Is life more or less meaningful with religion...

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."

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.

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.

✅

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).

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.

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:

YouTube video

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.