I don't understand. How can a community that sees discourse and questioning of ideas and opinions be subject to group think? All the community members I know will happily defend their beliefs (or try to until proven wrong) and not hesitate to call out others for things they see as untrue or misleading.
FweeHee, you misrepresnt atheism completely. If someone tells you what to believe, they're probably not atheist.
What most atheists WILL say is that, if you preach to me that there's an invisible god who created everything (against all known physical laws), you need to provide some evidence - if you can't, stop preaching.
The irony is you've demonstrated groupthink by making claims that your way is the truth (ie. even the most religious can be converted to the truth). The person below wants an example of atheist dogma; well, the strict adherence to materialism, naturalism which are just hypotheses they value as absolute and upon which many sects of atheism, and there are such things, are founded. Also, Harris has defended murdering people for their ideas; the idea that religion is irrational and superstition, etc
I never understood why all the atheists I know associate atheism with free thought. The rulers of communist countries, almost all Objectivists, are atheists, but they certainly can't be described as freethinkers,. However, I can't see how anyone can be a freethinker without being an atheist or an agnostic.
Well said. You sound like the voice of education. Never do the enemies of atheism acknowledge that atheists who did not embrace the official dogma went to the camps also.
My problem with this video is that athiesm is entirely without content. There is no worldview to push. Being an intolerant atheist isn't telling people what to think and how to behave. It's simply being rigid in not accepting people's assertions (which have to be made blindly) about completely unknowable things.
I'm a rigid atheist. If you tell me that you know the ultimate truth to the universe I will rigidly say "put up or shut up".
''Being an intolerant atheist isn't telling people what to think and how to behave. It's simply being rigid in not accepting people's assertions (which have to be made blindly) about completely unknowable things''
This video mainly focuses on abusive atheists. Your point was a valid and perfectly reasonable response to the average theist, but it is not what my video is focusing on.
you are right, you have the extremists in both groups, you just see more of them in the christian population because they are the majority while atheists are a very small minority.
I'm an agnostic and i just try to get along with people the best i can
U r sooo right! I found ur vid in the midst of an argument with some atheists...and ur right. They ARE persecuting Christians, no matter which ones. That seems to have become their religion, anti-religion. But that is Satan's gig. I guess it not such a hard stretch. They get so narrow-minded in cursing religion, they lose their intelligence. That's exactly what I was thinking. Awesome vid. ThXs!
Hey, some guy with a doctorate says that all asians are retards because of genetic deficiencies. That includes both island and continent asians. He's got a doctorate, and he's also pretty famous. He has no solid facts but since he's appeared on talk shows discussing his opinions we should all support him and believe what he says. I know some smart asians myself but this guy says they're all retards. All asians are retarded and a doctor says so so there!
It seems to me that more open-minded atheists questioning and challenging more militant-minded atheists publicly - in front of a mixed audience of theists and atheists - is a good way to reveal to theists (and atheists, as well) the reality that atheists do not think exactly alike.
Avoiding groupthink in atheism will help us avoid becoming like the christians. Christians have a very bad case of groupthink where every bad idea is reinforced by narrow-minded people.
Christians are nothing compared to Catholics. The Catholic religion is dangerously close to a cult.
At least Christians are encouraged to think for themselves and learn for themselves --- even if they are also encouraged to commune with God at the same time and follow the commandments. 21st century Christian churches encourage independent study and thought --- 21st century Catholic anything encourages adherence and obedience.
Bible belt southern baptists are a different story entirely. Fortunately they are [for the most part] isolated. The most excitable are often the most ignorant in any community.
@IndiaSevenSeven Sorry, I don't know what flavor of Christianity you are familliar with, but I grew up in the Catholic church, and 11years ago moved to the "Bible Belt" since moving here I have witnessed more 'close-mindedness' and intollerance than I ever imagined could exist. BTW I am a free thinker and have come to call myself an "open-minded Atheist"
I like your point in this video, but the group dynamic of atheists is incredibly complex, and I doubt the people its directed at will get it. But hey, all we can do is try. Good going.
Yes I do. But I was being serious. But it is hard to make is sound as if you are explaining it rather than just reading it out. Basically, practice a lot.
Example: RoderickUsher1849 is really good, obviously, but his videos do get spoiled when you can tell he is reading something. His delivery kind of goes a bit flat.
what a bullshit video... just because one atheist is more passionate about his or her beliefs does not mean he or she is giving into groupthink. This fallacious video is utter hypocrisy because it's using groupthink propaganda tactics to chastise groupthink.
Actually, it's outlining the essence of atheism to the passionate atheist. I'm an atheist myself, mate. What I mean by the video is that some were being incredibly hostile by simply posting ad hominem attacks like 'fuck u christtard u have no lyfe', etc. In other words, just blind hate instead of anything of substance. Christians already do that for us, man.
As one who self-defines as the 'Court Jester of Freethought', I have to agree with this 100% I got into a debate on this very topic a week ago with a dogmatic atheist. I obviously can only speak for myself, but I've blogged this. It is a very good point and a timely warning. My classic line is 'I'm an Atheist, but I can freely admit I could be wrong on the unprovables. My best 'conversions' to freethought is when I help another to see the logic of avoiding dogma of ANY kind.
Jesus...FINALLY, someone who gets the point of the damn video! I'm glad you could see my message. I think too many atheists are proud, and don't want to admit they've become stuck in their ways. We don't want to become like a religion which says we MUST hate this and we MUST do that, etc.
I don't agree any of this at all. I try so hard with people of death cults but they always get angry and stupid with me. When I try to tell them anything they do not listen. Who is being "close minded" then?
There are things that people believe in and then there are things that are. There is no other.
I myself have often played the role of "angry atheist"...It's a natural response to religious laws like banning stem cell research, marijuana, and prostitution.
It's an easy role to fall into really. But if we are to look respectable and believeable in the eyes of the opposition we must rise above the knee-jerk reaction to their stupidity. Atheism by definition stands for reason and logic, and we must recognise that.
and I say be an ANGRIER atheist. The religious right is now trying to pass more bills to get foothold in state. If Madalyn Murray O'Hair was not angry, we'd probably have mandatory prayer in public schools.
Atheism doesn't stand for reason or logic. What kind of groupthink bullshit is that? Atheism only means a lack of belief in deity(ies).
You're not getting the point. Passion is not the same as blind hate. I'm talking about the rigid hostility to an opponents argument, and the ad hominem attacks against them.
Atheism doesn't stand for reason or logic? If we didn't stand for logic, we'd believe in talking snakes giving rib-woman a magical apple! OF COURSE we're for logic and reason! We don't believe in fairy-tales!
Btw I liked your points but to generalize, these principles shouldn't only be applied to atheists but everyone! Human mobs are the most dangerous swarms that can take form on this planet.
Mother Earth sings to all living creatures on it at 8hertz. We share this connection. This connection ties in with the Sun and our solar system and in-turn, with the black hole in the center of our galaxy which in-turn ties in with the rest of the universe. First realize that there is no matter, only energy (cont.) and that this energy is nothing more then a vibration(cont.). From there, understand that it is just one big orchestra. We are One.
You misunderstand, atheism is the non belief in a divine being, so there is no hope of any God whatsoever, regardless of personality traits.
From the rest of what you wrote, it seems you choose the "God of the gaps". Anything that isn't understood must be the work of God. Trouble with this is, that God keeps shrinking as our knowledge grows.
"religion is nothing but the last resort of the fool"
Sir Isaac Newton was no fool, nor were many of the other founding fathers of Science who just happened to have a deep faith in God and the conviction that the Bible was the inspired word of God. It seems you have underestimated the Book, its Author/authors, and its followers, to some great extent.
Ooh! Burn! That was a stinging comment. Did we wake up on the right side of bed today? ;)
The fact that these prominent scientific figures had a faith in God does not challenge the assertion of my statement. Did God reveal the three laws of motion to Issac Newton? No, he discovered it himself.
The bible is full of contradictions and errors. For example, the passages supporting slavery from God. I underestimate the 'Book' because there is every reason to do so.
Your comment asserts that these great scientific men were fools. If you research a little about Newton you will find that a large portion of his life was spent in the study of the Bible in its original languages. You assume the Bible is full of contradictions and errors because that's what you've been told by people with little understanding. The truth which Newton and others such as Galileo knew and attested to, was that much of the Bible is abstruse. Really, who are the fools?
I do not imply they are fools. Their scientific contribtutions to the world were made by them, not God. Their belief in God was foolish.
The bible is abstruse? Ok, so that must mean the majority of people are really not getting the meaning of it. If only these scientific geniuses can understand the bible, as you assert, then there are many christians out there with little knowledge of the bible. Surely God would make the bible more accesible to his creation?
You called them fools. If you don't wish to imply such you should choose your words more carefully.
The Bible is clear on the fundamentals.
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind and love your neighbour as yourself. This sums up the law and the prophets.
A very basic understanding is all that is needed to serve God - that is the beauty of the gospel.
You would not however expect a God to write a book that didn't leave evidence that its author was Divine. This is what He has done. Its design enables a true believer to recognise almost instantly the difference between those who have sincerely studied the Bible and those who have merely read it, like separating wheat from chaff. The enlightened mind is left in no doubt of its authenticity. And that is the beauty of the Book.
Their belief in religion makes them foolish, no matter what their other accomplishments.
I have a question for you:
Why did God make the bible so abtruse, as you put it? Surely an all-knowing, all perfect being would design his book so that his creation could understand it? How do you know 'its design enables a true believer to recognise the difference between those who have studied it or merely read it?' This is a massive presupposition on your part.
Furthermore the bible IS full of contradictions and flawed statements. For example, God condones slavery and states the rules of trading and owning slaves. Is that what an all-perfect being would condone?
I do not believe the bible would be made abtruse. Rather, a perfect God would make it accessable to his creation, if he really was all-knowing and perfect. If all that is need to know God is to love God, then why did He make the bible?
Ok FweeHee, I have a question for you. You have two options, guaranteed non-oppressive slavery with the possibility for freedom at a later date, or death. Which do you choose?
Then I choose a highly productive and creative life, one that admires the blind but beautiful nature of Nature itself, and one that will be remembered when they die for what they have done.
Unfortunately even nature herself can steal that choice from us as children's hospitals world wide can attest. The US' racially oppressive slave system has made many hypersensitive to the point of not being able to recognize the fact that, just like our life, slavery too can vary considerably in its quality. God understood that slavery could be better than death, and commanded Israel not to treat slaves oppressively Exodus 22:21.
You perceive their belief system to be foolish because you don't perceive it and understand it with the depth they did. That doesn't make them foolish, it merely makes you ignorant of their belief system. Abstruse was Galileo's description of the Bible. It is so because like the rest of His creation it is highly complex. You don't unravel the human dna in a day, nor do you unravel the mysteries contained in the Bible at a reading.
Oh but I do percieve it. I perceive it to be foolish. I used to be a Christian. Believe me I am capable of understanding theologial concepts like God; I'm not making this up as I go along.
I still don't agree with the bible being abtruse. Surely God would make it accesible to his creation? What about an illiterate who just barely leanrs to comprehend the bible and then is suddenly killed? Wouldn't that make the 'abtruse bible' highly inconvenient for Gods creation to understand?
Um I did explain this too you previously. I stated that the gospel of Jesus, which is all a person needs to know to serve God, is written plainly for all to see. As for the Bible being abStruse, let me give you God's reasoning as stated in the Bible
Oops, sorry. That was to not too, and Proverbs not Psalms. You may be capable of understanding theological concepts but you demonstrate that you don't. There is a difference. The truth is written there for everyone with a sincere heart and inquiring mind.
Hebrews 11:6 He rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Alright then, if we only need to understand these basic things, then why did God write the rest of the Bible? He could have just left a note in that case.
I still stand by the assertion that a perfect God would not make his bible difficult. A perfect, all-knowing, all-omniscient, all-loving God wouldn't make his book difficult to understand if he truly wanted to save lives. And what about that illiterate I mentioned earlier?
Try to not to make assumptions before viewing things like this. I assure you alot of thought went into this; I am not making it up as I go.
Some examples? The wikipedia page on groupthink is a good start for a more in-depth explanation of the issue.
When I mention 'intolerant atheists', I mean the type that do not listen and are unquestioning of group values. Their thinking becomes as rigid as the Christian fundamentalist mindset.
I know what groupthink is, but what are the examples of atheists being dogmatic/intolerant? I'm not saying they're not out there, and I think I've seen them, but could you give an example or two of what people actually say?
Example? Ok, it usually goes along the lines of :FUCK OFF YOU TWAT YOUR WORTHLESS THE BIBLE IS SHITE', etc. They don't explain their views. They simply swear alot and claim superiority over theists.
I'm not calling on atheists to obey my rules. I'm suggesting a simple guideline when debating christians and the like, so they can see our point. Who knows? Maybe one of them will be convinced by our argument and abandon their fairy-tale beliefs.
But the idea of groupthink is still a very real problem, not just in atheism but in any other area of thought. Groupthink causes the members to become hostile and narrow-minded, and that doesn't help anything.
It's pretty obvious some atheists have been 'rude or stupid'. I've seen their comments directed at theists, which usually go along the lines of 'fuck u you dont know nothing. go kill yourself you stupid fundie', etc. In other words, a theist asks a question, and the only answer they get is a torrent of abuse. This sort of attitude is making the rest of us look bad! No wonder the christians don't see our point, if the only thing they hear is mindless vulgar words that asnwer nothing!
The point of the video is that we should rethink our answers to the theists. Close-minded atheist groups that do not question anything and act with hostility towards outsiders are essentially like the christian fundamentalists they oppose. My proposition being: if we stop giving them the mindless comments they expect, they will have to reconsider their negative assumptions about us. We're not all ignorant, close-minded fools, most of us have something good to say.
Sorry, but I don't really get this. For me, most of the atheism/religion controversy on youtube goes on around the evolution-creationism debate. Hate to be blunt, but that's because we, those of us who believe in science, logic and reason, are coming up against a bunch of morons wilfully misled by con-men. I don't reject their views because of groupthink, but because creationists are inspired by a culture of ignorance that is antithetical to science and progress.
When I talk about groupthink, I mean the aggressive, close-minded attitudes of some atheists to theists. Their hostility is apparent in that they blindly throw about insults and refuse to listen to the counter-argument. Now, I don't believe a thing about religion either, but hostility and ignorance brought about by some close-minded atheist groups who do not question or listen is a problem I've noticed, and a problem that makes us very discreditable in the eyes of the opponent.
Scientism, the worship of science, is also a big problem among atheists. Pharyngula, a science blog, is one of the worst. The people there are filled with hate and intolerance for anyone that doesn't accept their ideology. There is also a strong belief in naive realism among atheists. Especially Dawkins and others.
I don't worship science. Rather I appreciate the (positive) contributions it has made to the world. I'm sorry you encountered such hate-filled people -I can assure that isn't my attitude, or the attitudesof many others here either. What do you mean by 'naive realism'?
An atheist is by defintion a non-theist. That's it. If you don't fit in the theist category, you're an atheist. So it's really not a group, it's everything outside a group. The people calling themselves atheists have nothing in common beyond a lack of belief in god, not free-thinking or anything else. I know what you are describing, but there's no basis to call on people who call themselves atheists to adhere to principles of free-thought when not all them of understand or accept those ideas.
There are atheists who lack belief in god for bad reasons. Some of them disbelieve because they don't want there to be a hell. That's irrational. Few perhaps, but this is the problem when you're talking about a non-category. It's like non-astrology, or not collecting stamps.
On the other hand, if you're calling on the free-thinking atheists specifically, then I have some other points to raise.
When you say things like: atheists MUST repsect the opinions of others and be friendly, and we MUST not become intolerant, it sounds to me like you're the one trying to turn atheism into a religion.
You're laying out the dogma of atheism. Don't you see what you're doing? You're becoming the very thing you are opposing. Doesn't free-thought mean we must be free to express all ideas and judge them honestly?
If someone says they think atheists deserve to burn in hell, why should I respect that?
When I mention intolerant atheists, it isn't anyone in particular. It's some rather aggressive and rude responses by random atheists to christians and the like, things like 'YOU STUPID FUCKTARD YOU DONT KNOW NOTHING' and 'FUCK OFF YOU PEICE OF SHIT TRY AND LEARN SOMETHING', ect. Andyes,most of it is in caps lock.
I see what you mean. I thought alot about the content of my video before putting it in, so rest assured that is not my intent. I don't intend to create a dogma. Rather, I am trying to say that if we wish people to see our point we must be diplomatic with them. On of the first rules of debate is to respect your opponent and let them talk. I respect the right of other atheists to be rude and aggressive to the religious, but it defeats the point to be that way.
Ah right. What he meant was that there were some atheists who have bad reasons for not believing in religion, not all atheists.
I used to be scared there was a hell, so I didn't want to believe in it. Then I used logic and common-sense to finally realize there WASNT a hell, or other eternity-in-pain type scenario. Not all atheists choose to disbelieve cos they're afraid to believe.
wouldnt the normal reaction to being scared of hell be to become a devout christian and avoid going there?
i dont get what you mean when you said not all atheists choose to disbelieve cos they're afraid to believe.
if youre afraid to believe in something then that means that you accept that it must be true and you just lie to yourself to try to alleviate their fear.
Oh that is true of some atheists. They pretend something (which seems very real to them) is not there. I guess that would make them more like agnostics than atheists then. So some people who consider themselves atheists are in fact agnostics who still have a shred of belief in religious things.
im an atheist but honestly if there was the slightest bit of evidence to support there being a god and a giant fire pit for him to lovingly throw me into for not believing in him, id become a devout christian.
isnt the definition of an agnostic someone who believes that there is not enough evidence to support nor deny the existence of god so they sit on the fence?
No no, I meant those 'atheists' who believe there is a hell aren't atheists, but agnostics. Yes, agnostics don't essentially believe or disbelieve. But they may have a tiny bit of belief, but are just not sure. Hell doesn't seem real to atheists, but to some agnostics.
since agnosticism is where you dont believe there is enough 2 support or deny the existence of any god, youre not taking a position. it basically means youre not thinking about it because you think the whole thing is pointless
if you use your reasoning with agnostics then you would have to assume that they also believe it to get out of muslim hell, hindu etc etc.
if you are superstitious enough to even believe there is a hell and thats your reason for denying it - you are still a theist
I'm not an agnostic. I'm an atheist. I believe you can be an agnostic and still have a shred of belief - as well as disbelief. Agnosticism isn't 'thinking it's all pointless', it is thinking you don't know what side of the argument is right - religion or atheism. So the agnostic could have a lingering belief in the possibility of hell, yet have doubts as to it's existence.
agnosticism: the word is derived from the Greek word "a" meaning "without" and "gnosis" meaning "knowledge". Thus the definition of agnosticism is "without knowledge" or the belief that there is not, and cannot ever be, sufficient knowledge or data to determine whether or not God does or does not exist.
so if you dont think there's enough evidence to support something - then how can you believe in it and be afraid of it?
Yes, the basic efinition of an atheist is a non-theist. But the spirit of atheism, of the well-informed atheist, is like what I described in my video. This is what atheism means to me and robbly quite alot of other people. I disagree with atheism not being a group; what is the YTatheistcommunity group then? I know many atheists on here who feel the same or similair to me in the qualities I described in the video, so some of us are in an atheist group.
Many atheists base their beliefs (or non-beliefs) in free-thinking. I understand many of them aren't so inclined. But is not atheism free-thinking, considering it refuses to accept the close-minded delusions of religion? It 'thinks outside the box', it is not the same as everything else. So it is to some extent 'free thinking'. At least, the spirit of it feels so to me. Atheism means many things to me and alot of other people, and to some not so many things.
That is my first rule in debating someone. Objective reasoning cannot be spoilt by over-zealous emotions, or else it just becomes a guilt-trip for the opponent. Just like Christianity.
Again truth is subjective. Truth is a philosophical view, not a scientific one. I think it wise to stay away from truth. A real world view is based in reason not truth.
My definition of 'truth' is reality. Though yes, telling a Christian to come to the 'truth' isn't wise. But in this case I mean reality by my use of the word.
Yes it is quite subjective. But compared to the 'truth' of Christianity or the like, we offer a 'real' view of the world - and as such it could be called a truth as it is the plain, simple facts and not a blind faith, not the 'truth' that there is an invisible being judging our lives.
Atheism is by definition free-thinking, especially compared to the often strict paranoid code of free-thinking.
My point being that the often intolerant rude attitudes of some athiests is repelling some from even considering atheism. They think we're all angry, inconsiderate and prejudiced. If we have an open mind and a tolerant attitude towards others, we can understand them more and they can be more understanding of us
Exactly my point. If we are abusive, they will not come to us. Even a Christian knows this fundamental point. While they want to convert others to delusions, we must convert them to the truth. But being aggressive and rude is not the way to go.
I still think that we need to openly call out these myths when they are presented in front of us. But, whether we do it tactfully or in a confrontative manner is an individual choice and we are about individual choice are we not.
Oh I concur, and I'm not disputing that. But if we chose an aggressive and unfriendly manner in which to argue our point, then we cannot blame the opposition from being turned off from atheism. It is individual choice, but if our individual choice involves being abusive, we are defeating the point. If we truly wish for others to see the truth, that truth has to be in a more mature, tolerant manner.
at 3:26 you include the statement we must accept others opinions. I used to believe that until 911 and the Call to Arms. But no more. In no other area of inquiry must we believe false things. only religion. NO! not any more. not when these delusional people are passing laws against me and taking us to war and praying for armageddon. I am only going to be reasonable to the reasonable. I refuse to tolerate & accept people whose lives are governed by extremely harmful false delusions.
I suppose I could have worded that part better. By 'accept' I meant understand. I've seen many intolerant atheists go on to abuse their opponents. If we have this attitude toward a well-meaning christian we will be turning them off of atheism, and that would be defeating the point. I agree that most of them are unreasonable. But, there's a good few of them that will be more reasonable than others. Those are the ones who we must understand.
I would agree that some atheists do act in a dogmatic way. I would like to think that freethinkers can rise above that. The purpose of not believing is to free ones mind to the possibilities. I think as atheists we must not allow these close-minded atheists to run wild and bring our free thought to a close..
I agree. Though, the problem being that many quickly fall into that old familair pattern so synomymous with religion. It's just terrible some of the things they say though; I honestly don't blame the christians who encounter them to suddenly have their beliefs reconfirmed that we're all angry, intolerant and unappealing. They're giving the rest of us a bad name.
Brilliant video. Me and a friend are writing a piece on indoctrinated Atheists
superrrnova1986 1 week ago
Can you give an example of an intolerant atheist? Now I will say in advance that I disagree it is Richard Dawkins.
OptimalElement 1 month ago
The type of atheists you have described in this video are very rare, in my experience.
LiFam2 5 months ago
I don't understand. How can a community that sees discourse and questioning of ideas and opinions be subject to group think? All the community members I know will happily defend their beliefs (or try to until proven wrong) and not hesitate to call out others for things they see as untrue or misleading.
hornylink 9 months ago 2
FweeHee, you misrepresnt atheism completely. If someone tells you what to believe, they're probably not atheist.
What most atheists WILL say is that, if you preach to me that there's an invisible god who created everything (against all known physical laws), you need to provide some evidence - if you can't, stop preaching.
Peace.
klhcc 2 years ago
The irony is you've demonstrated groupthink by making claims that your way is the truth (ie. even the most religious can be converted to the truth). The person below wants an example of atheist dogma; well, the strict adherence to materialism, naturalism which are just hypotheses they value as absolute and upon which many sects of atheism, and there are such things, are founded. Also, Harris has defended murdering people for their ideas; the idea that religion is irrational and superstition, etc
ChristianMission 2 years ago
Before I rate this video I'd like to see an example of this "dogmatic atheism" behaviour. Untill then I'll refrain from rating.
So if you don't mind please show me some examples.
BlizBob 2 years ago
Very very good video. The fact that your ratings got bombed, is a prime example of groupthink and sheeple mentality.
911BattleScars01 2 years ago
that penguin is so damn cute
checkunderyourbed 2 years ago
I never understood why all the atheists I know associate atheism with free thought. The rulers of communist countries, almost all Objectivists, are atheists, but they certainly can't be described as freethinkers,. However, I can't see how anyone can be a freethinker without being an atheist or an agnostic.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
Theists like to bring communism to the table when they want to discredit atheism.
The fact is that the only thing that communist countries did was remove god from the throne and place a human in it's place.
Stalin became god. The ultimate power whom you had to worship or die.
Same happened with China and North Korea.
Atheism isn't to be blamed. Only corrupt, power hungry ,sosiopathic human beigns.
BlizBob 2 years ago
Well said. You sound like the voice of education. Never do the enemies of atheism acknowledge that atheists who did not embrace the official dogma went to the camps also.
BeatBuddy 2 years ago
Thank you.
But "the voice of education" I am not.
Actually I have absolutely no difficulty to find more educated people.
But I can think and read and I wish more people would do that.
BlizBob 2 years ago
So, do you think you came from a rock, I mean a Rock or were created by an intelligent God?
Shadandthe4thOne 3 years ago
I commend you for making such wonderful message, to help keep the peace :)
LthrnZack 3 years ago
My problem with this video is that athiesm is entirely without content. There is no worldview to push. Being an intolerant atheist isn't telling people what to think and how to behave. It's simply being rigid in not accepting people's assertions (which have to be made blindly) about completely unknowable things.
I'm a rigid atheist. If you tell me that you know the ultimate truth to the universe I will rigidly say "put up or shut up".
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago 2
''Being an intolerant atheist isn't telling people what to think and how to behave. It's simply being rigid in not accepting people's assertions (which have to be made blindly) about completely unknowable things''
This video mainly focuses on abusive atheists. Your point was a valid and perfectly reasonable response to the average theist, but it is not what my video is focusing on.
FweeHee 3 years ago
you are right, you have the extremists in both groups, you just see more of them in the christian population because they are the majority while atheists are a very small minority.
I'm an agnostic and i just try to get along with people the best i can
happyfeet67 3 years ago
U r sooo right! I found ur vid in the midst of an argument with some atheists...and ur right. They ARE persecuting Christians, no matter which ones. That seems to have become their religion, anti-religion. But that is Satan's gig. I guess it not such a hard stretch. They get so narrow-minded in cursing religion, they lose their intelligence. That's exactly what I was thinking. Awesome vid. ThXs!
Licmycat 3 years ago
Hey, some guy with a doctorate says that all asians are retards because of genetic deficiencies. That includes both island and continent asians. He's got a doctorate, and he's also pretty famous. He has no solid facts but since he's appeared on talk shows discussing his opinions we should all support him and believe what he says. I know some smart asians myself but this guy says they're all retards. All asians are retarded and a doctor says so so there!
Groupthink is suicide.
IndiaSevenSeven 3 years ago
Exactly my point :)
FweeHee 3 years ago
Sounds like a bigot to me...what's his name?
Licmycat 3 years ago
Nigger is his name
IndiaSevenSeven 3 years ago
It seems to me that more open-minded atheists questioning and challenging more militant-minded atheists publicly - in front of a mixed audience of theists and atheists - is a good way to reveal to theists (and atheists, as well) the reality that atheists do not think exactly alike.
MENCADO 3 years ago 2
...but we can still shit on 9/11 Truthers, right?
zombiechaddy 3 years ago
Avoiding groupthink in atheism will help us avoid becoming like the christians. Christians have a very bad case of groupthink where every bad idea is reinforced by narrow-minded people.
FweeHee 3 years ago
Christians are nothing compared to Catholics. The Catholic religion is dangerously close to a cult.
At least Christians are encouraged to think for themselves and learn for themselves --- even if they are also encouraged to commune with God at the same time and follow the commandments. 21st century Christian churches encourage independent study and thought --- 21st century Catholic anything encourages adherence and obedience.
IndiaSevenSeven 3 years ago
Ah, well then you obviously haven't met the fundamentalist christians yet!
There aren't any around where I live, but even meeting them online is scary enough!
I think they are a prime example of group think reinforcing bad ideas.
FweeHee 3 years ago
Bible belt southern baptists are a different story entirely. Fortunately they are [for the most part] isolated. The most excitable are often the most ignorant in any community.
IndiaSevenSeven 3 years ago
@IndiaSevenSeven Sorry, I don't know what flavor of Christianity you are familliar with, but I grew up in the Catholic church, and 11years ago moved to the "Bible Belt" since moving here I have witnessed more 'close-mindedness' and intollerance than I ever imagined could exist. BTW I am a free thinker and have come to call myself an "open-minded Atheist"
jmdnarri 1 year ago
Wooh, it's Pingu!
I like your point in this video, but the group dynamic of atheists is incredibly complex, and I doubt the people its directed at will get it. But hey, all we can do is try. Good going.
Gnug215 3 years ago
Jesterspace on myspace likes this video.
SubZep 3 years ago
Does ANYONE get the fucking point of this video?
FweeHee 3 years ago
Hahahaha...
Rhym35w1th0range 3 years ago
Glad you enjoyed it, wanker.
FweeHee 3 years ago
Yeah.
Uh...it was really good.
Rhym35w1th0range 3 years ago
A better effort than you could muster, methinks.
FweeHee 3 years ago
Text videos suck (TL;DR). I liked the music though.
SubZep 3 years ago
How else am I supposed to present my views? A cleverly subtitled Naruto AMV? Does that appeal to your ADD tastes? o_____o''
Thanks for the support -.-
FweeHee 3 years ago
Seriously? A voice over. It is a million times more effective.
SubZep 3 years ago
A voice-over? So you want to hear my sexy voice eh? I'll see what I can do about that. Maybe get myself a functioning microphone first.
FweeHee 3 years ago
Yes I do. But I was being serious. But it is hard to make is sound as if you are explaining it rather than just reading it out. Basically, practice a lot.
Example: RoderickUsher1849 is really good, obviously, but his videos do get spoiled when you can tell he is reading something. His delivery kind of goes a bit flat.
SubZep 3 years ago
I can be good at dramatic readings :(
FweeHee 3 years ago
Why the sad face?
SubZep 3 years ago
what a bullshit video... just because one atheist is more passionate about his or her beliefs does not mean he or she is giving into groupthink. This fallacious video is utter hypocrisy because it's using groupthink propaganda tactics to chastise groupthink.
tubeheadz 3 years ago
Actually, it's outlining the essence of atheism to the passionate atheist. I'm an atheist myself, mate. What I mean by the video is that some were being incredibly hostile by simply posting ad hominem attacks like 'fuck u christtard u have no lyfe', etc. In other words, just blind hate instead of anything of substance. Christians already do that for us, man.
FweeHee 3 years ago
As one who self-defines as the 'Court Jester of Freethought', I have to agree with this 100% I got into a debate on this very topic a week ago with a dogmatic atheist. I obviously can only speak for myself, but I've blogged this. It is a very good point and a timely warning. My classic line is 'I'm an Atheist, but I can freely admit I could be wrong on the unprovables. My best 'conversions' to freethought is when I help another to see the logic of avoiding dogma of ANY kind.
jesterspace 3 years ago
Jesus...FINALLY, someone who gets the point of the damn video! I'm glad you could see my message. I think too many atheists are proud, and don't want to admit they've become stuck in their ways. We don't want to become like a religion which says we MUST hate this and we MUST do that, etc.
FweeHee 3 years ago
No worries. Message received. And I'd wager even those do disagree with you.. you'd be all for that for a real debate. Again Freethought. :)
jesterspace 3 years ago
I don't agree any of this at all. I try so hard with people of death cults but they always get angry and stupid with me. When I try to tell them anything they do not listen. Who is being "close minded" then?
There are things that people believe in and then there are things that are. There is no other.
civwarfan 3 years ago
They may get angry but we should try not to. If you want to give into your anger, fine. Become like the christians if you wish.
FweeHee 3 years ago
whats the song in the begining?
fakespotter 3 years ago
See the description box.
FweeHee 3 years ago
I myself have often played the role of "angry atheist"...It's a natural response to religious laws like banning stem cell research, marijuana, and prostitution.
JoeyMarvelous07 3 years ago
It's an easy role to fall into really. But if we are to look respectable and believeable in the eyes of the opposition we must rise above the knee-jerk reaction to their stupidity. Atheism by definition stands for reason and logic, and we must recognise that.
FweeHee 3 years ago
and I say be an ANGRIER atheist. The religious right is now trying to pass more bills to get foothold in state. If Madalyn Murray O'Hair was not angry, we'd probably have mandatory prayer in public schools.
Atheism doesn't stand for reason or logic. What kind of groupthink bullshit is that? Atheism only means a lack of belief in deity(ies).
tubeheadz 3 years ago
You're not getting the point. Passion is not the same as blind hate. I'm talking about the rigid hostility to an opponents argument, and the ad hominem attacks against them.
Atheism doesn't stand for reason or logic? If we didn't stand for logic, we'd believe in talking snakes giving rib-woman a magical apple! OF COURSE we're for logic and reason! We don't believe in fairy-tales!
FweeHee 3 years ago
I'm not angry. I don't try to be. I have been shit on by religious people in one form or another in my life. And it just gets worse online.
I would love to have a nice conversation with a religious person.
civwarfan 3 years ago
Btw I liked your points but to generalize, these principles shouldn't only be applied to atheists but everyone! Human mobs are the most dangerous swarms that can take form on this planet.
swyft187 3 years ago
Haha, it's alright mate, everyone makes mistakes. I'm just gonna leave those comments there though because it's still a good point ;]
FweeHee 3 years ago
Rofl I thought you said 'the universe is one big orgasm!' That would be interesting!
But yeah, I have no clue what you are trying to say there mate. Could you elaborate?
FweeHee 3 years ago
Mother Earth sings to all living creatures on it at 8hertz. We share this connection. This connection ties in with the Sun and our solar system and in-turn, with the black hole in the center of our galaxy which in-turn ties in with the rest of the universe. First realize that there is no matter, only energy (cont.) and that this energy is nothing more then a vibration(cont.). From there, understand that it is just one big orchestra. We are One.
swyft187 3 years ago
i promise you this the first time youll ever be shot at you will believe in God, its a human thing that you cant help.
as for your comment i think its bullshit in every man theres hope for a god who wants to die and be nothing, theres always hope for life after death
captainlevi 3 years ago
athiest hope there is a god who wants to be nothing when you die i sure as hell hope im nothing that would suck.
my faith is in a God i am unsure of what he is or what but theres some unexplained shit still in this world that regular science find impossible.
captainlevi 3 years ago
You misunderstand, atheism is the non belief in a divine being, so there is no hope of any God whatsoever, regardless of personality traits.
From the rest of what you wrote, it seems you choose the "God of the gaps". Anything that isn't understood must be the work of God. Trouble with this is, that God keeps shrinking as our knowledge grows.
NormDePlume69 3 years ago
I was moved...that was until I read your words
"religion is nothing but the last resort of the fool"
Sir Isaac Newton was no fool, nor were many of the other founding fathers of Science who just happened to have a deep faith in God and the conviction that the Bible was the inspired word of God. It seems you have underestimated the Book, its Author/authors, and its followers, to some great extent.
honey2heaven 3 years ago
Ooh! Burn! That was a stinging comment. Did we wake up on the right side of bed today? ;)
The fact that these prominent scientific figures had a faith in God does not challenge the assertion of my statement. Did God reveal the three laws of motion to Issac Newton? No, he discovered it himself.
The bible is full of contradictions and errors. For example, the passages supporting slavery from God. I underestimate the 'Book' because there is every reason to do so.
FweeHee 3 years ago
Your comment asserts that these great scientific men were fools. If you research a little about Newton you will find that a large portion of his life was spent in the study of the Bible in its original languages. You assume the Bible is full of contradictions and errors because that's what you've been told by people with little understanding. The truth which Newton and others such as Galileo knew and attested to, was that much of the Bible is abstruse. Really, who are the fools?
honey2heaven 3 years ago
I do not imply they are fools. Their scientific contribtutions to the world were made by them, not God. Their belief in God was foolish.
The bible is abstruse? Ok, so that must mean the majority of people are really not getting the meaning of it. If only these scientific geniuses can understand the bible, as you assert, then there are many christians out there with little knowledge of the bible. Surely God would make the bible more accesible to his creation?
FweeHee 3 years ago
You called them fools. If you don't wish to imply such you should choose your words more carefully.
The Bible is clear on the fundamentals.
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind and love your neighbour as yourself. This sums up the law and the prophets.
A very basic understanding is all that is needed to serve God - that is the beauty of the gospel.
honey2heaven 3 years ago
You would not however expect a God to write a book that didn't leave evidence that its author was Divine. This is what He has done. Its design enables a true believer to recognise almost instantly the difference between those who have sincerely studied the Bible and those who have merely read it, like separating wheat from chaff. The enlightened mind is left in no doubt of its authenticity. And that is the beauty of the Book.
honey2heaven 3 years ago
Imply? Hows this: shut the hell up ya GOD DAMN FOOL!
windham666 3 years ago
honey2heaven,
Their belief in religion makes them foolish, no matter what their other accomplishments.
I have a question for you:
Why did God make the bible so abtruse, as you put it? Surely an all-knowing, all perfect being would design his book so that his creation could understand it? How do you know 'its design enables a true believer to recognise the difference between those who have studied it or merely read it?' This is a massive presupposition on your part.
FweeHee 3 years ago
Furthermore the bible IS full of contradictions and flawed statements. For example, God condones slavery and states the rules of trading and owning slaves. Is that what an all-perfect being would condone?
I do not believe the bible would be made abtruse. Rather, a perfect God would make it accessable to his creation, if he really was all-knowing and perfect. If all that is need to know God is to love God, then why did He make the bible?
FweeHee 3 years ago
Ok FweeHee, I have a question for you. You have two options, guaranteed non-oppressive slavery with the possibility for freedom at a later date, or death. Which do you choose?
honey2heaven 3 years ago
Then I choose a highly productive and creative life, one that admires the blind but beautiful nature of Nature itself, and one that will be remembered when they die for what they have done.
FweeHee 3 years ago
Unfortunately even nature herself can steal that choice from us as children's hospitals world wide can attest. The US' racially oppressive slave system has made many hypersensitive to the point of not being able to recognize the fact that, just like our life, slavery too can vary considerably in its quality. God understood that slavery could be better than death, and commanded Israel not to treat slaves oppressively Exodus 22:21.
honey2heaven 3 years ago
Still not a valid option for me, since God doesn't exist, and has been proven so many different times.
FweeHee 3 years ago
You perceive their belief system to be foolish because you don't perceive it and understand it with the depth they did. That doesn't make them foolish, it merely makes you ignorant of their belief system. Abstruse was Galileo's description of the Bible. It is so because like the rest of His creation it is highly complex. You don't unravel the human dna in a day, nor do you unravel the mysteries contained in the Bible at a reading.
honey2heaven 3 years ago
Oh but I do percieve it. I perceive it to be foolish. I used to be a Christian. Believe me I am capable of understanding theologial concepts like God; I'm not making this up as I go along.
I still don't agree with the bible being abtruse. Surely God would make it accesible to his creation? What about an illiterate who just barely leanrs to comprehend the bible and then is suddenly killed? Wouldn't that make the 'abtruse bible' highly inconvenient for Gods creation to understand?
FweeHee 3 years ago
Um I did explain this too you previously. I stated that the gospel of Jesus, which is all a person needs to know to serve God, is written plainly for all to see. As for the Bible being abStruse, let me give you God's reasoning as stated in the Bible
Psalm 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter;
to search out a matter is the glory of kings.
honey2heaven 3 years ago
Oops, sorry. That was to not too, and Proverbs not Psalms. You may be capable of understanding theological concepts but you demonstrate that you don't. There is a difference. The truth is written there for everyone with a sincere heart and inquiring mind.
Hebrews 11:6 He rewards those who earnestly seek him.
honey2heaven 3 years ago
Then why don't you give this 'incapable' mind some examples then?
FweeHee 3 years ago
Alright then, if we only need to understand these basic things, then why did God write the rest of the Bible? He could have just left a note in that case.
I still stand by the assertion that a perfect God would not make his bible difficult. A perfect, all-knowing, all-omniscient, all-loving God wouldn't make his book difficult to understand if he truly wanted to save lives. And what about that illiterate I mentioned earlier?
FweeHee 3 years ago
I thought I'd hate this video, but it does make a point- I think. Could you give some examples? I'm not exactly sure who you're talking about.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Try to not to make assumptions before viewing things like this. I assure you alot of thought went into this; I am not making it up as I go.
Some examples? The wikipedia page on groupthink is a good start for a more in-depth explanation of the issue.
When I mention 'intolerant atheists', I mean the type that do not listen and are unquestioning of group values. Their thinking becomes as rigid as the Christian fundamentalist mindset.
FweeHee 3 years ago
I know what groupthink is, but what are the examples of atheists being dogmatic/intolerant? I'm not saying they're not out there, and I think I've seen them, but could you give an example or two of what people actually say?
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
SeenAndNotSeen,
Example? Ok, it usually goes along the lines of :FUCK OFF YOU TWAT YOUR WORTHLESS THE BIBLE IS SHITE', etc. They don't explain their views. They simply swear alot and claim superiority over theists.
FweeHee 3 years ago
Ah. But over here in America, they say "shit."
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Yeah, just change the quote to include American pronounciations as neccesary ;)
FweeHee 3 years ago
I'm not calling on atheists to obey my rules. I'm suggesting a simple guideline when debating christians and the like, so they can see our point. Who knows? Maybe one of them will be convinced by our argument and abandon their fairy-tale beliefs.
But the idea of groupthink is still a very real problem, not just in atheism but in any other area of thought. Groupthink causes the members to become hostile and narrow-minded, and that doesn't help anything.
FweeHee 3 years ago
It's pretty obvious some atheists have been 'rude or stupid'. I've seen their comments directed at theists, which usually go along the lines of 'fuck u you dont know nothing. go kill yourself you stupid fundie', etc. In other words, a theist asks a question, and the only answer they get is a torrent of abuse. This sort of attitude is making the rest of us look bad! No wonder the christians don't see our point, if the only thing they hear is mindless vulgar words that asnwer nothing!
FweeHee 3 years ago
The point of the video is that we should rethink our answers to the theists. Close-minded atheist groups that do not question anything and act with hostility towards outsiders are essentially like the christian fundamentalists they oppose. My proposition being: if we stop giving them the mindless comments they expect, they will have to reconsider their negative assumptions about us. We're not all ignorant, close-minded fools, most of us have something good to say.
FweeHee 3 years ago
Oh no, my point was not that we should go about proletyzing. But if they object to our beliefs then the least we can do is debate them back.
FweeHee 3 years ago
Sorry, but I don't really get this. For me, most of the atheism/religion controversy on youtube goes on around the evolution-creationism debate. Hate to be blunt, but that's because we, those of us who believe in science, logic and reason, are coming up against a bunch of morons wilfully misled by con-men. I don't reject their views because of groupthink, but because creationists are inspired by a culture of ignorance that is antithetical to science and progress.
plevyman 3 years ago
When I talk about groupthink, I mean the aggressive, close-minded attitudes of some atheists to theists. Their hostility is apparent in that they blindly throw about insults and refuse to listen to the counter-argument. Now, I don't believe a thing about religion either, but hostility and ignorance brought about by some close-minded atheist groups who do not question or listen is a problem I've noticed, and a problem that makes us very discreditable in the eyes of the opponent.
FweeHee 3 years ago
Scientism, the worship of science, is also a big problem among atheists. Pharyngula, a science blog, is one of the worst. The people there are filled with hate and intolerance for anyone that doesn't accept their ideology. There is also a strong belief in naive realism among atheists. Especially Dawkins and others.
1noen1 3 years ago
I don't worship science. Rather I appreciate the (positive) contributions it has made to the world. I'm sorry you encountered such hate-filled people -I can assure that isn't my attitude, or the attitudesof many others here either. What do you mean by 'naive realism'?
FweeHee 3 years ago
Search wiki for both scientism and naive realism. I can't post links.
1noen1 3 years ago
An atheist is by defintion a non-theist. That's it. If you don't fit in the theist category, you're an atheist. So it's really not a group, it's everything outside a group. The people calling themselves atheists have nothing in common beyond a lack of belief in god, not free-thinking or anything else. I know what you are describing, but there's no basis to call on people who call themselves atheists to adhere to principles of free-thought when not all them of understand or accept those ideas.
theinquisitor 3 years ago
There are atheists who lack belief in god for bad reasons. Some of them disbelieve because they don't want there to be a hell. That's irrational. Few perhaps, but this is the problem when you're talking about a non-category. It's like non-astrology, or not collecting stamps.
On the other hand, if you're calling on the free-thinking atheists specifically, then I have some other points to raise.
theinquisitor 3 years ago
When you say things like: atheists MUST repsect the opinions of others and be friendly, and we MUST not become intolerant, it sounds to me like you're the one trying to turn atheism into a religion.
You're laying out the dogma of atheism. Don't you see what you're doing? You're becoming the very thing you are opposing. Doesn't free-thought mean we must be free to express all ideas and judge them honestly?
If someone says they think atheists deserve to burn in hell, why should I respect that?
theinquisitor 3 years ago
When you talk about these intolerant atheists, who are you thinking of specifically?
theinquisitor 3 years ago
When I mention intolerant atheists, it isn't anyone in particular. It's some rather aggressive and rude responses by random atheists to christians and the like, things like 'YOU STUPID FUCKTARD YOU DONT KNOW NOTHING' and 'FUCK OFF YOU PEICE OF SHIT TRY AND LEARN SOMETHING', ect. Andyes,most of it is in caps lock.
FweeHee 3 years ago
I see what you mean. I thought alot about the content of my video before putting it in, so rest assured that is not my intent. I don't intend to create a dogma. Rather, I am trying to say that if we wish people to see our point we must be diplomatic with them. On of the first rules of debate is to respect your opponent and let them talk. I respect the right of other atheists to be rude and aggressive to the religious, but it defeats the point to be that way.
FweeHee 3 years ago
WHAT????????????????????????????
they dont believe because you dont want there to be a hell?
WTF
that would mean that you DO believe in that superstitious rubbish. you cant not believe in something because you believe in it.
religiousfear 3 years ago
Um...sorry? I didn't understand a thing you said there, religiousfear. Could you please explain?
FweeHee 3 years ago
lol i was looking at the inquisitor's logic
he said: "There are atheists who lack belief in god for bad reasons. Some of them disbelieve because they don't want there to be a hell."
i was commenting that basically he was saying that atheists dont believe there is a hell because they are scared because they believe in it
religiousfear 3 years ago
Ah right. What he meant was that there were some atheists who have bad reasons for not believing in religion, not all atheists.
I used to be scared there was a hell, so I didn't want to believe in it. Then I used logic and common-sense to finally realize there WASNT a hell, or other eternity-in-pain type scenario. Not all atheists choose to disbelieve cos they're afraid to believe.
FweeHee 3 years ago
wouldnt the normal reaction to being scared of hell be to become a devout christian and avoid going there?
i dont get what you mean when you said not all atheists choose to disbelieve cos they're afraid to believe.
if youre afraid to believe in something then that means that you accept that it must be true and you just lie to yourself to try to alleviate their fear.
religiousfear 3 years ago
Oh that is true of some atheists. They pretend something (which seems very real to them) is not there. I guess that would make them more like agnostics than atheists then. So some people who consider themselves atheists are in fact agnostics who still have a shred of belief in religious things.
FweeHee 3 years ago
hell seems very real to some atheists? really?
im an atheist but honestly if there was the slightest bit of evidence to support there being a god and a giant fire pit for him to lovingly throw me into for not believing in him, id become a devout christian.
isnt the definition of an agnostic someone who believes that there is not enough evidence to support nor deny the existence of god so they sit on the fence?
religiousfear 3 years ago
No no, I meant those 'atheists' who believe there is a hell aren't atheists, but agnostics. Yes, agnostics don't essentially believe or disbelieve. But they may have a tiny bit of belief, but are just not sure. Hell doesn't seem real to atheists, but to some agnostics.
FweeHee 3 years ago
since agnosticism is where you dont believe there is enough 2 support or deny the existence of any god, youre not taking a position. it basically means youre not thinking about it because you think the whole thing is pointless
if you use your reasoning with agnostics then you would have to assume that they also believe it to get out of muslim hell, hindu etc etc.
if you are superstitious enough to even believe there is a hell and thats your reason for denying it - you are still a theist
liber8me 3 years ago
I'm not an agnostic. I'm an atheist. I believe you can be an agnostic and still have a shred of belief - as well as disbelief. Agnosticism isn't 'thinking it's all pointless', it is thinking you don't know what side of the argument is right - religion or atheism. So the agnostic could have a lingering belief in the possibility of hell, yet have doubts as to it's existence.
FweeHee 3 years ago
agnosticism: the word is derived from the Greek word "a" meaning "without" and "gnosis" meaning "knowledge". Thus the definition of agnosticism is "without knowledge" or the belief that there is not, and cannot ever be, sufficient knowledge or data to determine whether or not God does or does not exist.
so if you dont think there's enough evidence to support something - then how can you believe in it and be afraid of it?
religiousfear 3 years ago
Yes, the basic efinition of an atheist is a non-theist. But the spirit of atheism, of the well-informed atheist, is like what I described in my video. This is what atheism means to me and robbly quite alot of other people. I disagree with atheism not being a group; what is the YTatheistcommunity group then? I know many atheists on here who feel the same or similair to me in the qualities I described in the video, so some of us are in an atheist group.
FweeHee 3 years ago
Many atheists base their beliefs (or non-beliefs) in free-thinking. I understand many of them aren't so inclined. But is not atheism free-thinking, considering it refuses to accept the close-minded delusions of religion? It 'thinks outside the box', it is not the same as everything else. So it is to some extent 'free thinking'. At least, the spirit of it feels so to me. Atheism means many things to me and alot of other people, and to some not so many things.
FweeHee 3 years ago
Agreed.
s4stem 3 years ago
Agreed but feelings have little to do with reason and rationality. So, check your emotions at the door when debating.
s4stem 3 years ago
That is my first rule in debating someone. Objective reasoning cannot be spoilt by over-zealous emotions, or else it just becomes a guilt-trip for the opponent. Just like Christianity.
FweeHee 3 years ago
The key being "my definition". That is why I caution the use of "truth" as an argument. Use facts and reality along with reason and rationality.
s4stem 3 years ago
Yeah I suppose...:)
But that's because of how strongly I feel atheism is for the good of a persons mental health ;)
FweeHee 3 years ago
Again truth is subjective. Truth is a philosophical view, not a scientific one. I think it wise to stay away from truth. A real world view is based in reason not truth.
s4stem 3 years ago
My definition of 'truth' is reality. Though yes, telling a Christian to come to the 'truth' isn't wise. But in this case I mean reality by my use of the word.
FweeHee 3 years ago
Well, atheism doesn't offer any truth, just rationally looking at the facts.
Truth is a subjective term and shouldn't be argued with someone.
Us facts, reason, scientific theory, etc.
s4stem 3 years ago
Yes it is quite subjective. But compared to the 'truth' of Christianity or the like, we offer a 'real' view of the world - and as such it could be called a truth as it is the plain, simple facts and not a blind faith, not the 'truth' that there is an invisible being judging our lives.
FweeHee 3 years ago
Atheism is by definition free-thinking, especially compared to the often strict paranoid code of free-thinking.
My point being that the often intolerant rude attitudes of some athiests is repelling some from even considering atheism. They think we're all angry, inconsiderate and prejudiced. If we have an open mind and a tolerant attitude towards others, we can understand them more and they can be more understanding of us
FweeHee 3 years ago
the often strict paranoid code of free-thinking.
Ack, I meant the often strict, paranoid code of religion. xx
FweeHee 3 years ago
Pingu scares me. :>
VennomFangX 3 years ago
Pingu is da shit :o
FweeHee 3 years ago
I guess that would be funny to tell a freethinker to be a freethinker.
But, I do think that some people misunderstand what atheism is. That is where I seem to have the most difficulty explaining.
People are people and they do have their own sets of ideas, some over lap with other peoples and some are not.
But, I think that it is good manners to try not to get mad, but to use reason.
s4stem 3 years ago
Exactly my point. If we are abusive, they will not come to us. Even a Christian knows this fundamental point. While they want to convert others to delusions, we must convert them to the truth. But being aggressive and rude is not the way to go.
FweeHee 3 years ago
I still think that we need to openly call out these myths when they are presented in front of us. But, whether we do it tactfully or in a confrontative manner is an individual choice and we are about individual choice are we not.
s4stem 3 years ago
yes now yer talkin i am constantly trying to decide the best way.
thanks for posting!
windham666 3 years ago
Oh I concur, and I'm not disputing that. But if we chose an aggressive and unfriendly manner in which to argue our point, then we cannot blame the opposition from being turned off from atheism. It is individual choice, but if our individual choice involves being abusive, we are defeating the point. If we truly wish for others to see the truth, that truth has to be in a more mature, tolerant manner.
FweeHee 3 years ago
at 3:26 you include the statement we must accept others opinions. I used to believe that until 911 and the Call to Arms. But no more. In no other area of inquiry must we believe false things. only religion. NO! not any more. not when these delusional people are passing laws against me and taking us to war and praying for armageddon. I am only going to be reasonable to the reasonable. I refuse to tolerate & accept people whose lives are governed by extremely harmful false delusions.
windham666 3 years ago
I suppose I could have worded that part better. By 'accept' I meant understand. I've seen many intolerant atheists go on to abuse their opponents. If we have this attitude toward a well-meaning christian we will be turning them off of atheism, and that would be defeating the point. I agree that most of them are unreasonable. But, there's a good few of them that will be more reasonable than others. Those are the ones who we must understand.
FweeHee 3 years ago
I would agree that some atheists do act in a dogmatic way. I would like to think that freethinkers can rise above that. The purpose of not believing is to free ones mind to the possibilities. I think as atheists we must not allow these close-minded atheists to run wild and bring our free thought to a close..
s4stem 3 years ago
I agree. Though, the problem being that many quickly fall into that old familair pattern so synomymous with religion. It's just terrible some of the things they say though; I honestly don't blame the christians who encounter them to suddenly have their beliefs reconfirmed that we're all angry, intolerant and unappealing. They're giving the rest of us a bad name.
FweeHee 3 years ago
yes and some of the most popular are the werst
windham666 3 years ago