I'm fachinated, in responce to the citizen/patriot quote, that people in the US says that it's bad when countries secularizes, when the US was build on a basis of freedom of religion and most of the founding fathers was atheists
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
@goofinaround123 Hey Tommy. I took it down. Two of the characters were affectionately based on a married couple I used to know. A couple of years ago they revealed themselves to be two of the sickest, most vile individuals I've ever met — people were shocked by their extreme misanthropy. The video had to go — off YouTube and off my hard drive — along with every other reminder. And the real laugh? Last thing I heard, they'd joined a group praying for Richard Dawkins to 'see the light'.
@TheraminTrees Interestingggg... I can understand how that could screw with your head. Well, you could make a different video to replace it. Or just one on a different subject. Like... I don't know. Can't think of anything, actually. Is that why you stopped making them?
—Nope — just took down the one with them in it. Didn't care to see their faces. But they haven't poisoned the WiseMonkey well — I've just been doing other things.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I think it's pretty funny when your whole argument is against the belief in a higher power, yet the evidence used for your argument is based entirely on christianity/islam/structured religion. LMAO!
@TexFight 'I think it's pretty funny when your whole argument ....'
—And that's the point in the sentence where the fallacy creeps in. This video isn't 'the whole argument' — it just answers a handful of things some people say. And because those people are coming from the religions you mentioned, they're answered in that context. Great that that moves you to laughter.
So would you say that your view of the world has been significantly influenced by certain distorted beliefs characterized in major monotheistic religions?
science does not explain and does not seek to explain supernatural phenomenons such as "does god exist", "is there heaven", for it is very difficult to present verifiable and objective evidence.
TheraminTrees needs to take an Intro to Philosophy course.
- You cannot defend materialism in a non-circular way.
- TheraminTrees has not distinguished between perceptual and non-perceptual experiences, has not addressed mystical experiences with intensional content, and has not given criteria for establishing the veridicality of experiences.
- All conscious experiences are private. That includes sense experiences.
Among MANY other simple facts and distinctions ignored in this video.
@erikmartin2 It's a red herring to say that extraordinary is subjective. The point being made is about proportionality. Claims of magnitude A require evidence of magnitude A — ie when we're talking about a paradigm-shifting concept, that requires appropriate, proportionate weight of evidence to back it up.
@TheraminTrees Then that's just a bias towards your existing paradigms. We should follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of whether it forces us to change our paradigms. Giving preference to evidence that agrees with what we already believe is exactly the problem inherent in the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" idea. It's confirmation bias.
@erikmartin2 Where is TheraminTrees giving preference to evidence that agrees with what he already believes? This whole comment is a red herring that distracts from the main point — which is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Requiring evidence when someone makes an extraordinary claim has *nothing* to do with confirmation bias. It has to do with demanding evidence when someone makes a claim that flies in the face of previously established facts and reality.
@SinnFein4ever Yes. I should put on record that the first video contained two cartoon animal characters affectionately based on a couple I used to know. They became proselytising theists a couple of years ago, but then last year revealed a hateful, intricately paranoid fantasy world that shocked everyone. Several of us didn't want to see their faces again.
@SinnFein4ever 'Fortunatly, my mother met my father, who managed to help her from being sucked into their whirpool of ignorance and hate.'
—As awful as it is to watch people slip down the plug-hole, it's always good to hear about cases like your parents where people escape it. On the extreme side, Louis Theroux recently revisited the Westboro cult, whose numbers had substantially dwindled. He visited some girls who'd left, and it was great to see the contrast in the before and after footage.
@SinnFein4ever Theroux said several had left — though I remember him focussing on two daughters from separate families, one of whom cited her previous conversations with him as an influence. Theroux noted how bizarre it was to see parents pretending to be happy at losing their offspring — the pretence came through when Theroux asked them how they felt, and instead of spontaneous genuine responses, he got stilted scripts, and wives checking with husbands what they should say. Appalling.
@queenshussars But different people's morals often contradict each other. Whose morals are right? That's a moral question. People generally believe that their own morals are right because they evaluate them using their own morals.
@queenshussars Why? Moral statements are just as untestable as statements about gods. This video even touched on that. Moral codes simply reinforce the contexts in which they were made. It's impossible to evaluate value systems without using a value system of your own.
If all the other apes, the benobas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas are atheists--why are humans so arrogant as to presume these other apes are wrong and religion is truth?
@AtheisticHappiness Just wanted to point out that it's "bonobos" not "benobas". They're such awesome apes. But about your question, I think you've already got the answer, people are arrogant. Most people presume they know better than animals, so they'll say anything and everything people have are better than what animals have.
Man how come atheists are so good at editing videos to make them fun to watch? QualiaSoup and TheraminTrees always edit videos so well to where they are enjoyful to watch.
The idea that morality is merely subjective is endorsed by basically zero philosophers. Some philosophers are anti-realists and think morality is a human phenomenon, but even those philosophers think that some moral beliefs are better than others, and anti-realism is not the most popular theory among philosophers.
Regardless of the philosophical support for morality, it is clear that it varies from culture to culture -- burqas and Sharia in one group, public nudity and and bondage in another, and so on. I don't think the video was endorsing moral nihilism, but pointing out the shifting sensibilities of cultures.
TheraminTrees, the video was excellent. However, I'd like to point out a rather careless error made in the video at the 7:00 mark. If you carefully scrutinize the quoted bible verse on the screen in its entirety, you will notice that Jesus is not actually saying that children should be put to death. He is quoting the God of Abraham from the Old Testament to point out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.
Ex. In lamens terms, The Pharisees say to Jesus: "You and your disciples didn't wash your hands before you eat. You should be washing your hands because God said so."
Jesus replies, "Well, you guys dishonor your parents by claiming that what your parents do for you is a gift from God, not from them(the parents). God said that children who don't honor their parents should be put to death, should we put you to death? You hypocrites!"
Jesus merely pointed out the pharisees' inconsistency
@hhfleury We understood what the exchange was about — that was, however, not pertinent to the point being made, which was specifically about Jesus's complicity with the stoning to death command.
@TheraminTrees Well then can you please enlighten me with something that testifies to Jesus condoning the stoning to death command? Because I always thought Jesus intervened and prevented that prostitute from being stoned to death.
@hhfleury Yes, there is the 'cast the first stone' story. But the passage we've been discussing is complicit with stoning: Jesus affirms the child-stoning as what 'God said'. If you want to dive into the ocean of contradictions that this opens up — including the total about-face between old and new testament moralities, supposedly authored by one eternal consistent god — then you have more time than I do.
@TheraminTrees Yes, believe me I understood that point of the video and yes there are many evil things that the Old Testament 'God' had done. I understand what you mean when you say the Old Testament morality is different than the new testament's morality.
However, all I'm saying is that Jesus did not himself say that children must be put to death. He said "For God said". If they were Jesus' own words, he would not include 'For God said' at the beginning.
@hhfleury Jesus didn't invent the command — but we didn't claim he did. However he does evoke and collude with the law by presenting it as the command of the god he is peddling. If I promote a political party who advocates stoning children, and say 'they said we should stone children', I am implicated. We could of course get very pedantic and say that Jesus did literally say children must be put to death — he said the words. I don't think we were careless — I think our sense is clear.
@TheraminTrees Well, usually Jesus will use the terms 'my father', 'the heavenly father', 'the one who sent me', etc. In this context he was talking to the Pharisees and I think he used the word 'God' to refer to the god that they worshipped. I looked up that verse in other versions of the bible and in some translations, he used the words 'Your God' instead of just 'God'. I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't peddling the same God of Moses worshipped by the Jews at the time.
@TheraminTrees I agree, I think the sentence "Jesus also said that children should be put to death for swearing at their parents" is very pedantic and implies that Jesus wants children to be put to death for swearing at their parents. I don't think that quoting someone necessarily implicates you as one who shares the same beliefs.
—No — you don't agree, because that was not my point. Neither was it the video's. As I've already explained. Neither was the video's point 'pedantic'. It was the valid observation that a contemptible law was colluded with and not criticised — instead Pharisees were criticised for NOT following it. If you have no problem with the passage, fine. But to call our mention of it 'rather careless' was wrong — it was considered, and I've explained why.
@TheraminTrees To be honest, I thought it was careless because it was not mentioned that the Pharisees were criticized for not following the law because they claimed to believe in those scriptures. Jesus did not necessarily support them. Not speaking out against evil or refraining from criticizing something that is wrong when you have the chance does not always mean that you agree with it said evil. Also, there are a few examples in the new testament where Jesus does criticize Old testament laws
@hhfleury Our not mentioning the Pharisees was not 'careless', it was considered and intentional — it was not the point we wanted to make, in the limited time available in this video. If we had unlimited time, we might've gone into it — and hundreds upon hundreds of other points. We made the point we wanted to make — about the collusion of not criticising the stoning law, but criticising those who did not follow it.
@hhfleury I've made it clear that the video's scope — covering a multitude of points about atheism — did not allow time to go into specific passages in depth. So that point's been addressed. I've explained the video's point about collusion with the stoning law, criticising those who didn't follow it, rather than the law. So that point's been addressed. You feel misled — you've expressed it, I've explained our position.
@TheraminTrees Fair enough. I appreciate that you took the time to elaborate and defend your position. I have peace of mind knowing that your intentions were not as presuming as I interpreted them to be. Thank you for your rather polite discourse.
I'm just not convinced that any moral code can be subjective. We don't know what moral code would be like if there had never been any religious influence. I can't help but wonder if religion hasn't always been a mechinism for developing and dispensing morals. Even athiests are subject to this development. I'll look for videos on the topic.
@TheraminTrees hi, just wanted to take this opportunity to intrude and ask you a question. Any way you might weigh in and address the issues on DMD or a subject close to this matter perhaps? Maybe it's not your cup of tea..I dunno. Thank you.
@mytv80 I've vacillated between doing a video and not doing a video. I'm not sure more commentary is needed, but I might refer to the issue in future videos, perhaps tangentially — there are some points I'd like to make that I haven't seen made.
@TheraminTrees oh ok I see : ) thank you. Yes, I'd be Very much interested to hear and see your perspective on this issue. I, as well as others regard your opinions highly..well I know I do. I always learn something new everytime I watch your video over again and you get me thinking everytime. Not to flood you with compliments but..its True. Thank you I appreciate it. Take care.
@mytv80 Why, thank you ;8) One of the things I've appreciated about the DMD thing is the debate it's sparked about these very important issues — they clearly needed airing. Sadly of course the debate's been latched onto by folks with an agenda of blind prejudice. But the volume of reasoned, considered argument I've seen from parties on all sides has been great to witness — and an ocean away from the terrorism it's responding to.
@TheraminTrees I assure you that I'm not in the position to put forward any moral code. You say" we can develop codes free of religious influence, based on other criteria such as social pragmatics. "
Isn't any development subject to previous understanding of morality? Even if you reject the moral haven't you at least used the relgious standards as a touch stone?
@PrintedTruth "I assure you that I'm not in the position to put forward any moral code."
—So you're disputing that any moral code is subjective, but decline to substantiate that with an example. Then we can dismiss that point.
"Isn't any development subject to previous understanding of morality?"
—Nope. Once we define morality — eg distinguishing desirable and undesirable behaviour — we can construct one from first principles. My own morality is based on secular principles.
@TheraminTrees My reason for discussion is not because I'm defending religion. I just can't see how we can say with absolute certainty that we are not influenced by centuries of oppresive religious teachings. I realize there are obvious Morals that are based on principles but what about the subsets like white lies, envy, disrespect, and gossip. I don't think we should ignore the fact that religion has been the keeper of morals for good or for bad.
@PrintedTruth 'a) I just can't see how we can say with absolute certainty that we are not influenced by centuries of oppresive religious teachings .... b) I don't think we should ignore the fact that religion has been the keeper of morals for good or for bad.'
a) Again, nope. We can say it when we have a morality that is reasoned from first principles.
b) If the fact that religions have historically imposed their moralities interests you, by all means don't ignore it.
@PrintedTruth b) cont. ... but it only has value in considering the contexts in which it was imposed, and possibly in its antagonistic role to reasoned morality. The subject of morality is not intrinsically linked with religion - it can be discussed, as I have indicated several times here, totally without reference to religion. And that religion-free context is what I personally find meaningful.
I realize this thread is getting long so I'll end with this. I can't help but wonder if religion didn't really define morality, but instead added what was basic to human nature to their control, and then built on them.
@PrintedTruth I would certainly agree if you are making the point that religion hijacked morality, claiming it as its exclusive province - though it is clearly anything but.
I disagree with the idea that there are no objective moral codes. I have one. It's reasoned out step by step from foundation to final product, and it never contradicts itself, although it is in conflict with several other moral codes.
However, I agree with the point regarding "cherry-picking" of the Bible.
@GoblinKnightLeo "I disagree with the idea that there are no objective moral codes. I have one. It's reasoned out step by step from foundation to final product, and it never contradicts itself, although it is in conflict with several other moral codes."
@GoblinKnightLeo "As to your response to my comment, I will do so. It's rather long, but I'll write it as best I can. You should get it tomorrow."
—Hello again — as it says on my channel page, I don't do this stuff via PM, so if you're going to express your ideas, could you do it via comments sections, or in video format. This is for reasons of openness and concision.
0:39 Atheists believe in the concept of god. How could a person distinguish between an experience caused by their concept of god from one caused by a supernatural entity? I don't see any difference between the way atheists or religious people experience "god." Just a difference in the way they interpret the experience.
I think it's the power of our faith that makes us question and scrutinize what we believe. Those with little faith must spend their time defending their beliefs against doubt.
@ananiasacts "Atheists believe in the concept of god."
—Atheists do not believe in the concept of god — and certainly don't experience god. Some atheists discuss the concepts that others put forward in discussion.
"Those with little faith must spend their time defending their beliefs against doubt."
—Nope — until 3 years ago, I rarely had cause to think about, let alone discuss, religious issues. I started again on here solely in response to the anti-atheist hate I saw/experienced.
@TheraminTrees, I think using the word 'god' proves you believe that the concept of god is real. It exists in your mind or the word 'god' could not part of your vocabulary.
If you're an atheist, i believe you do spend a considerable amount of time scrutinizing that which you have faith in. I'm not saying you do it because you doubt it, quite the opposite. You do it because you want to know it better. I see that desire as motivated by the strength of your faith that what you pursue is true.
@ananiasacts " I think using the word 'god' proves you believe that the concept of god is real."
—Using the word 'god' merely shows that there is a word 'god', for which there are vague definitions. Do not tell me what I believe — it is a gross impertinence.
"I believe you do spend a considerable amount of time scrutinizing that which you have faith in."
—Nope, I spend time knocking back those who actively come at me with their assumptions and impositions.
@TheraminTrees, I think we're victims of the semantic ambiguity of our language. Saying that all atheists believe in the concept of god is no different than claiming they know what the word "atheist" means. You simply cannot be an atheist if you possess no "concept of god" to disbelieve in. I'm only saying that the concept itself exists, not the actual supernatural entity that it represents. In any event, my impertinence was really only incompetence. All I can do about that is practice.
@ananiasacts Several problems here. 1) Saying there is a concept for something is saying nothing of significance — there is a concept for Sherlock Holmes. Saying the concept is 'real', 'exists' or that someone 'believes' it is misleading and muddying. 2) god isn't one concept, but a vast range of conflicting definitions. 3) 'Atheist' covers those unaware of theism — a concept of god is not needed. 4) Many definitions are unimaginable — cf. a square circle. See ignosticism.
@TheraminTrees, 1 I disagree. All knowledge is built out of such "concepts." They themselves are what empower us. 2&3, the concept of god is no less real than the concept of wealth. (I'd even say they have some of the same problems--can both empower and imprison us.) I disagree that someone who understands what the word 'atheist' means can avoid having a tangible concept of what a deity is. 4 concepts, like numbers, don't have to be precise to be useful. Ignosticism does not deny the concept.
@ananiasacts 1) Something being a concept is, in itself, of no significance. It's the content of the concept which gives it value. Stereotypes are 'concepts' but distort reality/hinder knowledge. 2) I didn't say anything about 'someone who understands what the word 'atheist' means' 4) Nor did I say concepts had to be precise to be useful, nor that ignosticism denied there were concepts of god. Ignosticism isn't merely about 'precision' — it's about coherence and falsifiability.
@TheraminTrees, I'm sure having a hard time making myself clear to you. And I'm not even sure why. 1-Of course I'm talking about the "content of the concept", and not the concept of conceiving itself. My claim is that it is our faith that what we believe is true that most empowers us to question those beliefs--to try to disprove them. That atheists are no different in being animated by their faith, that they actually enjoy a much greater certainty and demonstrate that via their self-scrutiny.
@ananiasacts "I'm sure having a hard time making myself clear to you. And I'm not even sure why."
—Well perhaps it's the muddying statements you started out with, like 'Atheists believe in the concept of god'. If you're saying 'there are concepts/definitions of gods', no one's arguing — but that isn't an issue of 'belief'. If on the other hand you're saying atheists believe in the content of the concept that's clearly false. So neither sense of 'Atheists believe in the concept of god' works.
@TheraminTrees, To me, the only way to parse it is: "atheists" (subject) "believe in" (predicate) "the concept of god." (object) You express a similar idea with 'there are concepts/definitions of gods' but it neglects to point out, by itself, that even atheists possess such a belief, although you say that later with "no one's arguing." To me, the "contents of the concept of god" refers to whatever 'simpler bits of thought' the 'concept of god' can itself be decomposed into, not belief in god.
@ananiasacts "but it neglects to point out, by itself, that even atheists possess such a belief"
—That's because it isn't a belief. Knowledge/awareness of a definition is not a belief in it. Definitions are out there —multitudes of them; That is not a matter of 'belief'. But if that's the only way you can parse it to yourself, then you're wasting your time talking to me, because to me, that is nonsense — for reasons I've explained.
Not sure how to reply to that sorry. I don't personally believe godly experiences from religious followers. I don't see why he'd choose to make a persons life "better" or interfere at all. I feel we are a result of something, but what is the ultimate picture of existence? Why and how? How does life result from reactions and string into the image? I'm just agnostic, and being agnostic makes sense to me.. I don't understand an atheists closed stance even after the vid.
@Koyukonn, I could say the same thing about agnosticism. What gives the idea of god credence in your mind that doesn't also leave you agnostic with respect to Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and the easter bunny? This is why I believe the god "meme" deserves serious scientific study. It seems uniquely capable of transcending human reasoning in ways that no other idea seems to enjoy. I don't believe atheists are closed to the idea of god; just closed to support for the destructive without reason.
Hmm, I don't think anyone can say for sure that god doesn't exist. Event to say fairies don't exist when in some form they do. It's possible they are out there just as it is possible god is. When I visually see an object with my eyes, it is actually seen in my brain as the light is converted to energy and perceived in the brain electronically or chemically.. So if I visualize a fairy, what's the difference between perceiving and seeing when they're both an object of the brain. They exist, in me.
@Koyukonn "I don't think anyone can say for sure that god doesn't exist"
—This video isn't saying gods don't exist — it's saying there's no reason to believe they do, and takes no effort not to.
"I visualize a fairy, what's the difference between perceiving and seeing when they're both an object of the brain."
—So you're suggesting there's no difference between imagination and reality?Between fact and fiction? Then I'm intrigued to know why you think we bother to make those distinctions.
@TheraminTrees Isn't it much better to say, "I think it's possible for god to exist, but we don't have that evidence yet(agnostic)" Rather than, "There's no reason for me to believe in a possibility of god, so I won't(Atheist)". Seems to me that Atheism is like having a closed mind about things. ????????????
@Koyukonn I wouldn't presume to answer for TheraminTrees here, but aren't you holding atheists up to a much higher standard than persons of faith? It's not like you hear dedicated Christians giving Buddhism or Hinduism the benefit of the doubt in that way, is it?
@Koyukonn No. It isn't better. 'Close-minded' might describe someone who had *reason* to believe, but stubbornly refused to. But if there's *no reason* to believe something, then not believing is in fact the most rational stance — there's nothing close-minded about it. BTW atheism isn't about no belief 'in a possibility of god' as you overstated. It's about no belief 'in gods'.
What a great video. Unfortunately the people who need to see it most won't even bother to watch it. This video, like all atheist arguments, uses logic and reason to justify whatever position is being advocated. People of faith are not swayed by logic and reason, so the messages contained in this video shall fall upon their deaf ears. As Jonathan Swift once brilliantly said: "You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place."
@RanaSylvatica, What a wonderful thing to say. A tribute the producer. I imagine it must be something like getting out of jail--all of a sudden a more robust and tangible world bursts into view. I wish I had once been religious just so that I could know. But then I realize that if god really is unknowable, then anyone who thinks they know god is actually worshiping a false god, and atheism itself is the most pious of the alternatives. And I wouldn't want to risk angering the unknowable one.
That was both awesome and will go WAY over the head of the average theist.
Lets face it, there's four sorts of theists; average intelligence (Still won't get this intellectual stuff.) dumb as rocks (won't get anything.) smart (probably heading towards atheism on their own.) and smart but evil (don't buy the religious bs, but foist it on others to make a living and/or gain power.)
And the smart, but moral, ones are the smallest group.
That's not what i asked. i asked "do you beleive". i didn't ask "do you know?". Work with me here just for a two or three letter word. i'm agreeing with you... and trying to illustrate a point. Do you believe there is/are a god(s)?
i didn't ask if you KNOW. i asked if you have a BELIEF. Knowledge and belief are not the same. Agnostic means without knowledge. Atheist is without belief. 99.9% of agnostics are atheist and vice versa. Knowledge != belief.
Atheism is NOT saying "there is/are no god(s)". That's the other point i'm trying to make. i'm both agnostic and atheist. And unless you HOLD a belief in gods, you are too.
There's a pop culture myth that agnostic is some kind middle path and that atheism is dogmatic.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You are wrong. Being an agnostic means you have neither a belief in god nor a belief in a lack of god.
Calling yourself a atheist agnostic is a oxymoron. You cant believe in no god and say their might be one. That dosnt work. Its simple. Athiest=No belife in God - Agnostic=God may or may not exist, ie. un-knowable
There are, in fact, many who call themselves agnostic atheists, who seem to mean they're at least open to the possibility even if they believe there's almost no chance of it. Some seem to mean they take atheism as a default position until and unless some evidence for it appears. Some seem to mean it's equally likely either way.
I call myself a gnostic atheist since I reject any 'explanation' that depends on a 'supernatural' or 'non-material' reality, & I have a definite belief.
I don't think you can simply say No belief in God = Belief in no God.
If I say Britney Spears was here with me last night, I think your default position would be you don't believe it. The fact that I can't produce any evidence she was ever here, with the plain fact of how unlikely it is, strongly indicates a lie on my part. But it's not written in stone; evidence could show up later that would force you to admit I was right.
Until then, do you have a definite belief that I'm lying, or not?
You are right, I can not decisively argue the validity of your statement of Brittany Spears being with you. I can only speculate the possibilities and improbabilities. Which is what we as humans can do, be it that circumstance or a higher entitiy. As far as the athiest/agnostic/gnostic thing goes, I find that to be just too hyperanalynical of the definitions.
@Punkforbrains If you don't know if there are any gods, then you *don't* believe in any, and thus you are an atheist. It's ok too, it's not a disease or something 8).
Indeed. Punk is caught up in the pop culture myth that agnostic is atheist lite and that atheism is dogmatic. It's hard to blame him up to a point. But after so many try to calmly explain the difference and why it matters. Well, all we can do is shrug.
I know that I struggle to keep up with all my subs, but I'm sure I'm no longer getting notifications about half of them, including yours and Doug's! Off sick this week, so happily doing some catch-ups!
I can only re-iterate what so many people have said already - concise, relative and sensible arguments cleverly put together as always! :-) Faved and 5*'d, of course!
I'm fachinated, in responce to the citizen/patriot quote, that people in the US says that it's bad when countries secularizes, when the US was build on a basis of freedom of religion and most of the founding fathers was atheists
JakobiaP 2 weeks ago
the thing that made me laugh was the "Some people say...."
CryoKatana97 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from TheraminTrees
This has been flagged as spam show
i disliked this video :)
beakon7 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from TheraminTrees
Comment removed
beakon7 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from TheraminTrees
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 4 weeks ago
What a nice monkey - i subscribed ;)
FrankSlade1983 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TheraminTrees
Thank you WiseMonkey.
iAMtekey 5 months ago
Why can't I find WiseMonkey 1?
goofinaround123 6 months ago
@goofinaround123 Hey Tommy. I took it down. Two of the characters were affectionately based on a married couple I used to know. A couple of years ago they revealed themselves to be two of the sickest, most vile individuals I've ever met — people were shocked by their extreme misanthropy. The video had to go — off YouTube and off my hard drive — along with every other reminder. And the real laugh? Last thing I heard, they'd joined a group praying for Richard Dawkins to 'see the light'.
TheraminTrees 6 months ago
@TheraminTrees OMG!!! (OMNG?) What was the subject of the first video, anyway?
DoctorNociceptor 5 months ago
@DoctorNociceptor It was on sexuality.
TheraminTrees 5 months ago
@TheraminTrees Interestingggg... I can understand how that could screw with your head. Well, you could make a different video to replace it. Or just one on a different subject. Like... I don't know. Can't think of anything, actually. Is that why you stopped making them?
DoctorNociceptor 5 months ago
@DoctorNociceptor 'Is that why you stopped making them?'
—Nope — just took down the one with them in it. Didn't care to see their faces. But they haven't poisoned the WiseMonkey well — I've just been doing other things.
TheraminTrees 5 months ago
@TheraminTrees Why not address what had occurred instead?
Aphotic0221 3 months ago
some people seeehhhh
tanenying 6 months ago
This is the most entertaining and useful video I've seen here in weeks. Keep up the good work!
xaiomanga 6 months ago
Snow monkey doesn't understand evolution.
Stonegoal 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I think it's pretty funny when your whole argument is against the belief in a higher power, yet the evidence used for your argument is based entirely on christianity/islam/structured religion. LMAO!
TexFight 8 months ago
@TexFight 'I think it's pretty funny when your whole argument ....'
—And that's the point in the sentence where the fallacy creeps in. This video isn't 'the whole argument' — it just answers a handful of things some people say. And because those people are coming from the religions you mentioned, they're answered in that context. Great that that moves you to laughter.
TheraminTrees 8 months ago 18
@TheraminTrees
So would you say that your view of the world has been significantly influenced by certain distorted beliefs characterized in major monotheistic religions?
TexFight 7 months ago
Damn, this was a brilliant clip! :) Thank you for posting! Please make more of these!
bary1234 9 months ago
So does that monkey always walk around with that chart?
great video!
goblethisgoblethat 9 months ago
extraordinary, but not supernatural evidence...
science does not explain and does not seek to explain supernatural phenomenons such as "does god exist", "is there heaven", for it is very difficult to present verifiable and objective evidence.
MrBigEnchilada 10 months ago
Please make more !
danthecat21 11 months ago
TheraminTrees needs to take an Intro to Philosophy course.
- You cannot defend materialism in a non-circular way.
- TheraminTrees has not distinguished between perceptual and non-perceptual experiences, has not addressed mystical experiences with intensional content, and has not given criteria for establishing the veridicality of experiences.
- All conscious experiences are private. That includes sense experiences.
Among MANY other simple facts and distinctions ignored in this video.
KittenButter 11 months ago
". . . see you all next time" . . . I hope there will be a next time!
WiseMonkey & his friends are good value. Another excellent video.
penning2u 1 year ago 3
@penning2u Hello again Rhonda and thank you ;8) I hope your 2011's got off to a great start!
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
KoalaSoup. I'm dieing in laughter.
theclinger 1 year ago
Some people say that wise monkey is a pretty cools guy.
DaManCallahan 1 year ago
Great video.
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago
some people seeeyyyyyy lol ; )
AtheistAddiction 1 year ago
Love this vid =D For once a video that cuts out all the BS and gets to the point. Absolutely Great =) =P
00Avenger17 1 year ago
Oh Theramin, I love your videos, but where has Wisemonkey #1: Bisexuality gone? :(
sectumsemmpra 1 year ago
lol. love the way WiseMonkey talks
MasterJurgen 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
But extraordinary claims don't require extraordinary evidence. Extraordinary is subjective.
erikmartin2 1 year ago
@erikmartin2 It's a red herring to say that extraordinary is subjective. The point being made is about proportionality. Claims of magnitude A require evidence of magnitude A — ie when we're talking about a paradigm-shifting concept, that requires appropriate, proportionate weight of evidence to back it up.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago 25
@TheraminTrees Then that's just a bias towards your existing paradigms. We should follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of whether it forces us to change our paradigms. Giving preference to evidence that agrees with what we already believe is exactly the problem inherent in the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" idea. It's confirmation bias.
erikmartin2 1 year ago
@erikmartin2 Where is TheraminTrees giving preference to evidence that agrees with what he already believes? This whole comment is a red herring that distracts from the main point — which is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Requiring evidence when someone makes an extraordinary claim has *nothing* to do with confirmation bias. It has to do with demanding evidence when someone makes a claim that flies in the face of previously established facts and reality.
VannahWilson 10 months ago
@TheraminTrees
I can't seem to find your first Wise Monkey vidio.
Was it deleted?
SinnFein4ever 9 months ago
@SinnFein4ever Yes. I should put on record that the first video contained two cartoon animal characters affectionately based on a couple I used to know. They became proselytising theists a couple of years ago, but then last year revealed a hateful, intricately paranoid fantasy world that shocked everyone. Several of us didn't want to see their faces again.
TheraminTrees 9 months ago
@TheraminTrees
Oh.
I'm very sorry to hear about your friends.
It must have been aweful for you.
It's horrible when religion warps the personality of someone whom you care for, into somthing twisted and...I can't find the words.
My mother's side of the family is very religious.
And very paranoid, and bigoted.
It's like they're mentally-stuck in the 1950s.
Fortunatly, my mother met my father, who managed to help her from being sucked into their whirpool of ignorance and hate.
SinnFein4ever 8 months ago
@SinnFein4ever 'Fortunatly, my mother met my father, who managed to help her from being sucked into their whirpool of ignorance and hate.'
—As awful as it is to watch people slip down the plug-hole, it's always good to hear about cases like your parents where people escape it. On the extreme side, Louis Theroux recently revisited the Westboro cult, whose numbers had substantially dwindled. He visited some girls who'd left, and it was great to see the contrast in the before and after footage.
TheraminTrees 8 months ago
@TheraminTrees
I saw the "20/20" segmant, in which they interviewed a 24-year-old daughter who'd been "cast out" of the family.
I haven't heard about any others who'd also left/been cast out.
SinnFein4ever 8 months ago
@SinnFein4ever Theroux said several had left — though I remember him focussing on two daughters from separate families, one of whom cited her previous conversations with him as an influence. Theroux noted how bizarre it was to see parents pretending to be happy at losing their offspring — the pretence came through when Theroux asked them how they felt, and instead of spontaneous genuine responses, he got stilted scripts, and wives checking with husbands what they should say. Appalling.
TheraminTrees 8 months ago
@TheraminTrees
On a slightly different note...you're looking kind-of blue, today.
SinnFein4ever 8 months ago
@erikmartin2 Really?
So if I claim that the fairies at the bottom of my garden are real, would you believe me?
My proof, I can feel that they are real, & the flowers always grow every year.
Nilsy1975 1 year ago
@erikmartin2
I almost think Koalasoup might be Qualia soup!!! :D
CAPTAIN OBVIOUS AWAAAAY!!!!!
Roenazarrek 1 year ago
@erikmartin2 Extraordinary is not subjective when we agree, or mostly agree, on what the definition of extraordinary means.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
"... but wait, who do I spy..." Some variety, please!
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides .... er, it's deliberately, self-consciously formulaic — thanks.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago 9
Comment removed
Antifides 1 year ago
@queenshussars But different people's morals often contradict each other. Whose morals are right? That's a moral question. People generally believe that their own morals are right because they evaluate them using their own morals.
oldbluescott 1 year ago
@queenshussars Why? Moral statements are just as untestable as statements about gods. This video even touched on that. Moral codes simply reinforce the contexts in which they were made. It's impossible to evaluate value systems without using a value system of your own.
oldbluescott 1 year ago
Wise monkey is wise...
CRUSH3Rdlux 1 year ago
Brilliant as always!
Dzotshen 1 year ago
If all the other apes, the benobas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas are atheists--why are humans so arrogant as to presume these other apes are wrong and religion is truth?
AtheisticHappiness 1 year ago
@AtheisticHappiness Just wanted to point out that it's "bonobos" not "benobas". They're such awesome apes. But about your question, I think you've already got the answer, people are arrogant. Most people presume they know better than animals, so they'll say anything and everything people have are better than what animals have.
jaygee514 1 year ago
0:05 I have never been able to watch any of these videos past this because holy shitty titty that's terrifying
bobplatypus 1 year ago
What is the cosmos?
mynameisjonas45 1 year ago
Man how come atheists are so good at editing videos to make them fun to watch? QualiaSoup and TheraminTrees always edit videos so well to where they are enjoyful to watch.
mynameisjonas45 1 year ago
I think I might love you, WiseMonkey. So silly but so effective.
airandfingers 1 year ago
This video made me smile. Here, I'll give you one too! =D
zombaidz 1 year ago
The idea that morality is merely subjective is endorsed by basically zero philosophers. Some philosophers are anti-realists and think morality is a human phenomenon, but even those philosophers think that some moral beliefs are better than others, and anti-realism is not the most popular theory among philosophers.
mageslime 1 year ago
@mageslime
Regardless of the philosophical support for morality, it is clear that it varies from culture to culture -- burqas and Sharia in one group, public nudity and and bondage in another, and so on. I don't think the video was endorsing moral nihilism, but pointing out the shifting sensibilities of cultures.
Angthor92 1 year ago
LOL this is hilarious
hac1m 1 year ago
That was really good, so creepy but well made
Jmaccaable 1 year ago
shit yeah
spumpkin777 1 year ago
Wisemonkey's voice is really weird.
tml4873 1 year ago
TheraminTrees, the video was excellent. However, I'd like to point out a rather careless error made in the video at the 7:00 mark. If you carefully scrutinize the quoted bible verse on the screen in its entirety, you will notice that Jesus is not actually saying that children should be put to death. He is quoting the God of Abraham from the Old Testament to point out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.
(continued in next comment)
hhfleury 1 year ago
Ex. In lamens terms, The Pharisees say to Jesus: "You and your disciples didn't wash your hands before you eat. You should be washing your hands because God said so."
Jesus replies, "Well, you guys dishonor your parents by claiming that what your parents do for you is a gift from God, not from them(the parents). God said that children who don't honor their parents should be put to death, should we put you to death? You hypocrites!"
Jesus merely pointed out the pharisees' inconsistency
hhfleury 1 year ago
@hhfleury We understood what the exchange was about — that was, however, not pertinent to the point being made, which was specifically about Jesus's complicity with the stoning to death command.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees Well then can you please enlighten me with something that testifies to Jesus condoning the stoning to death command? Because I always thought Jesus intervened and prevented that prostitute from being stoned to death.
hhfleury 1 year ago
@hhfleury Yes, there is the 'cast the first stone' story. But the passage we've been discussing is complicit with stoning: Jesus affirms the child-stoning as what 'God said'. If you want to dive into the ocean of contradictions that this opens up — including the total about-face between old and new testament moralities, supposedly authored by one eternal consistent god — then you have more time than I do.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees Yes, believe me I understood that point of the video and yes there are many evil things that the Old Testament 'God' had done. I understand what you mean when you say the Old Testament morality is different than the new testament's morality.
However, all I'm saying is that Jesus did not himself say that children must be put to death. He said "For God said". If they were Jesus' own words, he would not include 'For God said' at the beginning.
hhfleury 1 year ago
@hhfleury Jesus didn't invent the command — but we didn't claim he did. However he does evoke and collude with the law by presenting it as the command of the god he is peddling. If I promote a political party who advocates stoning children, and say 'they said we should stone children', I am implicated. We could of course get very pedantic and say that Jesus did literally say children must be put to death — he said the words. I don't think we were careless — I think our sense is clear.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees Well, usually Jesus will use the terms 'my father', 'the heavenly father', 'the one who sent me', etc. In this context he was talking to the Pharisees and I think he used the word 'God' to refer to the god that they worshipped. I looked up that verse in other versions of the bible and in some translations, he used the words 'Your God' instead of just 'God'. I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't peddling the same God of Moses worshipped by the Jews at the time.
hhfleury 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees I agree, I think the sentence "Jesus also said that children should be put to death for swearing at their parents" is very pedantic and implies that Jesus wants children to be put to death for swearing at their parents. I don't think that quoting someone necessarily implicates you as one who shares the same beliefs.
hhfleury 1 year ago
@hhfleury "I agree...."
—No — you don't agree, because that was not my point. Neither was it the video's. As I've already explained. Neither was the video's point 'pedantic'. It was the valid observation that a contemptible law was colluded with and not criticised — instead Pharisees were criticised for NOT following it. If you have no problem with the passage, fine. But to call our mention of it 'rather careless' was wrong — it was considered, and I've explained why.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago 2
@TheraminTrees To be honest, I thought it was careless because it was not mentioned that the Pharisees were criticized for not following the law because they claimed to believe in those scriptures. Jesus did not necessarily support them. Not speaking out against evil or refraining from criticizing something that is wrong when you have the chance does not always mean that you agree with it said evil. Also, there are a few examples in the new testament where Jesus does criticize Old testament laws
hhfleury 1 year ago
@hhfleury Our not mentioning the Pharisees was not 'careless', it was considered and intentional — it was not the point we wanted to make, in the limited time available in this video. If we had unlimited time, we might've gone into it — and hundreds upon hundreds of other points. We made the point we wanted to make — about the collusion of not criticising the stoning law, but criticising those who did not follow it.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago 6
@TheraminTrees Alright, then. I understand. I apologize for misinterpreting your intentions. I shouldn't have said careless. Misleading, maybe.
I just don't think you provided enough evidence in the video to reason that Jesus supports the stoning of mischievous children.
hhfleury 1 year ago
@hhfleury I've made it clear that the video's scope — covering a multitude of points about atheism — did not allow time to go into specific passages in depth. So that point's been addressed. I've explained the video's point about collusion with the stoning law, criticising those who didn't follow it, rather than the law. So that point's been addressed. You feel misled — you've expressed it, I've explained our position.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago 15
@TheraminTrees Fair enough. I appreciate that you took the time to elaborate and defend your position. I have peace of mind knowing that your intentions were not as presuming as I interpreted them to be. Thank you for your rather polite discourse.
hhfleury 1 year ago
Brilliant video! Haha, Russell's teapot <3!
alifeofreason 1 year ago
I'm just not convinced that any moral code can be subjective. We don't know what moral code would be like if there had never been any religious influence. I can't help but wonder if religion hasn't always been a mechinism for developing and dispensing morals. Even athiests are subject to this development. I'll look for videos on the topic.
PrintedTruth 1 year ago
@PrintedTruth "I'm just not convinced that any moral code can be subjective."
—In that case, you're welcome to put forward what you consider an objective moral code, and we'll see how objective it is.
"We don't know what moral code would be like if there had never been any religious influence."
—But we can develop codes free of religious influence, based on other criteria such as social pragmatics.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees hi, just wanted to take this opportunity to intrude and ask you a question. Any way you might weigh in and address the issues on DMD or a subject close to this matter perhaps? Maybe it's not your cup of tea..I dunno. Thank you.
mytv80 1 year ago
@mytv80 I've vacillated between doing a video and not doing a video. I'm not sure more commentary is needed, but I might refer to the issue in future videos, perhaps tangentially — there are some points I'd like to make that I haven't seen made.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees oh ok I see : ) thank you. Yes, I'd be Very much interested to hear and see your perspective on this issue. I, as well as others regard your opinions highly..well I know I do. I always learn something new everytime I watch your video over again and you get me thinking everytime. Not to flood you with compliments but..its True. Thank you I appreciate it. Take care.
mytv80 1 year ago
@mytv80 Why, thank you ;8) One of the things I've appreciated about the DMD thing is the debate it's sparked about these very important issues — they clearly needed airing. Sadly of course the debate's been latched onto by folks with an agenda of blind prejudice. But the volume of reasoned, considered argument I've seen from parties on all sides has been great to witness — and an ocean away from the terrorism it's responding to.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees hmm..yes very true. Ahaha ..thanks for the nibble..I appreciate it : )
mytv80 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees I assure you that I'm not in the position to put forward any moral code. You say" we can develop codes free of religious influence, based on other criteria such as social pragmatics. "
Isn't any development subject to previous understanding of morality? Even if you reject the moral haven't you at least used the relgious standards as a touch stone?
PrintedTruth 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PrintedTruth "I assure you that I'm not in the position to put forward any moral code."
—So you're disputing that any moral code is subjective, but decline to substantiate that with an example. Then we can dismiss that point.
"Isn't any development subject to previous understanding of morality?"
—Nope. Once we define morality — eg distinguishing desirable and undesirable behaviour — we can construct one from first principles. My own morality is based on secular principles.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees My reason for discussion is not because I'm defending religion. I just can't see how we can say with absolute certainty that we are not influenced by centuries of oppresive religious teachings. I realize there are obvious Morals that are based on principles but what about the subsets like white lies, envy, disrespect, and gossip. I don't think we should ignore the fact that religion has been the keeper of morals for good or for bad.
PrintedTruth 1 year ago
@PrintedTruth 'a) I just can't see how we can say with absolute certainty that we are not influenced by centuries of oppresive religious teachings .... b) I don't think we should ignore the fact that religion has been the keeper of morals for good or for bad.'
a) Again, nope. We can say it when we have a morality that is reasoned from first principles.
b) If the fact that religions have historically imposed their moralities interests you, by all means don't ignore it.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@PrintedTruth b) cont. ... but it only has value in considering the contexts in which it was imposed, and possibly in its antagonistic role to reasoned morality. The subject of morality is not intrinsically linked with religion - it can be discussed, as I have indicated several times here, totally without reference to religion. And that religion-free context is what I personally find meaningful.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
I realize this thread is getting long so I'll end with this. I can't help but wonder if religion didn't really define morality, but instead added what was basic to human nature to their control, and then built on them.
PrintedTruth 1 year ago
@PrintedTruth I would certainly agree if you are making the point that religion hijacked morality, claiming it as its exclusive province - though it is clearly anything but.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
This video is definitely getting faved!
marcuelcajon 1 year ago
this is funny and right on point, you did a great job!
Dumass88 1 year ago
Excellent work!! I am tired of you, again and again beeing perfect. You suck man! Great job!
J0EH3AD 1 year ago
I disagree with the idea that there are no objective moral codes. I have one. It's reasoned out step by step from foundation to final product, and it never contradicts itself, although it is in conflict with several other moral codes.
However, I agree with the point regarding "cherry-picking" of the Bible.
GoblinKnightLeo 1 year ago
@GoblinKnightLeo "I disagree with the idea that there are no objective moral codes. I have one. It's reasoned out step by step from foundation to final product, and it never contradicts itself, although it is in conflict with several other moral codes."
—Feel free to substantiate that
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@GoblinKnightLeo "If you like. Ever heard of Ayn Rand?"
—Yes.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@GoblinKnightLeo "As to your response to my comment, I will do so. It's rather long, but I'll write it as best I can. You should get it tomorrow."
—Hello again — as it says on my channel page, I don't do this stuff via PM, so if you're going to express your ideas, could you do it via comments sections, or in video format. This is for reasons of openness and concision.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
0:39 Atheists believe in the concept of god. How could a person distinguish between an experience caused by their concept of god from one caused by a supernatural entity? I don't see any difference between the way atheists or religious people experience "god." Just a difference in the way they interpret the experience.
I think it's the power of our faith that makes us question and scrutinize what we believe. Those with little faith must spend their time defending their beliefs against doubt.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts "Atheists believe in the concept of god."
—Atheists do not believe in the concept of god — and certainly don't experience god. Some atheists discuss the concepts that others put forward in discussion.
"Those with little faith must spend their time defending their beliefs against doubt."
—Nope — until 3 years ago, I rarely had cause to think about, let alone discuss, religious issues. I started again on here solely in response to the anti-atheist hate I saw/experienced.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees, I think using the word 'god' proves you believe that the concept of god is real. It exists in your mind or the word 'god' could not part of your vocabulary.
If you're an atheist, i believe you do spend a considerable amount of time scrutinizing that which you have faith in. I'm not saying you do it because you doubt it, quite the opposite. You do it because you want to know it better. I see that desire as motivated by the strength of your faith that what you pursue is true.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts " I think using the word 'god' proves you believe that the concept of god is real."
—Using the word 'god' merely shows that there is a word 'god', for which there are vague definitions. Do not tell me what I believe — it is a gross impertinence.
"I believe you do spend a considerable amount of time scrutinizing that which you have faith in."
—Nope, I spend time knocking back those who actively come at me with their assumptions and impositions.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago 3
@TheraminTrees, I think we're victims of the semantic ambiguity of our language. Saying that all atheists believe in the concept of god is no different than claiming they know what the word "atheist" means. You simply cannot be an atheist if you possess no "concept of god" to disbelieve in. I'm only saying that the concept itself exists, not the actual supernatural entity that it represents. In any event, my impertinence was really only incompetence. All I can do about that is practice.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts Several problems here. 1) Saying there is a concept for something is saying nothing of significance — there is a concept for Sherlock Holmes. Saying the concept is 'real', 'exists' or that someone 'believes' it is misleading and muddying. 2) god isn't one concept, but a vast range of conflicting definitions. 3) 'Atheist' covers those unaware of theism — a concept of god is not needed. 4) Many definitions are unimaginable — cf. a square circle. See ignosticism.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees, 1 I disagree. All knowledge is built out of such "concepts." They themselves are what empower us. 2&3, the concept of god is no less real than the concept of wealth. (I'd even say they have some of the same problems--can both empower and imprison us.) I disagree that someone who understands what the word 'atheist' means can avoid having a tangible concept of what a deity is. 4 concepts, like numbers, don't have to be precise to be useful. Ignosticism does not deny the concept.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts 1) Something being a concept is, in itself, of no significance. It's the content of the concept which gives it value. Stereotypes are 'concepts' but distort reality/hinder knowledge. 2) I didn't say anything about 'someone who understands what the word 'atheist' means' 4) Nor did I say concepts had to be precise to be useful, nor that ignosticism denied there were concepts of god. Ignosticism isn't merely about 'precision' — it's about coherence and falsifiability.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees, I'm sure having a hard time making myself clear to you. And I'm not even sure why. 1-Of course I'm talking about the "content of the concept", and not the concept of conceiving itself. My claim is that it is our faith that what we believe is true that most empowers us to question those beliefs--to try to disprove them. That atheists are no different in being animated by their faith, that they actually enjoy a much greater certainty and demonstrate that via their self-scrutiny.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts "I'm sure having a hard time making myself clear to you. And I'm not even sure why."
—Well perhaps it's the muddying statements you started out with, like 'Atheists believe in the concept of god'. If you're saying 'there are concepts/definitions of gods', no one's arguing — but that isn't an issue of 'belief'. If on the other hand you're saying atheists believe in the content of the concept that's clearly false. So neither sense of 'Atheists believe in the concept of god' works.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees, To me, the only way to parse it is: "atheists" (subject) "believe in" (predicate) "the concept of god." (object) You express a similar idea with 'there are concepts/definitions of gods' but it neglects to point out, by itself, that even atheists possess such a belief, although you say that later with "no one's arguing." To me, the "contents of the concept of god" refers to whatever 'simpler bits of thought' the 'concept of god' can itself be decomposed into, not belief in god.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts "but it neglects to point out, by itself, that even atheists possess such a belief"
—That's because it isn't a belief. Knowledge/awareness of a definition is not a belief in it. Definitions are out there —multitudes of them; That is not a matter of 'belief'. But if that's the only way you can parse it to yourself, then you're wasting your time talking to me, because to me, that is nonsense — for reasons I've explained.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
Not sure how to reply to that sorry. I don't personally believe godly experiences from religious followers. I don't see why he'd choose to make a persons life "better" or interfere at all. I feel we are a result of something, but what is the ultimate picture of existence? Why and how? How does life result from reactions and string into the image? I'm just agnostic, and being agnostic makes sense to me.. I don't understand an atheists closed stance even after the vid.
Koyukonn 1 year ago
@Koyukonn, I could say the same thing about agnosticism. What gives the idea of god credence in your mind that doesn't also leave you agnostic with respect to Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and the easter bunny? This is why I believe the god "meme" deserves serious scientific study. It seems uniquely capable of transcending human reasoning in ways that no other idea seems to enjoy. I don't believe atheists are closed to the idea of god; just closed to support for the destructive without reason.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts Cheers.
Koyukonn 1 year ago
@Koyukonn "I don't understand an atheists closed stance even after the vid."
—No — you just don't understand an atheists stance. Your repeated characterisation of atheism as 'closed' demonstrates that.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
Hmm, I don't think anyone can say for sure that god doesn't exist. Event to say fairies don't exist when in some form they do. It's possible they are out there just as it is possible god is. When I visually see an object with my eyes, it is actually seen in my brain as the light is converted to energy and perceived in the brain electronically or chemically.. So if I visualize a fairy, what's the difference between perceiving and seeing when they're both an object of the brain. They exist, in me.
Koyukonn 1 year ago
@Koyukonn "I don't think anyone can say for sure that god doesn't exist"
—This video isn't saying gods don't exist — it's saying there's no reason to believe they do, and takes no effort not to.
"I visualize a fairy, what's the difference between perceiving and seeing when they're both an object of the brain."
—So you're suggesting there's no difference between imagination and reality?Between fact and fiction? Then I'm intrigued to know why you think we bother to make those distinctions.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees Isn't it much better to say, "I think it's possible for god to exist, but we don't have that evidence yet(agnostic)" Rather than, "There's no reason for me to believe in a possibility of god, so I won't(Atheist)". Seems to me that Atheism is like having a closed mind about things. ????????????
Koyukonn 1 year ago
@Koyukonn I wouldn't presume to answer for TheraminTrees here, but aren't you holding atheists up to a much higher standard than persons of faith? It's not like you hear dedicated Christians giving Buddhism or Hinduism the benefit of the doubt in that way, is it?
Apolloin 1 year ago
@Koyukonn No. It isn't better. 'Close-minded' might describe someone who had *reason* to believe, but stubbornly refused to. But if there's *no reason* to believe something, then not believing is in fact the most rational stance — there's nothing close-minded about it. BTW atheism isn't about no belief 'in a possibility of god' as you overstated. It's about no belief 'in gods'.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees Thanks for the responses. I understand now and will think on these things. Cheers
Koyukonn 1 year ago
What a great video. Unfortunately the people who need to see it most won't even bother to watch it. This video, like all atheist arguments, uses logic and reason to justify whatever position is being advocated. People of faith are not swayed by logic and reason, so the messages contained in this video shall fall upon their deaf ears. As Jonathan Swift once brilliantly said: "You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place."
CommonAtheist 1 year ago
this is very sad and it made me feel sorry for the people involved in the production of this video
JustinSims1983 1 year ago
@JustinSims1983 Well, we're all fine, happy people — so your personal sadness is unfortunate, but has nothing to do with us. :8)
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@JustinSims1983 why?
adzug 1 year ago
This vid was transitiional in my de-conversion. I love this vid and the cool creatures that live in atheist land.
RanaSylvatica 1 year ago
@RanaSylvatica Thanks Rana — and I'm intrigued that you mention this video as being involved with your transition.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@RanaSylvatica, What a wonderful thing to say. A tribute the producer. I imagine it must be something like getting out of jail--all of a sudden a more robust and tangible world bursts into view. I wish I had once been religious just so that I could know. But then I realize that if god really is unknowable, then anyone who thinks they know god is actually worshiping a false god, and atheism itself is the most pious of the alternatives. And I wouldn't want to risk angering the unknowable one.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
Hmmm... what a nice monkey.
bozzutoman 1 year ago
That was both awesome and will go WAY over the head of the average theist.
Lets face it, there's four sorts of theists; average intelligence (Still won't get this intellectual stuff.) dumb as rocks (won't get anything.) smart (probably heading towards atheism on their own.) and smart but evil (don't buy the religious bs, but foist it on others to make a living and/or gain power.)
And the smart, but moral, ones are the smallest group.
Shavarnarak 1 year ago
@Shavarnarak Actually the smartest people are often capable of the greatest self-deception.
Apolloin 1 year ago
you dont need to be atheist to be good
aptimn 1 year ago
Very Funny !
skepticalinquier 1 year ago
The Gibbon's talking Dawkins!
I am enjoying this WAY too much! Time to get some sleep...
CanadiaNecro1 1 year ago
Salad finger voice
mattb521 1 year ago
WHAT THE FUDGE!!!!
cunroth 1 year ago
Applause
cat3162 1 year ago
no offense but I think this is a waste of your talent.
SaristasX 1 year ago
mount juju looks peacefull ^^
haashond 1 year ago
hi theramin trees, you think you can do an environmentalist episode? :)
TBman256 1 year ago
i wish you would alter your "chimp accent" a bit, so it could be understood more easily
promotecheese2010 1 year ago
promotecheese,
Tell that to everybody in Lancashire (if I'm not mistaken) who speaks like this! I think he's got a great accent. "Ah, poor mayfly" is classic!
Where are you from, WiseMonkey?
Nilguiri 1 year ago
@Nilguiri no, im not trying to insult him, i just sometimes have trouble understand what ur saying
promotecheese2010 1 year ago
some people shay....
Gorevet 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this is a terrible movie.
oh its absolutely true. (go team atheist :P)
but the presentation is terrible and annoying.
annoying noises, stupid costumes, stupid speech artifacts, bad dialogue, etc. plus it comes off as preachy and pretentious
taltamir 1 year ago
Very great video.
Still an Agnostic tho.
Punkforbrains 1 year ago
Do you *have* a belief in gods/that gods exist?
If your answer is no, you are an atheist.
Apeiron242 1 year ago 10
I believe it is impossible to know for certain if a god or gods exist.
There may be something there may not be. It is impossible to know
Punkforbrains 1 year ago
That's not what i asked. i asked "do you beleive". i didn't ask "do you know?". Work with me here just for a two or three letter word. i'm agreeing with you... and trying to illustrate a point. Do you believe there is/are a god(s)?
Apeiron242 1 year ago 3
I dont know! Thats what an Agnostic is, we dont know. There is no yes or no for me on this topic. I dont know if there are gods.
Punkforbrains 1 year ago
i didn't ask if you KNOW. i asked if you have a BELIEF. Knowledge and belief are not the same. Agnostic means without knowledge. Atheist is without belief. 99.9% of agnostics are atheist and vice versa. Knowledge != belief.
Atheism is NOT saying "there is/are no god(s)". That's the other point i'm trying to make. i'm both agnostic and atheist. And unless you HOLD a belief in gods, you are too.
There's a pop culture myth that agnostic is some kind middle path and that atheism is dogmatic.
Apeiron242 1 year ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are wrong. Being an agnostic means you have neither a belief in god nor a belief in a lack of god.
Calling yourself a atheist agnostic is a oxymoron. You cant believe in no god and say their might be one. That dosnt work. Its simple. Athiest=No belife in God - Agnostic=God may or may not exist, ie. un-knowable
Punkforbrains 1 year ago
@Punkforbrains
There are, in fact, many who call themselves agnostic atheists, who seem to mean they're at least open to the possibility even if they believe there's almost no chance of it. Some seem to mean they take atheism as a default position until and unless some evidence for it appears. Some seem to mean it's equally likely either way.
I call myself a gnostic atheist since I reject any 'explanation' that depends on a 'supernatural' or 'non-material' reality, & I have a definite belief.
StevoDog21 1 year ago
I don't think you can simply say No belief in God = Belief in no God.
If I say Britney Spears was here with me last night, I think your default position would be you don't believe it. The fact that I can't produce any evidence she was ever here, with the plain fact of how unlikely it is, strongly indicates a lie on my part. But it's not written in stone; evidence could show up later that would force you to admit I was right.
Until then, do you have a definite belief that I'm lying, or not?
StevoDog21 1 year ago
You are right, I can not decisively argue the validity of your statement of Brittany Spears being with you. I can only speculate the possibilities and improbabilities. Which is what we as humans can do, be it that circumstance or a higher entitiy. As far as the athiest/agnostic/gnostic thing goes, I find that to be just too hyperanalynical of the definitions.
Punkforbrains 1 year ago
Comment removed
InternalCompass 1 year ago
@Apeiron242 It's sad that you and many of us have to repeat this to many folks, all the time.
gir908922 1 year ago
@Punkforbrains If you don't know if there are any gods, then you *don't* believe in any, and thus you are an atheist. It's ok too, it's not a disease or something 8).
Sahuagin 1 year ago
@ Sahuagin.. Excellent and to the point. Bravo!
AJBFD 1 year ago
Sahuagin,
Indeed. Punk is caught up in the pop culture myth that agnostic is atheist lite and that atheism is dogmatic. It's hard to blame him up to a point. But after so many try to calmly explain the difference and why it matters. Well, all we can do is shrug.
Apeiron242 1 year ago
I LOVE WISE MONKEY!!! I think we'll use some of these at Camp Quest this year.... Can't believe I didn't think of it sooner!
Thank you for all the hard work you put into these quality productions.
ReligiousFiction 1 year ago 2
Hey thanks Religious — on behalf of the team! ;8)
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
I know that I struggle to keep up with all my subs, but I'm sure I'm no longer getting notifications about half of them, including yours and Doug's! Off sick this week, so happily doing some catch-ups!
I can only re-iterate what so many people have said already - concise, relative and sensible arguments cleverly put together as always! :-) Faved and 5*'d, of course!
RobNorthampton 1 year ago
Aw — hope you're feeling better soon Rob! This was great fun, working with great folks I really respect. ;8)
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
A very good video, very comprehensive and informative.
You should all be proud of yourselves for a great peice of work.
Eclypsia13 1 year ago
I loves me some Wise Monkey. It would be great to see more :)