Thread: Another video: "Atheist Life vs. Religious Life" - Let's Hear Your Thoughts!

Originally Posted by Mark75

What's that you say? God is made up? Such words could only come from an atheist's mouth.

Erm, no. I am not saying that God is made up. I'm saying that God can exist but even if he does, it doesn't concern us.

Good question, though. Why should we be so affixed on a god that isn't real? Could it be that because the vast majority of the human race is convinced that it is real? Could it be that virtually every decision made by many of these people is due to what they think their god wants them to do? Yeah, you're right, I'm just being petty.

Who cares what they do?? That's people and their beliefs, not the god itself.
So unless you are part of one of those religions, there's no reason to care about the existence of God.

Originally Posted by Merlock

Aye, pretty much. If you aren't religious and you aren't atheist, and you don't care about the existence of God, then why label yourself?

I think it's actually more confusing to use these labels. Just look at this thread and many others here: even the definition of what an atheist is is constantly under debate or whatnot.

I concur.

I see what you're saying. I'm trying to imagine a conversation I might have though when someone asks me what religion I am.

"What religion are you?"
"I'm no religion."
"Ahh, you're atheist."
"No, I'm not."
"So you believe in god?"
"Blaaagh, no!"


It might cause more confusion than using the term "atheist," which does seem to have more than one meaning.

Xox, aren't you muslim?

Originally Posted by Merlock

So unless you are part of one of those religions, there's no reason to care about the existence of God.

I can't believe you'd actually allow yourself to be ignorant of the world to the point that such words could leave your mouth.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

I see what you're saying. I'm trying to imagine a conversation I might have though when someone asks me what religion I am.

"What religion are you?"
"I'm no religion."
"Ahh, you're atheist."
"No, I'm not."
"So you believe in god?"
"Blaaagh, no!"


It might cause more confusion than using the term "atheist," which does seem to have more than one meaning.

Xox, aren't you muslim?

I used to be Muslim.

And yes, it's going to cause confusion, but I'll have no problem with explaining.

Originally Posted by Mark75

I can't believe you'd actually allow yourself to be ignorant of the world to the point that such words could leave your mouth.

I'm not ignorant of the world...I don't care what others believe. I only care about what I know and what interests me.

And I don't care whether a god exists or not because we are all all-powerful and have ultimate potential because we are conscious and self-aware: the two traits that form the ultimate level of being, allowing us to gain any amount of knowledge and power.

Thus, as I have said many many times here, even if God does exist, it doesn't matter, because he is no threat to us and has no direct effect on us. The threat can be negated by gaining enough knowledge and power to go and backhand that god for thinking he's better than all of us and the influence doesn't have to be negated because there is none.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Right... Because they do not believe in those things... Like I said. I don't see the contradiction here. To not believe something is true is to believe it is untrue. The only other possibility is to not have a belief about its truthfulness.


That's not open mindedness, that's just not caring. Despite your 100% certainty of the things you say, it is possible for people to hold some things to be true while still acknowledging that they may be wrong.

That aside, what you've said about god not having a relation or effect on people is wrong beyond the ability for words to describe. If you haven't realized how powerful people's belief in their respective gods can be, then there is something very, very wrong with you. Don't ever say anything that stupid out loud; they're likely to stone you.

maybe you just weren't clear enough, or I'm just not smart enough to understand. I don't understand how people can hold some things to be true( and by true I mean 100% true , otherwise its theory I think) yet still acknowledge they could be wrong. Doesn't truth mean that there isn't a possibility it could be wrong?

And your comment about people stoning someone for their belief that god doesn't have an effect on people is disgusting. I think that is just as disgusting as an atheist stoning someone for believing in god.

I don't know why people who acknowledge there is a possibility that god does or doesn't exist think they are christian or atheist , I think they are both agnostic. It's like they both think there is something wrong with being agnostic, but I think it's the most reasonable idea. I realize that I can't even prove my existence to anyone. I don't see why there has to be an absolute truth to anything. No matter how hard anyone tries, I will never believe anything as fact, truth, certainty, whatever you want to call it. I think any idea has an equal chance of being truth, so I don't believe anything.

A lot of people don't understand how anyone could function under than idea, but it's actually very simple. I just accept that anyones experience of existence is equally probable to be truth, and that there is no way that I know of to prove anything. Science is theory, not truth, don't forget that.


EDIT: Posted by Merlock: "Aye, I don't like the concept of agnostics either. Because agnostics still care about this topic. They care about the existence of a god but find it impossible to prove whether one exists or not."

I don't all agnostics care about this topic. Also, even if you don't classify yourself in any of the given terms, doesn't mean you don't care about this topic. An agnostic can not care about the existence of a god, I think what you said was generalizing. Agnostic doesn't just mean there is a possibility that god exists or doesn't. It also mean that theres a possibility that the nature of things, or existence itself is unknowable, or may not be as it seems.

Do all atheists care about the existence of a god? Given the name it would seem so. But I think an atheist could accept there is no God, and just move on and not care about it.

I think that most people care about this topic, but that doesn't mean some don't.

Xox, that'd be my reasoning with using the word "atheists." I'll just explain it.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Xox, that'd be my reasoning with using the word "atheists." I'll just explain it.

Yeah, but when people hear Atheist, they think, "This person doesn't believe in God and they think there isn't any chance of him existing."

And this isn't what I believe, so I just explain it.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Xox, that'd be my reasoning with using the word "atheists." I'll just explain it.

But is there really good reason to use a word that means one thing to mean another?

If you agreed what I'm saying, then this conversation...

"What religion are you?"
"I'm no religion."
"Ahh, you're atheist."
"No, I'm not."
"So you believe in god?"
"Blaaagh, no!"

...would instead be like this...

"What religion are you?"
"None."
"Ahh, you're atheist."
"No, I'm not."
"So you believe in God?"
"I neither believe nor disbelieve, I don't care since it doesn't affect me."

And then you'd have the same debate as has been going on in this thread.
So perhaps a new term would be needed instead of theism, atheism or agnosticism.

Originally Posted by Xox

Yeah, but when people hear Atheist, they think, "This person doesn't believe in God and they think there isn't any chance of him existing."

And this isn't what I believe, so I just explain it.

Just because people think that.. doesn't mean that that's the actual definition of the word.

The word "feminism" is similarly misinterpreted.

Edit: Merlock, yes, new term would be best I guess.

Originally Posted by yay

maybe you just weren't clear enough, or I'm just not smart enough to understand. I don't understand how people can hold some things to be true( and by true I mean 100% true , otherwise its theory I think) yet still acknowledge they could be wrong. Doesn't truth mean that there isn't a possibility it could be wrong?

Truth in the sense that which is actually true of reality, there is no possibility for it to be wrong because it is what is. But I didn't say that, I said what people "hold to be true". What they believe to be true. No one can directly verify what is actually certainly true of reality, so all we have are our beliefs on what that is or may be. Obviously this leaves room for error, meaning we can never be certain nor assume that we are.

Originally Posted by yay

And your comment about people stoning someone for their belief that god doesn't have an effect on people is disgusting. I think that is just as disgusting as an atheist stoning someone for believing in god.

too ridiculous to respond to or even capitalize and use punctuation

Originally Posted by yay

I don't know why people who acknowledge there is a possibility that god does or doesn't exist think they are christian or atheist , I think they are both agnostic. It's like they both think there is something wrong with being agnostic, but I think it's the most reasonable idea. I realize that I can't even prove my existence to anyone. I don't see why there has to be an absolute truth to anything. No matter how hard anyone tries, I will never believe anything as fact, truth, certainty, whatever you want to call it. I think any idea has an equal chance of being truth, so I don't believe anything.

Yeah, exactly. In the strictest sense all these people are "agnostics" but in a more practical sense, we call ourselves "atheist" or "Christian" or what have you, simply because these more accurately represent our beliefs, in the same way we don't say we're agnostic about our own existences.

Originally Posted by yay

Science is theory, not truth, don't forget that.

Science is a method and not a set of beliefs, don't forget that.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Just because people think that.. doesn't mean that that's the actual definition of the word.

The word "feminism" is similarly misinterpreted.

Edit: Merlock, yes, new term would be best I guess.

Yeah but I'm not an Atheist Mes.

Yes we need a new term!

Originally Posted by Xox

Yeah but I'm not an Atheist Mes.

What do you mean by that? You really confuse me. Could you explain how you define your beliefs/lack thereof or whatever?

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

What do you mean by that? You really confuse me. Could you explain how you define your beliefs/lack thereof or whatever?

I'm going to quote Merlock.

"What religion are you?"
"None."
"Ahh, you're atheist."
"No, I'm not."
"So you believe in God?"
"I neither believe nor disbelieve, I don't care since it doesn't affect me."

Actually, Mark has helped prove all the more why denying anything is folly.

- Something that is known to exist (manifests and affects us) doesn't need belief.
- Something that isn't known doesn't concern us (or else it would be known).
- And something that doesn't concern us shouldn't be denied since...it shouldn't be cared about at all.

It doesn't matter that countless people all over the world have religious beliefs. It falls to each given person to think of themselves.

The presence of a religion doesn't show the significance of God.
What people do doesn't matter. What people believe isn't objective.

Originally Posted by Merlock

What people do doesn't matter.

Oh. Well you should have just mentioned your complete apathy towards absolutely everything from the start. It would have saved us both some trouble.

Erm, so...you spend your days pondering what every single person in the world does every moment of their lives and make that an important topic for contemplation?

No, you don't. You spend your time reaching for your goals. And your goals may only depend on others to be achieved, they aren't defined by others.

Originally Posted by Xox

I'm going to quote Merlock.

I wasn't asking for the definition that we were talking about in this thread, I was asking about you specifically, you as an individual person. I'm only curious about you since you were once religious. I wanted to know about the transition and your current sense of identity.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Truth in the sense that which is actually true of reality, there is no possibility for it to be wrong because it is what is. But I didn't say that, I said what people "hold to be true". What they believe to be true. No one can directly verify what is actually certainly true of reality, so all we have are our beliefs on what that is or may be. Obviously this leaves room for error, meaning we can never be certain nor assume that we are.

If we can never be certain nor assume what we experience is true, then it is impossible to know the true reality, so why bother believing anything? Anything else has the same probability of being true, there is no way to know.

Originally Posted by Mark75

too ridiculous to respond to or even capitalize and use punctuation

.... That was an amazingly well thought out response.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Yeah, exactly. In the strictest sense all these people are "agnostics" but in a more practical sense, we call ourselves "atheist" or "Christian" or what have you, simply because these more accurately represent our beliefs, in the same way we don't say we're agnostic about our own existences.

How is that practical? Just because you are almost completely sure you are right doesn't mean that you think you are. You admit to knowing that you are not 100% sure, but you label yourself as if you are. I used to think I was 99% sure god didn't exist, but now I realize that even that is impossible to know, so I see everything as a 50% chance of being possible. It's impossible to know, so why not accept there is a 50% chance of either being possible.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Science is a method and not a set of beliefs, don't forget that.

Um... I didn't? I was directing that to atheist who see science as truth. Were you agreeing with me? I agree that it's not a set of beliefs, thats exactly what I was saying.

Hello, Merlock. Let me explain something to you. Here on the surface world, we have to interact with other people all the time. I don't me over the internet, I mean actually seeing the person, face to face (within stabbing range). Now the funny thing about people is that sometimes they get weird ideas like an imaginary man in the sky told them a silly book is actually entirely or at least mostly true. Sounds funny, I know, but if you were up here you'd see they actually do some pretty mean things because of it! Turns out the book isn't as nice as they say! Some things some of them do are less mean, but the real problem is that they believe in the man in the sky. Why? It's because they believe in him that they trust their book and do these mean things. Now this wouldn't be such a bad thing if the man were actually there, and was really enforcing these rules. But he isn't. So you can imagine what happens when people start making decisions based on rules set out by an imaginary man. Some funny things happen. It isn't all bad, thankfully, but as it turns out we don't actually need the book at all for the good things. The book says "don't kill" but this is actually very easy to teach without the book. So who are these people, though? Well, they're almost everybody. They're all over the world. Some places have more, some have less. They are the people who make the rules, the people who enforce the rules and the people who vote for the rule makers. So when these people do funny things because of what they think the imaginary man said, it can affect lots of people. It becomes a problem for me, for the people around me and actually the entire world! Wow! That's really important to us up here!

Mark, Merlock also does not live in the United States. I think that the atheists in the US are the most acutely aware of the problems of religion. Gah, other countries must be like a breath of fresh air.

Originally Posted by yay

Anything else has the same probability of being true, there is no way to know.

That's just plain wrong. This is where things like logic and evidence come in. I'm not going to type this all out for you.

Originally Posted by yay

It's impossible to know, so why not accept there is a 50% chance of either being possible.

Because that's ridiculous. No one honestly thinks like this. Do you really believe that when you get hit by a car, there's a 50% chance that it causes you to be injured and a 50% chance that it starts raining cupcakes? Honestly, people.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Mark, Merlock also does not live in the United States. I think that the atheists in the US are the most acutely aware of the problems of religion. Gah, other countries must be like a breath of fresh air.

Nor do I. We live in a global society these days. Things that happen in one country can easily affect the whole world.

Mark, you're not seeing the difference in significance between what people believe and what is.
Every single person has the right to be objective and not be swayed by anyone or anything.

Don't you see? You're justifying religion, which you don't think is plausible since you're an atheist (I gather from your above post).
Why do so?

Theists and atheists alike seem to find comfort in these absolutes. They care about God and the existence of the world, even though they have no way at the moment to find out how things really are built -- to see the entire picture. But you don't have to find comfort in finding out the truth of existence. You can find it by knowing that you are all-powerful and have infinite potential. You are a conscious self-aware being capable of learning anything and thus gaining any amount of power and wisdom.

And, for blazes' sake, that does not imply being self-centred. Surely, you've seen the morals and ideals that I have when it comes to social interaction? About respect for others, etc.?

Well, the matter of God and existence as a whole doesn't relate to society in this world as much as religions make it out to be. That's why I said: "The presence of a religion doesn't show the significance of God". Since God doesn't affect our every-day lives, he isn't significant. Why? Because our every-day lives are what matter to us most. Not the imaginary man in the sky. No matter how much anyone might say so, the every-day life matters will always be more important because they are what affect us directly, unlike God, who doesn't.