Yeah this man is great even though he has a meaningful life and talks about boring things. He's great even though he's ignorant of religion and can't come up with juice.
Yeah, I'm Agnostic. In fact, I wrote a story about a world God has left behind - with a kinda Stephen King bent. The first ebook is free - but I'll send codes for the other two to anyone who feel compelled and create video reviews (good or bad) - I've got lots of artwork that can be used too! Check out my Pazuzu Trilogy at - pazuzu.yolasite.com
@ogith perhaps "in the name of atheism" was a bad example? substitute in any group that you feel necessary. Better yet just strike "in the name of atheism" and move straight on to "or anything else". I also think you need to really grasp how deep religion permeates into all fabric of society. Those two points aside, you failed to recognize my main argument. What all people generally perceive to be "good" (humility, charity, empathy, etc) are all traits exemplified in the christian religion.
When my senile grandfather passed away at the age of 90 the ladies at the church that he hadn't attended for 15 years cooked dinner for my family. They showed exceptional kindness and generosity. You don't see people do that in the name of atheism, or anything else. Some of the best things man has ever done was in the name of Christianity. Even if it is in the end wrong, it is a good principled way to live your life.
You don't see people doing that "in the name of atheism" because atheism isn't a thing or a set of beliefs. It's just a state. The rock is atheist, it doesn't believe. The baby is atheist, it hasn't be taught to believe. You are atheist to untold amounts of gods, giving exception to one for whatever reason
And pretty much all the best things and discoveries man has ever done was without the invocation of your religion's version of a god, or any other religion's for that matter
Both atheists and theists think they KNOW something about which they have no evidence. Atheists are just as eager to push their beliefs onto others as theists. Agnosticism is the only honest approach to metaphysical questions.
Not really ,atheists have some proof that might explain the whole deal but its not all the way to say "Yes we know how it happened" while theists are sure by belif only.
Problem with atheism is that it removes the "unknown factor" that can't be explained yet while theists won't accept even if one day some one would come with that 100% proof because their life is based so much on the religion they fallow that it would distroy them and leave an empty feeling.
Agnosticism pretty much takes in consideration both point of views and tries to sort them by possibilities and the metaphorical and philosophical way of how man interprets the world that lives in.
An agnostic if the certain proof is shown then he/she can accept that a being such as a God exists while a theist will never accept the idea that a God doesn't no matter what proof.
An agnostic is pretty much the balance and like all the things in the universe,balance is one of them.
given the fact that there is no way of knowing wether or not a god or higher being exists the logic following should be obvious. religions should be treated as theories or ideas. people can feel condifent in their beliefs but not be so arrogant as to say they know with 100% certainty. this statement also applies to atheism, it is still arrogant to make the assumption that there is no higher being of any kind.
ok i have to say this. has anyone noticed the irony in the common atheist approach? they condemn religous people for pushing their beliefs on everyone yet they are doing the exact same thing. Believers fight amounst themseleves and non-believers fight with Believers. Everyone is constantly warring over each other without taking the time to step back and think.
The bible is a book of fables helping you to live your life in a positive way. Any World Religions professor in any university should give you that answer.
Science deals with proven facts. Christians refute facts that conflict with their religion and embrace facts that support their religion. I embrace all facts so I am an agnostic. I do embrace Jesus because it is a fact that he lived and preached love.
I think that the definition of "Christian" is anyone whose primary philosophy centers on the person or teachings of Jesus Christ. Everything else is an add-on.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Lol! Does he expect me to accept his interpretation of life over the Bible which spans several thousand years and whose prophecies came to pass? Darrow is saying: "don't believe in the bible. Believe in me." All of these agnostics are freemasons. As such, they are gnostics. Hiding behind the debate strategy of agnostic is cowardly since they can attack you but you can't attack them.
However one error I noted. Immaculate conception is not virgin birth. Immaculate conception strickly refers to mary and is a catholic belief. Wikipedia has a good description.
A great man indeed, although it seemed to me that he got agnosticism mixed up with atheism. And agnosticism isn't exactly one who doubts, even though that is probably a necessary part of it, but rather one that admits to lacking knowledge. Seems he didn't fully understand the word or didn't want to use the a-word. :) I was listening with half an ear while working though, so I might have missed some important part where he clarified.
@PanWolven Well, I think he wrote this at a time when coming out as an atheist was a VERY bold statement, and one that would work against you. Today, an announcement of atheism is met largely with indifference. Back then, it would be a career-ending, or possibly a life-risking move. It's clear from his writings that he was indeed a "strong" atheist, but I think the strongest word he felt comfortable using publicly was "agnostic". Also, implications of the words may have changed slightly.
Great piece, but i have to take issue with his whole "civilization is only from skepticism" and there being no civilzation when everyone was religious. i'm a strident oponent of religion but that is just ridiculous.
@BillKiernan Well, he was known for pushing the boundaries of thought in his speeches and writings. I think I know what he was trying to say, that religion tends to placate man into indifference, and that the search for knowledge tends to have the opposite effect. Maybe he pushed that boundary where it didn't need to go.
@BillKiernan The Abrahamic religions (and some others) work to polarize "the flocks" into omnipotently wealthy ruling classes on one side, and a 3rd world, impoverished working/starving class kept in check by a combination of religion and brutality.
Just check out the Dark Ages. Or the way most 3rd world countries are run today.
Rome fell into the Dark Ages after making Christianity the official religion. Secularist revolutions in the US and France brought us to the First World Enlightenment.
@TheHigherVoltage "Rome fell into the Dark Ages after making Christianity the official religion. Secularist revolutions in the US and France brought us to the First World Enlightenment" yes but all these civilizations existed completely interlocked with religion. the greeks, the golden age of islam, the romans, the rennaisance, many of the very people involved in the secularist revolutions you speak of. again, i'm not apologizing for religion, but it does no good to succumb to hyperbole.
@BillKiernan II specified "the abrahamic religions and some others." - not all religions command that "all non-believers are evil and must be converted or killed". And not all sects of the Abrahamic religions have always carried out death sentences...but history clearly shows, they usually do as soon as they get political/military power "working for God".
@TheHigherVoltage "Rome fell into the Dark Ages after making Christianity the official religion." ? no. rome fell for many different reasons. internal corruption, too large of an empire to sustain, foreign invasions, etc. etc. it's not like christianity came into the picture and everything went to hell. and the "dark ages" refers to the period after the complete fall of the roman empire. also, rome adopted christianity 313, it went on in different forms until the 5th century (western empire)
Smiling'Skeptic' you've drifted into 'la-la-land' with your bigotry and semantics. Get back to reality; where you will be judged, you will be held accountable for your sins and you will have consequences.
You can't be 'moral' and somehow enter into the Kingdom of God by thinking that you're an agnostic. Labeling yourself as such highights your lack of knowledge.
@TruthfulChristian2 You think those "threats" mean anything to anyone who doesn't subscribe to your delusion? I am living in reality every day. You might want to try ti some time. It's not nearly as scary a place as you think it is, and you'll find it's a whole lot less scary than the place you're living in now.
@riseofatheism One can be both. I like the "Atheist Experience" definitions. Atheism is a belief position one takes when they look at the evidence for a God and concludes it's not compelling enough to believe in a God. Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge, in that one doesn't know if there's a God. I often describe myself as an agnostic atheist. I don't see any compelling evidence to believe in a God, but if presented with the evidence, then I will know (not believe) a god exists.
@SmilingSkeptic ...and I don't believe such evidence will ever be produced. So, I guess you could call me a pessimistic agnostic atheist. ...or is that an optimistic agnostic atheist? I'll go with optimistic.
@SmilingSkeptic I guess if I were to "rank" them, the atheism would come first. I don't believe there's a God or gods, based on the evidence, but I'm also aware that if compelling evidence that was real, irrefutable and tangible enough to outweigh ALL of the evidence stacked against it, I suppose I'd have to change that atheist label, wouldn't I? Hence the agnosticism. But after tens of thousands of years of conceptualizing gods, we have evidence for squat, so yes, I am an atheist.
Yeah this man is great even though he has a meaningful life and talks about boring things. He's great even though he's ignorant of religion and can't come up with juice.
Hoobifta 1 week ago
@Hoobifta I think you've found the juice... whatever that's supposed to mean.
SmilingSkeptic 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yeah, I'm Agnostic. In fact, I wrote a story about a world God has left behind - with a kinda Stephen King bent. The first ebook is free - but I'll send codes for the other two to anyone who feel compelled and create video reviews (good or bad) - I've got lots of artwork that can be used too! Check out my Pazuzu Trilogy at - pazuzu.yolasite.com
Ishkott 1 month ago
@ogith perhaps "in the name of atheism" was a bad example? substitute in any group that you feel necessary. Better yet just strike "in the name of atheism" and move straight on to "or anything else". I also think you need to really grasp how deep religion permeates into all fabric of society. Those two points aside, you failed to recognize my main argument. What all people generally perceive to be "good" (humility, charity, empathy, etc) are all traits exemplified in the christian religion.
kombala33 3 months ago
When my senile grandfather passed away at the age of 90 the ladies at the church that he hadn't attended for 15 years cooked dinner for my family. They showed exceptional kindness and generosity. You don't see people do that in the name of atheism, or anything else. Some of the best things man has ever done was in the name of Christianity. Even if it is in the end wrong, it is a good principled way to live your life.
kombala33 3 months ago
@kombala33
You don't see people doing that "in the name of atheism" because atheism isn't a thing or a set of beliefs. It's just a state. The rock is atheist, it doesn't believe. The baby is atheist, it hasn't be taught to believe. You are atheist to untold amounts of gods, giving exception to one for whatever reason
And pretty much all the best things and discoveries man has ever done was without the invocation of your religion's version of a god, or any other religion's for that matter
ogith 3 months ago
Both atheists and theists think they KNOW something about which they have no evidence. Atheists are just as eager to push their beliefs onto others as theists. Agnosticism is the only honest approach to metaphysical questions.
AxelQC 5 months ago
Not really ,atheists have some proof that might explain the whole deal but its not all the way to say "Yes we know how it happened" while theists are sure by belif only.
Problem with atheism is that it removes the "unknown factor" that can't be explained yet while theists won't accept even if one day some one would come with that 100% proof because their life is based so much on the religion they fallow that it would distroy them and leave an empty feeling.
Crisshomes1 4 months ago
Agnosticism pretty much takes in consideration both point of views and tries to sort them by possibilities and the metaphorical and philosophical way of how man interprets the world that lives in.
An agnostic if the certain proof is shown then he/she can accept that a being such as a God exists while a theist will never accept the idea that a God doesn't no matter what proof.
An agnostic is pretty much the balance and like all the things in the universe,balance is one of them.
Crisshomes1 4 months ago
(about religion) The reason there are so many opinions is because no one knows the truth.
wallstreetatheist 6 months ago
given the fact that there is no way of knowing wether or not a god or higher being exists the logic following should be obvious. religions should be treated as theories or ideas. people can feel condifent in their beliefs but not be so arrogant as to say they know with 100% certainty. this statement also applies to atheism, it is still arrogant to make the assumption that there is no higher being of any kind.
darkslayerryu 6 months ago
@darkslayerryu You managed to summarize it pefectly, I totally agree with your point of view!
gamerdaddy 4 months ago
ok i have to say this. has anyone noticed the irony in the common atheist approach? they condemn religous people for pushing their beliefs on everyone yet they are doing the exact same thing. Believers fight amounst themseleves and non-believers fight with Believers. Everyone is constantly warring over each other without taking the time to step back and think.
darkslayerryu 6 months ago
The bible is a book of fables helping you to live your life in a positive way. Any World Religions professor in any university should give you that answer.
arm57r0ng 9 months ago
Science deals with proven facts. Christians refute facts that conflict with their religion and embrace facts that support their religion. I embrace all facts so I am an agnostic. I do embrace Jesus because it is a fact that he lived and preached love.
showtuneful 9 months ago
I think that the definition of "Christian" is anyone whose primary philosophy centers on the person or teachings of Jesus Christ. Everything else is an add-on.
EchoCram 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yada Yada Yada.....
zuniga6412 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Lol! Does he expect me to accept his interpretation of life over the Bible which spans several thousand years and whose prophecies came to pass? Darrow is saying: "don't believe in the bible. Believe in me." All of these agnostics are freemasons. As such, they are gnostics. Hiding behind the debate strategy of agnostic is cowardly since they can attack you but you can't attack them.
EdMahoney19 1 year ago
@EdMahoney19 Riiiight. And which part of this did you want me to take seriously?
SmilingSkeptic 1 year ago 11
@SmilingSkeptic Aren't you due back at the old folks home?
EdMahoney19 1 year ago
@EdMahoney19 Weakest. Troll. Ever. Goodbye.
SmilingSkeptic 1 year ago 10
@SmilingSkeptic Comic book guy, because he talks slow.
Hoobifta 1 week ago
I'm proud to be an agnostic
alyshooting 1 year ago
great words....though as an agnostic this is why I am the odd ball at the 'christian' dinner table.
alyshooting 1 year ago
Great Video,
However one error I noted. Immaculate conception is not virgin birth. Immaculate conception strickly refers to mary and is a catholic belief. Wikipedia has a good description.
mwildish 1 year ago
Ah yes, the Scopes trial. I knew I'd seen that name before.
Love this video, favorited! And yep, that man is truly a hero.
detersgumig 1 year ago
@WiseMonkey888 Thank you, sir! I may be recording another tonight, just for TruthfulChristian!
SmilingSkeptic 1 year ago
A great man indeed, although it seemed to me that he got agnosticism mixed up with atheism. And agnosticism isn't exactly one who doubts, even though that is probably a necessary part of it, but rather one that admits to lacking knowledge. Seems he didn't fully understand the word or didn't want to use the a-word. :) I was listening with half an ear while working though, so I might have missed some important part where he clarified.
PanWolven 1 year ago
@PanWolven Well, I think he wrote this at a time when coming out as an atheist was a VERY bold statement, and one that would work against you. Today, an announcement of atheism is met largely with indifference. Back then, it would be a career-ending, or possibly a life-risking move. It's clear from his writings that he was indeed a "strong" atheist, but I think the strongest word he felt comfortable using publicly was "agnostic". Also, implications of the words may have changed slightly.
SmilingSkeptic 1 year ago
@SmilingSkeptic I figure you're right. He seems too smart a person to have gotten such a simple distinction wrong.
PanWolven 1 year ago
@SmilingSkeptic I think you're dead on (your observation of Darrow's agnosticism as compared to coming out as an atheist at the time).
b14blah 1 month ago
Good reading of a fantastic essay, thank you for bring this to light.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
I'd never heard of this guy before. He seems like a very intelligent and articulate man. Sadly, TruthfulChristian had to turn up and lower the tone.
ffsnametaken 1 year ago
Great piece, but i have to take issue with his whole "civilization is only from skepticism" and there being no civilzation when everyone was religious. i'm a strident oponent of religion but that is just ridiculous.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan Well, he was known for pushing the boundaries of thought in his speeches and writings. I think I know what he was trying to say, that religion tends to placate man into indifference, and that the search for knowledge tends to have the opposite effect. Maybe he pushed that boundary where it didn't need to go.
SmilingSkeptic 1 year ago
@BillKiernan The Abrahamic religions (and some others) work to polarize "the flocks" into omnipotently wealthy ruling classes on one side, and a 3rd world, impoverished working/starving class kept in check by a combination of religion and brutality.
Just check out the Dark Ages. Or the way most 3rd world countries are run today.
Rome fell into the Dark Ages after making Christianity the official religion. Secularist revolutions in the US and France brought us to the First World Enlightenment.
TheHigherVoltage 1 year ago
@TheHigherVoltage "Rome fell into the Dark Ages after making Christianity the official religion. Secularist revolutions in the US and France brought us to the First World Enlightenment" yes but all these civilizations existed completely interlocked with religion. the greeks, the golden age of islam, the romans, the rennaisance, many of the very people involved in the secularist revolutions you speak of. again, i'm not apologizing for religion, but it does no good to succumb to hyperbole.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan II specified "the abrahamic religions and some others." - not all religions command that "all non-believers are evil and must be converted or killed". And not all sects of the Abrahamic religions have always carried out death sentences...but history clearly shows, they usually do as soon as they get political/military power "working for God".
TheHigherVoltage 1 year ago
@TheHigherVoltage "Rome fell into the Dark Ages after making Christianity the official religion." ? no. rome fell for many different reasons. internal corruption, too large of an empire to sustain, foreign invasions, etc. etc. it's not like christianity came into the picture and everything went to hell. and the "dark ages" refers to the period after the complete fall of the roman empire. also, rome adopted christianity 313, it went on in different forms until the 5th century (western empire)
BillKiernan 1 year ago
Smiling'Skeptic' you've drifted into 'la-la-land' with your bigotry and semantics. Get back to reality; where you will be judged, you will be held accountable for your sins and you will have consequences.
You can't be 'moral' and somehow enter into the Kingdom of God by thinking that you're an agnostic. Labeling yourself as such highights your lack of knowledge.
TruthfulChristian2 1 year ago
@TruthfulChristian2 Truthful? It is impossible for the uninformed to speak the truth. Be it unintentional, you are no bearer of truth.
Pushtrak 1 year ago
@TruthfulChristian2 may allah bless u in hevan
enclavebrandon3 1 year ago
@TruthfulChristian2 You think those "threats" mean anything to anyone who doesn't subscribe to your delusion? I am living in reality every day. You might want to try ti some time. It's not nearly as scary a place as you think it is, and you'll find it's a whole lot less scary than the place you're living in now.
SmilingSkeptic 1 year ago 5
@TruthfulChristian2
What proof and evidence do you have that 1 god (not 2 or more) created the universe? Who created all the other universes?
Zierota 1 year ago
But you're also an atheist right?
riseofatheism 1 year ago
@riseofatheism One can be both. I like the "Atheist Experience" definitions. Atheism is a belief position one takes when they look at the evidence for a God and concludes it's not compelling enough to believe in a God. Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge, in that one doesn't know if there's a God. I often describe myself as an agnostic atheist. I don't see any compelling evidence to believe in a God, but if presented with the evidence, then I will know (not believe) a god exists.
SmilingSkeptic 1 year ago
@SmilingSkeptic ...and I don't believe such evidence will ever be produced. So, I guess you could call me a pessimistic agnostic atheist. ...or is that an optimistic agnostic atheist? I'll go with optimistic.
SmilingSkeptic 1 year ago
@SmilingSkeptic
haha. indeed SS. indeed.
riseofatheism 1 year ago
@SmilingSkeptic I guess if I were to "rank" them, the atheism would come first. I don't believe there's a God or gods, based on the evidence, but I'm also aware that if compelling evidence that was real, irrefutable and tangible enough to outweigh ALL of the evidence stacked against it, I suppose I'd have to change that atheist label, wouldn't I? Hence the agnosticism. But after tens of thousands of years of conceptualizing gods, we have evidence for squat, so yes, I am an atheist.
SmilingSkeptic 1 year ago
first
recyard12x 1 year ago