Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

...in your opinion.

Without religion this is all there is, with, you have a higher power that you attribute certain aspects of your existence to, and an afterlife of course.

Its not that cut and dried of course, but i dont want to write a dissertation for an OP.

It's meaningless either way.

You think so?
I'm on the fence, and i say that as a religious person.
The idea that some...thing i have no real way of understanding has control of my fate, and that the way i live my life may not jibe with some arbitrary rules i have no choice in being subject to.

No god is a little simpler, but not by much.

I assume you mean religion and spiritual conviction? Because people without a religion can have beliefs that involve an afterlife and daily rituals that would effectively change how they live.

It's meaningful either way.

Originally posted by Bentley
I assume you mean religion and spiritual conviction?
Yes.
Like i said i didnt want a huge OP, and i'm giving posters enough credit to think they'll know what i'm asking about.
You and Mindset obviously do.

Honestly I believe those who are religious tend to lead more meaningful lives. I'm not sure if this is a trend worldwide but it is what I've observed.

I have observed the opposite, but it's hard to quantify of course.

The real answer is it is neither more nor less meaningful. Life is what you make of it. Also stuff having meaning is highly overrated. Some need to believe every single thing has some significance. The fact is not everything does. This is in part why I think the church fought so hard against science at certain points in history.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I have observed the opposite, but it's hard to quantify of course.

I have also observed the opposite. All I know is I went to Catholic school and you could tell the students whose parents were super religious..they just tended to seem a bit more repressed in certain ways. Since the truth is not everyone was super religious that goes to those schools..in terms of the family. A lot of them are just people who go to church twice a year(Christmas, Easter).

At least in orthodox judaism, those people appear to be happier than any non religious person i know.

Appearances can often be deceiving remember. Though they could certainly be quite happy.

Oh there's no faking this happiness. I respect not quite understanding it.

Life is no more or less meaningful than you make it, regardless of what gives it that meaning. The premise of this thread is nonsensical at best, and at worst makes some scary presumptions about meaning being derived from something external rather than internal forces.

^^^so i'm either Groucho Marx or Stephano fro Days of Our Lives. Nooice. msn-tongue

Basically you can indeed use religion to give your life meaning. Though not everyone needs religion in order to do that.

The thing is I don't believe in God, but I do believe in the afterlife.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Oh there's no faking this happiness. I respect not quite understanding it.

You'd be surprised how good people can be at faking things.

Aint that the truth.

Speaking as someone who doesn't believe that after I die I will go to a great place called Heaven and lived amongst deceased loved ones for all eternity, I personally believe I would value life much more than someone who believes in that.

Therefore, I think life is more meaningful without it.

Again, the premise of this thread is false. Because it presumes that external things can imbue life with meaning. Nothing has any intrinsic meaning until someone ascribes meaning to it. Religion doesn't give people meaning. People give religion meaning, and give their lives meaning through religion. But it's no more or less meaningful than any other source of meaning. In simpler terms, the person is the source of meaning.

So there isn't a yes or no answer to the OP that is true in a general sense beyond individual experiences. It isn't more or less meaningful without religion. It's exactly as meaningful as you make it.

And I say this twice now because it's one of the more bizarre falsehoods I see perpetuated about non-religion. That people can't fathom meaning outside of religion doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It only means their experience is limited. Maybe this isn't what Riv is saying, but it's very close to arguments I've heard several times, each as flawed as the next.

Not sure what's got your bloomers in a clinch, guy, but it was just a random question to start a random conversation.
No more than that.
You dont like it, thats cool, but dont herniate yourself over it, jeez!

It always mystified me a bit when someone shares their opinion on the internet and the response it to tell them to calm down. I've been at this a decade. Nothing on KMC moves my emotional needle anymore. But you're welcome to address the points I made. You likely saw some sort of antagonism where none was present. I merely don't mince words when I believe something to be utterly false. But I'd welcome a discussion.

Originally posted by Digi
It always mystified me a bit when someone shares their opinion on the internet and the response it to tell them to calm down. I've been at this a decade. Nothing on KMC moves my emotional needle anymore. But you're welcome to address the points I made. You likely saw some sort of antagonism where none was present. I merely don't mince words when I believe something to be utterly false. But I'd welcome a discussion.

So, what you are saying is that your "emotional needle" is moved to "welcoming discussion"?

Well, at the very least I think all can agree on that it can't be less meaningful with religion.

Originally posted by Astner
Well, at the very least I think all can agree on that it can't be less meaningful with religion.
Well, I'm not sure I'd agree with that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I'm not sure I'd agree with that.
Could you motivate why you're not sure whether you'd agree with it?

Originally posted by Astner
Could you motivate why you're not sure whether you'd agree with it?

Well, I think in essence I agree with Digi that meaning is made and not a given. So in that aspect I don't think Religion can be less meaningful, cause nothing has intrinsic meaning. However Religion can definitely make someone's life less impactful, for example by deferring to an afterlife rather than seizing the life one has, that could potentially be an interpretation of "meaning" in which Religion is a detriment.

meaning is what you get from it

if you need religion to do that then thats cool, what ever

Originally posted by Bardock42
So, what you are saying is that your "emotional needle" is moved to "welcoming discussion"?

http://i.imgur.com/RUx14bX.gif

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I think in essence I agree with Digi that meaning is made and not a given. So in that aspect I don't think Religion can be less meaningful, cause nothing has intrinsic meaning.
Then you agree with my sentiment.

Originally posted by Bardock42
However Religion can definitely make someone's life less impactful, for example by deferring to an afterlife rather than seizing the life one has, that could potentially be an interpretation of "meaning" in which Religion is a detriment.
Impact is something that comes from a sense of meaningfulness. If you feel that your actions have meaning then you are more likely to act. You're suggesting the reverse, which doesn't necessarily hold.

Originally posted by Digi
http://i.imgur.com/RUx14bX.gif
Dude...that is really ****ing intense.

Originally posted by Digi
Again, the premise of this thread is false. Because it presumes that external things can imbue life with meaning. Nothing has any intrinsic meaning until someone ascribes meaning to it. Religion doesn't give people meaning. People give religion meaning, and give their lives meaning through religion. But it's no more or less meaningful than any other source of meaning. In simpler terms, the person is the source of meaning.

So there isn't a yes or no answer to the OP that is true in a general sense beyond individual experiences. It isn't more or less meaningful without religion. It's exactly as meaningful as you make it.

And I say this twice now because it's one of the more bizarre falsehoods I see perpetuated about non-religion. That people can't fathom meaning outside of religion doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It only means their experience is limited. Maybe this isn't what Riv is saying, but it's very close to arguments I've heard several times, each as flawed as the next.


Are you married? Have children? If so, do they give your life meaning, or do you give family meaning by being part of it?

Originally posted by Astner
Then you agree with my sentiment.

He doesn't. He agrees with mine.



But seriously, the way you worded your initial assertion lends itself to different interpretations than "nothing has intrinsic meaning." Let's take a quick look:

Originally posted by Astner
Well, at the very least I think all can agree on that it can't be less meaningful with religion.

At surface value, this seems to agree with the OP's premise that I refuted in my post(s), that religion has intrinsic meaning and "can't be less meaningful."

So even if he agrees with it in a technical sense, I wouldn't espouse that particular phrasing.

And for reference, I wouldn't agree with it. If meaning is personal and subjective, and someone defines that meaning more strongly in a secular worldview, religion can absolutely undermine it. Finding anecdotes of any of this is next to impossible because we're talking about primal internal motivations, so we have nothing to point to. But in theory your premise here is eminently refutable.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Are you married? Have children? If so, do they give your life meaning, or do you give family meaning by being part of it?

I think you may be confusing ideas here, but allow me to try to clarify.

OP's question concerns defining the meaningfulness - or lack thereof - of one's life. In that sense, nothing has intrinsic meaning until we ascribe it.

Your question seems to want to turn this on its head, and suggest that I'm saying that others have no meaning. Which it does not. Questions like "are they important?" or "do they have meaning?" are separate from "do they give your own life meaning?" The answers to the first two can be 'yes' without necessitating that the latter question also be a 'yes.'

Abstract it a level or two and it becomes easier to see. Take a family you've never met. Their existence means nothing to you personally, so it doesn't make your life meaningful. You don't define your intrinsic meaning through their existence. Yet, if you have any human decency - and of course you do - you'd also answer that their lives are meaningful. Two separate ideas, and I'm only talking about one of them.

Originally posted by Digi
It always mystified me a bit when someone shares their opinion on the internet and the response it to tell them to calm down. I've been at this a decade. Nothing on KMC moves my emotional needle anymore. But you're welcome to address the points I made. You likely saw some sort of antagonism where none was present. I merely don't mince words when I believe something to be utterly false. But I'd welcome a discussion.

It amuses me after 15 years when people on the internet say whatever they feel like, and get mystified when other people do the same.
So we're even.

Originally posted by riv6672
It amuses me after 15 years when people on the internet say whatever they feel like, and get mystified when other people do the same.
So we're even.

You don't think the content of what is said matters?

We attach ''meaning'' and values to things ourselves. Therefore the only correct answer can be: ''It depends on the person.''

Originally posted by Bardock42
You don't think the content of what is said matters?
Of course it does.
If i say "Good morning" to someone, and they reply with some Undercover Brother off the wall:
'Let me tell you something about the word "good," Riv. Good is an ancient anglo-saxon word, go-od, meanin the absence of color. I.E. it's all good, which it is, OR Good Will Huntin', meanin...'
What i say next is going to be based on that, rather than if the person had replied with a "Good morning" of his/her own.

That said i'm not going to belabor that particular point any more. Done is done, on my part.

Its all about context, imo. If someone is too unethical and stupid to follow the golden rule, perhaps it's a good thing that they might believe in some angry dad in the sky waiting to whoop their ass in the afterlife as a consequence of their misdeeds..

On the other hand, if someone is too unethical or stupid to follow the golden rule, he can convince himself that everything is relative and there is no right or wrong.

Originally posted by psmith81992
On the other hand, if someone is too unethical or stupid to follow the golden rule, he can convince himself that everything is relative and there is no right or wrong.

Or he can create the delusion that a god is guiding his actions.

Originally posted by psmith81992
On the other hand, if someone is too unethical or stupid to follow the golden rule, he can convince himself that everything is relative and there is no right or wrong.

keep beating that strwaman. you gonna win this shit, fam.

Here is my question though for religious people when it comes to the meaning of life: If somehow tomorrow it was proven without a shadow of a doubt there was no God..what would you do? By this I mean..would you continue to live your life as you always did(minus going to church and stuff). Would you embrace a hedonistic lifestyle? Would you just say "f*ck it there is no point" and commit suicide?

...or just ignore the evidence and go on believing.

Yes, but that is a cop out. I'm curious if people would legitimately just give up on life if they somehow found out God wasn't real.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
keep beating that strwaman. you gonna win this shit, fam. keep using words without understanding their meaning while also unable to spell them. Perhaps you should stop raging on your keyboard

Originally posted by Surtur
Yes, but that is a cop out. I'm curious if people would legitimately just give up on life if they somehow found out God wasn't real. it's not a fair question, basher's typically idiotic response aside. If religious people were to find out god wasn't real, it would be no different if atheists found out god was real. If the religious were to go on believing (lol), then the atheists will close their ears and eyes and scream, "i cant hear or see anything lalala."

It would be different, and you avoided answering.

Personally i'd be only a little bummed, but, i'm not overly religious.

Ok so you haven't even bothered to follow the conversation. Got it. Please amuse us and tell us how it would be different and why there are double standards here.

Originally posted by psmith81992
it's not a fair question, basher's typically idiotic response aside. If religious people were to find out god wasn't real, it would be no different if atheists found out god was real. If the religious were to go on believing (lol), then the atheists will close their ears and eyes and scream, "i cant hear or see anything lalala."

Hmm, I assume some atheists might. Personally I can't really think of what could prove the existence of a God that couldn't similarly be explained with a sufficiently advanced alien race for example, but assuming there was a way, I think atheists take issue with certain rules that are allegedly God's and if they turned out to be God's actual rules as well, atheists would potentially reject them.

That's not really a fair assessment to call god anything extraterrestrial or what not because you're basically subscribing to the idea that there is no such thing and attributing anything out of the ordinary to everything but a god. Its self fulfilling.

And again, there is no way to prove or disprove god.

Originally posted by psmith81992
That's not really a fair assessment to call god anything extraterrestrial or what not because you're basically subscribing to the idea that there is no such thing and attributing anything out of the ordinary to everything but a god. Its self fulfilling.

And again, there is no way to prove or disprove god.

Well that's what I am saying, I can't even conceive of a way that God could prove that he is God.

I agree with that, the concept of a deist God is not disprovable, of course interactions with the material world can be proven to not have happened, but ultimately a God can not be completely disproven.

Same goes for religious folks. You say aliens did such and such. They'll ask, ah but who created the aliens.

Originally posted by riv6672
Same goes for religious folks. You say aliens did such and such. They'll ask, ah but who created the aliens.

I'm not saying aliens did it, what I'm saying is that I can not think of a way a God could prove to exist that I couldn't attribute to technology, like say the Matrix. This is not anything for or against a God, it's a statement regarding the limit of human experiences.

I grant you that unless this being was consistent with the biblical god. But again i don't see a way to disprove his existence either. It's a very open ended topic and that won't ever change.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm not saying aliens did it, what I'm saying is that I can not think of a way a God could prove to exist that I couldn't attribute to technology, like say the Matrix. This is not anything for or against a God, it's a statement regarding the limit of human experiences.
I agree.
In the end it really is about belief, no matter which side of things you come down on.

Originally posted by Digi
And for reference, I wouldn't agree with it. If meaning is personal and subjective, and someone defines that meaning more strongly in a secular worldview, religion can absolutely undermine it. Finding anecdotes of any of this is next to impossible because we're talking about primal internal motivations, so we have nothing to point to. But in theory your premise here is eminently refutable.

Why would religion would undermine a secular worldview? You seem to do fine with religion around.

Unless you aren't?

Originally posted by Bentley
Why would religion would undermine a secular worldview? You seem to do fine with religion around.

Unless you aren't?

In that statement I was talking about meaning for the person intrinsically. Not its presence in society as a whole, which has no affect on a person's "meaning" in life unless they define it through a religious context.

Biah Digi is agressive, he should calm down.

When everything in life goes to shit it's nice to have something to believe in that can give you hope.

Hm... my response is... 'the question is wrong.'

Where does one find meaning? In being given it? In what one has done?

Is an accomplishment more impressive for being done on it's own?

Is meaningfulness, itself, a meaningful term?

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/nihilism.png
Xkcd

Really, it is a subjective answer.

Personally, I've enjoyed judging meaningfulness of life on several different mutually exclusive measures ^^

Originally posted by Q99
Hm... my response is... 'the question is wrong.'

Where does one find meaning? In being given it? In what one has done?

Is an accomplishment more impressive for being done on it's own?

Is meaningfulness, itself, a meaningful term?

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/nihilism.png
Xkcd

Really, it is a subjective answer.

Personally, I've enjoyed judging meaningfulness of life on several different mutually exclusive measures ^^

Originally posted by Digi
In that statement I was talking about meaning for the person intrinsically. Not its presence in society as a whole, which has no affect on a person's "meaning" in life unless they define it through a religious context.


But how do you even impose religion into a person intrinsically?

Anyways, maybe there is a focus shift between the statement Astner made and your precision.

Originally posted by Bentley
But how do you even impose religion into a person intrinsically?

Anyways, maybe there is a focus shift between the statement Astner made and your precision.

I think I see the misunderstanding, and I'm failing at disambiguating it. Apologies.

Astner said that at least we can agree that religion makes life no less meaningful. My first rebuttal to this is that because nothing is intrinsically meaningful, and people create their own meaning, that his idea was flawed from the start. Saying that it can't be less meaningful with religion implies some intrinsic meaning-value to religion.

I went on to further assert that someone could derive meaning from a non-religious source that is stronger than meaning that they derive from a religious source. So if they replaced the non-religious meaning with a religious one, it's theoretically possible that it would be less meaningful. I admitted that it would be nearly impossible to prove, because we're dealing with intensely personal, subjective motivations, so there's no way to confirm this. But at best his statement was poorly worded, and at worst it could be disproven.

On an anecdotal level, I consider myself to be a case study on my point. The meaning I derive from non-religious reasons is at least as strong as what I had when I was a devout Catholic. I can't say for certain if it's stronger, because again we're dealing with something so subjective that it defies empirical analysis on almost a primal level. I don't even know how I'd go about measuring it. But suffice it to say, it's sufficiently strong to make my point.

I was in no way talking about external imposition of religion/meaning on a person. Better?

Originally posted by Digi

Nothing on KMC moves my emotional needle anymore.

I've got some private messages from you in my inbox that say otherwise, unless you're counting time from the point where you last sent such to me, and I'm really wondering now how much of what you write in threads like this can be trusted as a result.


Originally posted by Digi
Again the premise of this thread is false. Because it presumes that external things can imbue life with meaning. Nothing has any intrinsic meaning until someone ascribes meaning to it.

Presumably, God would fit into your category of "external things"?

IF that's so, what exactly is your proof of what you're saying?

Put as precisely as I am able to at this particular moment of time, what proof do you actually have that God is not able to imbue life with meaning for people?

Besides, who doesn't want to go to secular heaven?


More seriously, possible things to devote oneself to with as much fervor as religion is serving humanity as a whole, helping anyone one happens to come across, following a specific cause or person, and so on.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I've got some private messages from you in my inbox that say otherwise, unless you're counting time from the point where you last sent such to me, and I'm really wondering now how much of what you write in threads like this can be trusted as a result.




Presumably, God would fit into your category of "external things"?

IF that's so, what exactly is your proof of what you're saying?

Put as precisely as I am able to at this particular moment of time, what proof do you actually have that God is not able to imbue life with meaning for people?

You reached a sociopathic level of obsession with trying to brand me a hypocrite. You are singlehandedly the reason I don't share personal information on this site. Yes, we had some heated PMs, and they are/were clearly a much different situation than any in this thread. I have no idea why you want to bring them up again in any context. I debated even responding to you here, because I never want to interact with you again.

Please don't try to engage me again. Thanks.

Originally posted by Digi
I think I see the misunderstanding, and I'm failing at disambiguating it. Apologies.

Astner said that at least we can agree that religion makes life no less meaningful. My first rebuttal to this is that because nothing is intrinsically meaningful, and people create their own meaning, that his idea was flawed from the start. Saying that it can't be less meaningful with religion implies some intrinsic meaning-value to religion.

I went on to further assert that someone could derive meaning from a non-religious source that is stronger than meaning that they derive from a religious source. So if they replaced the non-religious meaning with a religious one, it's theoretically possible that it would be less meaningful. I admitted that it would be nearly impossible to prove, because we're dealing with intensely personal, subjective motivations, so there's no way to confirm this. But at best his statement was poorly worded, and at worst it could be disproven.

On an anecdotal level, I consider myself to be a case study on my point. The meaning I derive from non-religious reasons is at least as strong as what I had when I was a devout Catholic. I can't say for certain if it's stronger, because again we're dealing with something so subjective that it defies empirical analysis on almost a primal level. I don't even know how I'd go about measuring it. But suffice it to say, it's sufficiently strong to make my point.

I was in no way talking about external imposition of religion/meaning on a person. Better?

Yes, I was under the impression that you meant something in the line of that. In the case you mention religion existing doesn't make a person with strong non-religious values feel less meaningful in anyway or form. That would still qualify under the original assessment of "religion not making life less meaningful" strictly speaking.

You could go even further and say that someone who had a bad experience with religion and then found meaning without any religious practice also got "better" thanks to his previous experience, which had an influence in his future dealings with life. Maybe that can be considered stretching to some degree (in a case to case basis it'll be very different I'd assume), but mostly it just muddles even more our ability to heavily deal with subjective controversial topics.

Originally posted by Bentley
Yes, I was under the impression that you meant something in the line of that. In the case you mention religion existing doesn't make a person with strong non-religious values feel less meaningful in anyway or form. That would still qualify under the original assessment of "religion not making life less meaningful" strictly speaking.

You could go even further and say that someone who had a bad experience with religion and then found meaning without any religious practice also got "better" thanks to his previous experience, which had an influence in his future dealings with life. Maybe that can be considered stretching to some degree (in a case to case basis it'll be very different I'd assume), but mostly it just muddles even more our ability to heavily deal with subjective controversial topics.

To bring it back around, my original rebuttal to his line was my chief one: that nothing has intrinsic meaning until we ascribe it. Religion as an abstract concept, or even a particular set of beliefs, has only as much meaning as its given by individuals.

So religion doesn't make life less meaningful. But it's an impotent statement, because you could sub in literally any other concept for "religion" and it still works in a technical sense, since meaning is derived intrinsically. At best, it's true in a technical sense but still horribly worded in a way that suggests a premise I disagree with.

I probably should have stopped there, because it's the crux of my argument. To rebut it further had me diving into theoretical, subjective musings after I had already made my central point. And that's where we got a bit mired.

Originally posted by Digi
I probably should have stopped there, because it's the crux of my argument.

Who does that though?

Seriously, I'm not even sure that's a recommended debate strategy because you don't get to explore your ideas and refine them into better ones.

Is it a big misnomer to say one can lead a meaningful life? Because as far as I can tell we care about the illusion of meaning much more than actual meaning or reasoning behind it. To lead a meaningful life is probably closer to have a gut feeling of rightfulness (I'm just making up a word for it here), than actually searching for a definition to it. All this while technically allowing that fulfillment comes from gathering knowledge.

Originally posted by Bentley
Who does that though?

Seriously, I'm not even sure that's a recommended debate strategy because you don't get to explore your ideas and refine them into better ones.

Is it a big misnomer to say one can lead a meaningful life? Because as far as I can tell we care about the illusion of meaning much more than actual meaning or reasoning behind it. To lead a meaningful life is probably closer to have a gut feeling of rightfulness (I'm just making up a word for it here), than actually searching for a definition to it. All this while technically allowing that fulfillment comes from gathering knowledge.

Lol

Most of my posting here is to explore ideas. So you make an interesting point about simply talking being a good thing, even if that talking is with something less than certainty.

You're probably right about the 'illusion of meaning' to an extent, though. There are a lot of studies that suggest religious concepts came about as an evolutionary byproduct, serving their function by removing our cognitive dissonance about various topics. So, for example, our primitive ancestors couldn't hunt and gather if they were pondering existential questions about the meaningfulness of their lives. Religious concepts filled that void, and allowed them to go on with the business of surviving and procreating.

And, if we stopped and observed ourselves, we'd likely find that on a day to day basis, we're not actively pondering these things. We just sort of have a vague sense of purpose as we go about our routines. Religious or not, the idea of "meaning" is something of a placeholder so that we can go on with our lives. The sort of introspection that leads us to actively consider it at all times is often cause of depression or mid-life crises.

I ignored such studies existed, but that makes quite a lot of sense. If you remember where you heard of those please share, I'll try to be less lazy later and look around for them mmm

Well, I usually get crucified (joke intended) for linking people to books/authors instead of links they can read online. But a great start is Dan Dennett's "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Breaking_the_Spell:_Religion_as_a_Natural_Phenomen
on

It's certainly a field in need of additional study, but Dennett does a good job of backing his thesis with the empirical evidence we have, while pointing out what still needs investigation. If you're curious but not THAT curious, I'm sure there exist ample synopses online.

{edit} no idea why the link's broken. I can't fix it. It's just the Wiki, though. A Google search will send you there.

Heh.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Please amuse us and tell us how it would be different and why there are double standards here.

Because atheists lives don't revolve around their disbelief in god.

Originally posted by Trocity
Because atheists lives don't revolve around their disbelief in god.
Have you ever met an atheist? That's pretty much what defines them. The disbelief in God and the hatred of those who disagree.

Originally posted by long pig
Have you ever met an atheist? That's pretty much what defines them. The disbelief in God and the hatred of those who disagree.

I'd level the same question at you. As a card-carrying atheist, I can tell you that KMC represents about 99% of the time my atheism actually means much to my life. And my hatred for others is (nearly) nonexistent. I'm only human, but I find that attempting understanding is better than hatred, even when I vehemently disagree with someone.

As ever, though, the line between baiting/trolling and sincerity is difficult to discern with you. I don't actually think you believe your own words here. Or wouldn't if you applied a modicum of scrutiny to them.

I was exaggerating, but honestly, for a lot of athiests, not being religious is the main theme in their lives. Plus their condescension towards the faithful....mostly Christians.

Originally posted by Trocity
Because atheists lives don't revolve around their disbelief in god. you've proven otherwise

Originally posted by long pig
I was exaggerating, but honestly, for a lot of athiests, not being religious is the main theme in their lives. Plus their condescension towards the faithful....mostly Christians.

Not sure where you're getting your info from. Youtube? High schools? Once people get out into the world and have, like, jobs and families and social lives, I've never met a single atheist that matches that description. And, frankly, I'm not sure how someone could actually exist as a person in society for any length of time, either socially or emotionally, with this as the primary "theme."

Originally posted by Digi
Not sure where you're getting your info from. Youtube? High schools? Once people get out into the world and have, like, jobs and families and social lives, I've never met a single atheist that matches that description. And, frankly, I'm not sure how someone could actually exist as a person in society for any length of time, either socially or emotionally, with this as the primary "theme."
College, work, bars etc
These places are full of bill Maher types who live to tell people how stupid they are to believe in God.

I don't believe in anything, but to say "there is no God" in a matter of fact way is the mark of a fool.

Socrates: 'The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."

Originally posted by long pig
College, work, bars etc
These places are full of bill Maher types who live to tell people how stupid they are to believe in God.

I don't believe in anything, but to say "there is no God" in a matter of fact way is the mark of a fool.

Socrates: 'The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."

I would include "college" in the same realm as "HS." Hardly a fully formed, functioning adult at that point.

You love speaking in generalities, though. Bars?! What bars do you go to that people are pontificating on the foolishness of Christianity? Don't get me wrong; I'd love to hang out in such an impossibly philosophical setting for the sheer novelty of it. But in every bar I go to - EVER - people are doing slightly less revolutionary things like drinking beer, watching sports, and talking with friends.

Most atheism isn't "there is no God," btw. An equivalent statement to that would be "I know there is no God" because it leaves no wiggle room. And, for reference, Richard goddamn Dawkins is on record as saying he's not in the "I know there is no God" camp. He says he's fairly close to that, but on intellectual honesty can't agree with a statement that is indefensible. So...if the figurehead of angry atheism on the planet is in fundamental disagreement with your definition of it, I'm going to make a wild guess and say you're the one with the flawed parameters.

Because if that really were atheism, I'd agree with you. If that stance was the only that permitted the use of the term, I'd call it indefensible and find some new way to describe my beliefs. But since it isn't, you're wrong.

Most atheism - at least anything with some thought behind it instead of blind anger - is one of two things. One, "I believe there is no God/gods." Or Two, "I don't believe in any God/gods." I prefer a variation on the latter, "I lack a belief in any God or gods." Subtly, but importantly, different. And, as a result, intellectually defensible.

In essence, you're attacking a strawman. And attacking a definition that the figurehead of modern atheism can't subscribe to. At best, you're describing a minor subset of rebellious kids and Youtube rants. But not anything approaching reasoned atheism. Hell, even Maher would likely agree with me; he just doesn't pull his punches when he thinks people are being idiotic because of religion. He rarely - if ever - attacks the notion of belief in God itself, but rather the ancillary, unsupportable beliefs that stem from it. I doubt he'd take as much issue with an agnostic that believes in a creator deity but, say, accepts evolution and rejects the Bible.

I don't mind Socrates, and that quote of his is the basis for a reasonable form of agnosticism. I take no issue with it. But your views on atheism seem flawed, at best.

Originally posted by Digi
I would include "college" in the same realm as "HS." Hardly a fully formed, functioning adult at that point.

You love speaking in generalities, though. Bars?! What bars do you go to that people are pontificating on the foolishness of Christianity? Don't get me wrong; I'd love to hang out in such an impossibly philosophical setting for the sheer novelty of it. But in every bar I go to - EVER - people are doing slightly less revolutionary things like drinking beer, watching sports, and talking with friends.

Most atheism isn't "there is no God," btw. An equivalent statement to that would be "I know there is no God" because it leaves no wiggle room. And, for reference, Richard goddamn Dawkins is on record as saying he's not in the "I know there is no God" camp. He says he's fairly close to that, but on intellectual honesty can't agree with a statement that is indefensible. So...if the figurehead of angry atheism on the planet is in fundamental disagreement with your definition of it, I'm going to make a wild guess and say you're the one with the flawed parameters.

Because if that really were atheism, I'd agree with you. If that stance was the only that permitted the use of the term, I'd call it indefensible and find some new way to describe my beliefs. But since it isn't, you're wrong.

Most atheism - at least anything with some thought behind it instead of blind anger - is one of two things. One, "I believe there is no God/gods." Or Two, "I don't believe in any God/gods." I prefer a variation on the latter, "I lack a belief in any God or gods." Subtly, but importantly, different. And, as a result, intellectually defensible.

In essence, you're attacking a strawman. And attacking a definition that the figurehead of modern atheism can't subscribe to. At best, you're describing a minor subset of rebellious kids and Youtube rants. But not anything approaching reasoned atheism. Hell, even Maher would likely agree with me; he just doesn't pull his punches when he thinks people are being idiotic because of religion. He rarely - if ever - attacks the notion of belief in God itself, but rather the ancillary, unsupportable beliefs that stem from it. I doubt he'd take as much issue with an agnostic that believes in a creator deity but, say, accepts evolution and rejects the Bible.

I don't mind Socrates, and that quote of his is the basis for a reasonable form of agnosticism. I take no issue with it. But your views on atheism seem flawed, at best.
See, you're using semantics to substitute logic as a basis to justify your beliefs. If you can honestly say you don't believe that "there is no God" , but instead you "dont believe " , then you're agnostic, not athiest.

Not "believing" necessarily leaves open the possibility of a god, you simply don't, at this time, have sufficient information to form an absolute. That's not athiesm.

We discuss religion at my dive bar over games of corn hole. Have you ever watched Drunk History? Its exactly like that but there's cornhole.

Originally posted by long pig
See, you're using semantics to substitute logic as a basis to justify your beliefs. If you can honestly say you don't believe that "there is no God" , but instead you "dont believe " , then you're agnostic, not athiest.

Not "believing" necessarily leaves open the possibility of a god, you simply don't, at this time, have sufficient information to form an absolute. That's not athiesm.

As I said, my stance is that I lack a belief in a God or gods. Much like you and I lack a belief in, say, Zeus as an actual deity. It's not an active belief for or against. It's an absence of belief. And yes, it's atheism. You are atheistic on an infinite number of gods, both manmade and those never conceived of. You lack a belief on them, positive or negative. I'm simply adding one more. If you needed to say "there is no God" to be an atheist, again, Richard Dawkins would have to change his religious standing. If your own definition doesn't match that of both scholars and actual adherents, it's probably your definition that needs to change.

Agnosticism is either believing in an amorphous "something" or simply conceding that we don't know. It's very different from atheism.

Because if that's really all atheism was, it would be logically indefensible, as it asserts certitude. For me to accept your definition would be to disregard every major work I've ever read on atheism, and any reasonably thoughtful atheist I've ever encountered. It would reduce the philosophy to a strawman and become every bit as ridiculous as its detractors would like to think it is.

I've seen this before. it's a common error. One of the most common rebuttals I get when people question my atheism is something along the lines of "you can't prove a negative" or "how can you know there isn't a God?" Or variations on that. I can't know, and I can't prove it. But that's not what atheism is, or at least any defensible or critically considered version of atheism. It's the same line of thinking, and the same error.

Atheists and religious folks.
Both have a great deal of faith.
I love that to pieces.

Originally posted by riv6672
Atheists and religious folks.
Both have a great deal of faith.
I love that to pieces.


Quiet, you! :P

Originally posted by riv6672
Atheists and religious folks.
Both have a great deal of faith.
I love that to pieces.



This isn't quite true. Do you need faith to lack a belief in the omniscient goblin behind your living room couch? No, you've never even considered it until I mentioned it. Faith isn't required to lack a belief. In that sense, I don't need faith to lack a belief in God. I'm not claiming certainty, it just isn't a belief of mine.

Also, there are different degrees of faith. I can't say I've been to space to see the curvature of the Earth, but I believe the Earth is round. There are valid logical and empirical reasons for me to believe it. The scientific worldview that most atheists subscribe to sometimes requires varying levels of faith, in that we can't all be experts on astrophysics and quantum mechanics and such. But, again, there are logical and empirical reasons for us to hold certain beliefs when it comes to a scientific worldview.

Religion, for the most part, requires blind faith. I.e. faith with no evidence, or often in the face of evidence.

The two, imo, are far from equal. And stating it as you did is a false equivalency (again, imo).

Thats a nice bundle of words, but i think you just dont want to admit what i said was right.
I dont really mind/care if you do, though.

Originally posted by riv6672
Thats a nice bundle of words, but i think you just dont want to admit what i said was right.

No, that's not it at all. Although, ya know, thanks. I aspire to be a bundler of nice words.

Here, let me try someone else's voice:

sNDZb0KtJDk

If you're unwilling to take 10 minutes to understand the position, at least do me the intellectual courtesy of understanding that I don't think as you want me to think, I think as I say I think. It's a pretty shallow form of debate to take what is clearly a genuine post and decide that they mean something else that better fits your narrative.

Originally posted by riv6672
Thats a nice bundle of words, but i think you just dont want to admit what i said was right.
I dont really mind/care if you do, though.

I appreciate the wordplay but how accurate your original statement is depends on your definition of faith. If to you faith is something you can brush over without further confirmation, then it can fit into pretty much everything.

Digi is pretty much spot on in what he said though. Probably most humans have some kind of faith for practical reasons (we also covered that fact with Digi earlier, it could be an evolutionary adaptation), but it doesn't need to have any particular relationship with atheism.

Seems i touched a couple nerves.
My bad.
Digi, i'm not trying to make anything you say fit my narrative.
I base my opinion on months of seeing you post.
You post in certain ways on certain subjects and towards certain people when in a certain mood/mind frame.
While i'm no mind reader, i can make a pretty decent guess as to where you're at mood wise in regards to this subject and me.
So really, i am giving you a courtesy. I'm being honest with you.

Take that last statement as you will.

If this is about Digi take it to PMs awesr

Stricto sensu, he's still right.

Why would i want to PM him?
I already said i dont mind/care.
But thank you for your advice. And your opinion.

Not caring and stressing words? Must be an internet thing.

Glad to help anyways

Hey at least my italicized words were in English. Not nearly as pretentious.
Tell you what, you can PM Digi, since this seems to be such a big deal for you, n'est-ce pas?

Oops, italics are used for foreign words when you write school papers in french. I did it by reflex

Originally posted by riv6672
Seems i touched a couple nerves.
My bad.
Digi, i'm not trying to make anything you say fit my narrative.
I base my opinion on months of seeing you post.
You post in certain ways on certain subjects and towards certain people when in a certain mood/mind frame.
While i'm no mind reader, i can make a pretty decent guess as to where you're at mood wise in regards to this subject and me.
So really, i am giving you a courtesy. I'm being honest with you.

Take that last statement as you will.

You didn't touch any nerves. And I'm far from upset at you. Twice now you've acted this way. I think you're reading more into my words than is actually there. I can assure you this is just an intellectual debate on the subject. So I appreciate you being honest, but I'm telling you you're wrong.

So. I'm just presenting my opinion. Do you have a response to it, or to the video? I'd much rather discuss them than debate whatever this is.

No, no response.
Carry on in this "nonsensical" thread, which seems to have caught your attention nonetheless.

That's a shame. You seemed to deny the possibility of "a lack of belief in God/gods" being a valid atheistic position, and I wanted to inform you of its reality. Half-finished conversations are no stranger to any corner of the internet, but my only aim was to share information and perspective.

Originally posted by Digi
That's a shame. You seemed to deny the possibility of "a lack of belief in God/gods" being a valid atheistic position, and I wanted to inform you of its reality. Half-finished conversations are no stranger to any corner of the internet, but my only aim was to share information and perspective.

That's a valid atheistic position. I'm not sure what the argument is because that defines the atheistic position.

It's weird because a lot of atheists I know in real life don't define themselves by their atheism. It's not like we wake up and say "what a great day to not believe in a higher power!". We just go about our lives not thinking about how our actions might impact what some deity thinks of us, but rather how they impact the world around us.

Religion isn't mentioned unless someone else brings it up. If it is mentioned in passing the people I know don't automatically go into a diatribe about how God isn't real. My entire family is religious, I don't bring up my lack of belief to them ever and sometimes they can't shut up about the damn church. Especially since if I mention atheism my mother will go on a rant about all the money she wasted on catholic school. As if I held a gun to her head and forced her to send me.

Yeah, but once it is, look OUT if there are any atheists within hearing distance.
Strangely, many seem to have a very "Holier than thou" attitude.
Of course the same can be said for the vocal religious, too.

I personally have the same attitude towards life you do. Of course my god isnt as uptight as most...

For me it depends on the people and how religion is brought up. For instance "oh I went to church last week it was awesome" doesn't tend to spark any atheist rants from people that I see. Now if someone said "oh religion does so much good for the world" then I guess it depends. This is just personal experience, but a comment like that might get someone to speak about their atheist views if someone they know says it, they might engage in a discussion.

But as for if a random person on the street said it and they overheard? They wouldn't say anything. Though I suppose just like religious people..all atheists are different. I likewise have known religious people that find a way to connect every single thing to Jesus.

Those people are freaking annoying.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's weird because a lot of atheists I know in real life don't define themselves by their atheism. It's not like we wake up and say "what a great day to not believe in a higher power!". We just go about our lives not thinking about how our actions might impact what some deity thinks of us, but rather how they impact the world around us.

Religion isn't mentioned unless someone else brings it up. If it is mentioned in passing the people I know don't automatically go into a diatribe about how God isn't real. My entire family is religious, I don't bring up my lack of belief to them ever and sometimes they can't shut up about the damn church. Especially since if I mention atheism my mother will go on a rant about all the money she wasted on catholic school. As if I held a gun to her head and forced her to send me.

All of this. Especially the part about just going on about my life. I literally can't imagine the person that is described in a lot of atheistic stereotypes.

Originally posted by riv6672
Yeah, but once it is, look OUT if there are any atheists within hearing distance.
Strangely, many seem to have a very "Holier than thou" attitude.
Of course the same can be said for the vocal religious, too.

See, this is an unfounded generalization. And, since one person's anecdotal experiences are as good as another's, it's basically the complete opposite of my experience, both myself and any other atheist I've ever known.

Also, what kind of circles do you run with that you have this vast experience on the habits of atheists in religious debates? I can count on one hand the number of religious discussions I've been in during the past 2-3 years, and half of those were 1-on-1's with my gf. What are you basing this opinion on? How many people? Does it include the internet?

Personally I tend not to even use the word atheist/atheism in the (very, very few) religious discussions I get into IRL. It's too polarizing; even if I remain civil about it, the presence of an atheist tends to skew the discussion into incoherence. A product of living in the Midwest, I'm sure. I've met numerous people who had never met an atheist before me. It tends to quiet you when you're surrounded by an area that may as well be the Bible Belt. My current city is mercifully more diverse, at least. Atheists are statistically the most mistrusted demographic in the country for about a century running (with brief exceptions where Muslims took the #1 spot after 9/11 and the Tea Party during the last election). So I don't trust my social, personal, or professional chances to hoping people are tolerant of it, especially after having lost friends and social circles because of it. And, based on some of the other stories I've heard from atheists on KMC - like Delph, whose background made his atheism exponentially more difficult to maintain - I've actually had it very easy compared to some.

Also, as before Riv, this isn't me upset with you or your comments. It's just...how to put this? It's exhausting sometimes, because through some of what I mentioned there (and many things I didn't mention), I've learned that I sometimes have to hide my atheism. I'm a grown man without a lot of regard for what others think about me. But I still have to, because it has affected personal relationships. I've lost friends, gfs, etc. Not because I was a d*ck, but solely because I am an atheist. Those, tbh, I can live with. They don't bother me in the slightest, despite being unfortunate. But it could also very well affect my job or job prospects. I do alright, but don't yet have the kind of financial success that I can ignore it. The last interview I had was with a guy that wore his religion on his sleeve...in a major metropolis area for a secular for-profit organization, not in the middle of the South or some country town. And if I ever mention I'm an atheist, I often end up having to defend against similar accusations to yours their (which I realize were in general, not aimed at any one person), warranted or not. A vocal Christian can be equally as annoying, I agree. But they also reside in a country, and on a planet, that is overwhelmingly in fundamental agreement with them.

I'm not a marginalized minority, either. I'm a young white male living in the US, from a middle-class family. I'm quite lucky, and quite happy. But these things regarding atheism are absolutely still a major consideration.

So when I - or numerous atheists - see comments like yours there, there's an instinctive reaction. For me, it's to cringe, and then to try to debunk it. For others, it's anger and lashing out. I can't say I fault the latter response. Or rather, I can fault it, but I understand it, and it's where people get a lot of the negative stereotypes in the first place. That backlash is a learned response, not an inherent trait of their personality or atheism.

So hopefully that lends some perspective. Maybe your really have met someone, or numerous people, who are just insufferably superior about it. There isn't an excuse for that. But no atheist started that way; something caused them to respond to religious discussions in that manner. Realizing that fact is often the first step to cracking the rough exterior of such people.

Originally posted by Surtur
For me it depends on the people and how religion is brought up. For instance "oh I went to church last week it was awesome" doesn't tend to spark any atheist rants from people that I see. Now if someone said "oh religion does so much good for the world" then I guess it depends. This is just personal experience, but a comment like that might get someone to speak about their atheist views if someone they know says it, they might engage in a discussion.

I would find a way to enter the discussion without needing to declare my atheism, tbh. Most discussions can avoid it, and you can still be honest about your opinions. So, like, with your example, "Does religion do more good/bad?" is an interesting discussion, but I don't need to rant against religion to make a case or consider both sides.

Originally posted by Surtur
Though I suppose just like religious people..all atheists are different.

Winner.

Let me save you some time, guy. Dont type so much and you wont exhaust yourself on my account, as i already said i dont care.

Yet you can still be bothered to write generalized insults at atheists without hearing a response. But you'll make a thread on a discussion forum, then ignore discussion and act like a jerk when engaged. Like I said, a profound shame.

Thanks for that, though. It's important to know who isn't worth my time on the forums.

You're welcome.

They say ignorance is bliss.

Congrats, riv.

Familiarity breeds contempt. Thanks.

Nobody says that though. You're welcome.

Thought we were quoting contrite sayings at each other!
You were just being...you, though. Got it.

Originally posted by riv6672
Got it. It would be the first time. Congrats again, dude!

Well, considering our opinion of one another is likely equally low, yet, you're the one huffing slash puffing in my thread (which has surely run its course), while i cant recall the last time i've ever done that in one of yours (never), your congratulations arent really needed; the couple minutes of entertainment you provide me are more than enough.

Originally posted by psmith81992
you've proven otherwise

Trying to deflect.

I await your reply after your ban is lifted.

So... uncivilized.

Originally posted by Trocity
Trying to deflect.

I await your reply after your ban is lifted.

So... uncivilized.

Wait didn't he create several new accounts after being banned, getting all of those banned as well? One would think it would earn a permanent ban.

Originally posted by Surtur
Wait didn't he create several new accounts after being banned, getting all of those banned as well? One would think it would earn a permanent ban.

Yea. And for awhile he seemed to think he could just get by with that, but then the socks stopped.

@Surtur and Q99
Last 2 posts in the thread seem to be the summation. I have to admit, i missed all this, since i dont post in like 99% of the political threads.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=618804&pagenumber=4