eah, I feel you. But a pack of wolves has a certain cohesion. So maybe we're more complex wolves. We love and hate. We assert status with words. We're never done inventing ourselves or figuring out our place. Everyone cobbles together their own post-religion. Some go to more trouble articulating a philosophy or an anti-philosophy.

Even if everything is 'really' empty, our animal minds mostly distract us for this. If we do remember, then there are some twisted pleasures to be had. The individual is more godlike beneath an empty sky. — jellyfish

Maybe I'll be more descriptive in what the conceptual breakdown or deconstruction looks like in my mind.
The real muddle comes with the breakdown of the self.
I previously believed I was a soul made by God in his image who would live eternally.

I now believe that I am a biological process, who's primary driver is a brain. I am no means a coherent whole but rather a collection of competing desires, interests and emotions. These are ultimately the causal forces that result in my behaviour. And you can see the incoherence of this collection in the incoherence of my thoughts and behaviour.

And so when the brain described as "I" is faced with options it previously used reason to arrive a reasonable decision, relying on deep theistic structures to reason a way through. And I was pretty good at this kind of reasoning, a public speaker and debater who sometimes won!

But now I am a muddled mess, there is no underlying deep structures that the brain can rely on to reason its way out. There is no room left for "ought", just "is". I have recognized my brain to be the animal brain it always was. But the animal brain really ultimately only pursues self interest.

So I try to avoid those confused states, I practice mindfulness and stay in the moment and in the micro. But this doesn't leave one very engaged in a deep level in life. It's all just process, I am part of it, but it has no clear direction and no underlying principles. It's just random causality let loose.

'm telling nobody to "get over it." I'm simply noting that the spiritual crisis is due to an assumption, and that the assumption need not (and i think should not) be accepted.

That it need not be accepted is established by the fact that millions of people, some of them very wise and highly intelligent, some of them very accomplished, some of them happy, lived before the advent of Christianity and other religions which posit the existence of a personal God who must be accepted if life is to have any significance and without whom all is meaningless Probably, such people live now as well.

This indicates there is nothing about being human which requires us to experience a spiritual crisis of the kind which, it seems to be claimed, must result in nihilism. And this understanding presents us with an opportunity to assess, as others have, being human free of the assumption from which the spiritual crisis derives. — Ciceronianus the White

Those who never had their brains hardwired with the structures and beliefs of theism are in a very different position, than those who have. I am not suggesting that reality minus God = nihilism. It is my experience that having been raised staunch catholic and actually truly endorsing that belief system sets one up for a serious sense of confusion and disorientation with our reality once the myths break down through reasoned focus. I am looking for experiences from those who have shared this experience but have found a path out of it.

the solution is actually remarkably simple
stop describing humans using simple colour labels that are imprecise and unsophisticated descriptors start describing humans more directly and clearly
if you want to talk about someone's physical characteristics...do so...he had dark curly hair with medium complexion and brown eyes
if you want to talk about someone's culture, do so, his parents were born in Egypt, but he was born and raised in new york.

the terms "white" "black" "brown" etc, imprecisely link physical appearance and cultural ties
they do nothing useful and we would do better to abandon them

hy is that, I wonder? I mean why isn't the Big Story of the self as a string of narratives spewing forth from the brain nowhere near as satisfying as the Big Story of the immortal self set in some eternal plan within a purposive universe? What did Jesus have to do with immigrants, besides saying some pithy things about love that any brain could have (well, I'd probably go so far as to say *did*, given that I don't believe) come up with?

You say it is because your brain is set for Judeo-Christian meaning and purpose. But nothing could substitute Judeo-Christian meaning and purpose; it would be atheist meaning and purpose, or democratic meaning and purpose, or Buddhist meaning and purpose, or whatever-else-it-is. It would always be a different Big Story. But something about the brain-making-stories Big Story isn't satisfying. — Moliere

interesting thought, but it's not so much that I need a big story for motivational purposes, I do seem to still care about making the world a better place. but for me what's missing is the underlying structure and framework that allowed me to make sense of what making the world a better place meant. Now I simply have no clue, without absolutes and with the indeterminacy of the meaning of words, I am left with the sense that really all that directs us is self interest veiled in appeals to truths like fairness, justice, equality that are ultimately linked to a world view where those things had meaning because God gave them meaning. I can't escape the thought that those concepts make as much sense in the human world as do they with respect to a pack of wolves...

That's because what is positive and good is subjective. You can't define what is positive or good on macro scale because there is no such thing.

So, it seems to me that your continued confusion is the result in believing in things that don't exist. — Harry Hindu

right so what point is therein in discussing the macro? It's akin to a discussion about whether a person is attractive or not. There's not much utility in reasoned discussion about that. So just as I avoid such discussions so I avoid the macro normative discussions. Hence the lesser engagement in life.

:up:

well I appreciate the candidacy. I expect my life will take a similar path. But I feel like perhaps just accepting that is what is and not lamenting the loss is the lesson to learn.

I too enjoy being in nature, just being conscious in its beauty.

I am an interesting reality relevant to this thread as my culture does not align with my racial appearance. I have a unique appearance that is difficult to classify into conventional categories. I will often be asked "what is your background?". I will answer referring to my culture, but people often walk away puzzled because my appearance does not align with the normal parameters of physical appearance for that particular culture.

As others have pointed out, it is in fact culture that gives you the most interesting information about who someone is. But people don't actually care as much about that as race, since it is not as simple and accessible. I will sometimes reply "are you interested in my culture or race?", which leaves the asker quite puzzled indeed and usually serves to alienate me from the asker.

For quite some time I rallied against the forces and tried to promote a new world where in fact we did not refer to people using color descriptors, but rather advocated for more accurate descriptions based on culture. It;s a tough fight though, trying to navigate the world describing people physically and culturally without linking the two.

So it was practically speaking somewhat draining. The other causal factor in my abandoning this approach was the deconstruction at the macro level of my ethical compass (due to a dislodged theistic belief system), The question that arises in my head now, is why should the privileged give up their privilege? Are not the less privileged simply advocating for their own self interest such that they can become more privileged? Why shouldn't the privileged do the same?

hat would a "deeper engagement with life" mean? How is being good to those your care about, and therefore creating your purpose with them, not a deeper engagement with life? — Harry Hindu

An even deeper engagement would involve caring about causes, positive societal change, the greater good. I used to be engaged and care about trying to better things (when I was a theist). Now I have no interest in those things because I can't define what positive or good would really mean on a macro scale. I just stick to the micro where it is usually more easy to define what is good for those I actually interact with.

What do you want your actions (your meaning and your purpose) to matter to? You? Your partner and family? The human species? Then do things for them and let that be your purpose and meaning. — Harry Hindu

Yes this is pretty much my approach, I rely on my positive emotions and try to be good to those I care about. But my deeper engagement with life is still lacking, it just all seems like a big mess that no one has any really clue about.

in the abstract, no I have no real inclination or intuition about whether it is wrong, I can and would only face this question if it presented itself to me in the micro.

what feels right for me in any given situation is ultimately linked to patterns of behaviour that arose in the context of a judaeo christrian faith...and yes I just go with it on a micro level in the normal run of the mill life stuff...but for the bigger questions that sometimes run my way I have no way to navigate those.

the difference between you and I is that I actually did believe and so the loss for me and the corresponding void is much more profound
The nike posit "just do it" works for the most part at the micro level but falls apart at the macro level.
Most of our current ethical framework at the macro level in the western world is in fact ultimately linked to a judaeo christian model of our existence, take that away and it's all fair game, and I think that in fact it's self interest that will ultimately dictate the directions each of us pursue in that game.

"What I consider right and wrong may be derived from theism, but as an atheist, I don't have any objection to that. Treating other people the way one wants to be treated is a pretty universal rule. Of course, there are elements in Christian teaching that I reject. I reject what the church has to say about homosexuality, for instance. I disapprove of the Church's balance between spending to maintain itself and spending to perform works of mercy (way, way too much spent on the maintenance of the church institution). The Church ought to be poor. On the other hand, atheists do well to feed the poor, house the homeless, visit the prisoner, and so forth, NOT because Christ commanded it, but because it is good for the person who does it, as well as the person for whom it is done. Helping others breaks down barriers between we happy and contented and you miserable and discontented (assuming "we' are, in fact, happy)."

Yes I would agree that like you my patterns of behaviour have not altered much since my loss of religion, the right way to behave seems to have been instilled in me in a way that is pretty much immune to the process of deconstruction.
But I am still left with random chaos when I actually try to reason about something at the macro level and so I always retreat from it, which ultimately makes true engagement with life evasive.
In the end all the things that were once sacred special and true, are simply random biological processes.

if you've never been a theist, I think you are coming from a very different place. I have many friends who are atheists who don't face the sense of empty random chaos about the world, because their brains were not hard wired with an underlying structure that made sense of things that has since crumbled and in my case seems to be impossible to replace.

interesting and this is pretty much my approach to life currently. It works for the most part, but doesn't give one much motivation to focus on the larger macro issues which still leaves me a rather disengaged citizen.

I honestly appreciate the thought and effort.

In simple terms you suggest aiming for what I perceive to be the good, despite not having an objectively determination of what the good is. But the issue for me is that the good used to be clear and now ), I simply can't even perceive what the good is on a macro level. (such as the abortion example I discuss above)

Indeed it's the act of replacing those principles that has evaded me for some 20 years. A simple example: Abortion was clearly wrong when I was a believer because it would be termination of soul embodied human life that was sacred and in clear violation of the ten commandments.
In my current intellectual landscape, there is no clear answer but rather a set of competing arguments about what constitutes human life, when human life can justifiably be terminated, what sorts of obligations does one human owe another?
There are no clear answers in a world of indeterminacy and random chaos. And so I avoid such discussions.