Yes, definitely!

If I knew with 100% certainty that there was no God, then I would probably be in a very depressed state.  I couldn't be one of those people who abide by the "life is a party, so live it up and get the most out of it" principle (it's like forcing a mirage onto yourself; I.E. intentionally residing in the Matrix).

I would know that there is no ultimate/actual/objectively true purpose in life.  I would know that  no objective moral values exist.  What would be the point in living?  We would be luckily existent beings who had no true reason to live.  Life would be merely a pointless, slow walk into nothing.  Not very inviting.

As an atheist, I have no trouble answering the question.  I would have no reason to change my behavior, since that is what I already believe.    

Gagezilla is right about depression.  Most atheists appear to be no more depressed (or happier) than others.  Elisha's reaction is typical of most people, and I think that it is a powerful argument for driving people away from atheism.  Throughout our childhoods, most of us were indoctrinated in traditional religious beliefs.  Religion allows us to rationalize our moral behavior and to cope with life's tragedies.  It can be a substitute for the drugs that gagezilla mentioned, although I'm not sure how effective it is at curing depression.  I think that religious people sometimes feel that God is against them, driving them futher downward in the spiral of depression.  The best thing to do when you experience depression is to take one of the serotonin reuptake inhibitors (prozac, zoloft, etc.) under a doctor's care.  They really do work.

The point is that atheism does not provide an alternative to the coping mechanism that religion provides.  It does not offer the social support infrastructure that churches and temples do. There is no longer that internal companion with whom to carry on a dialogue.  People who lose religion have a serious crisis to deal with.  How does one cope with life when the religious palliatives are gone?

Most atheists do develop coping mechanisms to compensate for the loss of religion, but it takes some time for that to happen.  Having been an atheist for about 40 years now, I have learned to accept the fact that my lifespan is fundamentally limited and that bad things are inevitably going to happen to me.  In some ways, I feel that not having raised expectations helps me to get through the rough periods.  God isn't there to help, but he isn't there to hinder, either.  Sometimes religious folks fantasize that atheism drives one into a state of hedonism, but that isn't true either.  One's lifestyle doesn't really change very much when one deconverts from religion.

So, your answer to the question is a criticism of religion?

As much as yours was a criticism of atheism, I suppose.    Actually, not everything I said about religion was a criticism.  I think that it serves as a coping mechanism.  People feel that they need it in order to face the trials and tribulations of life.  I'd certainly recommend it over booze.  

I didn't criticize atheism, but criticized a belief I typed what belief I would have if God didn't exist.

You responded with how you would behave if you woke up to discover that atheism were factually correct.  Putting yourself in atheist shoes, you had nothing good to say.  By way of contrast, I actually said some positive things about religion--that it is a good coping mechanism.

Your off-subject rants on coping mechanisms are subjective at best, though.

Unlike you, I have never tried to claim that my opinions represented factual knowledge.  

So back on topic...I think such a situation would change me, but I think it would happen slowly.  The way I currently look at life revolves around religion and even if we took religion out right away its influence on other aspects would still be large.  It would take awhile to allow those other aspects (my morality, concepts of justice, political beliefs, and how to spend my time) to change, and I'm not sure exactly what I'd come up with.  I'm certainly not sure I'd be depressed.  Certainly it would be a let down, but I've gotten to a point in life where I try to accept things I cannot change.  If there's no God that's not something I can change, so I would just need to go on living, although I can see myself finding life a bit less fulfilling.

First things first I would like to thank everyone for their meaningful responses, even if we did get a little off subject. Secondly and most regetable I must ask what a hedonist is, because this is the second time I have seen the word in this forum and unfortunately have no idea what it means. Now I must address the responses themselves. To thoes of you who said you would change then I feel an incredible swell of pity for you. Because you are truly slaves by you're own choosing. You just openly admitted to not being in control of your own lives but simply acting the way you act because you are told that if you don't then you are going to have eternal d--nation, and you accept that and live your life accordenly living to serve someone who you only believe exists and you continue to be his slave freely and willingly. I truly hope that some day you wake up and realize that God shouldn't do that to you but you should be able to be yourself beside him not under him.

Secondly and most regetable I must ask what a hedonist is, because this is the second time I have seen the word in this forum and unfortunately have no idea what it means.

Hedonism is the pursuit of pleasure for its own sake.  Atheists are often accused of hedonism by religious people.  It is considered bad, because hedonism is thought to lead to extreme selfish or self-centered behavior.  Religious morality is felt necessary to promote responsible, even altruistic, forms of behavior that benefit society at large.  It keeps our otherwise natural tendency towards selfish hedonism in check.

It is worth noting that epicureanism is often taken as a synonym for hedonism, and the Hellenic philosopher, Epicurus, was known for his materialist atheist philosophy.  But Epicurus thought that one could only be happy by moderating the desires and losing one's fear of death.  In my experience, atheists do not appear any more self-centered or selfish than those of religious faith.  Most people, whether religious or not, have a wide variety of conflicting desires to deal with.  Like Epicurus, they don't jump headlong into an orgy of self-destructive hedonism just because they lose their fear of God's retribution.  Civil and social retribution, both worldly concerns, seem to provide enough incentive to curb one's wilder emotions.

Now I must address the responses themselves. To thoes of you who said you would change then I feel an incredible swell of pity for you. Because you are truly slaves by you're own choosing. You just openly admitted to not being in control of your own lives but simply acting the way you act because you are told that if you don't then you are going to have eternal d--nation, and you accept that and live your life accordenly living to serve someone who you only believe exists and you continue to be his slave freely and willingly. I truly hope that some day you wake up and realize that God shouldn't do that to you but you should be able to be yourself beside him not under him.

I have often expressed similar sentiments.  I think that there is great irony in the fact that conventional Christians rely on the doctrine of free will to justify God's lack of tangible presence in our daily lives.  Yet they argue that we should feel deeply constrained by fear of divine retribution, and the heaven they seek will have their God looking over their shoulders at all times.  After the briefest of tastes, they experience an eternal theft of their precious gift of free will.

Good news, HarryRight.

Hell was created just for people like you.  You would rather not be in heaven because of the terms that God has laid out- that is exactly the purpose of hell.  People who think that God sends people to hell as some sort of punishment are only right in a limited sense.  Its more accurate to say that people prefer an existence apart from God, and God makes this possible:  Hell.  God doesn't send people to 'Hell' so much as he grants people their wish to exist apart from him.   Ah, but you can't please some atheists.  Some atheist will now insist that a loving God would force them to exist with him.

Anyway, your premise is donkey-backwards anyway.  As should be obvious from even a cursory look at Christianity and its teachings, faith and actions are integrally connected.   Look at the book of James, for example.   So you are all [expletive deleted] bent out of shape for no reason.  

About hedonism- it was not my intention to say that atheists have to be hedonists.  I only said that if I personally were to be convinced that there was no God, I personally would be a hedonist.  And its true that being a hedonist does not necessarily mean being cruelly selfish.  However, being the brave and courageous atheist that I would be, I would admit that there is no such thing as a real good- 'good' is merely an arbitrary view of my own.  And so I would be cruelly selfish, because 'cruelly' would not be a meaningful term, and I shouldn't care what anyone thinks as I rape, pillage, and otherwise take over the world.   If they don't like it, they could stop me.  With a gun.  Because an argument would not be compelling reason if it is true that I knew without a doubt that there was no God.

I should be nice because you want me too?  Step aside panzy coward.    

You may not have a similar view, but hey, without any objective truth, its all relative, right?   On what grounds would you say I'm wrong?  At anyrate, I wouldn't care what you did say.

I think that HarryRight let's the cat out of the bag, though.  It would be pretty difficult to positively conclude that there was no God while the great mass of humanity is running around operating on the principle that there is  'good.'   HarryRight does good things because it makes him feel good, which is not an altogether bad reason.  But why should it make him feel good at all?  Why should it make him feel anything?  

That he feels any sense at all to 'do good' is at all- along with the rest of humanity, even the atheist- will always be to some degree a cause for examination of the question of 'God.'  Thus, this sense would always stand in contrast to any fully positive knowledge that there isn't a God.  

Of course, take that sense away, or render it fully arbitrary or what not, and we are back to full out bloody hedonism of the sort that I would prefer.  Again, not saying that all atheists would choose that.  Only the brave ones.  

If beliefs have no effect on actions then beliefs are unimportant.   Any attempt to give beliefs importance requires some effect on actions, even if only by the fact that a change in our attitude effects those actions.

You seem to be saying, "Reject theism, because then you can be an atheist and then your belief that there is no God will make no difference in your life!"

Sign me up, man, I'm sold.  

I'm sorry SJ I didn't mean to come across like that. I am not saying that beliefs have no affect on action because my beliefs affect every action I make.

For example:

I see am man walking down the street carying a bag of groceries. He trips and the bag falls and spills.
I would stop to help him not because I feel that God would shine his praise on me but because that man would shine his praise on me. Then that man, who moments ago was a complete stranger, now enjoys the fact that I even exist which in turn makes me happy.

Example.

My dear friend Dannyboy believes that macro-evolution is true, but that belief has absolutely no impact on the way that he treats people.  In fact, he treats people pretty good, but he would never seek an evolutionary explanation for the reason he treats people.   He believes that his view is right but that view is meaningless except as it serves the purpose of falsifying some of my own views.  Except for that, his belief is meaningless, even to him.  

I for one have little use for beliefs that have no touchstone in reality.  If I believed, as DB does, that we evolved, I for one would ACT like we evolved.  Survival of the fittest, baby.

Im sorry to say SJ but if you are going to make an example you should make it more meaningful. I am glad to know that DB treates everyone nicely, but saying that he does that in spite of the fact that he believes in macro-evolution makes no sense. I dont treat people differently because of something that has no relevence in the conversation. For instance if persay I too believed in macro-evolution and I was talking to someone about what they did last week I would not bring up the fact that the only reason that they had that last week at all was because of monkies millions of years ago. No I would say "hey man that would be pretty freakin' sweet" or something that had more relevence to the topic at hand.

Firstly, I know it wouldn