subversive enough. It is very clear from the Bible that the early Christians held all people -- men and women, slave and free, Jew and Gentile -- to be spiritual equals in Christ.
Atheists like De Sousa tend to moralize about how dangerous and childish religion is and how the Enlightenment was mankind's true salvation, but "evil" is a departure from the way the world "ought" to be. If there is no God to make such a transcendent determination, then it is all a matter of personal preference.
De Sousa felt unqualified to comment on the history of atheism, but he apparently believes he is qualified to speak on the history of religion. He mentions that early Christianity instructed slaves (who were indentured servants in the ANE, not slaves in the modern sense) to be kind to their masters, but he conveniently neglected to mention that early Christianity also instructed masters to show kindness to their slaves. It sounds like he is complaining that Christianity was NOT politically
@Samuelthemule... incorrect. Perhaps you would not die in such a manner, but Socrates was willing. His charge was blasphemy against the gods of his day--specifically, atheism. The daemon was metaphorical, he believed not in literal spirits, and you are flatly misleading any readers. For shame.
All experiences could be in the brain, but I still think that's just the model science is currently working with. I think the brain is a vehicle that allows consciousness to work on the level it does for humans, but that doesn't mean the brain produces consciousness.
I guess if atheism is the absence of a belief then it is the natural state. But if atheism is the belief that there is no God, then it is an unnatural state and there is simply no evidence to support that claim nor will there ever be. When atheism becomes a belief it becomes a religion. I guess then my point is that atheists should say I do not have a belief in God rather than God doesn't exist. Soon you'll find buddhism, then neo-hinduism will sound cool to you, then you become a theist. Haha
Do you believe there are no fairies? If so, that is an unnatural state according to your logic.
We don't sit on the fence regarding fairies, because we know the idea is absurd, yet fairies were widely believed to exist up until the 19th century.
The way I see it, atheism is merely a rejection of theism. Neither is a natural state because they are both reactionary views to a set of doctrines. No one has a view on, say, a book or a film if they've never even heard of that book/film before.
Fairies most likely don't exist, but really, i don't know. My society tells me it's absurd and there is no evidence to support the belief, but I don't know. I agree that theism and atheism are unnatural states and are reactionary to a set of doctrines, but also to experiences of the Divine. But those experiences can be discredited as well. Really I am agnostic but I lean more towards theism than atheism. I like to think the things I experience in meditation are more than chemicals in the brain.
Wow you explained what i've been pondering on for so long. Consciousness, in a material sense (and that's not getting into physics and string theories), can be "a vehicle that allows" of facilitated consciousness but I like to think that things I experience, and not just in meditation, are more than just chemicals in the brain. I come from mostly a Christian Science background, ha, though i was born into a Caholic family.
Anyway, i don't properly consider myself an atheist, though in the sense that there is a lack of "belief" i guess i am, mostly. But like you i can't entirely identify myself as such, nor can i identify as a theist. I'm simply non-religious. I don't consider myself a Christian Scientist, though i do attribute my upbringing in it to my own abstract conseptions of god in my early teens and then to my own search...
...for my love of philosophy, deep passion to investigate religions idiocracies (and not to mention atrocities), but mostly for my love of eastern philosophies, the so-called spiritual and for many things including my non-theistic, idiosyncratic views of life and the universe which have made me come into my own.
Anyway, i got off track to why i replied to your comment. About chemicals and consciousness and all that shit. Check out some medical cases of nearth-death experience where there was zero EEG activity and the person was able to still have some sort of perception, a form of consciousness before "coming back" to life. It's all really relative. Science is about laws of reality put to the test through verifiable methods as we see them with OUR SENSES, which are not infallible.
"I guess if atheism is the absence of a belief then it is the natural state."
Indeed, However, this definition would include such things as rocks. Rocks are not atheists, atheists do infact believe something about the topic in question.
The 'Absence of something' is not something that anything is, it is not an object or a property of anything. Therefore it is certainly not what atheism is.
What atheists are not, ar theists and agnostics and people braindead on machines and so on.
WHat something is not, is not what something is. If an atheists is not a theist the what exactly is it. THe ancient greeks left us a crappy definition.
Atheists believe there are no gods, thats why they are atheists.
"Atheists believe there are no gods, thats why they are atheists."
Correct, just like I believe that there are no unicorns, dragons, faeries, and trolls.
The term atheist indicates what I am not...I am not a theist. You are correct that it does not define who I am, it simply excludes me from certain groups.
I am also not a astrologer, but there is no term for that in our culture.
The term "atheism" implies a belief system, which is inaccurate. I am a Secular Humanist.
"Correct, just like I believe that there are no unicorns, dragons, faeries, and trolls."
Sure, but the 'absence of belief' is not what makes an atheist. It is the belief there are no gods.
"The term atheist indicates what I am not"
Not one thing that exists is.....what it....Is not. This is what you are saying when you say it is a definition of what I am not. WHat X is not, is not what X is.
This is silly. There are an infinite number of things that I might believe do not exist.
"Do you believe that gods exist?"
"Uh...no."
It is precisely the absence of belief [in gods] which makes the atheist. The term atheist means Not Theist.
A person who has never been introduced to the concept of god[s] and has never conceived of supernatural entities is also an atheist. They are not a theist.
"All newborn babies are atheists. They have no concept of god[s] and possess no such beliefs."
So do rocks, and things that don't exist. It does not require a human brain to have no concept of god.
To say that an atheist is only 'not something' is to say that an atheist does not exist. An atheist believes there is no god. They are not newborns, rocks or agnostics or theists. Infact they are not anything except what they are and what they are cannot be what they are not.
The assumption when discussing atheists and theists is that we are talking about human beings.
Taken to extreme, you are correct that to say that an atheist is simply not theist would include rocks....however, most people understand without being told that we are talking about conscious humans when we discuss such things.
"...atheist is a living, conscious person that is not a theist"
So what, so are agnostics. If an agnostic believed in god, said agnostic would be a theist. To say what something is not is what that something is, is to put forth a logical contradiction and prove that the something in question cannot exist. Its that simple.
Here's another concept that might help. Do you believe that invertebrates exist? There is no biological classification specifically for invertebrates, yet we talk about them all the time. There is a classification for vertebrates, and we are in it.
Invertebrates are distinguished simply by what they do not have....a backbone...this says nothing about what they do have, yet....surprisingly, they actually exist.
An atheist is a living, conscious human being who is not a theist.
Many atheists do declare "no gods", but *any* person who is not a theist is *by definition* an atheist.
That includes agnostics as well since to be a theist, one must make a positive declaration about belief in god[s]. A theist must say, "I believe that god[s] exist[s]."
If any living, conscious person who does not make this declaration is atheist by definition.
Your argument about atheists looks pretty silly I insert invertebrates in its place, doesn't it?
Since invertebrate simply means "no backbone", it could also be applied to rocks, trees, the ocean; but we all know that's silly.
Just as the term "invertebrate" is limited to describing only *animals* without backbones; the term "atheist" is limited to described only those *people* who are not theists.
It is really that simple. If you don't like the ramifications of that, too fucking bad.
My argument is not silly. What is silly is to say what something is not is what that something is. Thats what your argument says. I have shown you why its false. Agnostics lack belief in God and ar not atheists. If they believed in God they woulkd not be agnostics. No stawman exists. There is no argument either. It is simple basic logic.
Moreover if 'absence of believe in God' is the sole criterion for being an atheist then all agnostics are atheists. Which means agnostics don't really exist. WHich is obviously false. AGnostics and atheists are different because atheists believe there are no gods while agnostics don't assert belief on the question.
Again....it's mind-numbingly simple. An atheist is someone who is not a theist. Agnostics are atheists who simply dislike the label of atheist for emotional reasons.
This statement is true, but not about what an atheist is. It only says what an atheist is not. 'Is' does not equal 'Is not'. LOL. The claim that it does is ridiculously absurd mainly because, its not possible.
You aspire to a logically flawed definition that arrived before formal logic.
I agree that the term does not say what the person is, it describes what they are not.
Such is the nature of language.
Theists commonly ascribe all sorts of characterizations to people who are not theists, one such characterization is that they deny god....some do, others simply say that there is not enough evidence to accept the claim that god exists....the difference is not that subtle, yet it seems to slip past you.
"I agree that the term does not say what the person is, it describes what they are not."
Right, and what something is not, is not what that something is. Very basic logical point. There is no Strawman, the defintion that the ancient greeks started is now flawed. Infact it always has been. Atheists believe no gods. Thats the kind of people we are. What we are not are theists or agnostics.
"Right, and what something is not, is not what that something is."
Strawman, nobody makes this claim.
Once again....an atheist is someone who is not a theist. You have theists, and those people who are not theists are *by definition* atheists. Aside from being "not theist", they may have other attributes which could divide them further into other belief systems which do not involve god[s].
I'm not hung up on anything. You can argue as much as you like. Saying what something is not will never be a definition of what something is. Unless you think that IS equals IS not. Which I'm going to assume you don't. THe greeks never defined what an atheist is and neither have you. To say I am not shackleton is true, but not about me at all. 'not shackleton' is not what I am. Your defintion is well over 1000 years old and came before formal logic.
You are correct that the term "atheist" does not say what an atheist is, it only describes what group we are excluded from, and that the group known as theists.
In order to get a better handle on what people excluded from theists are all about, additional information is required.
However, the logic is simple and not in your favour. Make a pie chart that includes all of humanity, make a slice of whatever percentage suits you for theists. The rest, not being theists, are atheists; simple.
"The rest, not being theists, are atheists; simple."
It is not possible to know what something is until we know what it is. To say that something IS an atheist is to say that such an object HAS specific properties that make it what it is. What is the property that an atheist HAS that makes us what we are? What we are not is clear and has been for over a thousand years.
We can know something about a thing [or person] by knowing what it is not. If we see a strange fruit, we might not know what it is, but we do know one thing that it is not....an apple.
When I describe myself as an atheist, without any additional information, all that you know is that I am not a theist.
Anything else that you assume about what I might be or believe, is simply an assumption that might be incorrect.
"We can know something about a thing [or person] by knowing what it is not"
No we can't, if we only know what something is not it means we do not know what it is. We would know that something is not not an apple, because we know what an apple is. Definitions predicate the subject in a positive manner. If they do not, they do not describe the subject. Grammar friend, and logic. SImple.
Read what I said....for comprehension this time. I did not say that we know what it is, I said that we know something about it.
Truly, your continual strawman is getting very tiring.
If I know that the object is not an apple, I may know nothing else about it, including what it is, but I do know something about it....I know that it's not an apple.
"We are people who lack theistic beliefs. Beyond this, we can be anything"
To say atheists are people is tautology. (A is A) its rhetoric. Atheists being people is a given and not needed in a definition of what an atheist is. Logic
'Atheists lack belief in god' - This staement is missing the primary predicate. A needed part of a defintion. Grammar
"Some groups are defined by what they are not"
Only an imbecile says things are what they are not. Your grammar and logic needs word.
"To say atheists are people is tautology. (A is A) its rhetoric. Atheists being people is a given and not needed in a definition of what an atheist is. Logic"
Yet, earlier you said that the definition of atheists could include rocks? Are rocks people too?
"'Atheists lack belief in god' - This staement is missing the primary predicate. A needed part of a defintion. Grammar"
Right, so now we don't know if they are people?
Atheists are people who lack a belief in god......better?
"Yet, earlier you said that the definition of atheists could include rocks? Are rocks people too"
THe lack of belief in God is not anything at all. It cannot be a person it is not a property of anything. ATheists are people. THe definition therfore cannot say that something, which is a person is not anything at all. THats what your are saying.
The negative predication that you are asserting is only a property that things don;t have. An atheist is a person, but so are theists. So what. THings that exists are defined with positive predication. Bottom line. WE need not say an atheist is a person, but the predicate must be a property that only a person can hold. DO you understand yet?
A predicate provides us with information about the subject. In the case of the term "atheist", the only information that it provides is that the person does not possess theistic beliefs. That's all.
What beliefs does the atheist possess? It's anyone's guess, we only know for sure that we can exclude theistic ones from the list of possibilities.
I am a Secular Humanist. I am agnostic in that I don't know if god[s] exist; *and*, I am atheist because I also do not believe that they exist either.
I am also a PEARList. I believe that the path to true knowledge is through Physical Evidence and Reasoned Logic.
I also reject dogmas out of hand. If it has evidenciary support, it is no longer dogma.
We humans are complex, we can be excluded, or included within multiple groups simultaneously.
Primary predicate is a description of what the subject IS. WHat something IS, is defined by the properties it has. WE cannot use negative predication (secondary predicate) to say what something is. Otherwise we end up saying WHat X is not is what X is. A laughable logical and gramatical failure. 'Notters' THats what you are. Sing your song if you want. You simply wrong. Nothing is defined by what it is not. Moronic Concept
"Primary and secondary predicates come into play when the sentence contains more than one predicate."
Yup but the primary predicate is not used to say what something is by saying what it isn't. IN a definition, negative predication is the secondary predicate.
Atheists are (positive predication) then (Negative)
Again, to say atheists are people is unneeded information. Positive predication is still need to say why that person is such a thing. They we can state they are not theists.:/
I'm done though, for someone who can articulate above average I find it quite funny that you think saying what something is not defines what something is. Saying what something is not does not define anything at all. Complete Joke. Utter Gibberish.
"for someone who can articulate above average I find it quite funny that you think saying what something is not defines what something is."
There's the straw again.
As I have already said, the term "atheist" does not define what the person is, it simply identifies an attribute not possessed by said person. That attribute being theistic belief.
This creature is an invertebrate.
"Complete joke, utter gibberish. This does not tell us what this creature is at all."
Agnosticism is a position of knowledge. An agnostic asserts that they cannot know if there is a God. It is a formed opinion based on what 1 can know. THey do not assert true or not true about the question. They are not atheists. LOL
"Your description of an atheist is better served by the term anti-theist."
ANd your description of an atheists (not theist) renders it non existent. (Not theist) is not what anything IS. It is not an object, it does not exist. Atheists I'm afraid, are something, we do exists. What we are is made up of the properties we have. WHat we are not is is made up of the properties we do not have. Basic Logic 101
If someone asks you if you believe in god, and your answer is "yes"; then you are a theist....any other answer [ no, not sure, I have never thought of it before] means that you are not a theist....which by definition, is atheist.
I don't see how people can be so sure about something not existing. If someone is sure about God they have probably had experiences that makes them sure. But no one can experience something not existing. Atheist should just be agnostic. They don't know, they have never experienced God. And I'll never hear one of them say, "I've experienced the non existence of God." It's like saying "China doesn't exist because I've never experienced it." You've never been there, you don't know.
I don't know any atheists who say they know God doesn't exist. My position is that there is zero evidence for God, material, logical, empirical or otherwise, therefore I have no faith/belief/comment on the concept of "God".
Atheists ARE agnostics. Atheism simply means you have no faith in a God. Personally I'm waiting for evidence.
Further, you're trying to put the burden of evidence on the wrong side of the court. You're the one making the claim that a supernatural being exists. Prove it.
Evidence will most likely never be found materially or empirically because God is not purely physical or can God's entire, infinite being perceived through the senses. God can be perceived through intuition during deep meditation when the body and mind are still. It is hard to deny when one feels unified with an eternal consciousness, permeating the entire universe, that they are not in tune with what the Abrahamic religions call God.
Prove to me that meditation does a what you're saying it does. As a neuroscience specialist I can tell you right now that any experience you have under meditation is simply chemical reactions occurring in your brain.
If God has ever has any effect on this world it should be observable. If he made the grand canyon, we should be able to verify that. If he made humans, we should be able to verify that. But as it stands there is no suggestion at all that God exists whatsoever.
Well that's your materialistic paradigm. I would say the brain reacts when one is realizing the Divine, but it is not the source of that experience. Also people have put there brain waves to zero and still have had conscious experiences. Watch the Ken Wilber video, he almost almost does it.
One more thing. You make a lot of claims about god, and not a single one of them has any credibility. You say God cannot be perceived through the senses, and I ask why not? And how do you know he can't be?
To me you're just as idiotic as the Egyptian sun worshippers, or the Aztec blood crazed priests. There's nothing that supports your claims, and I feel no regret in dismissing them without consideration.
Because I talk to word of the the great yogis of India (Paramhansa, Yuketswar, Mahasaya, Aurobindo). They could be all wrong and they all could be schizo, delusional fools. But they all used the same techniques and had the same realizations of the Divine and came to the same conclusions. Were they culturally influenced, yes, but I would still say their experiences transcend culture. Mystics around the world have had similar experiences.
Something created this universe, it may not be a sentient being but it is something. Personally it makes no sense to me that what ever put everything into motion was less intelligent then humans.
How do you know that? There is absolutely nothing that suggests anything created this universe. Just because the things inside this universe follow certain rules, it doesn't mean that the universe itself follows those rules.
Further, if you're so adamant that it had to be created, then what created the creator? Does he need creating too? This logic leads to an impossible place.
if nothing created the universe (autonomic forces or otherwise) then it wouldn't be here. Everything needs to be created to exist. What ever did create the finite, manifest world is probably infinite. It is impossible for nothing to have created the universe. Scientists should try to find out exactly what did. If they listened to your logic, "nothing created the universe, this logic is impossible." then they would go no where in their completely valid search.
Agnostic means you entertain the possibility, but don't know for sure one way or another.
Atheist means you are simply absent the belief.
Seeing as all babies have to be taught about god and taught to believe in god, there must have been a time when they didn't believe, simply because they had no concept of what a god was.
At that time they were absent the belief. They were therefore Atheist.
This is an example where religious people just cannot grasp the concept of NOT beliveing in god.. they see it as a natural thing.. dont they see, it is not
You have to actively make the decision one day to believe in god - of course this happens to most people at very young ages (which is so immoral of the ones forcing it on kids it makes me sick, but thats another issue)
I disagree. Agnosticism is the natural state. Everyone has to admit they don't know unless they have had a direct experience of God, but even that can still be questioned. No one can prove God doesn't exist. You have to actively make the decision that you think God doesn't exist. But you don't know, you can't prove, and you never will.
That's just silly. So if I started a new cult worshipping flying pigs, would you sit on the fence and say you don't know whether or not my cult is real? That's Agnosticism.
Although we cannot *know* whether or not magical beings exist, we can reject certain ideas due to their irrationality. An all-loving God creating a Hell, for example, is simply irrational and *cannot* be plausible to any sane mind.
well, if thousands upon thousands of people have had experiences with flying pigs through deep meditation, and that experience brought about a blissful state, a feeling of immortality, being suspended above the body and mind, and becoming one with the entire universe, then yes I would put some faith into it.
I'm a theist and I do not believe in hell. I don't even think jesus believed in hell. I think it's a mistranslation and misconception in the bible mainly created by the Catholic church.
The religious mind wil never falter... Thye just cannot grasp the concept of us guys just simply not believeing in their god. Why is this so hard...
All I want is the tiniest piece of evidence, and I (may) believe
Getting me to bow down to Jesus of course is the next hurdle.. I believe in democracy, and I dont recall any election in the new testament giving us Jesus as our lord by a landslide majority.
Some religious minds can easily grasp that, I guess not the ones you have encountered. Evidence is found in one's direct, personal experience of God. Of course, mind expanding, ecstatic, blissful, transcendent experiences can all be explained in material terms (something weird in the brain). It only depends what paradigm you're in. You should try to be aware of your own.
wait, i was reading on Sikhism and what he said at 2:05
they believe that each religion will get you to god because God (which they believe has many names but not one `real` name) does not care about which religion you`re from.
I find it interesting that many people who call themselves atheists need this title and that while they are able to stay away from religion and religious books, they tend to be stuck on science books and science which has been and sometimes is wrong. Why is it so hard for almost all people to just admit that there are things that they do not know the answers to ?
because atheism has the aspects of a belief and the aspects of a culture.
as a belief, atheism is not religious or a religion. as a culture centered around the belief, there are people that need "trappings" of a belief, just like some (but not all) christians do. titles are part of that.
"Not all religions can be right, but they can all be wrong". "Why is it so hard for almost all people to just admit that there are things that they do not know the answers to", that's true. We can't know everything, but it's better to try to find out what we can than taking shots in the dark.
I've never used the word 'atheist' to describe myself. I suspect that term was first coined by the religious folk, who wanted to have a nice easy label, like everything else in their lives.
Science has nothing to do with faith. And when has the Scientific Method *ever* been wrong? Religious people are the ones who used to say the world was flat (it's even suggested in the Bible). Science has brought us all the technology, healthcare, etc, we have today.
Did you watch the video? It comes from the Greek word atheos meaning away from the belief in god or gods. I don't think labeling someone as an atheist is quite as bad as calling a group of people "religious folk" and making huge and terribly ignorant generalizations about that group. Watch how you stereotype my friend. Not everyone religious person is the same. Fundamentalist Christians differ greatly from yogis in India.
have you ever known a person who hated, based on rules from their religion? have you ever known a person who loved, based on rules from their religion? what are..a hating atheist and a hating member of a religion? they are haters. what are..a loving atheist and a loving member of a religion? they are believers.
@parafleet how about, givers and takers? why are these terms so important to us? believer, nonbeliever, unbeliever... people who love, give, freely, people who hate, take, all they can, is the way i see it, we have a choice to make :)
well, if common sense held the truth, we wouldn´t need research, would we. We could simply just think about it, and find the aswer through our common sense.
And btw, my common sense find your solution to the problem just as bad. Because you still asume something came from nothing. God... But yeah, I know, you just make that plausible, by saying he always existed. I like the logic...
What if the universe just "always existed"? It's really stupid and against common sense that you say first that something cannot come from nothing and then say that God has always existed. There is no proof that he even exists. On the contrary there is more proof about big bang. I don't say that i believe in it but there certainly is more proof.
Please explain to me how god created everything out of nothing....Oh wait you just said its common sense that something cannot come from nothing. I guess you disproved your own god. lol.
Common sense tells us that mere humans cannot possibly know where the universe came from. Religious folks are the only ones who claim to know. Atheists are trying to find out, rather than giving up and accepting a magical book as truth.
suggestion: go and watch the videos made by former atheist Lee Strobel. 'The Case for a Creator', 'The Case for Christ' are two of them. They are in book form as well. If you still don't 'want' to believe - it's your choice. One day you're going find out the truth about God no matter which way you choose. But I pray you'll find out by His love for you!
not only is atheism wrong/false, it's an oxymoron...in order for you to know (as you say) that God (supposedly) doesn't exist, you'd have to be God. therefore atheism is not only wrong in essence, moreover, it's ultimately fatal.
Dude, you are saying that there is a god, based solely on the fact that the universe came from somewhere. There is a major disconnect in that argument.
Did something create the universe? Yes.
Does that mean God exists? No. Your stupid magical fairy god is physically impossible. The Bible is obviously wrong, it contradicts much of proven science. Just admit that you don't fucking know. Leave it up to science to figure out where we came from, not magic books.
Actually, it's debatable that something created the universe. There is no proof that the universe needed creating. Unless you have a different definition for universe than I do. Here's mine, just in case:
u-ni-verse:
-noun
the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.
Furthermore, if something did create the universe, what created that something? If it does not or did not need to be created, why does the universe?
@diabloknk in china children do not ask their parents how they were made, but how they were grown, i think you are right in a sense, who created something, and who created the universe, are just... problematic phrases that we've inherited with our germanic language (what? english isn't just "english") with it's latin alphabet, and all the weird and wonderful routes.
the way i see it, there was always something, but perhaps it expands and contracts, and at one point it was small, and now it is..
@diabloknk "how many people would fall in love if they had never heard the phrase"? and how different would our lives look, if we did not have the words belief, god, and creation? my answer: not so very much.., and why does everyone insist on being right all the time anyway? if you're right, you'll wish you were wrong in some sense so that you can understand more, later, and if you're wrong, you'll feel silly for having tried to convince others. let people think what the want.., for a while.
The point about Sokrates' "vague" spirituality was interesting because there indeed are atheists whose look on life is spiritual, sometimes deeply so. I cannot imagine an atheist poet, for instance, who does not entertain some idea of life, beauty, etc as sacred, so organised religions do not really have a monopoly over the concept of spirituality.
@masameus the problem is when people categorize themselves or others, really, everyone knows there is "something", and it seems like that something can be "alive" or "dead", but we don't really know. poets can make that poignant.
and the more people pretend to know, the tougher their own lives get, instead of going on an adventure, they make everything a task; they --must-- know!
what kind of question is it that can only be answered post mortem anyway.
I really enjoyed this discussion, Jesse. I think I stand somewhere between needing proof of existence and finding sentimental comfort in the idea of a loving, higher power. Wonderfully thought provoking.
I enjoyed this very much, Jesse. I think I qualify as perhaps having borderline skepticism, but am held, nontheless by a powerful, albeit sentimental belief in the idea of something loving and all powerful.
believeing that Allah doesn't exist is like belivieng that harrican past through the jank yard and assembled boeing 767 that flies by itself!!! and they disbelieve only for their own destruction ie they do not harm God in least by disbelieving him but throw themselves into fire!
This 767 fallacy has been repeatedly shown to be false. Buy a biology text, and then actually read it. And then start applying some honest criticism to your own religion.
@dudefromlondon so if that's true, why are all your priests required?
if you've seen the light, why are you having such a hard time leading anyone to it?
and why is turning your back on islam punishable by death, if a far worse fate awaits those who do so anyway? :|
simple, religion is a mixture of sentimentality, control scheme, and regarding of certain things as sacred (love, art, life)... but how is that really so different from anything else people come up with? look into your heart, go on
de Sousa puts forth a very easily understandable viewpoint, while avoiding much of the acrimony that you see in a typical youtuber vlog concerning the subject
subversive enough. It is very clear from the Bible that the early Christians held all people -- men and women, slave and free, Jew and Gentile -- to be spiritual equals in Christ.
Atheists like De Sousa tend to moralize about how dangerous and childish religion is and how the Enlightenment was mankind's true salvation, but "evil" is a departure from the way the world "ought" to be. If there is no God to make such a transcendent determination, then it is all a matter of personal preference.
ElasticGiraffe 1 year ago
De Sousa felt unqualified to comment on the history of atheism, but he apparently believes he is qualified to speak on the history of religion. He mentions that early Christianity instructed slaves (who were indentured servants in the ANE, not slaves in the modern sense) to be kind to their masters, but he conveniently neglected to mention that early Christianity also instructed masters to show kindness to their slaves. It sounds like he is complaining that Christianity was NOT politically
ElasticGiraffe 1 year ago
Ronald de Sousa is apparently not only NOT a historian, he is also illiterate and not a philosopher, but, in fact, a SNAKE.
You have to look up every single claim these people are making.
Socrates believed in God, absolutely, he could only die for what he thought was the truth because there IS an afterlife.
Also, he spoke of a daemon being perched on his shoulder always telling him to do, what he knew he shouldn't.
read the trial of socrates yourselves, it is absolutely beautiful.
Samuelthemule 1 year ago
@Samuelthemule... incorrect. Perhaps you would not die in such a manner, but Socrates was willing. His charge was blasphemy against the gods of his day--specifically, atheism. The daemon was metaphorical, he believed not in literal spirits, and you are flatly misleading any readers. For shame.
praftman 1 year ago
Mt 9. 27-30
As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed him, calling out, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!"
When he had gone indoors, the blind men came to him, and he asked them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?"
"Yes, Lord," they replied.
Then he touched their eyes and said, "According to your faith will it be done to you"; and their sight was restored.
markch9v23 2 years ago
All experiences could be in the brain, but I still think that's just the model science is currently working with. I think the brain is a vehicle that allows consciousness to work on the level it does for humans, but that doesn't mean the brain produces consciousness.
sihayaiona 2 years ago
I guess if atheism is the absence of a belief then it is the natural state. But if atheism is the belief that there is no God, then it is an unnatural state and there is simply no evidence to support that claim nor will there ever be. When atheism becomes a belief it becomes a religion. I guess then my point is that atheists should say I do not have a belief in God rather than God doesn't exist. Soon you'll find buddhism, then neo-hinduism will sound cool to you, then you become a theist. Haha
sihayaiona 2 years ago
Do you believe there are no fairies? If so, that is an unnatural state according to your logic.
We don't sit on the fence regarding fairies, because we know the idea is absurd, yet fairies were widely believed to exist up until the 19th century.
The way I see it, atheism is merely a rejection of theism. Neither is a natural state because they are both reactionary views to a set of doctrines. No one has a view on, say, a book or a film if they've never even heard of that book/film before.
aliasbrush 2 years ago
Fairies most likely don't exist, but really, i don't know. My society tells me it's absurd and there is no evidence to support the belief, but I don't know. I agree that theism and atheism are unnatural states and are reactionary to a set of doctrines, but also to experiences of the Divine. But those experiences can be discredited as well. Really I am agnostic but I lean more towards theism than atheism. I like to think the things I experience in meditation are more than chemicals in the brain.
sihayaiona 2 years ago
Wow you explained what i've been pondering on for so long. Consciousness, in a material sense (and that's not getting into physics and string theories), can be "a vehicle that allows" of facilitated consciousness but I like to think that things I experience, and not just in meditation, are more than just chemicals in the brain. I come from mostly a Christian Science background, ha, though i was born into a Caholic family.
paulipaz 2 years ago
Anyway, i don't properly consider myself an atheist, though in the sense that there is a lack of "belief" i guess i am, mostly. But like you i can't entirely identify myself as such, nor can i identify as a theist. I'm simply non-religious. I don't consider myself a Christian Scientist, though i do attribute my upbringing in it to my own abstract conseptions of god in my early teens and then to my own search...
paulipaz 2 years ago
...for my love of philosophy, deep passion to investigate religions idiocracies (and not to mention atrocities), but mostly for my love of eastern philosophies, the so-called spiritual and for many things including my non-theistic, idiosyncratic views of life and the universe which have made me come into my own.
paulipaz 2 years ago
Anyway, i got off track to why i replied to your comment. About chemicals and consciousness and all that shit. Check out some medical cases of nearth-death experience where there was zero EEG activity and the person was able to still have some sort of perception, a form of consciousness before "coming back" to life. It's all really relative. Science is about laws of reality put to the test through verifiable methods as we see them with OUR SENSES, which are not infallible.
paulipaz 2 years ago
"I guess if atheism is the absence of a belief then it is the natural state."
Indeed, However, this definition would include such things as rocks. Rocks are not atheists, atheists do infact believe something about the topic in question.
sashajw1234 2 years ago
Atheism is the absence of specific beliefs.
kshackleton 2 years ago
"Atheism is the absence of specific beliefs."
The 'Absence of something' is not something that anything is, it is not an object or a property of anything. Therefore it is certainly not what atheism is.
sashajw1234 2 years ago
That is precicely why the term "atheism" is so bad. It's not an "ism" at all.
An Atheist is simply someone who is not a theist.
kshackleton 2 years ago
What atheists are not, ar theists and agnostics and people braindead on machines and so on.
WHat something is not, is not what something is. If an atheists is not a theist the what exactly is it. THe ancient greeks left us a crappy definition.
Atheists believe there are no gods, thats why they are atheists.
sashajw1234 2 years ago
"Atheists believe there are no gods, thats why they are atheists."
Correct, just like I believe that there are no unicorns, dragons, faeries, and trolls.
The term atheist indicates what I am not...I am not a theist. You are correct that it does not define who I am, it simply excludes me from certain groups.
I am also not a astrologer, but there is no term for that in our culture.
The term "atheism" implies a belief system, which is inaccurate. I am a Secular Humanist.
kshackleton 2 years ago
"Correct, just like I believe that there are no unicorns, dragons, faeries, and trolls."
Sure, but the 'absence of belief' is not what makes an atheist. It is the belief there are no gods.
"The term atheist indicates what I am not"
Not one thing that exists is.....what it....Is not. This is what you are saying when you say it is a definition of what I am not. WHat X is not, is not what X is.
sashajw1234 2 years ago
This is silly. There are an infinite number of things that I might believe do not exist.
"Do you believe that gods exist?"
"Uh...no."
It is precisely the absence of belief [in gods] which makes the atheist. The term atheist means Not Theist.
A person who has never been introduced to the concept of god[s] and has never conceived of supernatural entities is also an atheist. They are not a theist.
kshackleton 2 years ago
All newborn babies are atheists. They have no concept of god[s] and possess no such beliefs.
Yet, they have never taken the position that they "believe that no gods exist".
Your requirement that an atheist make such a statement is silly.
kshackleton 2 years ago
"Your requirement that an atheist make such a statement is silly."
No, whats silly is to say that what something is not, is what that something is. Theres no argument here, its a blatant logical impossibility.
sashajw1234 2 years ago
Human thought and language are not logically consistent. Never was, never will be.
kshackleton 2 years ago
"All newborn babies are atheists. They have no concept of god[s] and possess no such beliefs."
So do rocks, and things that don't exist. It does not require a human brain to have no concept of god.
To say that an atheist is only 'not something' is to say that an atheist does not exist. An atheist believes there is no god. They are not newborns, rocks or agnostics or theists. Infact they are not anything except what they are and what they are cannot be what they are not.
sashajw1234 2 years ago
The assumption when discussing atheists and theists is that we are talking about human beings.
Taken to extreme, you are correct that to say that an atheist is simply not theist would include rocks....however, most people understand without being told that we are talking about conscious humans when we discuss such things.
kshackleton 2 years ago
"To say that an atheist is only 'not something' is to say that an atheist does not exist."
Rubbish.
Most people are intelligent enough to understand without being told that an atheist is a living, conscious person that is also not a theist.
It's really simple, and you are acting intentionally obtuse.
kshackleton 2 years ago
Comment removed
sashajw1234 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"...atheist is a living, conscious person that is not a theist"
So what, so are agnostics. If an agnostic believed in god, said agnostic would be a theist. To say what something is not is what that something is, is to put forth a logical contradiction and prove that the something in question cannot exist. Its that simple.
sashajw1234 2 years ago
Here's another concept that might help. Do you believe that invertebrates exist? There is no biological classification specifically for invertebrates, yet we talk about them all the time. There is a classification for vertebrates, and we are in it.
Invertebrates are distinguished simply by what they do not have....a backbone...this says nothing about what they do have, yet....surprisingly, they actually exist.
kshackleton 2 years ago
"Invertebrates are distinguished simply by what they do not have"
The difference being that each invertebrate is actually something specific. Worms, ect. A vertebrate is what a worm is not, what it is is a worm.
There is no object that exists only as (not a vertebrate, or invertebrate)
Here, this might help
WHen we talk about an object that exists and say what it is not, we are not saying what it is.
What something is not and what something is are different things.
Obviously.
sashajw1234 2 years ago
I explained this already.
An atheist is a living, conscious human being who is not a theist.
Many atheists do declare "no gods", but *any* person who is not a theist is *by definition* an atheist.
That includes agnostics as well since to be a theist, one must make a positive declaration about belief in god[s]. A theist must say, "I believe that god[s] exist[s]."
If any living, conscious person who does not make this declaration is atheist by definition.
kshackleton 2 years ago
"The difference being that each invertebrate is actually something specific."
Each atheist is something specific too; human.
"A vertebrate is what a worm is not, what it is is a worm."
A worm is also commonly, and accurately described as an invertebrate. It's a way of saying that it's not like us vertebrates.
To deny this simply to protect your fallacious argument is insane.
Theists use the term "atheist" the same way; to distinuguish us from them.
kshackleton 2 years ago
"To deny this simply to protect your fallacious argument is insane."
You notters make me laugh. You claim that what X is not, is what X is. You see nothing wrong with that. Even though its impossible. LOL
"That includes agnostics as well since..."
Now agnostics are atheists?!?!?!?!
I dunno, your not very convincing.
sashajw1234 2 years ago
If an agnostic is noy a theist, then they are atheist by definition.
Athiest is a descriptor which means "not theist"
Clearly your command of english needs work.
kshackleton 2 years ago
Your argument about atheists looks pretty silly I insert invertebrates in its place, doesn't it?
Since invertebrate simply means "no backbone", it could also be applied to rocks, trees, the ocean; but we all know that's silly.
Just as the term "invertebrate" is limited to describing only *animals* without backbones; the term "atheist" is limited to described only those *people* who are not theists.
It is really that simple. If you don't like the ramifications of that, too fucking bad.
kshackleton 2 years ago
My argument is not silly. What is silly is to say what something is not is what that something is. Thats what your argument says. I have shown you why its false. Agnostics lack belief in God and ar not atheists. If they believed in God they woulkd not be agnostics. No stawman exists. There is no argument either. It is simple basic logic.
sashajw1234 2 years ago
Moreover if 'absence of believe in God' is the sole criterion for being an atheist then all agnostics are atheists. Which means agnostics don't really exist. WHich is obviously false. AGnostics and atheists are different because atheists believe there are no gods while agnostics don't assert belief on the question.
sashajw1234 2 years ago
Again....it's mind-numbingly simple. An atheist is someone who is not a theist. Agnostics are atheists who simply dislike the label of atheist for emotional reasons.
kshackleton 2 years ago
"An atheist is someone who is not a theist."
This statement is true, but not about what an atheist is. It only says what an atheist is not. 'Is' does not equal 'Is not'. LOL. The claim that it does is ridiculously absurd mainly because, its not possible.
You aspire to a logically flawed definition that arrived before formal logic.
sashajw1234 2 years ago
Strawman....again.....
I agree that the term does not say what the person is, it describes what they are not.
Such is the nature of language.
Theists commonly ascribe all sorts of characterizations to people who are not theists, one such characterization is that they deny god....some do, others simply say that there is not enough evidence to accept the claim that god exists....the difference is not that subtle, yet it seems to slip past you.
kshackleton 2 years ago
"I agree that the term does not say what the person is, it describes what they are not."
Right, and what something is not, is not what that something is. Very basic logical point. There is no Strawman, the defintion that the ancient greeks started is now flawed. Infact it always has been. Atheists believe no gods. Thats the kind of people we are. What we are not are theists or agnostics.
sashajw1234 2 years ago
"Right, and what something is not, is not what that something is."
Strawman, nobody makes this claim.
Once again....an atheist is someone who is not a theist. You have theists, and those people who are not theists are *by definition* atheists. Aside from being "not theist", they may have other attributes which could divide them further into other belief systems which do not involve god[s].
kshackleton 2 years ago
Let's say that you have a basket of many different types of fruit and other produce. You are interested in only the apples.
So, you put all the apples into one basket, and all the other things which are *not* apples go into another container.
You now have separated the apples from those things which are not apples. The "not-apples" may be many things, but what they are not....is apples.
Does this analogy work for you?
kshackleton 2 years ago
"Thats the kind of people we are. What we are not are theists or agnostics."
You seem hung up on the vernacular usage of the terms rather than the actual meaning of the terms. You need to get past that.
In the vernacular, I realize that agnostics are people who claim to not know and take no [stated] position on the question.
I also realize that the religious propoganda machine vilifies atheists as those heathens who "deny God".
These vernacular usages are not accurate.
kshackleton 2 years ago
I'm not hung up on anything. You can argue as much as you like. Saying what something is not will never be a definition of what something is. Unless you think that IS equals IS not. Which I'm going to assume you don't. THe greeks never defined what an atheist is and neither have you. To say I am not shackleton is true, but not about me at all. 'not shackleton' is not what I am. Your defintion is well over 1000 years old and came before formal logic.
sashajw1234 2 years ago
I am not here to argue the words original meaning. The eptymology is clear. However, its claim is laughable.
Atheism is even funnier.
Whats atheism, not theism.
BRILLIANT! LOL
You can't truly be completely on boad with this type of reasoning? Its utterly ridiculous.
sashajw1234 2 years ago
You are correct that the term "atheist" does not say what an atheist is, it only describes what group we are excluded from, and that the group known as theists.
In order to get a better handle on what people excluded from theists are all about, additional information is required.
However, the logic is simple and not in your favour. Make a pie chart that includes all of humanity, make a slice of whatever percentage suits you for theists. The rest, not being theists, are atheists; simple.
kshackleton 2 years ago
"The rest, not being theists, are atheists; simple."
It is not possible to know what something is until we know what it is. To say that something IS an atheist is to say that such an object HAS specific properties that make it what it is. What is the property that an atheist HAS that makes us what we are? What we are not is clear and has been for over a thousand years.
sashajw1234 2 years ago
I will simply close with the following.
We can know something about a thing [or person] by knowing what it is not. If we see a strange fruit, we might not know what it is, but we do know one thing that it is not....an apple.
When I describe myself as an atheist, without any additional information, all that you know is that I am not a theist.
Anything else that you assume about what I might be or believe, is simply an assumption that might be incorrect.
kshackleton 2 years ago
You may need to brush up on your remedial english. The following paired statements are interchangeable:
It is not a vertebrate.
It is an invertebrate.
He is not a moral person.
He is an ammoral person.
He is not a gnostic.
He is an agnostic.
He is not a theist.
He is an atheist.
Peace.
kshackleton 2 years ago
Comment removed
sashajw1234 2 years ago
"We can know something about a thing [or person] by knowing what it is not"
No we can't, if we only know what something is not it means we do not know what it is. We would know that something is not not an apple, because we know what an apple is. Definitions predicate the subject in a positive manner. If they do not, they do not describe the subject. Grammar friend, and logic. SImple.
sashajw1234 2 years ago
Read what I said....for comprehension this time. I did not say that we know what it is, I said that we know something about it.
Truly, your continual strawman is getting very tiring.
If I know that the object is not an apple, I may know nothing else about it, including what it is, but I do know something about it....I know that it's not an apple.
Donkey.
kshackleton 2 years ago
Dense as a post, aren't you?
"To say that something IS an atheist is to say that such an object HAS specific properties that make it what it is."
Ahem....only *someone* can be an atheist, as per the definition.
Which is, a person who is not a theist. Some groups are defined by what they are not, rather than by what they are:
Atheists: not theists
Invertebrates: Not vertebrates
kshackleton 2 years ago
"What is the property that an atheist HAS that makes us what we are?"
We are people who lack theistic beliefs. Beyond this, we can be anything.
It's quite simple, and really, really clear.
kshackleton 2 years ago
"We are people who lack theistic beliefs. Beyond this, we can be anything"
To say atheists are people is tautology. (A is A) its rhetoric. Atheists being people is a given and not needed in a definition of what an atheist is. Logic
'Atheists lack belief in god' - This staement is missing the primary predicate. A needed part of a defintion. Grammar
"Some groups are defined by what they are not"
Only an imbecile says things are what they are not. Your grammar and logic needs word.
sashajw1234 2 years ago
"Only an imbecile says things are what they are not. Your grammar and logic needs word. "
Word....strawman....look it up. I never made the claim that things are what they are not.
kshackleton 2 years ago
"To say atheists are people is tautology. (A is A) its rhetoric. Atheists being people is a given and not needed in a definition of what an atheist is. Logic"
Yet, earlier you said that the definition of atheists could include rocks? Are rocks people too?
"'Atheists lack belief in god' - This staement is missing the primary predicate. A needed part of a defintion. Grammar"
Right, so now we don't know if they are people?
Atheists are people who lack a belief in god......better?
kshackleton 2 years ago
"Yet, earlier you said that the definition of atheists could include rocks? Are rocks people too"
THe lack of belief in God is not anything at all. It cannot be a person it is not a property of anything. ATheists are people. THe definition therfore cannot say that something, which is a person is not anything at all. THats what your are saying.
sashajw1234 2 years ago
The negative predication that you are asserting is only a property that things don;t have. An atheist is a person, but so are theists. So what. THings that exists are defined with positive predication. Bottom line. WE need not say an atheist is a person, but the predicate must be a property that only a person can hold. DO you understand yet?
sashajw1234 2 years ago
Yes...I do.
A predicate provides us with information about the subject. In the case of the term "atheist", the only information that it provides is that the person does not possess theistic beliefs. That's all.
What beliefs does the atheist possess? It's anyone's guess, we only know for sure that we can exclude theistic ones from the list of possibilities.
kshackleton 2 years ago
What am I?
I am a Secular Humanist. I am agnostic in that I don't know if god[s] exist; *and*, I am atheist because I also do not believe that they exist either.
I am also a PEARList. I believe that the path to true knowledge is through Physical Evidence and Reasoned Logic.
I also reject dogmas out of hand. If it has evidenciary support, it is no longer dogma.
We humans are complex, we can be excluded, or included within multiple groups simultaneously.
Do you understand yet?
kshackleton 2 years ago
I found this definition for "predicate" in more than one source:
"a property, characteristic, or attribute that may be affirmed or denied of something."
The term "atheist" is a predicate which denies the property [characteristic, or attribute] of theistic belief for the subject.
Grammar....learn it.
kshackleton 2 years ago
Primary predicate is a description of what the subject IS. WHat something IS, is defined by the properties it has. WE cannot use negative predication (secondary predicate) to say what something is. Otherwise we end up saying WHat X is not is what X is. A laughable logical and gramatical failure. 'Notters' THats what you are. Sing your song if you want. You simply wrong. Nothing is defined by what it is not. Moronic Concept
sashajw1234 2 years ago
I guess that we can add predicates to the list of things that you fail to understand.
A predicate contains the verb and affirms or *denies* a property, characteristic, or attribute of something.
Primary and secondary predicates come into play when the sentence contains more than one predicate.
Subject-predicate:
[The hikers][returned to camp].
Subject-predicate-predicate
[The hikers][returned to camp][soaked to the skin].
kshackleton 2 years ago
A predicate which denies an attribute is *not* a secondary predicate, and one which affirms an attribute is not a primary predicate.
Grammar...learn it.
It is perfectly OK to say the following:
The man is an atheist.
"The man" being the subject, and "is an atheist" being the predicate.
This particular predicate is one which *denies* the attribute of theistic belief.
You can put your straw away now.
kshackleton 2 years ago 2
"Primary and secondary predicates come into play when the sentence contains more than one predicate."
Yup but the primary predicate is not used to say what something is by saying what it isn't. IN a definition, negative predication is the secondary predicate.
Atheists are (positive predication) then (Negative)
Again, to say atheists are people is unneeded information. Positive predication is still need to say why that person is such a thing. They we can state they are not theists.:/
sashajw1234 2 years ago
I'm done though, for someone who can articulate above average I find it quite funny that you think saying what something is not defines what something is. Saying what something is not does not define anything at all. Complete Joke. Utter Gibberish.
sashajw1234 2 years ago
"for someone who can articulate above average I find it quite funny that you think saying what something is not defines what something is."
There's the straw again.
As I have already said, the term "atheist" does not define what the person is, it simply identifies an attribute not possessed by said person. That attribute being theistic belief.
This creature is an invertebrate.
"Complete joke, utter gibberish. This does not tell us what this creature is at all."
Silly, eh?
kshackleton 2 years ago
"Agnostics are atheists"
Agnosticism is a position of knowledge. An agnostic asserts that they cannot know if there is a God. It is a formed opinion based on what 1 can know. THey do not assert true or not true about the question. They are not atheists. LOL
sashajw1234 2 years ago
"An agnostic asserts that they cannot know if there is a God."
Newsflash....nobody knows if there is a God. Some *claim* to know, but they don't really.
kshackleton 2 years ago
"Newsflash....nobody knows if there is a God. Some *claim* to know, but they don't really. "
Really? Gee thanks for pointing that out. Could that be why any assertion on the god question is a belief? Possibly
sashajw1234 2 years ago
Boy...you really do have trouble with simple concepts eh?
Theist - Believes in existence of god[s]
Atheist - Not a believer in the existence of god[s].
Gnostic - Claims to know that god[s] exist
Agnostic - Does not claim to know that gods exist. [note: this is not that same as claiming that such knowledge is impossible].
Your description of an atheist is better served by the term anti-theist.
kshackleton 2 years ago
You can have people who say:
"I don't know if God exists, but I believe on faith that He does" - agnostic theist
"I know that God exists" - gnostic theist
"I don't know if god[s] really exist, but I don't believe that they do." agnostic atheist
kshackleton 2 years ago
"Your description of an atheist is better served by the term anti-theist."
ANd your description of an atheists (not theist) renders it non existent. (Not theist) is not what anything IS. It is not an object, it does not exist. Atheists I'm afraid, are something, we do exists. What we are is made up of the properties we have. WHat we are not is is made up of the properties we do not have. Basic Logic 101
sashajw1234 2 years ago
If someone asks you if you believe in god, and your answer is "yes"; then you are a theist....any other answer [ no, not sure, I have never thought of it before] means that you are not a theist....which by definition, is atheist.
kshackleton 2 years ago
"There is no object that exists only as (not a vertebrate, or invertebrate)"
This is why your argument is fallacious. It's a strawman.
Nobody has ever claimed that about atheists, nobody; not ever.
The term "atheist" is a descriptor which is applied only to humans.
Whenever anyone talks about atheists, or theists for that matter, the sentence always begins with the word "Someone", or "Person".
You cannot be atheist or theist without also being human.
kshackleton 2 years ago
This might help:
Everywhere where you see the term "atheist" or "atheism", replace it with the term "not theist" or "not theism".
Having done that, it becomes obvious that most of the claims that the religious make about "atheists" are pretty silly.
kshackleton 2 years ago
I don't see how people can be so sure about something not existing. If someone is sure about God they have probably had experiences that makes them sure. But no one can experience something not existing. Atheist should just be agnostic. They don't know, they have never experienced God. And I'll never hear one of them say, "I've experienced the non existence of God." It's like saying "China doesn't exist because I've never experienced it." You've never been there, you don't know.
sihayaiona 2 years ago
I don't know any atheists who say they know God doesn't exist. My position is that there is zero evidence for God, material, logical, empirical or otherwise, therefore I have no faith/belief/comment on the concept of "God".
Atheists ARE agnostics. Atheism simply means you have no faith in a God. Personally I'm waiting for evidence.
Further, you're trying to put the burden of evidence on the wrong side of the court. You're the one making the claim that a supernatural being exists. Prove it.
Alpha1Bravo1Charlie1 2 years ago 2
Evidence will most likely never be found materially or empirically because God is not purely physical or can God's entire, infinite being perceived through the senses. God can be perceived through intuition during deep meditation when the body and mind are still. It is hard to deny when one feels unified with an eternal consciousness, permeating the entire universe, that they are not in tune with what the Abrahamic religions call God.
sihayaiona 2 years ago
Prove to me that meditation does a what you're saying it does. As a neuroscience specialist I can tell you right now that any experience you have under meditation is simply chemical reactions occurring in your brain.
If God has ever has any effect on this world it should be observable. If he made the grand canyon, we should be able to verify that. If he made humans, we should be able to verify that. But as it stands there is no suggestion at all that God exists whatsoever.
Alpha1Bravo1Charlie1 2 years ago 2
Well that's your materialistic paradigm. I would say the brain reacts when one is realizing the Divine, but it is not the source of that experience. Also people have put there brain waves to zero and still have had conscious experiences. Watch the Ken Wilber video, he almost almost does it.
sihayaiona 2 years ago
One more thing. You make a lot of claims about god, and not a single one of them has any credibility. You say God cannot be perceived through the senses, and I ask why not? And how do you know he can't be?
To me you're just as idiotic as the Egyptian sun worshippers, or the Aztec blood crazed priests. There's nothing that supports your claims, and I feel no regret in dismissing them without consideration.
Alpha1Bravo1Charlie1 2 years ago 2
Because I talk to word of the the great yogis of India (Paramhansa, Yuketswar, Mahasaya, Aurobindo). They could be all wrong and they all could be schizo, delusional fools. But they all used the same techniques and had the same realizations of the Divine and came to the same conclusions. Were they culturally influenced, yes, but I would still say their experiences transcend culture. Mystics around the world have had similar experiences.
sihayaiona 2 years ago
nice and very intelligent interview!!!!
mihaicosmos 2 years ago
God DOES excist
'' those who truly search for the thruth, they will find it''
First try to convince yourself logically, and than believe in him with whole your heart.
Ask Jezus to be your lord and savior and admit that you are a sinner and ask forgiveness; Gods mercy is the only thing that can save us.
watch: youtube;
Chris Langan interviews about god ( his IQ is 200, Albert Einsteins IQ was 160 )
And watch '' startling proofs: does god really excist? ''
Tomdabombb91 2 years ago
I definitely don't believe in religion but in the creator... what does that make me?
elijahbleu1 2 years ago
theist
Glufffo 2 years ago
thanks!
elijahbleu1 2 years ago
A spiritual being.
Taijar 2 years ago
It makes you an idiot. Why believe in a sentient being that existed and made everything? It makes no sense to me.
Alpha1Bravo1Charlie1 2 years ago
Something created this universe, it may not be a sentient being but it is something. Personally it makes no sense to me that what ever put everything into motion was less intelligent then humans.
sihayaiona 2 years ago
"Something created this universe"
How do you know that? There is absolutely nothing that suggests anything created this universe. Just because the things inside this universe follow certain rules, it doesn't mean that the universe itself follows those rules.
Further, if you're so adamant that it had to be created, then what created the creator? Does he need creating too? This logic leads to an impossible place.
There's nothing to validate anything you've said.
Alpha1Bravo1Charlie1 2 years ago
if nothing created the universe (autonomic forces or otherwise) then it wouldn't be here. Everything needs to be created to exist. What ever did create the finite, manifest world is probably infinite. It is impossible for nothing to have created the universe. Scientists should try to find out exactly what did. If they listened to your logic, "nothing created the universe, this logic is impossible." then they would go no where in their completely valid search.
sihayaiona 2 years ago
"Road TO atheism"??
We are born atheist
tmcthree 3 years ago 3
wrong, we are born agnostic. although this could be semantics too.
flyingturtle22 2 years ago
Nope.
Agnostic means you entertain the possibility, but don't know for sure one way or another.
Atheist means you are simply absent the belief.
Seeing as all babies have to be taught about god and taught to believe in god, there must have been a time when they didn't believe, simply because they had no concept of what a god was.
At that time they were absent the belief. They were therefore Atheist.
tmcthree 2 years ago 2
This is an example where religious people just cannot grasp the concept of NOT beliveing in god.. they see it as a natural thing.. dont they see, it is not
You have to actively make the decision one day to believe in god - of course this happens to most people at very young ages (which is so immoral of the ones forcing it on kids it makes me sick, but thats another issue)
Atheism is the natural state
markgg1 2 years ago
I disagree. Agnosticism is the natural state. Everyone has to admit they don't know unless they have had a direct experience of God, but even that can still be questioned. No one can prove God doesn't exist. You have to actively make the decision that you think God doesn't exist. But you don't know, you can't prove, and you never will.
sihayaiona 2 years ago
That's just silly. So if I started a new cult worshipping flying pigs, would you sit on the fence and say you don't know whether or not my cult is real? That's Agnosticism.
Although we cannot *know* whether or not magical beings exist, we can reject certain ideas due to their irrationality. An all-loving God creating a Hell, for example, is simply irrational and *cannot* be plausible to any sane mind.
aliasbrush 2 years ago
well, if thousands upon thousands of people have had experiences with flying pigs through deep meditation, and that experience brought about a blissful state, a feeling of immortality, being suspended above the body and mind, and becoming one with the entire universe, then yes I would put some faith into it.
sihayaiona 2 years ago
I'm a theist and I do not believe in hell. I don't even think jesus believed in hell. I think it's a mistranslation and misconception in the bible mainly created by the Catholic church.
sihayaiona 2 years ago 2
I know its so patronising and insulting to suggest i 'became' an atheist...
Ive always been one, and always be
markgg1 2 years ago 2
Indeed, when in fact you' simply weren't stupid enough to fall for it in the first place.
tmcthree 2 years ago
The religious mind wil never falter... Thye just cannot grasp the concept of us guys just simply not believeing in their god. Why is this so hard...
All I want is the tiniest piece of evidence, and I (may) believe
Getting me to bow down to Jesus of course is the next hurdle.. I believe in democracy, and I dont recall any election in the new testament giving us Jesus as our lord by a landslide majority.
markgg1 2 years ago
Some religious minds can easily grasp that, I guess not the ones you have encountered. Evidence is found in one's direct, personal experience of God. Of course, mind expanding, ecstatic, blissful, transcendent experiences can all be explained in material terms (something weird in the brain). It only depends what paradigm you're in. You should try to be aware of your own.
sihayaiona 2 years ago
wait, i was reading on Sikhism and what he said at 2:05
they believe that each religion will get you to god because God (which they believe has many names but not one `real` name) does not care about which religion you`re from.
NoctheniK 3 years ago
i'm not an atheist however i find it interesting that more people have been killed in the name of God (Allah, Buddah, etc) than anything else
valleyygirl 3 years ago
Then use your brain, think.. is it really worth supporting?
piepgras 3 years ago
I find it interesting that many people who call themselves atheists need this title and that while they are able to stay away from religion and religious books, they tend to be stuck on science books and science which has been and sometimes is wrong. Why is it so hard for almost all people to just admit that there are things that they do not know the answers to ?
cwalwanis 3 years ago
because atheism has the aspects of a belief and the aspects of a culture.
as a belief, atheism is not religious or a religion. as a culture centered around the belief, there are people that need "trappings" of a belief, just like some (but not all) christians do. titles are part of that.
tubedeejay 3 years ago
"Not all religions can be right, but they can all be wrong". "Why is it so hard for almost all people to just admit that there are things that they do not know the answers to", that's true. We can't know everything, but it's better to try to find out what we can than taking shots in the dark.
SHSH1212 3 years ago
I've never used the word 'atheist' to describe myself. I suspect that term was first coined by the religious folk, who wanted to have a nice easy label, like everything else in their lives.
Science has nothing to do with faith. And when has the Scientific Method *ever* been wrong? Religious people are the ones who used to say the world was flat (it's even suggested in the Bible). Science has brought us all the technology, healthcare, etc, we have today.
aliasbrush 2 years ago
Did you watch the video? It comes from the Greek word atheos meaning away from the belief in god or gods. I don't think labeling someone as an atheist is quite as bad as calling a group of people "religious folk" and making huge and terribly ignorant generalizations about that group. Watch how you stereotype my friend. Not everyone religious person is the same. Fundamentalist Christians differ greatly from yogis in India.
sihayaiona 2 years ago
religions are a great way for haters to hate.
religions are a great way for lovers to love.
have you ever known a person who hated, based on rules from their religion? have you ever known a person who loved, based on rules from their religion? what are..a hating atheist and a hating member of a religion? they are haters. what are..a loving atheist and a loving member of a religion? they are believers.
parafleet 3 years ago
@parafleet how about, givers and takers? why are these terms so important to us? believer, nonbeliever, unbeliever... people who love, give, freely, people who hate, take, all they can, is the way i see it, we have a choice to make :)
Samuelthemule 1 year ago
If the universe is timeless and infinite then it doesn't need a creator. Think about it. :D
nainamor 4 years ago 2
if you want to learn about real truth, the well known Robert Morey has many books and videos. check them out. you'll be very enlightened!
dontdielost 4 years ago
common sense tells us that something cannot come from nothing...think about it
dontdielost 4 years ago
well, if common sense held the truth, we wouldn´t need research, would we. We could simply just think about it, and find the aswer through our common sense.
And btw, my common sense find your solution to the problem just as bad. Because you still asume something came from nothing. God... But yeah, I know, you just make that plausible, by saying he always existed. I like the logic...
HKragh 4 years ago
of course He always existed. your common sense should serve you well in believing the truth. that which Jesus is...
dontdielost 4 years ago
What if the universe just "always existed"? It's really stupid and against common sense that you say first that something cannot come from nothing and then say that God has always existed. There is no proof that he even exists. On the contrary there is more proof about big bang. I don't say that i believe in it but there certainly is more proof.
maielle89 4 years ago
Please explain to me how god created everything out of nothing....Oh wait you just said its common sense that something cannot come from nothing. I guess you disproved your own god. lol.
kubush 4 years ago
Common sense tells us that mere humans cannot possibly know where the universe came from. Religious folks are the only ones who claim to know. Atheists are trying to find out, rather than giving up and accepting a magical book as truth.
pnoozi 4 years ago 2
@pnoozi "common sense... is not so common" voltaire :p
Samuelthemule 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
suggestion: go and watch the videos made by former atheist Lee Strobel. 'The Case for a Creator', 'The Case for Christ' are two of them. They are in book form as well. If you still don't 'want' to believe - it's your choice. One day you're going find out the truth about God no matter which way you choose. But I pray you'll find out by His love for you!
dontdielost 4 years ago
Atheists are not bad people, and being an Atheist is not wrong.
SJP3793 4 years ago
not only is atheism wrong/false, it's an oxymoron...in order for you to know (as you say) that God (supposedly) doesn't exist, you'd have to be God. therefore atheism is not only wrong in essence, moreover, it's ultimately fatal.
dontdielost 4 years ago
Dude, you are saying that there is a god, based solely on the fact that the universe came from somewhere. There is a major disconnect in that argument.
Did something create the universe? Yes.
Does that mean God exists? No. Your stupid magical fairy god is physically impossible. The Bible is obviously wrong, it contradicts much of proven science. Just admit that you don't fucking know. Leave it up to science to figure out where we came from, not magic books.
pnoozi 4 years ago 3
Actually, it's debatable that something created the universe. There is no proof that the universe needed creating. Unless you have a different definition for universe than I do. Here's mine, just in case:
u-ni-verse:
-noun
the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.
Furthermore, if something did create the universe, what created that something? If it does not or did not need to be created, why does the universe?
diabloknk 4 years ago 4
@diabloknk in china children do not ask their parents how they were made, but how they were grown, i think you are right in a sense, who created something, and who created the universe, are just... problematic phrases that we've inherited with our germanic language (what? english isn't just "english") with it's latin alphabet, and all the weird and wonderful routes.
the way i see it, there was always something, but perhaps it expands and contracts, and at one point it was small, and now it is..
Samuelthemule 1 year ago
@diabloknk "how many people would fall in love if they had never heard the phrase"? and how different would our lives look, if we did not have the words belief, god, and creation? my answer: not so very much.., and why does everyone insist on being right all the time anyway? if you're right, you'll wish you were wrong in some sense so that you can understand more, later, and if you're wrong, you'll feel silly for having tried to convince others. let people think what the want.., for a while.
Samuelthemule 1 year ago
Given most of the stuff on atheism I've seen on YouTube, it was very nice to see an actual reasoned discussion on this topic.
bbbbbguy 4 years ago 3
The point about Sokrates' "vague" spirituality was interesting because there indeed are atheists whose look on life is spiritual, sometimes deeply so. I cannot imagine an atheist poet, for instance, who does not entertain some idea of life, beauty, etc as sacred, so organised religions do not really have a monopoly over the concept of spirituality.
masameus 4 years ago
@masameus the problem is when people categorize themselves or others, really, everyone knows there is "something", and it seems like that something can be "alive" or "dead", but we don't really know. poets can make that poignant.
and the more people pretend to know, the tougher their own lives get, instead of going on an adventure, they make everything a task; they --must-- know!
what kind of question is it that can only be answered post mortem anyway.
agreee/disagree?
Samuelthemule 1 year ago
de sousa is brilliant!
nowayjose1970 4 years ago
Big thanks to Jesse Hirsh for all his interviews.
Kaknelson 4 years ago
Man, these academic atheists have been reading my diary.
Desireemaxis 4 years ago
I really enjoyed this discussion, Jesse. I think I stand somewhere between needing proof of existence and finding sentimental comfort in the idea of a loving, higher power. Wonderfully thought provoking.
DeeGirdler 4 years ago
I enjoyed this very much, Jesse. I think I qualify as perhaps having borderline skepticism, but am held, nontheless by a powerful, albeit sentimental belief in the idea of something loving and all powerful.
DeeGirdler 4 years ago
This man seems to be muddying the divisions between atheism and agonsticism...?
WFM123Bone 4 years ago
believeing that Allah doesn't exist is like belivieng that harrican past through the jank yard and assembled boeing 767 that flies by itself!!! and they disbelieve only for their own destruction ie they do not harm God in least by disbelieving him but throw themselves into fire!
dudefromlondon 4 years ago
This 767 fallacy has been repeatedly shown to be false. Buy a biology text, and then actually read it. And then start applying some honest criticism to your own religion.
seathanaich 4 years ago 2
@dudefromlondon so if that's true, why are all your priests required?
if you've seen the light, why are you having such a hard time leading anyone to it?
and why is turning your back on islam punishable by death, if a far worse fate awaits those who do so anyway? :|
simple, religion is a mixture of sentimentality, control scheme, and regarding of certain things as sacred (love, art, life)... but how is that really so different from anything else people come up with? look into your heart, go on
Samuelthemule 1 year ago
hi everyone
reddbreze 4 years ago
Kinda cool show, i like how relaxed and neutral topics are approached. Most TV discussions are a lot harder on the brain, and not due to depth ;)
HiAdrian 4 years ago
de Sousa puts forth a very easily understandable viewpoint, while avoiding much of the acrimony that you see in a typical youtuber vlog concerning the subject
yoyopro 4 years ago
Awesome! thanks
shibumi81 4 years ago
Yay! Thanks for posting the other side of the debate of morality.
OneWorldOneLife 4 years ago