on Earth he's not God, he's a preacher.

The first and easiest answer for me is curiosity -- the very uncertainty and randomness many people fear. While there may be nothing waiting for me after I die, I'm still curious about what each moment might bring. Even if it isn't always pleasant. Beyond that I also consider my life to be of more value without the prospect of an eternal future after death. Supply and demand I think? If there's less supply of life, as is the view of an atheist, it's worth more. I might have the wrong economic principle, but hopefully the point got across.

Edited to add: Essentially the same reasoning presented by Carl Sagan's views on morality, which I brought up for discussion in another thread. It's simply more beneficial for myself and those around me to cooperate with one another and act as a "decent human being."


You start dying the minute you're conceived... but that's not to say the visit will be hollow. It won't mean much in the grand theater that is the universe, but the events of a person's life can still provide them with meaning all the while abstaining from a belief in the divine. Of course, taking into consideration chaos theory, who's to say our seemingly insignificant flash of life isn't to the universe what a butterfly's wings are to the storm?

" If humans are not the product of divine intervention -- indeed if there is no divine spirit -- what gives an atheist a purpose in life to succeed or be a decent human being?"

Its been my impression that the atheist has roughly the same metaphysics as the theist. Often they just learn to understand things in differant ways.

"Not only does the normal man have this capacity for experiencing the sacred, but he damands its satisfaction." (J. Huxley, Religion without Revelation)

The man affectionatly known as Darwin's bulldog saw meaning even though God's existance was impossible in his mind. You take God out of metaphysics and you will find it dont change much, just rearranges. It tends to result in a facination with life experienced moment by moment, changing, shifting, swirling around in analogies, not unlike the poetry and verse of the cleric.


"From that standpoint, is life nothing more than a hollow struggle to survive and die?"

My impression and personal opinion, they make the most of it.

"He thought he kept the universe alone;
For all the voice on answer he could wake
Was but the mocking echo of his own
From some tree-hidden cliff across the lake.
Some morning from the boulder-broken beach
He would cry out on life, that what it wants
Is not its own love back in copy speech
But counter-love, original response"

(Robert Frost, The Most of It)

Love is the essense of lifes great quest not not just self-interest and survival of the fittest. There is nothing stoping the atheist from experiencing this in a meaninfull way. Just not from the primary source, at least thats my 2 cents worth on the topic.

If humans are not the product of divine intervention -- indeed if there is no divine spirit -- what gives a theist a purpose in life to succeed or be a decent human being?

If it could be proven that there was no God and no afterlife, an atheist would not be dissapointed or disillusioned. Life would go on for them as always.


Of course not. There is knowledge, love, music, the arts, learned abilities, friends.

The difference in how a theist faces life, and how an atheist faces life is often as simple as looking at a task that needs doing, and deciding how it is to be done. I have friends that wouldn't leave the house without praying for divine guidance and protection on the journey to the convenience store. I have friends who feel that the car will start better if a human keeps it filled with gas and uses a key. For the atheist, it is perhaps more important to paint a painting, or write a book; because that is what they will leave behind as a legacy. In between the two lies the reality that we have to live our lives as rationallly as we can. For some, God is the rational belief; and for others, human needs and obligations are the realities.

An interesting dichotomy would be a word I came acrosss once, in a novel. I believe it was kaddish, but it's been 15 - 20 years now. It was defined as a Jewish word meaning son, or a prayer for the dead; implying that your children are in essence, a memory of you when you have departed. Certainly though, if the word comes from a religion, it can't be inferred that it is an atheist belief.

I would say life is a struggle to survive but I would not say it is hollow. I do not put that struggle as just at the individual level but I see it as a struggle for humanity through the ages. It is my goal that my life will have a positive effect on improving life now and in the future, as meager a contribution as it is. I also enjoy being alive. There are many neat things to do, see, and learn. I suppose my motivation to "improve" life is to provide more opportunities to do, see, and learn things.

I can't speak for all atheists, but I'll state my opinion:

The fact that there is no afterlife, nothing to look forward to after death is the reason I want to make my life the most meaningful it can be. I only get one good shot at it, so I might as well make it a good one, right?

Why be "good"? Well, to me it comes down to how people treat me when I am "bad" to them, and how they treat me when I'm "good" to them. Call it karma, call it the golden rule, call it god rewarding me, it doesn't matter because the end result is the same.

Purpose is what you make of it. There is no inherent 'purpose' in life. There is no "magical, mystical reason" for existing on this planet, you have to come up with that yourself. From a very real standpoint, our 'purpose' is no different than that of any other animal: to reproduce and keep the species going. If you can leave a mark on the world, do something positive that people will remember after you're gone, so much the better.

It's tangentially relevant to the thread, but I can recommend this week's Swift newsletter from the James Randi Educational Foundation.#

After many years of challenging psychics, dowsers, channelers and other types of more obvious charlatans, while scrupulously avoiding any criticism of religious faith, Mr Randi has finally got fed up of the reams of critical correspondence from many people around the world of various faiths, and put his thoughts on religion down once and for all.

I agree with every word he says.

A warning to those of a religious bent who visit the link - Mr Randi's style is sometimes somewhat curmudgeonly anyway, and he's an old man who has siltently put up with lots of criticism from believers (what he calls "credophiles, a wonderful term I will use myself in future ).

But he's one of the foremost rationalists I've ever come across, and even when I disagree (rarely) with what he says, he always makes a cogent argument for it.

I'm also personally humbled by and grateful to his endless energy - I've corresponded privately with him a number of times via his website, and he ALWAYS takes the time to send a thoughtful reply.

Anyweay, enough fan-club ramblings; here's the link

I had not been to that site before, even though I am aware of Randi. There were several commentaries and letters at the site which answer the question of this thread.

I also like the term "bright", which I found on Randi's website, as opposed to atheist. I will use that term in the future instead of atheist. It is more on the mark for identifying the source of morals.

I like the term "credophiles", too.