Does Life Have Inherent Meaning Without Belief In God?

ISBN: 1598182617

How would you feel if you spent most of your life working, having children, and trying to make a difference, only to come to the conclusion in old age that it was all for nothing and that there was no meaning to your life at all? That’s exactly what happened to Leo Tolstoy, who wrote a book called A Confession to describe his existential crisis and what he did in an attempt to resolve it.

Today or tomorrow sickness and death will come (they had come already) to those I love or to me; nothing will remain but stench and worms. Sooner or later my affairs, whatever they may be, will be forgotten, and I shall not exist. Then why go on making any effort? How can man fail to see this? And how go on living? That is what is surprising! One can only live while one is intoxicated with life; as soon as one is sober it is impossible not to see that it is all a mere fraud and a stupid fraud! That is precisely what it is: there is nothing either amusing or witty about it, it is simply cruel and stupid.

Back in his time of the 19th century, he saw four ways that people were handling this problem.

1. Ignorance. “It consists in not knowing, not understanding, that life is an evil and an absurdity. People of this sort — chiefly women, or very young or very dull people — have not yet understood that question of life which presented itself to Schopenhauer, Solomon, and Buddha.” Believers in God fit within this category.

2. Epicureanism and pleasure. “[This] is the way in which the majority of people of our circle make life possible for themselves. Their circumstances furnish them with more of welfare than of hardship, and their moral dullness makes it possible for them to forget that the advantage of their position is accidental, and that not everyone can have a thousand wives and palaces like Solomon.”

3. The “strength” to commit suicide. “Having understood the stupidity of the joke that has been played on them, and having understood that it is better to be dead than to be alive, and that it is best of all not to exist, they act accordingly and promptly end this stupid joke, since there are means: a rope round one’s neck, water, a knife to stick into one’s heart, or the trains on the railways.”

4. Weakness. “It consists in seeing the truth of the situation and yet clinging to life, knowing in advance that nothing can come of it. People of this kind know that death is better than life, but not having the strength to act rationally — to end the deception quickly and kill themselves — they seem to wait for something.”

atheism

Tolstoy came to a conclusion that many of us have realized, but forcefully pushed to the wayside by distracting ourselves with various goals and entertainments. We have erected walls around our minds that prevent us from asking the big questions and acknowledging life’s meaninglessness, and instead have embarked on an escalating hunt for satisfying pleasures and achievements. I did this myself for over a decade until I reached a limit of what pleasure could give me.

Tolstoy stumbled upon an interesting paradox whereby human reason is the rejector of life. The argument follows thusly…

1. There is nothing higher to a human than his reason. Without reason, a man could not perceive or sense life.

2. Reason is therefore the creator of a man’s life, because it allows him to experience it.

3. Reason is also what allows a man to reject his life and commit suicide, thereby ending it.

4. Reason is both the creator and destroyer of life.

He concludes that the best way to prevent a man from prematurely ending his life is to believe in “irrational” beliefs such as God. Therefore man must trick his reason to believe in “myths” that allow him to continue valuing his life and existence. This suggests that having too much reason is harmful to your life, and may end it prematurely.

Rational knowledge presented by the learned and wise, denies the meaning of life, but the enormous masses of men, the whole of mankind receive that meaning in irrational knowledge. And that irrational knowledge is faith, that very thing which I could not but reject. It is God, One in Three; the creation in six days; the devils and angels, and all the rest that I cannot accept as long as I retain my reason.

In an age of crumbling values and desecrated traditions, faith remains one of the last strongholds of Conservativism.

While Tolstoy portrays having faith as ignorant, he concedes that it appears to be a necessity for human life to prevent the suicidal tendencies that he found himself in.

Faith still remained to me as irrational as it was before, but I could not but admit that it alone gives mankind a reply to the questions of life, and that consequently it makes life possible.

[…]

Looking again at people of other lands, at my contemporaries and at their predecessors, I saw the same thing. Where there is life, there since man began faith has made life possible for him.

Faith is therefore a requirement of life. If you reason yourself into forgoing faith, in which you scientifically conclude that there is no rock-solid proof of God, you will certainly face an existential crises that makes you question your own life and how to live in a way that doesn’t cripple you, take you down the road of senseless hedonism, or motivate you to commit suicide.

Tolstoy argues that outside of faith, it’s impossible to find meaning in your life that justifies existence. Many men have tried but have not come up with something greater than faith in allowing humans to live with purpose while being free of debilitating malaise and fatalism.

He decided that he was in no position to examine the meaning of life because he was actually an aberration, an absurd entity, for denying life in the first place. He was not qualified to arrive at the correct answer. In other words, if you are pursuing the sins and evils of life, it will be impossible for you to see life’s true meaning.

What if an executioner passing his whole life in torturing people and cutting off their heads, or a hopeless drunkard, or a madman settled for life in a dark room which he has fouled and imagines that he would perish if he left — what if he asked himself: “What is life?” Evidently he could not offer reply to that question than that life is the greatest evil, and the madman’s answer would be perfectly correct, but only as applied to himself. What if I am such a madman? What if all we rich and leisured people are such madmen?

You would not ask a parasite, which he considered himself, what life is, because it is a parasite that tries to hurt others or steal from them. He then compares us to laborers who angrily question the farm owner (God) why a certain task on the farm must be completed without seeing the complete picture of how the farm works. We are only exposed to a tiny part of the farm, and after not liking what we see, or not doing the job the owner demanded, we declare the whole thing as a sham, jumping to conclusions from limited information and experience.

Tolstoy then made the conscious decision to seek out God:

Though I was quite convinced of the impossibility of proving the existence of a Deity (Kant had shown, and I quite understood him, that it could not be proved), I yet sought for god, hoped that I should find Him.

[…]

Every man has come into this world by the will of God. And God has so made man that every man can destroy his soul or save it. The aim of man in life is to save his soul, and to save his soul he must live “godly” and to live “godly” he must renounce all the pleasures of life, must labour, humble himself, suffer, and be merciful.

He was unable to suspend his reason completely, and had disagreements with the Orthodox Church for perverting Christ’s teachings. This led him to eventually form his own sect called the Tolstoyan movement, which was based on passivity and lack of private land ownership.

Tolstoy’s deus ex machina transformation into a believer will probably not be sufficient for atheists today who lack meaning in their lives. As a man who is in between atheism and faith, his arguments do not easily allow me to jump into faith, but at this point I wonder if I even need further justification.

I know that for the health of my sanity, my tribe, and my nation, faith will be required, especially since a strong and healthy nation without faith is a fantasy concept that history has not shown to be possible, at least not in the modern era. Whether God is the absolute truth or not, He seems to be a requirement for a sane and purposeful life. I want to believe, and maybe one day, I just will.

This article was originally published on Roosh V.

Read More: “A Confession” on Amazon

441 thoughts on “Does Life Have Inherent Meaning Without Belief In God?”

  1. Why does there have to be a meaning to life? If you want to end it, do it. It doesn’t matter. Life will continue on. If you want to live a life of hedonistic abandon, do it. Life will continue on. If you see that we can shoot satellites into orbit around Jupiter and power the internet with cow poop and want to live a life exploring and using your intellect to do amazing things, do it, or not. Life will continue on.
    It’s pretty damn egotistical to think that life has to have some grand meaning. Modern society is stuck on chasing happiness instead of contentment. You aren’t special and are not owed happiness or any thing special. Why isn’t just having life good enough? Why can’t people just accept that you are a just a hunk of meat like deer, mice and insects? You have about 80 years to do whatever makes you happy. Do it. Nobody cares. Life will continue on.

    1. Why does there have to be a meaning to life?
      why does someone have to find meaning in replying to this well written article? nevertheless you did. something so relatively trivial, and yet you found purpose in it.
      It’s pretty damn egotistical to think that life has to have some grand meaning.
      it’s not egotistical, it’s essential to the sense of self we were born with and crave. we seek purpose, we’re not barnacles.
      You aren’t special and are not owed happiness or any thing special.
      Don’t tell #BLM!
      respectfully, the demands you make are a contradiction. you demand to know “why” we do one thing instead of another; like find purpose in our purposelessness.
      people who aren’t plagued by these questions are either too young and consumed with ambitions and/or distractions; or they keep pushing that pesky thought below the surface like a stubborn buoy

      1. I replied because having discussions makes me happy. The world would continue right on turning if I hadn’t.
        You missed my point about ego. I submit that we are in fact barnacles. Barnacles with a large, fatty brain that is good with tools. Being born with a sense of self does not require the concept of god. Whatever your sense of self wants to do, is what you should do. Life will continue on whether you are helping your fellow life forms out or detracting from them. Again, there is a misguided quest for happiness instead of contentment that is reinforced in society from when we are little babies which makes people do all sorts of strange things, such as baseless hedonism, seeking some supernatural entity, or something in between those extremes.
        Also, I made no demands. I simply asked questions for the sake of debate. I don’t care if you answer them.

        1. with respect, you make some valid points, but again with the contradictions.
          I replied because having discussions makes me happy
          me too!
          but then:
          Again, there is a misguided quest for happiness instead of contentment
          uh. good point.
          Whatever your sense of self wants to do, is what you should do.
          ok like mug someone?
          which makes people do all sorts of strange things, such as baseless hedonism
          we should do what we want, nothing is out of place, but then people do strange things. but the way the world is ordered according to your world view, nothing is, or can ever be, “strange”

        2. Seeking happiness for the moment is not equivalent to seeking happiness in life and they are also not mutually exclusive. Playing softball makes me happy, but in the end, its a meaningless exercise. However, physically exercising and hanging out with friends, does help make me content.
          If your self tells you to mug somebody, I understand that. I think that mind set probably boils down to a misguided attempt at happiness, e.g. quick money I didn’t earn (probably to buy drugs to get a fix of happiness). I think that if we as a society focused on contentment, crime would be less of an issue. At the same time, there are people out there who are going to try to stop muggers because an orderly society helps brings contentment.
          I think I was using “strange” to mean seeking happiness without forethought into those actions greater effects on you or society. I’m not arguing against us being a species and sharing similar traits and an inter-species bond.
          I don’t know. This is all a theory created while drinking my morning coffee.

        3. This is all a theory created while drinking my morning coffee.
          never underestimate the lucidity coffee can give to a good mind!

        4. If it’s folgers with kratom I understand. Otherwise the tone of terminal thought invites the kratom monkey. Kratom is fine in and of itself but the kratom monkey is quite another breed of cat.

      1. Honestly, I have no idea what you mean. I don’t see how looking into a child’s eyes and thinking “god made this” or “nature made this” is going to affect my love and compassion for them.

        1. I was thinking exactly the same but didn’t want to answer before you did. I’ve heard people talk about the Grand Canyon and the northern lights the same way. Weird.

        2. I’ve sat around many fires in my tiny yard in my rented house staring at the northern lights and never thought “yup, god.” Instead, I look at my wife beside me, my dog at my feet, and the waves of green and purple in the sky and think “it don’t get much better than this.”
          I assume I am a weird outlier in that I find life and human intellect itself to be so damn amazing that I never felt the need for spiritual enlightenment or higher meaning.

        3. Gundog, I think ehintellect’s point is that we are inspired – sometimes even converted – by beauty.
          People have been brought to God by Bach – not a joke.

        4. But that is a such a huge leap to make. I’ve experienced many beautiful things, but never thought “this must be the work of an unproven, supernatural deity.”
          I’m reminded of the quote from Ghostbusters:
          Dr Ray Stantz: Symmetrical book stacking. Just like the Philadelphia mass turbulence of 1947.
          Dr. Peter Venkman: You’re right, no human being would stack books like this.

        5. Looking for God in the grandness or beauty is only one path. Some find God in the sublime, or even in the simplicity of a single act. There is no one path.

        6. Simplicity of a single act has more resonance with me than the sublime/”God”/organized religion side of the spectrum. I know the contentment of being completely engulfed in painting a single tiny line, or especially in athletics such as running where you get into “the zone” and all else fades away except putting one foot in front of the other. But again, my brain just can’t connect it to a higher power.

        7. I know a couple people who thought the same way and that’s what helped them find God. The idea human intellect was so damn amazing and yet a big universal accident didn’t satisfy them.

        8. Maybe not now, maybe not ever, or maybe one day you will. I was where you are when I was younger (sorry to sound like an old man here talking to “the yoot”, that’s not my intent). Shit changes. Ultimately it’s your journey through life to navigate as you choose. Whatever that may be, best of luck.

        9. I think you might have to give this one up. I might be the only one who gets the reference.

        10. Of course I got it. That’s why I posted the “How many roads must a man walk down” above. That was one of the questions that the hyperdimensional mice were tossing about to try and help explain the answer 42 that Deep Thought gave to them, to the waiting crowds outside.

        11. I agree with you on this. I have never looked around and thought this wonderful world is/was created by God. I usually look around and think “we have built a good life. Well done.” But I also know that beyond that veneer that as Hobbs wrote “The life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” It would be a comforting illusion to believe that there is a higher meaning, but as of yet I can’t say that I see one. I’ll take senseless hedonism over any religious dogma. YMMV

    2. We conceive of meaning in life, because we are conscious self aware beings who interpret meaning from every part of reality. It’s in our nature to search for that which we ourselves provide to others. Every sentence you write has a meaning to you, and you put it forward to others. Every action you take is with some goal, purpose or meaning, even if that action is sitting idle on the couch. It’s no surprise then that we look for a meta level meaning in the universe, since it’s by that mechanism that we ourselves exist.

      1. Good explanation. I guess I have always been content with the wonders of life and humanity itself and never felt the need to connect that to a higher level.

    3. I agree.
      On a recent acid trip, I had this realization that I am just an animal that thinks it is more than an animal.
      A part of me was shocked at the idea of being an animal. But then I asked myself: Am I the part that is shocked at being an animal? Or am I an animal that is being insulted by my mind who looks down on it?
      I realized the latter is true. I am not shocked over being an animal. I am an animal with a mind that is shocked over the idea of being an animal. And what is my mind? It is all the bullshit I have been indoctrinated with. All the people telling me that being an animal is not good enough.

        1. It depends, this observation of yours didn’t start with a preamble of what substances you needed to field an independent thought. I’m intrigued.

        2. LSA, fyi.
          Fine, you want kindergarden level debate? Have it.
          So, tell me how you come up with all your individual thoughts, without food, without drinking.

        3. Im sorry, but beginning anything youre about to tell me with, “On a recent acid trip,” and expecting me to take any of it serious is like throwing a golden retriever to the wolves. You knew it would sound idiotic, so you foreclosed the acid part first, and Im just here to state either way youre a filthy animal.

        4. Of course I am a filthy animal. It is what I have been saying. So are you.
          You are only mistaken in thinking that I expect anything of you. You can go blow up shoes as far as I am concerned.

        5. Certain drugs definitely stimulate insight. Specifically psychedelics. Weed, if done consciously, can have very similiar effects as THC is a mild acid. Sure, drugs like meth, heroin and coke offer no value other than to escape from the troubles of reality. Drugs are a personal choice. I see nothing wrong with dabbling into psychedelics if you’re a man who can handle it.

        1. Your ideas still sound like stoner drivel, groveling about the minute little details as if there is a huge world of hidden meaning behind them. Article says in a nutshell, religion is BS, but until we find a better way, what else are people buyin’. Similar to knowing that girl was a thoroughbred slut, but you bought into love anyway because it afforded you something nothing else could compare to.

        2. I shouldnt even say buy below, the reasoning of religion is likely the best mechanism for people to deal with the traumas of life in a healthy way.

        3. How dare you blaspheme against the acid, man! You should be more open minded and listen to Joe Rogan- for he truly be the Jesus of modern times!

    4. “It’s pretty damn egotistical to think that life has to have some grand meaning”
      Actually, I think it’s egotistical to think that anything we can’t understand couldn’t possibly exist.

      1. Careful now, I never said some higher power does not exist. I am firmly agnostic as neither side has offered proof. However, the existence of a prime mover doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a purpose to this all. I believe my thesis is that it doesn’t really matter if there is one because life will continue on whether you believe or don’t. Therefore, seeking contentment in life is all that is necessary to live.

  2. At least to me, I’ve managed to make my life as meaningful as possible with no reference to a deity or deities. However, at least I’m willing to concede that I found have an admiration for those living ascetic lifestyles and also for groups such as the Amish. If they’re going to believe in a deity, might as well serve that deity with all their devotion. On the other hand, the ones who can’t wait for the Rapture to come and take them away does baffle and amuse me.

  3. While there are many militant atheists who make condescending remarks about the intelligence of believers and seem bent on eradicating religion, for me atheism is simply the absence of belief in the other-worldly or supernatural.
    Faith in the sense “complete trust or confidence in someone or something” may be necessary to the human condition. But that can be belief in the love of your family, of your mind/faculties, belief in your abilities. You may occasionally doubt these things, but then don’t the religious sometimes doubt god as they are imperfect?
    We don’t yet know everything about the origins of the universe and may never know. And if one’s concept of “god” is a prime mover that set the universe in motion and has not interfered since, I can’t prove or disprove that. But I have never encountered anything that has led me to believe in a benevolent, merciful all-knowing god that intervenes, answers prayers or cause me to believe in Judaism, Christianity, Islam or any other religion.

    1. all those atheist books are doing a lot more than promoting the “absence” of something. they are promoting the presence of an idea, a belief, something in the affirmative.
      the “absence” cop out strikes me as a kind of cowardly pose.

      1. Yes I said “many militant atheists”. Then I gave my view. If me presenting my opinion is cowardly would you prefer I be dishonest to curry favor?
        PS I never claimed to be brave. 🙂

        1. apologies, i should have been more clear.
          i mean the “militant atheists” who regularly claim the absence of an idea to prevent being challenged on anything strikes me as cowardly.
          I wasn’t referring to your points. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

        2. No apologies necessary but appreciated. I relish the opportunity to discuss the idea of god and religion and be challenged. It is more stimulating than talking about most current events 🙂

        3. I was just thinking that RoK exchanges are very civil.
          Rarely do i see theists/atheists/agnostics treat each other so respectfully!

        4. I find this true too. I have a lot of very core disagreements with a lot of people here, many of which I have become quite friendly with despite an occasional and very civil debate. It is one of the best things about this site….well, that and kratom.

  4. This is why I will always love Kierkegaard more than Nietzche, despite the fact that referencing Nietzche is always so handy in discussion.

    1. Nietzsche references are, in my person experience, regardless of whether they are pro or con, 90% made by people who have never done any serious reading of Nietzsche and of the 10 percent that have 90% of them have no idea what the fuck he was saying.
      I am a big fan of both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard and, many times, for the same reasons. By Nietzsche’s harsh individuality is a very personal thing to me. I could never say with guys like this who I like better. It is more about a larger dialogue with all of them involved.

        1. I hope she really means Amor Fati and not the other kind of fati but suspicion is natural and healthy these days.

        2. what is the #spellingmatters chant? “I before E; Don’t oppress Me!”

        3. I do lolknee. Sorry, my phone doesn’t recognize Latin, it was my mistake if it the “f” was meant to be capitalized.

        4. Thank you for including the link, I had no idea what that acronym stood for lol. I promise, I am not a SIF, or any kind of fatty (unless you count tits and ass).
          You know I enjoy your writings, on your blog as well by the way.

        5. I’m feeling love in the air….and a fresh sea breeze…..
          Love! Exciting and new! Come aboard! We’re expecting you! The Love Boooooattt!

        6. No no no, I got the joke, (although, it depends on ones pronunciation of fati).
          But grammar and spelling are not my strong points. So if it was incorrect, it was worthy of someone correcting me. At least I’ll know in the future 🙂

        7. Now onto the matter of proving your not a SIF…
          Your?
          *facepalm*
          Oh man…

        8. oh man if you are gonna troll our new friends you need to get your spelling on point

        9. non-permanent? slacker.
          I say lead based paint or goats blood taken from a ritual mayan sacrifice.

        10. Well, I’d go for tattoo, but you kinda need to ease the bitch into it, right? If you expect her to do such a thing after two messages in the chat, she will likely shit test a lot!

        11. When I click on your name all I see are the blog links. Forgive me, I have no idea how to use this forum, still learning. Help?

    2. At some point we’ll all come to the realization that we are referencing somebody/thing in everything we say. Maybe a slight difference or variation, but ultimately a rehash of an older, previously made (though maybe since forgotten) point.
      Same thing with religion. We run around it a lot, but ultimately end up right back where we started.

      1. Bakhtin made something like that point I think. The notion of individual meaning (as with individual property) came under quite heavy attack amongst russians (usually within a broadly communist context). Kropotkin I think made the point that we’re always borrowing or building upon somebody else idea. Later, and in a quite different context you get Bakhtin pointing out that our ideas are dialogical rather than simply our own: we never quite own or originate them, because we are always in dialogue with the ideas and ‘voices’ we take in from those around us, including historical / literary figures etc. Later these sort of ideas evolve into the notion of intertextuality (slightly wanky postmodern lit crit term) and in a different more jungian stream the idea that there are only so many stories that we partake of, and replay. Its worth noting though that as the often communist context suggests, all of this is very much about attacking the idea of individuality, originality, property etc. Kropotkin, Bahktin etc made excellent points but perhaps they have overstated their position. Ironically they themselves are very original thinkers however much they might owe to others and one can either emphasise or de-emphasise that

        1. I don’t know that that is the point I was trying to make, but it is certainly indicative of how something meant to be a minor, well-intentioned observation can be turned into something else given a set agenda or intent.
          I think that while we may only come back across epiphanies and insights that have gone before, that there is something very valuable to the individual in being able to reach those conclusions (especially if one was unaware of the prior instances) and that shouldn’t be marginalized. For instance, RoK readers being examples of men realizing that the ways and means of the more masculine and traditional past are still the best. The very concept of red-pill may be a new, more modernly relevant and over-arching name for it, but there is no denying the value one gains by attaining the understanding therein.
          But then again, that’s communism for you, trying to steal and upset the balance of the glory and uniqueness of the personal singular experience, through any justification no matter how twisted, to favor it instead as being something owed the collective rather than something that primarily benefits the individual but, by proxy, may also elevate those he interacts with. If you take my meaning.

        2. not quite sure why I was pontificating on that subject, except it kind of interests me. It’s a truism perhaps that there are no new ideas, there’s nothing new under the sun, etc although there’s a lot of theory behind that too perhaps – with plato we ‘forget’ ideas and so in a sense originating / discovering is also remembering if you take that seriously. I think the conflict between the social and the individual is a perennial one. As we live in an increasingly collectivist world something an idea like the red pill and the rugged individualism and interrogative attitude that goes with it does indeed strike me as innovative

  5. Of course you do NOT need religion.
    But it must be replaced.
    You must believe in a higher power or a higher mission in life. Even if its family,the state,your ethnicity, your nationality, or your political beliefs.

    1. Do you think that must be shared though? Can that higher mission be the future you want for yourself?

      1. That’s a good question. I don’t really know the answer.
        However at a guess I would say it must be a collective thing or only the particularly strong could maintain it individually.
        That being said you could still see it as everyones prerogative but to be undertaken individually. If you worried yourself with yourself,your immediate family and friends then wouldnt that be enough for any man ?? I think it has been proven that humans ideally only live and care about a few hundred people. It’s all thats possible. Hence why there is homelessness in cities but NEVER in villages.

  6. excellent points. as more people conclude that only faith will save the West, many may find themselves willing themselves into belief.
    CS Lewis recommended the use of imagination to help you “get there” if necessary. nothing shameful about that, as it doesn’t mean believing in something that isn’t there just for the sake of believing it.

    1. While you are correct that “more people conclude that only faith will save the West” I don’t see a lot of people (esp. on this site) advocating a general type of belief in god, rather a very strict Christianity (see any of Aurelius’ articles) 🙂

      1. if by “very strict Christianity” you mean “Christianity” so be it, all the better (I’m not trying to put words in your mouth if I have this wrong).
        despair at the madness around us can have a very sharpening effect on the mind. what do they say precedes the dawn?

        1. I like the way you put it and it is one of the things that startles me about religion….especially Christians, jews and muslims.
          If you are a member of a revealed religion either your bible, torah or koran is the revealed word of the all powerful creator god or it is not.
          This picking and choosing is irksome to me.
          If you are a Christian then you are a Christian and not just for the beliefs for rules that you feel apply to you. A Christian in name who has decided that just being a good person is enough and doesn’t feel a connection to the revealed words of the Christ is a pretender in my book which is worse than no beliefs.
          I have no problem with devout men of faith. I just have a problem with cognitive dissonance or just genuine bullshitters.
          A girl can put her pretty gold cross and her nice dress on and go to church every sunday but if she was getting turned out at the club by three strangers while on ecstasy the night before I don’t want hear it.

  7. In life we crave something “special” but when we achieve it, it becomes ordinary and we continue to find the next “special”. To live happily one must know tranquillity, simplistic. Cause chasing girls money fame is a rat race. According to me faith is not that important, but you must have something of value in life not gold, but loved ones, friends ands family. Of course people also find pleasure in solitude but point is happiness on the deathbed is only possible with a sense of fulfillment in the heart.

  8. And yet, it’s the more extreme religious types that want to commit suicide, all for their beliefs. I don’t know where you wanted to go with the “if you don’t have faith in a God, you might just commit suicide” diatribe Roosh.

    1. Whereas the atheists gun down nearly 100 million people in the 20th century.
      There are no clean hands in this debate. None.

  9. Roosh is tapping into something very real in our lives.
    The overwhelming desire to feel that what you’re doing has some transcendent purpose that will produce and be part of an ongoing good.
    All successful efforts to save the West will need to tap into this innate desire.

  10. Does Life Have Inherent Meaning Without Belief In God?

    The question very nearly answers itself: Meaning arises from interpretation, which requires an interpreter. Therefore, nothing can have “inherent meaning;” a thing can only have meaning to someone.
    Among the great advantages of belief in God over non-belief is that God’s interpretation of our lives is supreme. You might even say (if you’re willing to endure the pun) that it’s authoritative. Atheists must interpret their own lives for them to have meaning. I think that sort of meaning would prove unsatisfying.

    1. What’s wrong with trying to put meaning in our own lives? Isn’t that free will? Or is it free will only inside the confines of what God sets?

        1. True, of course.
          I used to, but I no longer do. The search for meaning and truth and being a special snowflake and all that only brought me pain and suffering. But that’s just me, of course!

      1. Man getting free will is what pissed Lucifer off in the first place. We are free to choose our fate, according to my understanding. We are not, however, free of the consequences of the choices we make.
        Even if our mom says we should be.

    2. The fallacious assumption is that God has a plan and demands to you.
      What Roosh talks about is not belief in God. It is belief in religion and doctrine.

      1. I think we’e on two different frequencies. Conceptually, “God’s Plan” is understood so many different ways that it’s beyond anyone’s ability to discuss it in objective terms. It requires a complete absence of humility to imagine that if it exists, anyone alive in our temporally bound universe can know anything about it.

    3. Disagree, The harsh truth is better then a comforting lie, as an adult I give meaning to my own life and embrace the freedom to do so…

        1. I believe he referring to the lies told in all religious book. Jesus or allah aren’t supreme beings, hate to break it to you. Santa Claus doesn’t exist either.
          God is up to each individual’s interpretation. No one knows what God is or if a God exists. You could say the universe is God. We are each a manifestation of God, etc.
          If you want to pray to a Middle Eastern carpenter that claims he came back from the dead, go ahead, if that’s therapeutic to you.

        2. You and V. V. V. are making assertions as if you have proof. I’d like to see some. I don’t insist that you believe as I do; I just want to see what it is that makes you certain enough of your religion to insult those of us who follow a different one.

        3. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”
          To claim that there is a supernatural being requires proof, the lack of believing in said being does not.

        4. Half right. You can believe anything you please without the smallest shred of evidence. However, when you assert it to others as a fact (or rely upon your convictions as sufficient grounds for insulting others who don’t share them), evidentiary substantiation is required.
          The firm conviction that there is no God is itself a specimen of religious faith: I.e., an unprovable, undisprovable belief about the supernatural upon which other elements of one’s behavior are founded. It doesn’t require worship, obviously, but in the arrogant, often militant certainty of its adherents and their willingness to deride those of us who believe in God it constitutes the most obnoxious kind of boorishness. It perpetually amazes me that such persons dare to style themselves as “rational,” “open-minded,” and (above all) “tolerant.”

        5. Actually, there is proof, though most will scoff at the concept. The Bible says God claims to be ‘God, and there is no other. Foretelling the end from the beginning, *so that you may believe’*. Therefore, prophecy is the proof sought, it would seem.
          Now, prophecy isnt exactly cut and dried, but I believe if you look into Daniel (chapter 9 is a good start), Isaiah, or Revelation, you will have an idea of what prophecy foretells in the End Times.
          Then, watch the news. If you see strange similarities, well, you might be getting your answer. Keep in mind the Bible is excruciatingly exact when speaking particularly of ethnic groups (nations) and geographical entities (kingdoms).
          Thats about as good as any ‘proof’ gets, in this case.

        6. Certainly many people both religious and non-religious believe in myths and fairytales of their own making or those given to them by tradition. However those beliefs do not make them fact, as in a thing that is indisputably the case. The problem with your first paragraph is that you attempt to shift the evidentiary substantiation to the wrong party. Not believing is the default standard. It is certainly true that there are more gods that have been forgotten in time than are believed in today. Few if any people still worship the Norse Gods, Egyptian Gods, Roman Gods, Greek Gods, Mayan Gods, or the multiplicity of gods that history has buried. So when any claim that there is a god is made, it is not a fact. The claim of god is the extraordinary claim that requires evidence.
          Again Non-belief is the default for most gods, except when a person picks their favorite. People that don’t believe in Zuul or the FSM are pretty arrogant in their belief that those gods don’t exist. And I am sure their adherents are just as convinced that Allah and Yahweh are fantastical stretches in faith as well as obnoxious and boorish. The point here is that any and all “faiths” are false until proven, but non-belief is not in the same category as a religious belief. The only thing that they share is that they are both foundations for a worldview.
          Being rational, open minded and tolerant are traits that most atheists tout, and usually for good reason. Rationality requires reason and facts. The same rationality that convinces a Xian or Muslim to be an atheist with regards to Zeus or Cthulhu, a Atheist uses with Yahweh and Allah. Being open minded is also based on presenting new facts and information and being willing to consider that information on merit and modify understanding based on that new information if needed. It doesn’t mean entertaining ideas that are not backed by evidence. This is echoed in the quote “Do not be so open-minded that your brains fall out.” And Atheists are tolerant but toleration is not acceptance. Tolerance has it limits. This is the same as with gay rights, first it was “we just want tolerance.” But in reality they want acceptance. Atheists can mock you, and yet still tolerate you. These things are not mutually exclusive.

        7. You have made every one of the typical atheist arguments. What they amount to is a simple assertion: “We atheists are smarter than you theists.” Frankly, I disbelieve that, and I have good reasons, especially as you have either misunderstood or deliberately mischaracterized what I’ve said.
          Have a nice life.

        8. Using Biblical text to prove god isn’t intellectually honest. It’s the flip equivalent of asking Bernie Madoff if his business model is sound. Using cryptic messages translated through three dead languages to justify belief is fine if one wants to do that, but they are no more true than Michel de Nostredame predicting Hitler, or Katrina.

        9. Yes, I did make the typical Atheist arguments because they are still valid. I didn’t claim that I was smarter than you, simply that my reasoning and rationality have lead me to this place.
          If I have misunderstood or mischaracterized what you have said it was done with no malfeasance. Please correct me if I don’t understand what you meant. Written language is often an imperfect medium for debate as people often connote meanings into words that were not intended.

        10. We need proof that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead? Or that the universe is 6000 years old? That Jesus routinely created miracles? That he could walk on water? That you go to heaven or hell based on your behavior?
          Jesus Christ (heh) man. To believe these things is akin to believing in St. Nick. Santa Claus brings kids great joy, just like I’m sure Jesus does for you, but it’s clear as day he is not the Son of God anymore than I am.
          If a man claimed these things today with no proof would you believe him? If your sane, no you wouldn’t. Then why do believe outrageous claims in thousands of years old religious text? Makes no sense.

        11. Half right. You can believe anything you please without the smallest shred of evidence. However, when you assert it to others as a fact (or rely upon your convictions as sufficient grounds for insulting others who don’t share them), evidentiary substantiation is required.
          The firm conviction that there is no INVISIBLE PURPLE SPACE MONKEY is itself a specimen of religious faith: I.e., an unprovable, undisprovable belief about the supernatural upon which other elements of one’s behavior are founded. It doesn’t require worship, obviously, but in the arrogant, often militant certainty of its adherents and their willingness to deride those of us who believe in the INVISIBLE PURPLE SPACE MONKEY it constitutes the most obnoxious kind of boorishness. It perpetually amazes me that such persons dare to style themselves as “rational,” “open-minded,” and (above all) “tolerant”
          …see what I did there. Put any other imaginary being in your logic and see how it sounds in your head… Or are you so irrational, close-minded, and (above all) intolerant to believe that the IPSM is imaginary.
          Your premise is flawed.

        12. So for just being an obedient Christian peon eternal life in paradise is your reward yet you think feminists and welfare receipiants are entitled
          Christians and maginas are the same and with similar self limiting beliefs, same shit different masters.
          Try having faith In self and the proven greatness in men…

        13. The believer says “There is a Supreme, omniscient and omnipotent being that is intemently concerned about you sex life.” Feminists, nope God.
          The Atheist says “I find your proof lacking and the facts as they currently stand fail to support my faith in your belief.”
          But I will keep an open mind, that’s how I became an Atheist in the first place…

        14. It isnt ‘intellectually honest’? What is, ‘peer review’? It seems a reasonable measure to me. Proof of the truth of the Bible comes from unerring prophecy, which is usually very exact. You obviously choose not to read the Bible, but dont think youre appealing to reason. What you offer is straight up wilful ignorance.

        15. To be intellectually honest, one would need to prove god is real by an outside means, not using the text of the faith. Otherwise it’s no different than saying “I believe in harry potter and magic because it’s in my favorite book.”
          I have studied the bible, quite a lot actually. I grew up church of christ. My father was a decon and I have preached from the pulpit. I have my degrees from a christian university, which bible classes and chapel were daily events. I studied how the bible was put together and by whom, when it was written and the text itself. It is quite the literary work. It certainly has many good parts and worthy lessons in it. But just as the earlier greek and roman myths were morality plays that invented gods for things people didn’t understand, so does the bible. But the prophesies are written to be vague and were reimagined during the translations to fit the times and narrative of the people translating it.
          You seem to contradict yourself on the validity of the Biblical prophesies . First you say “Now, prophecy isnt exactly cut and dried” and you speak of “similarities” in the news to end time prophesies then you say “Proof of the truth of the Bible comes from unerring prophecy, which is usually very exact.” Which is it? In my experience the answer to the question is whatever is most convenient. The bible is exact when xians want it to be and vague when it’s difficult to match to reality. And I know the ways that xian’s take the bible out of context to validate their belief as I grew up learning to do the same.
          And most xians don’t even believe the bible. Otherwise it gets hard to tell people coming in that if your parents weren’t married when you were borrn that you can’t be a part of the church.
          Deuteronomy 23:2 “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.”
          Or that if your brother dies, you should have kids with his wife.
          “Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.” (Mark 12:19)
          And that’s not to mention all the levirate laws.
          My disbelief in the bible doesn’t come from willful ignorance, but from active study and evaluating the facts we know from history, science and archaeology against the stories of the bible. And in my case, the things we know and can prove through research and testing wins over magic every time.

        16. Agreed, Men built the built the pyramids,the space program, etc. I say that Aliens or gods guided in some way is an insult…

        17. please describe then, in laymen’s terms, how we developed reason and a conscience, over say, a fish or a cat……..you seem to know everything else

        18. When i say prophecy is being fulfilled, and that said fulfillment is the proof desired, this is not a self referential argument. Turn on the news. Read the Bible. Do they match? Theres your answer.
          The fact you are a Churchian means nothing, especially given your apparent inability to write Christian, and instead write ‘xian’. Also, your arguments are interestingly close to those posited by Satanists relying on ignorance of the Bible coupled with authoritative stance to fool opponents. Weaksauce.
          The Bible spells out what will happen, who it will happen to, and in what order. If this plays out as prophesied, then God exists, and ‘atheists’ are stupid assholes. If not, well, go nuts patting yourself on the back.
          Its that cut and dried. No rationalizing required.

        19. Biblical text is a necessary baseline unless you plan on making up facts. Bible says this. Does this happen? Bible is/is not accurate. Ergo, is/is not true.
          But since you are obviously a luciferean, you both know that, and dont want anyone else to.

        20. Atheism requires far more in terms of ‘leaps of faith’ than Christianity does. Just the ‘science’ involved requires over a dozen.

        21. The bible says a lot of things most of which are very vague and written in a Shakespearean manner that fewer people can readily understand. Many of the prophecies are so vague as to be a Rorschach test, much the same as political speech is.One will see what one wants to in the text or will fit it to modern times even if imperfectly. But the problem of using any faith’s text as proof of it’s validity is still there. Just as a Muslim could argue that his religion is superior because his sacred book says so, the jew, the xian, the hindu can all say the same. If any of those books were true then objective reality would back them. And based on all we know from science, archaeology, physics, the bible nor any other religious text manages to be consistent or even relevant when measured against science.
          The bible was translated in the early 1600’s out of two dead (ancient) languages by people who wanted it to be seen as the authoritative text. Anyone with much experience in languages knows that translating current languages has it’s challenges (http://www.engrish.com/) not to mention languages that were no longer in circulation. So much of the text had to be interpreted by the people who wanted it to be true. That creates a problem with making the translation fit the history known at the time.

        22. “Turn on the news. Read the Bible. Do they match? Theres your answer.”
          No, no they don’t. I know that there are wars and rumors of wars, but that has always been the case. Again the bible is written to be vague and if one wants to can make it fit just about anything, just as Nostradamus predictions can sometimes fit if you torture the wording enough.
          I am not a Churchian, Xian, Jew, Muslim or any other religion. My arguments are close to those of a Satanist for a very good reason. They are the same Atheistic arguments. Satanism (Atheists with a flair for the Dramatic and Gothic) are not actual worshipers of a supernatural evil.
          If believing in magic works for you, that’s fine it’s your life. I choose to live life based in the rational world of science and that works for me. If you are right, then I will spend an eternity in darkness, wailing and gnashing of teeth. If I am right then you will have limited your life experiences based on a 15th century codex and will be just as dead as I am.

        23. “likely” being they key word……atheists bank on assumptions…….christians bank on faith, and i very comfortable with mine……thank you for trying, mr alighieri

        24. Yes, science is the most likely explanations of natural events based on research and facts. Science does get things wrong but is always open to modifying the theories it produces. The study of human consciousness and how we developed our mental faculties is still a relatively recent endeavor. So there are multiple theories that must be researched and tested. But the most promising theory is one that is based on size of brain, the development of the forebrain, and inter-connectivity.
          You can have misplaced faith.
          When you get really sick or break a bone which person do you go see…a preacher, faith healer or a doctor?

        25. hmmm…….atheists and christians have been arguing these same points for centuries, so we’re really just spinning old cotton……i have faith that MY God invented YOUR science

        26. actually the arguments have changed quite a bit over the centuries. No longer do we believe or argue on faith that the world is flat as in Daniel
          (Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth…reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth’s farthest bounds or Revelations 7:1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow on earth or sea or against any tree. )
          Nor do we believe that the world is geocentric as Chronicles suggests (1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” OR Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.) To name just a few of the fallacies in the unerring word of god that we no longer argue about.
          Science has brought us many great understandings and will continue to do so. The bible is a great literary work, full of fanciful stories that occasionally seem relevant to our daily lives. but as more and more is revealed about nature and the universe the concept of God gets smaller and smaller. He becomes the god of the gaps.
          You can have misplaced faith.
          When you get really sick or break and arm who do you go see…a priest to cast out the demon, a preacher to pray over you for healing, a faith healer to command the holy spirit to make you whole, or a doctor who has studied the science of healing?

        27. True, but my world view allows for me to change my perspective when new data comes in. If science definitively figures out how we developed consciousness and reason, then I can modify my understanding of the world. Faith based beliefs, in the face of a greater understanding of the natural laws and universe, have had to shrink their god from the omnipotent, omniscient creator of all to at best a blind watchmaker then down to a personal (absentee) father figure that will one day reward you for your blind obedience to a first century belief system.
          And many people are waking up to the fact that a supernatural being belief system isn’t what they need or benefits them.
          According to the Hartford Institute of Religion Research, more than 40 percent of people say they go to church every week, but statistics show that fewer than 20 percent actually attend. More than 4,000 churches close their doors every year. Between 2010 and 2012, half of all churches in the U.S. did not add any new members. Each year 2.7 million church members fall into inactivity.
          http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/
          “Nones” on the Rise
          The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling.
          In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%).3

        28. When a christian says “You made my faith stronger.” He just lost the debate; why? Why when you can’t defend your position with logic you resort to faith or taking the female approach of stubbornly guarding your feelings despite the evidence. Strong belief In something while generally a good mindset to have does not make it true…

        29. logic fails to explain a lot of things, too, mr vvv…….i recuse myself from this endless argument……..best of luck on your journey

        30. and cotton came from the good earth, that God gave us……..even science can’t explain definitively how this whole mess started………bang! and goodbye

        31. Logic is just one of many tools which aid us on the journey to the truth which can be more rewarding then the truth itself…

        32. Agreed, Science: millions of answers, Religion: millions of arguments yet while Science answers a million questions it asks a billion more…

        33. Is the average Atheist more intelligent, possibly. More rational, probably.
          Christianity is a Philosophy with supernatural claims and as an atheist doubt those supernatural claims because the supernatural is the natural mankind does not understand yet…

        34. There are no verbal gymnastics. The Bible says, essentially, “God exists. Here, I’ll prove it to you. I will tell you exactly what is going to happen to a whole bunch of nations, in order. And I will tell you in such a way that you can’t be sure what will happen, until it does, just so no one tries to cheat. Is that good enough proof?”
          You obviously have the freedom to reject such proof, but given the (ahem) less than honest nature of scientific consensus (advocacy research anyone?), I would think peer review falls a bit short comparatively.

        35. Quite correct. Satanists don’t believe God exists, or ‘the Devil’ for that matter. They focus on selfish goals, the acquiring of power, the manipulation of weaker beings for personal gain….basically, Machiavellian Atheists.
          Lucifereans, on the other hand, believe in the Biblical story wholeheartedly…but they believe that, being made in God’s image, we are capable of the same things as God. Frankly, I believe God Himself also thinks mankind capable of Godlike acts for the same reason, but God will not let that happen (Tower of Babel).
          Myself, I think in any case, those that attack the Bible are generally not doing so dispassionately, or from a neutral stand point. More often than not, they have a bone to pick.

        36. Which KRST do speak, Horus or Yesua??? Conformatiom bias is possible with any endever but with religion it’s guranteed…

        37. Well, to God, worship of anything but him amounts to the same ting….so really you might as well call yourself a Satanist, Biblically you get the same fate. If I am right, of course.
          See, this is the way to conduct these conversations. You are not more rational than I, we simply reach different conclusions. This is a ‘non-religious’ approach, in my eyes.

        38. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
          3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
          4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
          5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
          6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
          7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
          ….
          Yeah, totally obscure…in no way explicit….and all the rest of that bullshit.

        39. Load of shit. To ‘prove’ God exists, God told us thousands of years ago what will happen, and in what order. That, for any reasonable person, would be enough.
          However, the Bible does speak of a Great Delusion as well, one which ensures the corrupt do not suddenly ‘find Jesus’… Maybe that is in play….who can say?
          I just find the religious vehemence of atheist ‘non-belief’ to be ironic, and more than a little suspect. My bet….most of you are actually proselytizing Satanists.

        40. Thats bullshit reasoning. So if someone says “I can throw a ball through a tire at 100 yds, look, Ill prove it”…thats not enough? Is there a time limit between statement and fulfilmnt you think invalidates the concept? Dude, if this is the level of your objection, specifically to Christianity I might add, let me suggest you simply embrace your Satanic religion, and stop trying to convince others to lose their faith. Honestly, and this is no slight on you….but your arguments suck donkey balls.

        41. If someone makes the claim that they throw that football through the tire, but they never pick up the ball and do so, then most people would be skeptical of the claim that they can do what they say they will.
          On a side note, you keep saying silly things like “embrace your Satanic religion” in 2/3 of your replies, I have already told you that I am not joined to any religion be that of god, satan, allah, krishna, yahweh, zeus, or cthulhu.

        42. If god was clear about what would happen, then your side of the debate would be easy and universally accepted. All one would have to do is point to the scripture and measure it up against the events in the world and it would be clear correlation. However, that is not the case. Now it might be that the theist side has poor messaging and bad orators, but it would seem that the good news would cut through even imperfect messengers.
          Why would god allow for a “great delusion” that prevented people from finding jesus? Is it similar to when he and satan play games with Job’s life and family just to see if job will denounce god? Or is it more like when god slaughters women and children because they happen to be in a land that he wants the jews to claim?

        43. I find the obfuscation if xians when presented with their own scripture to be ironic yet blase. They never want to answer for the things like bastard children never being allowed to be in the kingdom, or marrying their brothers wife, not eating shellfish or cloven hoofed animals, or women being unclean from their period, stoning their children if they disobey, god demanding human sacrifice, the god sanctioned murder of women and children, supernatural events that defy natural laws, ect.

        44. I am trying to divine what point you think you make with this passage of scripture. The description there could be of mankind any time any place. Basically the writers of the bible described the human condition and proposed god as a way to transcend that base nature.
          Mankind has always “loved themselves,” been covetous, boasting, proud, disobedient to parents, unappreciative, ect.
          The bible spins the same themes of “man’s fallen nature” throughout it. Jeremiah 6 has similar wording, as does Deuteronomy 21.

        45. If you are right, then I will stand before god and state with a clear heart that he failed to demonstrate his presence in any meaningful way, nor did he provide sufficient evidence to his being and nature. And if he is what the bible claims, he will know my mind and heart well enough to know that I speak the truth. He showed himself to Saul/Paul, why could he not do the same for all mankind? But I doubt that conversation ever happens.
          You are free to believe as you like, as am I. However I don’t see the rationality in your worldview as you likely don’t see the basis of mine. So god bless go forth and all that.

        46. Who says the ball has never been picked up? As for your other comment…there is fundamentally no difference between your beliefs, and those of Satanists. Why do they deserve distinction from Satanic beliefs, then?

        47. No, it couldnt be said of any time, any place. You rely on normalcy bias. If you were to take a Christian from any western society over the last thousand years, and show him our society today, they would be horrified, universally. And you know it.
          You dont have objections. You have deceptions.

        48. Read Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, and Isaiah. All of them reference exact peoples, identified via geography, that will undergo this trial or that conquest. All of these things are easily seen in the news (for example, Elam (Iran) figures prominently, as does Saudi Arabia), and to pretend otherwise is to lose even the semblance of credibility.

        49. Your disbelief is very obviously not driven by inconsistency or by vague wording. Pretending otherwise is foolish, since you very obviously harbor deep antipathy to Christianity, and God. That is not reason, that is emotion.
          So we can dispense with the standard ‘corruption of the Bible’ type arguments. I will approach you as one who hates God, hates Christianity, and preaches his hate wherever he goes. Ive seen this in ‘atheists’ for decades, although I am onlh a recent Christian. In other words, even when I considered myself agnostic, I still found Atheist arguments of the sort you proffef to be largely emotion driven propaganda that relies on Biblical ignorance in the opponent.
          Deception, in other words.
          I look around me and, being a proponent of Red Pill thinking, I accept what is, rather than hoping for what I like. And all of the major players in Revelation are in motion. New World Order (One World Government) is a potential reality, the Mark of the Beast a technical possibiity, etc.
          You may choose to be blind to tis, but theres no way in Hell your weak ass ‘reasoning’ is going to convince me of anything.

        50. You are reading a lot into what you cannot know about me. I do indeed have a distaste, not antipathy, towards all religions not just the christian beliefs.
          And no we cannot dispense with arguments, just because they don’t fit your worldview or apologetics. The bible is a literary work, no more or less. You say you are a recent convert. Your fervency of belief is noble and very much the hallmark of a neophyte believer. I have studied the bible probably longer than you (30 years), more thoroughly (collegiate level scholarship), and at one early point with the same belief. I could quote scripture and verse on command. I have even “preached the good word” from the pulpit. I had too put on the full armor of god. But the more I studied to become the full workman of god, the more the inconsistencies showed. I saw that the stories in the bible, while good morality, didn’t add up to what we knew about history. You talk of Revelation, which was written and revised about the fall of Jerusalem, not the returning of god. And Revelation has been used for decades to preach that “the end is nigh” yet the end hasn’t come and won’t.
          I know my reasoning won’t convince you. You have the blind fervency of belief. But as that wears off over the years and you study more, maybe you will see what I saw, or not, either way it’s of no concern to me.

        51. I have read them, all of them. And those same prophecies have been used every time the middle east churns through another war to say the end is coming, yet it never happens. The middle east has been at war off and on since before the bible was written, there will always be wars and rumors of war in that region.

        52. I think it would take that early christian a long time to be horrified. You would have to explain electricity, running water, television, radio, and most likely teach them to read first. Then you could show them things that might horrify them. Yes they could be horrified by some things as they were a product of their time. As one goes back in history, people knew less about the world and relied on religion to fill in the gaps. As religion has faded from culture, people behave less in accordance with those standards. So someone from 1016 wouldn’t know what to make of our culture or how we live.

        53. There is no proof that the ball has been picked up, not to mention that even the claim that the person could do it comes not second hand but 100th hand. That’s kinda my point.
          While there may not be much difference in the arguments, there is difference in connotation. Atheistic Satanists have a belief system that hews toward the dramatic and has a creed and rituals. My belief structure doesn’t have any of that, thus the distinction.

        54. I am amused how you say, without irony, state you are a proponent of the Red Pill yet don’t see that you unplugged from one matrix only to plug yourself into its older predecessor.

        55. Wow, youre really persistent in your ‘nonbelief’. One would think you had a religious agenda to sell,…..

        56. Poor (or leading) word choice on your part. What you could’ve said to be more accurate is “Wow, you’re really consistent in your non-belief. ” And I don’t have anything to sell, that market has been cornered by the church for a century.

        57. Whether you bite a red apple or swallow the red pill I tend to agree with many of the articles and comments here except belief in the supernatural off course…

        58. Nope Atheists bank on cold hard evidence however if you prefer banking on faith can I borrow a $1000000 dollars…

      1. Comforting lie? The idea that most of mankind will be sent to hell for eternity does not seem a comforting lie… Maybe it is a lie, but it surely does not is comforting. To me, it seems that atheists are so afraid of this truth, that they deny to believe it in order to continue believing in the lie that there’s nothing after death, so that they can live without having to give justification of their actions.

        1. I accept Ego Termination is (currently) a part of life .
          You should want to the right thing because it’s the right thing to do not because you think your one of God’$ special snowflakes awaiting a heavenly award.
          As I said before Christians have the ultimate entitlement mentality…

        2. I don’t want to do the right thing in order to gain heavenly awards. I do the right thing because I already have the most precious heavenly award, that is salvation. It seems that you’re ignorant to basic protestant theology.

        3. Salvation is just a breath away. Christians truly do think their special snowflakes, if this is your belief then for me ignorance truly is bliss…

        4. Of course they think, because they’re. That’s the great difference between christianism and all other major religions, except islam of course. Even if you don’t believe, that’s why christianism is so important in general society moral, as said a lot of times here on ROK.
          If you don’t believe it, well, that’s a shame. There’s no other way.

        5. You should do the right thing just because its the right thing?What blather.If this life is merely just us out for our own self then the right thing would be anything to further our survival and pleasure all others and the future be damned.You are a misguided fool.

        6. I’d love to see the end for you when it comes because tough talking bitches such as yourself always beg and plead to the Lord so loudly and tearfully.Why be a jackass in life and feel the need to impart you obvious misery on others.I can’t help your twisted mind but we both know who can.Just ask.

  11. Roosh, your willingness to bear your soul and struggle online is both courageous and humble. I read your books about a year ago and have been a staunch ROK supporter and daily reader since. Bang et al showcased your personality and wit… who wasn’t on the floor laughing their asses off at some of those passages, including you?
    Having had Jesus in my heart throughout this life, but also grappling with the undeniable pleasures of hedonism which of course become meaningless over time, I too am searching for the truth. I see so many things wrong in the church, so many things wrong in the world… but one thing that I have undeniable faith in is my desire. It’s pure in that I know that I’m genuinely striving for the same thing that you are. What is true? What fills me with joy? What’s the source of that magnetic energy that generates life? What’s accessible to our society, our nation, our world?
    I’m no saint nor an intellectual, but merely a simpleton with a die-hard faith in the God of the Bible. He knows everything I’m doing… and lets me, loves me.
    This is the deep call in your heart, it will be answered.
    Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

  12. Atheists are just as sanctimonious, illogical, and tiresome as the deists and theists, if not moreso. Because the atheists are often more highly educated and often better able to argue (in limited ways), they use this education and argument to prop themselves up in the ugliest ways. They blow apart the beliefs of religious people and imagine this solidifies their own beliefs in some way. But it never does. People of faith are actually more consistent in their views, since they never claim to believe in science anyway. They are not immediately hypocritical, at least, since it is possible for them create a closed system of illogic that circles back in a self-affirming way. The search for truth is no part of their system, so it is no failure when they find none. But atheists cannot say the same. They base their system on science, so that the very first instant they fail to act scientifically, they are back to zero. Yes, it is the same zero as the theists’ zero, but the theists aren’t measuring and the atheists are. A theist at zero is just a theist, and no harm done. But an atheist at zero has had a fall, and must be damaged.

    1. The above may be your experience, but I have encountered a LOT of religious hypocrites, particularly being raised catholic. That isn’t to say I haven’t encountered atheist hypocrites, but many fewer.

      1. It’s true both ways in the West. I think “civilization” has gotten the better out of Westerners.

      2. How were the hypocrites? The theist does not say he knows that God exists, he says he believes it.

        1. I was speaking of religious hypocrites who wax about god’s morality and cheat on their spouses, get drunk and beat their kids, talk about how god doesn’t approve of homosexuals and are secretly having gay sex etc.

        2. that’s from when I was recovering from knee injury. Thought you would like.

    2. Atheists are less of a group in terms of ethics or morality. So a lot of what you say only really applies to activist atheists, not atheists in general.
      If you ask people in Japan you get about half and half Buddhist and half atheists depending on how you phrase the question. This hardly seems to apply to them as a group.

      1. The activist atheists are the only atheists by definition. The rest of you rely on a belief that God does not exist exactly like the theist believe in the opposite.

        1. Not all. Some people are like me….I don’t care if god exists or not. I have no faith that he exists. I have no faith that he doesn’t (which is in fact a leap of faith on the atheists part that they seldom admit too) nor am I interested in using science to prove what is impossible to prove or disprove what is impossible to disprove.
          I honestly and truly do not care if god exists or not.

        2. I use apatheism to describe it all the time and am of the belief that I coined the term as my first use of it was nearly 10 years ago and other people don’t really count.

        3. Nuh uh! I thought of it before you were born! But in all seriousness, it is a perfect term. Not that I have ruled out the idea of a deity, I just don’t care at the moment.

        4. I refuse to believe that there was a world before I was born. Nor do I believe there will be one after. I am the alpha and omega. I also believe the world goes out of existence when I sleep, blink or am on vacation.

        5. Oh, I get it. You don’t like me or what I have to say so I am instantly branded a nihilist and dismissed. Yeah. I have a lazy mind.

        6. Well, to be fair, your tag does say “Nihilist” on it. A self branding, if you will. Heh.

        7. I’m just noting that he would logically have to instantly brand you a nihilist, because, well, you did already. The dismissed part, that’s on him.

        8. it does say nihilist yes…you assumed the lazy thinking part…not sure why, I don’t believe I have presented that way. So I have to assume it has something to do with your preconceived notions.

        9. but you see…the irony there is that you are accusing me of being a lazy thinking because of your preconceived notions of me…a person you don’t know…which is the very definition of lazy thinking.
          If you need this explained more I can break it down
          1) You have ideas in your head
          2) You say that one person is lazy because of those ideas and not because of anything he has said or done
          3) That is in fact very lazy on your part
          4) This is the definition of irony
          I mean, I could try to make it easier if you give me 5 minutes.

  13. Sooner or later my affairs, whatever they may be, will be forgotten, and I shall not exist. Then why go on making any effort?
    An odd statement from a man whose works are well published across the world and whose name is taught in history books for well over a century now. It is true for most people though, yes.

  14. Christianity is dead in Western countries. People will look down upon you or think you’re primitive if you follow a religion. Atheism is the new standard in Western countries. Or Islam.

    1. Why does it matter if others “look down” on me? That’s their problem, not mine.

      1. the holy fool is a pretty central idea in Christianity. The whole point is that worldly wisdom isn’t the final Word.

      2. they are gonna have to be fairly tall to look down on you. I imagine that unless you join the Cleveland cavaliers you are, for the most part, safe on that score.

        1. People that are taller than me put me on edge. Heh. I guess it’s only fair, I’m sure that 98% of the human race look at me the same way, as I’m fairly tall.

        2. Yeah. Short people scare me. I am not particularly tall or short (6 foot) but I treat short men with distrust until proven otherwise.
          Then again, I have so many categories that I treat with distrust until proven otherwise that I even distrust myself in the mornings sometimes.

        3. That’s rational though. Short people got no reason to live. They got little hands, and little eyes, they go around telling great big lies.

        4. Nothing inherently wrong with it. Just means I regard as suspect until otherwise proven.

        5. I like some people to be a bit taller than me and some to be shorter. I see them all as early warning systems.
          If you go down with part of the sky atop your crown I’m getting in the bunker without looking back.

        6. Me neither and yet, just like magic, there’s the entire song lyrics sitting dormant in my brain for thirty five years and accessed immediately on seeing “short people” in a post.
          On my death bed I’m going to recite the speech that Roy gives to Decker on the roof as he’s dying, just to tick people off. That whole script, yep, filed and ready for access.

        7. I’m pretty tall, so people taller than me trigger, slightly, a fight or flight assessment of threat when I see them. Lolknee is right, basically you’re going to be a basketball player to see the top of my head, and not a short one either.

        8. Aren’t all Latinas basically, you know, short? That’s where being taller is a bit of a strange thing, everybody under 6 foot and over 4’11” all are the same height to me.

        9. Basically. I’m exaggerating a little bit with 4’11”, but there is this huge range gap where I just can’t gauge how tall a person is because y’all seem more or less the same height when viewed individually. So if a person tells me she’s 5’5″ or 5’8″ I literally have no way to tell if she’s telling the truth or not. To me it’s “short” and I’m done.

        10. Short Shaming!! You tall fuckers will kneel (so we can finally look you in the eye). Short Acceptance! Short Power! #ShortLivesMatter 🙂

        11. why in gods name would you imagine those two things would be mutually exclusive.
          Until I bang a midget I will want to bang a midget. Only after I get the first one under my belt will I be picky about looks

        12. Yeah, didn’t know his name, that’s why I appended “and not a short one either”, because I know there are a couple of dwarfish types in the NBA (well, compared to the giants).

        13. But some are so damn tiny they could buy their clothes still the Gap Kids. And I’m talking about any woman under 5 foot even.

        14. It’s wunderbar, chief. Chicks, they dig it too. Heh.

        15. yeah. Spudd Webb was another but I think mugsy was the tiny one at 5’3

        16. I recall meeting an Airman who was scared of midgets, especially their sausage fingers. Funny thing, he wasn’t taller than.5 foot 2.

    2. Christianity is going to be small and poor in Western countries for a while. So what?
      You know what else is small and nascent in the West? The thinkers on this site!
      We don’t devalue truth because madness is outside the gates.

      1. If anything, this should be an opportunity for Christians to rise. Christians are supposed to thrive in adversity.

  15. This is my life. I have lived every word of it.
    I think most people fall into the Rolling Stones answer (which is roughly his #2, above). “I know it’s only rock and roll but I like it.”

  16. I’ve not read his Confessions but I did read Tolstoy’s Resurrection when I was teenager and found it pretty heavy going, full of extensive religious quotes, and beyond that I can’t remember very much about it. He also wrote the quite famous ‘Gospel in Brief’ – which I think de-focuses attention from the Passion and anything inherently ‘miraculous’ or ‘superstitious onto what he believed to be the essence of the gospels. I always found it interesting that Wittgenstein of all people carried this around with him when he was a soldier in the first world war. To this day I think Wittgenstein’s philosophy is often a philosophical refuge from the hardcore atheists who are argue against religious as factually absurd. We get here though to the point when you have to ask whether this question – probably the oldest of all – is best approached in terms of positive verification or falsification.
    There is a great book by Peter Carey called Oscar and Lucinda which can be seen as a meditation on religious faith as simply a gamble. As reasonable or as absurd as putting a big bet on an all or nothing wager. Inevitably though you have to have a reason to believe or have faith in something, and once you get away from the reasons for or against the God as a positive existential fact then the more human factors have to come into play. The most obvious seems to be human need. Atheists often argue, like Marx that God is a projection of human attributes, not to mention an anthropormophisation, but all this points back to this human need, which is not a constant. It seems reasonable to ask that we should have a greater awareness of why we might conceive of religious ideas in one form or other, but in the end there are circumstances in which we are all likely to become religious, and what characterises the modern age is not so much a lack of religion per se, but a lack of the circumstances, the exigency, despair etc, that triggers the religious impulse. At some point we fall back to this. Sure there are heroic atheists / nihilists who hold out against that impulse. No-one knows whether they succeed or fail. The question that Roosh asks is a good one I think: are we capable of furnishing meaning – in the final instance – without resort to what (ex-)alcoholics like to call a higher power. It doesn’t do to answer the question too readily, and in a sense I see the problem not with asking the question, but with answering it without sufficient reflection, a tendency which the religious tend to share with the Richard Dawkins of this world
    edited

    1. I have to say first of all, nice comment.
      However I would have to say that it is not necessarily a need that everyone has, to have an answer to the question does God exist, if so how does he exist and so on and forth.
      I have studied a lot of religious texts and taken part in various ceremonies and practices, and for my own part I have concluded that wether God exists or not, is real or not, doesn’t matter. I have bigger fish to fry that spending my time on idle contemplation of a question the answer to which has no implication to me really.

      1. I think many of those questions are just word-plays and problems of definition. When you observe your own existence and everything in your life, is there a part of it that you would call “god”? Maybe you have known “god” for all your life, but have never made the association between the word and the real thing.

      2. I agree for the most part. I’m not inclined to advocate for or against God / finding God / living religiously etc. If so I’d be hypocrite for a start, although I am broadly religious, and I expect spiritual issues / questions of faith are likely to continue to bother me should I choose for a while to look away. I am as such somewhat disinclined to say ‘you should be religious’ / believe in God or whatever, and not just because i think it is counter-productive. I don’t consider people to be better or worse because they are or are not religious (although there are some religious people who I would consider exceptional religious geniuses who I would hold above the ordinary kind of men – I’m in two minds about Tolstoy although he did have a kind of genius).
        The issue of whether God does or does not matter is another question. I think my point about the relationship between spirituality and human need is dependent on situation / circumstances and many other factors too. Some people are of the opinion that religion / belief in God is largely a cultural affair (and as such perhaps primitive, lacking in sophistication etc). It may be to an extent, although personally I wouldn’t ultimately agree with that position, but I do suspect there is a ‘when push comes to shove’ the religious impulse becomes a quite natural (if not necessarily an inevitable one). Reductivists may consider there to be a God centre in the human brain and that that is all there is, but I suspect there is such a centre because ultimately may have a certain need to commune with the infinite / deity (call it what you will). Not everybody has it, but the religious impulse seems to me a fundamental one, whether or not it may be a primitive one

        1. I’m not for or against anything what people do privately, I know there are people who find their peace with the world building model trains, other ride motorcycles, some go fishing, and some go to a church or a temple or whatever their chosen religion calls their place of prayer.
          I have a distaste for Tolstoy and for many other writers of that era and culture to be honest. I don’t think that ideas need to or should be expressed in lurid terminology and if they have to, maybe the ideas either aren’t that good or the wrong guy is expressing them.
          There is a sort of clique of writers with pessimistic fatalistic lurid views and ways of expressing themselves that I simply don’t read anymore or care much for after many years of growing past their things.
          I think however that it is beneficial for a family to have a cohesive internal culture of morals and ethics and a name for it. There is always a time when a young man needs guidance beyond what his father can provide, and it is good to have a tradition to point to with wise people who can act as authority from the outside. And obviously they should reinforce the internal authority structure of the family.

        2. fair enough, particularly with regard to your last paragraph.
          I found Tolstoy’s Resurrection difficult and at the time of reading it felt like being harangued with scripture. The gospel in brief is very different and I don’t see why even an atheist might not find some interest in it. Overall my feelings about Tolstoy are mixed. Not sure what other writers ‘of that era’ you dislike. Are you referring to Dostoyevsky – who is one of my favourite authors and in my opinion a tier 1 genius

        3. I’ve read several versions of the bible back to back, and sure there is stuff of interest for anyone, who doesn’t have much better to do, that is if you read it unguided.
          There are quite a few good guides to understand how some groups read and understand the bible and reading a few of them together with the verses in the correct version bible is quite interesting. For me, but probably not most people.
          I’m not sure the bible is something I would recommend anyone to read unguided with faith involved other than with a critical eye if they have no specific bent.
          As for the writers yes I am also referring to Dostoyevsky. I’m not saying he wasn’t smart, I’m just saying I didn’t and don’t like his style.

        4. I’ve only ever read the old testament the whole way through when I was about 14 – in fact I might have given up slightly before the end. Whatever your take on it, it’s the foundation of much of our culture, but no it isn’t particularly accessible without a ‘way in’ so to speak.
          Dostoyevsky isn’t to everybody’s taste. But Brothers Karamazov is much heavier read than say Crime and Punishment which still reads in many ways as the greatest detective novel ever written (not as a whodunnit but as a psychological ‘thriller’ of sorts)

  17. The meaning of life, if there is one at all, is to be conduits for knowledge that we ourselves do not fully grasp, in the hope that one day, one of our descendants will put it together.
    SPOILER ALERT:

      1. I thought that was the answer to “How many roads must a man walk down”?

  18. Man does not want to die because life has no meaning. Man wants to die when he experiences the shock of having fabricated meanings (slave doctrines) stripped off of him. It’s called ego death.
    If living without meaning was enough reason to commit suicide, why don’t we see animals committing mass suicide all over the planet? Guess what. Meaning is not necessary. Living is its own meaning.

    1. Meaning is a function of higher reasoning. If you don’t have higher reasoning then you won’t feel a need to have meaning as a guiding point in your life. Further, animals do in fact move forward towards definite goals, so in a sense they too are exercising in their own lower brained level of meaning. Meaning? “To eat and survive long enough to fuck and make another one of me”. Lather rinse repeat.
      All meaning is fabricated, but then, so is math, so it literature, so is physics. All are products of higher reasoning responding to a hostile or, at best, indifferent universe. The argument of artificiality simply because of how the human mind works never struck me as particularly convincing. We function as we are designed (evolved, whatever) to function, and part of that function is abstracting the concretes of the world and coming up with systems and tools from that abstraction. Those systems and tools are not invalid simply because we “fabricated” them in our minds.

      1. If I were to make a guess, I would say that an animal does not think “I need to procreate”. It is simply in the moment, driven by its instincts, and stuff just happens. The animal does not think about it.
        Human reasoning is not “unnatural” and I did not say it was. It is a great tool. But it is wise to learn how to wield a tool and what to use it for. Reason is great to make logical conclusions, plans, etc. “The meaning of life” is a concept that I consider to be a misuse of the tool of reason. Do you need any more proof of this than the simple observations that the author of this article makes, which we can all see?
        In other words, would you say that it is an inherent trait of man to feel despair at the idea that the universe has no “meaning”? Or is that more of a delusion akin to mental illness?
        It is a bit like the debate on whether homosexuality is “natural”. Clearly, nature allows it and it seems to simply be what happens. And yet, we can have a debate on whether – in a particular person, anyway – it constitutes a natural healthy state of being or an unhealthy abberation.

        1. If I were to make a guess, I would say that an animal does not think “I need to procreate”. It is simply in the moment, driven by its instincts, and stuff just happens. The animal does not think about it.
          You’re probably right, that’s why I went with “lower brained meaning”. Of course they don’t abstract it out, they just do it. There might be some exception here for the super intelligent animals, such as whales and chimps, but who knows ultimately right?
          In other words, would you say that it is an inherent trait of man to feel despair at the idea that the universe has no “meaning”? Or is that more of a delusion akin to mental illness?
          That’s a fair question. The only anecdotal evidence I have is with people who are depressed (in a real way, not “sad because my baseball team lost the pennant”) Every one I’ve ever encountered in dispair always seems to complain on many levels of the lack of any real meaning to their life, or of having whatever meaning they had taken away by XYZ event. “She left me!” or “There’s no point in doing anything, nothing matters, leave me alone!” and such.
          There’s meaning, and then there’s meaning. We can look for a higher guided purpose to life, but that presupposes a higher power, or we can read meaning into human activities working towards, say, a common societal goal. Or whatever. I think it’s just built into us, maybe not by intent, but by how our brain functions when dealing with objective reality. We simply invent and assign meaning to basically, well, everything at some level.
          Human reasoning is not “unnatural” and I did not say it was.
          I was responding to your “fabricated meanings” with what I said. My point was that all meaning is fabricated, due to us being abstract reasoning beings.

        2. I see. Well, I would not say we are abstract reasoning beings. I would say that we are animals who happen to be capable of reason.
          If somebody is depressed over having no meaning, that is indeed a common sight, yes. But then, consider some Eastern monks who pretty much just live in the moment and say that these things (meaning, purpose, the great love, etc) are just ego attachments. Those people do indeed live in peace.
          You could of course argue that something is wrong with them or that they are just pretending to be at peace. But can you really pretend such a thing?
          What’s your take on that?

        3. We abstract and reason. Math is abstraction in nearly its purest form. As is logic.
          You could of course argue that something is wrong with them or that they are just pretending to be at peace. But can you really pretend such a thing?
          What’s your take on that?
          That they’ve spent a lifetime pursuing a specific goal, which gave their lives meaning “the pursuit of zeroness/zen”. If life really had no meaning to them, they wouldn’t have started the pursuit to begin with. They were searching for something, even if it is just a respite from the outside world. That lends meaning to their meaningless. Heh
          Always enjoy our conversations, btw.

        4. Interesting. But a big key to enlightenment seems to be to actually not even be attached to enlightenment. The very wish to be enlightened is what actually keeps you from being it.
          It also does not mean to devote the entire life to it. It just means to be fully present in the moment. You can still go after a life beside of that. In fact, it really just means to be in the moment, whatever you do. Does not mean you have to sit around in a lotus seat all day contemplating the universe.
          You can be enlightened and have a wife, children, a job, etc. The key is to not be attached to it. To not give any of it “meaning”, but to simply do it. I very much like the idea. To let the body and instincts take care of the important life decisions while using reason whenever it is necessary for something in particular.
          Thanks, so do I.

        5. Understood on not making it an entire life’s pursuit. But still at least as I see it, by structuring a set of “rules” around it (“not even be attached to enlightenment”) rather points towards at least some level of meaning. Meaning contains structure, structure contains meaning, at least in regards to something produced from the human mind in any event.
          To let the body and instincts take care of the important life decisions
          I know of no faster path to living life under a bridge, than that one. Had I left my life to my body and instincts I surely would have ended up in jail or dead in a gutter at an early age.
          I don’t know if you’ve read it, but Chekhov’s Ward No. 6 is an interesting story about a philosopher type person who preaches a kind of “nothing is to worry, life will do as it will” philosophy. If you haven’t, you might want to give it a read, it’s quite interesting. The man had a fascinating intellect and an amazing way with words and concepts.

        6. I disagree. Those words are just wayposts. To be there is to not even think about it.
          Did you ever take psychedelics? When you are on a strong trip, there is really only one thing you can do to not go mad: Completely stop resisting, categorizing, abstracting. Whenever you get attached to an idea – even if it is the one I uttered above – it will rip you apart mercilessly.
          And an acid trip is nothing but exaggerated reality. The reason why reality does not rip us apart is because our resistance against the moment is kept under the rug and we barely notice it.
          And yet, you describe those depressed people who experienced pretty much that – life ripping them apart. Why? Because they resist what is. They do not allow the fact that they lost something. They do not allow the pain. And the less they allow it, the more they keep it deep buried in their hearts.
          But is it not your instincts that made you choose to not live under a bridge or starve? Without your instincts, you would not have needed survival in the first place.
          Enlightenment is neither about abandoning all needs. The body does have real needs, I will not dispute that. Eating, sex, love, warmth, etc. As far as I know, Buddha did not reach enlightenment until he abandoned the practice of asceticism.
          To resist bodily needs is resistance, too. So no, I would not say that you would end up under a bridge. Your instincts would tell you to do whatever is necessary for you to live a satisfactory life and quiet your needs. Reason just helps you find a way to do that.
          Have not read it, but not interested currently. Thanks for the suggestion.

        7. But is it not your instincts that made you choose to not live under a bridge or starve? Without your instincts, you would not have needed survival in the first place.
          No. It was my craving of intellectual stimulation as a young man. I simply was bored with conversations about the weather, so I drifted into books and languages, intentionally sought them out I mean. There was nothing unconscious about doing so, nothing hard wired, I was simply too smart to allow myself to become bored in a blue collar family, because I knew where boredom led through the examples of some of my family members (e.g. – bad places). It was literally a conscious choice to *not* go down that path.
          I strongly suspect that when you say “instinct” you don’t mean what I’m talking about with “instinct”. I’m talking unlearned response that is hard wired into you. For example, a spider spins a web by instinct, once it starts spinning it cannot stop until it completes the web, such that if you tear down half the web while it’s in the middle of spinning it, it can’t stop and fix that until it’s completed the “pattern” in full. It literally has no mind engaged, it just follows a built in programming. That’s instinct. Gut feeling, which I think seems to be more along the line of what you’re indicating (maybe?) is nothing more than internalized experience that you’ve already processed, sitting dormant waiting for the stimuli which created it to happen again. Or am I wrong?
          EDIT: As to drugs, no, I’ve never messed with them. Never felt the curiosity to even bother, honestly.

        8. Interesting. I know that kind of craving. Would it be wrong, then, to call this craving an instinct, too? One exclusive to humans, perhaps? The craving to understand and figure out? I guess you would agree on that and make the conclusion from this that this human instinct naturally craves to find “meaning”. Which is where I would disagree.
          You talk about unconscious things. I do not mean unconscious, though. I just mean without thought. Thought does not equal consciousness. You can be very conscious of your instincts. Like, when you have sex, you likely do not think much about it – and yet you are more or less fully conscious, no?
          I find it hard to make a distinction where you make one. Everything we do is driven by some emotional motivation, even the lust for intellectual stimulation. The goal, to me, would be in distinguishing “faulty patterns” like defense mechanisms. For example, a traumatized person may “instinctually” develop a defense mechanism in form of an OCD. And yet, this kind of adaption to the environment is no longer valid after the traumatic event has taken place. Animals shake off trauma through rapid spasmic movements (check “Somatic Experiencing” as PTSD therapy).
          In a way, enlightenment would actually not change anything about what you do or crave. It would just make you more conscious of it. And consciousness would resolve for you all those things that are in fact unconscious compensatory mechanisms brought by through (mild or serious) trauma. A spider doing its web, I would say, is highly conscious of this, but does not think about it. But a human engaged in OCD more or less is unconscious of the real underlying emotions making him do that. If he were to make them conscious – which would imply a ceasing of resistance against them – they would dissolve and leave only the instincts of the “true self”, if you will.

        9. . Would it be wrong, then, to call this craving an instinct, too?
          No, because you can deny it with free will. Lots of people do, every day. Instincts have zero choice factor in them. Zero. You are compelled to act in the way that the programming directs.
          A spider doing its web, I would say, is highly conscious of this, but does not think about it.
          It doesn’t even have a real brain to speak of, I wouldn’t think that it’s conscious of much outside of “Survive, eat, lay eggs” and even then, I doubt that. They’re nearly automatons and the web building example I gave is quite real, they literally can’t stop the programming to “fix” the destruction.

        10. But is free will not also based on your individual programming? Could you have really made any other choices than the ones you did make, considering your background etc?
          It is of course a tricky and funny question to ask: “Could you have chosen any other way than you did?” It is hard to answer, because you did not.
          So let me phrase it a different way. If an outside observer of you – equipped with extremely advanced psychology from the far future – looked at everything you did, would anything you did surprise that person?
          Rephrase one more time: You are far more advanced than a spider. A spider’s actions seem predictable and simple to you. And yet, if we assume a hypothetical being that is so advanced that you appear to it like a spider appears to you – would you not seem like just as programmed a being as the spider? Would the way you exercise your “free will” not end up showing very clear patterns from a far higher perspective? Is your wish for intellectual understanding not just your human programming that is as inevitable as a spider’s desire to built that net? If there was nothing in your way to stop you, could you possibly stop your pursuit of truth and understanding more than a spider could stop building a net?

        11. Could you have really made any other choices than the ones you did make, considering your background etc?
          Sure I could have. I’m not going to detail my family’s history as individuals, but we’re generally pretty intelligent. That said, my sister, who can describe Bach in poetic language and who understands a great deal about art, made so many bad choices that it’s a wonder she’s still alive. I have another relative who, despite having a brilliant mind, decided it would be easier instead to make some *really* bad choices and has spent the rest of his life in hiding. Meanwhile, he can disassemble and reassemble basically any piece of machinery on the planet without even a small handbook to guide him. So yeah, there’s no reason I couldn’t have done the same thing.
          And yet, if we assume a hypothetical being that is so advanced that you
          appear to it like a spider appears to you – would you not seem like just
          as programmed a being as the spider?

          No, because it’s a question of self awareness. I’ve heard this same question many times over the years, the “they’re so advanced we seem like insects” thing, but it seems to me, from my vantage, that a critical barrier is crossed once we see a being who becomes self aware. It’s why, for example, I tend to view dolphins and chimps differently than I do other animals, because I believe that they are right on the cusp of being self aware (and in fact, some individuals may well be I’d wager). I don’t consider them as I would a spider.
          Would the way you exercise your “free will” not end up showing very clear patterns from a far higher perspective?
          Not true exercises in free will, no, I doubt it. I tend to view acts of free will, in the true sense, as containing a lot of struggle and pain, and they are generally fairly infrequent. We do go by in day to day life based on learned patterns and such, no question. Free will is when you actually break that pattern, hence it’s unpredictable.
          If there was nothing in your way to stop you, could you possibly stop
          your pursuit of truth and understanding more than a spider could stop
          building a net?

          Sure could. Do it many times, as in when I drink a beer or just hang out with, well, dumb people in real life. heh

        12. Heh. Interesting. I think we reached a point where it is just a pointless battle of two incompatible beliefs.
          But one more question to clarify: If free will is unpredictable, that implies that it is based on nothing and motivated by nothing. So you are saying that the fact that you chose your life and your siblings chose their lives is simply random coincidence? Because if it is not random coincidence, it must be based on something. And if it is based on something, it is no longer independent and free. Catch my drift?

        13. If free will is unpredictable, that implies that it is based on nothing and motivated by nothing.
          I don’t accept that definition. It means that an outside observer won’t be able to reasonably predict a real exercise of free will, but the internals of your processing are still present. Free doesn’t mean “free from reality”, it simply means that it’s directed by your own will and your own choices, regardless of how outside forces try to compel a different result, I think.

        14. I don’t understand the question. Can you rephrase please?

        15. Well, if “your own will and your own choices” was somehow measureable and quantifiable, would that not make you predictable? Do you preclude such a possibility of observation?

        16. Thanks.
          That’s a bit of a “how many angels dance on the head of a pin” question I think. It’s fun to ponder, but ultimately doesn’t actually deal with a reality that we’ll ever face.

        17. Interesting meandering discussion, and it made me look a bit at how I would describe my functioning for the most part.
          I decide most things I do without particular regard to how I may or not feel as an outcome of those decisions.
          I suppose though that I’d be defined as a generally low emotion type of guy. But when I think of instincts they have to, to me, come from somewhere else in your mind, like a craving, obsession, emotional need etc, because anatomically speaking they come from a different source as well.
          Regarding the spider I think there is more to it, I’ve studied and kept spiders for a few years some time ago.
          I’m of the opinion that it’s more efficient for the spider to finish the web and have the outer anchor rings in place before it fixes it. If this were not the case I think evolution would have found ways to make it fix it before continuing.
          I have also looked at how ant brains work as they are simple and social. The system could be described as a system of multiple subsumption loops with different prioritation, in fact I have built a small robot and a program to simulate this and it is eerily alike an insect.

  19. Anyway I look at it, life is a raw fucking deal. Make what you can out of it.
    I just want to get my kicks before the whole shit house goes up in flames.

    1. Every year same conversation happens…no kidding
      Mamaknee: lolknee what do you want for your birthday
      lolknee: a time machine and a coat hanger
      Mamaknee: UGH!
      Every year, without fail. That poor woman had such a handful dealing with me.

        1. I actually, like GOJ, really like life. But I also like trolling poor mamaknee. When I make my sunday call she will say “how are you lolknee” and I will respond “not bad, banged a hooker last night and was up until dawn smoking crack so I am a little tired”
          You know how they say that if a child is being an asshole to you and you don’t react then they will stop. Poor mamaknee didn’t read that chapter and every time goes into the “oh lolknee! don’t say things like that!”
          decade after decade this woman’s responses to me saying terrible things have been the gift that keeps on giving.

        2. I guess I did come off pretty strong, but I do enjoy life. I didn’t when I was younger but I invested a lot in myself and my quality of life is better than it ever has. But when I ponder life, I always come to the same conclusion; why bother if we all end up dead? This doesn’t mean I’m suicidal or depressed, I would just really like to have that knowledge, and the fact that I can’t have it just makes me frustrated with life.

        3. And thank you for keeping the laughs coming man. I rarely laugh out loud reading responses, but your material is fucking gold.

        4. blowing off steam is part of enjoying life and a perfectly good use of a discussion board.

    2. How is life a raw fucking deal? It’s 90 degrees out and I assume you’re sitting in an air conditioned place, well fed, well hydrated, typing your thoughts out for millions of eyes across the world to read, with no fear of predators hunting you down or being clunked on the head by a neighboring tribe of cavemen. Say what you will about life, but as we measure it in survival metrics, it’s never been better.
      As to angst and existential “crisis” a la first world problems? Angst? I ain’t got time to angst!

      1. you are right, this is one of our biggest points of agreement. I think he is being a bit cheeky not an angst bitch.

        1. My bearded dragon is on high alert. I figure to kill a reptilian, you have to have one on your side.

      2. “It’s 90 degrees out and I assume you’re sitting in an air conditioned place,”
        GLOBAL WARMING! Just 6 months ago it was snowing.

        1. I knews it was the global warming! Even when it was the bears, I knews it was the global warming!

      3. It is hot as balls in the garage and I’m behind on work due to a lack of good help. Besides that, I take care of myself well, I’m self sufficient. I guess I feel it is a raw deal because we all know one day we will be nothing. Not even a memory. Sometimes it is hard for me to enjoy life knowing where I will end up. You can’t even die without paying for it either! I hate the thought of family having that burden, paying to throw me in the ground. Just mount my corpse on my bike and push me off the Grand Canyon ffs! I guess long story short (too late), I’m turning into a nihilist. I don’t hate life and I’m content, there is just so much that is unknown and beyond our mental capacity it drives me nuts, at times.

        1. I’m going to die one day. Nothing I can do to stop it, nothing I can do to make the day come sooner. Fate has written that date on stone, so I don’t fret about it and live life as best I can. I also am of a mind that while we “disappear” on a planetary sense, that there’s more that we find on the other side. If I’m wrong, oh well. I just don’t worry about it, because ultimately there’s nothing I can do to change it.

        2. funny. I feel that the knowledge that I will be nothing is actually what fuels my happiness. Don’t pawn that off on nihilism. Nihilists can be very positive. It gets a bad rap because idiots take up the cause.
          I think life is the cat’s whiskers and that every day, even when terrible, is just fucking great. Positive Nihilism! join the team. Or don’t, we don’t care. We also don’t care if we win. Or if we lose. And we only tangentially believe you actually exist. So, ya know, whatever

        3. to paraphrase Socrates. If it is nothing, no big deal. If it is something, I’ll deal with that then.

        4. I suppose it’s why I’m more attracted to stoicism than nihilism. I’m at peace with the concretes in life that I can’t control. They simply do not bother me at all, in fact they hardly register with me any longer intellectually or emotionally.

        5. Nothing wrong with that at all. Whether or not you are at peace with it has nothing to do with the conceptual. There may be morbid nihilists or nihilists like me who look at the vast nothingness like a fire…it looks like one solid entity only because of the constant shifting of unstable parts….and instead of fearing it I admire it’s beauty and use it to power my world.

        6. A big part of me is of the same mindset, I go with the flow, I refuse to get upset over things I can’t control.

        7. Wow man that actually makes pretty damn good sense, I might be sold. Who do I kick up my dues to? How do I file a grievance?

      4. Also, I agree it’s never been better in terms of survival, but day to day life almost feels…synthetic.

        1. Well it would, we are a species who relies almost exclusively on technology, aka – our minds. You can of course choose to walk into the woods with a knife and some flint and hunt down a bear if you wish as well. This is my preferred method of death, btw.

        2. Wow my stepdad wants to go the same way! He is a hunter, he said he’s taken so much from nature it only feels natural to give back. I asked him what he meant, and he said “get eaten by a bear.” You guys would get along.

        3. I’d worry about being that “lucky” individual that survived. I won’t post the link to the picture, but a guy recently survived a bear attack and his face was like hamburger meat. Be sure to bring your pistol with you just in case…

        4. That was so freaking disgusting. The dude had to clear out his own exposed windpipe to keep from choking. I lived in that same area for a while and used to hunt and hike those same hills. Never once had a bear encounter thankfully.

        5. I’ve never seen anything like that. I would be begging someone to shoot me. There is no way that man is going to have a normal life.

        6. Yup. Moved here seven years ago and much to my mother’s disappointment, never moving back. Closest you can get to leaving the United States withou actually leaving.

        7. My favorite scene from the movie, Legends of the Fall, is when Tristan fights the bear at the end. Just a Man and Beast pitted against one another. After a Life lived untamed and free, it was a fitting death for Tristan.

        8. Indeed, but, check out the picture of him. I cannot imagine there is any quality of life after that.

        9. Trying to. Dipnetting just started. That’s where you are allowed to catch up to 25 sockeye salmon in 4-5 foot nets. I once caught 4 in one net. Caribou season starts in August.

        10. Caribou is hands down the tastiest game meat I’ve ever had. My friends father bagged one in Canada and I got some off of him. Delicious.

  20. I grew up in an atheist household, my parents were decent people, but I never set foot in any church. I dated some, but was disappointed at the quality of women out there. When I was 22 during a camping trip with some friends (one baptist, another Native American spiritualist), I had a rather spiritual experience that made me question the existence of God. I picked up the Bible and read it off and on.
    The following year, I felt like it was time to find a good woman and settle down. In a community of about 5-10% Mormon population, I asked college classmates who seemed decent on dates. Three first dates in a row, they ended up being Mormon. They were much classier girls than the others I ever dated, more traditional in their standards, and I was impressed with each, but nothing progressed because of religious differences.
    About a week after the last date, I had a coming to myself moment. If these girls were what I was looking for, why shouldn’t I look into what they believed harder? I called up an old high school Mormon friend and asked if I could attend church with him. I went to church, and developed a stronger faith in Jesus Christ. A few weeks later, Matt and his wife invited me to dinner at their place. When I got there, there were these missionaries, ready to teach me the gospel. The next week, they asked if I would be baptized. I told them I would think about it. I would have to give up my bad habits, and commit my time and effort.
    Best decision I ever made, I went on a mission myself, married a wonderful woman had six kids, and could not be happier. I know the purpose of life, and feel like a new man. I know this is corny to lots of people, but I don’t care, the gospel of Jesus Christ is the truth and it brings happiness.

    1. Not an LDS myself, but only recently have I started going back to church again. When I was younger I had a real issue with church girls- I felt as if I was being judged by them, that they were too stuck-up and would write me off for not being the usual nice guy, beta-male ideal of Christian men the church seems to hold up so often. As a result, I was barely ever attracted to any of them, even the ones who would otherwise be 8/10 or higher otherwise. This idea of them being prissy Stepford Wives corrupted by a diet of “Jesus wants you to be wholesome and marry a mangina” doctrine turned me right off.
      So I stopped going to church at about 28, went my own way and came to realise once and for all what so many others here already know about the state of Western women these days. Especially as (like me) you hit 30 and it dawns on you that the girls your age are only going down-hill, and what guy who sees things for what they are (vs what they could be) wants to go and pick up leftovers?
      As a result I go to a couple of different churches and good heavens! The girls! Girls everywhere, late teens, early 20’s, stunning and radiant as anything I’ve seen anywhere else…
      Going back to church and seeing the girls there (after realising just how far Western women as a whole have slipped) was like walking into a fresh fruit and vegetable store after hanging out at McDonald’s! In the past 2 months, I have seen/ met more girls I am genuinely attracted to than in the previous 10 years of my life altogether. Best of all is that in my 3 year absence from church, (thanks to my own realisations, learnings and the wisdom throughout sites like this) I feel as if I’ve gained a new, deeper understanding as to what qualities I should be looking for in a woman and what they really seek in return (even if they don’t understand it for themselves).
      Moving forward, I feel that my biggest problem is going to be finding just one of these young women to focus on, where it seems like I’m spoilt for choice!

      1. My advice is to play the field. Date lots of women, just keep sex out of the equation. Eventually, you will find the pick of the litter. I had a friend that I did lots of double dates with. We would agree something like two weeks in advance, and figure out what we were going to do. Then we would both find a date. I would approach a girl and tell her what was going on, rarely was I turned down. I think the girls felt more at ease on double dates. It was kind of fun to see who could get the better looking girl. We usually would do silly stuff like mini-golf, zoo, or some community event. Both of us found our future wives that way.
        I noticed the same thing about church girls growing up. They were very snobby in their youth. They haven’t realized yet that there are not very many good men out there. (a good man is not the same as a beta) By the time they are looking to settle, their options are running out. I returned from my mission at 28 (kind of old because I was a convert) married at 29, she was 23 (girls at that time couldn’t go on a mission until they were 21). I mention missions because in LDS culture, it is a rite of passage for men. If a guy doesn’t go, he is deemed not committed to Jesus, or too weak. It separates the men from the boys. When I got back, the world was my oyster.

  21. Congrats for this deep post. That is why love ROK. Before i recovered my faith in Christ i was a agnostic turned atheist and those years were the most depressing of my life.
    I search the Truth like any normal and intelligent men, searching for the meaning of my life, of life itself, and, by reading the most exponential minds of science, Philosophy, History and Theology i came to the conclusion that a atheistic worldview leads always to morel relativism, nihilism and no hope.
    We are nothing but a evolved specie of a small planet in a infinite Universe, with no greater meaning than a bacteria or a ant. There is nothing before life, nothing after, just a void. That means, that in the end, nothing really matters, from writing this opinion to defending ones ideology, to win wars, to defeat marxism, in the end, we are all going to die, with no greater purpose.
    But, if Christ did rise from the dead, then all is different. If death was conquered, then there is a God, the creator, a God that gives meaning to life and that makes everything sublime.

    1. I remember once reading a book from a medieval monk that said “a single soul is of more value than all else in the universe”, that blew my mind, i was an atheist at the time who use to view other people as just highly evolved monkeys which were of little to no importance to me or society. The sanctity of ALL life can only come from theism.

  22. Let’s say that there is nothing after dead. You die, the lights go out, and never come back on.
    That doesn’t give you the right to be a dick to people. That also doesn’t negate the Golden Rule.
    Finally, as someone who does hope and believe in life after death, I’ll never know that I was wrong in that case.

  23. “There’s nothing more certain than death, but there’s nothing more uncertain than the hour of death” We all die, none of us are even assured of living through the night, but even if you’re lucky and live to an old age, death will still come, so you need to start asking yourself some tough questions.
    Without the assurance of eternal life then everything is futile.

    1. I don’t see the pursuit of a continuation of my species and in specific my own genes, culture and history as futile, whether God exists or not.

      1. I didn’t say they were not important, only that there is a hierarchy of what is important. To know and love God above all else is the most important, because your eternal life depends upon it. Without reforming your own soul and being found worthy of eternal life, then your investing in temporary things that will one cease to exist, and that may come sooner than later.

        1. Personally I am of the opinion that my so called eternal life is directly predicated on the continuation and success of the human species as well as my own genetic contribution to it.
          I would have a very long metaphysical sort of explanation for why that is, but this isn’t the place.

        2. There has to be at least some effort on our part, but God is indeed merciful, afterall “God regards not what you are, or what you have been, but what you wish to be”, he knows our hearts.

        3. I would accept that as a metaphor. Whoever puts in the effort gets to experience God. But I do not think that you have to wait till afterlife. I also don’t think that if you fail to achieve that in this lifetime, that you are doomed forever.

        4. But what if the nature of the God you experience, love and come to know differs from the God of your faith? Ultimately, you must come to a point where the true God one experiences cannot be summed up by one religion surely? This is what I find very difficult to accept in any monotheistic religion.

  24. Tolstoy, huh? I didn’t think he would get too much respect around here, he was pretty much a limousine liberal for his day. I like his novels, but he is no Dostoevsky.
    To answer the question: Yes.

  25. Whether there is or isn’t a God that underwrites our world and actions in it, in our existence we can have experiences that have an inherent meanings and purposes without God.
    God or rather what we believe God to be can likewise be in certain circumstances be an element that inhibits our freedom if we live in fear and shame of His judgment upon us.

  26. I am a god believer as the world is too perfect in creation to be arbitrary. now, my x on the other hand- she doesn’t think so I can see where someone with no belief in anything can exist. The thought never crosses the mind.

  27. I love the idea of goals as both a distraction and a way of giving meaning to one’s life. One of the goals oft recommended on this blog that gives me meaning is avoiding getting caught up in the corporate drone beta male life. Nothing has the potential to make your existence more meaningless than a job where you’re just a simple, replaceable economic unit. It gives me a lot of pleasure and meaning trying to beat that system.

  28. As a rather hard core atheist, if I’m honest, I have to answer NO to the question. Without something greater than what we know, a life has no more meaning than a breath.
    I don’t believe, but I want to, and I’m willing to.

  29. Faith can be a constant struggle at times – and more than once I’ve asked myself the same questions about the inherent meaninglessness of life as Tolstoy did. What do we live for; what is the point of going on? As I’ve gotten older, few things truly give me pleasure anymore.
    Anyway, excellent article – I’d like to see more like this.

  30. While I have no deep morsels of wisdom at the moment, I want to say this is a great piece Roosh published. It makes you think what a woman/man living with no reason to serve anything higher than themselves can dwelve into. I am in the same shoes, not religious yet see the virtue in living towards a meaning or higher belief. Watched Requiem For a Dream recently, it is along the same lines of what happens when humans are left to themselves. Great work Roosh, I’d enjoy having a brew or meal with you one day.

  31. ” 1)There is nothing higher to a human than his reason. Without reason, a man could not perceive or sense life.”
    Not true. There is nothing higher than the TRUTH. Reason is what is necessary to find the truth, but reason itself is not the highest virtue. The truth is the highest virtue.
    “Reason is also what allows a man to reject his life and commit suicide, thereby ending it.”
    Complete misunderstanding of what reason is. Reason is not merely the act of thinking. It’s principled thinking. Being reasonable is not merely being attuned to reality to the degree that is necessary for the sake of one’s self-interest. True reason is acting on the basis that truth is the highest virtue. Let’s say the realities of one’s existence seems to be at odds with one’s self-interest and thus the individual concludes that life is not worth living. Now is this person actually acting reasonably? No they are not.
    They are presupposing that life is about fulfilling their self-interest based on no logic or evidence whatsoever. That however is not true reason. True reason involves avoiding arbitrary beliefs whatsoever and getting to point where one can justify all held intellectual stances. If one were to maintain the logical position “Truth is the highest virtue and truth should be pursued even if it goes against my self-interest” then one cannot conclude by reason that suicide is acceptable.
    Now let’s re-extrapolate and fix Tolstoy’s error.
    1)Truth is the highest virtue.
    2)Since truth is the highest virtue then pursuing the truth is good.
    3)Since pursuing the truth is good then a life that either involves pursuing the truth or indirectly aiding the pursuit of truth is good and an honorable death is also good.
    4)Therefore, life has meaning.

    1. Ah well done. I would add:
      5) continuing the pursuit of truth and aiding it past our personal expiration date is therefore good, so make children and raise them well to continue pursuit of truth.
      6) aiding and contributing to the continual expansion of the human race promotes the pursuit of truth, and therefore must be good.

      1. It’s a start. The inherent importance of truth can lead us to a thousand other extrapolations. I could tell you how far I’ve gone with this theory, but at this point I think the first principle is the one that matters. We would fix a lot of problems in philosophy if we just got the FIRST principle right.
        Isn’t it interesting how people like Tolstoy can go off the deep end by just a simple intellectual error like that? Conflating reason with the truth. Two completely different things.

  32. We could swear off women as all harlots, but where would we be at the end? We could swear off all beliefs as false, but where would we go from there? Perhaps all women are evil and we end up as worm food, or maybe there are a few good ones and my spot in hell is already reserved. Who’s to say?

    1. We could call women all dirty low down dirt and wipe them aside or we could realize that women are the fertile virgin soil within which to plant our seed.

  33. I think a sentiment of Nationalism gives your life a very deep meaning – preservation of your people. You don’t have to believe in God in order to believe in the right of your people to exist, to have a territory where they can live they see fit.

  34. I don’t see how a god necessarily solves the problems theists want it to solve. A logically possible god could have created human life without any meaning, purpose, moral guidance, an afterlife or a guarantee of ultimate justice. Theists just imagined these things about a god for selfish reasons.

    1. “I don’t see how a god necessarily solves the problems theists want it
      to solve. A logically possible god could have created human life without
      any meaning, purpose, moral guidance, an afterlife or a guarantee of
      ultimate justice. Theists just imagined these things about a god for
      selfish reasons.”
      Bingo. If life has no meaning then God’s life has no meaning. If God’s life has no meaning then his actions have no meaning. That means his Creation has no meaning.
      You nailed it dude.

      1. I’m partially with you on that, man. I think we ought to expand the conversation for sure. I say Taoism not only bc personally I like it the most, but I think so many other faiths are deeply, inextricably linked to, or even to some degree based on, Taoism. Even the Abrahamic faiths.
        Even more though, I find that Taoism offers a way to find this meaning to the religious man and atheist alike, with much less risk of those nasty side effects that can come from too much of either one.
        Love to chat more but I’m getting fucking fat & need to get to the goddam gym.

        1. Hahaa for the ending. Well, I’m not that versed in Taoism as such but I know a bit about Japanese Buddhism which as I understand is based on Taoism, Confucianism Buddhism and Shinto all sort of together.

  35. I was raised christian, but not any specific denomination.
    What god is to you is personal: everybody worships god in their own way. I consider god and his creation very closely linked, for to know one is to know the other. Rather renaissance, I imagine.
    From the forces that drive evolution to the very laws of physics, these arbitrary forces are the existence of god. Perhaps not the bearded fellow in the sky, but some overarching force/entity that is beyond human comprehension.
    The value of human life is based on its relative fragility in the universe: all the probabilities that must go right in order for a human to be formed, born, live and die -in proper time- is nothing short of miraculous. We should treasure such miracles, and only destroy if necessary.

  36. If there is no God,how can life have meaning? You are, then you’re not,just gone. No judgement day, no salvation or damnation. If ones only concern would be getting caught by earthly authorities, what’s the point of worrying about anything, because it doesn’t really matter.
    Let’s just say the Bible isn’t the word of God and was just made up by men. Why? What was the point? Why did these ancient men come up with these rules for life instead of “enjoying the decline”?
    How could a bunch of uneducated hillbillies come up with a plan for society to stay on the straight and narrow? Why would they care? How could they see that selfishness,greed,hedonism,inability to control ones impulses and failure of personal responsibility could result in a crash of society when they basically had no knowledge of places beyond their immediate area?
    God has been removed from life in the western world, we are still moving forward technologically but, society and humans seem to be regressing back to an animal like state where”if it feels good do it”.

  37. I believe in God.
    The whole “something from nothing” argument that atheists push just doesn’t make enough sense for me to run with it.
    I also think it’s arrogant of humans to believe that they have full understanding of the afterlife. Non-believers seem to say: “Well, science doesn’t prove that there is a heaven, so life must cease to exist upon death.” You have to be willing to accept that you don’t understand every form of human consciousness-one only has to take psychedelic drugs to confirm this. I truly believe that there is a form of consciousness that humans can only experience upon death.
    For anyone who is a non-believer or is on the fence, read up a little on near-death experiences. A lot of them are truly out-of-body. Some people report traveling to other rooms of a hospital and hearing conversations that ACTUALLY took place while they were on the operating table. There is simply no explanation for a lot of the NDAs.

  38. Excellent piece. I do not understand why a belief in God or heaven, is suppose to confer meaning to life. This realization is the main reason I became an atheist. Not that anyone wants to go to oblivion; I just don’t get it. And could not help but notice, most atheists seem to find meaning in either politics, or hedonism. Or both. Particularity leftists. None of which interested me either. Ironically, after returning to a belief in God, mostly due to discovering manifested healing is actually real, self-directed and otherwise, the challenge of meaning remains. I’ve considered I may have a psychological problem of some kind, but forget about it. I gave up psychology and philosophy for Lent, a long time ago. Some might say, I’m inclined to reject solutions, like a toxic personality, but when solutions become your betrayers, once again, forget about it. At any rate, I need a drink, but it’s too late to get any tonight.

  39. Interesting article and amazing discussions here. I feel the need to review half the comments taking notes and researching the references. It is truly amazing to see the level of knowledge here and it is comforting to see the civil discourse on this thread.
    I had just finished watching ‘our’ presidents Dallas speech before coming here and was truly dismayed. The comments in this article have truly lifted my spirits tonight.
    As a father of three and not currently active in a church these are issues that I have wrestled with myself. Despite my lake of trust in organized religion, I recognize the value of structured values and community. I have gone back and forth countless times on seeking out a local congregation for the sake of my wife/children and perhaps myself.
    My current personal motivation is financial based. However, I have come to realize that the conquering of an industry which the vast majority fails is more to the point than I may have previously realized. That is to say it’s not about the money but the mastering of myself along the way.
    I have done this in the past in my lifetime. I’m in a sales career in which statistics say 80% fail. I started from scratch so the odds were even greater. I made it but now 12 years later feel the need for a new challenge. However, if I succeed at this new venture then what? Still no satisfaction now or ever?
    As one poster mentioned I feel the answer for me is more along an Asian tradition than Western. In the past when money was not such an obsession I found peace in letting go with meditation practice. Just sit and listen to yourself breath quieting your mind. I can remember the feeling of contentment in the past but then again I was a young man without a family or legacy to maintain.
    The answer has to be in balancing the two. At the present moment though the ‘burning desire’ as Napoleon Hill described it trumps all and my every waking moment is focused on the business at hand. I do, of course, find much joy in my family on a day to day basis. But, this article focuses on the end we will all find ourselves in after these crazy days are all but a memory.
    I just hope that when successful the end of the rainbow will be as golden as promised and I can find a way to be truly happy. Happy is not really even the proper term though is it then. Fulfilled? Enlightened? Satisfied? How does one wish to describe one’s experience at the end of their earthly existence?

    1. The mission is to gain, maintain and retain patriarchal rule with grace over your brood. Your personal DNA chain links your seedline from antiquity and your patriarchal stance forms a NEW DNA chain which is the code and order of the civilization in which you live. The order of civilization is far above the lowly lives of the wild animal beasts that we would devolve into if we lived under matriarchy and if we succumbed to masculine resignation.
      Don’t forfeit your civilized patriarchal chain link. There is an extra-biological DNA chain that exists and it is the DNA code and information transfer for your civilization to replicate and preserve itself.
      Patriarchal bretheren abreast, beside you and standing in support behind you form more links in the ‘chain of patriarchal civilization’. Legions of patriarchs together form the entire DNA chain of civilization. Under Patriarchy, our species ascends from lowly beast existence and rests on a higher civilized plane. Civilization is an ascention above matriarchy, above bitch rule and above animal squalor. Civilization is a living phenomenon that declares its own creation. Civilization is like a life form in itself. Civilization is a creation of man under God’s law.

  40. Sense of self and personal decisions trump faith. Well, the weak kind of faith anyway. The strong kind of faith is a personal decision that comes from a sense of self.
    I take full responsibility for my existence. I don’t think I can have an existential crisis anymore. I’ve decided to exist. I don’t need a reason.

  41. MAN: ”Lord, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Bitch ho drove me to it.” (trigger warn)
    http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f10/103812d1258470525-shotgun-suicide-bath-1.jpg
    LORD: ”That’s your mother’s house you spoiled shit. Go back and clean that mess up.”
    MAN: ”I was wrong. I’ll hang in the attic and make noise.”
    LORD TO TOLSTOY: ”When you’re clinically depressed, I command you put down your fucking pen. Travel far. To southeast Asia. Search for a green leafy plant called kratom. Get seeds and a few dime bags. Bring them back and offer them up to the kings. Please help me get a handle on these kings.”

    1. making a mess is really inexcusable. Who wants their last act on earth to be like that. Empedocles had it right. Leave nothing to clean.

  42. He is right, we should forsake reason and accept things we know to be untrue. Believing in a two thousand year old tome designed to control a barbaric society is exactly what we should use to give our modern lives meanings.
    PRAISE ALLAH
    This life is all you have, it is the only thing you will ever do. That gives it meaning to you. If you can’t derive meaning from the fact that this life is all you have to make your mark on history…then you should kill yourself because you are a whiny little pussy.
    The fact atheist don’t know the origin of existence (and don’t pretend to , no one pretends to have any information prior to the big bang that is an area that science has yet to examine and hypothesis) doesn’t mean that Zeus or Thor, or Allah, or your faggy Jesus is the correct option.
    How are you going to have a website called return of kings and constantly want everyone to be subservient to some make believe father figure because it makes you feel better. A society can’t be improved upon if everyone abandons logic and accepts comforting lies. That is cowardice, that is easy, and that is not what a king would do …taking the easy way so you don’t get sad or face harsh truths . Such a bitch

  43. For anyone who doubts the existence of God, check out the latest research on the Shroud of Turin. I esp recommend the books “The Shroud” by Ian Wilson and “The Coming of the Quantum Christ” by John Klotz – both are fairly recent.
    The radio-carbon dating in 1988 that claimed the shroud had a medieval origin has now been completely discredited, and must be thrown out. All other indications are that the shroud is legit. But more importantly, the image on the shroud cannot be explained by science nor duplicated even with today’s technology. It is indeed a miracle, in the literal sense.
    If atheism is true, then the shroud cannot exist. But yet it does. That’s why one famous atheistic scientist, upon studying the shroud and the massive research that’s been done on it, remarked that it caused him to have a “crisis of faith” in his atheism!

    1. I agree that there is all kinds of evidence out there about the existence of God. I developed my belief in God during college when taking physics, thermodynamics, and other science courses. I was consistently bombarded with laws, variables, and other anomalies that would have to be just so, otherwise we never would have existed. It cannot be by chance.
      However, evidence alone cannot and will not convert a person. One of the basic principles of faith is for us to put our trust in Jesus, despite lacking a full knowledge. Mortality is a time to be tested, to learn to choose good over evil, to gain a body, and to learn faith. In doing so, we inevitably fall short of God’s standards and by so doing (besides be called a hypocrite by leftists) have to rely on Jesus to receive forgiveness and possibly, perfection. If we were shown that God was there, without a doubt, faith would become dormant, nullifying the plan.

      1. evolution is feasible, going from an animal to a human kind of makes sense.
        But how do you go from a ROCK to an ANIMAL? intelligent design is the only answer. It only seems ‘hidden’ from us because we can’t comprehend the power and design of a creator.

        1. Agreed, the law of entropy flies in the face of ‘accidental formation of life”. It is asinine to think that or the “big bang” was by chance. However, I do think God may have used billions of years to create the world as it is. Genesis 1 and 2 mentions “and the third day”, but how long is that day? Loosely translated, the sequential order of things matches very well with scientific theory. I believe Adam and Eve were put on the Earth some 7000 years ago, but the creation of Earth took billions of years, which is not a big deal to an all powerful, omnipotent being who has past, present, and future before him.

    2. Also pull up the video on YouTube named “Science Tests Faith”. Amazing stuff to which the atheists have no answer. So they just ignore it, hoping you will too.

  44. I have two Raelian friends who seem fine without God. I met them in France 25 years ago. Even if their philosophy may seem weird, at the same time they look happy and still have good values.

    1. all those atheist European countries are presently being overrun by muslims. So your atheism is not sustainable.

  45. The purpose of our existence is to return our quantum parts, blasted like a zit from the Universe’s creation, back to a singular point in space. That’s why all lifeforms pursue hot/moist black holes.

  46. You can believe in whatever mythology you want:
    1. The Flying-Jewish-Zombie (Christianity)
    2. Alan’s Snackbar (Islam)
    3. The Money Changers (Judaism)
    4. Xenu, the Galactic Overlord (Scientology)

  47. This article really hits home for me. I’ve been struggling with this issue for quite some time now. And the article really puts it into perspective. In many ways, I love the traditions of the past, and the sense of community they bring to the cultural at large. Christendom for example. But yet I don’t feel I can accept the totality of Christianity, and all its ideas and myths. Perhaps I’ve read too much, perhaps I think too much. But even when I almost seem to want to believe in it again (I grew up as a Christian), I suddenly find myself thinking, this is all just a bunch nonsense, and say, fuck it.
    Yet, looking to our modern world of shitty ideas, that seem to be approaching light speed from ever nook and tranny (looking at you Hegel). Maybe believing in good old ideas that are illogical could be humanities better alternative.
    Quid est Veritas?

  48. Christianity is the predecessor of Islam. It was forced upon people. You had basically two or three choices: convert, die or live like a social outcast. The only reason people here defend Christianity is because they have no native culture, heritage or religion. It’s the same reason Muslims defend Islam, because without Islam their culture, heritage and identity is gone.
    The Arabs copied this from the early Christians. Destroy the native culture and replace it with your own. People are social creatures. They want to fit in, otherwise they feel unhappy. Current societies work the same way. You’re forced to live and think in a way that fits society, otherwise you’ll be a social outcast.

    1. You are misinformed. Christianity was not spread by the sword or by force until it was appropriated by Constantine of Rome in 325 AD as Rome could not stop its spread in their empire. This was the birth of Catholicism and they mixed in paganism as well. Islam was spread by the sword and forced upon peoples in its founders own lifetime, he himself killed many people. The histories of these 2 religions are nothing alike. Islam is easy to debunk as well.

      1. The old canard that Constantine changed the religion has long been proved false. Check out the book “Four Witnesses”, for example. It quotes holy men/saints/martyrs from the first 2 centuries of the Church – men like Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, Iraneas, Ignatious, etc. These men lived within a generation or two of the Apostles, so obviously many years (even centuries) before Constantine.
        And what do we find in their writings? References to things like the holy sacrifice of the mass, confession to priests, baptism of infants, the sacrament of extreme unction, etc. This is absolutely deadly to Protestantism, because it shows that the generation just following the Apostles had been taught (and were practicing) what is clearly the Catholic faith.
        So sorry, but that’s the truth. As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. And now you see why why Anglican convert to Catholicism John Henry Neuman said, “To be steeped in history is to cease to be a Prostestant.”

        1. “By their fruits, ye shall know them”…….
          Honestly guys, the infighting between Christian denominations is a waste of time and is counterproductive. Live your religion the best you can and forget about doctrinal differences. God is just, do you think he would condemn one person because of a misunderstanding that is no fault of his own? We will learn the full truth in the afterlife, and God will make things right. Where you should be focusing your efforts to combat is inherently evil religions (atheism, satanism, radical islam and various witchcraft cults). How do you know which ones to go after? “By their fruits, ye shall know them”

  49. For those interested, see Dr. Kent Hovind and his seminars on Youtube.
    He walks through the scientific evidence for Creationism and the lack thereof for Evolution Theory.
    From Geology and Anthropology to Physics and Biology, this man shies from no subject defending the Word of God and the accuracy of the Bible. He also has numerous debates with College Professors on his channel. With my healthy skepticism I didn’t believe it at first, but could not refute him. Turned me from an Agnostic to a Christian in a weekend of watching his seminars due to the irrefutable, yet highly suppressed, evidence he brings to bear.
    Interested in another Red Pill? Watch Hovind’s seminars.

    1. does he reference that part of our DNA strand looks like it was cut short or something to that effect? do you know what I’m talking a bout?

      1. Sounds familiar, but I don’t know the details.
        Hovind talks fast, puts out hours worth of material, ranging across multiple subjects, and I saw the seminars over a year ago, so I can’t remember exactly if he references that.
        Another creationist on Youtube, Trey Smith, goes very in depth into DNA.
        Chuck Missler covers statistical probabilities and astronomy mostly.
        Highly recommend any and all of them.

  50. Faith in God keeps me going. I have a hard time communicatng in any meaningful way with most atheists

  51. At some point science needs to come with a final rational and easily comprehensible structure of the universe…. otherwise its nothing more than a dogmatic religion of the intellect….. this answer will not only provide star trek type technologies but also harmonise religion with science. Science and religion have been age old enemies because religion relies heavily on folk lore that easily becomes a bigoted power structure…. lost in all religion is the same intelligence that amounts to a concsious perception of reality…. this was also contained in early science but the philosophical goal of science has largely been lost……. if not the why we at least need to know the final how of existence…… we need to know…. both science and religion have failed us and what is left is a choice between a trivial fight for survival or trival entertainment….. the two roled into one make for endless warring and religious / political schism….relgion on its own is a ceremonious nonsense and a fanatical idiotic bloodbath….. science on its own is more likely to provide the final catastrophe than then final solution. If the two remain seperate eventually religious fanaticism will simple make use of scienctific technology to light the fuse.
    On the other hand in areas of quantum mechanics and relativity… we have the beginning of a scientific ‘god’. Something that has always been perceived but not rationalized. The ancient kings did not need to understand H2O to call it water….. GOD is a concious perception of reality that cannot be scientifically proven YET…. but quantum engtanglement (google it) starts to suggest it….. there is a solution…. there must be a solution or life would not exist….
    The current scientific ideas are only ideas….. no better than previous efforts because they are incomplete….. science will only replace religion when it has some more answers….. it however lost inside its own dogmatic logic…. something that you do not understand will not have a logical solution until you have the solution….
    True faith is therefore the will to investigate a philosphical view point of life…. knowing that the answers will be possible to obtain in time…..

  52. Fallacious assumption of a Bible god’s existence in article concluded with a Pascal’s Wager fallacy. As for “meaning in our lives”, everybody creates their own meaning or has other people define it for them. Believers simply choose to allow the 2-3,000 year old dead people who wrote the holy books to decide the rules for determining meaning in their lives, because it’s too challenging for the lazy-minded to define their own meaning. Arranging one’s entire life as preparation for an imagined after-death life is foolhardy and mostly detrimental to society through wasted resources that could be put to better use.

  53. What god or gods are we referring too? What about interpretation of worshiping these deity(ies)?

  54. Are not THESE the only questions in life that matter?
    From the age of 15 to 53, I had a certainty about the existence of God which I could no more doubt than I could doubt my own existence (I think, therefore, I am. I think, therefore, God is). Then, during my 53rd year, at a moment or over several days or weeks, I cannot tell, this consciousness of God’s existence left me. Gone!
    Unlike the mystics of old, I did not experience any form of emotional upset; no “dark night of the soul”, no paroxysms of abandonment or grief.
    Why not?
    Because all of my life I have held reason supreme, even in matters of faith. If God truly did not exist then to experience the emotion of “abandonment” made no sense. If he still existed and I was simply unable to FEEL Him anymore, well, c’est la vie! That’s just how life works sometimes.
    But how could I believe in both reason AND faith? In the same way science relies on both reason and faith. Perhaps the greatest deception of our age is the myth that science doesn’t need faith. Wrong! The foundation of science IS faith. The very postulates and axioms in science, those First Ideas that make science possible, CANNOT be proven to be true. Not by reason and not by the scientific method. Which is why we call them axioms. First Truths of Reason. First Truths of Science. They are the accepted faith that makes science possible.
    The scientific method. It cannot be proven to be true using the scientific method.
    Logic cannot be proven true by science because science assumes its truth. Without faith in logic science can’t be done.
    The list goes on.
    Every theory begins with an assumption about reality. You then test this assumption using various experiments.
    God can be one of your assumptions about reality.
    Once you postulate the existence of an infinite-yet-personal God, a God outside of space-time, a God-Transcendent, a God-Axiom if you will, you can use logic, reason, philosophy, psychology, personal experience, history, etc., from that point on and see if your God hypothesis answers the questions you initially raised about human existence.
    Is there a purpose to life? Is there a meaning to existence? Is there love? Is there beauty? Is there Truth? What are all of these things? Are they unique to man or were they placed into his soul to turn his heart toward his true home?
    The postulate upon which a Christian bases his belief in God is the reality of the truth that nothing in human consciousness makes sense WITHOUT an infinite-personal God and WITH the infinite-personal God postulate, everything BEGINS to make sense. Everything FINALLY makes sense.
    It was Albert Camus who made this point so stark when he began The Myth of Sisyphus with this statement: “There is only one really serious philosophical question and that is suicide”
    But upon deeper reading into Camus I realized he recognized that the overriding reason life was absurd was not only because life IS, but because life ENDS.
    Or, as Rust Cohle says to his partner, Martin Hart in “True Detective”:
    Rust Cohle: I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware. Nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself. We are creatures that should not exist by natural law. We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self, this accretion of sensory experience and feelings, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody’s nobody.
    I think the honorable thing for our species to do is to deny our programming. Stop reproducing. Walk hand in hand into extinction. One last midnight, brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal.
    Marty Hart: So what’s the point of getting out of bed in the morning?
    Rust Cohle: I tell myself I bear witness, but the real answer is that it’s obviously my programming. AND I LACK THE CONSTITUTION FOR SUICIDE.
    So here you have two expressions of a single postulate regarding life and it’s meaning and the conclusion they both come to is the same: SUICIDE. Neither man has the courage to do it, but they know it is their only answer.
    But if you begin with a different postulate, the Infinite-Personal God Postulate, guess what? Suddenly Life HAS meaning. Life HAS purpose. And because Jesus is the Son of God made flesh in this world and rose from the dead, your life and my life need never end. Another victory over Camus’ Absurdist Despair.
    If you look at all the evidence, not in nature (although it’s there) but in consciousness, human personality, you will find that the God Postulate and the God Hypothesis answer every question of the human heart and soul.
    Without it, there is NO answer. Only despair. And maybe, for you, suicide.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *