I totally disagree with this video. I'm not an atheist myself, but I have plenty of friends who are atheists, and they're at least as social and well-natured as anybody on the religious spectrum. Many atheists (or other "nonreligious" groups) simply live in the world without constantly relying on God. Believe it or not, they usually pull through.
Anyway, people do question authority; why else would so many Catholics not follow the Pope's ideas, for instance?
@TheKNexWeasel The political and cultural aspects of Atheism have brought some good things, such as the weakening of oppressive belief systems. But Atheism has also brought some bad things, mainly privileging a way of thinking that can't make basic distinctions.
Some forms of Atheism are only about defeating all belief systems that insist on blindly worshiping an anthropomorphic deity. But the dominant form today advocates two things at the same time: nihilism & relativism - both quite harmful
This is really interesting. I used to call myself an atheist, back in my Nietzsche/Rand phase. I still love a lot of what they had to say. But I know I have felt the presence of God in my life. I think it's more the Catholicism I was raised in that I'm against.
I wish I could find a religion that shared my image of God...He gave me my talents and he wants me to be strong and use them...and that's ALL he wants..and of course he wants me to not make things hard for others or hurt others.
Don't waste your time with this one. It is biased nonsense. To liken atheism to a "religion" is just plain stupid. At one point the presenter even suggests that atheists believe just as much as theists; they just believe in a negative. What sort of a head-up-arse way of thinking is that!
@theemperorwearsnoclo in some cases, it's necessary to distinguish Science and Religion. This works, up to a point. But ultimately, by definition, any belief system, including Atheism, can correctly be called a religion.
In spite of their efforts to rid themselves of anything resembling religion, Atheists have their dogmas and "sacred" texts. Atheism has and its Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, and Sheep. And its Devils - such as those who point out that any belief system is a "religion"
I'll have to mirror some similar comments here, because this video really misses the mark and quite early on. Atheists are not easily blanketed with these hasty generalizations, as we are as diverse as any group. That said, we lack a formal structure and doctrine that necessitates any particular behavior. You will see people who are nutjobs who choose atheism. That doesn't say anything about my lack of belief.
I don't have enough space to rebut every flaw in the video, but they are numerous
It wasn't a generalization of Atheism. It was a rebuttal to all those Atheists who believe they can create some sort of paradise by exterminating religion.
Why don't you watch the end of the documentary again where he concludes? Religion is not the problem but arrogance and extremism, for which Atheism is not immune to.
@snoman99991 The generalizations aren't hasty - this is a straw man ad hominem accusation. There's a predictable consistency, a recurring set of tropes and schemes.
You're being defensive, using the mechanism of "the narcissism of minor distinctions." All ducks aren't exactly alike in every detail, but every duck has feathers, a bill, webbed feet, and quacks.
If a generalization doesn't accomplish what a generalization should (which is describing a large portion of a group or even all of the group using mostly accurate terms for the sake of brevity or identity), then it is indeed hasty. I would be committing the fallacy fallacy if I were indeed saying your point is false simply because it was arrived at through fallacy. That is not the case and is irrelevant.
What is your point? Lacking a belief is as non-dogmatic as it gets.
@snoman99991 Your comment would make a wonderful Marx Brothers skit. But since you asked a reasonable question... Atheism is a belief system. Doesn't matter that its main tenet is denial of a Creator. Atheism has its "prophets", "holy" books, dogmas, and even a hierarchical structure no different from that of the Catholic church or the Tibetan Buddhists. Lacking a belief is, itself, a belief. You dogmatically adhere to the belief that there is no Creator. Do you have a moral code? Share it.
That is nothing but propaganda. Christians do not disagree with Jesus on matters of theology. I have the capacity to disagree with notable scientists about things they say. To suggest I am dogmatically following one person or another as a prophet is to imply you've never talked to an atheist and actually listened.
Who would you say leads the "atheist religion"? We have no pope. We have no messiah. We have no god. There is literally nothing you can superimpose there.
@snoman99991 Your intolerance and rhetoric are no different from that of any religious fanatic.
In spite of massive denial, Atheism has a structure mirroing that of religions. Right now, Richard Dawkins qualifies as a Cardinal of Atheism; his books are "holy". Christopher Hitchens is another Atheist Cardinal. Then there are Bishops like Bill Maher & the deceased George Carlin (perhaps now an Atheist Saint).
It's not a superimposition, but an analysis and observation of analogous components.
What part of atheism implies an intolerance? We simply do not believe in a god's existence. There is no book that we all subscribe to that demands the death of homosexuals, or endorses slavery, or asks us to stone disobedient children. That is Christianity. Do not presume I'm ignorant, I was raised Christian.
It borders on paranoid delusional to presume any of those people are in fact related in an organizational structure. Nothing has ever existed like that, and that is a lie
I have a moral code, and it's not restricted by dogma. It grows and adapts to a changing world. Morality is not a black and white system, and you have no right to lay claim to it.
Is lacking a belief a belief itself? Do you collect stamps? If not, are you a non-stamp collector? No, you just don't collect stamps. You're espousing complete bullshit, and it's useless rhetoric. Next time, try actually talking to an atheist before you talk for him.
@snoman99991 Can you make a specific statement of the main ideas in this "moral code"? If put in certain situations, your moral code would suddenly be indistinguishable from that of most religious people you despise and scorn.
Funny that you get your Atheist panties in a wad when somebody uses your rhetorical techniques to critique your belief system.
Technically, I'm also an atheist. I deny the existence of the Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Animist "god(s)". G-d CAN'T be defined or described.
Well since you actually do want to know how my morals work, I will tell you. In general, they are flexible. I am capable of learning from mistakes. My functional morals are based mostly on being a positive member of society. I do my very best to avoid causing direct harm to people, and avoid manipulation. I choose my words carefully so as to not harm people I know. I hold doors for people, do community service, pay for meals, and generally just act as a good person.
Atheism has no dogma. We are united only by our common non-belief. It's like owning a home. You share something in common with people all around the world if you own a home, but that doesn't mean any of those homes are anything like your own. Nor does it imply a value, or a specific level of function, or a location, or ideas. It's just one thing you hold in common with others. I do not go to an atheist church on Sunday, or donate a tithe to atheists priests.
@snoman99991 Generalization: Reasoning from detailed facts to general principles.
What you describe is true of hasty generalization, but not of objective generalization.
Part-to-Whole or Whole-to-Part inferences are usually logical fallacies. A single member of a class might have attributes not found in every member of that class, but this doesn't automatically invalidate generalizations about the class itself.
Atheists have slaughtered non-Atheists since Atheism was invented.
And violence is the history of all religions and all humans since our species began walking. What is your point? And that question still remains valid. You aren't putting anything new out there, and you're talking as if you think atheists don't acknowledge that an atheist can be a bad person. It would take someone stupid to think otherwise.
Lets put bickering over logic aside (because content is what counts really) for a moment. Can you answer me one question?
Atheism has no tenets, no scripture telling us what to believe.
Atheists are as diverse as any population, therefore you will have your radicals, and your softcore atheists.
This video is stereotypical and really jumps to conclusion. Just because we think your religious beliefs are delusional and wrong, doesn't mean we will kill you because of it. We won't for the most part prevent science from discovering the truth, not dogmatically following faith.
It is amusing to observe the atheists and their mirror-image counterparts in goy religions go at each other like dogs at an L.A. dogfight or roosters at a Juarez cockfight.
@Prometheo1 I have been an atheist for 10 years and never even heard of what you're talking about. I have never seen an atheist acting violent in my entire life, even when I was a christian. Atheism is not a religion, not a set of tenants, not a scripture or a core of beliefs. We argue with the religious, which is a GOOD thing, because questioning one another helps us all learn and grow. Science exists for the sole purpose to interrogate and investigate the universe.
@BlueSpirals I suspect you're probably a genuinely decent person and am glad you've had such a great experience. I've never said that Atheism automatically produces a violent or evil person. The most violent and evil people in history have been fanatical believers in some anthropomorphic deity or other. But there have been plenty of Atheists who matched them horror for horror. The French Revolution was dominated by Atheists and was atrocious. Same with the Marxists, starting with Lenin.
@Prometheo1 Then you should be able to determine the difference between those who believe in deities and start wars, and those who are atheists and start wars.
I can probably name dozens of historical wars in which a leader declares that God has commanded them to commit genocide on another tribe, kingdom or country. How many wars can you name in which the leader committed genocide specifically in the name of Atheism? Pol Pot would have to have killed FOR atheism to be equivalent.
@BlueSpirals The French Revolution under the Jacobins qualifies as an example of Atheists murdering tens of thousands in the name of No-God (Atheism). They sought to eliminate the bourgeoisie.
Marxists also qualify for the simple reason that they base their ideology on "scientific" Atheism. Marxist thinking (with a few exceptions) is an Atheist movement. Some say Marx was a Satanist (he believed in G-d but hated G-d).
Your comments are an interesting example of Atheist dogmatism and sophistry.
@Prometheo1 Outright lie. The french revolution was a revolt of the lower class against the aristocracy and bourgeoisie- and of course, most importantly, the immensely unpopular king. The revolution was entirely political and was not religiously driven; and finally the Jacobins were NOT atheists, they were deists, and even introduced a cult of Supreme Being as France's national religion. So, you should probably stop lying and start reading at some point.
@BlueSpirals Now, now! A lie is an intentional misrepresentation of the facts. You might disagree with my interpretation of history, but there's no reason to claim I'm telling a lie.
The Revolution was mainly carried out by not-so-well-off Aristocrats with a grudge against the Royals. They used propaganda to agitate the lower classes, and when they took power it was the lower class who got the worst of it. Jacobins were, at first, devoted to REASON. Robespierre wanted the Supreme Being.
@Prometheo1 You are lying if you say the jacobins were atheists. They were deists and anti-atheists, and followed their own religion, which they introduced to France as its official religion during the revolution. This is a historical fact. How could you possibly misinterpret it? That's like saying Hitler invaded Australia.
@BlueSpirals My! How defensive and fanatic you are! I haven't thought about the Jacobins for many years and went back over some basic info on them.
SOME Jacobins were deists & anti-atheists, with the brutal Robespierre being among this crowd.
MOST wanted to do away with God and "worship" EMPIRICAL REASON. This is the basis of modern Atheism (NOT believing in God is reasonable and believing in God is delusional).
@Prometheo1 Funny how you might call someone a religious fanatic if they blow up a building or kill someone, but you might call someone an atheist fanatic if they simply defend atheism. Laugh out loud. And furthermore, I find it rather UNREASONABLE that a crop of atheists would violently support a leader who tried to overthrow the french government in order to put his religion and his god into power. You are simply mistaken. And btw, deists are related to theists, not atheists.
@BlueSpirals I say the Jacobins (most of them anyhow) were Atheists who wanted to do away with all notions of God and put REASON in its place. This is the essential position of most (but not all) Atheists today. Jacobins used murder as the primary tool of enforcing policy, making them no better than religionists.
In spite of your silly Academic insults, you raise an important point. Robespierre introduced the Supreme Being, and the worst part of the Terror took place under his command.
@Prometheo1 Except the Jacobins believed in god and a supreme being, and had a religion that followed it, and forced that religion onto France. So how exactly are they atheists trying to get rid of god? You Christians very often group pagans, deists and atheists in the same category, but really, christianity and paganism have more in common than atheism and paganism.
The so called reporter in this documentary is a christian, and he makes many false statements about atheists. His research is flawed and he implies that belief in something without evidence is equal but opposite to non belief due to lack of evidence. Well, everyone's entitled to their own stupidity.
All these examples of "atheism at its worst" have nothing to do with atheism because atheism is NOTHING. There are not tenets they are following and they are just as susceptible to the failings of the "human condition" as everyone else. No one is saying "I'm going to kill you in the name of the lack of a god", an atheist murder would always have some other reason for killing.
"The lack of the stabilizing factor of the truth of God's word is the reason people become insane and do insane things". No.
Morality is hardly derived from religion. Sure there is some good stuff like the Ten Commandments, but people ignore a lot of the other "codes" like stoning disobedient children or killing homosexuals. We know these are immoral, but they are there. So religion is open to the same "moral drift" that societies morals are. EMPATHY is the source of morality, not a book.
You are confusing God's perfect law with man's imperfect laws and you are using man's imperfect laws to judge God's perfect laws. In other words, you don't know what you are talking about. It is the imperfect that corrupts not the perfect. Perfection is the source of true morality and we are not perfect so we cannot say what is perfect. Christianity (and original Judaism) is the only teaching that has perfection as an ideal. No other teaching will ever get us there to have a clear conscience.
You are confusing belief with faith. I beleive my car is outside, however I don't know. However I have parked my car outside hundreds of times and it has always been there when I go back to it, so it I have evidence supporting that by parking my car outside my house it will remain there. Faith would be me saying my car is outside even after I here it get broken into and driven off. That is nonsensical, much like your absolute belief in God.
There is physical visible evidence for the existence of God. It is the existence of physical visible intelligent design which shows us every time that we observe it that there is a Designer/Creator/God who is greater than every known thing in the entire known universe. We still have to believe the evidence no matter how much evidence there is of God. How much evidence do you want to see. You are the evidence of God.
That is a terrible argument. You are assuming an intelligence is required for everything yet you exclude that creator from this assumption.
"God is outside of time and space" you might say, that is a cop out and you know it. Why does this ultimate source of existence have to be sentient and how is it that we would know ANYTHING about it as most theists assume they do.
The universe may be some beings petridish, but I'm in no way going to just say its true for the sake of perpetuating religion.
: ) We are some beings petridish. Function does not come from formlessness. Everything formed on the nanoscale was designed to function. All of our enzymes are left handed. Everything has intent and purpose and I agree with you that religion should not have all authority and power. There is, however a teaching or an argument that could be made that if anyone should be in charge, it is the Jews (Kohanim) in Jerusalem, but that is another subject.
I like your :) at the beginning of your post. It keeps people from getting pissed. I might have to start doing that.
:)I have yet to be persuaded that a natural source of creation is impossible. Theist keep on assuming everything needs an intelligence behind it. Well even if that is true who created that intelligence? And who created the next one, and the next, and so on? It is an infinite tower of turtles as the native Americans say.
: ) The difference is that, since all creatures have the same basic DNA structure, we know they are all from the same Creator. We also know that all the basic elements used in life structures were designed to function as they do so well that the entire universe made of these same elements was also created by One Creator. Since the universe is as big as it is and there is evidence of no other known being that great, it means there is no one greater than our Creator who is beyond this E=MC2 realm.
Atheism is nothing. Noting being the lack of something, that something being the belief in supernatural deities. Some people believe in genies, but I don't. Does that make my belief that there is no such thing as genies a religion? NO!
You need to accept the fact that what you believe still always requires belief. If it wasn't God, who or what was it? If it was something physical show the evidence. If it was not something physical, show the reason. Christianity is both by reason and by physical evidence of the spoken word and visible observable intelligent design.
"Intelligent design"? If you are rejecting the theory of evolution then this conversation is over and you should stop making any comments about science. If not then ignore what I just said.
The existence of a sentient universal engineer only complicates matters because it would need a designer. If you say it is beyond causality then you can't say causality must be adhered to by everything else.
If (since) God made everything in the universe, God is greater than everything in the universe. The way I know God is greater is because even the most basic elements of life are the interchangeable parts that allows the life forms to function. That means that the whole universe which is made of these same basic elements of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, sulfur and nitrogen was also created by the same Designer/Creator/God who is greater than every known thing in the entire known universe.
And you are mixed up on what atheism is. If you are over the 50/50 mark in whether you have faith in a deity then you are an atheist. Atheism is not "THERE ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THERE IS A GOD!".
For example, if Jesus floated down from the sky and started preforming miracles and preaching I would convert. So would most atheists. Most theists on the other hand would keep on believing in their religion even if another had a substantial amount of evidence, like if a Hindu God came down from the sky.
Christianity has always been based on recorded history and observable evidence of intelligent design which shows us there is a Designer/Creator/God who is greater than every known thing in the entire known universe. It has always been belief based on fact. Everything else is speculation.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That is so true that atheists believe there is nothing to believe in. ... but that too is a belief and it is a cult false teaching at that because everything that we see tells us there is something to believe in.
"atheists believe there is nothing to believe in"
That's a rather ironic statement.
You seem to be ignorant about what atheism means so I'll pedantically clarify that for you. Atheism is a "lack of belief" in gods and religion. No more, and no less. It is not a system of beliefs and, therefore, cannot spread like a cult, which is a decidedly theistic notion.
Christianity is based on historical information and observable intelligent design. Atheism rejects all of that so atheism is basically a lack of a good education. That is the easiest thing to spread. "Theism" requires an education.
it seems that people have confused atheism with science again. anybody can beleive in evolution regardless of religious beleifs, as any person who is informed will see that it is simple truth.
Science is very much in contrast to atheism because science is the discovery of what atheism says is not there. That is the problem with atheism and science is that they are at odds with each other.
Good science has never been at odds with intelligent design because intelligent design is science and science is intelligent design like hand in glove.
you are obviously delusional weather or not this is because you wish to remain so remains to be seen. i don't know where you get your information but i could guess. the discovery institue has nothing to do with real science. go watch pbs nova with intelligent design on trial to see what happens when a court ruling with a christian judge must decide weather or not intelligent design is science.
It is all a matter of knowing the facts and believing the evidence that we have. Science is not determined by the courts. If science turned around and said they had been mistaken, the court would have to reverse its decision based on further review of the evidence which is what will happen eventually. Objective observation of the evidence shows that evolution is not the cause of our being here and the courts will have to reflect that.
i beleive that isreal in particular is always going to be a hotbed of violence. the reason is simple, zion was promised in the old testement. islam, christianity, and judaism all are based off the old testement and all of them are promised zion by god. how could this not lead to trouble?
People just need to understand what Abraham (the father of Arabs and Jews) intended. Isaac was the only one of Abraham's sons that remained in the land. All of the seven other (Arab) sons of Abraham were all sent with supplies in different directions. Everyone who wants to be a part of Isaac (and Israel) is welcome. The land of Israel belongs to Israel and it is to be administered to all the rest of the world by Israel. Jerusalem belongs to God and is to be administered to God by the Kohanim.
I'm a strong atheist who agrees with almost everything in this series of videos. I fully agree with what I see as its thesis: "Remove God, and humanity and its propensity to evil still remains; secular utopians can be just as dangerous as religious zealots." In the past, both have sometimes justified atrocities using their grand and certain vision, as well as abused the power popular conviction has brought. But contrary to the title here, the trouble isn't with atheism, it's with human beings.
I agree with your assessment and add only that it's the unclarified psyche of the human being that's the problem.
The Human Process is not very complicated. There are five physical cavities (pelvic, abdominal, thoracic, cranial, and vertebral). There are twelve pairs of cranial nerves that give our brain the input it needs to process experience. There are nine Domains with their corresponding dichotomies. This all can be learned by children.
OK, I'll be specific: This series of videos is bullshit, as most people has pointed out. Bullshit from begging to end, as bullshitty as christianity and every other religion. This series of videos is the aids on the cancer that is killing youtube.
We have very different ideas about what it means to be specific.
If you see everything as bullshit, then what is not bullshit?
Give a specific example of what you think is NOT bullshit.
By the way, Shlomo HaMelech (King Solomon) wrote "Hevel havelim, hakol havel" which translates into modern language as "bullshit, bullshitters, everything is bullshit". However, you ought not take this as a verification of your yet-to-be-clarified views.
Occam's razor isn't bullshit, beer isn't bullshit, the fact that the dreamcast was a great machine but the market simply had no place for it isn't bullshit, science isn't bullshit... There's plenty of things that are not bullshit, mate.
Good old Occam and his razor. The simplest explanation is usually (but not always) the best.
Beer. The nectar of the godz. Me I prefer Bellhaven Ale but a Black & Tan will do in a pinch.
Don't know about the dreamcast machine.
Science is the opposite of bullshit. Real science, that is. The kind that allows anybody to follow the same steps, using the same materials and methods, and get the same results whether you're in Poland, Pongo, or Portland, regardless of "religious" views.
This reminds me of all those evil sick atheists who blew up those abortion clinics and flew those planes into buildings. Oh.. wait..
FHomeBrew 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
gods are imaginary.
ndrthrdr1 7 months ago
This video is pretty sad...and wrong.
iversonmatthew 9 months ago
I totally disagree with this video. I'm not an atheist myself, but I have plenty of friends who are atheists, and they're at least as social and well-natured as anybody on the religious spectrum. Many atheists (or other "nonreligious" groups) simply live in the world without constantly relying on God. Believe it or not, they usually pull through.
Anyway, people do question authority; why else would so many Catholics not follow the Pope's ideas, for instance?
TheKNexWeasel 1 year ago
@TheKNexWeasel The political and cultural aspects of Atheism have brought some good things, such as the weakening of oppressive belief systems. But Atheism has also brought some bad things, mainly privileging a way of thinking that can't make basic distinctions.
Some forms of Atheism are only about defeating all belief systems that insist on blindly worshiping an anthropomorphic deity. But the dominant form today advocates two things at the same time: nihilism & relativism - both quite harmful
Prometheo1 1 year ago
This is really interesting. I used to call myself an atheist, back in my Nietzsche/Rand phase. I still love a lot of what they had to say. But I know I have felt the presence of God in my life. I think it's more the Catholicism I was raised in that I'm against.
I wish I could find a religion that shared my image of God...He gave me my talents and he wants me to be strong and use them...and that's ALL he wants..and of course he wants me to not make things hard for others or hurt others.
MckyMseNTarotCrds 1 year ago
Don't waste your time with this one. It is biased nonsense. To liken atheism to a "religion" is just plain stupid. At one point the presenter even suggests that atheists believe just as much as theists; they just believe in a negative. What sort of a head-up-arse way of thinking is that!
"Alright. I AM the Messiah" now just f++ck off."
"How shall we f++ck off oh, Lord."
theemperorwearsnoclo 1 year ago
@theemperorwearsnoclo in some cases, it's necessary to distinguish Science and Religion. This works, up to a point. But ultimately, by definition, any belief system, including Atheism, can correctly be called a religion.
In spite of their efforts to rid themselves of anything resembling religion, Atheists have their dogmas and "sacred" texts. Atheism has and its Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, and Sheep. And its Devils - such as those who point out that any belief system is a "religion"
Prometheo1 1 year ago
I'll have to mirror some similar comments here, because this video really misses the mark and quite early on. Atheists are not easily blanketed with these hasty generalizations, as we are as diverse as any group. That said, we lack a formal structure and doctrine that necessitates any particular behavior. You will see people who are nutjobs who choose atheism. That doesn't say anything about my lack of belief.
I don't have enough space to rebut every flaw in the video, but they are numerous
snoman99991 2 years ago
It wasn't a generalization of Atheism. It was a rebuttal to all those Atheists who believe they can create some sort of paradise by exterminating religion.
Why don't you watch the end of the documentary again where he concludes? Religion is not the problem but arrogance and extremism, for which Atheism is not immune to.
OzDeist 2 years ago
@snoman99991 The generalizations aren't hasty - this is a straw man ad hominem accusation. There's a predictable consistency, a recurring set of tropes and schemes.
You're being defensive, using the mechanism of "the narcissism of minor distinctions." All ducks aren't exactly alike in every detail, but every duck has feathers, a bill, webbed feet, and quacks.
Prometheo1 1 year ago
@Prometheo1
If a generalization doesn't accomplish what a generalization should (which is describing a large portion of a group or even all of the group using mostly accurate terms for the sake of brevity or identity), then it is indeed hasty. I would be committing the fallacy fallacy if I were indeed saying your point is false simply because it was arrived at through fallacy. That is not the case and is irrelevant.
What is your point? Lacking a belief is as non-dogmatic as it gets.
snoman99991 1 year ago
@snoman99991 Your comment would make a wonderful Marx Brothers skit. But since you asked a reasonable question... Atheism is a belief system. Doesn't matter that its main tenet is denial of a Creator. Atheism has its "prophets", "holy" books, dogmas, and even a hierarchical structure no different from that of the Catholic church or the Tibetan Buddhists. Lacking a belief is, itself, a belief. You dogmatically adhere to the belief that there is no Creator. Do you have a moral code? Share it.
Prometheo1 1 year ago
@Prometheo1
That is nothing but propaganda. Christians do not disagree with Jesus on matters of theology. I have the capacity to disagree with notable scientists about things they say. To suggest I am dogmatically following one person or another as a prophet is to imply you've never talked to an atheist and actually listened.
Who would you say leads the "atheist religion"? We have no pope. We have no messiah. We have no god. There is literally nothing you can superimpose there.
snoman99991 1 year ago
@snoman99991 Your intolerance and rhetoric are no different from that of any religious fanatic.
In spite of massive denial, Atheism has a structure mirroing that of religions. Right now, Richard Dawkins qualifies as a Cardinal of Atheism; his books are "holy". Christopher Hitchens is another Atheist Cardinal. Then there are Bishops like Bill Maher & the deceased George Carlin (perhaps now an Atheist Saint).
It's not a superimposition, but an analysis and observation of analogous components.
Prometheo1 1 year ago
@Prometheo1
What part of atheism implies an intolerance? We simply do not believe in a god's existence. There is no book that we all subscribe to that demands the death of homosexuals, or endorses slavery, or asks us to stone disobedient children. That is Christianity. Do not presume I'm ignorant, I was raised Christian.
It borders on paranoid delusional to presume any of those people are in fact related in an organizational structure. Nothing has ever existed like that, and that is a lie
snoman99991 1 year ago
@Prometheo1
I have a moral code, and it's not restricted by dogma. It grows and adapts to a changing world. Morality is not a black and white system, and you have no right to lay claim to it.
Is lacking a belief a belief itself? Do you collect stamps? If not, are you a non-stamp collector? No, you just don't collect stamps. You're espousing complete bullshit, and it's useless rhetoric. Next time, try actually talking to an atheist before you talk for him.
snoman99991 1 year ago
@snoman99991 Can you make a specific statement of the main ideas in this "moral code"? If put in certain situations, your moral code would suddenly be indistinguishable from that of most religious people you despise and scorn.
Funny that you get your Atheist panties in a wad when somebody uses your rhetorical techniques to critique your belief system.
Technically, I'm also an atheist. I deny the existence of the Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Animist "god(s)". G-d CAN'T be defined or described.
Prometheo1 1 year ago
@Prometheo1
Well since you actually do want to know how my morals work, I will tell you. In general, they are flexible. I am capable of learning from mistakes. My functional morals are based mostly on being a positive member of society. I do my very best to avoid causing direct harm to people, and avoid manipulation. I choose my words carefully so as to not harm people I know. I hold doors for people, do community service, pay for meals, and generally just act as a good person.
snoman99991 1 year ago
@snoman99991 I also deny the non-existence of the Creator that's the fundamental dogma of Atheism.
Prometheo1 1 year ago
@Prometheo1
Atheism has no dogma. We are united only by our common non-belief. It's like owning a home. You share something in common with people all around the world if you own a home, but that doesn't mean any of those homes are anything like your own. Nor does it imply a value, or a specific level of function, or a location, or ideas. It's just one thing you hold in common with others. I do not go to an atheist church on Sunday, or donate a tithe to atheists priests.
snoman99991 1 year ago
@snoman99991 Generalization: Reasoning from detailed facts to general principles.
What you describe is true of hasty generalization, but not of objective generalization.
Part-to-Whole or Whole-to-Part inferences are usually logical fallacies. A single member of a class might have attributes not found in every member of that class, but this doesn't automatically invalidate generalizations about the class itself.
Atheists have slaughtered non-Atheists since Atheism was invented.
Prometheo1 1 year ago
@Prometheo1
And violence is the history of all religions and all humans since our species began walking. What is your point? And that question still remains valid. You aren't putting anything new out there, and you're talking as if you think atheists don't acknowledge that an atheist can be a bad person. It would take someone stupid to think otherwise.
Lets put bickering over logic aside (because content is what counts really) for a moment. Can you answer me one question?
What is god?
snoman99991 1 year ago
Richard Dawkins hates god, do you know how absurd that is ?
pamor25 2 years ago
Do you hate fairies?
suzywao 2 years ago
I feel the same way about faries as you would about gollywoggles.
pamor25 2 years ago
XD Well said.
suzywao 2 years ago
This was a deluded biased video.
Atheism has no tenets, no scripture telling us what to believe.
Atheists are as diverse as any population, therefore you will have your radicals, and your softcore atheists.
This video is stereotypical and really jumps to conclusion. Just because we think your religious beliefs are delusional and wrong, doesn't mean we will kill you because of it. We won't for the most part prevent science from discovering the truth, not dogmatically following faith.
Proletariat12 2 years ago 2
Proletariat12 doubleplusgood duckspeaker bellyfeel newthink.
In modern thought, (if not in fact)
Nothing is that doesn't act,
So that is reckoned wisdom which
Describes the scratch, but not the itch. Anonymous
Think for yourself. Question authority.
Turn off. Tune out. Drop in.
Prometheo1 2 years ago
It is amusing to observe the atheists and their mirror-image counterparts in goy religions go at each other like dogs at an L.A. dogfight or roosters at a Juarez cockfight.
"Let these two asses be set to grinding corn."
Think for yourself. Question authority.
Prometheo1 2 years ago
@Prometheo1 I have been an atheist for 10 years and never even heard of what you're talking about. I have never seen an atheist acting violent in my entire life, even when I was a christian. Atheism is not a religion, not a set of tenants, not a scripture or a core of beliefs. We argue with the religious, which is a GOOD thing, because questioning one another helps us all learn and grow. Science exists for the sole purpose to interrogate and investigate the universe.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals I suspect you're probably a genuinely decent person and am glad you've had such a great experience. I've never said that Atheism automatically produces a violent or evil person. The most violent and evil people in history have been fanatical believers in some anthropomorphic deity or other. But there have been plenty of Atheists who matched them horror for horror. The French Revolution was dominated by Atheists and was atrocious. Same with the Marxists, starting with Lenin.
Prometheo1 1 year ago
@Prometheo1 Then you should be able to determine the difference between those who believe in deities and start wars, and those who are atheists and start wars.
I can probably name dozens of historical wars in which a leader declares that God has commanded them to commit genocide on another tribe, kingdom or country. How many wars can you name in which the leader committed genocide specifically in the name of Atheism? Pol Pot would have to have killed FOR atheism to be equivalent.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals The French Revolution under the Jacobins qualifies as an example of Atheists murdering tens of thousands in the name of No-God (Atheism). They sought to eliminate the bourgeoisie.
Marxists also qualify for the simple reason that they base their ideology on "scientific" Atheism. Marxist thinking (with a few exceptions) is an Atheist movement. Some say Marx was a Satanist (he believed in G-d but hated G-d).
Your comments are an interesting example of Atheist dogmatism and sophistry.
Prometheo1 1 year ago
@Prometheo1 Outright lie. The french revolution was a revolt of the lower class against the aristocracy and bourgeoisie- and of course, most importantly, the immensely unpopular king. The revolution was entirely political and was not religiously driven; and finally the Jacobins were NOT atheists, they were deists, and even introduced a cult of Supreme Being as France's national religion. So, you should probably stop lying and start reading at some point.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals
Good points!
snoman99991 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals Now, now! A lie is an intentional misrepresentation of the facts. You might disagree with my interpretation of history, but there's no reason to claim I'm telling a lie.
The Revolution was mainly carried out by not-so-well-off Aristocrats with a grudge against the Royals. They used propaganda to agitate the lower classes, and when they took power it was the lower class who got the worst of it. Jacobins were, at first, devoted to REASON. Robespierre wanted the Supreme Being.
Prometheo1 1 year ago
@Prometheo1 You are lying if you say the jacobins were atheists. They were deists and anti-atheists, and followed their own religion, which they introduced to France as its official religion during the revolution. This is a historical fact. How could you possibly misinterpret it? That's like saying Hitler invaded Australia.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals My! How defensive and fanatic you are! I haven't thought about the Jacobins for many years and went back over some basic info on them.
SOME Jacobins were deists & anti-atheists, with the brutal Robespierre being among this crowd.
MOST wanted to do away with God and "worship" EMPIRICAL REASON. This is the basis of modern Atheism (NOT believing in God is reasonable and believing in God is delusional).
Funny bit about Hitler & Australia!
Prometheo1 1 year ago
@Prometheo1 Funny how you might call someone a religious fanatic if they blow up a building or kill someone, but you might call someone an atheist fanatic if they simply defend atheism. Laugh out loud. And furthermore, I find it rather UNREASONABLE that a crop of atheists would violently support a leader who tried to overthrow the french government in order to put his religion and his god into power. You are simply mistaken. And btw, deists are related to theists, not atheists.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago 2
@BlueSpirals I say the Jacobins (most of them anyhow) were Atheists who wanted to do away with all notions of God and put REASON in its place. This is the essential position of most (but not all) Atheists today. Jacobins used murder as the primary tool of enforcing policy, making them no better than religionists.
In spite of your silly Academic insults, you raise an important point. Robespierre introduced the Supreme Being, and the worst part of the Terror took place under his command.
Prometheo1 1 year ago
@Prometheo1 Except the Jacobins believed in god and a supreme being, and had a religion that followed it, and forced that religion onto France. So how exactly are they atheists trying to get rid of god? You Christians very often group pagans, deists and atheists in the same category, but really, christianity and paganism have more in common than atheism and paganism.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
Wow, this has more bullshit stereotypes than I had expected. I swear, it looks like he never asked an atheist what atheism IS.
phusikoi 2 years ago
hes asking the wrong questions kthxbye.
masterpi3 2 years ago
The so called reporter in this documentary is a christian, and he makes many false statements about atheists. His research is flawed and he implies that belief in something without evidence is equal but opposite to non belief due to lack of evidence. Well, everyone's entitled to their own stupidity.
urcritic 2 years ago
All these examples of "atheism at its worst" have nothing to do with atheism because atheism is NOTHING. There are not tenets they are following and they are just as susceptible to the failings of the "human condition" as everyone else. No one is saying "I'm going to kill you in the name of the lack of a god", an atheist murder would always have some other reason for killing.
SpazzyMcGee1336 3 years ago
The lack of the stabilizing factor of the truth of God's word is the reason people become insane and do insane things.
If people only knew everything the Bible says the whole world would be so much better off.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
"The lack of the stabilizing factor of the truth of God's word is the reason people become insane and do insane things". No.
Morality is hardly derived from religion. Sure there is some good stuff like the Ten Commandments, but people ignore a lot of the other "codes" like stoning disobedient children or killing homosexuals. We know these are immoral, but they are there. So religion is open to the same "moral drift" that societies morals are. EMPATHY is the source of morality, not a book.
SpazzyMcGee1336 3 years ago
You are confusing God's perfect law with man's imperfect laws and you are using man's imperfect laws to judge God's perfect laws. In other words, you don't know what you are talking about. It is the imperfect that corrupts not the perfect. Perfection is the source of true morality and we are not perfect so we cannot say what is perfect. Christianity (and original Judaism) is the only teaching that has perfection as an ideal. No other teaching will ever get us there to have a clear conscience.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
You are confusing belief with faith. I beleive my car is outside, however I don't know. However I have parked my car outside hundreds of times and it has always been there when I go back to it, so it I have evidence supporting that by parking my car outside my house it will remain there. Faith would be me saying my car is outside even after I here it get broken into and driven off. That is nonsensical, much like your absolute belief in God.
He might exist, but only crazies assume so.
SpazzyMcGee1336 3 years ago
There is physical visible evidence for the existence of God. It is the existence of physical visible intelligent design which shows us every time that we observe it that there is a Designer/Creator/God who is greater than every known thing in the entire known universe. We still have to believe the evidence no matter how much evidence there is of God. How much evidence do you want to see. You are the evidence of God.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
That is a terrible argument. You are assuming an intelligence is required for everything yet you exclude that creator from this assumption.
"God is outside of time and space" you might say, that is a cop out and you know it. Why does this ultimate source of existence have to be sentient and how is it that we would know ANYTHING about it as most theists assume they do.
The universe may be some beings petridish, but I'm in no way going to just say its true for the sake of perpetuating religion.
SpazzyMcGee1336 3 years ago
: ) We are some beings petridish. Function does not come from formlessness. Everything formed on the nanoscale was designed to function. All of our enzymes are left handed. Everything has intent and purpose and I agree with you that religion should not have all authority and power. There is, however a teaching or an argument that could be made that if anyone should be in charge, it is the Jews (Kohanim) in Jerusalem, but that is another subject.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
I like your :) at the beginning of your post. It keeps people from getting pissed. I might have to start doing that.
:)I have yet to be persuaded that a natural source of creation is impossible. Theist keep on assuming everything needs an intelligence behind it. Well even if that is true who created that intelligence? And who created the next one, and the next, and so on? It is an infinite tower of turtles as the native Americans say.
SpazzyMcGee1336 3 years ago
: ) The difference is that, since all creatures have the same basic DNA structure, we know they are all from the same Creator. We also know that all the basic elements used in life structures were designed to function as they do so well that the entire universe made of these same elements was also created by One Creator. Since the universe is as big as it is and there is evidence of no other known being that great, it means there is no one greater than our Creator who is beyond this E=MC2 realm.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
:)We share the same basic structure of coding (DNA) because we all have a common ancestor, not a common creator.
I'm sorry but the rest of you post is nonsensical. The size of the universe is evidence of nothing besides maybe our insignificance.
SpazzyMcGee1336 3 years ago
Atheism is nothing. Noting being the lack of something, that something being the belief in supernatural deities. Some people believe in genies, but I don't. Does that make my belief that there is no such thing as genies a religion? NO!
SpazzyMcGee1336 3 years ago
You need to accept the fact that what you believe still always requires belief. If it wasn't God, who or what was it? If it was something physical show the evidence. If it was not something physical, show the reason. Christianity is both by reason and by physical evidence of the spoken word and visible observable intelligent design.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
"Intelligent design"? If you are rejecting the theory of evolution then this conversation is over and you should stop making any comments about science. If not then ignore what I just said.
The existence of a sentient universal engineer only complicates matters because it would need a designer. If you say it is beyond causality then you can't say causality must be adhered to by everything else.
SpazzyMcGee1336 3 years ago
If (since) God made everything in the universe, God is greater than everything in the universe. The way I know God is greater is because even the most basic elements of life are the interchangeable parts that allows the life forms to function. That means that the whole universe which is made of these same basic elements of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, sulfur and nitrogen was also created by the same Designer/Creator/God who is greater than every known thing in the entire known universe.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
And you are mixed up on what atheism is. If you are over the 50/50 mark in whether you have faith in a deity then you are an atheist. Atheism is not "THERE ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THERE IS A GOD!".
For example, if Jesus floated down from the sky and started preforming miracles and preaching I would convert. So would most atheists. Most theists on the other hand would keep on believing in their religion even if another had a substantial amount of evidence, like if a Hindu God came down from the sky.
SpazzyMcGee1336 3 years ago
Yeah, and suppose hippos could fly.
Christianity has always been based on recorded history and observable evidence of intelligent design which shows us there is a Designer/Creator/God who is greater than every known thing in the entire known universe. It has always been belief based on fact. Everything else is speculation.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
I stopped watching 5 minutes in when he starts acting like science is the atheist's religion. The guy is retarded.
SpazzyMcGee1336 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That is so true that atheists believe there is nothing to believe in. ... but that too is a belief and it is a cult false teaching at that because everything that we see tells us there is something to believe in.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
"atheists believe there is nothing to believe in"
That's a rather ironic statement.
You seem to be ignorant about what atheism means so I'll pedantically clarify that for you. Atheism is a "lack of belief" in gods and religion. No more, and no less. It is not a system of beliefs and, therefore, cannot spread like a cult, which is a decidedly theistic notion.
DescartesPupil 3 years ago
Christianity is based on historical information and observable intelligent design. Atheism rejects all of that so atheism is basically a lack of a good education. That is the easiest thing to spread. "Theism" requires an education.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
it seems that people have confused atheism with science again. anybody can beleive in evolution regardless of religious beleifs, as any person who is informed will see that it is simple truth.
greycloud24 3 years ago
Science is very much in contrast to atheism because science is the discovery of what atheism says is not there. That is the problem with atheism and science is that they are at odds with each other.
Good science has never been at odds with intelligent design because intelligent design is science and science is intelligent design like hand in glove.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
you are obviously delusional weather or not this is because you wish to remain so remains to be seen. i don't know where you get your information but i could guess. the discovery institue has nothing to do with real science. go watch pbs nova with intelligent design on trial to see what happens when a court ruling with a christian judge must decide weather or not intelligent design is science.
greycloud24 3 years ago 2
It is all a matter of knowing the facts and believing the evidence that we have. Science is not determined by the courts. If science turned around and said they had been mistaken, the court would have to reverse its decision based on further review of the evidence which is what will happen eventually. Objective observation of the evidence shows that evolution is not the cause of our being here and the courts will have to reflect that.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
i beleive that isreal in particular is always going to be a hotbed of violence. the reason is simple, zion was promised in the old testement. islam, christianity, and judaism all are based off the old testement and all of them are promised zion by god. how could this not lead to trouble?
greycloud24 3 years ago
People just need to understand what Abraham (the father of Arabs and Jews) intended. Isaac was the only one of Abraham's sons that remained in the land. All of the seven other (Arab) sons of Abraham were all sent with supplies in different directions. Everyone who wants to be a part of Isaac (and Israel) is welcome. The land of Israel belongs to Israel and it is to be administered to all the rest of the world by Israel. Jerusalem belongs to God and is to be administered to God by the Kohanim.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
I'm a strong atheist who agrees with almost everything in this series of videos. I fully agree with what I see as its thesis: "Remove God, and humanity and its propensity to evil still remains; secular utopians can be just as dangerous as religious zealots." In the past, both have sometimes justified atrocities using their grand and certain vision, as well as abused the power popular conviction has brought. But contrary to the title here, the trouble isn't with atheism, it's with human beings.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 years ago
Thank you for an intelligent comment.
I agree with your assessment and add only that it's the unclarified psyche of the human being that's the problem.
The Human Process is not very complicated. There are five physical cavities (pelvic, abdominal, thoracic, cranial, and vertebral). There are twelve pairs of cranial nerves that give our brain the input it needs to process experience. There are nine Domains with their corresponding dichotomies. This all can be learned by children.
Prometheo1 3 years ago
People are the problem, its just too easy to go crazy anymore.
LPmeteora082 3 years ago
The reason it is "too easy to go crazy" is becuase there is no stabilizing factor when the truth of God's word is discarded.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Bullshit.
tubesusedtobeboring 3 years ago
tubesusedtobeboring you are correct. Atheism is bullshit.
Prometheo1 3 years ago
Ha ha ha ha ha! How very witty!
No, really. I meant to say that this series of videos are bullshit.
tubesusedtobeboring 3 years ago
Be specific.
Prometheo1 3 years ago
Be specific.
Prometheo1 3 years ago
OK, I'll be specific: This series of videos is bullshit, as most people has pointed out. Bullshit from begging to end, as bullshitty as christianity and every other religion. This series of videos is the aids on the cancer that is killing youtube.
tubesusedtobeboring 3 years ago
We have very different ideas about what it means to be specific.
If you see everything as bullshit, then what is not bullshit?
Give a specific example of what you think is NOT bullshit.
By the way, Shlomo HaMelech (King Solomon) wrote "Hevel havelim, hakol havel" which translates into modern language as "bullshit, bullshitters, everything is bullshit". However, you ought not take this as a verification of your yet-to-be-clarified views.
Prometheo1 3 years ago
Occam's razor isn't bullshit, beer isn't bullshit, the fact that the dreamcast was a great machine but the market simply had no place for it isn't bullshit, science isn't bullshit... There's plenty of things that are not bullshit, mate.
tubesusedtobeboring 3 years ago
Good old Occam and his razor. The simplest explanation is usually (but not always) the best.
Beer. The nectar of the godz. Me I prefer Bellhaven Ale but a Black & Tan will do in a pinch.
Don't know about the dreamcast machine.
Science is the opposite of bullshit. Real science, that is. The kind that allows anybody to follow the same steps, using the same materials and methods, and get the same results whether you're in Poland, Pongo, or Portland, regardless of "religious" views.
TFYQA!
Prometheo1 3 years ago
Haha! Let's call him "Little Dick!
Johannes9126 3 years ago
ha ha
99% of the Internet is Illegal.
Go forth and funk...
Prometheo1 3 years ago
Are you illegally uploading BBC programming to YouTube? Doesn't that go against your religion?
imrational 3 years ago