I realize this video is old, but I think it's foolish to default to any presumption.
I'm going to continue considering myself ignostic (I didn't misspell, google it.) in the grand scheme of things, and athiest when I want to piss off a fundamentalist.
Ut, you're concept of Agnosticism needs some work; although it's good to hear someone who understands its significance. Agnosticism is the thinking man's atheism.Yes atheists will prattle on about their latest gospel; try to initiate you into the
mysteries of root words. You might even get a sermon or two; but one does not need evidence for a negative. I can safely reject the idea that Leprechaun's exist even though they might.
the position of an atheist is if you can not give one shred of verifiable evidence then there is no logical reason to believe in any god. if you know of the FSM then i am sure you know of the flying tea cup. for those who don't know. there is a flying tea cup thats orbit is between Mars and Jupiter since it is a regular sized tea cup non of our telescopes can see it. now can you prove there is no tea cup? no, and it would be ridiculous for anyone to actually believe such a tea cup exist.
OK first of all the FSM is not a strawmans argument. it isn't even an argument. its a comparison of the logical fallacies within religious forcing their beliefs and the ridiculous assertions they make. The FSM isn't saying all religions have it wrong. In logic you do not have to prove a negative. the burden of proof is on those who assert. if you assert there is a god, then it us up to you to prove it. this is coming from someone who is not an atheist or an agnostic.
Both agnostics and Atheists are wrong...agnostic atheism is the only logical conclusion one can make. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that. Personally anyone who claims to be either 100% atheist or 100% agnostic is deluding themselves. If there isn't evidence for something than there is no incentive to believe that it exists so don't believe, however still be open to the possibility of said "thing" existing if you possess no evidence saying otherwise. Let's use our brains ppl.
I think I disagree with the spectrum set up in this video. There would actually be more of a four point scale in the way you measure this. Fundamentalist theist, someone who believes that their religion and set of beliefs is absolute usually based on what is in a holy book like an evangelical bible literalist. Then there is the theist that has some measure of doubt about their particular belief system and/or god. Then agnostic leaving the possibility open both ways and lastly atheist, no belief.
@lonelytrixter I am actually an atheist, I do not believe in a god. I don't think of this as a fundamentalist position though. My question is why is god the 'default', why is the assumed only argument presented that god exists or doesn't exist. The thing is that when answering questions about things like what started the universe, spirituality and morality why is the default assumption god and no other root cause outside of a purely scientific one.
@lonelytrixter This does change a bit with how you define god but essentially there are many possible just as unlikely explanations for all of the things god supposedly answers that could be attributed to faith. For example with regards to the creation of a universe, lets say our universe is actually created by some superbly advanced race of what to us would be mega giants and we're the size of an atom to them but they can change our universe as they like because we're in a lab like environment.
@lonelytrixter In their own world though these giants are not gods of any sort they have similar limits to what we experience. Now assuming we have no way to test beyond our atom like shell aka our universe we have no way of knowing if this idea is true or not. It is about as likely and logical as the 'god theory' but these creators would not be gods in the sense that they are truly all powerful, immortal, omnipresent, can tell the future and know everything like some religions claim.
@lonelytrixter Given our current capacities we cannot test this theory scientifically or ask questions, compare similarities or create our own 'atom universe' to try and back it up. In regards to this you would probably not say that I'm 50/50 and waiting for more evidence to back up the giant's who created the world in an atom theory, for simplicity you would more likely assume it isn't true. That is about the position I take with the idea of a god existing, it doesn't make sense as a default.
I'M A LATiNO MUSLiM AND i SAY YOU'RE GOiNG DOWN PAPi.
I'm kidding. I totally agree with you, everything that you said here in this video is absolutely right/true FOR ME. Sadly I can't prove anything just like everyone else, but like you said in time the truth will be revealed eventually, and that's when the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ occurs, and that's 1000+ years away from this date according to the holy scriptures.
I'm a Christian but I'm very open minded and I totally understand you all.
I don't think there are many people at all who fall into your definition of atheist. I think a whole bunch of people call themselves atheists and are closer to your definition of agnostic. There are of course other definitions of agnostic too.
Sorry if there are double posts etc, youtube wasn't nice to me.
What I have noticed on youtube is that atheism and agnosticism have been used in so many ways that if we all agreed on a certain set of definitions, there would be plenty of positions without a name.
At around 5:36 into the video, you say "Have faith. You need some conviction, something to die for."
I doubt that you need that. The main argument for faith of any kind is that then life would be meaningless. And that would be true. The irony of this is that the need for meaning and the lack for meaning are two sides of the very same coin. One you seek meaning, you lack it, by definition. And sometimes you'll end up with some sort of fundamentalist faith. But the basic problem is meaning.
Basically, it has something to do with our theory-building in general. Since we can make all sorts of helpful models about the world, we somehow think that we can understand its "true nature" or at least come close to it. But models are not reality. And therein lies the problem. Living in your models of the world instead of the sensory world, you disconnect from reality to find your place in it. You disconnect to connect. It can't work. If you search for meaning, you won't find it. Stop instead.
Your definition of agnostic is essentially my definition of Atheist.
|When I say I am an Atheist I define it in the following way:
I do not believe things for which there is no evidence.
Atheism is not a belief it is a lack there of and as such no burden of proof can be placed upon an atheist (by my definition) as they have made no claim be it falsifiable or not. They simply have no belief.
You'll find many definitions for atheism. Most atheists don't actually have an absolutist position on the issue of god. Most would say that they lack the belief for god rather than say that there is no god.
There are such terms as weak atheism and strong atheism. The latter is the absolutist position. You'll find that very few atheists are strong atheists. Even dawkins considers himself a weak atheist.
Agnosticism is a logical fallacy. It is called appeal to ignorance. Agnosticism is just as incoherent as saying: "Jesus did it." When wondering how the universe was formed, and is there a creator?
Of course we don't know everything, but say you must as evidence that jesus doesn't exist is silly and redundant.
"Atheism claims to have all the mysteries answered. It's an active claim about something which provides no evidence to either conclusion."
Um..no?
Atheism specifically DOESN'T claim to have all the mysteries answered. It just doesn't jump to the conclusion that it must be a deity.
Secondly, the counter-intuitive idea of Qmechanics became accepted BECAUSE of evidence. Those scientists were justified in suspending their belief until it was proven to them to be the case.
To further my point, Atheism is the philosophical position that deities do not exist, meaning we reject the idea of a god, but also realize there is a possibility of the existence of one. To say anything is 100% verified is scientifically flawed.
Ah looks like my first comment didn't show up. What I said first was to other people that your opinion wasn't wrong. It was merely obvious and was lacking the correct definition of the terms.
Try and think outside that theism box for a moment.
Atheism is as much a faith as NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.
If TV stations can be used as an analogy for the different world religions. Then atheism is the off button.
Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with belief. It has to do with pragmatic expectation of probability. Is it reasonable to believe that our bronze age forefathers answered most of the mysteries of the universe. My magic 8 ball says "Not likely"
"Atheism claims to have all the mysteries answered"
This statement is beyond absurd I refuse to respond to it.
"It's an active claim about something which provides no evidence to either conclusion." Yes to say something is very improbable is an active claim. You do not need evidence against the probability of the existence of Wotan to consider him very unlikely. The only difference between an agnostic and an atheist is the agnostic gives it a higher probablity.
Atheists don't claim to KNOW, we only argue that the odds of a gods existence are so slim, that it's not something to believe in. You can't PROVE unicorns don't exist, but you don't believe in unicorns do you? I can't 100% prove god doesn't exist, but I can say that it's so absurd, that to believe in a god is not unlike believing in unicorns, or the tooth fairy.
most of wot you sed was well thort out but i wood like to say that the philosophy (not religon) of Buddhism has no god. Siddhartha Gautama aka "the buddha" was a human teacher nuthing more nuthing less. he had no super powers no magic just meditation (thinking).
I said that Theism/Atheism are about belief and lack of belief in gods (thus a subset of the overarching category of belief), and you just said you agreed with me, and then you go and say that Atheism isn't about belief.
It's in the realm of belief, however, it means a lack of belief in gods.
So it still fits into the overarching category, as Laci and the folks at The Atheist Experience (will hopefully) clarify.
I'm stating that Atheism and Theism answer questions about belief in deities.
For example, when asked, "Do you believe in God?"
If you answer "Yes", youre a theist.
Anything other answer, including "I don't know" you are an Atheist (because you still lack a belief)
Im not saying that atheism is a belief that there are no gods, but that it is a lack of a belief, most often stemming from a lack of evidence in support of the existence of gods.
That's exactly what I was saying, but just a while back you said "No, Atheism and theism are about belief, and Agnosticism and Gnosticism are about what you know." Which seems to contradict that.
And an Agnostic Theist who believes in god(s) but won't claim to know it.
(Also, another way of describing it is to say that Gnostic people will claim that the belief can be proven, while Agnostic people will say that it can't be proven either way. Note that this applies to both theists and atheists).
Actually, my previous post led to me think: both are theists and atheists are agnostic, since they admit there's no evidence for their faith. Would then a "pure agnostic" - one completely lacking in faith - be possible, or am I simply making confusion with the definitions?
I'm an atheist-agnostic. Agnosticism to me seems to be in a different level from theism or atheism. It could be seem as an "a priori" condition. First you choose if you're gnostic (you assume you can KNOW of God's existance or no-existance) or if you're agnostic (you assume you CAN'T KNOW of God's existence or no-existance). Then you choose either theist (you BELIEVE in God) or atheist (you do not BELIEVE in God).
I do not believe in God but I know I can't proof it.
we atheists don't have to prove there is no God, it's like proving there are no pink flying elephants, like, must we disprove every piece of nonsense mad people say exists?
I think your claim "Atheist claim" is sort of off.
e.g. I don't believe unicorns are real. I put faith in to the ideal that unicorns are not real because there is no logic or proof in supporting the ideal that i should put faith into believing unicorns are real.
I put faith in the ideal your a person, but thats only because there is no other phenomenon suggesting that you are not a person.
The phenomenon that suggest something is real must exist first. I put faith in that.
Jesus Christ! Well anyway, just because your atheist doesn't mean you can't have proof or that you can't use logic.
Atheist isn't a permanent label. People change religious beliefs. And you don't need proof that there isn't a god if there isn't any proof to supporttht there is one.
OK, you are brilliant. I was atheist until I saw your video. You convinced me. I now BELIEVE differently, but I don't think I am going to DO anything differently. Do you think I should make any changes in my behavior now that you have converted me to agnosticism? My thoughts are different, but my actions will be the same. You last point about glorifying death was excellent too.
YOU ARE A DAMN GENIUS!!! I LOVE YOU!!! YES...I'M MISS LOGICAL!!!
THANK YOU!!!
Now can you help me understand stupid algebra with imaginary numbers...then physics class, especially when they are teaching "untrue, disproven theories"?
Not presenting an argument here just wanna pay you a compliment.I almost turned this video off when u mentioned Schroedinger his equation and wavefuctions almost drove me insane this year. Plus u look about similar ages with myself so I expected an amateur argument but what u said was very logical in my opinion. I am myself agnostic religious dogma seems back dated and based on superstition to me yet I cannot find a logical conclusion to the origin of the big bang other than a supreme being
I think atheists have like a 50% chance to be right, and someone who just claims ''there must be something like a god'', but does not make a specific statement about this god, does have just the same chance. But someone who makes a specific statement about his god, like christians, muslims, jews etc. does have only like an 0,000001% chance to be right. It's like saying there are exactly 1 Dollar, 3,50 Euros and 1000 Yen in the tresor.
Actually no, the common interpretation of Schrodinger' thought experiment was that the cat was in a state of "superposition", which means that, until it was observed, it was both dead and alive at the same time.
Still my favorite vid on youtube. The problem is not with proof but with definition. Like in the coin example because we have no idea what a "coin" is we cannot determine whether it is in the box or not. Any proof either way can be easily dismissed by saying that a coin is still in there but the interpretation of what a coin is, is incorrect.
Your argument against atheism: "The absence of evidence is not evidence absence" My position is that there are no gods because there is no evidence. It fits into a larger view of the world in which things are true because they can be proven & things are false because they cannot. Agnosticism in your view, simplistically put, is that truth & falsehood must be proven positively & where no proof exists it could go either way. I don't hold gods to higher standards of proof than other areas inquiry.
I agree with everything except for the burden of proof. In most legal systems, it's "Innocent until proven guilty." The burden falls upon the prosecutors, and any evidence given to prove guilt is rebuttled by evidence to prove innocence. Prosecutors must take the first step of proof of guilt. In my mind it is more logical to say that "Leprechauns don't exist until proven to exist." So while agnosticism is the best approach, I feel that agnostic atheism is the more practical approach.
Agnostics are indifferent to the idea of God. People will argue that they can't prove something that isn't real but what is real? Its all in the mind, processed by the brain. There are so many possibilities. I'd rather be agnostic than ASSUME the truth, as far as i'm concerned both sides rely on faith except agnosticism.
interesting that similar comments earlier are thumbs-downed whereas this one is thumbs-upped.
plenty of formal logical proof disproves things that are impossible, logically implausible, or 'not real'... however, with regard to the existence of god or any deity, i would argue that there is no evidence to make any such proof either way (confirming or denying). but please, don't make the mistake of thinking that the 'unreal' or 'impossible' cannot be disproved.
I'm already cleared up on how hard it is to prove something as a God and my following arg.. what ever
Why is air transparent? I havnt gotten a great deal of time to think about this. Eyes evolved to see by sencing the spectrum of light? God made air 'invisible' in advance so this world could be possible? Anyway theres always an explenation. Dont tag me as a creationist, I just randomly thought about it at lunch break.. (gr8 character limit runs out)
I don't have proof of God, but I do have the universe itself as evidence. Science appears to provide a vicious infinite regressive explanation of how everything began.
You could give an explanation involving a multiverse, but where did the multiverse come from? See what I mean?
Infinite regression gives me cause to suspect that something outside the realm of time, space, matter and energy, exists. This is not declaration by fait, but suspicion.
another interesting agnostic challenge is Meno's paradox (Plato) which is: if you don't know what it is your looking for (god is unknown), then how will you know when you have discovered it?
What type of evidence would you except? this leads me to the conclusion of strong agnosticism.... no evidence will prove either way the existence of god. so we will never know
(with the possible exception of dying and discovering that god does in fact exist. we will never know god doesn't exist.)
Ah, but why even suspect God exists in the first place? People have reasons to believe God exists, unlike the Easter Bunny, flying tea pots and other straw men icons pulled out of someone's ass.
The question isn't whether or not God exists, but what whether or not the reasons to believe or suspect the existence of God are valid.
No, because that is not looking at all the possible reasons, only the ones that have been given. we will never know the reasons. but they may be out there. I feel that comparisons with the easter bunny and flying teapots etc.. are very unfitting because they are something that is predefined whereas any (agnostic) notion of god is not.
another interesting agnostic challenge is Meno's paradox (Plato) which is: if you don't know what it is your looking for (god is unknown), then how will you know when you have discovered it?
What type of evidence would you except? this leads me to the conclusion of strong agnosticism.... no evidence will prove either way the existence of god. so we will never know
(with the possible exception of dying and discovering that god does in fact exist. we will never know god doesn't exist.)
You can open that vault and show us the coin. If a coin is in the vault your assertion is logically consistent and and empirically verifiable.
I have seen no argument for god that is either.
I am a srtong atheist but am perfectly open to contrary evidence. Show me a way to life to exist without a material subtrate, or a genuine miracle and I would gladly admint that I was wrong.
I don't go about my life worrying about weather or not unicorns exist.
Going to have to say that the flaw here is with you: You have misdefined the word agnostic. Agnostics believe it is unknown AND unknowable. As a person who does not believe in any god, I must therefore be an atheist, hough I lack a positive believe in the nonexistance of the deific, given the total lack of evidence either way. I await evidence with a lack of belief, which is the default stance of most atheists if they were eloquent enough to state it thus, I am sure.
THANK YOU! no one in my life has ever summed up the 'agnostic' so simply and with the proper definition! i, myself, am a proud agnostic and you hit the nail on the head. i've been enjoying your thoughts and videos before, but NOW you have gained my utmost respect since watching this vid! thank you and well said! if there were more people like us in the world, wars, famine, and other such nonsense would simply not exist and i honestly believe that!^^v
plain ignorance, skepticism, and a sycnical view of human ability to reason. Many people claim to have personal evidence of the existance of god, and although I personally dont and aI do not believe in god, neither of us us can discredit that. It is faith. Atleast religious people, well some,recognize that
both are arguments with some evidence, and its ridiculus that you think evidence of evolution vs evidenec of the boogeyman, is and identical representation of evidence of no god vs evidence of god, that is just
The proof there is no god is that i don't recognize that there is a god (if something is on a belief status and if you don't recognize that belief theres nothing there), thus nil and voiding both of your statements that 1.atheists have faith/believe (whatever you were trying to get across in that crisscrossed ramble) and 2 that theres no proof either way.
The proof is in faith, atheists have no faith and that is their proof.
with all respect, you missed his point. YES 'atheists' indeed have FAITH. they have as much faith (also known as 'belief in something NOT proven') the same as deists (of any religion) have 'faith'. i, being a true agnostic, have absolutely no faith in an entity one way or another.
The problem with your argument is that atheism requires faith. You have no "proof" that there isn't an invisible intangible unicorn standing next to you, yet I doubt that you would believe that there is one. There is no proof that there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere in between Venus and Earth, but I doubt that you would believe in such if I stated it as fact.
Look at it like this, there's a scale from -10 to 10; -10 being that there is all the evidence in the world against it (the moon being made of cheese, for example) and 10 being the opposite(evolution (I know that'll piss some of you off)). Deities are one of those things that warrant a 0, meaning there's no evidence in either direction. The unicorn that I mentioned above is also a 0, same with the teapot.
Now, if you call yourself an agnostic about deities, you must also admit agnosticism to those two things, along with fairies and the abominable snowman. I don't know about you, but I'm going to have a sit at the rational table and admit that none of these things exist. If you wish to call this "faith", so be it. I call it logic and/or plain sanity.
Just because something has no evidence against it doesn't mean it should be taken any more seriously. There's no evidence that there aren't molten lava-men at the Earth's core, but I'm not going to say that there might be. That's ludicrous. I could sit here and think of plenty more examples, but I'm tired and must be off to sleep.
theres no evidence that there is a god? Events in the lives of many people have convinced them that there is in fact a god. Many people can argue coincidence, psychology, or whathave you, but
Okay, but its still evidence for them, I'm not saying you should believe in god because other people claim to have personal evidence if his existance, im just saying not to discredit their personal evidence and call their believe illogical, and instead of seeing there is no god, say i dont see any evidence of god, which is fine. But there never will be complete 100% evidence of god, thats why you need faith so you can go somewhere, same logic scientists use
If someone claims to have personal evidence of a teapot orbiting the sun between Venus and Mercury, I'm going to call their belief illogical BECAUSE there is no evidence. I'm also going to state that I do not believe what they do BECAUSE there is no evidence.
You have to start thinking in black and white, not every concept in life can be simplified like that, especially one as abstract as god, which can't relaly be compared to astronomy. I'm nto asking you to beilve in god, i dont either because of lack of "personal" evidence,i'm jsut asking you to have some faith in the human race and its ability to reason, and don't sell believers short, at least they get something from their faith
The reason I treat religious belief as just as crazy as the teapot belief I stated earlier is because it is. Neither have evidence. Neither should be believed by any sane person. I'm not going to put religion on a pedestal just because more people believe in it.
I understand what you mean, but even tho they are different levels of consciousness, its still the same world. And when certain religions have certain views on the world, like that its only a few thousand years old then imo that religion is wrong, i dont think you can keep believing the world is a few thousand years old as in faith.
well all religions can be kind of disproven by science when you look at what the religions stand for, the bible for xample says the world is a few thousand years old which isnt true.
still there can be another type of god, a fictive one, so atheism is still faith, but its more propable in my opinion, im an agnost btw
Actually, you can't disprove a religion which is based in faith, unless you disprove faith itself. That's the danger of religion: when people fail to see that faith and science are separable they try to prove questions meant for science with God and questions meant for faith with science. There are areas of consciousness which neither can properly explain and trying to do so leads to discord between people.
exactly...i hate how atheists try to say agnostic is just atheism...no its not! Atheism means "no god" weak atheism is all bullshit...weak atheism is a term that shouldn't exist....because its essentially Agnosticism...Agnostics are those that don't have a belief that's 100 percent and realize that nothing may ever be provable....theists and atheists have their reasons for believing what they do, but cannot prove 100 percent meaninly atheists are faith based as well as theists
Agnostic is a BS, pretentious word for atheism. All agnostics are atheists. I used to claim to be agnostic, but the more I searched and learned, the more I realized how much it didn't make sense. I believe that there could be a god, but I am an atheist, because I hold no belief structure as truth.
I am Atheist...I am without theism. Once you realize that all these terms refer to one's beliefs, not universal fact, it might become clearer.
All agnostics do not follow a particular theology, and so are without theism, hence atheist. Dammit...I'd like to get into more detail but I wanted to keep it short.
Just remember that words that define beliefs are not the same as words that define facts. Whether your beliefs tell you things are fact or not has no bearing on other people's beliefs. (i.e. Being atheist does not automatically dismiss [for example] a Christian god's existence as fact, it merely dismisses it as part of my belief [opinion] structure.}
I think you are confusing the difference between agnosticism and someone who mistakenly calls themselves agnostic. An Agnostic's stance is that they don't know if a god exists, they believe that we don't know if a god exists or not. An Atheist's stance would be a god doesn't exist or religion is false. In other words, an atheist doesn't just 'not believe' in God, an atheist believes in the lack of a God. There is a distinct difference.
So, if someone who believes god doesn't exist calls themselves agnostic, they are wrong. However, just because they are wrong doesn't make agnosticism BS, nor does it mean that agnostics are really atheists.
Watch his next video, "World Religions Unite ...". It is explained fairly well there, too.
I understand exactly what you're saying. But look what Boingo82 said...
"Lack of belief in a god, which is distinctly different from believing there is no god." Like I said..these terms are definitions of beliefs, not facts. I happen to be in the peculiar position of being an atheist who does, in fact, believe in "god". Just remember that everything you believe is true, because that's what beliefs really are.
So some people's views about agnosticism is about to get changed.
I am agnostic. I do not believe in a god. WTF HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE! I will tell you!
There is one KEY difference in labeling yourself agnostic or atheist. That word is in the above paragraph. Have you guessed it yet? It's "BELIEVE." I can believe there is no god, and when people ask me why, I can say the overwhelming LACK of evidence of a god lead me to that belief. They can ask me to prove it,
and I will say I can't, but I also BELIEVE in gravity, yet can't prove that either. Atheists, however, say that there's no god. They state is with conviction as a fact. That is why I cannot be an atheist, no matter how much I don't believe in a god. I don't believe there is a god, yet I can't prove it. Vote for me.
You misunderstand atheists. They do not state their conviction as fact. If they do, that isn't what they mean. An atheist is simply a person who rejects the belief in a god or gods. That is very different from saying there is no God. No one can say something doesn't exist, not even unicorns or walking whales. You can't prove a negative.
That isn't proof. I could drop something and say it's Jesus that pulls it down and you couldn't prove that it wasn't. Not that I believe that, I'm just trying to show that gravity isn't proven, even though we know it's there.
No, it sounds like you are an atheist. An agnostic believes there is no way to know if he exists or not. There's not enough evidence to call it either way. You can lean towards one side however. But to say "I do not believe in a god" qualifies you as being an atheist. Many agnostics are also atheists.
I think the term "agnosticism" belongs in the dustbin of philosophy. Anyone who withholds skepticism about the supernatural because it is UNknowable, has very little understanding of knowledge.
Anyone who is an agnostic about God by definition should also be an agnostic about fairies, ghouls, bigfoot, dragons, loch ness monster, and radioactive donuts. The reasoning is the same: where is the evidence that disproves the existence of these things? Atheist here, but I respect agnostics even less than I do theists.
So, the correct definition is that you don't believe in a god (ie., you believe the number of gods is 0), rather than believe there is no god (ie., you believe the number of gods is 0). I'm sorry, I can totally see where he got mixed up now. :x
No, not at all. Lacking believe in a god is more like not collecting stamps. Specifically disbelieving is more like going out of your way to declare that there are no stamps and stamp collecting is a stupid hobby.
Either way, you're not collecting stamps. The only variable there is the degree to which you're not collecting them. This could go for collecting stamps as well -- from simply collecting stamps from the random mail you get, to going out of your way and use all your time and money on getting stamps (possibly even falling back on such extreme methods as breaking into the collections of other collectors, depending on your zealousness). Would either of these two cases be a non-collector?
Actually, I quite disagree. Well sort of. I believe there is plenty of evidence, which is best on good logic for SOME SORT OF GOD. I mean, the law of mass/energy conservation states that there...probably...should be a God. Also the simple idea of cause and effect...whatever.
All atheists are also agnostics. An atheist doesn't believe in a god, that doesn't mean they believe there IS no "God". If someone claims there is an invisible omnipotent God it is for them to provide the evidence. Do you really think no religious people try to convince others? If we see evidence we will believe it, that makes us agnostics, but we don't believe in a god making us atheists.
Amen bro, Far to oftern I see "agnostics" mislabing them selves as "athiests" out of pure rebellion. It's time we fight the dogma of religion but not at the expense of our moral fiber. To may believers are accused of closed mindedness, while they are attacked by those who cannot except their faith for what it is.
You are quite correct, the agnostic position is tautological and trivially true. It takes the logical form of Pv-P.
Atheists seem to think that lack of evidence is evidence of a lacking existence. It is a strange, and illogical position. Denying evidence brings you to the agnostic position, not the atheist position--that is essentially faith.
The agnostic position is always the true position. It is never wrong and that is why it is a useless term. No one knows the unknowable. No one knows if there is something in the box until it is opened and no one knows anything outside the natural world. That said, do we believe something IS, without knowing, or do we NOT believe something is. The default position is to NOT believe unless there is a reason to. Without belief is: A+THE+ISM. It has nothing to do with faith.
You're a little confused with the terms being used.
Atheism, in modern philosophical parlance, is the belief that there is no god. It is not a mere lack of belief in a god. Doubt me? Check the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.
Agnosticism is the position that you do not believe something is outside the world, but you also don't believe that something isn't. It is simply the best position to take.
im having the idea you people feel threatened by him cause he seems to be quite intelligent, he did get quite a lot of attention with this video now didnt he? if the video really wasnt so intelligent i bet it wuldnt be so often viewed/commented
christians arent atheist in any way, u cant be atheist with "regard" to another god, that doesnt make sense. christians believe in a god, atheists have a lack of believe in a god, christians dont, its as simple as that there is no need for thinking of other irrelevant theories about that, thats a waste of time.
Your statement about "agnositics" is also dumb. An "agnostic" is simply someone "without" + "knowledge" Since the supernatural is by definition unknowable, all are "agnositic" It is an outdated, meaningless term. We either have belief (theist) or are without believe (a theist).
The roots of the words mean almost nothing. The word agnostic was coined by TH Huxley and refers to those who don't believe god exists or that god doesn't exist.
Sorry but you're wrong! Atheism is comprised of three greek roots: "a" means "without" "theo" means "god" and "ism" is a "belief" Atheist is without a god belief. There is no assertion there is no god. Nothing to "prove" or have "faith" in.
Ok. You might call an a-easterbunny-ist. On the other hand, I have no evidence to disprove the existence of the easter bunny, and I will readily admit this. But, to be honest, it really doesn't matter to me how you would wish to classify me through prefixes and suffixes.
The positions have been overly simplified. Agnosticism in not a form of middle ground between atheism and theism; agnosticim is a position on the epistemology of god, not of its existence. It is not a position one takes when asked if one believes in the existence of a god.
Btw, theism is defined as the belief in one or more gods. Adding the prefix "a" before it constitutes a lack thereof. Atheism is a lack of belief.
I try not to speak in negatives. It usually accomplishes nothing. But in your case I will make an exception. Your ideas are so full of shit and twisted thinking that they do not deserve a reasoned response.
"If you're a christian, you're also an atheist because you don't believe in Allah"
thats bullshit, christians believe in A god, so that means they dont have a lack of believe in A god so that means they cannot be called atheist in what way ever. your comment wasnt very intelligent
You have also severely simplified agnosticism. There is no single label of 'agnostic'. There are several subcategories of them, such as strong agnostic, weak agnostic, agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, apathetic agnosticism, and ignosticism. That is why the lines are blur. So your entire argument is very flawed.
And you have your definition of Atheist wrong. Atheism is not the belief that there is no god and cannot be a god. It is the lack of belief in a god. There's a big difference. If you're a christian, you're also an atheist because you don't believe in Allah. Your video wasn't very intelligent.
If God exists, it is possible to prove he exists. If God doesn't exist, it is NOT possible to prove he doesn't exist. Maybe he's an invisible god? Maybe he chooses not to be seen or detected. That is why Atheists don't have to prove anything - because it's nto even possible to.
Scott, there is no way to prove a negative. It's impossible to prove that God DOESN'T exist. That is why the atheist doesn't have evidence. They are justified in not having evidence. The theist CAN prove that god exists, if he does.
Quantum mechanics aren't exactly easily understood, even by experts.
Christians pride themselves in being stupid, and do evils for their faith.
Lastly, atheism is a negative belief. A lack of belief in a god. There are almost no people who believe there is no god. When we say "there is no god" we attack christianity. If christians would name their damn god something other than "god" then we'd have no problem here
agnosticism is completely ridiculous. It's the most impractical way of going about things. You can't do ANYTHING by being agnostic. I can say right now I'm agnostic about the boiling point of water!
Eh, it's a messy argument. First of all, the distinction between atheists and agnostics isn't completely defined. I think most atheists you ask would agree that they believe in what science proves. So that means they ARE going by given evidence. More and more things attributed to supernatural causes are disproved by science everyday. This is a big part of why atheists say there is no god. Scientists are fulfilling the burden of proof for atheists.
I realize this video is old, but I think it's foolish to default to any presumption.
I'm going to continue considering myself ignostic (I didn't misspell, google it.) in the grand scheme of things, and athiest when I want to piss off a fundamentalist.
honorific88 2 months ago
You have no prove that santa doesn't exit therefore you have faith that santa does not exist.
TheLuckySaGe 7 months ago
Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive.
Dyscivist 8 months ago
Ut, you're concept of Agnosticism needs some work; although it's good to hear someone who understands its significance. Agnosticism is the thinking man's atheism.Yes atheists will prattle on about their latest gospel; try to initiate you into the
mysteries of root words. You might even get a sermon or two; but one does not need evidence for a negative. I can safely reject the idea that Leprechaun's exist even though they might.
0spiker 1 year ago
the position of an atheist is if you can not give one shred of verifiable evidence then there is no logical reason to believe in any god. if you know of the FSM then i am sure you know of the flying tea cup. for those who don't know. there is a flying tea cup thats orbit is between Mars and Jupiter since it is a regular sized tea cup non of our telescopes can see it. now can you prove there is no tea cup? no, and it would be ridiculous for anyone to actually believe such a tea cup exist.
karn33333 1 year ago
OK first of all the FSM is not a strawmans argument. it isn't even an argument. its a comparison of the logical fallacies within religious forcing their beliefs and the ridiculous assertions they make. The FSM isn't saying all religions have it wrong. In logic you do not have to prove a negative. the burden of proof is on those who assert. if you assert there is a god, then it us up to you to prove it. this is coming from someone who is not an atheist or an agnostic.
karn33333 1 year ago
Both agnostics and Atheists are wrong...agnostic atheism is the only logical conclusion one can make. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that. Personally anyone who claims to be either 100% atheist or 100% agnostic is deluding themselves. If there isn't evidence for something than there is no incentive to believe that it exists so don't believe, however still be open to the possibility of said "thing" existing if you possess no evidence saying otherwise. Let's use our brains ppl.
dragonrape2 1 year ago
I think I disagree with the spectrum set up in this video. There would actually be more of a four point scale in the way you measure this. Fundamentalist theist, someone who believes that their religion and set of beliefs is absolute usually based on what is in a holy book like an evangelical bible literalist. Then there is the theist that has some measure of doubt about their particular belief system and/or god. Then agnostic leaving the possibility open both ways and lastly atheist, no belief.
lonelytrixter 1 year ago
@lonelytrixter I am actually an atheist, I do not believe in a god. I don't think of this as a fundamentalist position though. My question is why is god the 'default', why is the assumed only argument presented that god exists or doesn't exist. The thing is that when answering questions about things like what started the universe, spirituality and morality why is the default assumption god and no other root cause outside of a purely scientific one.
lonelytrixter 1 year ago
@lonelytrixter This does change a bit with how you define god but essentially there are many possible just as unlikely explanations for all of the things god supposedly answers that could be attributed to faith. For example with regards to the creation of a universe, lets say our universe is actually created by some superbly advanced race of what to us would be mega giants and we're the size of an atom to them but they can change our universe as they like because we're in a lab like environment.
lonelytrixter 1 year ago
@lonelytrixter In their own world though these giants are not gods of any sort they have similar limits to what we experience. Now assuming we have no way to test beyond our atom like shell aka our universe we have no way of knowing if this idea is true or not. It is about as likely and logical as the 'god theory' but these creators would not be gods in the sense that they are truly all powerful, immortal, omnipresent, can tell the future and know everything like some religions claim.
lonelytrixter 1 year ago
@lonelytrixter Given our current capacities we cannot test this theory scientifically or ask questions, compare similarities or create our own 'atom universe' to try and back it up. In regards to this you would probably not say that I'm 50/50 and waiting for more evidence to back up the giant's who created the world in an atom theory, for simplicity you would more likely assume it isn't true. That is about the position I take with the idea of a god existing, it doesn't make sense as a default.
lonelytrixter 1 year ago 2
im not a christain but i beleave in god .
but this is so close to what i beleave it good to see im not the only one who thinks like this.
emanon2noname 1 year ago
I'M A LATiNO MUSLiM AND i SAY YOU'RE GOiNG DOWN PAPi.
I'm kidding. I totally agree with you, everything that you said here in this video is absolutely right/true FOR ME. Sadly I can't prove anything just like everyone else, but like you said in time the truth will be revealed eventually, and that's when the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ occurs, and that's 1000+ years away from this date according to the holy scriptures.
I'm a Christian but I'm very open minded and I totally understand you all.
theworldofozven 2 years ago
I don't think there are many people at all who fall into your definition of atheist. I think a whole bunch of people call themselves atheists and are closer to your definition of agnostic. There are of course other definitions of agnostic too.
The
TumshieX 2 years ago
Sorry if there are double posts etc, youtube wasn't nice to me.
What I have noticed on youtube is that atheism and agnosticism have been used in so many ways that if we all agreed on a certain set of definitions, there would be plenty of positions without a name.
TumshieX 2 years ago
At around 5:36 into the video, you say "Have faith. You need some conviction, something to die for."
I doubt that you need that. The main argument for faith of any kind is that then life would be meaningless. And that would be true. The irony of this is that the need for meaning and the lack for meaning are two sides of the very same coin. One you seek meaning, you lack it, by definition. And sometimes you'll end up with some sort of fundamentalist faith. But the basic problem is meaning.
koenichfuerst 2 years ago
Basically, it has something to do with our theory-building in general. Since we can make all sorts of helpful models about the world, we somehow think that we can understand its "true nature" or at least come close to it. But models are not reality. And therein lies the problem. Living in your models of the world instead of the sensory world, you disconnect from reality to find your place in it. You disconnect to connect. It can't work. If you search for meaning, you won't find it. Stop instead.
koenichfuerst 2 years ago
Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Atheism and theism refer to belief, while gnosticism and agnosticism deal with knowledge.
For example: I am an agnostic atheist i.e. a person who does not claim to know whether there is a god who does not believe in a god.
HyldenHero 2 years ago
Your definition of agnostic is essentially my definition of Atheist.
|When I say I am an Atheist I define it in the following way:
I do not believe things for which there is no evidence.
Atheism is not a belief it is a lack there of and as such no burden of proof can be placed upon an atheist (by my definition) as they have made no claim be it falsifiable or not. They simply have no belief.
KaelHunter 2 years ago
You'll find many definitions for atheism. Most atheists don't actually have an absolutist position on the issue of god. Most would say that they lack the belief for god rather than say that there is no god.
There are such terms as weak atheism and strong atheism. The latter is the absolutist position. You'll find that very few atheists are strong atheists. Even dawkins considers himself a weak atheist.
jaywalkur 2 years ago
Agnosticism is a logical fallacy. It is called appeal to ignorance. Agnosticism is just as incoherent as saying: "Jesus did it." When wondering how the universe was formed, and is there a creator?
Of course we don't know everything, but say you must as evidence that jesus doesn't exist is silly and redundant.
tireiron 2 years ago
"Atheism claims to have all the mysteries answered. It's an active claim about something which provides no evidence to either conclusion."
Um..no?
Atheism specifically DOESN'T claim to have all the mysteries answered. It just doesn't jump to the conclusion that it must be a deity.
Secondly, the counter-intuitive idea of Qmechanics became accepted BECAUSE of evidence. Those scientists were justified in suspending their belief until it was proven to them to be the case.
cmmndrblu 2 years ago
To further my point, Atheism is the philosophical position that deities do not exist, meaning we reject the idea of a god, but also realize there is a possibility of the existence of one. To say anything is 100% verified is scientifically flawed.
dipwadincorperated 2 years ago
Ah looks like my first comment didn't show up. What I said first was to other people that your opinion wasn't wrong. It was merely obvious and was lacking the correct definition of the terms.
dipwadincorperated 2 years ago
Try and think outside that theism box for a moment.
Atheism is as much a faith as NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.
If TV stations can be used as an analogy for the different world religions. Then atheism is the off button.
Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with belief. It has to do with pragmatic expectation of probability. Is it reasonable to believe that our bronze age forefathers answered most of the mysteries of the universe. My magic 8 ball says "Not likely"
Did that help any?
Saromatae 2 years ago 3
Not collecting stamps is in no way similar to saying that stamps do not exist.
Agnostics deal in probability... "in all likelihood" "who really knows" "probably"
Atheism claims to have all the mysteries answered. It's an active claim about something which provides no evidence to either conclusion.
"Is it reasonable to believe that our bronze age forefathers answered most of the mysteries of the universe."
Replace "bronze age foreathers" with "we" and you'll understand how absurd atheism is.
utnow 2 years ago
"Atheism claims to have all the mysteries answered"
This statement is beyond absurd I refuse to respond to it.
"It's an active claim about something which provides no evidence to either conclusion." Yes to say something is very improbable is an active claim. You do not need evidence against the probability of the existence of Wotan to consider him very unlikely. The only difference between an agnostic and an atheist is the agnostic gives it a higher probablity.
Saromatae 2 years ago
Atheists don't claim to KNOW, we only argue that the odds of a gods existence are so slim, that it's not something to believe in. You can't PROVE unicorns don't exist, but you don't believe in unicorns do you? I can't 100% prove god doesn't exist, but I can say that it's so absurd, that to believe in a god is not unlike believing in unicorns, or the tooth fairy.
RobbyTheSheef 2 years ago
most of wot you sed was well thort out but i wood like to say that the philosophy (not religon) of Buddhism has no god. Siddhartha Gautama aka "the buddha" was a human teacher nuthing more nuthing less. he had no super powers no magic just meditation (thinking).
Gmandark 2 years ago
WOW, this is exactly the way I feel and I'm considered becoming an agnostic.
segerocker 2 years ago
*Considering... lol
segerocker 2 years ago
me too
Shay5590 2 years ago
I'll send you a PM clarifying this.
Surhotchaperchlorome 3 years ago
This video is just a straw man of the atheist position, and an appeal to ridicule (the title).
"I can feel the self loathing from here."
Says the person who tries to claim the moral highground by strawmanning our position. :P
Surhotchaperchlorome 3 years ago
Except Atheist and Agnostic aren't mutually exclusive.
Being an Agnostic doesn't mean you're on this happy intellectual medium.
Atheism/theism is an answer to the question "Is there a god/deity?"
If you answer yes, you're a theist.
If you answer I don't know--I must be an Agnostic, you're still an atheist.
Atheism/Theism is based on what you believe.
Gnosticism/Agnosticism is based on what you know/can prove.
Surhotchaperchlorome 3 years ago
Actually no, atheism is just not acknowledging any gods, since there's no reason to. No belief involved.
MrMcChicken 3 years ago
No, Atheism and theism are about belief, and Agnosticism and Gnosticism are about what you know.
And like I stated, they aren't mutually exclusive.
Atheism is a lack of belief in deities.
I'll send you a PM clarifying this and explaining it in greater detail (I'd post it here but youtube is a bitch about hyper linking).
Surhotchaperchlorome 3 years ago
Also, that's a contradiction.
No acknowledgement in gods implies lack of belief in gods.
We lack a belief in gods because there is a lack of evidence for the existence of said gods.
Surhotchaperchlorome 3 years ago
Umm, yeah, that's my point. You were saying atheism is about belief, but it's not.
MrMcChicken 3 years ago
*facepalm*
I said that Theism/Atheism are about belief and lack of belief in gods (thus a subset of the overarching category of belief), and you just said you agreed with me, and then you go and say that Atheism isn't about belief.
It's in the realm of belief, however, it means a lack of belief in gods.
So it still fits into the overarching category, as Laci and the folks at The Atheist Experience (will hopefully) clarify.
Surhotchaperchlorome 3 years ago
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here. We lack belief in gods, so that equals a type of belief somehow...?
MrMcChicken 3 years ago
I'm stating that Atheism and Theism answer questions about belief in deities.
For example, when asked, "Do you believe in God?"
If you answer "Yes", youre a theist.
Anything other answer, including "I don't know" you are an Atheist (because you still lack a belief)
Im not saying that atheism is a belief that there are no gods, but that it is a lack of a belief, most often stemming from a lack of evidence in support of the existence of gods.
Surhotchaperchlorome 3 years ago
Thats it.
Atheism is a lack of a belief.
For a more in dept explanation, check out the link to The Atheist Experience FAQ's about atheism being a religion, or atheism being a faith too.
Surhotchaperchlorome 3 years ago
That's exactly what I was saying, but just a while back you said "No, Atheism and theism are about belief, and Agnosticism and Gnosticism are about what you know." Which seems to contradict that.
MrMcChicken 3 years ago
Yes, they are still about belief, but only in the sense that they are answers to that question about belief in gods.
Agnosticism and Gnosticism are still about knowledge (what you know).
As I said (or think I said) that in mind, they aren't mutually exclusive.
You can be an Agnostic Atheist, one who lacks a belief in gods.
A Gnostic theist, one who positively asserts that there are not gods (or claims to know there aren't any gods)
A Gnostic Theist who claims to know God exists and beliefs it...
Surhotchaperchlorome 3 years ago
And an Agnostic Theist who believes in god(s) but won't claim to know it.
(Also, another way of describing it is to say that Gnostic people will claim that the belief can be proven, while Agnostic people will say that it can't be proven either way. Note that this applies to both theists and atheists).
Surhotchaperchlorome 3 years ago
I don't see how you can find a contradiction of any sort in what I said though.
Unless, maybe you're conflating belief and knowledge, or think I am doing so.
I do acknowledge that our knowledge informs our beliefs and our actions.
I'm only pointing out what I did to show that atheism/theism and Gnosticism/Agnosticism address those things separately.
Surhotchaperchlorome 3 years ago
Actually, my previous post led to me think: both are theists and atheists are agnostic, since they admit there's no evidence for their faith. Would then a "pure agnostic" - one completely lacking in faith - be possible, or am I simply making confusion with the definitions?
zappazilli 3 years ago
I'm an atheist-agnostic. Agnosticism to me seems to be in a different level from theism or atheism. It could be seem as an "a priori" condition. First you choose if you're gnostic (you assume you can KNOW of God's existance or no-existance) or if you're agnostic (you assume you CAN'T KNOW of God's existence or no-existance). Then you choose either theist (you BELIEVE in God) or atheist (you do not BELIEVE in God).
I do not believe in God but I know I can't proof it.
I hope this makes sense.
zappazilli 3 years ago
the burden of proving God lies on theists
we atheists don't have to prove there is no God, it's like proving there are no pink flying elephants, like, must we disprove every piece of nonsense mad people say exists?
AndTheChoirSang 3 years ago
I'm a deist.
I think your claim "Atheist claim" is sort of off.
e.g. I don't believe unicorns are real. I put faith in to the ideal that unicorns are not real because there is no logic or proof in supporting the ideal that i should put faith into believing unicorns are real.
I put faith in the ideal your a person, but thats only because there is no other phenomenon suggesting that you are not a person.
The phenomenon that suggest something is real must exist first. I put faith in that.
miamimanni 3 years ago
I agree with you and I am agnostic.
CodyAllenmusic 3 years ago
Spock: "Logic is little tweeting bird chirping in meadow. Logic is wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad."
Star Trek is the answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything in it! Great video man! /me mucks around still searching for the meaning of life...
modbnet 3 years ago
Atheist mean "no god"?
Jesus Christ! Well anyway, just because your atheist doesn't mean you can't have proof or that you can't use logic.
Atheist isn't a permanent label. People change religious beliefs. And you don't need proof that there isn't a god if there isn't any proof to supporttht there is one.
CoCozambozee 3 years ago
OK, you are brilliant. I was atheist until I saw your video. You convinced me. I now BELIEVE differently, but I don't think I am going to DO anything differently. Do you think I should make any changes in my behavior now that you have converted me to agnosticism? My thoughts are different, but my actions will be the same. You last point about glorifying death was excellent too.
contijet1964 3 years ago
YOU ARE A DAMN GENIUS!!! I LOVE YOU!!! YES...I'M MISS LOGICAL!!!
THANK YOU!!!
Now can you help me understand stupid algebra with imaginary numbers...then physics class, especially when they are teaching "untrue, disproven theories"?
grneyz77 3 years ago
Not presenting an argument here just wanna pay you a compliment.I almost turned this video off when u mentioned Schroedinger his equation and wavefuctions almost drove me insane this year. Plus u look about similar ages with myself so I expected an amateur argument but what u said was very logical in my opinion. I am myself agnostic religious dogma seems back dated and based on superstition to me yet I cannot find a logical conclusion to the origin of the big bang other than a supreme being
johnlockethemessiah 3 years ago
I think atheists have like a 50% chance to be right, and someone who just claims ''there must be something like a god'', but does not make a specific statement about this god, does have just the same chance. But someone who makes a specific statement about his god, like christians, muslims, jews etc. does have only like an 0,000001% chance to be right. It's like saying there are exactly 1 Dollar, 3,50 Euros and 1000 Yen in the tresor.
Muvlonion 3 years ago
the cat must be considered alive OR dead...
lack of evidence doesn't make the two happen at the same time
randalfthewise 3 years ago
Actually no, the common interpretation of Schrodinger' thought experiment was that the cat was in a state of "superposition", which means that, until it was observed, it was both dead and alive at the same time.
yeswecanftw 3 years ago
Sorry, I mean "Schrodinger's thought experiment."
yeswecanftw 3 years ago
Still my favorite vid on youtube. The problem is not with proof but with definition. Like in the coin example because we have no idea what a "coin" is we cannot determine whether it is in the box or not. Any proof either way can be easily dismissed by saying that a coin is still in there but the interpretation of what a coin is, is incorrect.
Cahuix 3 years ago
great video, very rational
cowfordflorida1 3 years ago
Your argument against atheism: "The absence of evidence is not evidence absence" My position is that there are no gods because there is no evidence. It fits into a larger view of the world in which things are true because they can be proven & things are false because they cannot. Agnosticism in your view, simplistically put, is that truth & falsehood must be proven positively & where no proof exists it could go either way. I don't hold gods to higher standards of proof than other areas inquiry.
Ralajer 3 years ago
It's a car wash token!
wowsexyness 3 years ago
Awesome video. In the clear, eh? I'll go grab my popcorn.
GeraldWatercrest 3 years ago
Fantastic video.
chaosmonkey99 3 years ago
hm, interesting. i never really understood the difference between agnosticism and atheism before; i'm glad you cleared it up. loved this video.
ps, 'solsbury hill' by peter gabriel = <3
dylz 3 years ago
I agree with everything except for the burden of proof. In most legal systems, it's "Innocent until proven guilty." The burden falls upon the prosecutors, and any evidence given to prove guilt is rebuttled by evidence to prove innocence. Prosecutors must take the first step of proof of guilt. In my mind it is more logical to say that "Leprechauns don't exist until proven to exist." So while agnosticism is the best approach, I feel that agnostic atheism is the more practical approach.
lvb2555 3 years ago
Wrong
PCScipio 3 years ago
Agnostics are indifferent to the idea of God. People will argue that they can't prove something that isn't real but what is real? Its all in the mind, processed by the brain. There are so many possibilities. I'd rather be agnostic than ASSUME the truth, as far as i'm concerned both sides rely on faith except agnosticism.
Scjrd91 3 years ago
You sir, have a bright mind I agree with your statements because they all make sense, and whoever disagrees good for you. I'd care less. =)
Mortabit93 3 years ago
How do I disprove something that isn't real?
kilmindaro2 3 years ago
interesting that similar comments earlier are thumbs-downed whereas this one is thumbs-upped.
plenty of formal logical proof disproves things that are impossible, logically implausible, or 'not real'... however, with regard to the existence of god or any deity, i would argue that there is no evidence to make any such proof either way (confirming or denying). but please, don't make the mistake of thinking that the 'unreal' or 'impossible' cannot be disproved.
dylz 3 years ago
I'm already cleared up on how hard it is to prove something as a God and my following arg.. what ever
Why is air transparent? I havnt gotten a great deal of time to think about this. Eyes evolved to see by sencing the spectrum of light? God made air 'invisible' in advance so this world could be possible? Anyway theres always an explenation. Dont tag me as a creationist, I just randomly thought about it at lunch break.. (gr8 character limit runs out)
Chiszle 3 years ago
Well my name's Mikey and I'm about to own you so get ready.
How the absolute fuck bullocks should Atheists need any evidence to...disprove..something..that...just doesn't exist.
I mean it just seems absolutely moronic
Mikadeth 3 years ago
Just doesn't exist... hm, sounds like faith to me.
DANE842 3 years ago 3
I don't have proof of God, but I do have the universe itself as evidence. Science appears to provide a vicious infinite regressive explanation of how everything began.
You could give an explanation involving a multiverse, but where did the multiverse come from? See what I mean?
Infinite regression gives me cause to suspect that something outside the realm of time, space, matter and energy, exists. This is not declaration by fait, but suspicion.
FlowCell 3 years ago 2
Daft Punk does not make for good background music.
At all.
GodofVengence 3 years ago
Daft Punk owns you.
modbnet 3 years ago
another interesting agnostic challenge is Meno's paradox (Plato) which is: if you don't know what it is your looking for (god is unknown), then how will you know when you have discovered it?
What type of evidence would you except? this leads me to the conclusion of strong agnosticism.... no evidence will prove either way the existence of god. so we will never know
(with the possible exception of dying and discovering that god does in fact exist. we will never know god doesn't exist.)
abiddle726 3 years ago
Ah, but why even suspect God exists in the first place? People have reasons to believe God exists, unlike the Easter Bunny, flying tea pots and other straw men icons pulled out of someone's ass.
The question isn't whether or not God exists, but what whether or not the reasons to believe or suspect the existence of God are valid.
FlowCell 3 years ago
No, because that is not looking at all the possible reasons, only the ones that have been given. we will never know the reasons. but they may be out there. I feel that comparisons with the easter bunny and flying teapots etc.. are very unfitting because they are something that is predefined whereas any (agnostic) notion of god is not.
abiddle726 3 years ago
another interesting agnostic challenge is Meno's paradox (Plato) which is: if you don't know what it is your looking for (god is unknown), then how will you know when you have discovered it?
What type of evidence would you except? this leads me to the conclusion of strong agnosticism.... no evidence will prove either way the existence of god. so we will never know
(with the possible exception of dying and discovering that god does in fact exist. we will never know god doesn't exist.)
abiddle726 3 years ago
Chocolate candy coin?
You can open that vault and show us the coin. If a coin is in the vault your assertion is logically consistent and and empirically verifiable.
I have seen no argument for god that is either.
I am a srtong atheist but am perfectly open to contrary evidence. Show me a way to life to exist without a material subtrate, or a genuine miracle and I would gladly admint that I was wrong.
I don't go about my life worrying about weather or not unicorns exist.
WorBlux 3 years ago
Going to have to say that the flaw here is with you: You have misdefined the word agnostic. Agnostics believe it is unknown AND unknowable. As a person who does not believe in any god, I must therefore be an atheist, hough I lack a positive believe in the nonexistance of the deific, given the total lack of evidence either way. I await evidence with a lack of belief, which is the default stance of most atheists if they were eloquent enough to state it thus, I am sure.
Rystefn 4 years ago 2
sorry for double post but i just thought of something silly & peculiar with our eng language to think about...
phoenetically:
asexual (not of any sex) = 'AY-sexual'
asymmetrical = (without symmetry)= 'AY-symmetrical'
AGONOSTIC = without proof-- 'Gnostic' = (from the Greek "gnosis" = 'knowledge' with the "G" being 'silent'
so why pronounce the 'silent G' and say "AG-nostic" --petty, i know, but i'm just pointing out an ideosyncracy of our language^^
BrokenMotherTongue 4 years ago
THANK YOU! no one in my life has ever summed up the 'agnostic' so simply and with the proper definition! i, myself, am a proud agnostic and you hit the nail on the head. i've been enjoying your thoughts and videos before, but NOW you have gained my utmost respect since watching this vid! thank you and well said! if there were more people like us in the world, wars, famine, and other such nonsense would simply not exist and i honestly believe that!^^v
BrokenMotherTongue 4 years ago
wait wth, wwhat happened to other comments? :S
camistheman 4 years ago
plain ignorance, skepticism, and a sycnical view of human ability to reason. Many people claim to have personal evidence of the existance of god, and although I personally dont and aI do not believe in god, neither of us us can discredit that. It is faith. Atleast religious people, well some,recognize that
By the way this video is awesome
camistheman 4 years ago
both are arguments with some evidence, and its ridiculus that you think evidence of evolution vs evidenec of the boogeyman, is and identical representation of evidence of no god vs evidence of god, that is just
camistheman 4 years ago
deep... hmmm
you got me thinking, and i'm not the kinda guy who watches this sort of stuff, nevermind stop and think about it =s
GJ like ya video and err yeah nice one
0m4j 4 years ago
The proof there is no god is that i don't recognize that there is a god (if something is on a belief status and if you don't recognize that belief theres nothing there), thus nil and voiding both of your statements that 1.atheists have faith/believe (whatever you were trying to get across in that crisscrossed ramble) and 2 that theres no proof either way.
The proof is in faith, atheists have no faith and that is their proof.
Drawling: 1=faith 0=no faith .5=agnostic.
Vehei00 4 years ago
with all respect, you missed his point. YES 'atheists' indeed have FAITH. they have as much faith (also known as 'belief in something NOT proven') the same as deists (of any religion) have 'faith'. i, being a true agnostic, have absolutely no faith in an entity one way or another.
BrokenMotherTongue 4 years ago
Rebuttal: Part 1
The problem with your argument is that atheism requires faith. You have no "proof" that there isn't an invisible intangible unicorn standing next to you, yet I doubt that you would believe that there is one. There is no proof that there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere in between Venus and Earth, but I doubt that you would believe in such if I stated it as fact.
Mershaullk 4 years ago
Rebuttal: Part 2
Look at it like this, there's a scale from -10 to 10; -10 being that there is all the evidence in the world against it (the moon being made of cheese, for example) and 10 being the opposite(evolution (I know that'll piss some of you off)). Deities are one of those things that warrant a 0, meaning there's no evidence in either direction. The unicorn that I mentioned above is also a 0, same with the teapot.
Mershaullk 4 years ago
Rebuttal: Part 3
Now, if you call yourself an agnostic about deities, you must also admit agnosticism to those two things, along with fairies and the abominable snowman. I don't know about you, but I'm going to have a sit at the rational table and admit that none of these things exist. If you wish to call this "faith", so be it. I call it logic and/or plain sanity.
Mershaullk 4 years ago
Rebuttal: Part 4
Just because something has no evidence against it doesn't mean it should be taken any more seriously. There's no evidence that there aren't molten lava-men at the Earth's core, but I'm not going to say that there might be. That's ludicrous. I could sit here and think of plenty more examples, but I'm tired and must be off to sleep.
Mershaullk 4 years ago
theres no evidence that there is a god? Events in the lives of many people have convinced them that there is in fact a god. Many people can argue coincidence, psychology, or whathave you, but
camistheman 4 years ago
"Personal evidence" is not available to anyone other than that person. Therefore, it cannot be considered evidence as a whole.
Mershaullk 4 years ago
Okay, but its still evidence for them, I'm not saying you should believe in god because other people claim to have personal evidence if his existance, im just saying not to discredit their personal evidence and call their believe illogical, and instead of seeing there is no god, say i dont see any evidence of god, which is fine. But there never will be complete 100% evidence of god, thats why you need faith so you can go somewhere, same logic scientists use
camistheman 4 years ago
If someone claims to have personal evidence of a teapot orbiting the sun between Venus and Mercury, I'm going to call their belief illogical BECAUSE there is no evidence. I'm also going to state that I do not believe what they do BECAUSE there is no evidence.
Mershaullk 4 years ago
You have to start thinking in black and white, not every concept in life can be simplified like that, especially one as abstract as god, which can't relaly be compared to astronomy. I'm nto asking you to beilve in god, i dont either because of lack of "personal" evidence,i'm jsut asking you to have some faith in the human race and its ability to reason, and don't sell believers short, at least they get something from their faith
camistheman 4 years ago
The reason I treat religious belief as just as crazy as the teapot belief I stated earlier is because it is. Neither have evidence. Neither should be believed by any sane person. I'm not going to put religion on a pedestal just because more people believe in it.
Mershaullk 4 years ago
I understand what you mean, but even tho they are different levels of consciousness, its still the same world. And when certain religions have certain views on the world, like that its only a few thousand years old then imo that religion is wrong, i dont think you can keep believing the world is a few thousand years old as in faith.
numbcore 4 years ago
well all religions can be kind of disproven by science when you look at what the religions stand for, the bible for xample says the world is a few thousand years old which isnt true.
still there can be another type of god, a fictive one, so atheism is still faith, but its more propable in my opinion, im an agnost btw
numbcore 4 years ago
Actually, you can't disprove a religion which is based in faith, unless you disprove faith itself. That's the danger of religion: when people fail to see that faith and science are separable they try to prove questions meant for science with God and questions meant for faith with science. There are areas of consciousness which neither can properly explain and trying to do so leads to discord between people.
buttaflutta 4 years ago
What IS logic anyway.
Hokabelle 4 years ago
give me their phone number so i can tell them
EmperorEva0001 4 years ago
exactly...i hate how atheists try to say agnostic is just atheism...no its not! Atheism means "no god" weak atheism is all bullshit...weak atheism is a term that shouldn't exist....because its essentially Agnosticism...Agnostics are those that don't have a belief that's 100 percent and realize that nothing may ever be provable....theists and atheists have their reasons for believing what they do, but cannot prove 100 percent meaninly atheists are faith based as well as theists
Anthonyxander 4 years ago
I like your comment at the end about this being a useless conflict. nice way to finish up
Ekriegor 4 years ago
Ok... I didn't read too far back in the comments, but the only one who's even close is boingo82.
knifemind 4 years ago
Agnostic is a BS, pretentious word for atheism. All agnostics are atheists. I used to claim to be agnostic, but the more I searched and learned, the more I realized how much it didn't make sense. I believe that there could be a god, but I am an atheist, because I hold no belief structure as truth.
I am Atheist...I am without theism. Once you realize that all these terms refer to one's beliefs, not universal fact, it might become clearer.
knifemind 4 years ago
All agnostics do not follow a particular theology, and so are without theism, hence atheist. Dammit...I'd like to get into more detail but I wanted to keep it short.
knifemind 4 years ago
Just remember that words that define beliefs are not the same as words that define facts. Whether your beliefs tell you things are fact or not has no bearing on other people's beliefs. (i.e. Being atheist does not automatically dismiss [for example] a Christian god's existence as fact, it merely dismisses it as part of my belief [opinion] structure.}
knifemind 4 years ago
I think you are confusing the difference between agnosticism and someone who mistakenly calls themselves agnostic. An Agnostic's stance is that they don't know if a god exists, they believe that we don't know if a god exists or not. An Atheist's stance would be a god doesn't exist or religion is false. In other words, an atheist doesn't just 'not believe' in God, an atheist believes in the lack of a God. There is a distinct difference.
MikeMakesRight 4 years ago
I think the confusion spawns from misunderstand on the term theism or theistic.
The term atheistic breaks down to not theistic. Theistic means belief in the existence of a god.
Therefore, atheistic is "not belief" or disbelief in the existence of a god. Meaning, there is no god.
An agnostic would not make that claim. They would reply that they don't know, nor can they.
MikeMakesRight 4 years ago
So, if someone who believes god doesn't exist calls themselves agnostic, they are wrong. However, just because they are wrong doesn't make agnosticism BS, nor does it mean that agnostics are really atheists.
Watch his next video, "World Religions Unite ...". It is explained fairly well there, too.
MikeMakesRight 4 years ago
I understand exactly what you're saying. But look what Boingo82 said...
"Lack of belief in a god, which is distinctly different from believing there is no god." Like I said..these terms are definitions of beliefs, not facts. I happen to be in the peculiar position of being an atheist who does, in fact, believe in "god". Just remember that everything you believe is true, because that's what beliefs really are.
knifemind 4 years ago
So some people's views about agnosticism is about to get changed.
I am agnostic. I do not believe in a god. WTF HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE! I will tell you!
There is one KEY difference in labeling yourself agnostic or atheist. That word is in the above paragraph. Have you guessed it yet? It's "BELIEVE." I can believe there is no god, and when people ask me why, I can say the overwhelming LACK of evidence of a god lead me to that belief. They can ask me to prove it,
AmnRyanChase 4 years ago
(continued from the top)
and I will say I can't, but I also BELIEVE in gravity, yet can't prove that either. Atheists, however, say that there's no god. They state is with conviction as a fact. That is why I cannot be an atheist, no matter how much I don't believe in a god. I don't believe there is a god, yet I can't prove it. Vote for me.
AmnRyanChase 4 years ago
You misunderstand atheists. They do not state their conviction as fact. If they do, that isn't what they mean. An atheist is simply a person who rejects the belief in a god or gods. That is very different from saying there is no God. No one can say something doesn't exist, not even unicorns or walking whales. You can't prove a negative.
lostn65 4 years ago
Are you an agnostic towards the theory of gravity?
What you describe here is not an atheist, but an anti-theist. YOU are an atheist. What you THINK an atheist is, is really an anti-theist.
lostn65 4 years ago
U cant prove gravity?? drop something.. proof =]
0Statix0 4 years ago
That isn't proof. I could drop something and say it's Jesus that pulls it down and you couldn't prove that it wasn't. Not that I believe that, I'm just trying to show that gravity isn't proven, even though we know it's there.
AmnRyanChase 4 years ago
No, it sounds like you are an atheist. An agnostic believes there is no way to know if he exists or not. There's not enough evidence to call it either way. You can lean towards one side however. But to say "I do not believe in a god" qualifies you as being an atheist. Many agnostics are also atheists.
lostn65 4 years ago
I think the term "agnosticism" belongs in the dustbin of philosophy. Anyone who withholds skepticism about the supernatural because it is UNknowable, has very little understanding of knowledge.
bluespiral58 4 years ago
Anyone who is an agnostic about God by definition should also be an agnostic about fairies, ghouls, bigfoot, dragons, loch ness monster, and radioactive donuts. The reasoning is the same: where is the evidence that disproves the existence of these things? Atheist here, but I respect agnostics even less than I do theists.
lostn65 4 years ago
Inaccurate video. If I drew you a venn diagram, agnosticism would overlap both theism and atheism.
From the very beginning you define atheism incorrectly.
boingo82 4 years ago
Agreed. His credibility shot out the window within the first 60 seconds. I haven't seen another Utnow video since.
lostn65 4 years ago
And... exactly where does he say that they do not overlap?
And what, then, is the correct definition of atheism?
FrederikSOlesen 4 years ago
Lack of belief in a god, which is distinctly different from believing there is no god.
boingo82 4 years ago
So, the correct definition is that you don't believe in a god (ie., you believe the number of gods is 0), rather than believe there is no god (ie., you believe the number of gods is 0). I'm sorry, I can totally see where he got mixed up now. :x
FrederikSOlesen 4 years ago
No, not at all. Lacking believe in a god is more like not collecting stamps. Specifically disbelieving is more like going out of your way to declare that there are no stamps and stamp collecting is a stupid hobby.
boingo82 4 years ago
Either way, you're not collecting stamps. The only variable there is the degree to which you're not collecting them. This could go for collecting stamps as well -- from simply collecting stamps from the random mail you get, to going out of your way and use all your time and money on getting stamps (possibly even falling back on such extreme methods as breaking into the collections of other collectors, depending on your zealousness). Would either of these two cases be a non-collector?
FrederikSOlesen 4 years ago
he doesn't have a life? is that why he has a girlfriend and you don't?
Seminoles360 4 years ago
ok u have wayyyyy to much time on ur hands!!!!! get a life !!!!!!!
patricio934 4 years ago
Have I commented on this video before?
theBigTakeover 4 years ago
Actually, I quite disagree. Well sort of. I believe there is plenty of evidence, which is best on good logic for SOME SORT OF GOD. I mean, the law of mass/energy conservation states that there...probably...should be a God. Also the simple idea of cause and effect...whatever.
TolstoyKafkaEvsky 4 years ago
Incredible! I found intelligence on Youtube! Among all the bigotry on youtube, intelligence at last! thanks for speaking out loud.
johnmiddlejohn 4 years ago
All atheists are also agnostics. An atheist doesn't believe in a god, that doesn't mean they believe there IS no "God". If someone claims there is an invisible omnipotent God it is for them to provide the evidence. Do you really think no religious people try to convince others? If we see evidence we will believe it, that makes us agnostics, but we don't believe in a god making us atheists.
CynicalBeholder 4 years ago
Atheists, I believe, wouldn't be willing
to die for atheism. With no belief in the/an afterlife [or at least I think so], why would they die for it?
theonetheo 4 years ago
w w w sultan org
atheists r alwyas agnostics and they had faith with no evidence in thier atheism or agnostic believe
50ffash 4 years ago
which christians you talking about? ow wise teacher...
darpachief 4 years ago
Amen bro, Far to oftern I see "agnostics" mislabing them selves as "athiests" out of pure rebellion. It's time we fight the dogma of religion but not at the expense of our moral fiber. To may believers are accused of closed mindedness, while they are attacked by those who cannot except their faith for what it is.
MykELforever 4 years ago
I have a question to define PROOF... Does that include the archeologically evident fulfillment of prophesy?
MykELforever 4 years ago
You are quite correct, the agnostic position is tautological and trivially true. It takes the logical form of Pv-P.
Atheists seem to think that lack of evidence is evidence of a lacking existence. It is a strange, and illogical position. Denying evidence brings you to the agnostic position, not the atheist position--that is essentially faith.
NathanZimmerman 4 years ago
The agnostic position is always the true position. It is never wrong and that is why it is a useless term. No one knows the unknowable. No one knows if there is something in the box until it is opened and no one knows anything outside the natural world. That said, do we believe something IS, without knowing, or do we NOT believe something is. The default position is to NOT believe unless there is a reason to. Without belief is: A+THE+ISM. It has nothing to do with faith.
bluespiral58 4 years ago
You're a little confused with the terms being used.
Atheism, in modern philosophical parlance, is the belief that there is no god. It is not a mere lack of belief in a god. Doubt me? Check the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.
Agnosticism is the position that you do not believe something is outside the world, but you also don't believe that something isn't. It is simply the best position to take.
NathanZimmerman 4 years ago
im having the idea you people feel threatened by him cause he seems to be quite intelligent, he did get quite a lot of attention with this video now didnt he? if the video really wasnt so intelligent i bet it wuldnt be so often viewed/commented
numbcore 4 years ago
christians arent atheist in any way, u cant be atheist with "regard" to another god, that doesnt make sense. christians believe in a god, atheists have a lack of believe in a god, christians dont, its as simple as that there is no need for thinking of other irrelevant theories about that, thats a waste of time.
numbcore 4 years ago
Your statement about "agnositics" is also dumb. An "agnostic" is simply someone "without" + "knowledge" Since the supernatural is by definition unknowable, all are "agnositic" It is an outdated, meaningless term. We either have belief (theist) or are without believe (a theist).
bluespiral58 4 years ago
The roots of the words mean almost nothing. The word agnostic was coined by TH Huxley and refers to those who don't believe god exists or that god doesn't exist.
NathanZimmerman 4 years ago
Sorry but you're wrong! Atheism is comprised of three greek roots: "a" means "without" "theo" means "god" and "ism" is a "belief" Atheist is without a god belief. There is no assertion there is no god. Nothing to "prove" or have "faith" in.
bluespiral58 4 years ago
Atheism is a negative belief. You don't need proof for a negative, and you certainly don't need faith to believe it.
hdz0 4 years ago
Ok. You might call an a-easterbunny-ist. On the other hand, I have no evidence to disprove the existence of the easter bunny, and I will readily admit this. But, to be honest, it really doesn't matter to me how you would wish to classify me through prefixes and suffixes.
Dandroidanimal 4 years ago
The positions have been overly simplified. Agnosticism in not a form of middle ground between atheism and theism; agnosticim is a position on the epistemology of god, not of its existence. It is not a position one takes when asked if one believes in the existence of a god.
Btw, theism is defined as the belief in one or more gods. Adding the prefix "a" before it constitutes a lack thereof. Atheism is a lack of belief.
ninelong 4 years ago
I try not to speak in negatives. It usually accomplishes nothing. But in your case I will make an exception. Your ideas are so full of shit and twisted thinking that they do not deserve a reasoned response.
KevinBernal 4 years ago
uh look uh i aint smart so all i no is tht u said cat and someonther words but u r doin good!
wehavemorefun 4 years ago
It was a dime in the box wasn't it?!
I'll kill everyone who dare say otherwise!
darksean99 4 years ago
"If you're a christian, you're also an atheist because you don't believe in Allah"
thats bullshit, christians believe in A god, so that means they dont have a lack of believe in A god so that means they cannot be called atheist in what way ever. your comment wasnt very intelligent
numbcore 4 years ago
Christians do not believe in any gods but one. They are atheistic with regard to zeus, mars, thor, neptune, etc.
bluespiral58 4 years ago
You have also severely simplified agnosticism. There is no single label of 'agnostic'. There are several subcategories of them, such as strong agnostic, weak agnostic, agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, apathetic agnosticism, and ignosticism. That is why the lines are blur. So your entire argument is very flawed.
lostn65 4 years ago
And you have your definition of Atheist wrong. Atheism is not the belief that there is no god and cannot be a god. It is the lack of belief in a god. There's a big difference. If you're a christian, you're also an atheist because you don't believe in Allah. Your video wasn't very intelligent.
lostn65 4 years ago
If God exists, it is possible to prove he exists. If God doesn't exist, it is NOT possible to prove he doesn't exist. Maybe he's an invisible god? Maybe he chooses not to be seen or detected. That is why Atheists don't have to prove anything - because it's nto even possible to.
lostn65 4 years ago
Scott, there is no way to prove a negative. It's impossible to prove that God DOESN'T exist. That is why the atheist doesn't have evidence. They are justified in not having evidence. The theist CAN prove that god exists, if he does.
lostn65 4 years ago
Quantum mechanics aren't exactly easily understood, even by experts.
Christians pride themselves in being stupid, and do evils for their faith.
Lastly, atheism is a negative belief. A lack of belief in a god. There are almost no people who believe there is no god. When we say "there is no god" we attack christianity. If christians would name their damn god something other than "god" then we'd have no problem here
rowsdowersavesus 4 years ago
God your hot...i dont care what you say..i just watch you cause your hot..lol..sorry
Love Sara
Sexytiger20 4 years ago
Nice. It is rare to have a video actually challenge my beliefs. This one did (still does. I'm gonna have to think about this).
But of course the short version of my response would be: Occam's Razor!
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
No atheist would DIE simply to deny religion.
agnosticism is completely ridiculous. It's the most impractical way of going about things. You can't do ANYTHING by being agnostic. I can say right now I'm agnostic about the boiling point of water!
sonata1992 4 years ago
Eh, it's a messy argument. First of all, the distinction between atheists and agnostics isn't completely defined. I think most atheists you ask would agree that they believe in what science proves. So that means they ARE going by given evidence. More and more things attributed to supernatural causes are disproved by science everyday. This is a big part of why atheists say there is no god. Scientists are fulfilling the burden of proof for atheists.
glal14 4 years ago