For some Great Vids on Science featuring Carl Sagan Vids, New Scientist content , and much much more , come and check out some real science and feel free to drop us line with your thoughts no approval no screening of comments on our channel , so go for your life.
It's always fun going back and watching videos like this, because you always know that the original videos he's responding to have been taken down or the accounts terminated.
I really dont think secular humanism is a cult. It's a philosophy that rejects dogmatic thought and the supernatural, encourages rational inquiry, and prefers a more rational place. Fakesagans view that secular humanism is a cult is just absurd to make. Cults have a charming leader as well as a very destructive nature that deviates from what is acceptable types of culture.
We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate.
I would say secular humanism is too much oriented toward the collective and democracy -- it is crazy in the sense that it spawns a bunch of busybodies who scour society looking in every nook and cranny for some kind of injustice to remedy.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and secular humanism over-reaches and is guilty of Utopian goals, practicality be damned.
Has anyone been a sleep and known that they were in a dream? I mean you pretty much get to play god when you are aware that you are dreaming. I just really wonder if I am the only person that was in a dream and knew that I was dreaming.
I never thought fake Sagan was that smart or interesting. The thing that really made it clear for me was when he was ripping on a piece of biomedical equipment. He claimed he could make a better one. It blew my mind that he thought on his own with meagre funds and no expertise in the field he could beat out teams of engineers and doctors who had trained for most of there lives in there field who had multi million dollar budgets. What level of arrogance and stupidity would you need to think that?
omg i had that dream/reality thing off a comedown before...its really really not nice..i thought i was laying in bed talking to my friends, then i went to say somthing, and i woke up in my bed, talking to myself, it was so weird
Dude, the dreaming while awake thing - I've done that before. Once I was having a chat with someone while doing it, and he noticed that as I was talking to him, I began to babble about god knows what. For me, it only happens if I am really, really tired.
What is it with you and not being able to make a statement. Take the whole "Well... i don't know." out of your vocabulary. Research, learn, and form a substantial opinion.
I had some pills like that, like I was half dreaming and couldnt quite snap out of it, freaked me out, I remember rolling of the bed, and I know I am on the cold floor, but I cant tell which way is up, and much as I try to open them, all my eyes are doing is rolling into the back of my head, and I was like trying to call for help, but all I could do is go Blub blub blub! ... freaky! ( know where I can get more? )
Must say I am confused by what seems to be FS's conflation of secular humanism and militant anti-theism.
Most secular humanists I know don't primarily concern themselves with religion; they are more concerned with social justice, volunteering, philanthropy, etc.
Of course most of these people are also not on youtube making videos, so perhaps FS's view has been skewed by the people on YT who make vids about religion and call themselves secular humanists
i couldn't make myself watch the 2nd and 3rd videos of fakesagan's. Secular Humanism isn't cult, nor is it dangerous. It's an identity for people who hold to the idea that (among other things) morality is not exclusive to religious teachings.
I know many people who's lives have been hugely improved by theism, and secular humanism would be happy to see theism vanish from the world. Is there any reason that's different from your scientology/psychiatry example?
Secular humanism isn't dangerous. Fakesagan is being a drama whore with these baseless and completely ridiculous claims. I am not a secular humanist but even I find these claims to be both highly offensive and completely unsupported.
I agree. finished watching all of those 3 reply videos and still am not convinced with anything he offered as "argument" that secular humanism can be defined as a cult. his "fuck secular humanism" videos are so irritatingly false and senseless, it even draw paulsego out from his video hibernation:) hehe, nicely put - drama whore.
Ironically, 98% of the atheist arguments I run accross are weak, made by pretentious egotitsts who think they are the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel. The other 2% don't bother me, I just have to actually work a little more than usual to showthe problems with them.
Shit like the RRS scares me and I'm an atheist. It's just an absense of belief. Besides that there's nothing to it; live out your life and expose legitimately bad ideas/frauds when they present themselves.
lets see, there's the "negative prrof fallacy" (you can't prove god does exist, therefore he doesn't) and the "appeal to probibility" (a fallacy committed by all those who claim god is improbible and therefore doesnt exist), the argument that the bible is full of contradictions is weak when made by the more that 70% of people I come accross who rehash others without bothering to read the book with any degree of academic rigor. There are all teh videos made by that dishonest "10 questions" guy
You've been presented arguments by poorly educated atheists then. That proof fallacy you're talking about doesn't go like that. It's more along the lines of "You, the Christian, makes a claim but are unable to support it with any evidence other than your bible. You're unable to prove God exists and the burdon is not on me to prove that he does not exist (I'm not the one that made the claim). Your claim is rejected."
The negitive prrof fallicy does go as I have listed. You are confusing it with the burden of proof fallacy which is the example you have given. The fact is that on youtube, few if any intelectuals ever see the limelight, so the majority of theist and atheist arguments made are bound to be uncompelling, made by amatures. ProfMTH is about as close as I have found to someone who really knows his stuff on the atheist side. The best christian apologists arent even here.
the "10 question" video and the rest he's made are about as valid as asking someone "have you stopped beating your wife yet". there is the argument tht God cant exist because some sources say hitler was a christian never mind hitlers other statements where he condemned christianity. There is the argument that God is evil (yes lets ignore most of the bible and lazily misinterpret the rest through cherry picking)
The bible is nothing but cherry picking. Show me one line I couldn't interpret at least two different ways. You can say it's out of context but then I could just interpret the context differently. You have no definititve right answer on this subject, the sheer amount of denominations that exist should be evidence of this.
If you're one of those that claim a literal interpretation of the bible then you're a nut right off the start.
"The bible is nothing but cherry picking." Surely you can't mean that. Either you have no concept of what "cherry picking" means or you are arguing that a well known fallacy is a legitimate argument. Books arent cherry picking, taking things out of context in an isogetical approach is! Read up on your fallacies please.
While we're on the subject of weak atheist arguments, I can see a stawman in your response already (see where you said literal response).
What strawman? I said "IF" you claim a literal interpretation. There ARE people who claim to believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, no strawman necessary. The reason you'd be called a "nut" if that were true is because that position is so pathetically easy to refute.
"There ARE people who claim to believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, no strawman necessary" You misrepresented who they are and what they believe, and continue to do so. Nobody actually believes that 100% of the bible is to be taken literally, nobody. You will never come accross anyone who believes that. Those who claim a literal interpretation of the bible (myself included) do not literally interpret the prophets, the psalms, song of sol etc. Only the history is literal.
6,000 to 10,000 years old but no exact date or age is determinable by any means. Still calling me a "nut job" and claiming that my position is easy to refute is an appeal to ridicule, and a bit pretentious. My belief is based not only on faith but serious epistemological questions as to what may be known about our origins.
Justified ridicule I might add. Your position on the subject has been falsified at least a dozen ways and instead of researching it and understanding the material you attempt to reframe your epistemology to fit the conclusion. Good luck with any progress in trying to prove your case.
If you can show me beyond all doubt that events which occurred before recoreded history are in fact knowable without any need for faith, or inferrences based on present circumstance that cannot be shown through any observation to be the same in prehistoric past as in the present. I do not seek to prove anything, I only question the validity of making any scientific claims about origins at all. Like I said, its not reframing an epistemology, its exploring the epistemological limits of science.
Now you're switching to any definition of faith that suits you. The faith you're talking about is not of the religious type. If you want to frame or stretch your epistemology that way then yeah, it even takes faith to know that a ball will drop if you let go of it. Please tell me how that's useful? You certainly wont find evidence for creationism that way either. There's such a thing as being too skeptical as well.
The RRS is just a small part of what I see here. there is the weak assertion that atheism is a lack of a belief. Do you know how many times I have heard an atheist say that God is make believe, that God doesn't exist? If anything its a belief in God's non existence. You dont have some sort of hole in your ideology, no coherant ideology does, and if it's incoherant it cannot be true.
Of course, everyone professes there opinions on the matter, it's only human, we can't help ourselves.
What would be your response to someone who said they believed in green gnomes that tell them what to do? I'm betting it would be less than complimentary. I'm not sure you can have a belief of not having a belief; it seems more like ridicule of ideas that seem absurd to you.
"if it's incoherant it cannot be true"
- Do you think Christianity or any other ideology is perfectly coherent?
"What would be your response to someone who said they believed in green gnomes that tell them what to do? I'm betting it would be less than complimentary." Then you don't know me very well. My response would be inquistive rather than condemning or congradulatory, but asking questions to seek understanding is not to be valued less than glowing approval.
I believe christianity as I understand and expirience it to be coherant.
Perhapse I'd be inquisitive as well, who knows. The point of the matter is how much empty unfalsifiable apologetics would you need for you to be satisfied that the man is either lying or hallucinating?
Haha, wow, nice try on the false delemma. You might possibly have a better defensive stance on that statement if your opinions on the age of the earth weren't totally wrong.
I could go on and on, listing the "bare assertion fallacies", the "false dilemma"s, the "burden of proof" fallacies, the"fallacy of quoting out of context", the appeals to spite, and ridicule, the "Chronological snobbery", the association fallacies.
The vast majority of arguments made against God's existence on youtube employ one or more of these fallacies. Most of them involve some misunderstanding of christianity that has turned into a strawman argument by some famous author.
"Name one of those fallacies that hasn't been used by a Christian to attack a non-believer's position. Christins have their own list of common errors in argumentation. They do overlap but there are fallacies committed more often by thests than atheists and other fallcies committed by atheists more than theists.
"no religion has made any convincing arguments with any sort of evidence for there claims."
So you're saying I'm lying about never being presented any evidence for God? Do you have something to present that I've never seen before? "Convincing" may differ from a 5 year old who has no knowledge of almost anything and 23 year old who does, just remember that.
"The Bible has no contradictions"
So the swapping around of dates and times of when things happened chapter to chapter aren't contradictions?
Ok, I'll word it differently. Not exactly contradictions but things I could describe more accurately as maybe hypocrisy, which would incidentally show your god to be anything but perfectly moral.
It's funny that you keep bringing up this bare assertion fallacy when you're entire bible exemplifies this perfectly.
Thanks for getting into this discussion. I'm a fan of fakesagan, but I'm with you on this... at least unless fakesagan can sway me in the other direction. I'm open.
He claims that Secular Humanism suppresses ideas I guess?
I'm not affiliated with secular humanism in any way but ideas should be analyzed and decided on by a case by case basis. There are people out there who will make up an infinitude of shit ideas just to throw out and I think it's safe to group these in one garbage bin. We don't persecute these people either, just humiliate them by telling there followers how and why they've been lied to.
Like you, I also didn't know a lot about secular humanism, so I went to their website and researched what they say and then checked out Wikipedia. I agree with you that their 'elements and principles' seemed OK or even positive-I made a video response saying basically what you said here - 'Getting out of the Dogma House" [your particulars are better than mine btw]-We need to UNDERSTAND why we believe what we believe-It's NOT EASY-Unfortunately many think it is. That's the problem
I just have to add the petty comment that Fakesagan rightly says in part 2 of his attached series that his grandfather once said we should "never be afraid of ideas"...And that's so true! Fakesagan has me blocked...It's hilarious really...Because I'm never insulting. I never use profanity...BUT I do tend to say what I think, and I don't agree with him on this issue...I asked him why I was blocked, but I guess he didn't think I should even worthy of a response. THE FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS????
He also goes about arguing against any utopian ideas saying they should be thrown out of hand... I'm sorry, I guess we should throw out any idea of a better world. Get rid of plumbing, sanitation, electricity.
hi PaulsEgo, I am going to bring somthing to your attention that may piss you off sorry,( you may not know yet) On utube search kosher tax and find out about 97% of Americans paying for witch doctors to pray over most of the products in your house.yea including aluminum foil and shampoo.
OMG!! Some black lady came to my door with her child and started reading the freaking bible! Obviously I couldn't call her a nigger because her kid was there so I smiled and nodded through it. And she asked me my opinion and then my mother butted in and told her we're not interested. Wow.
I watched his video, watched your response and didn't notice until now the touchy responses he's been getting. I think that actually drove his point home. group-think causes members of groups to band together against perceived threats. An attack from an atheist who relies on reason makes him a traitor, which explains the vehemence against him. You're an independent thinker though, kudos.
Having groups like the RRS will make SH from a philosophy to a cult. They are the people that want to objectify a consensus of beliefs amongst themselves. They want to quantify SH and the only way to do that is to set parameters so that when fighting other philosohpy they have a foundation to pull from.
I find that 'sound' in that it follows the path that groups of people take towards cult hood, but the intrinsic aversion to faith and belief systems makes secular humanism more of a personal, rather than group organization which followers will flock to, just the rational aspects of life and the reasons and motives for bettering ourselves. I am not a secular humanist but I share similarities. IMO the people who want humanism to become a organization or religion are not doing themselves any favors
yea it has nothing to do with the philosophy it's when humans get a hold of it. It's the little groups that begin to get active and start surroundoing themselves with these core beliefs. SH is a diverse belief system, even deists could fall under that umbrella. The ones that have a similar belief system to hold onto will join forces and begin to get "militant" towards those that think different whether or not they are HSists as well or not.
It's hard to see how SH can be impure but at first glance as fakesagan said; all religions and cults look to have pure intentions. Christianity, Islam, and so on all have a peaceful message at first but it is when humans get a hold of these philosophies and that they turn back to their primitive ways and form tribes with names, symbols and an agenda or way of life to impose on others. Sh may not be completely a cult yet, but it looks to me as well as others as one that could be on th uprise.
PaulsEgo...I was a little disappointed in this video. What fakesagan seems to be saying - atleast to me - is that Human Secularism is showing the early signs of being a cult. You are sort of right when you said that you couldn't see the similarities between SH and Scientology. The issue here is Scientology is a full fledged cult in that it has a number of people working on it's behalf (i.e. political and legislative lobbying). You see all cults have one thing in common for sure...
...and that is philosophy. You know, like dogmas and creed basically a foundation of morals, beliefs, ceremonies, traditions, etc. As we can see SH lays down its own foundation of beliefs and ways of thinking. As of now it is kind of like atheism in that those who admittedly ride that train of thought can also have their on version.
I've experienced that dreaming thing. In a sense its kind of cool because its one of life's little mysteries. However, sometimes that shit gets bad fast
I was waiting for a compelling argument against Secular Humanism from fakesagan as well.
Don't feel bad Paul; I too have very little knowledge about the subject matter, so I also looked at Wikipedia for further guidance. I agree with you for the same reasons; I couldn't find anything I'd balk at. In fact, a lot of intellectuals whom I personally respect were listed as secular humanists; Chomsky, Dawkins and Sagan to name a few.
I think that fakesagan has a problem with RRS, but don't most?
Also Paul, I didn't realise that you had such invasive surgery...sucks that a large part of your holidays have been taken by the scalpel :(
That sleeping med sounded really bad, too. Sleeping on your stomach? I guess back 20 years there wasn't much talk about SIDS, but still LOL I can *never* fall asleep that way. I'm always on my back; never side, never stomach...huh, interesting.
Anyway, I wish you a speedy recovery and a happy new year.
1 star. The question is not "is psychiatry important?". The question is "should you be thrown in prison (and shot if you resist that) for not paying for it?".
You are saying that psychiatry is SO important that anyone who deducts from their taxes the cost of government psychiatry subsidies should be thrown in prison.
Your comment made me log in for the first time in 5 days, so kudos.
I guess one could substitute the word "psychiatry" with any other activity partially (or fully) funded through tax subvention: roads, public works, welfare..
Paul said it would be a shame if psychiatry wasn't around. This other question you bring up came from where?
Or do *you* wish to decide how your taxes are spent; that you don't wish to subsidize X?
Your assertions came so far out of left field, thus my intrigue.
And so at the very least, even if you think these death threats (laws) are necessary, then at least one should acknowledge them as such and not be so flippant in advocating "gov't funding for x". People treat gov't like it's some dorm room beer fund. It's not. If you advocate killing someone who doesn't pay for x, x had better be saving lives or something close to it. And this assumes gov't will accomplish x, which by it's incentive structure it usually can't.
Off the bat, I'd just like to say that I don't self-identify with any form of group thought, organised religion or special interest. The only things I truly believe in are that I know nothing, and "Tibi cogita".
I don't subscribe to anarchist though because frankly I haven't researched it to a great degree (in other words, total noob). Much as I'd like to know more, time is a pressing issue for me.
I have a lot on my plate already & I don't feel I ought rush.
But in regards to laws being death threats for those that oppose them, one could say "When in Rome...", or one could suggest to pro-actively/passively oppose X. I believe that once I die, I am dead & that there is no continuation of my life in any "after-life", thus I am very careful when I disagree with something or someone.
To oppose the confines of my social construct is no doubt a death sentence; equally so to defy it might well bring about my death; thus the question: can I change things?
The answer that I've arrived at is quite possibly, but what would be the most sensible way of approaching that? Should I openly defy law and order; disregard the opinions, thoughts and actions of others & wage my own war against the establishment, or should I read more, study more, bide my time...quietly bring about change by a veritable war of attrition...to bury my ambition for decades in order to gain enough power to topple the existing establishment, thereby "changing" things?
I think I'd first take a dive into the maelstrom of thought and experience that is this world, then present a more emphatic argument once my head is swimming with a little more awareness.
And yes, this is nothing more than a convoluted capitulation. Perhaps one day I'll settle on an argument or position to launch from. But since I haven't found it yet, I'll head back into my Japanese study. 勉強しなければなりません。。。
I'm not too concerned with actual transition and implementation. The situation is so bad right now that actually talking about how it would be done is just silly. Let's get 20% of all people to be anarchists, THEN we can start talking about implementation and how to counter-act governments screwing around with the stateless society (like they are in somalia).
Well I am not sure what the impact is of this argument. Nobody can change "things". Not even the president, as the president's power is derived from the fact that everyone is in a trance and believes he has power. If the army decided some general was der feurher, that would be that.
So the only way to change things is to change mass opinion and then the opinion of the soldiers. So here it is! I guess people are looking for some hero figure, but nope. This is it.
Well anarchist is just a word for people who don't believe in the state. It isn't at odds with any political philosophy if you put "anarcho" in front of it. You could believe in mandatory castration for all I care, as long as your society is voluntary.
I understand teh time, that's why I made this channel. It's meant so that you can just load up a playlist and listen. And in all the links in my description have audio. Property rights, courts, protection, environment, it's all dealt with.
And eventually the group, if it organizes, may respond the same way if it feels "under threat" from outside means.
It happens in politics, cultures, and religions. The message is NOT important.
What is important, is we are people. And people in groups are capable of the most sinister of things. They will be as kind as t hey are Sinister in may cases.
But they will, make no doubt, eventually have their own sinister designs, in order to "defend" themselves.
There is no way Secular Humanism could possibly lead you by the nose to believe things that cause harm to others, quite simply because secular humanism is very much like atheism. There aren't really dogmas, just a couple of principles on which to base morality. All secular humanism states is that humans are the source of morality, there is no objective outside source, and we need to work together to come up with the best moral guidelines to foster a quality society. It's a baseline, not dogma
Before I was struggling to see how Fakesagan classified Sec. Humanism as a cult. He didn't really say anything besides that very cool point 'you wouldn't know if you were a cultist'.
Now I'm struggling to understand how this is in any way an argument against what he said. You're not picking on anything specific that he said.
Maybe it really is a cult and my crazy cult raddled brain is just refusing to process what the hell you 2 are talking about
The real problem that comes in play here is that all of these attitudes of life are still as imaginary as lines of longitude. Dangerous or not, they aren't real and both secular humanism and religion should be ignored in the same sense that one ignores the borders of a state, that is, unless one is looking at a map and realizes they aren't real. One should just do what one wants at all times and not worry.
Well, Fakesagan seems like a postmodernist doofus to me. Hey, I can call that a cult too. Why not? The cult of pretentious pseudo intellectuals who think that drawing feeble analogies makes them edgy. The cult of intellectual poseurs who think extreme relativism and non-believing what-the-fuck-ever is a profound intellectual stance (when is actually a cheap way of appearing smart).
Don't wanna know who they are nor what they want. They like be nihilist and open minded... but also revolutionaries; they want to appear brave and radical, but also tolerant and easy going; they want to be part of something, of some group, but without losing their outsider status; they want to bitch and moan about social injustices... without ever having to sacrifice their bourgeois privileges. Smoke and mirrors they are, because poses are easy to adopt, but very boring to maintain. Idiots.
Just an fyi, gallbladder surgery isn't as easy to recover from as doctors say. 2 days is insane and I don't know where they get that number from. I was out for a good week before I could even think of going to class.
fakesagan provides an interesting perspective and he's well spoken, but applying the world "cult" to secular humanism is a stretch. It's easy to call them a cult because if they were religious, they'd just be called fanatics or zealots. A group of people who believe in the same thing (that differs from others) are always considered a cult. It's an overly used word. Scientology is more of a cult because they brainwash people. He's exaggerating the "chosen one" philosophy just a bit, too.
I don't think fakesagan really disagrees so much with the tenets of secular humanism, he's just pointing out that there's an aspect of human psychology that kicks in when they get together in large groups, and that is what's dangerous.
When you think about where we came from, it makes sense. We evolved for the past few hundred thousand years(the time since the agricultural revolution excluded) as hunter-gatherer tribespeople.
It was beneficial to us from a selective pressure standpoint to adhere closely to our fellow tribe members since we depended on them for our own survival. Similarly, it was beneficial from a selective pressure standpoint to compete effectively against other tribes that we might encounter, since they were drawing upon the same resources for their survival as our tribe would for theirs.
Living like this for so long has installed some real in-group/out-group thinking into our heads.
Comparing Scientology to Secular humanism is a dumb thing to do. Scientology is a religion—meaning that it has a belief system and practices—; Secular humanism is a philosophical view. I don't see how they're alike.
It's pretty stupid to think that secular humanism is "dangerous". It's just a philosophical view that upholds reasoning and logic, but rejects supernaturalism and spirituality, as the basis for decision-making. Basically, if you use reasoning and avoid spirituality for decision-making, you're a secular humanist.
How is having that philosophical view "dangerous"?
It isn't the philosophic view that is dangerous (but that could be argued), but the organization. It is like what fs mentioned in his vid; they all have the best intentions, they all plan on making the world a better place in one way or another.
I see what you mean though; how can rational decision making be dangerous? People without spirituality can be just as guilty as the religious in dogmatic thinking. Think about Marxist radicals or the like.
Marxist radicals were not basing their decisions on rationality. They invented a dogma and they fought for it, like christians and muslims.
Rationally socialism is good, but you need democracy with it. The problem with Soviet Russia, was not atheism or communism, but autocratism. They wanted to rule absolutely, for life. That is where you get evil acts. When people start to be corrupt and people vote them out, it limits the evil that can be put in place.
"but the organization. It is like what fs mentioned in his vid; they all have the best intentions, they all plan on making the world a better place in one way or another."
Secular humanism is not an organization. It's a philosophical view—nothing else.
QUOTE atheismrulez: "Secular humanism is not an organization. It's a philosophical view"
And like any other philosophical view, it has its dedicated rabid followers.
Atheism CAN'T be a movement because it's basically nothing but a response or a disbelief in something. Might as well say newborn infants are in this imagined atheist 'movement' as well.
You're wrong on both counts. I have never in my life met or seen on the media a rabid follower of secular humanism and what would one look like? how can you "rabidly follow" the idea that humans need to work together to come up with moral guidelines based on evidence and reason? Rabidly following concept of secular humanism would just make you a more thinking person, even more concerned with reality and evidence. Secondly, atheism is a movement as a response to theists exerting their will.
Don't play the pretentious condescending prick, please. Atheism at it's core is not a movement. It is merely the lack of a belief in a god. However, because of the activity of theists in the world atheism takes on the form of a movement in order to battle the irrational nonsense theists assert. Secular Humanism is exactly the same. It is merely the idea that morality be based on reason, however, since there are many who reject reason and cling to dogma it takes on the form of a movement.
Being right is not pretentious, calling someone a "kid" in order to imply you are sitting on the intellectual high ground is being a pretentious condescending prick. I was merely objecting to your phrasing, because it had a belittling intent. Yes, we do agree on what atheism is at it's core, but I am saying it is ALSO a movement as a response to the actions of theists. As an aside, looking at your channel I think we agree on most things anyway and there isn't really anymore to be said, so bye
"And like any other philosophical view, it has its dedicated rabid followers."
And because of that, being a secular humanist is a bad thing? I don't give a fuck about how the other people are. I don't give a fuck about the followers, but rather the philosophy itself. Your argument is shit.
I know how you feel. I had a gallbladder attack a few years ago and spent three days in the hospital. I didn't get it removed, but I had to stay away from stress causing situations and coffee.
I think Fakesagan is more worried about the initial cause of immoral social change; group think, and not so much the exact events that follow.
Passing laws is bad, of course, but doesn't everyone break some laws that they don't really agree with? Remember, it is because of Group Think that we have laws to begin with.
So first he rejects the common definitions of cults. Then he refuses to give his own definition. Then he throws in a few red herrings while changing his argument to a discussion about group think. Then he quietly re-defines secular humanism from a philosophy into a social movement. Finally he implicitly re-defines group think from a everyday human behavior into a characteristic of social movements.
Bravo! Next up: Fakesagan proves that a turtle is a bird.
This has been flagged as spam show
For some Great Vids on Science featuring Carl Sagan Vids, New Scientist content , and much much more , come and check out some real science and feel free to drop us line with your thoughts no approval no screening of comments on our channel , so go for your life.
see you soon.
IHATEATHEIST2 3 months ago
INCEPTION
dalektaliban 5 months ago
It's always fun going back and watching videos like this, because you always know that the original videos he's responding to have been taken down or the accounts terminated.
ZooseyBear 6 months ago
has fakesegan's channel been shut down?
yackon4game 9 months ago
Do you think the KKK is dangerous in this day and age? In how big of a scale are they dangerous?
TearsOfWar1 10 months ago
I really dont think secular humanism is a cult. It's a philosophy that rejects dogmatic thought and the supernatural, encourages rational inquiry, and prefers a more rational place. Fakesagans view that secular humanism is a cult is just absurd to make. Cults have a charming leader as well as a very destructive nature that deviates from what is acceptable types of culture.
Swampymcswamp 11 months ago
We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate.
mindprism 11 months ago
I would say secular humanism is too much oriented toward the collective and democracy -- it is crazy in the sense that it spawns a bunch of busybodies who scour society looking in every nook and cranny for some kind of injustice to remedy.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and secular humanism over-reaches and is guilty of Utopian goals, practicality be damned.
Its basically liberalism.
mindprism 11 months ago
"This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated."
Bummer... anyone have a mirror uploaded? What was the title of his video?
OrthodoxAtheist 1 year ago
slipping in and out of dreams... you should totally get a totem.
northstarprod 1 year ago
Has anyone been a sleep and known that they were in a dream? I mean you pretty much get to play god when you are aware that you are dreaming. I just really wonder if I am the only person that was in a dream and knew that I was dreaming.
TearsOfWar1 1 year ago
louder pl0x
MilliHAX 1 year ago
I never thought fake Sagan was that smart or interesting. The thing that really made it clear for me was when he was ripping on a piece of biomedical equipment. He claimed he could make a better one. It blew my mind that he thought on his own with meagre funds and no expertise in the field he could beat out teams of engineers and doctors who had trained for most of there lives in there field who had multi million dollar budgets. What level of arrogance and stupidity would you need to think that?
antonyneal 1 year ago
sounds like closed eye hallucinations
xentech 1 year ago
omg i had that dream/reality thing off a comedown before...its really really not nice..i thought i was laying in bed talking to my friends, then i went to say somthing, and i woke up in my bed, talking to myself, it was so weird
kojimapie 2 years ago
Clorazepam? thats no sleep aid man thats a anxiety drug
Letsmakeasamich 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the link has been removed due to a term of use violation.
lanxcrescent 2 years ago
Atheism FTW!
ArrogantAtheist 2 years ago
Dude, the dreaming while awake thing - I've done that before. Once I was having a chat with someone while doing it, and he noticed that as I was talking to him, I began to babble about god knows what. For me, it only happens if I am really, really tired.
ufee 2 years ago
Paul. You stole my quote, you pirate
Malecaust666 2 years ago
i also always sleep on my stomache, always hehe
numbcore 3 years ago
Ya lorazepam and diazepam can be kind of weird, i am an insomniac so i have taken it all.
alianchild 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What is it with you and not being able to make a statement. Take the whole "Well... i don't know." out of your vocabulary. Research, learn, and form a substantial opinion.
catbuffalo 3 years ago
I had some pills like that, like I was half dreaming and couldnt quite snap out of it, freaked me out, I remember rolling of the bed, and I know I am on the cold floor, but I cant tell which way is up, and much as I try to open them, all my eyes are doing is rolling into the back of my head, and I was like trying to call for help, but all I could do is go Blub blub blub! ... freaky! ( know where I can get more? )
FarSideofTown 3 years ago
Gosh you rock so fucking much.
Must say I am confused by what seems to be FS's conflation of secular humanism and militant anti-theism.
Most secular humanists I know don't primarily concern themselves with religion; they are more concerned with social justice, volunteering, philanthropy, etc.
Of course most of these people are also not on youtube making videos, so perhaps FS's view has been skewed by the people on YT who make vids about religion and call themselves secular humanists
boredgurl24 3 years ago
OUCH paul, get well man.
airbornegrunt21b 3 years ago
I made up a religion yesterday as a matter of fact..did you know God=Aqua Mann.
theDreadMassacre 3 years ago
Aqua man is only Queen of the sea, not King like the Merloc!
I am more then a fish! I am more then a man! *bricked*
LaoGahn 2 years ago
I made up a religion where we were an experiment being observed by aliens, created in their lab..
Giblinono 2 years ago
lol
wowplayer6541011 2 years ago
i couldn't make myself watch the 2nd and 3rd videos of fakesagan's. Secular Humanism isn't cult, nor is it dangerous. It's an identity for people who hold to the idea that (among other things) morality is not exclusive to religious teachings.
fffortississimo 3 years ago 11
I know many people who's lives have been hugely improved by theism, and secular humanism would be happy to see theism vanish from the world. Is there any reason that's different from your scientology/psychiatry example?
Fratley762 3 years ago
kids sell those pills all the time =D
Emil246 3 years ago
Do secular humanists place their followers in solitary confinement in a special "rehabilitation center" when they do something wrong? Nope.
Secular humanism is not like Scientology.
ubergossen 3 years ago
Secular humanism isn't dangerous. Fakesagan is being a drama whore with these baseless and completely ridiculous claims. I am not a secular humanist but even I find these claims to be both highly offensive and completely unsupported.
thekid19921 3 years ago 6
I agree. finished watching all of those 3 reply videos and still am not convinced with anything he offered as "argument" that secular humanism can be defined as a cult. his "fuck secular humanism" videos are so irritatingly false and senseless, it even draw paulsego out from his video hibernation:) hehe, nicely put - drama whore.
oxymoronpersonified 3 years ago
I react the same way with Ambien.
LoogyHead 3 years ago
Ironically, 98% of the atheist arguments I run accross are weak, made by pretentious egotitsts who think they are the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel. The other 2% don't bother me, I just have to actually work a little more than usual to showthe problems with them.
joness105639 3 years ago
What arguments? And weak how?
Shit like the RRS scares me and I'm an atheist. It's just an absense of belief. Besides that there's nothing to it; live out your life and expose legitimately bad ideas/frauds when they present themselves.
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
lets see, there's the "negative prrof fallacy" (you can't prove god does exist, therefore he doesn't) and the "appeal to probibility" (a fallacy committed by all those who claim god is improbible and therefore doesnt exist), the argument that the bible is full of contradictions is weak when made by the more that 70% of people I come accross who rehash others without bothering to read the book with any degree of academic rigor. There are all teh videos made by that dishonest "10 questions" guy
joness105639 3 years ago
You've been presented arguments by poorly educated atheists then. That proof fallacy you're talking about doesn't go like that. It's more along the lines of "You, the Christian, makes a claim but are unable to support it with any evidence other than your bible. You're unable to prove God exists and the burdon is not on me to prove that he does not exist (I'm not the one that made the claim). Your claim is rejected."
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
The negitive prrof fallicy does go as I have listed. You are confusing it with the burden of proof fallacy which is the example you have given. The fact is that on youtube, few if any intelectuals ever see the limelight, so the majority of theist and atheist arguments made are bound to be uncompelling, made by amatures. ProfMTH is about as close as I have found to someone who really knows his stuff on the atheist side. The best christian apologists arent even here.
joness105639 3 years ago
the "10 question" video and the rest he's made are about as valid as asking someone "have you stopped beating your wife yet". there is the argument tht God cant exist because some sources say hitler was a christian never mind hitlers other statements where he condemned christianity. There is the argument that God is evil (yes lets ignore most of the bible and lazily misinterpret the rest through cherry picking)
joness105639 3 years ago
The bible is nothing but cherry picking. Show me one line I couldn't interpret at least two different ways. You can say it's out of context but then I could just interpret the context differently. You have no definititve right answer on this subject, the sheer amount of denominations that exist should be evidence of this.
If you're one of those that claim a literal interpretation of the bible then you're a nut right off the start.
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
"The bible is nothing but cherry picking." Surely you can't mean that. Either you have no concept of what "cherry picking" means or you are arguing that a well known fallacy is a legitimate argument. Books arent cherry picking, taking things out of context in an isogetical approach is! Read up on your fallacies please.
While we're on the subject of weak atheist arguments, I can see a stawman in your response already (see where you said literal response).
joness105639 3 years ago
What strawman? I said "IF" you claim a literal interpretation. There ARE people who claim to believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, no strawman necessary. The reason you'd be called a "nut" if that were true is because that position is so pathetically easy to refute.
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
"There ARE people who claim to believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, no strawman necessary" You misrepresented who they are and what they believe, and continue to do so. Nobody actually believes that 100% of the bible is to be taken literally, nobody. You will never come accross anyone who believes that. Those who claim a literal interpretation of the bible (myself included) do not literally interpret the prophets, the psalms, song of sol etc. Only the history is literal.
joness105639 3 years ago
I never said 100% of it had to be taken literally. Who thinks psalms and the song of sol has to be interpreted literally? o.0
It wasn't implied if that's what you thought.
So then I can take it that you think the Earth is less than ~6,000 years old? Is that literal enough?
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
6,000 to 10,000 years old but no exact date or age is determinable by any means. Still calling me a "nut job" and claiming that my position is easy to refute is an appeal to ridicule, and a bit pretentious. My belief is based not only on faith but serious epistemological questions as to what may be known about our origins.
joness105639 3 years ago
Justified ridicule I might add. Your position on the subject has been falsified at least a dozen ways and instead of researching it and understanding the material you attempt to reframe your epistemology to fit the conclusion. Good luck with any progress in trying to prove your case.
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
If you can show me beyond all doubt that events which occurred before recoreded history are in fact knowable without any need for faith, or inferrences based on present circumstance that cannot be shown through any observation to be the same in prehistoric past as in the present. I do not seek to prove anything, I only question the validity of making any scientific claims about origins at all. Like I said, its not reframing an epistemology, its exploring the epistemological limits of science.
joness105639 3 years ago
Now you're switching to any definition of faith that suits you. The faith you're talking about is not of the religious type. If you want to frame or stretch your epistemology that way then yeah, it even takes faith to know that a ball will drop if you let go of it. Please tell me how that's useful? You certainly wont find evidence for creationism that way either. There's such a thing as being too skeptical as well.
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
The RRS is just a small part of what I see here. there is the weak assertion that atheism is a lack of a belief. Do you know how many times I have heard an atheist say that God is make believe, that God doesn't exist? If anything its a belief in God's non existence. You dont have some sort of hole in your ideology, no coherant ideology does, and if it's incoherant it cannot be true.
joness105639 3 years ago
Of course, everyone professes there opinions on the matter, it's only human, we can't help ourselves.
What would be your response to someone who said they believed in green gnomes that tell them what to do? I'm betting it would be less than complimentary. I'm not sure you can have a belief of not having a belief; it seems more like ridicule of ideas that seem absurd to you.
"if it's incoherant it cannot be true"
- Do you think Christianity or any other ideology is perfectly coherent?
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
"What would be your response to someone who said they believed in green gnomes that tell them what to do? I'm betting it would be less than complimentary." Then you don't know me very well. My response would be inquistive rather than condemning or congradulatory, but asking questions to seek understanding is not to be valued less than glowing approval.
I believe christianity as I understand and expirience it to be coherant.
joness105639 3 years ago
Perhapse I'd be inquisitive as well, who knows. The point of the matter is how much empty unfalsifiable apologetics would you need for you to be satisfied that the man is either lying or hallucinating?
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
The demand for falsafiability is equally unfalsafiable. Lying requires a deceptive intent, thus you have presented a false dilemma.
joness105639 3 years ago
Haha, wow, nice try on the false delemma. You might possibly have a better defensive stance on that statement if your opinions on the age of the earth weren't totally wrong.
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
I could go on and on, listing the "bare assertion fallacies", the "false dilemma"s, the "burden of proof" fallacies, the"fallacy of quoting out of context", the appeals to spite, and ridicule, the "Chronological snobbery", the association fallacies.
The vast majority of arguments made against God's existence on youtube employ one or more of these fallacies. Most of them involve some misunderstanding of christianity that has turned into a strawman argument by some famous author.
joness105639 3 years ago
Name one of those fallacies that hasn't been used by a Christian to attack a non-believer's position.
When it comes down to the bottom line, no religion has made any convincing arguments with any sort of evidence for there claims.
Also: Do you believe the bible has no contradictions whatsoever?
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
"Name one of those fallacies that hasn't been used by a Christian to attack a non-believer's position. Christins have their own list of common errors in argumentation. They do overlap but there are fallacies committed more often by thests than atheists and other fallcies committed by atheists more than theists.
"no religion has made any convincing arguments with any sort of evidence for there claims."
bare assertion fallacy
The Bible has no contradictions.
joness105639 3 years ago
So you're saying I'm lying about never being presented any evidence for God? Do you have something to present that I've never seen before? "Convincing" may differ from a 5 year old who has no knowledge of almost anything and 23 year old who does, just remember that.
"The Bible has no contradictions"
So the swapping around of dates and times of when things happened chapter to chapter aren't contradictions?
Do you think God really killed anyone?
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
bare assertion fallacy does not equate with lying, and there is a differenec between being shown evidence and being presented with an argument.
"So the swapping around of dates and times of when things happened chapter to chapter aren't contradictions?" another bare assertion fallacy.
joness105639 3 years ago
Ok, I'll word it differently. Not exactly contradictions but things I could describe more accurately as maybe hypocrisy, which would incidentally show your god to be anything but perfectly moral.
It's funny that you keep bringing up this bare assertion fallacy when you're entire bible exemplifies this perfectly.
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
Thanks for getting into this discussion. I'm a fan of fakesagan, but I'm with you on this... at least unless fakesagan can sway me in the other direction. I'm open.
Also... I'm now a new subscriber :)
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
If you are reading this right now... it's a wake up call. Because you are dreaming.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
volume?
RentTheSpokeMan 3 years ago
He claims that Secular Humanism suppresses ideas I guess?
I'm not affiliated with secular humanism in any way but ideas should be analyzed and decided on by a case by case basis. There are people out there who will make up an infinitude of shit ideas just to throw out and I think it's safe to group these in one garbage bin. We don't persecute these people either, just humiliate them by telling there followers how and why they've been lied to.
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
Fakesagan is right about repression though. Ideas should be known, not repressed.
Free speach and open expression of ideas along with any opposing views should always be at our core values.
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
Great video!
Like you, I also didn't know a lot about secular humanism, so I went to their website and researched what they say and then checked out Wikipedia. I agree with you that their 'elements and principles' seemed OK or even positive-I made a video response saying basically what you said here - 'Getting out of the Dogma House" [your particulars are better than mine btw]-We need to UNDERSTAND why we believe what we believe-It's NOT EASY-Unfortunately many think it is. That's the problem
2bsirius 3 years ago
I just have to add the petty comment that Fakesagan rightly says in part 2 of his attached series that his grandfather once said we should "never be afraid of ideas"...And that's so true! Fakesagan has me blocked...It's hilarious really...Because I'm never insulting. I never use profanity...BUT I do tend to say what I think, and I don't agree with him on this issue...I asked him why I was blocked, but I guess he didn't think I should even worthy of a response. THE FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS????
2bsirius 3 years ago 2
Yeah, Fakesagan just blocked me as well because I legitimately criticizing him for:
1. Making it pretty apperent that any argument against his view point only makes his viewpoint more valid.
2. Equating all group-think to being a cult.
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
He also goes about arguing against any utopian ideas saying they should be thrown out of hand... I'm sorry, I guess we should throw out any idea of a better world. Get rid of plumbing, sanitation, electricity.
His arguments are too black and white.
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
hi PaulsEgo, I am going to bring somthing to your attention that may piss you off sorry,( you may not know yet) On utube search kosher tax and find out about 97% of Americans paying for witch doctors to pray over most of the products in your house.yea including aluminum foil and shampoo.
Fockersnextdoor 3 years ago
dude, turn up the volume.
thewarriorsrok 3 years ago
two weeks off... holy shit are you a teacher?
Moonmaster412 3 years ago
Great response and rebuttal sir. Fake picked my ass with his video's but I had not consolidated a response before watching your vid. Well done!
Skavar4000 3 years ago
decent video but I would like to make a small suggestion:
If its a response, get to the point.
23discordians 3 years ago
Are you a Teacher?
TheMightyDamo 3 years ago
OMG!! Some black lady came to my door with her child and started reading the freaking bible! Obviously I couldn't call her a nigger because her kid was there so I smiled and nodded through it. And she asked me my opinion and then my mother butted in and told her we're not interested. Wow.
FuriousGrant 3 years ago
umm. what does that have to do with this video or the general debate ?
Goslinq 3 years ago
Absolutely nothing, I just wanted to say nigger.
FuriousGrant 3 years ago
I watched his video, watched your response and didn't notice until now the touchy responses he's been getting. I think that actually drove his point home. group-think causes members of groups to band together against perceived threats. An attack from an atheist who relies on reason makes him a traitor, which explains the vehemence against him. You're an independent thinker though, kudos.
Goslinq 3 years ago
Thanks for the video. Get better soon.
corridorofpower 3 years ago
Sounds like mescaline.
BoozyBeggar 3 years ago
Having groups like the RRS will make SH from a philosophy to a cult. They are the people that want to objectify a consensus of beliefs amongst themselves. They want to quantify SH and the only way to do that is to set parameters so that when fighting other philosohpy they have a foundation to pull from.
GullyMac 3 years ago
I find that 'sound' in that it follows the path that groups of people take towards cult hood, but the intrinsic aversion to faith and belief systems makes secular humanism more of a personal, rather than group organization which followers will flock to, just the rational aspects of life and the reasons and motives for bettering ourselves. I am not a secular humanist but I share similarities. IMO the people who want humanism to become a organization or religion are not doing themselves any favors
scienceminded 3 years ago
yea it has nothing to do with the philosophy it's when humans get a hold of it. It's the little groups that begin to get active and start surroundoing themselves with these core beliefs. SH is a diverse belief system, even deists could fall under that umbrella. The ones that have a similar belief system to hold onto will join forces and begin to get "militant" towards those that think different whether or not they are HSists as well or not.
GullyMac 3 years ago
It's hard to see how SH can be impure but at first glance as fakesagan said; all religions and cults look to have pure intentions. Christianity, Islam, and so on all have a peaceful message at first but it is when humans get a hold of these philosophies and that they turn back to their primitive ways and form tribes with names, symbols and an agenda or way of life to impose on others. Sh may not be completely a cult yet, but it looks to me as well as others as one that could be on th uprise.
GullyMac 3 years ago
PaulsEgo...I was a little disappointed in this video. What fakesagan seems to be saying - atleast to me - is that Human Secularism is showing the early signs of being a cult. You are sort of right when you said that you couldn't see the similarities between SH and Scientology. The issue here is Scientology is a full fledged cult in that it has a number of people working on it's behalf (i.e. political and legislative lobbying). You see all cults have one thing in common for sure...
GullyMac 3 years ago
...and that is philosophy. You know, like dogmas and creed basically a foundation of morals, beliefs, ceremonies, traditions, etc. As we can see SH lays down its own foundation of beliefs and ways of thinking. As of now it is kind of like atheism in that those who admittedly ride that train of thought can also have their on version.
GullyMac 3 years ago
A lot of medicine has done that same thing to me. It's not very comforting. Odd feeling.
Disturbed928 3 years ago
turn up the volume next time. cant hear shit
bl4h1 3 years ago
Dude, you're making my stomach feel weird :).
SkidRoses98 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Get Paid to Write!!!
Stories, Essays, Journalism, Philosophy, Heck
Start you Own Gossip Column
Whatever you're interested in
We'll pay you to Contribute...
Just make it interesting.
Watch my Video to Hear how.
PeterDuffin 3 years ago
hey paul. what did you think about RSS being a cult points that fakesagan said.
munky99999 3 years ago
I dunno. I think that if the RRS is a cult, it really has nothing to do with Secular Humanism.
PaulsEgo 3 years ago
paul, if you want some harder christian "targets" you should checkout veritas48 or migkillertwo just to name a couple.
whoisfettel 3 years ago
It is just an information organization right?
scienceminded 3 years ago
@PaulsEgo hey paul, what happened to fakesagan?
kickflipinyaface 11 months ago
Happy New Year, Paul. Feel better.
BananaHurricane 3 years ago
great response!
ashleestarzec 3 years ago
Fakesagan best be trolling.
Hez0 3 years ago
*****
profanity bump
*****
atypicalguy 3 years ago
I've experienced that dreaming thing. In a sense its kind of cool because its one of life's little mysteries. However, sometimes that shit gets bad fast
uplifecomposer 3 years ago
I was waiting for a compelling argument against Secular Humanism from fakesagan as well.
Don't feel bad Paul; I too have very little knowledge about the subject matter, so I also looked at Wikipedia for further guidance. I agree with you for the same reasons; I couldn't find anything I'd balk at. In fact, a lot of intellectuals whom I personally respect were listed as secular humanists; Chomsky, Dawkins and Sagan to name a few.
I think that fakesagan has a problem with RRS, but don't most?
logicaust 3 years ago
Also Paul, I didn't realise that you had such invasive surgery...sucks that a large part of your holidays have been taken by the scalpel :(
That sleeping med sounded really bad, too. Sleeping on your stomach? I guess back 20 years there wasn't much talk about SIDS, but still LOL I can *never* fall asleep that way. I'm always on my back; never side, never stomach...huh, interesting.
Anyway, I wish you a speedy recovery and a happy new year.
Peace.
logicaust 3 years ago
1 star. The question is not "is psychiatry important?". The question is "should you be thrown in prison (and shot if you resist that) for not paying for it?".
You are saying that psychiatry is SO important that anyone who deducts from their taxes the cost of government psychiatry subsidies should be thrown in prison.
FUCK YOU!
ArchosAffligo 3 years ago
Your comment made me log in for the first time in 5 days, so kudos.
I guess one could substitute the word "psychiatry" with any other activity partially (or fully) funded through tax subvention: roads, public works, welfare..
Paul said it would be a shame if psychiatry wasn't around. This other question you bring up came from where?
Or do *you* wish to decide how your taxes are spent; that you don't wish to subsidize X?
Your assertions came so far out of left field, thus my intrigue.
Peace.
logicaust 3 years ago
Welcome to the anarchist mindset!
And so at the very least, even if you think these death threats (laws) are necessary, then at least one should acknowledge them as such and not be so flippant in advocating "gov't funding for x". People treat gov't like it's some dorm room beer fund. It's not. If you advocate killing someone who doesn't pay for x, x had better be saving lives or something close to it. And this assumes gov't will accomplish x, which by it's incentive structure it usually can't.
ArchosAffligo 3 years ago
Hi, thanks for the quick reply.
Off the bat, I'd just like to say that I don't self-identify with any form of group thought, organised religion or special interest. The only things I truly believe in are that I know nothing, and "Tibi cogita".
I don't subscribe to anarchist though because frankly I haven't researched it to a great degree (in other words, total noob). Much as I'd like to know more, time is a pressing issue for me.
I have a lot on my plate already & I don't feel I ought rush.
logicaust 3 years ago
But in regards to laws being death threats for those that oppose them, one could say "When in Rome...", or one could suggest to pro-actively/passively oppose X. I believe that once I die, I am dead & that there is no continuation of my life in any "after-life", thus I am very careful when I disagree with something or someone.
To oppose the confines of my social construct is no doubt a death sentence; equally so to defy it might well bring about my death; thus the question: can I change things?
logicaust 3 years ago
The answer that I've arrived at is quite possibly, but what would be the most sensible way of approaching that? Should I openly defy law and order; disregard the opinions, thoughts and actions of others & wage my own war against the establishment, or should I read more, study more, bide my time...quietly bring about change by a veritable war of attrition...to bury my ambition for decades in order to gain enough power to topple the existing establishment, thereby "changing" things?
logicaust 3 years ago
I think I'd first take a dive into the maelstrom of thought and experience that is this world, then present a more emphatic argument once my head is swimming with a little more awareness.
And yes, this is nothing more than a convoluted capitulation. Perhaps one day I'll settle on an argument or position to launch from. But since I haven't found it yet, I'll head back into my Japanese study. 勉強しなければなりません。。。
Peace.
logicaust 3 years ago
I'm not too concerned with actual transition and implementation. The situation is so bad right now that actually talking about how it would be done is just silly. Let's get 20% of all people to be anarchists, THEN we can start talking about implementation and how to counter-act governments screwing around with the stateless society (like they are in somalia).
ArchosAffligo 3 years ago
Well I am not sure what the impact is of this argument. Nobody can change "things". Not even the president, as the president's power is derived from the fact that everyone is in a trance and believes he has power. If the army decided some general was der feurher, that would be that.
So the only way to change things is to change mass opinion and then the opinion of the soldiers. So here it is! I guess people are looking for some hero figure, but nope. This is it.
ArchosAffligo 3 years ago
Well anarchist is just a word for people who don't believe in the state. It isn't at odds with any political philosophy if you put "anarcho" in front of it. You could believe in mandatory castration for all I care, as long as your society is voluntary.
I understand teh time, that's why I made this channel. It's meant so that you can just load up a playlist and listen. And in all the links in my description have audio. Property rights, courts, protection, environment, it's all dealt with.
ArchosAffligo 3 years ago
hope you feel better Paul.
rayzaa14 3 years ago
And eventually the group, if it organizes, may respond the same way if it feels "under threat" from outside means.
It happens in politics, cultures, and religions. The message is NOT important.
What is important, is we are people. And people in groups are capable of the most sinister of things. They will be as kind as t hey are Sinister in may cases.
But they will, make no doubt, eventually have their own sinister designs, in order to "defend" themselves.
Lanparth 3 years ago
@ the first part, Pot does the same thing to me.
IcyNami 3 years ago
Isn't secular humanism just doing good things with others without any religious reason?
PaulyWard 3 years ago
There is no way Secular Humanism could possibly lead you by the nose to believe things that cause harm to others, quite simply because secular humanism is very much like atheism. There aren't really dogmas, just a couple of principles on which to base morality. All secular humanism states is that humans are the source of morality, there is no objective outside source, and we need to work together to come up with the best moral guidelines to foster a quality society. It's a baseline, not dogma
Archaneus 3 years ago 2
I LOVE U
antonyneal 3 years ago
Before I was struggling to see how Fakesagan classified Sec. Humanism as a cult. He didn't really say anything besides that very cool point 'you wouldn't know if you were a cultist'.
Now I'm struggling to understand how this is in any way an argument against what he said. You're not picking on anything specific that he said.
Maybe it really is a cult and my crazy cult raddled brain is just refusing to process what the hell you 2 are talking about
Love both of your work(s){usually}
DeadMindWorking 3 years ago
Fakesagan = Smug Prick
dackjaniels555 3 years ago 3
I want to box with fakesagan ¬_¬
kff 3 years ago
The real problem that comes in play here is that all of these attitudes of life are still as imaginary as lines of longitude. Dangerous or not, they aren't real and both secular humanism and religion should be ignored in the same sense that one ignores the borders of a state, that is, unless one is looking at a map and realizes they aren't real. One should just do what one wants at all times and not worry.
Jesusfleabop 3 years ago
Isn't secular humanism just doing good things with others without any religious reason.
PaulyWard 3 years ago
get well dude! and glad you uploaded this insightful video. I learned something :P
SomethingAwfulYT 3 years ago
Well, Fakesagan seems like a postmodernist doofus to me. Hey, I can call that a cult too. Why not? The cult of pretentious pseudo intellectuals who think that drawing feeble analogies makes them edgy. The cult of intellectual poseurs who think extreme relativism and non-believing what-the-fuck-ever is a profound intellectual stance (when is actually a cheap way of appearing smart).
quarkschiz 3 years ago 6
Don't wanna know who they are nor what they want. They like be nihilist and open minded... but also revolutionaries; they want to appear brave and radical, but also tolerant and easy going; they want to be part of something, of some group, but without losing their outsider status; they want to bitch and moan about social injustices... without ever having to sacrifice their bourgeois privileges. Smoke and mirrors they are, because poses are easy to adopt, but very boring to maintain. Idiots.
quarkschiz 3 years ago 6
Holy shit. Good luck with the recovery. Glad to see you're making vidoes reguardless.
Knowing Fakesagan though, he's going to say, "You just put your surgery information before the real response to get pity subs."
SLAPPAYURFACE 3 years ago
awesome.
PaulsEgo 3 years ago
Just an fyi, gallbladder surgery isn't as easy to recover from as doctors say. 2 days is insane and I don't know where they get that number from. I was out for a good week before I could even think of going to class.
sofiarune 3 years ago
fakesagan provides an interesting perspective and he's well spoken, but applying the world "cult" to secular humanism is a stretch. It's easy to call them a cult because if they were religious, they'd just be called fanatics or zealots. A group of people who believe in the same thing (that differs from others) are always considered a cult. It's an overly used word. Scientology is more of a cult because they brainwash people. He's exaggerating the "chosen one" philosophy just a bit, too.
ilikepigtails 3 years ago
all power to ya PaulsEgo.
zeffii 3 years ago
*waves*
I'd like to see you respond to him, and maybe cite some facts as well.
Surhotchaperchlorome 3 years ago
Thank you so much.
pageboythehumanist 3 years ago
I don't think fakesagan really disagrees so much with the tenets of secular humanism, he's just pointing out that there's an aspect of human psychology that kicks in when they get together in large groups, and that is what's dangerous.
iconoclastic23 3 years ago 2
When you think about where we came from, it makes sense. We evolved for the past few hundred thousand years(the time since the agricultural revolution excluded) as hunter-gatherer tribespeople.
iconoclastic23 3 years ago
It was beneficial to us from a selective pressure standpoint to adhere closely to our fellow tribe members since we depended on them for our own survival. Similarly, it was beneficial from a selective pressure standpoint to compete effectively against other tribes that we might encounter, since they were drawing upon the same resources for their survival as our tribe would for theirs.
Living like this for so long has installed some real in-group/out-group thinking into our heads.
iconoclastic23 3 years ago
MAke more vids man!
teamhex 3 years ago
Get better^^
oldiousnei 3 years ago
Comparing Scientology to Secular humanism is a dumb thing to do. Scientology is a religion—meaning that it has a belief system and practices—; Secular humanism is a philosophical view. I don't see how they're alike.
Atheismrulez 3 years ago
Sounds like Lucid Dreaming. XD
Surhotchaperchlorome 3 years ago
I had the same reaction Paul.
Can't hernias sometimes self correct?
Mjhavok 3 years ago
Hope you have a placid and safe recovery. Happy 2009 :-S
Mjhavok 3 years ago
It's pretty stupid to think that secular humanism is "dangerous". It's just a philosophical view that upholds reasoning and logic, but rejects supernaturalism and spirituality, as the basis for decision-making. Basically, if you use reasoning and avoid spirituality for decision-making, you're a secular humanist.
How is having that philosophical view "dangerous"?
Atheismrulez 3 years ago
It isn't the philosophic view that is dangerous (but that could be argued), but the organization. It is like what fs mentioned in his vid; they all have the best intentions, they all plan on making the world a better place in one way or another.
I see what you mean though; how can rational decision making be dangerous? People without spirituality can be just as guilty as the religious in dogmatic thinking. Think about Marxist radicals or the like.
Stryongo 3 years ago
Marxist radicals were not basing their decisions on rationality. They invented a dogma and they fought for it, like christians and muslims.
Rationally socialism is good, but you need democracy with it. The problem with Soviet Russia, was not atheism or communism, but autocratism. They wanted to rule absolutely, for life. That is where you get evil acts. When people start to be corrupt and people vote them out, it limits the evil that can be put in place.
adolthitler 3 years ago
"but the organization. It is like what fs mentioned in his vid; they all have the best intentions, they all plan on making the world a better place in one way or another."
Secular humanism is not an organization. It's a philosophical view—nothing else.
Atheismrulez 3 years ago
QUOTE atheismrulez: "Secular humanism is not an organization. It's a philosophical view"
And like any other philosophical view, it has its dedicated rabid followers.
Atheism CAN'T be a movement because it's basically nothing but a response or a disbelief in something. Might as well say newborn infants are in this imagined atheist 'movement' as well.
Rahab111222 3 years ago
You're wrong on both counts. I have never in my life met or seen on the media a rabid follower of secular humanism and what would one look like? how can you "rabidly follow" the idea that humans need to work together to come up with moral guidelines based on evidence and reason? Rabidly following concept of secular humanism would just make you a more thinking person, even more concerned with reality and evidence. Secondly, atheism is a movement as a response to theists exerting their will.
Archaneus 3 years ago
"what would one look like?"
Well to be fair, would you really know what any cult or religious follower looked like?
"how can you "rabidly follow" the idea that humans need to work together to come up with moral guidelines based on evidence and reason?"
How can you rabidly follow peace, love, turning the other cheek and charity to the poor? It's all PR.
"Secondly, atheism is a movement as a response to theists"
I'm sure that's a comforting self imposed identity you got there, kid.
Rahab111222 3 years ago
correction from my last comment, ****how could you NOT rabidly follow peace love, ect.
Rahab111222 3 years ago
Don't play the pretentious condescending prick, please. Atheism at it's core is not a movement. It is merely the lack of a belief in a god. However, because of the activity of theists in the world atheism takes on the form of a movement in order to battle the irrational nonsense theists assert. Secular Humanism is exactly the same. It is merely the idea that morality be based on reason, however, since there are many who reject reason and cling to dogma it takes on the form of a movement.
Archaneus 3 years ago 2
"Don't play the pretentious condescending prick, please."
So being right nowadays is pretentious, whad'ya know.
"Atheism at it's core is not a movement. It is merely the lack of a belief in a god."
There, now we agree. Bada-bing.
Rahab111222 3 years ago
Being right is not pretentious, calling someone a "kid" in order to imply you are sitting on the intellectual high ground is being a pretentious condescending prick. I was merely objecting to your phrasing, because it had a belittling intent. Yes, we do agree on what atheism is at it's core, but I am saying it is ALSO a movement as a response to the actions of theists. As an aside, looking at your channel I think we agree on most things anyway and there isn't really anymore to be said, so bye
Archaneus 3 years ago
"And like any other philosophical view, it has its dedicated rabid followers."
And because of that, being a secular humanist is a bad thing? I don't give a fuck about how the other people are. I don't give a fuck about the followers, but rather the philosophy itself. Your argument is shit.
Atheismrulez 3 years ago 2
My problem with secular humanism is the 'humanism' part, until man can overcome his own ego, man is guilty of speciesism.
Good video btw, hope you have a speedy recovery.
publicz 3 years ago
That sleep medicine gave you some OT powers! ;D
exo0O 3 years ago
that must be it! lolz
PaulsEgo 3 years ago
ZOMBIE JESUS; GALACTIV OVERLORD!!!!!!! ALL HAIL!!! o/ o/ o/
ZARBONZARBON 3 years ago
What's this medication you're on, Paul? I want some of that shit xD
insomnium92 3 years ago
I know how you feel. I had a gallbladder attack a few years ago and spent three days in the hospital. I didn't get it removed, but I had to stay away from stress causing situations and coffee.
draygonicewing 3 years ago
I think Fakesagan is more worried about the initial cause of immoral social change; group think, and not so much the exact events that follow.
Passing laws is bad, of course, but doesn't everyone break some laws that they don't really agree with? Remember, it is because of Group Think that we have laws to begin with.
adamabra8 3 years ago
I am glad to see that you feel like coming to spend some time on youtube...it's good to sse you. Hopefully, you will feel all better soon.
hollyfromdallas 3 years ago
damn, you hallucinate!? thats like lsd man! no wonder people get hooked on prescription drugs
WKaliber1 3 years ago
So first he rejects the common definitions of cults. Then he refuses to give his own definition. Then he throws in a few red herrings while changing his argument to a discussion about group think. Then he quietly re-defines secular humanism from a philosophy into a social movement. Finally he implicitly re-defines group think from a everyday human behavior into a characteristic of social movements.
Bravo! Next up: Fakesagan proves that a turtle is a bird.
mbruck77 3 years ago
Agreed. I think he's desperate for a target. He's shooting at clay pigeons.
mistaspot1 3 years ago
lol I used to have a video called fuck secular humanists. Watch out for those prescriptiooinnionoinoinoinw etfgoiewnhgowei medications lolz.
fucksatanism 3 years ago
sorry, it was callled "fuck secular trans-humanists". i'm reallty highi
fucksatanism 3 years ago
hey is that a hat a design inspired by tomba? just google tomba pig.
mambi 3 years ago
I hope you feel better.
dude11293 3 years ago