(Part 4) All that said, I am not discouraging criticism of religion or confrontation of religious people--just that a certain amount of strategy is needed. I wouldn't call a fundamentalist Christian names or make fun of them in a gratuitously *hurtful* way; I would simply argue that their holy book leads to harmful policies and is based on poor or no evidence, although I may still use humor *as needed* in the form of analogies that attempt to expose the underlying absurdities.
(Part 3) We must LEARN to be rational; it doesn't come naturally. I think in all likelihood there is no such thing as true "free will"--so I certainly cannot *expect* or *demand* that people choose to become rational. I cannot blame them for being irrational, any more than I can blame my internet connection for freezing. All we can do is try to solve the problem to the highest degree practical.
(Part 2) Being religious is an easy mistake to make, because we are not naturally rational creatures. We are driven by biases, and the appeal of an idea is a greater factor in whether it's accepted than its evidential basis. We're affected by confirmation biases, wishful and magical thinking, a desire for eternal life and a loving almighty parent figure and a book of answers, and our worldview rests on something and all our friends and family believe in it, it is hard to consider the contrary.
My thought is this: A supreme being probably doesn't exist, and the supernatural claims of every religion are certainly false. People should be encouraged to be rational in all areas, including in the area of their religious beliefs. Religion should never influence government.
However, believing in religion is a very easy mistake to make, so we shouldn't be *mean* to believers. I find myself very skeptical of the notion that assholery and name-calling are effective tactics in discrediting them.
It's not that there is necessarily a code of conduct, but when one begins to act in a certain way, those actions fall outside the realm of what those terms mean. I guess it's like not falling within the definition of Atheist or Skeptic.
The problem is that everyone has different life experiences. We all have different sets of knowledge. You came to your particular world view because of the experiences and knowledge you've gained. Others aren't necessarily working with the same knowledge set that you have.
The point is that we need to understand these differences and try to work around them. More important than "proving someone wrong" is understanding them. Then, maybe you can see why they believe what they do.
I think you're right... ironically. At least, you can't be 100% certain that you're right. You can only side with where the evidence points at the time you make your conclusion. With that being said, you should always be willing to change your mind.
A lot of the sometimes excessive bitterness of certain fanatical atheists toward Christianity is the result of feeling that too many people are trying to shove Christianity down their throats at every opportunity.
And if Christianity and Islam take the greatest amount of flak, it's because those two religions have earned that degree of flak by their own arrogance, intolerance, and aggressive and often violent constant efforts to convert the whole world to their particular superstitions.
@MagiMysteryTour Wow, what a sad example of media brainwashing you are. When was the last time a Muslim knocked on your door trying to share the Quran? Try reading the Quran and meeting real Muslims instead of watching Fox news, thanks.
@Siva3Enthroned Muslims don't knock on doors, rather they tend to knock them down! That was deliberately provocative just to get your attention, because you seem to miss the point that most if not all religion is based on the deeply flawed hypothesis that some "uncreated" super-being made the entire universe just for us! We don't have to read every line of your 'holy' books to know that they collapse on this one premise alone, never mind the hateful details they are also littered with!
Excellent video ! Its good to see a resistance movement appearing and growing to counter the pseudoskeptics. There is a sore need to expose this army of extremists mainly to themselves. They seem quite unaware of the misguidedness of their abrasive activities. Many other people benefit from the exposure also as it polarises and clarifies and solidifies many peoples vague opinions. I've identified a single marker for the pseudoskeptics. A useful rule of thumb. My latest video.Highest Regards
Yes- that is precisely what i'm saying.I think that there is both a conscious and un-conscious reason why this happens.I believe that some atheists,are not really seekers of truth at all.What they are seeking is validation for their non-belief.They consciously or un-consciously,avoid at arriving at conclusions that contradict their solidified positions,and pre-determined conclusions.Therefore,limiting their investigations to data that supports their view,and empolying linear logic to justify it.
I agree with your assessment. I think that some people start with the conclusion that they are an atheist or a skeptic, and then find ways to reinforce that. And part of doing that means criticizing and "debunking" everything, because that's what they think those philosophies are about.
"They are seeing validation for their non- belief", You mean belief, Not something is not anything at all, While atheism is the belief that there is no god, However the rest of your post was good.
@AestheticAtheist Atheism is the *lack* of belief, which logically *cannot* be a belief! Atheism with regard to deities is the exact equivalent of a-fairyism with regard to fairies. You probably don't believe in fairies, so does that make you dogmatic? No atheist will claim to be able to prove gods don't exist, just as no one can prove fairies don't exist, but disbelief is the reasonable default position until convincing evidence comes in. You should know this, "Atheist."
It's not "a-theism" but "athe-ism". It comes from the greek "a-theos" which means "no gods". Hence, "athe-ism" means BELIEF IN atheos (there are no gods).
"a-theism" is a recent attempt to trivialize itself into merely describing the psychological state of lacking belief. This is irrelevant, as it says nothing about God, and is completely compatible with God existing
@AestheticAtheist Bull - you're just playing word games because you're not serious about learning anything. Very few atheists define themselves the way you do, in fact I've never met one like that. WE define what it means, not you or anyone else, and especially not a dictionary!
"bull you're just playing word games because you're not serious about learning anything"
You are not serious about learning what the word atheism means that is why you are holding to your position even though you have been shown to be incorrect.
"very few atheists define themselves the way you do"
illogic does not become correct thinking just because it becomes fashionable.
"WE define what it means, not you or anyone else, and especially not a dictionary"
ahhhh so when your argument fails then you can just redefine words to suit yourself, There are atheists like gklr and mungbeanman who do not subscribe to your definition of lack so you do not speak for them, So who is this WE that you talk about? You don't speak for atheists, you speak for yourself.
Trying to redefine words is not going to work for you against me, you can play that game elsewhere.
@AestheticAtheist I did say "very few" and if those you mentioned are among them, so what? The overwhelming majority of atheists agree with me. I suggest you look on freethoughtblogs com/pharyngula and richarddawkins net for more discussion. I suspect that you're probably a troll, though.
Wrong thinking does not become Correct thinking because it is popular, Atheism is the belief there is no god, the fallacy of appealing to majority does not change that, You have to show how atheism means lack of belief with an intelligent argument, just saying it is a lack of belief is a proof by assertion, I shot down your assertion so you need to try again.
Still waiting for you to prove the universe came into being without a creator and prove that everything within the universe came into being without a creator including biological organisms, You said there is no evidence for a creator, For that statement to be true then it would mean you know the creation interpretation is false.
Still waiting for you to prove the universe and biological organisms came into being without a creator, No wonder you think nothing is something.
"but disbelief is the reasonable default position until convincing evidence comes in. You should know this, "Atheist""
What is convincing evidence is subjective, For example while you might agree with dawkins that the universe evolved out of literally nothing, others might say but nothing is not anything, to say the universe can come from nothing is to talk about nothing as something and thus reject your atheistic faith.
@AestheticAtheist The first thing new findings in science have to endure is the peer review process, where other scientists try as hard as they can to discover any faults with a discovery or a theory. This is how evidence becomes convincing enough to be tentatively described as 'true' - but it's always subject to revision from new evidence, and sometimes whole theories have collapsed because of this, because scientists want to know what's *really* true, 'comforting' or not.
@AestheticAtheist I and any scientists will be perfectly happy to accept the evidence for a creator if and when any shows up, but so far that has not happened. Keep trying, though.
There's a really good video on Youtube you might like from Lawrence Krauss, called "A Universe from Nothing."
When did scientists test nothing being something that exists and then test the universe evolving from it and then publish this in peer review? -- This sentence makes no sense at all.
"and any scientists will be happy to accept the evidence for a creator if and when any shows up, but that has not happened, Keep trying though."
To say there is no evidence means that you know the creator interpretation is false, We have the same evidence, so to say there is no evidence only makes sense if you know that the creator interpretation is wrong.
Thus you have to prove that the universe came into being without a creator and that biological organisms and everything in the universe came into being without a creator, because to claim there is no evidence only makes sense if you know your interpretation is true, You won't be able to back up your claim because you pulled the claim from your ass.
nothing is not anything, it literally is no-thing, to say the universe came from nothing is to talk about nothing as something, You do not believe in the law of cause and effect and believe the universe just poofed into being from a state of nothing which is not anything.
hahahahahahahah
As for Krauss, He said 2+2=5 in his debate with craig, No wonder you follow Krauss when you are so stupid, you probably think 2+2=5 too.
I agree with alot of what you say.It is my opinion that alot of skeptics,atheists,etc..,have no real desire to ascertain wether or not something may actually be true,simpy because it runs contrary to their solidified pre-conceptions and formulated stance.Not only do i feel that there may exist a deep seated animosity,but also a deep seated fear.Not unlike Freud,who many post yungians felt was afraid of his own un-conscious,thus leading him to develop a very linear view of instinct and intuition
That is an interesting perspective. Are you saying that many skeptics and atheists are afraid of what they consider to be pseudoscience... in that they are afraid of being wrong after taking such a strong stance after such a long period of time? I think that this may be the case with a lot of people.
It may start out with a genuine desire to seek truth, but soon becomes an emotional attachment to a certain conclusion; like there being no such things as ghosts.
Well, once we understand certain ideas, like homeopathy, then we know it to be total bunk. Such bunk and similar unfounded claims are what I list on my Debunkatron site. I do take a pleasure is pointing out false or unfounded beliefs, and I'm fine with others doing the same to me. I think having a good-humored and fun approach to changing minds is a happy thing.
If you are talking about attacks on moderates then I think I've been exactly the type of atheist you address here lately. The problem has been the things religious people have said to me since the death of my father in July. On multiple occasions I have had "moderate" Christians question my ability to love or to properly grieve for someone without believing in god or the afterlife. Every little religious comment seems cruel and dehumanizing. I'm in a lot of pain and I have lost all patience.
As far as your situation involving moderates and the statements they've made toward you, that is definitely not what I'm talking about here. You have every right to be upset, and you are certainly within your rights to criticize. What comes to mind for me is the way those, for example in the "League of Reason," are very quick to condemn anyone who doesn't take an entirely scientific worldview.
I guess I'm saying understanding should be the goal, regardless of what it is we debate.
I wish you had given some more detailed examples. The first thing that came to my mind was Einstein's rejection both of quantum mechanics and of big bang cosmology. This is hardly an everyday example of what you are talking about though. What kinds of ideas do you see as falling unfairly under attack these days? Or is it more a matter of framing and style within these debates that you are concerned with apart from actual content?
I think you would be right in that it is the framing of the method of argumentation that I question. I think some people just have it in their mind that they are going to "debunk" anything they don't agree with, and dispense with the work of actually trying to understand what they are trying to disprove.
I would also say that you are probably correct with the Einstein example. I think he had a personal, possibly emotional, reason for not wanting to accept QM and Big Bang cosmology.
Christians and Muslims take "flak" from atheist extremists? When did atheists persecute any of them? Did we ever behead or burn anyone at the stake? Did atheists ever launch planes against buildings or launched bomb attacks on innocent crowds? Do atheists spread racist, misogynistic or homophobic propaganda? Do atheists bunch up on "worship" buildings charging fees and donations (and use most of it on luxury LIKE THE FUCKING VATICAN)? Name one!
We're obviously talking about two different groups of people here. You're talking about the statistical outliers, and I'm talking about your everyday Christians and Muslims. It's very easy to take the most extreme cases, insinuating that this is always the case. In fact, it's very much like what you're doing in your comment right now.
I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find Atheists doing just as much evil as believers. That isn't the issue. The issue here is understanding.
I'm on the look out for a word other than atheist or skeptic for what I've become. Ex-christian. NonBeliever. pseudo whatever. Nothing fits. Based on the evidence I know, it's not only this religion or that religion but belief as a whole which has undermined humanity. Yes I will vehemently defend this stance, and if you want to disassociate yourself, by all means do. I didn't become an atheist by choice. If I could still believe, I would. But atheists who still cater to 'belief' R not helping!
@ZachsMind Is there such a thing as a human without one form of belief or another? It is my belief (no pun intended) that what has undermined humanity is humanity itself. When studying history, it eventually becomes apparent that the role of faith is simply that of a tool. The outcome depends on who uses that tool and why; not the tool itself. The absence of faith will not result in a considerably peaceful society. There are so many other instruments in the toolbox, ready to replace it.
@erinra yes there is such a thing as a human w/o belief. I'm it. I'm going thru my life not using the concept of belief or faith. I think and feel. I don't believe. Faith is accepting something as true that can't be proven. I don't accept things that I know can't be proven. The whole "you can't disprove a negative" dodge doesn't fly anymore. UNTIL one can prove something, it should not be taken seriously. So the answer to your question is yes. Belief is not necessary. In fact it's a detriment.
I would add to this by saying that it is perfectly acceptable for an individual to take a stance of belief or faith. What is not acceptable is for that individual to expect others to be convinced of the claim in question because of their personal faith or belief.
In other words, if someone has faith or belief in something, that is not, under any circumstances, sufficient to convince someone else of that something. Faith or belief are value judgments... not evidence.
I've caught a lot of flak for being an atheist who doesn't hate religion and take every chance to chastise people for their beliefs. Good to know I'm not alone. :)
Yeah, I think a lot of Atheists believe that you aren't a true Atheist if you aren't constantly criticizing others for what they believe. I think, largely, I'm a live and let live kind of person. But, when someone gets in my face and tells me that I need to believe in God, the gloves do come off. lol
It's a nice message of tolerance, but we shouldn't be so tolerant that we tolerate intolerance. Someone said about me exactly what you described because I should have to read the whole Koran to have a valid opinion about Islam or Muhammad apparantly. I believe religion is destructive and keeps our species from progress,so how am I suppose to bring myself to be open minded to believing something like Scientology or Islam.I don't need to listen to Justin Bieber to know it's not for me either. ;-)
I completely understand. But, I'm not saying that you'd have to believe in Scientology (or anything else) until you've had a chance to thoroughly investigate it. I'm saying that without a certain amount of understanding, criticism isn't warranted.
With religion, you've had enough experience and have probably given it enough thought and research to arrive at that conclusion. It would be "Skeptical" of you to hold that view until (if/when?) contrary evidence is presented. That's all
That's up to interpretation to a point. I've looked up history about Muhammad, about Islam, about the Islamic Golden age, just general information. I've also read dozens of verses in the Quaran translated.I still don't know a lot about it, theres probably more I don't know than I know, but I know enough for me to make a judgement which is also based on other things I know about Christianity and Judiasm, I see the same patterns.
I would agree with that. And I think this is one of the Skeptic's dilemmas. When have you investigated anything "enough" in order to make a judgment. At this point, the word "reasonable" comes to mind. Has one put in a reasonable amount of research and thought into a topic to reach a valid conclusion?
You're right, and I'm not sure that there is an answer to this... how much is "enough" research? Is it even possible to do enough research?
Those are good questions, Sounds like a topic for a new video! :-O
The bottom line is each individual will decide for themselves how much they want to learn about a religion and the world will decide if it was enough if that person decides to share those thoughts depending on what he/she has to say. Unless of course they had to read it and learn it for some reason, which still happens a lot in reality.
If I ever saw any real evidence for the existence of the Christian god or Allah other than Jesus's face on a piece of toast or some other form of magic show trickery I'd admit in a second I was wrong to doubt the faith and was cynical. I'm not a person of faith though, I'm searching for truth, not what I want to believe because it gives me comfort. If what is in the bible is true that certainly doesn't give me any comfort either however, quite the opposite.
I wouldn't say that skepticism is non-religious or anti-religious, it is just that when one applies skeptical thinking and investigation to various ideas, including religious ideas, one usually emerges agnostic or atheistic about all the world's religions. It is no wonder that most religions, especially christianity, encourage their followers to not apply skeptical thinking to their own religion.
Skepticism is neither religious nor non-religious. You might consider religiosity or non-religiosity a conclusion reached through a skeptical approach to the issue.
@TheSkepticalAtheist I'm somewhat confused. I know what the terms 'religious' and 'religiosity' mean, however, I am unclear as to the point you attempting to make here. Could you clarify your meaning?
Sure. Skepticism is a method for reaching conclusions. Whether or not someone is religious is something which needs to be decided through examination of the evidence. If this individual intends to think skeptically (or not), then the conclusion they arrive at could be considered a "skeptical" position.
I think one thing to keep in mind is that no matter what conclusion one arrives at, one can still be skeptical as long as they remain intellectually honest with the info they have.
I think the larger point needs to be made that it would be short-sighted to call someone uncritical in their thinking simply because of the conclusion they arrive it. Everyone is limited in knowledge. And, as inconceivable as it might seem, it is completely possible for one who believes the Earth to be flat to be a "skeptical" person. BUT, when confronted with evidence refuting the position, this individual MUST accept it and change his position.
@TheSkepticalAtheist I agree completely. And yes, "Everyone is limited in knowledge" this is especially important for all to keep in mind. I can remember many times where my thinking has taken radical turns as a result of being exposed to new information, new ideas. That 'eureka' momment is one of the best feelings an intellectual can have.
@TheSkepticalAtheist What baffles me, however, is that there are many people out there who are affraid of new ideas. They'd rather remain in ignorance instead of face the possibility that they might be wrong. More over, deep emotional attachments to old religious ideas make it more uncomfortable for people to even begin to understand something contrary to their beliefs.
It is also the case that there are people who simply treat their beliefs in such a casual way that it really doesn't matter to them. I don't know if you could call these people "believers," but they align themselves with a position and really don't care to question anything. I know people like this.
When asked, they respond by saying that they've never really thought about it, or that it never occurred to them to question their beliefs. It's an interesting view that I don't get...
While I agree that we should all seek to strive to understand rather than criticize others I think you are missing something rather important. The term skeptic is a label. Different people interpret words differently. People should strive to not generalize and should define words clearly when context is important but quick judgments and generalizations will still be made. However they are inconsequential and its the details and actions that matter.
Thunderfoot's little tirade in no way affects my association with the terms atheist or skeptic since things like demagoguery and harsh criticism are not inherent in the definition of the terms.
I might consider it a "No True Scottsman" argument if I were making special excuses for skeptics. But, I'm only saying that in terms of being skeptical, a "true" skeptic isn't one who seeks to criticize.
@DawahFilms No, it's just that skeptic means to consider, it does not mean that you have to keep studying things proven illogical ad infinitum.. If we did that we would never have time to learn about all we have the opportunity these days to learn..
I won't spend my time reading a science book that claims the earth revolves around the sun either.. I'll find one that doesn't stray from falsifiable reality instead so that I don't waste my damn life..
I think, to be more clear, it's more than that. I think it's reasonable to say that we can never know anything with 100% certainty. And, in that case, there is nothing which we know to be absolutely true. It is for this reason that EVERYTHING must be open to scrutiny - no matter how certain we may think we are about it.
But, this is not the same as criticizing everything just for the hell of it. We should scrutinize the evidence as it comes in.
But there is, imho, a great disparity between our side and theirs. The ratio of debate/violence, debate/division, debate/Acceptance are clear.
I have a simple logical test which will never be proven wrong because it's impossible, and this test precludes most religious teachings from being accepted by my mind as moral, let alone right.. I only ask, If your God told you to do a thing we know to be horrible, and you KNEW it was really God, would you do it?
Yea, stupid idea of earth revolving around the sun... fucking idiots, with their heliocentric systems, and dont even get me started on this whole round business. :P
Also, while i agree with you skeptic, there is clearly a point where we can assume pseudo certainty or pseudo impossibility and consider uncertainties as generally negligible. If this were not the case we would not have any axioms (starting principles) to work with and logically would not be able to get anywhere.
A skeptic is someone who seeks truth regardless of whether that path leads him to be religious or not. To be open to whatever the evidence points toward. I talk about that in one of my other recent videos, "Atheism & Skepticism."
@TheSkepticalAtheist Isnt a skeptic a person who carefully questions any ideas or concepts before considering them? One doesnt by definition have to be open to any ideas whatsoever, you may be, but in fact being skeptical means one requires higher standards of evidence before accepting something making one technically less open minded. Neither does a skeptic necessarily seek truth, at the core its just a statement as to how much scrutiny one places on any concept.
The skeptic is not one who doubts an argument substantiated by data. The skeptic doubts the argument unsubstatiated...and rightly so.
"Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found." [Miguel de Unamuno, "Essays and Soliloquies," 1924]
Though I can see it's tempting to only take the anti arguments and go with that just to disagree and so I did often of times. Ofcourse being skeptic has little to do with feeling fair or not. Or feelings in general for that matter.
This truly is an eye-opener. I definitely have fallen prey to this kind of thinking more then I'd like to admit. I usually start with trying to disprove a claim right off the bat. When I'm feeling fair however, I weigh the arguments against eachother and try to stay balanced.
I'm guilty of the same thing. It's so tempting to just jump into attack mode and make "debunking" the number 1 priority. That's why I tried to stress the importance of humility in having a skeptical attitude. Skeptical doesn't mean "right," or "infallible." More than anything, it means being open to new ideas.
@TheSkepticalAtheist Sadly, such animosity often starts with good intentions -- the problem is that both atheists and theists continually fail to realize that their logic is based on their perception of the world, rather than the other way around. Since no one ever addresses the subject of perception, both parties fail to realize why they don't make progress in the discussion. When that happens, it becomes all to easy to believe the other is refusing to listen to "reason" and civility disappears
Atheists assume the conclusion and then employ fallacies and falsehoods. They are the one who are closed minded, they can't just put their faith in God. So they are closed minded and they can't open their mind to proof/evidence of God because they hate God.
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say the majority of them 'hate' God, but they have a pronounced contempt, in general, for most of the approaches offered by extant formalized religions. As for the employment of 'fallacies and falsehoods', I'd agree with you to the extent that is it just as difficult to DISprove the existence of God, scientifically, as it is to prove it. In this, they are just as presumptuous as any dogmatist. (note that I avoided the use of "impossible" : )
Atheists, at least as far as I'm concerned, don't assume the conclusion. I take the evidence for a God, weigh it, and decide whether I accept it. And, I don't accept it. Therefore, in not accepting the evidence presented for a god, I call myself Atheistic.
It's refreshing to see the meaning clarified though, isn't it? Without an open minded discussion, Atheism merely assumes the role of another religion, technically. It's just faith, only redirected. Kudos, SkepticalAtheist, for this one. Good show.
Thank you. I appreciate the compliments. But, hardly anyone would have found this video without the help of @DawahFilms. I really appreciate the fact that he featured this video on his channel.
I think too many people claim to be skeptical about a subject, when in fact they are just being cynical, or engaging in outright denialism to support a deeply ingrained political belief.
I absolutely agree. The definition of "Skeptic" isn't "one who says no a lot." And it's this attitude of knee-jerk denialism that I want to distance myself from.
I think that if someone approaches any topic or idea with the goal of "debunking" in mind, they really need to reconsider their reasons for considering the subject in the first place.
Any investigation should not start with the phrase, "Let me see how I can prove this person wrong." That's not a Skeptic. That's a nay-sayer.
(Part 4) All that said, I am not discouraging criticism of religion or confrontation of religious people--just that a certain amount of strategy is needed. I wouldn't call a fundamentalist Christian names or make fun of them in a gratuitously *hurtful* way; I would simply argue that their holy book leads to harmful policies and is based on poor or no evidence, although I may still use humor *as needed* in the form of analogies that attempt to expose the underlying absurdities.
Megaritz 1 month ago
(Part 3) We must LEARN to be rational; it doesn't come naturally. I think in all likelihood there is no such thing as true "free will"--so I certainly cannot *expect* or *demand* that people choose to become rational. I cannot blame them for being irrational, any more than I can blame my internet connection for freezing. All we can do is try to solve the problem to the highest degree practical.
Megaritz 1 month ago
(Part 2) Being religious is an easy mistake to make, because we are not naturally rational creatures. We are driven by biases, and the appeal of an idea is a greater factor in whether it's accepted than its evidential basis. We're affected by confirmation biases, wishful and magical thinking, a desire for eternal life and a loving almighty parent figure and a book of answers, and our worldview rests on something and all our friends and family believe in it, it is hard to consider the contrary.
Megaritz 1 month ago
My thought is this: A supreme being probably doesn't exist, and the supernatural claims of every religion are certainly false. People should be encouraged to be rational in all areas, including in the area of their religious beliefs. Religion should never influence government.
However, believing in religion is a very easy mistake to make, so we shouldn't be *mean* to believers. I find myself very skeptical of the notion that assholery and name-calling are effective tactics in discrediting them.
Megaritz 1 month ago
There are no code of conduct for Atheist and skeptics. Or are there?
amayan80east 1 month ago
@amayan80east
It's not that there is necessarily a code of conduct, but when one begins to act in a certain way, those actions fall outside the realm of what those terms mean. I guess it's like not falling within the definition of Atheist or Skeptic.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 month ago
how could one have tolererance for an ilogicical conclusion? in many cases they're demonstably illogical.
mzyzer19 2 months ago in playlist Religion
@mzyzer19
The problem is that everyone has different life experiences. We all have different sets of knowledge. You came to your particular world view because of the experiences and knowledge you've gained. Others aren't necessarily working with the same knowledge set that you have.
The point is that we need to understand these differences and try to work around them. More important than "proving someone wrong" is understanding them. Then, maybe you can see why they believe what they do.
TheSkepticalAtheist 2 months ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist I don't think that there is such a thing as being right atleast not completely.
mzyzer19 2 months ago
@mzyzer19
I think you're right... ironically. At least, you can't be 100% certain that you're right. You can only side with where the evidence points at the time you make your conclusion. With that being said, you should always be willing to change your mind.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 month ago
I'm deeply religious, and yet this video rang very true to me. Respect brother, Hare Krisna.
Siva3Enthroned 4 months ago 2
@Siva3Enthroned
Thank you. I appreciate that.
TheSkepticalAtheist 4 months ago
A lot of the sometimes excessive bitterness of certain fanatical atheists toward Christianity is the result of feeling that too many people are trying to shove Christianity down their throats at every opportunity.
And if Christianity and Islam take the greatest amount of flak, it's because those two religions have earned that degree of flak by their own arrogance, intolerance, and aggressive and often violent constant efforts to convert the whole world to their particular superstitions.
MagiMysteryTour 6 months ago
@MagiMysteryTour Wow, what a sad example of media brainwashing you are. When was the last time a Muslim knocked on your door trying to share the Quran? Try reading the Quran and meeting real Muslims instead of watching Fox news, thanks.
Siva3Enthroned 4 months ago
@Siva3Enthroned Muslims don't knock on doors, rather they tend to knock them down! That was deliberately provocative just to get your attention, because you seem to miss the point that most if not all religion is based on the deeply flawed hypothesis that some "uncreated" super-being made the entire universe just for us! We don't have to read every line of your 'holy' books to know that they collapse on this one premise alone, never mind the hateful details they are also littered with!
hznfrst 4 months ago
Excellent video ! Its good to see a resistance movement appearing and growing to counter the pseudoskeptics. There is a sore need to expose this army of extremists mainly to themselves. They seem quite unaware of the misguidedness of their abrasive activities. Many other people benefit from the exposure also as it polarises and clarifies and solidifies many peoples vague opinions. I've identified a single marker for the pseudoskeptics. A useful rule of thumb. My latest video.Highest Regards
kimbo99 6 months ago
Yes- that is precisely what i'm saying.I think that there is both a conscious and un-conscious reason why this happens.I believe that some atheists,are not really seekers of truth at all.What they are seeking is validation for their non-belief.They consciously or un-consciously,avoid at arriving at conclusions that contradict their solidified positions,and pre-determined conclusions.Therefore,limiting their investigations to data that supports their view,and empolying linear logic to justify it.
loksinsan 10 months ago
@loksinsan
I agree with your assessment. I think that some people start with the conclusion that they are an atheist or a skeptic, and then find ways to reinforce that. And part of doing that means criticizing and "debunking" everything, because that's what they think those philosophies are about.
TheSkepticalAtheist 10 months ago
@loksinsan
"They are seeing validation for their non- belief", You mean belief, Not something is not anything at all, While atheism is the belief that there is no god, However the rest of your post was good.
AestheticAtheist 6 months ago
@AestheticAtheist Atheism is the *lack* of belief, which logically *cannot* be a belief! Atheism with regard to deities is the exact equivalent of a-fairyism with regard to fairies. You probably don't believe in fairies, so does that make you dogmatic? No atheist will claim to be able to prove gods don't exist, just as no one can prove fairies don't exist, but disbelief is the reasonable default position until convincing evidence comes in. You should know this, "Atheist."
hznfrst 4 months ago
@hznfrst
"is the exact equivelant of a-fairyism"
Wrong
It's not "a-theism" but "athe-ism". It comes from the greek "a-theos" which means "no gods". Hence, "athe-ism" means BELIEF IN atheos (there are no gods).
"a-theism" is a recent attempt to trivialize itself into merely describing the psychological state of lacking belief. This is irrelevant, as it says nothing about God, and is completely compatible with God existing
"
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
@AestheticAtheist Bull - you're just playing word games because you're not serious about learning anything. Very few atheists define themselves the way you do, in fact I've never met one like that. WE define what it means, not you or anyone else, and especially not a dictionary!
hznfrst 3 months ago
@hznfrst
"bull you're just playing word games because you're not serious about learning anything"
You are not serious about learning what the word atheism means that is why you are holding to your position even though you have been shown to be incorrect.
"very few atheists define themselves the way you do"
illogic does not become correct thinking just because it becomes fashionable.
cont:
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
@hznfrst
"WE define what it means, not you or anyone else, and especially not a dictionary"
ahhhh so when your argument fails then you can just redefine words to suit yourself, There are atheists like gklr and mungbeanman who do not subscribe to your definition of lack so you do not speak for them, So who is this WE that you talk about? You don't speak for atheists, you speak for yourself.
Trying to redefine words is not going to work for you against me, you can play that game elsewhere.
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
@AestheticAtheist I did say "very few" and if those you mentioned are among them, so what? The overwhelming majority of atheists agree with me. I suggest you look on freethoughtblogs com/pharyngula and richarddawkins net for more discussion. I suspect that you're probably a troll, though.
hznfrst 3 months ago
@hznfrst
"The overwhelming majority of atheists agree"
Wrong thinking does not become Correct thinking because it is popular, Atheism is the belief there is no god, the fallacy of appealing to majority does not change that, You have to show how atheism means lack of belief with an intelligent argument, just saying it is a lack of belief is a proof by assertion, I shot down your assertion so you need to try again.
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
@AestheticAtheist You didn't and I don't.
hznfrst 3 months ago
@hznfrst
Still waiting for you to prove the universe came into being without a creator and prove that everything within the universe came into being without a creator including biological organisms, You said there is no evidence for a creator, For that statement to be true then it would mean you know the creation interpretation is false.
Still waiting for you to prove the universe and biological organisms came into being without a creator, No wonder you think nothing is something.
hahahaha
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
@hznfrst
"but disbelief is the reasonable default position until convincing evidence comes in. You should know this, "Atheist""
What is convincing evidence is subjective, For example while you might agree with dawkins that the universe evolved out of literally nothing, others might say but nothing is not anything, to say the universe can come from nothing is to talk about nothing as something and thus reject your atheistic faith.
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
@AestheticAtheist The first thing new findings in science have to endure is the peer review process, where other scientists try as hard as they can to discover any faults with a discovery or a theory. This is how evidence becomes convincing enough to be tentatively described as 'true' - but it's always subject to revision from new evidence, and sometimes whole theories have collapsed because of this, because scientists want to know what's *really* true, 'comforting' or not.
hznfrst 3 months ago
@hznfrst
"The first things new findings in science have to endure is the peer review process"
When did scientists test nothing being something that exists and then test the universe evolving from it and then publish this in peer review?
"because scientists want to know whats *really* true 'comforting' or not'
And what about you? even though you find the idea of there being no creator comforting do you still want to consider that you may be wrong?
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
@AestheticAtheist I and any scientists will be perfectly happy to accept the evidence for a creator if and when any shows up, but so far that has not happened. Keep trying, though.
There's a really good video on Youtube you might like from Lawrence Krauss, called "A Universe from Nothing."
When did scientists test nothing being something that exists and then test the universe evolving from it and then publish this in peer review? -- This sentence makes no sense at all.
hznfrst 3 months ago
@hznfrst
"and any scientists will be happy to accept the evidence for a creator if and when any shows up, but that has not happened, Keep trying though."
To say there is no evidence means that you know the creator interpretation is false, We have the same evidence, so to say there is no evidence only makes sense if you know that the creator interpretation is wrong.
cont:
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
@hznfrst
Thus you have to prove that the universe came into being without a creator and that biological organisms and everything in the universe came into being without a creator, because to claim there is no evidence only makes sense if you know your interpretation is true, You won't be able to back up your claim because you pulled the claim from your ass.
hahahahahaha
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
@hznfrst
" A universe from Nothing"
hahahahahahahahah
nothing is not anything, it literally is no-thing, to say the universe came from nothing is to talk about nothing as something, You do not believe in the law of cause and effect and believe the universe just poofed into being from a state of nothing which is not anything.
hahahahahahahah
As for Krauss, He said 2+2=5 in his debate with craig, No wonder you follow Krauss when you are so stupid, you probably think 2+2=5 too.
hahahahahaha
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
@AestheticAtheist You seriously didn't get the joke? Interesting how you didn't including the rest of it: "2+2=5 for extremely large values of 2."
hznfrst 3 months ago
@hznfrst
You think 2+2=5 and you think nothing is something.
hahahahahahahaahahaha
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
@AestheticAtheist I never said the idea of no creator was comforting or not - all I want to know is what.is.true!
hznfrst 3 months ago
I agree with alot of what you say.It is my opinion that alot of skeptics,atheists,etc..,have no real desire to ascertain wether or not something may actually be true,simpy because it runs contrary to their solidified pre-conceptions and formulated stance.Not only do i feel that there may exist a deep seated animosity,but also a deep seated fear.Not unlike Freud,who many post yungians felt was afraid of his own un-conscious,thus leading him to develop a very linear view of instinct and intuition
loksinsan 10 months ago
@loksinsan
That is an interesting perspective. Are you saying that many skeptics and atheists are afraid of what they consider to be pseudoscience... in that they are afraid of being wrong after taking such a strong stance after such a long period of time? I think that this may be the case with a lot of people.
It may start out with a genuine desire to seek truth, but soon becomes an emotional attachment to a certain conclusion; like there being no such things as ghosts.
TheSkepticalAtheist 10 months ago
Well, once we understand certain ideas, like homeopathy, then we know it to be total bunk. Such bunk and similar unfounded claims are what I list on my Debunkatron site. I do take a pleasure is pointing out false or unfounded beliefs, and I'm fine with others doing the same to me. I think having a good-humored and fun approach to changing minds is a happy thing.
ThorGoLucky 1 year ago
If you are talking about attacks on moderates then I think I've been exactly the type of atheist you address here lately. The problem has been the things religious people have said to me since the death of my father in July. On multiple occasions I have had "moderate" Christians question my ability to love or to properly grieve for someone without believing in god or the afterlife. Every little religious comment seems cruel and dehumanizing. I'm in a lot of pain and I have lost all patience.
jklarson66 1 year ago
@jklarson66
As far as your situation involving moderates and the statements they've made toward you, that is definitely not what I'm talking about here. You have every right to be upset, and you are certainly within your rights to criticize. What comes to mind for me is the way those, for example in the "League of Reason," are very quick to condemn anyone who doesn't take an entirely scientific worldview.
I guess I'm saying understanding should be the goal, regardless of what it is we debate.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
I wish you had given some more detailed examples. The first thing that came to my mind was Einstein's rejection both of quantum mechanics and of big bang cosmology. This is hardly an everyday example of what you are talking about though. What kinds of ideas do you see as falling unfairly under attack these days? Or is it more a matter of framing and style within these debates that you are concerned with apart from actual content?
jklarson66 1 year ago
@jklarson66
I think you would be right in that it is the framing of the method of argumentation that I question. I think some people just have it in their mind that they are going to "debunk" anything they don't agree with, and dispense with the work of actually trying to understand what they are trying to disprove.
I would also say that you are probably correct with the Einstein example. I think he had a personal, possibly emotional, reason for not wanting to accept QM and Big Bang cosmology.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
Christians and Muslims take "flak" from atheist extremists? When did atheists persecute any of them? Did we ever behead or burn anyone at the stake? Did atheists ever launch planes against buildings or launched bomb attacks on innocent crowds? Do atheists spread racist, misogynistic or homophobic propaganda? Do atheists bunch up on "worship" buildings charging fees and donations (and use most of it on luxury LIKE THE FUCKING VATICAN)? Name one!
grimordwow 1 year ago
@grimordwow
We're obviously talking about two different groups of people here. You're talking about the statistical outliers, and I'm talking about your everyday Christians and Muslims. It's very easy to take the most extreme cases, insinuating that this is always the case. In fact, it's very much like what you're doing in your comment right now.
I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find Atheists doing just as much evil as believers. That isn't the issue. The issue here is understanding.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
I think this format is working for you TSA
namitsu1 1 year ago
@namitsu1
I would agree with that! lol
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
Wonderful video. Thumbed up, favorited, subscribed.
erinra 1 year ago 2
Wonderful video. Thumbed up, favorited, subscribed.
erinra 1 year ago
I'm on the look out for a word other than atheist or skeptic for what I've become. Ex-christian. NonBeliever. pseudo whatever. Nothing fits. Based on the evidence I know, it's not only this religion or that religion but belief as a whole which has undermined humanity. Yes I will vehemently defend this stance, and if you want to disassociate yourself, by all means do. I didn't become an atheist by choice. If I could still believe, I would. But atheists who still cater to 'belief' R not helping!
ZachsMind 1 year ago
@ZachsMind Is there such a thing as a human without one form of belief or another? It is my belief (no pun intended) that what has undermined humanity is humanity itself. When studying history, it eventually becomes apparent that the role of faith is simply that of a tool. The outcome depends on who uses that tool and why; not the tool itself. The absence of faith will not result in a considerably peaceful society. There are so many other instruments in the toolbox, ready to replace it.
erinra 1 year ago
@erinra yes there is such a thing as a human w/o belief. I'm it. I'm going thru my life not using the concept of belief or faith. I think and feel. I don't believe. Faith is accepting something as true that can't be proven. I don't accept things that I know can't be proven. The whole "you can't disprove a negative" dodge doesn't fly anymore. UNTIL one can prove something, it should not be taken seriously. So the answer to your question is yes. Belief is not necessary. In fact it's a detriment.
ZachsMind 1 year ago
@ZachsMind @erinra
I would add to this by saying that it is perfectly acceptable for an individual to take a stance of belief or faith. What is not acceptable is for that individual to expect others to be convinced of the claim in question because of their personal faith or belief.
In other words, if someone has faith or belief in something, that is not, under any circumstances, sufficient to convince someone else of that something. Faith or belief are value judgments... not evidence.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
Great vid. Thanks
Professoranton 1 year ago
@Professoranton
Thanks for taking the time to watch it. I can't believe I've got over 1,000 views already! The response has been overall very positive.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
Comment removed
NotTooObvious 1 year ago
@NotTooObvious
I've got what backward?
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@NotTooObvious
I've got what backward?
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
I've caught a lot of flak for being an atheist who doesn't hate religion and take every chance to chastise people for their beliefs. Good to know I'm not alone. :)
terminaldeity 1 year ago
@terminaldeity
Yeah, I think a lot of Atheists believe that you aren't a true Atheist if you aren't constantly criticizing others for what they believe. I think, largely, I'm a live and let live kind of person. But, when someone gets in my face and tells me that I need to believe in God, the gloves do come off. lol
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
Comment removed
Xadreos 1 year ago
@Xadreos
Could you point out to me when I have EVER threatened anyone's life? This is news to me.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
Comment removed
Xadreos 1 year ago
It's a nice message of tolerance, but we shouldn't be so tolerant that we tolerate intolerance. Someone said about me exactly what you described because I should have to read the whole Koran to have a valid opinion about Islam or Muhammad apparantly. I believe religion is destructive and keeps our species from progress,so how am I suppose to bring myself to be open minded to believing something like Scientology or Islam.I don't need to listen to Justin Bieber to know it's not for me either. ;-)
Wolffanator 1 year ago
@Wolffanator
I completely understand. But, I'm not saying that you'd have to believe in Scientology (or anything else) until you've had a chance to thoroughly investigate it. I'm saying that without a certain amount of understanding, criticism isn't warranted.
With religion, you've had enough experience and have probably given it enough thought and research to arrive at that conclusion. It would be "Skeptical" of you to hold that view until (if/when?) contrary evidence is presented. That's all
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist
"to thoroughly investigate it."
That's up to interpretation to a point. I've looked up history about Muhammad, about Islam, about the Islamic Golden age, just general information. I've also read dozens of verses in the Quaran translated.I still don't know a lot about it, theres probably more I don't know than I know, but I know enough for me to make a judgement which is also based on other things I know about Christianity and Judiasm, I see the same patterns.
Wolffanator 1 year ago
@Wolffanator
I would agree with that. And I think this is one of the Skeptic's dilemmas. When have you investigated anything "enough" in order to make a judgment. At this point, the word "reasonable" comes to mind. Has one put in a reasonable amount of research and thought into a topic to reach a valid conclusion?
You're right, and I'm not sure that there is an answer to this... how much is "enough" research? Is it even possible to do enough research?
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist
Those are good questions, Sounds like a topic for a new video! :-O
The bottom line is each individual will decide for themselves how much they want to learn about a religion and the world will decide if it was enough if that person decides to share those thoughts depending on what he/she has to say. Unless of course they had to read it and learn it for some reason, which still happens a lot in reality.
Wolffanator 1 year ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist
If I ever saw any real evidence for the existence of the Christian god or Allah other than Jesus's face on a piece of toast or some other form of magic show trickery I'd admit in a second I was wrong to doubt the faith and was cynical. I'm not a person of faith though, I'm searching for truth, not what I want to believe because it gives me comfort. If what is in the bible is true that certainly doesn't give me any comfort either however, quite the opposite.
Wolffanator 1 year ago
Great video.
Cimbolic 1 year ago
@Cimbolic
Thank you.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
I wouldn't say that skepticism is non-religious or anti-religious, it is just that when one applies skeptical thinking and investigation to various ideas, including religious ideas, one usually emerges agnostic or atheistic about all the world's religions. It is no wonder that most religions, especially christianity, encourage their followers to not apply skeptical thinking to their own religion.
helical4 1 year ago
@helical4
Skepticism is neither religious nor non-religious. You might consider religiosity or non-religiosity a conclusion reached through a skeptical approach to the issue.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist I'm somewhat confused. I know what the terms 'religious' and 'religiosity' mean, however, I am unclear as to the point you attempting to make here. Could you clarify your meaning?
helical4 1 year ago
@helical4
Sure. Skepticism is a method for reaching conclusions. Whether or not someone is religious is something which needs to be decided through examination of the evidence. If this individual intends to think skeptically (or not), then the conclusion they arrive at could be considered a "skeptical" position.
I think one thing to keep in mind is that no matter what conclusion one arrives at, one can still be skeptical as long as they remain intellectually honest with the info they have.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@helical4
I think the larger point needs to be made that it would be short-sighted to call someone uncritical in their thinking simply because of the conclusion they arrive it. Everyone is limited in knowledge. And, as inconceivable as it might seem, it is completely possible for one who believes the Earth to be flat to be a "skeptical" person. BUT, when confronted with evidence refuting the position, this individual MUST accept it and change his position.
I hope this clears things up a little
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist I agree completely. And yes, "Everyone is limited in knowledge" this is especially important for all to keep in mind. I can remember many times where my thinking has taken radical turns as a result of being exposed to new information, new ideas. That 'eureka' momment is one of the best feelings an intellectual can have.
helical4 1 year ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist What baffles me, however, is that there are many people out there who are affraid of new ideas. They'd rather remain in ignorance instead of face the possibility that they might be wrong. More over, deep emotional attachments to old religious ideas make it more uncomfortable for people to even begin to understand something contrary to their beliefs.
helical4 1 year ago
@helical4
It is also the case that there are people who simply treat their beliefs in such a casual way that it really doesn't matter to them. I don't know if you could call these people "believers," but they align themselves with a position and really don't care to question anything. I know people like this.
When asked, they respond by saying that they've never really thought about it, or that it never occurred to them to question their beliefs. It's an interesting view that I don't get...
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
"a true skeptic"... No true scotsman?
While I agree that we should all seek to strive to understand rather than criticize others I think you are missing something rather important. The term skeptic is a label. Different people interpret words differently. People should strive to not generalize and should define words clearly when context is important but quick judgments and generalizations will still be made. However they are inconsequential and its the details and actions that matter.
askirojadu 1 year ago
cont...
Thunderfoot's little tirade in no way affects my association with the terms atheist or skeptic since things like demagoguery and harsh criticism are not inherent in the definition of the terms.
askirojadu 1 year ago
@askirojadu
I might consider it a "No True Scottsman" argument if I were making special excuses for skeptics. But, I'm only saying that in terms of being skeptical, a "true" skeptic isn't one who seeks to criticize.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
2 thumb downs so far. How dare you examine and carefully analyse skepticism? Are you doubting it?
saqib09 1 year ago
@saqib09
I would be very curious to know why this video was given 2 thumbs down... what possible reason could there be?
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
This guy totally fucked up the definition of skeptic though...
IloveJesusYesId0 1 year ago
@IloveJesusYesId0
So what does skeptic mean? Non-Religious?
DawahFilms 1 year ago
@DawahFilms No, it's just that skeptic means to consider, it does not mean that you have to keep studying things proven illogical ad infinitum.. If we did that we would never have time to learn about all we have the opportunity these days to learn..
I won't spend my time reading a science book that claims the earth revolves around the sun either.. I'll find one that doesn't stray from falsifiable reality instead so that I don't waste my damn life..
That's all I'm sayin..
IloveJesusYesId0 1 year ago
@IloveJesusYesId0
I think, to be more clear, it's more than that. I think it's reasonable to say that we can never know anything with 100% certainty. And, in that case, there is nothing which we know to be absolutely true. It is for this reason that EVERYTHING must be open to scrutiny - no matter how certain we may think we are about it.
But, this is not the same as criticizing everything just for the hell of it. We should scrutinize the evidence as it comes in.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist
So true..
But there is, imho, a great disparity between our side and theirs. The ratio of debate/violence, debate/division, debate/Acceptance are clear.
I have a simple logical test which will never be proven wrong because it's impossible, and this test precludes most religious teachings from being accepted by my mind as moral, let alone right.. I only ask, If your God told you to do a thing we know to be horrible, and you KNEW it was really God, would you do it?
IloveJesusYesId0 1 year ago
@IloveJesusYesId0
Yea, stupid idea of earth revolving around the sun... fucking idiots, with their heliocentric systems, and dont even get me started on this whole round business. :P
Also, while i agree with you skeptic, there is clearly a point where we can assume pseudo certainty or pseudo impossibility and consider uncertainties as generally negligible. If this were not the case we would not have any axioms (starting principles) to work with and logically would not be able to get anywhere.
NUSerenity 1 year ago
@DawahFilms
A skeptic is someone who seeks truth regardless of whether that path leads him to be religious or not. To be open to whatever the evidence points toward. I talk about that in one of my other recent videos, "Atheism & Skepticism."
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist Isnt a skeptic a person who carefully questions any ideas or concepts before considering them? One doesnt by definition have to be open to any ideas whatsoever, you may be, but in fact being skeptical means one requires higher standards of evidence before accepting something making one technically less open minded. Neither does a skeptic necessarily seek truth, at the core its just a statement as to how much scrutiny one places on any concept.
NUSerenity 1 year ago
@NUSerenity
I would agree with that. And I would say that an important part of being a skeptic is to be able to say those 3 important words... "I was wrong."
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@IloveJesusYesId0
MMmmmm....actually, no - he's got it right.
The skeptic is not one who doubts an argument substantiated by data. The skeptic doubts the argument unsubstatiated...and rightly so.
"Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found." [Miguel de Unamuno, "Essays and Soliloquies," 1924]
TheMercilessEye 1 year ago
I agree :)
I will feature this video.
DawahFilms 1 year ago
@DawahFilms
Thank you for doing this. I woke up this morning to a bunch of new subscribers and comments. I really appreciate your taking the time to do that.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
Though I can see it's tempting to only take the anti arguments and go with that just to disagree and so I did often of times. Ofcourse being skeptic has little to do with feeling fair or not. Or feelings in general for that matter.
namitsu1 1 year ago
This truly is an eye-opener. I definitely have fallen prey to this kind of thinking more then I'd like to admit. I usually start with trying to disprove a claim right off the bat. When I'm feeling fair however, I weigh the arguments against eachother and try to stay balanced.
namitsu1 1 year ago
@namitsu1
I'm guilty of the same thing. It's so tempting to just jump into attack mode and make "debunking" the number 1 priority. That's why I tried to stress the importance of humility in having a skeptical attitude. Skeptical doesn't mean "right," or "infallible." More than anything, it means being open to new ideas.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist Sadly, such animosity often starts with good intentions -- the problem is that both atheists and theists continually fail to realize that their logic is based on their perception of the world, rather than the other way around. Since no one ever addresses the subject of perception, both parties fail to realize why they don't make progress in the discussion. When that happens, it becomes all to easy to believe the other is refusing to listen to "reason" and civility disappears
TrenchantAtheist 1 year ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist
Nobody bats 1,000. ;)
TheMercilessEye 1 year ago
Atheists assume the conclusion and then employ fallacies and falsehoods. They are the one who are closed minded, they can't just put their faith in God. So they are closed minded and they can't open their mind to proof/evidence of God because they hate God.
TruthfulChristian2 1 year ago
@TruthfulChristian2
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say the majority of them 'hate' God, but they have a pronounced contempt, in general, for most of the approaches offered by extant formalized religions. As for the employment of 'fallacies and falsehoods', I'd agree with you to the extent that is it just as difficult to DISprove the existence of God, scientifically, as it is to prove it. In this, they are just as presumptuous as any dogmatist. (note that I avoided the use of "impossible" : )
TheMercilessEye 1 year ago
@TruthfulChristian2 They can't hate a god they don't think exists.
tarrin4ever 1 year ago
@TruthfulChristian2
Atheists, at least as far as I'm concerned, don't assume the conclusion. I take the evidence for a God, weigh it, and decide whether I accept it. And, I don't accept it. Therefore, in not accepting the evidence presented for a god, I call myself Atheistic.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@namitsu1
It's refreshing to see the meaning clarified though, isn't it? Without an open minded discussion, Atheism merely assumes the role of another religion, technically. It's just faith, only redirected. Kudos, SkepticalAtheist, for this one. Good show.
TheMercilessEye 1 year ago
@TheMercilessEye
Thank you. I appreciate the compliments. But, hardly anyone would have found this video without the help of @DawahFilms. I really appreciate the fact that he featured this video on his channel.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
I think too many people claim to be skeptical about a subject, when in fact they are just being cynical, or engaging in outright denialism to support a deeply ingrained political belief.
hadr0n 1 year ago
@hadr0n
I absolutely agree. The definition of "Skeptic" isn't "one who says no a lot." And it's this attitude of knee-jerk denialism that I want to distance myself from.
I think that if someone approaches any topic or idea with the goal of "debunking" in mind, they really need to reconsider their reasons for considering the subject in the first place.
Any investigation should not start with the phrase, "Let me see how I can prove this person wrong." That's not a Skeptic. That's a nay-sayer.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago