Oh I just re-watched this vid and see it disputes Webster's Dictionary. Lol. Words develop by common usage. You can't just petition a dictionary to change it's meaning. It reflects us, not vice versa. "Atheist" comes from a derivation "atheos" which is "without god" and the "ism" is added after. It is NOT a- (without) -theism (belief in God). There is a whole group of people who disbelieve the existence of God and they are called Atheists in English. They don't take it as a negative connotation.
Oh my, still the same argument? Just look it up in a dictionary -- it's really clear. Comparing the a- in atheism" to a- in apathy is not really valid to assert it's meaning. Looking up the full word valid.
merriam-webster[dot]com/dictionary/atheism
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Look up "disbelief" if necessary. There really needn't be further argument.
From personal observation, I believe the majority of atheists themselves agree on this definition and are not afraid to assert their belief that there is no God. You could even do a search of atheist videos about this subject -- I did.
@IfUrGivingIn Your statement that "a" denotes a negative doesn't fit into the meaning of words like "apathy", where "pathy" represents feeling and "a" represents without -- not the negative equivalent of "feeling".
@bleunt [The difference between "amoral" and "immoral".]
Morla comes from a Latin stem and has no relevance to our discussion however, apathy comes from the greek word "pathos" so it's "a" (without, negative) + pathos, yes.
Let's look at "atheism." It comes from the greek word atheos, which is "a" (without, negative) + theos (god), and equates to "godless" or "without god." The suffix "-ism" is added as a "system of beliefs" and forms the word atheism (godless + belief).
@IfUrGivingIn Godless doesn't directly translate into a denial of god, though. Which is what he's saying. You're not really on the other side of his argument here. I could bring up the word apathy again, but I'd just be repeating myself.
@IfUrGivingIn "godless belief = believe there are no gods." That's where we disagree. However, if -ism always means "belief", then I would say that's misrepresenting the concept as well. Though I'm not buying that it always does, since it comes from the greek suffix -ismos, which can also be described as an act, a state, characteristic or condiction. And more. So anything with the suffix -ism doesn't need to be described as a belief, as I interpret it.
@IfUrGivingIn And in this case, the lack of such religious beliefs. Which could very well be scientifically based. Just because science doesn't support religion, doesn't make the scientific opinion religion. Just like religion that doesn't support scientific opinion isn't science.
@bleunt "Just because science doesn't support religion, doesn't make the scientific opinion religion. Just like religion that doesn't support scientific opinion isn't science."
... atheism isn't scientific opinion. I didn't even bring science up, it's irrelevant to this discussion.
"And in this case, the lack of such religious beliefs."
"The lack of such religious beliefs" wasn't a defintion under the term "-ism."
There are two ways to break up the word atheism (it can break down to without belief in god or belief without god). Whether you LIKE it or not, both definitions are in fact proper for atheism and you should just deal with it.
While I agree that I define atheism the same way as you do, when some people use it they are referring to a belief that God doesn't exist or any of the other problems you mentioned. The purpose of the dictionary is to allow someone to understand the meaning another person might be trying to convey, and if anyone uses atheist to mean godlessness, then that makes it a valid definition. That definition does not become invalid because you do not agree with it.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. Even for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing harm and even extinction, not upward evolution. Genetic similarities are better explained due to a common design for common purposes.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
i have come to realize that the term 'atheist' can mean someone who merely lacks a belief in God: that is a negative (or weak) atheist. But there is also a positive (or strong) atheist who believes that God does not exist. i, myself, am a positive atheist. but my point is that there are both negative atheists and positive atheists.
@DaveScottBlair Well I see your explanation of atheism as rational, I still disagree. An atheist is still someone who lacks a belief in a god. You lack a belief in god, but you also claim to know that there is no god. That makes you a gnostic atheist(strong or positive is fine too). The prefix "a" means not or without. So you are without belief in god. Whether you are agnostic or gnostic, it doesn't change the definition of atheism.
@Kazzo98 The bottomline is that you do not believe in a God. Regardless of definition you are an atheist: A(=not) Theist(someone who believes in God or gods). His point was that some people misrepresent what atheism is, e.g telling people that atheists deny the existence of God. It's kind of hypocritical when you think about it, a theist is someone who believes in God, then how come an atheist is not being defined as someone who does not believe in a god (i.e Lack in belief of God or gods)?
@Kazzo98 Being an atheist is just a non-belief in a god claim. Its probably wise to explore why you doubt a claim so check out talkorigins or ironchariots websites to help answer some questions that might be nagging at you. A well informed atheist is a good goal, as it reflects well on both you and others.
Atheism is both the lack of a belief in god and the belief that there is no god. Unless you can find me a situation where an atheist would answer "no" when someone asks "do you believe there is no god". I still prefer to think of it as a lack of a belief, but it's both.
@urantivirus Atheism is the lack of a belief in god or gods, thats it. There is no belief involved. Change the last part in your question to see how pointless it is. "do you believe there is no fairies", "do you believe there is no lock ness monster" The only honest answer from the majority of atheists would be "there is insufficent evidence of the existence of a god, fairies or bigfoot". There MIGHT be a god, fairy or bigfoot of some sorts, but disbelief is the sane choice until proven true.
@AMomentOfClarity2011 yeah I was on the fence on that one, but I've been convinced it's only a lack of a belief since then. in the end i don't really care though, it doesn't change the credibility of atheism. the total lack of proof for god and naturalistic explanations are all I need.
I really don't see what difference it makes whether you call it a belief or not. Beliefs, opinions and ideas are all practically the same. The idea that atheism is not a belief seems like a hollow attempt by atheists to distance themselves from their arguments. Stand up and face the music!
@user6773 Theism is a belief in a god or gods. Atheism is a lack thereof. There's a difference and it matters. We're not trying to distance ourselves from our arguments, we're trying to clear up misrepresentation and outright propaganda spreading lies about our position, which is NOTHING MORE than the lack of a belief in a god.
@bobthecat420 Well, I think that's a reasonable definition if you're not going to actively oppose theism, but I'd be more inclined to call that agnosticism. After all, what should we call people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens? I don't think it's fair to call them atheists by your definition, but at the same time, they are far from agnostic.
@DaveScottBlair Yes, lets just ignore the prefix "a" and the word "theist" to fit the religious definition. Your "traditional" definition makes no sense.
And what does Oxford dictionary have to say about all this?
"a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods"
Hmm, I guess Oxford isn't traditional? No wait, Webster isn't traditional.
Why do you like hanging on the word non-theist? What's your reasoning?
Are we really that hated for our lack of belief in the supernatural? Most of us use reason and logic to deal with problems or situations, yet we are frowned upon, now, Joe Shmoe claims that a certain deity is helping him, he shows no solid proof for his claims, yet people don't admonish him for making such wild claims...
This brings to mind the de-motivational poster meme from the furutrama professor: "I don't want to live on this planet any more"
@MrNemitri These days reason is ridiculed and gulibility is glorified. Those who resist peer pressure and refuse to accept unsubstantiated claims are demonized and misrepresented. It's pretty sad.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
WHAT ABOUT THE STARS? Gravity explains how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but gravity can't explain the origin of that order! Did all the trillions stars agree to get out of each others way? C'mon! Disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the order is because of design. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that undirected natural laws can bring about an airplane or a living cell. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument for a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed in design or useless.
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from variations produced having survival value. It doesn't produce variations. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of transitional forms and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
It sounds like you just don't LIKE one common definition because it doesn't conform to your own personal usage. To quote The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (more authoritative than yourself): "A widely used sense merely denotes not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God; this use has become the standard one." (pp.51-2). Your definition is too weak because it makes inanimate objects atheists.
Atheist would literally mean without god. Atheism with the suffix 'ism' means an established doctrine.
A literal atheist would be someone who does not have god. How so? In the Christian sense? Then you would be right. But if there is no god then most accurate definition we could give the word, by your logic, would be 'ignorance of god'. There are no atheists in this sense. Maybe one born on a desert island.
Yeah... this tends to happen when religious people are the majority. They can't even read their books without having a multitude of interpretations. It comes as no surprise that they would misrepresent the definition of a position they find particularly distasteful. It's not enough that atheists lack a belief in their god or gods. Atheists have to be disobedient too - which really isn't the case. Theists have never had evidence for their God, which is why atheists don't believe them.
For a great example of the definition tinkering and cognitive dissonance spoken of in this vid checkout Onetruthrvg's vid tittled Refuting Atheism "I Lack Belief"
Can you honestly tell me mr patrician athiest that you have never, since deciding to forsake belief in a higher power, said "oh my god, goddamnit, jesus, etc?"
Also, theists aren't atheists by any degree of not believing in other gods or whatnot. Theist is by defintion believing in the existence of a god or many gods. The idea that such a belief would require denying by assertion the existence of other proposed deities isn't a position of doubt in them but solidity in their form of theism. A theist being one step away from atheism is the same as an atheist being one step away from theism ... 2 concepts diametrically opposed aren't that close.
This is a very amusing subject and one I can't get over. Atheist is by definition "one who does not believe in a deity or deities" rather than "one who believes there is no deity or deities". However, in truth, there are people from both camps that identify themelves as atheists and the ones in line with the latter interpretation hide behind the former definition when challenged. That being, atheists that assert do hide behind the position of non-assertion.
@nothingmemorable If one of my students were so intellectually engaged as to come up with something as thought-provoking & well-researched as this, I would commend him/her, whether I agreed with him/her or not. I can only assume that you are a person of faith & thus offended. Imagine that "high school teacher" were defined in some dictionaries as "person responsible for indoctrination, for inculcating dogma, for dishing out unreasonable punishments"; surely you would want to challenge that.
Thomas Stobie's definition made me laugh. Yes i don't believe organized religion exist =P I've never met the Pope! The one we see on TV is probably two midgets in a robe. LOL
Ytalker-I was not raised in religion and it never crossed my mind that there was a godthingy.It never came up,never impacted on my life.This strange belief that children believe in godthingy naturally is nonsense.Children only "believe"when they have been told by their adults about it.What biology do you study that has genes for godthingy belief and evolutionary advantages to belief in godthingy?
Who cares? I mean, really, atheism is probably the most annoying intellectual fad of the contemporary. It will die off soon enough, and then the rest of us can get on with our lives.
@Hanahleia die off? great joke! Atheists are the fastest growing majority in he world. Big portion of Europe and majority of Asia are atheists. In US at least 15% of people are atheists (doubled since 2000). If you think that old books with numerous atrocities and stupidity will overpower science, reason and logic, you are beyond saving! Religion has NOTHING to offer to society what so ever. Go back to caves with your primitive beliefs.
@eleminatus Because the real root of all religion lies in the mystical experience. It's a profound altered state of consciousness which today is being called "cosmic consciousness" or what Terence McKenna called "The Gaian mind." It's in this experience where the notion of the divine came from in the first place. That's why I think atheists are wasting their time. Not a lot of people are familiar with mystical experiences, but a quick and easy method to go about having one is a shamanic method.
@Hanahleia yeah, its called subconsciousness and we know about it. Meditation taps into it, prayer attempts to do the same. We know quite a lot about it. The fact that you give it weird made up names and apply mystical characteristics, just shows your ignorance of current scientific understanding!
@eleminatus No, I'm not giving it weird "made up" names or applying some mystical characteristic. This is not insight to the subconscious as Freud would have you understand it, to a personal reservoir of your memories and so forth; it's instead an acknowledgement of a phenomenon that can happen to anyone. This is closer to insight into what Jung referred to as the "collective unconscious." It's a powerful altered state, and it may be our own minds lit up to a potential that's incomprehensible.
@Hanahleia yet another unjustified interpretation of something you dont understand! Must be great jumping to conclusions without anything to back it up!
@eleminatus Are you familiar with Dr. Rick Strassman's work or Terence McKenna's work for that matter? And btw, these aren't my conclusions. They're sort of the collective conclusions of a consensus in the psychedelic community, which I suppose, is the only place these conclusions can occur since these are the only people using these substances at effective doses. If you're interested in the psychedelic experience, here's a suggestion:
@Hanahleia they both worked with psychedelic substances, most commonly DMT. Strassman experimented on people and it resulted in them seeing hallucinations - different life forms, gods etc. If you wanna tell me its higher levels of consciousness, go ahead. Junkies while high see all kinds of things as well. Maybe they should become spiritual healers? Associating hallucinations with spirituality will get you nowhere. Just like the gentlemen you referred to.
@eleminatus I used to have your perspective. You're obviously someone who hasn't had this experience, that's why I left that suggestion "How to use Psychedelics." Someone I didn't mention who is also quite articulate on the topic is Graham Hancock. No one uses psychedelics at high doses or at doses that Terence McKenna recommended. Psychedelics are not addicting substances. When people hear "junkie," I'm sure heroin, meth, or cocaine come to mind, not psychedelics.
@Hanahleia I did not say they are addicting. I said they have similar effects with detrimental drugs like cocaine or meth. You wanna tell me that you believe, that when you consume a substance which causes you to hallucinate and see things that are naturally impossible, that that state is some sort of transcendent state of mind?!
@eleminatus You can't get where LSD takes you on meth or cocaine. Yes, what I'm saying is that your preconceived notion of what a hallucination is probably something you've seen in a movie, i.e. pink elephants, etc. That's not what it is. It's rather a transpersonal experience and that's why it's so profound. In other words, there's "motifs" in the trance that aren't reducible to a single person's experience. It isn't the detritus of someone's subconscious memories or their personal history.
@Hanahleia can you support your claims by evidence? research, papers etc. One researcher you referred to previously certainly proved that those chemical compounds effect our brain and cause hallucinations. However none of them got even close to proving that those hallucinations are more then chemicals interfering with normal brain activity.
@eleminatus Right now research on psychedelics is illegal in most major countries, so you won't find much on the topic. Strassman or Graham Hancock are pioneers in this field, as were Timothy Leary or Terence McKenna. The real evidence, however, is the experience itself. After all, what if you found yourself in this altered state spontaneously? Then, normalcy is seen for its relativity. This experience can be compared to "satori" of Zen meditation or "samadhi" in Hinduism. R U familiar with DMT?
@Hanahleia DMT is a psychedelic compound, a hallucinogen. LSD, PCP, mescaline, psilocybin are all psychedelic hallucinogens too. These substances interfere with neurotransmitter work and cause various misconceptions of the reality - hallucinations. Thats what they do, they make your brain see and feel things that are not there. Calling it a higher state of consciousness from your own speculations is intellectually dishonest.
@eleminatus Usually the assumption that these compounds cause misconceptions about reality is made by people who don't have experience with this stuff. What you discover when you actually take this stuff at effective doses is something like an overmind, an intelligent presence of some sort or what Jung called the "collective unconscious." Btw, these aren't my speculations, it's a collective consensus as far as I can discern for people who are familiar with "effective doses."
@eleminatus (continued) After coming back from the psychedelic experience, if you're religious, you may say something like, "I saw God," if you're atheist, you may reach for a more mathematical diction, as in, "I glimpsed a higher dimension." In either case, something trascendental and interconnected is intuitively felt by the individual. Terence McKenna is perhaps one of the most articulate on the subject, so I leave you with this suggestion:
@Hanahleia yours, or anyones who is familiar with "effective doses" opinion is irrelevant since its subjective. Moreover, experiences vary from one time to another and from person to person, so its not even consistent. Neither people experiencing it, nor people observing and researching it, can examine the phenomenon, so its also untestable. Yet you, and I assume some other people, draw a conclusion, that its another state of mind, higher state of mind.
@Hanahleia cont. However the opinions that matter are ones of researchers. Out of all the names you gave me, on Strassman has any kind of credentials for this particular field. Hancock is a journalist, McKenna is a speculator and Leary's "experiments are outdated. Its the man who thought LSD is beneficial for crying out loud. Your sources are vague and their knowledge is obscure. I have no idea why you trust them. Find a scientist who has a prefix -neuro- in their medical position.
@eleminatus I trust them because I've had the experience myself and I can relate. A neuroscientist wouldn't be any help, because psychedelics are illegal to research, and anyone bold enough to affiliate themselves with psychedelics are automatically disregarded by orthodox authorities. This may seem obscure to you, perhaps because you haven't had this experience.
/watch?v=czs6lEUuz6E
I believe Leary meant LSD is therapeutically as in Hopkins work here with psilocybin:
@Hanahleia the affiliation dont matter here. Orthodox, as you call them, scientists know exactly what those experiences are. As I said before - chemical compounds that interfere with neurotransmitters. A simple dysfunction. You and people like you, who experienced such dysfunctions in brains, fueled by unscientific speculations of pseudo-scientists, interpret it the way you want it to be. You have absolutely zero research to back up your claims so how...
@Hanahleia ...can you be so sure WHAT that is you are experiencing. People who smoke weed, get a doze of a hormone named endocanabanoid. It alters some of the brain mechanisms as well. Formerly mentioned LSD effect cerebral cortex and locus ceruleus, mood, perception center and external input center respectively. It cause people to see and feel things that are not real. Now THAT is backed up by science and research. You cant even demonstrate why your experience is not a mere hallucination!
@eleminatus No, I have demonstrate all I can with words, it's you who simply can't accept it. I mean, then I suppose you shouldn't intellectually evade the challenge that this position poses, and that is if you want to truly dismiss this perspective, all you've got to do is take 5 dried grams of psilocybin mushrooms, then come back and tell me this is "mere hallucination." Why don't you read the article Gordon Wasson wrote for LIFE magazine when he stumbled upon this experience in 1955?
@Hanahleia thanks, but no thanks. I tend not to use hallucinogenic substances just to experiment. You see, there is a system using which we make sure what is true and what is not. Just by telling me you claims are true wont make them true! I asked you twice for some empirical evidence, you failed to deliver. Giving a hallucination a different name or even different meaning does not turn it into something new and mysterious.
@eleminatus That's fine, but the fact still remains that this word "hallucination" has muddied the water of what you may believe this experience actually is, and for you to shove it off as whatever you think is a hallucination does not mean it should be dismissed so easily and overlooked. I already explained you're wasting your time searching for "empirical" evidence, because the evidence is the experience itself. Did you even read that LIFE article or explore any of the links I've suggested?
@Hanahleia experiences like that prove nothing. People claim they see light or god during near death experiences, others claim they leave their bodies as souls and float around. Many examples of supernatural experiences. Should I believe all of them because people TOLD me they are real? I told you already - burden of proof is on your side of the argument. Even if I attempt an experiment, it wont prove anything, since its subjective and not accurate. There is ....
@Hanahleia as to Gordon Wasson, he was an ethnomycologist, an expert in mushrooms. Not only he had nothing to do with neuroscience or knew how brain works, but his work is outdated. You seriously giving me a 55 year old paper?!
You have your reasons to believe it to be some higher form of consciousness. However you fail to provide an of them. And i dont know why! You see, its not the matter of what you think it is or I think it is, its the matter of what is true about this phenomenon.
@eleminatus 55 years, 100 years, or how 'bout millennia? That's how long shamans have been using psychedelics including psilocybin and DMT in the form of ayahuasca, and it's just as much of a mystery now as it was then. You don't have to take my or anyone else's word for it. When you experience it, if you experience, it's my belief that this will be self-evident, and this whole hoopla about "higher states" or "mystical experiences" will no longer be "buzz words," but alive and true mysteries.
@Hanahleia ...a system we use to prove or disprove things. If you cant provide evidence supported by such system, you should stop claiming it as truth. Simple as that.
Its also irrelevant what old age shamans experienced using same or different chemical mixtures. You cant test them anymore. Besides, doesnt mean they experienced what you claim!
I told you what those drugs to brain, real and empirical effects. Yet you cling to your theory.
@eleminatus Forget my theory. I'm not clinging to anything. I'm only pointing my finger to a phenomena which can happen to anyone. Why don't you judge for yourself? If you're going to believe what you've just told me here in your reply, then you'll overlook this endeavor, and you'll go on to keep your beliefs and opinions, but if you want to have all the whistles and a full spectrum perspective on consciousness, then I think Terence McKenna's recommendation of 5 dried grams should be sufficient.
@Hanahleia for crying out loud... Those 5 grams will interrupt my regular brain activity and make me see and feel things that are not there. You can whether look at real science and call this "phenomenon" what it is, or you can ignore it and trust the words of amateurs, who have no scientific background and merely speculate, and use outdated info and speculation of your own. You choose speculation, which simply makes you intellectually dishonest!
@eleminatus Yes, I speculate, but I've also have had this experience. You'll find that it's quite safe as psilocybin mushrooms have a fairly high LD-50 (lethal dose). So, you're not in any danger with 5 dried grams, which is a full dose for someone who weighs about 140lbs. However, most experienced psychedelic users know mortality isn't what you have to fear for in the experience, it's your sanity. You underestimate the profoundness of the experience when you disregard it as interruption.
@eleminatus I don't think you realize that even if scientists try and take this endeavor upon themselves, they too develop ideas and theories surrounding this phenomena very similar to John Smithies, Sasha Shulgin, or Rick Strassman, and also similar to those you claimed to be "amateurs." Today, more and more scientists are being able to really study this stuff, and to truly "study" it, of course, requires that you have the first-hand experience for yourself.
@eleminatus (continued) Gordon Wasson, by the way, is the guy who introduced psilocybin mushrooms to the west, and Europe for that matter. They weren't known to western science before 1955. I posted this link for you before, but I'm not sure if you paid it any attention. If you consider undertaking this endeavor, this is a great listen for first-timers. Terence McKenna answers questions and describes a typical 5 dried gram psilocybin trip:
If you have decided the theory of God is illogical, why not take responsibility and pride in your decision instead of trying to change how the world uses the word "atheism" so that you can lump yourself with someone who just hasn't heard of God?
@FreeThinkingBeing He's not changing the word but not let people like you to demonise people by giving it such a negative meaning that it doesn't have. You are an ass. You want to make a word mean what ever fits you're aggenda best like christians have done for so long.
@kokofan50 Where have I demonized anyone here? A meaning it doesn't have? t quoted the dictionary. And there is nothing wrong with someone actually believing that no God exists. It just needs to be clear that this is a different concept from a baby's or buddhist's lack of consideration of the existence of God at all. It's so simple if you remove the emotional investment and the need to fight for some kind of rightness (which is actually the root of the problems we complain about re: religion).
The official dictionary definition is correct in this case. No one would call a Buddhist, including the Buddhist himself, an "atheist" yet he lacks belief in god. A baby is not an atheist, nor is an african bushman. It is a deliberate term which represents people that deliberately refute the existence of god. They do not merely say "I don't know" or have never heard of "God". They say "God does NOT exist." Just read the opinions of so many atheists on Youtube. They define themselves.
@helpmetony Just because he rose an objection doesn't mean it's an emotional plea... the definition of words affects belief systems and public opinion, just as people demanded the change from "retardation" to "differently abled".
@KMallinson man, I rolled back, and cant remember the point, it was a month ago......
but I have an idea, lets call poor people "financially challenged" and ugly folks, "beauty supressed" . what else?.. stupid people can be "educationally disadvantaged"................
Oh I just re-watched this vid and see it disputes Webster's Dictionary. Lol. Words develop by common usage. You can't just petition a dictionary to change it's meaning. It reflects us, not vice versa. "Atheist" comes from a derivation "atheos" which is "without god" and the "ism" is added after. It is NOT a- (without) -theism (belief in God). There is a whole group of people who disbelieve the existence of God and they are called Atheists in English. They don't take it as a negative connotation.
FreeThinkingBeing 2 days ago
Oh my, still the same argument? Just look it up in a dictionary -- it's really clear. Comparing the a- in atheism" to a- in apathy is not really valid to assert it's meaning. Looking up the full word valid.
merriam-webster[dot]com/dictionary/atheism
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Look up "disbelief" if necessary. There really needn't be further argument.
FreeThinkingBeing 2 days ago
From personal observation, I believe the majority of atheists themselves agree on this definition and are not afraid to assert their belief that there is no God. You could even do a search of atheist videos about this subject -- I did.
FreeThinkingBeing 2 days ago
Prefix A: Not. Root Theist: Belief in a God or Gods. Atheism is simply not believing in gods.
mrquinnie429 1 month ago
"Atheist (n.): one without a belief in, or one who lacks a belief in, the existence of a god or gods."
Your defnition of "atheism" is wrong. The "a" denotes a negative.
Theism = belief in a god(s).
Atheism = belief in no god(s).
IfUrGivingIn 1 month ago
@IfUrGivingIn Your statement that "a" denotes a negative doesn't fit into the meaning of words like "apathy", where "pathy" represents feeling and "a" represents without -- not the negative equivalent of "feeling".
bleunt 1 month ago
@bleunt Or a better example: The difference between "amoral" and "immoral".
bleunt 1 month ago
@bleunt [The difference between "amoral" and "immoral".]
Morla comes from a Latin stem and has no relevance to our discussion however, apathy comes from the greek word "pathos" so it's "a" (without, negative) + pathos, yes.
Let's look at "atheism." It comes from the greek word atheos, which is "a" (without, negative) + theos (god), and equates to "godless" or "without god." The suffix "-ism" is added as a "system of beliefs" and forms the word atheism (godless + belief).
IfUrGivingIn 1 month ago
@IfUrGivingIn Now I don't think you're off from what he says in the video.
bleunt 1 month ago
@bleunt No, the uploader says atheism is a "lack of belief in god," which is not. Atheism is a "godless belief."
See the difference?
IfUrGivingIn 1 month ago
@IfUrGivingIn That's not what I hear when you say "It comes from the greek word atheos, which is 'a'(without, negative) + theos (god)".
bleunt 1 month ago
@bleunt I already explained this...
a + theos = godless
ism = belief
atheos + ism = godless belief
Therefore atheism is "godless belief" which is not the same as what the uploader says. He says it's merely a "lack of belief in god" (which is wrong).
IfUrGivingIn 1 month ago
@IfUrGivingIn Godless doesn't directly translate into a denial of god, though. Which is what he's saying. You're not really on the other side of his argument here. I could bring up the word apathy again, but I'd just be repeating myself.
bleunt 1 month ago
@bleunt "Godless doesn't directly translate into a denial of god"
Godless belief directly translates to a denial of a god...
godless belief = believe there are no gods.
IfUrGivingIn 1 month ago
@IfUrGivingIn "godless belief = believe there are no gods." That's where we disagree. However, if -ism always means "belief", then I would say that's misrepresenting the concept as well. Though I'm not buying that it always does, since it comes from the greek suffix -ismos, which can also be described as an act, a state, characteristic or condiction. And more. So anything with the suffix -ism doesn't need to be described as a belief, as I interpret it.
bleunt 1 month ago
@bleunt "And more. So anything with the suffix -ism doesn't need to be described as a belief, as I interpret it."
Word meanings aren't based on interpretation. Although "-ism" has various meanings, the "-ism" suffix in atheism carries the following defintion.
Cambridge dictionary:
-ism: "used to form nouns which describe social, political or religious beliefs, studies or ways of behaving"
IfUrGivingIn 1 month ago
@IfUrGivingIn Your quote fom the Cambridge dictionary proves my point.
bleunt 1 month ago
@bleunt Actually the quote from the Cambridge dictionary shows the suffix "-ism" to mean belief in the case of atheism.
-ism: "used to form nouns which describe social, political or religious beliefs, studies or ways of behaving"
Seeing as atheism isn't "studied" and not a "way of behaving," that only leaves "-ism" to mean "social, political or religious beliefs."
IfUrGivingIn 1 month ago
@IfUrGivingIn And in this case, the lack of such religious beliefs. Which could very well be scientifically based. Just because science doesn't support religion, doesn't make the scientific opinion religion. Just like religion that doesn't support scientific opinion isn't science.
bleunt 1 month ago
@bleunt Or the fact that a person might not even have heard of the concept of a God.
bleunt 1 month ago
@bleunt "Just because science doesn't support religion, doesn't make the scientific opinion religion. Just like religion that doesn't support scientific opinion isn't science."
... atheism isn't scientific opinion. I didn't even bring science up, it's irrelevant to this discussion.
"And in this case, the lack of such religious beliefs."
"The lack of such religious beliefs" wasn't a defintion under the term "-ism."
IfUrGivingIn 1 month ago
@IfUrGivingIn "atheism isn't scientific opinion."
Weeeeeell...
However, not even being aware of the concept of a God isn't a religious belief.
bleunt 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bleunt "not even being aware of the concept of a God isn't a religious belief."
But "-ism" relates to belief when added to "atheos" nonetheless.
theos (god) + ism (belief) = belief in god.
atheos (godless) + ism (belief) = belief in no god.
It's very simple, if you have any confusion about any of the word meanings try using a dictionary...
IfUrGivingIn 1 month ago
@bleunt I meant Moral*
IfUrGivingIn 1 month ago
There are two ways to break up the word atheism (it can break down to without belief in god or belief without god). Whether you LIKE it or not, both definitions are in fact proper for atheism and you should just deal with it.
darththeo 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
masanic floor in college 0:21 plus the half sun in the back... what college was this?
Spiritualmindedify 2 months ago
Comment removed
Spiritualmindedify 2 months ago
While I agree that I define atheism the same way as you do, when some people use it they are referring to a belief that God doesn't exist or any of the other problems you mentioned. The purpose of the dictionary is to allow someone to understand the meaning another person might be trying to convey, and if anyone uses atheist to mean godlessness, then that makes it a valid definition. That definition does not become invalid because you do not agree with it.
Mhyque 3 months ago
This is so pedantic it's funny.
pompousprick 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. Even for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing harm and even extinction, not upward evolution. Genetic similarities are better explained due to a common design for common purposes.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
i have come to realize that the term 'atheist' can mean someone who merely lacks a belief in God: that is a negative (or weak) atheist. But there is also a positive (or strong) atheist who believes that God does not exist. i, myself, am a positive atheist. but my point is that there are both negative atheists and positive atheists.
DaveScottBlair 4 months ago
@DaveScottBlair Well I see your explanation of atheism as rational, I still disagree. An atheist is still someone who lacks a belief in a god. You lack a belief in god, but you also claim to know that there is no god. That makes you a gnostic atheist(strong or positive is fine too). The prefix "a" means not or without. So you are without belief in god. Whether you are agnostic or gnostic, it doesn't change the definition of atheism.
urantivirus 4 months ago
i dont believe in a god, my teacher said i'm an atheist then, So if i'm not an atheist acording to you're definition then it should be changed.
Kazzo98 5 months ago
@Kazzo98 The bottomline is that you do not believe in a God. Regardless of definition you are an atheist: A(=not) Theist(someone who believes in God or gods). His point was that some people misrepresent what atheism is, e.g telling people that atheists deny the existence of God. It's kind of hypocritical when you think about it, a theist is someone who believes in God, then how come an atheist is not being defined as someone who does not believe in a god (i.e Lack in belief of God or gods)?
vatiz93 4 months ago
@Kazzo98 Being an atheist is just a non-belief in a god claim. Its probably wise to explore why you doubt a claim so check out talkorigins or ironchariots websites to help answer some questions that might be nagging at you. A well informed atheist is a good goal, as it reflects well on both you and others.
AMomentOfClarity2011 4 months ago
Atheism is both the lack of a belief in god and the belief that there is no god. Unless you can find me a situation where an atheist would answer "no" when someone asks "do you believe there is no god". I still prefer to think of it as a lack of a belief, but it's both.
urantivirus 5 months ago
@urantivirus Atheism is the lack of a belief in god or gods, thats it. There is no belief involved. Change the last part in your question to see how pointless it is. "do you believe there is no fairies", "do you believe there is no lock ness monster" The only honest answer from the majority of atheists would be "there is insufficent evidence of the existence of a god, fairies or bigfoot". There MIGHT be a god, fairy or bigfoot of some sorts, but disbelief is the sane choice until proven true.
AMomentOfClarity2011 4 months ago
@AMomentOfClarity2011 yeah I was on the fence on that one, but I've been convinced it's only a lack of a belief since then. in the end i don't really care though, it doesn't change the credibility of atheism. the total lack of proof for god and naturalistic explanations are all I need.
urantivirus 4 months ago
I deny god's existence! He cannot exist, because it is my will! HA HA HA
urantivirus 5 months ago
I really don't see what difference it makes whether you call it a belief or not. Beliefs, opinions and ideas are all practically the same. The idea that atheism is not a belief seems like a hollow attempt by atheists to distance themselves from their arguments. Stand up and face the music!
user6773 5 months ago
@user6773 Theism is a belief in a god or gods. Atheism is a lack thereof. There's a difference and it matters. We're not trying to distance ourselves from our arguments, we're trying to clear up misrepresentation and outright propaganda spreading lies about our position, which is NOTHING MORE than the lack of a belief in a god.
bobthecat420 5 months ago
@bobthecat420 Well, I think that's a reasonable definition if you're not going to actively oppose theism, but I'd be more inclined to call that agnosticism. After all, what should we call people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens? I don't think it's fair to call them atheists by your definition, but at the same time, they are far from agnostic.
user6773 5 months ago
What authority does the Patrician Atheist have to override the traditional definition of atheism? NONE. He is confusing atheism with NONTHEISM.
DaveScottBlair 5 months ago
@DaveScottBlair Yes, lets just ignore the prefix "a" and the word "theist" to fit the religious definition. Your "traditional" definition makes no sense.
And what does Oxford dictionary have to say about all this?
"a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods"
Hmm, I guess Oxford isn't traditional? No wait, Webster isn't traditional.
Why do you like hanging on the word non-theist? What's your reasoning?
urantivirus 5 months ago
Are we really that hated for our lack of belief in the supernatural? Most of us use reason and logic to deal with problems or situations, yet we are frowned upon, now, Joe Shmoe claims that a certain deity is helping him, he shows no solid proof for his claims, yet people don't admonish him for making such wild claims...
This brings to mind the de-motivational poster meme from the furutrama professor: "I don't want to live on this planet any more"
MrNemitri 5 months ago
@MrNemitri These days reason is ridiculed and gulibility is glorified. Those who resist peer pressure and refuse to accept unsubstantiated claims are demonized and misrepresented. It's pretty sad.
bobthecat420 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT ABOUT THE STARS? Gravity explains how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but gravity can't explain the origin of that order! Did all the trillions stars agree to get out of each others way? C'mon! Disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the order is because of design. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that undirected natural laws can bring about an airplane or a living cell. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument for a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed in design or useless.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from variations produced having survival value. It doesn't produce variations. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of transitional forms and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 5 months ago
It sounds like you just don't LIKE one common definition because it doesn't conform to your own personal usage. To quote The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (more authoritative than yourself): "A widely used sense merely denotes not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God; this use has become the standard one." (pp.51-2). Your definition is too weak because it makes inanimate objects atheists.
ludwigau1 6 months ago
I've always resolved this semantic issue by calling them anti-theist.
knowwaie 6 months ago
You want to get technical with this?
Atheist would literally mean without god. Atheism with the suffix 'ism' means an established doctrine.
A literal atheist would be someone who does not have god. How so? In the Christian sense? Then you would be right. But if there is no god then most accurate definition we could give the word, by your logic, would be 'ignorance of god'. There are no atheists in this sense. Maybe one born on a desert island.
Using sound logic atheism is disbelief in god.
knowwaie 6 months ago
did you try looking up the definition of "pedantic douche"?
einLesenderArbeiter 7 months ago
@einLesenderArbeiter it's like a christian looking up their own religion and seeing "some idiot who seems to think God is real. Pff."
gawmovies 7 months ago
its all QQ tbh, tl,dr......stop being so concerned about how people define you. you might find it liberateing.
MrTrademarked 7 months ago
Yeah... this tends to happen when religious people are the majority. They can't even read their books without having a multitude of interpretations. It comes as no surprise that they would misrepresent the definition of a position they find particularly distasteful. It's not enough that atheists lack a belief in their god or gods. Atheists have to be disobedient too - which really isn't the case. Theists have never had evidence for their God, which is why atheists don't believe them.
razredge07 7 months ago
For a great example of the definition tinkering and cognitive dissonance spoken of in this vid checkout Onetruthrvg's vid tittled Refuting Atheism "I Lack Belief"
stramster1 7 months ago
Comment removed
mike1829y2 7 months ago
Can you honestly tell me mr patrician athiest that you have never, since deciding to forsake belief in a higher power, said "oh my god, goddamnit, jesus, etc?"
bombindahcity 7 months ago
@bombindahcity
Not as much as I cuss. So in the Rationalist mind god, jesus etc are other words for f-ck, sh-t, c-nt etc.
TreyNitrotoluene 7 months ago
This is the greatest thing I've seen. Thank you for opening my mind to the harsh misrepresentation of us.
TheMightyShell 7 months ago
@TheMightyShell,
lol, too bad he is wrong.
gklr 7 months ago
Also, theists aren't atheists by any degree of not believing in other gods or whatnot. Theist is by defintion believing in the existence of a god or many gods. The idea that such a belief would require denying by assertion the existence of other proposed deities isn't a position of doubt in them but solidity in their form of theism. A theist being one step away from atheism is the same as an atheist being one step away from theism ... 2 concepts diametrically opposed aren't that close.
smawshot 7 months ago
This is a very amusing subject and one I can't get over. Atheist is by definition "one who does not believe in a deity or deities" rather than "one who believes there is no deity or deities". However, in truth, there are people from both camps that identify themelves as atheists and the ones in line with the latter interpretation hide behind the former definition when challenged. That being, atheists that assert do hide behind the position of non-assertion.
smawshot 7 months ago
great video!
CircusOfBedlam 8 months ago
@CircusOfBedlam,
great video? It's an utter logic fail. He confuses secondary predication with primary predication.
gklr 7 months ago
The old definition is right, atheists are fools for rejecting the existence of God.
mrtadreamer 8 months ago
@mrtadreamer but they dont reject the existence of god... they just dont believe in him. the ones that reject god are anti-theists
Morophin3 8 months ago
Well that was 9+ minutes of the most juvenile whining and infantile bickering I've heard in a while ... and I teach High School.
nothingmemorable 8 months ago
@nothingmemorable If one of my students were so intellectually engaged as to come up with something as thought-provoking & well-researched as this, I would commend him/her, whether I agreed with him/her or not. I can only assume that you are a person of faith & thus offended. Imagine that "high school teacher" were defined in some dictionaries as "person responsible for indoctrination, for inculcating dogma, for dishing out unreasonable punishments"; surely you would want to challenge that.
Nai61a 8 months ago
Encyclopedia Brittanica has the same Theo-centric Bias. I think they still have that old definition of what Atheism is.
longname25 8 months ago
I am more powerful than a god, for I can deny their existence! Gods cannot exist, because I will not allow it!
urantivirus 9 months ago
I'm not offended by the "one who is ignorant of theism" claim since it covers babies. Sweet, succulent babies.
midareashi 9 months ago
Thomas Stobie's definition made me laugh. Yes i don't believe organized religion exist =P I've never met the Pope! The one we see on TV is probably two midgets in a robe. LOL
uiluj13 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bhagavad Gita says that material world where we live now was created by God specially for atheists.
We didnt want to see God and He put us in this world to fulfill our desire.
Caesar88888 9 months ago
thank you for this fantastic video. Im posting it on my blog!
foxgirl26 9 months ago
Does Damn Theist!!!
babyranks4 9 months ago
Ytalker-I was not raised in religion and it never crossed my mind that there was a godthingy.It never came up,never impacted on my life.This strange belief that children believe in godthingy naturally is nonsense.Children only "believe"when they have been told by their adults about it.What biology do you study that has genes for godthingy belief and evolutionary advantages to belief in godthingy?
holmsatlarge 10 months ago
Comment removed
Hanahleia 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Who cares? I mean, really, atheism is probably the most annoying intellectual fad of the contemporary. It will die off soon enough, and then the rest of us can get on with our lives.
Hanahleia 11 months ago
@Hanahleia die off? great joke! Atheists are the fastest growing majority in he world. Big portion of Europe and majority of Asia are atheists. In US at least 15% of people are atheists (doubled since 2000). If you think that old books with numerous atrocities and stupidity will overpower science, reason and logic, you are beyond saving! Religion has NOTHING to offer to society what so ever. Go back to caves with your primitive beliefs.
eleminatus 8 months ago
@eleminatus Why don't you have yourself a mystical experience, then you can ascertain the real mysteries of our reality and consciousness.
Hanahleia 8 months ago
@Hanahleia I would if I could! Just like many other people. But what does it have to do with my reply?
Tell me, how exactly does a "mystical experience" support existence of god?
eleminatus 8 months ago
@eleminatus Because the real root of all religion lies in the mystical experience. It's a profound altered state of consciousness which today is being called "cosmic consciousness" or what Terence McKenna called "The Gaian mind." It's in this experience where the notion of the divine came from in the first place. That's why I think atheists are wasting their time. Not a lot of people are familiar with mystical experiences, but a quick and easy method to go about having one is a shamanic method.
Hanahleia 8 months ago
@Hanahleia yeah, its called subconsciousness and we know about it. Meditation taps into it, prayer attempts to do the same. We know quite a lot about it. The fact that you give it weird made up names and apply mystical characteristics, just shows your ignorance of current scientific understanding!
eleminatus 8 months ago
@eleminatus No, I'm not giving it weird "made up" names or applying some mystical characteristic. This is not insight to the subconscious as Freud would have you understand it, to a personal reservoir of your memories and so forth; it's instead an acknowledgement of a phenomenon that can happen to anyone. This is closer to insight into what Jung referred to as the "collective unconscious." It's a powerful altered state, and it may be our own minds lit up to a potential that's incomprehensible.
Hanahleia 8 months ago
@Hanahleia yet another unjustified interpretation of something you dont understand! Must be great jumping to conclusions without anything to back it up!
eleminatus 8 months ago
@eleminatus Are you familiar with Dr. Rick Strassman's work or Terence McKenna's work for that matter? And btw, these aren't my conclusions. They're sort of the collective conclusions of a consensus in the psychedelic community, which I suppose, is the only place these conclusions can occur since these are the only people using these substances at effective doses. If you're interested in the psychedelic experience, here's a suggestion:
/watch?v=Nrj1X6TzEXo&playnext=1&list=PL4D35BC49277B6F49
Hanahleia 8 months ago
@Hanahleia they both worked with psychedelic substances, most commonly DMT. Strassman experimented on people and it resulted in them seeing hallucinations - different life forms, gods etc. If you wanna tell me its higher levels of consciousness, go ahead. Junkies while high see all kinds of things as well. Maybe they should become spiritual healers? Associating hallucinations with spirituality will get you nowhere. Just like the gentlemen you referred to.
eleminatus 8 months ago
@eleminatus I used to have your perspective. You're obviously someone who hasn't had this experience, that's why I left that suggestion "How to use Psychedelics." Someone I didn't mention who is also quite articulate on the topic is Graham Hancock. No one uses psychedelics at high doses or at doses that Terence McKenna recommended. Psychedelics are not addicting substances. When people hear "junkie," I'm sure heroin, meth, or cocaine come to mind, not psychedelics.
/watch?v=zCoMx1Ub8TE
Hanahleia 8 months ago
@Hanahleia I did not say they are addicting. I said they have similar effects with detrimental drugs like cocaine or meth. You wanna tell me that you believe, that when you consume a substance which causes you to hallucinate and see things that are naturally impossible, that that state is some sort of transcendent state of mind?!
eleminatus 8 months ago
@eleminatus You can't get where LSD takes you on meth or cocaine. Yes, what I'm saying is that your preconceived notion of what a hallucination is probably something you've seen in a movie, i.e. pink elephants, etc. That's not what it is. It's rather a transpersonal experience and that's why it's so profound. In other words, there's "motifs" in the trance that aren't reducible to a single person's experience. It isn't the detritus of someone's subconscious memories or their personal history.
Hanahleia 7 months ago
@Hanahleia can you support your claims by evidence? research, papers etc. One researcher you referred to previously certainly proved that those chemical compounds effect our brain and cause hallucinations. However none of them got even close to proving that those hallucinations are more then chemicals interfering with normal brain activity.
eleminatus 7 months ago
@eleminatus Right now research on psychedelics is illegal in most major countries, so you won't find much on the topic. Strassman or Graham Hancock are pioneers in this field, as were Timothy Leary or Terence McKenna. The real evidence, however, is the experience itself. After all, what if you found yourself in this altered state spontaneously? Then, normalcy is seen for its relativity. This experience can be compared to "satori" of Zen meditation or "samadhi" in Hinduism. R U familiar with DMT?
Hanahleia 7 months ago
@Hanahleia DMT is a psychedelic compound, a hallucinogen. LSD, PCP, mescaline, psilocybin are all psychedelic hallucinogens too. These substances interfere with neurotransmitter work and cause various misconceptions of the reality - hallucinations. Thats what they do, they make your brain see and feel things that are not there. Calling it a higher state of consciousness from your own speculations is intellectually dishonest.
eleminatus 7 months ago
@eleminatus Usually the assumption that these compounds cause misconceptions about reality is made by people who don't have experience with this stuff. What you discover when you actually take this stuff at effective doses is something like an overmind, an intelligent presence of some sort or what Jung called the "collective unconscious." Btw, these aren't my speculations, it's a collective consensus as far as I can discern for people who are familiar with "effective doses."
Hanahleia 7 months ago
@eleminatus (continued) After coming back from the psychedelic experience, if you're religious, you may say something like, "I saw God," if you're atheist, you may reach for a more mathematical diction, as in, "I glimpsed a higher dimension." In either case, something trascendental and interconnected is intuitively felt by the individual. Terence McKenna is perhaps one of the most articulate on the subject, so I leave you with this suggestion:
/watch?v=YrmCZIa6NG4
Hanahleia 7 months ago
@Hanahleia yours, or anyones who is familiar with "effective doses" opinion is irrelevant since its subjective. Moreover, experiences vary from one time to another and from person to person, so its not even consistent. Neither people experiencing it, nor people observing and researching it, can examine the phenomenon, so its also untestable. Yet you, and I assume some other people, draw a conclusion, that its another state of mind, higher state of mind.
eleminatus 7 months ago
@Hanahleia cont. However the opinions that matter are ones of researchers. Out of all the names you gave me, on Strassman has any kind of credentials for this particular field. Hancock is a journalist, McKenna is a speculator and Leary's "experiments are outdated. Its the man who thought LSD is beneficial for crying out loud. Your sources are vague and their knowledge is obscure. I have no idea why you trust them. Find a scientist who has a prefix -neuro- in their medical position.
eleminatus 7 months ago
@eleminatus I trust them because I've had the experience myself and I can relate. A neuroscientist wouldn't be any help, because psychedelics are illegal to research, and anyone bold enough to affiliate themselves with psychedelics are automatically disregarded by orthodox authorities. This may seem obscure to you, perhaps because you haven't had this experience.
/watch?v=czs6lEUuz6E
I believe Leary meant LSD is therapeutically as in Hopkins work here with psilocybin:
/watch?v=mPVbS7qrMlU
Hanahleia 7 months ago
@Hanahleia the affiliation dont matter here. Orthodox, as you call them, scientists know exactly what those experiences are. As I said before - chemical compounds that interfere with neurotransmitters. A simple dysfunction. You and people like you, who experienced such dysfunctions in brains, fueled by unscientific speculations of pseudo-scientists, interpret it the way you want it to be. You have absolutely zero research to back up your claims so how...
eleminatus 7 months ago
@Hanahleia ...can you be so sure WHAT that is you are experiencing. People who smoke weed, get a doze of a hormone named endocanabanoid. It alters some of the brain mechanisms as well. Formerly mentioned LSD effect cerebral cortex and locus ceruleus, mood, perception center and external input center respectively. It cause people to see and feel things that are not real. Now THAT is backed up by science and research. You cant even demonstrate why your experience is not a mere hallucination!
eleminatus 7 months ago
@eleminatus No, I have demonstrate all I can with words, it's you who simply can't accept it. I mean, then I suppose you shouldn't intellectually evade the challenge that this position poses, and that is if you want to truly dismiss this perspective, all you've got to do is take 5 dried grams of psilocybin mushrooms, then come back and tell me this is "mere hallucination." Why don't you read the article Gordon Wasson wrote for LIFE magazine when he stumbled upon this experience in 1955?
Hanahleia 7 months ago
@Hanahleia thanks, but no thanks. I tend not to use hallucinogenic substances just to experiment. You see, there is a system using which we make sure what is true and what is not. Just by telling me you claims are true wont make them true! I asked you twice for some empirical evidence, you failed to deliver. Giving a hallucination a different name or even different meaning does not turn it into something new and mysterious.
eleminatus 7 months ago
@eleminatus That's fine, but the fact still remains that this word "hallucination" has muddied the water of what you may believe this experience actually is, and for you to shove it off as whatever you think is a hallucination does not mean it should be dismissed so easily and overlooked. I already explained you're wasting your time searching for "empirical" evidence, because the evidence is the experience itself. Did you even read that LIFE article or explore any of the links I've suggested?
Hanahleia 7 months ago
@Hanahleia experiences like that prove nothing. People claim they see light or god during near death experiences, others claim they leave their bodies as souls and float around. Many examples of supernatural experiences. Should I believe all of them because people TOLD me they are real? I told you already - burden of proof is on your side of the argument. Even if I attempt an experiment, it wont prove anything, since its subjective and not accurate. There is ....
eleminatus 7 months ago
@Hanahleia as to Gordon Wasson, he was an ethnomycologist, an expert in mushrooms. Not only he had nothing to do with neuroscience or knew how brain works, but his work is outdated. You seriously giving me a 55 year old paper?!
You have your reasons to believe it to be some higher form of consciousness. However you fail to provide an of them. And i dont know why! You see, its not the matter of what you think it is or I think it is, its the matter of what is true about this phenomenon.
eleminatus 7 months ago
@eleminatus 55 years, 100 years, or how 'bout millennia? That's how long shamans have been using psychedelics including psilocybin and DMT in the form of ayahuasca, and it's just as much of a mystery now as it was then. You don't have to take my or anyone else's word for it. When you experience it, if you experience, it's my belief that this will be self-evident, and this whole hoopla about "higher states" or "mystical experiences" will no longer be "buzz words," but alive and true mysteries.
Hanahleia 7 months ago
@Hanahleia ...a system we use to prove or disprove things. If you cant provide evidence supported by such system, you should stop claiming it as truth. Simple as that.
Its also irrelevant what old age shamans experienced using same or different chemical mixtures. You cant test them anymore. Besides, doesnt mean they experienced what you claim!
I told you what those drugs to brain, real and empirical effects. Yet you cling to your theory.
eleminatus 7 months ago
@eleminatus Forget my theory. I'm not clinging to anything. I'm only pointing my finger to a phenomena which can happen to anyone. Why don't you judge for yourself? If you're going to believe what you've just told me here in your reply, then you'll overlook this endeavor, and you'll go on to keep your beliefs and opinions, but if you want to have all the whistles and a full spectrum perspective on consciousness, then I think Terence McKenna's recommendation of 5 dried grams should be sufficient.
Hanahleia 7 months ago
@Hanahleia for crying out loud... Those 5 grams will interrupt my regular brain activity and make me see and feel things that are not there. You can whether look at real science and call this "phenomenon" what it is, or you can ignore it and trust the words of amateurs, who have no scientific background and merely speculate, and use outdated info and speculation of your own. You choose speculation, which simply makes you intellectually dishonest!
eleminatus 7 months ago
Comment removed
Hanahleia 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eleminatus Yes, I speculate, but I've also have had this experience. You'll find that it's quite safe as psilocybin mushrooms have a fairly high LD-50 (lethal dose). So, you're not in any danger with 5 dried grams, which is a full dose for someone who weighs about 140lbs. However, most experienced psychedelic users know mortality isn't what you have to fear for in the experience, it's your sanity. You underestimate the profoundness of the experience when you disregard it as interruption.
Hanahleia 7 months ago
@eleminatus I don't think you realize that even if scientists try and take this endeavor upon themselves, they too develop ideas and theories surrounding this phenomena very similar to John Smithies, Sasha Shulgin, or Rick Strassman, and also similar to those you claimed to be "amateurs." Today, more and more scientists are being able to really study this stuff, and to truly "study" it, of course, requires that you have the first-hand experience for yourself.
Hanahleia 1 month ago
@eleminatus (continued) Gordon Wasson, by the way, is the guy who introduced psilocybin mushrooms to the west, and Europe for that matter. They weren't known to western science before 1955. I posted this link for you before, but I'm not sure if you paid it any attention. If you consider undertaking this endeavor, this is a great listen for first-timers. Terence McKenna answers questions and describes a typical 5 dried gram psilocybin trip:
watch?v=Nrj1X6TzEXo&playnext=1&list=PL4D35BC49277B6F49
Hanahleia 7 months ago
If you have decided the theory of God is illogical, why not take responsibility and pride in your decision instead of trying to change how the world uses the word "atheism" so that you can lump yourself with someone who just hasn't heard of God?
FreeThinkingBeing 1 year ago
@FreeThinkingBeing He's not changing the word but not let people like you to demonise people by giving it such a negative meaning that it doesn't have. You are an ass. You want to make a word mean what ever fits you're aggenda best like christians have done for so long.
kokofan50 9 months ago
@kokofan50 Where have I demonized anyone here? A meaning it doesn't have? t quoted the dictionary. And there is nothing wrong with someone actually believing that no God exists. It just needs to be clear that this is a different concept from a baby's or buddhist's lack of consideration of the existence of God at all. It's so simple if you remove the emotional investment and the need to fight for some kind of rightness (which is actually the root of the problems we complain about re: religion).
FreeThinkingBeing 2 days ago
The official dictionary definition is correct in this case. No one would call a Buddhist, including the Buddhist himself, an "atheist" yet he lacks belief in god. A baby is not an atheist, nor is an african bushman. It is a deliberate term which represents people that deliberately refute the existence of god. They do not merely say "I don't know" or have never heard of "God". They say "God does NOT exist." Just read the opinions of so many atheists on Youtube. They define themselves.
FreeThinkingBeing 1 year ago
the orginal dictionary definition really upset you.
Is this an emotional or a philosophical plea?
helpmetony 1 year ago
@helpmetony Just because he rose an objection doesn't mean it's an emotional plea... the definition of words affects belief systems and public opinion, just as people demanded the change from "retardation" to "differently abled".
KMallinson 11 months ago
@KMallinson man, I rolled back, and cant remember the point, it was a month ago......
but I have an idea, lets call poor people "financially challenged" and ugly folks, "beauty supressed" . what else?.. stupid people can be "educationally disadvantaged"................
helpmetony 11 months ago