I think a pertinent question here would be: HAVE you voted for an atheist? Look at how many "out" atheists have been elected to high office in America. Muslims in high office outnumber them. Mormons in high office outnumber them (even outside Utah)
1 (openly so) atheist, 2 muslim, 2 buddhists, and ~13 mormons. that is in congress alone.
also, the buddhists and muslims are relatively recent-most members being elected within the last 3 years, with one-only one, having served longer. and the funny thing is, all of them are democrats as well.
however, there are 10 congressmen who declined to voice religious beliefs; perhaps some are of your fellow atheists/agnostics?
The mormons are the dominant religion in certain areas, particular Utah and Nevada and other mountain states. Plus they really count as christians in the mindset of most christians.
that is indeed correct, so its not surprising that they have the numbers they do in congress.
though why anybody in their right mind would call mormons "christian" is beyond me; different books, different ethics, and their faith was founded iirc by a professional swindler in the 1840's-though I could be mistaken.
You might as well call Christians jewish... However, they call themselves christian, and they limit talk of Mormon and Moroni and the gold plates and magical stones to within their own congregation, so the mainstream christians don't know any better.
I was thinking that estimated 3% (don't believe in God, but do not consider themselves atheists) could easily be Buddhists, Hindu, or somesuch. It would depend on how people subjectively define atheism and belief in God -- regardless of the official definition.
Exactly--they ARE atheists (atheists are simply people without a belief in a God or gods), they just don't associate themselves with the label. That's the point.
"A state of not actively believing in god" - agnostic mindset
and
"actively believing in a state of "not-god."
athiest mindset.
Athiests hold beliefs just as strongly as the religious. They claim to "KNOW" that there is no god. Agnostics don't presume to know either way. People consider agnostics "cowards," but as both sides spurn them, it seems to be the path of MOST resistance, eh?
If "not believing in god" was all being an atheist is, then there is no such thing as an agnostic. Athiests have convictions. They actively believe in not-god (a-theism). Agnostics differ in the respect.
It is general knowledge that there is "strong atheism" and "weak weak atheism" (positive and negative). It would be dishonest to present Anti-theism as something other than strong atheism. To say that you are an anti-theist is to say that you are an atheist (a strong-atheist, but an atheist nontheless). The same is not true of agnosticism. An agnostic does not actively reject theism; he merely does not pursue it. This distinction is enormous. It's analogous to inaction vs rejection.
"No, that would be an anti-theist. Anti- is 'not', a- is simply 'without'."
What is the response to the people saying that etymology is not how to define words? Like that guy me and MonkeyThatIsLuminous dealt with a few months ago?
The reason why 3% described themselves as not believing in god but not atheists is because they defined atheist as "believing god did not exist" rather than how you and I define it as "not believing god exists". They thought it was an active position in other words.
Considering these polls on whether or not Palin beat Biden last night, and some idiots actually saying Palin won in some Drudge polls or wossname, I'm wishing the moderators would just declare a winner. Biden clearly won, whether you like him or not, because he actually answered some questions, and he ripped appart her lies one after the other, but I don't remember him ripping up her lie about Alaska being the chief exporter of energy
I haven't watched the commercial for the Demopublican Party yet, but I would think that even Palin could have beaten Biden in a debate. That guy's elevator doesn't go to the top floor. Besides, it should be easy to win against someone who can't make a sentence that's under five minutes long...
Biden called her on every point though. Palin just whined about job creation when the question had nothing to do with it. She mentioned "Raping" a lot as well. And this garbage about her state provides 20% of our country's power. I can send you a link debunking that completely, and she cited it four or more times in the debate. She did terrible.
Poles aren't bogus! Anyone living in the UK will also know that Poles have moved into our country and and entered many areas of our economy, especially in the building and catering trade. Poles are from Poland that they are REAL!!!
thanks for the great vid!my dad taught me in my teens to be skeptical of polls as their conclusions are only as good as their questions and how unbiased they are (for starters!)his advice (much more in depth like your vid)has helped me to examine what "they" state as facts and encourages me to dig deeper.
Barr has a long history of being on the opposite side of civil rights, though claims to have flip-flopped on many issues. I have yet to see him demonstrate this. The guy wrote DOMA and proposed banning the practice of Wicca in the military. Ugh!
Ron Paul isn't bad, but it burns me up that he wants Roe v. Wade overturned. I don't care if it is the Federal or State government, I don't want them telling my wife what she can do with her own uterus. He also opposes the church/state separation.
The term 'atheist' can mean different things. Some people define 'atheist' as 'one who believes that there is no god.' On that definition, an agnostic would (a) not believe in God, but (b) not be an atheist.
most of his point is that people on those poles judged purely by one criteria. Then again there's a lot of people that do that even in reality, but not everyone does. It really depends on how the question is phrased or interpreted. Like "would you under any circumstances vote for an atheist for president" or "between an atheist or a theist would you vote for the atheist"
That's a good point: not all religions have a God. But technically, Buddhists, Yoghis, etc. are atheists. I once spoke directly with a Yoghi who not only acknowledged this, but embraced it.
well, by definition if you lack a belief in a deity you are an atheist. gnostic is the claim of knowledge, agnostic is more dealing with belief but not the claim of absolute knowledge. Most atheists are actually agnostic atheists. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. It's actually a very common misconception of the atheist tag that we're all militant atheists that claim to know that there's no god when in fact that stance is a minority in reference to the general question.
[Merriam-Webster]athe·ist Function: noun Date: 1551 : one who believes that there is no deity ag·nos·tic Function: noun Date: 1869 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god[Merriam-Webster] An atheist says, "There is no God" An agnostic says, "I don't know if there is a god or not" A Buddhist says, "Well, it's complicated..."
An atheist says, "Considering the lack of evidence for the existence of god, I conclude: There probably is no god. Present evidence and I will may change my mind."
An agnostic says, "I will never make up mind on this subject because I am way too scared of being wrong!"
It may also be, though, that the other three percent saw themselves as agnostics, since many people believe an agnostic is somebody who does not believe in god and an atheist is somebody who denies god.
Another issue with labels. They didn't define "atheist" in the poll.
Besides, an atheist is not someone who denies God, but who just doesn't believe in God. Theism = belief in God. Atheism = a*theism, without a belief in God.
BS it may be, but it's what people do. It's a psychology thing. Applying a label to yourself implies some sort of commitment, and people are reluctant to do that.
Instead of 8 shitty polls, why not just one good poll?
david52875 2 months ago
@david52875 You're acting like they WANT a good poll that they can't manipulate.
shanedk 2 months ago
I'm surprised you have so many negative ratings. Don't be discouraged, keep up the good work!
PickelhauptOfWayne 1 year ago
I think a pertinent question here would be: HAVE you voted for an atheist? Look at how many "out" atheists have been elected to high office in America. Muslims in high office outnumber them. Mormons in high office outnumber them (even outside Utah)
dangerouslytalented 2 years ago
I just got the figures for congress:
1 (openly so) atheist, 2 muslim, 2 buddhists, and ~13 mormons. that is in congress alone.
also, the buddhists and muslims are relatively recent-most members being elected within the last 3 years, with one-only one, having served longer. and the funny thing is, all of them are democrats as well.
however, there are 10 congressmen who declined to voice religious beliefs; perhaps some are of your fellow atheists/agnostics?
Albukhshi 2 years ago
The mormons are the dominant religion in certain areas, particular Utah and Nevada and other mountain states. Plus they really count as christians in the mindset of most christians.
dangerouslytalented 2 years ago
that is indeed correct, so its not surprising that they have the numbers they do in congress.
though why anybody in their right mind would call mormons "christian" is beyond me; different books, different ethics, and their faith was founded iirc by a professional swindler in the 1840's-though I could be mistaken.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
You might as well call Christians jewish... However, they call themselves christian, and they limit talk of Mormon and Moroni and the gold plates and magical stones to within their own congregation, so the mainstream christians don't know any better.
dangerouslytalented 2 years ago
true that. true that.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
I was thinking that estimated 3% (don't believe in God, but do not consider themselves atheists) could easily be Buddhists, Hindu, or somesuch. It would depend on how people subjectively define atheism and belief in God -- regardless of the official definition.
Altimadark 2 years ago
Exactly--they ARE atheists (atheists are simply people without a belief in a God or gods), they just don't associate themselves with the label. That's the point.
shanedk 2 years ago
I thought the Hindu religion had many gods.
Altimadark 2 years ago 2
It does.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
It's more that we are agnostics. I'm one of them.
There is a difference between
"A state of not actively believing in god" - agnostic mindset
and
"actively believing in a state of "not-god."
athiest mindset.
Athiests hold beliefs just as strongly as the religious. They claim to "KNOW" that there is no god. Agnostics don't presume to know either way. People consider agnostics "cowards," but as both sides spurn them, it seems to be the path of MOST resistance, eh?
Not for the weak of heart.
wronglycensored 2 years ago
No, not believing in god IS atheism. Theism is a belief in god; a- is without. So a-theism is without a belief in god.
shanedk 2 years ago
If "not believing in god" was all being an atheist is, then there is no such thing as an agnostic. Athiests have convictions. They actively believe in not-god (a-theism). Agnostics differ in the respect.
wronglycensored 2 years ago
No, that would be an anti-theist. Anti- is "not," a- is simply "without."
shanedk 2 years ago
It is general knowledge that there is "strong atheism" and "weak weak atheism" (positive and negative). It would be dishonest to present Anti-theism as something other than strong atheism. To say that you are an anti-theist is to say that you are an atheist (a strong-atheist, but an atheist nontheless). The same is not true of agnosticism. An agnostic does not actively reject theism; he merely does not pursue it. This distinction is enormous. It's analogous to inaction vs rejection.
wronglycensored 2 years ago
Pardon, I meant "weak atheism," not "weak weak" atheism. Please ignore the repeated word.
~WC
wronglycensored 2 years ago
@shanedk
"No, that would be an anti-theist. Anti- is 'not', a- is simply 'without'."
What is the response to the people saying that etymology is not how to define words? Like that guy me and MonkeyThatIsLuminous dealt with a few months ago?
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@Surhotchaperchlorome The meaning of a word can change beyond its basic etymology, but that doesn't mean that prefixes don't do what they do.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Also, I was always taught that the prefix Anti- meant "against".
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@Surhotchaperchlorome Or "opposite."
shanedk 1 year ago
My (educated) guess would be that most Hindus, if ask if they believed in god, would answer yes.
Also I would guess that the majority of Buddhists would respond with something along the lines of "what do you mean by 'god'?"
I would also guess that many Buddhist would ask "what do you mean by 'atheist?'"
DeeDemonwitch 2 years ago
would you vote for a drug using womanizer?
Yes
DrFoolishit 2 years ago
The reason why 3% described themselves as not believing in god but not atheists is because they defined atheist as "believing god did not exist" rather than how you and I define it as "not believing god exists". They thought it was an active position in other words.
mtanti87 2 years ago
I am not sure if this point has any merit or not, but it is relevant(the part that asks if people would vote for an atheist).
Lincoln was an atheist president, at a time where people were less open minded bout those who do not have a religion.
DahStranger 2 years ago
A -Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with
astrologists.
He's had two Mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10
martinis a day.
B -He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium
in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.
C -He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke,
drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.
Which of these candidates would be your choice?
Thestrangerishere 2 years ago 2
I'm not sure about the first two, but I'm pretty sure I know who C is...
shanedk 2 years ago
A is FDR, B is Winston Churchill and C is Hitler
interstate317 2 years ago
I thought B might have been Churchill. C was pretty obvious.
Nice example!
shanedk 2 years ago
kinda hard to cheat on your wife when you were only married a day XD
Albukhshi 2 years ago 2
Epic win. X3
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Considering these polls on whether or not Palin beat Biden last night, and some idiots actually saying Palin won in some Drudge polls or wossname, I'm wishing the moderators would just declare a winner. Biden clearly won, whether you like him or not, because he actually answered some questions, and he ripped appart her lies one after the other, but I don't remember him ripping up her lie about Alaska being the chief exporter of energy
AJComixII 3 years ago
I haven't watched the commercial for the Demopublican Party yet, but I would think that even Palin could have beaten Biden in a debate. That guy's elevator doesn't go to the top floor. Besides, it should be easy to win against someone who can't make a sentence that's under five minutes long...
shanedk 3 years ago
Biden called her on every point though. Palin just whined about job creation when the question had nothing to do with it. She mentioned "Raping" a lot as well. And this garbage about her state provides 20% of our country's power. I can send you a link debunking that completely, and she cited it four or more times in the debate. She did terrible.
AJComixII 3 years ago
haha yea but we all really know that religion is the only deciding factor when it comes to people voting
nemesisnick66 3 years ago
Poles aren't bogus! Anyone living in the UK will also know that Poles have moved into our country and and entered many areas of our economy, especially in the building and catering trade. Poles are from Poland that they are REAL!!!
AlmightScoop 3 years ago
thanks for the great vid!my dad taught me in my teens to be skeptical of polls as their conclusions are only as good as their questions and how unbiased they are (for starters!)his advice (much more in depth like your vid)has helped me to examine what "they" state as facts and encourages me to dig deeper.
practicalmagic9 3 years ago
"Would you vote for a divorced B Movie actor"
*snicker*
Jermbot15 3 years ago
This part of this episode is even better than the first part. Fucking awesome work brother, great job.
ogjimkenobi 3 years ago 2
thanks for sending this to me man.
C0ct0pus 3 years ago
One minor quibble: "Fiscally conservative and socially liberal" does not necessarily equal Libertarian.
jergsden 3 years ago
That's about as close to defining the Libertarian party as you can get. From their own web page:
"Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty."
Unfortunately, their recent high profile members(Barr and Paul) seem to have forgotten about the personal liberty part.
jstutz2003 3 years ago
"Unfortunately, their recent high profile members(Barr and Paul) seem to have forgotten about the personal liberty part."
How so?
shanedk 3 years ago
Barr has a long history of being on the opposite side of civil rights, though claims to have flip-flopped on many issues. I have yet to see him demonstrate this. The guy wrote DOMA and proposed banning the practice of Wicca in the military. Ugh!
Ron Paul isn't bad, but it burns me up that he wants Roe v. Wade overturned. I don't care if it is the Federal or State government, I don't want them telling my wife what she can do with her own uterus. He also opposes the church/state separation.
jstutz2003 3 years ago
The term 'atheist' can mean different things. Some people define 'atheist' as 'one who believes that there is no god.' On that definition, an agnostic would (a) not believe in God, but (b) not be an atheist.
SisyphusRedeemed 3 years ago
I cannot believe you compared atheism, to B rated actors, drug users, womanizers, and criminals....
NYjon888 3 years ago
I don't think that he meant it that way, but I can see your beef. Sadly, atheism is looked on in a very negative light by the ignorant masses.
jstutz2003 3 years ago
I didn't. I just pointed out that people will react one way to the question even though they may vote another.
shanedk 3 years ago
most of his point is that people on those poles judged purely by one criteria. Then again there's a lot of people that do that even in reality, but not everyone does. It really depends on how the question is phrased or interpreted. Like "would you under any circumstances vote for an atheist for president" or "between an atheist or a theist would you vote for the atheist"
garith21 3 years ago
I do not believe in God but am not an atheist. I am agnostic. Buddhists fit into this category as well.
jstutz2003 3 years ago
That's a good point: not all religions have a God. But technically, Buddhists, Yoghis, etc. are atheists. I once spoke directly with a Yoghi who not only acknowledged this, but embraced it.
See my point to TomSFox above about agnostics.
shanedk 3 years ago
Yay, shanedk mentioned me by name!
However, I don't want to sound like a jerk (even though I probably will), but you didn't mention agnostics. I did.
TomSFox 3 years ago
well, by definition if you lack a belief in a deity you are an atheist. gnostic is the claim of knowledge, agnostic is more dealing with belief but not the claim of absolute knowledge. Most atheists are actually agnostic atheists. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. It's actually a very common misconception of the atheist tag that we're all militant atheists that claim to know that there's no god when in fact that stance is a minority in reference to the general question.
garith21 3 years ago
jstutz2003 3 years ago
again not mutually exclusive, I don't believe there is a god, but I don't claim to know if there is a god or not.
Just as much as I don't believe unicorns exist but I don't claim to know with absolute truth that unicorn's don't exist.
Knowledge is a subset of belief.
That's why atheism now a days is loosely defined as the lack of belief in a deity.
garith21 3 years ago
Ethrock has a good video up on this very subject. I think it's his latest one; he uploaded it yesterday.
shanedk 3 years ago
cool, I'll have to check it out, thanks.
garith21 3 years ago
Well, it's actually more like this:
An atheist says, "Considering the lack of evidence for the existence of god, I conclude: There probably is no god. Present evidence and I will may change my mind."
An agnostic says, "I will never make up mind on this subject because I am way too scared of being wrong!"
TomSFox 3 years ago
This show is making me hate polls more than before. I always knew the were no good.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Yea 60 is a F in my high school.
CENSOREDFORSEX 3 years ago
It may also be, though, that the other three percent saw themselves as agnostics, since many people believe an agnostic is somebody who does not believe in god and an atheist is somebody who denies god.
TomSFox 3 years ago
Another issue with labels. They didn't define "atheist" in the poll.
Besides, an atheist is not someone who denies God, but who just doesn't believe in God. Theism = belief in God. Atheism = a*theism, without a belief in God.
shanedk 3 years ago
I know that an atheist isn't someone who denies god, I just repeated what several people THINK atheist means.
TomSFox 3 years ago
This "I don't believe in labels" thing is bullshit!
You know what? I'm not a human being, because I don't in believe in labels!
And now I'm going to the cold locker which I am not going to label as my fridge and get myself something to eat which I will not label as food.
TomSFox 3 years ago
BS it may be, but it's what people do. It's a psychology thing. Applying a label to yourself implies some sort of commitment, and people are reluctant to do that.
shanedk 3 years ago
If I got a 60% on anything in school, I would have failed.
zbambam5 3 years ago
Great vid, Shane. Keep it up, man.
brandonbdx 3 years ago
Where's part one?
0503130s 3 years ago
It's up. YouTube decided to delay that one longer, for some reason, but it's there now.
shanedk 3 years ago