Here's Jillette's mistake: the question about the knowledge about the existence of god has only one possible answer, which is "I don't know". It's true for theists, atheists and everyone else. God is supposed to be unknowable by principle. To the second question it's not enough to answer that you don't believe in god to be an atheist. Agnostics don't believe in god too. There's a follow-up: do you believe god does NOT exist? Agnostics' answer is no, atheists' answer is yes. Big difference.
@IneffableLifestyle According to Bill Maher and Penn Jillette, it's not. Personally, I am not against anyone being an atheist; I know how difficult it is to put your faith in a God that seems to take on a non-interventionist type of ideology. But Maher and Jillette just deny the existence of God and antagonize Christianity and any form of religious belief on the grounds that people who believe in God are stupid sheep who have been indoctrinated and need to be saved by their amazing logic.
@IQ178 No, Maher and Jilette has said it time and time again, and the common understanding and use of the term by atheists is that atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, while christians in particular deny this definition and try to impose their own that its the belief that there is no god. And frankly im tired of it.
@IneffableLifestyle Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to you being an atheist means that you don't believe in a deity regardless of whether one exists. Forgive me if I made a false assumption about atheism, but I know that some atheists do believe that God (or any type of deity) does not exist. Ricky Gervais, Seth MacFarlane, Penn Jillete and Bill Maher have all openly denied the existence of a God or deity.
@IQ178 they say the existence of a god, in particular theistic gods, seems very unlikely. But none of them have openly denied the possibility of the existence of a god or a deity. No one is saying there definatly isnt a god, or unicorns, but there is little reason to believe in there is. And being an atheist simply means at this present moment, you do not hold any belief in the existence of a god. If evidence arises that strongly indicatet the existence of a god, that could change.
@IneffableLifestyle Okay I understand that, but it just seems like atheists (at least the ones that I know of) leave no room for any type of God. But if that's what you say as an atheist (if I assume correctly), I'll believe it.
More like we just don't...need an invisible deity to explain the universe and how it works, so we don't unnecessarily insert one where it isn't needed. Occam's razor. Not that we "purposely leave [Him] out."
@IneffableLifestyle In that case, it's just a matter of semantics. The important thing is to be aware that there's a difference between not believing in something and claiming that something does not exist. Most atheists seem to just ignore this fact.
@Giby86 I dont know if most do or not, and i dont think you do either, dawkins, hitchens, dennet, maher, all acknowledge the fact that there is a chance god does exist, however small it is, just like unicorns may exist.
@IneffableLifestyle And in fact, Dawkins acknowledged the fact that strictly speaking, he is a "toothfairy" agnostic, but sticks to labelling himself as an "atheist" for political reasons (in his TED talk "an atheist call to arms"). And Maher himself always pointed out that the certitude of atheists mirrors that of religious people. There's a quote by Isaac Asimov that I love and I will post...in my next comment because I'm all out of space here! ^^
"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. [continues]
[...] I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."
This right here is the difference. Atheism is an emotional stance which is unjustifiable on the sole ground of reason.
@Giby86 i dont think he labels himself as an atheist for political reasons, why do you say that? Its better to call themselves an atheist, then agnostic just because there is a chance dogs can fly and that toothfairys exist. Otherwise any conversation would be pointsless if you can agree on certain fundementals.
@Giby86 If an atheist says there is no god, he is making a claim, and he can either prove it or retract it. Reilgious nuts say there is a god and an intellectually honest atheist can say, I'll believe it when I see it. So, put up or shut up.
@toelesshoe No, the supernatural/superstitious side needs to prove their retarded beliefs, not the rest of us. To me, saying you don't believe in a god is the same as thinking there is no god. The differences is semantics.
@Giby86@Giby86 Agnostics are atheists, by default. As said in the video, if you don't believe in a god, you are an atheist. Theist=believe in a god. Atheist=do not believe in a god.
All these different labels are stupid. Whether someone calls themselves atheist, agnostic, rationalist, secularist, freethinker, humanist, etc., you are all in the same boat, you're a non-believer (or in other words, an a-theist.)
@Giby86 Yes, we are. We don't believe in a deity. That's what makes us non-believers, as far as the religious subject goes. There's even a few delusional passages in the Bible and the Koran that refer to everyone who doesn't worship that god as a "non-believer."
@233259 Did you just use the Bible to strenghten your argument? ^^ Now, seriously. How can you go from "people believing in the non-existence of god are atheists" to "atheists are non-believers"? It doesn't matter what you believe, but if you DO believe, you are a believer. See, saying "there is no god" is a positive claim, and if you make it you have burden of proof. You make a claim and you have nothing to support it. If this is wrong for religious people, it is wrong for atheists too.
@Giby86 "Does God exist?" is a meaningless question, since It contains two undefined terms, "God" and "exist". I can't answer a meaningless question. If you define those two terms, then you are making a claim, and it is up to you to prove it. If by "God" you mean the God of Abraham, and by "exist" you "is an idea, a metaphor and a social reality", then I can happily agree with you. But if you mean actual physical existence, then I say: hogwash, show me the evidence.
@gspaulsson You're absolutely right. Moreover, I find it meaningless even defining god. If, by definition, "god" is "that which is mysterious, unknowable and supernatural", then regardless of any other attribute you choose to give it (be it a name, a power -or all of them-, a purpose), that question still is not answerable.
@Giby86 Because the terms 'believer' and 'non-believer' have to with the question of god(s). A believer is a person who believes in a deity, and a non-believer (atheist) is someone who doesn't.
@233259 That's what you decided, correct? The term "believer" means "he/she who believes". If you believe in astrology you're a believer. If you believe in fairies you're a believer. If you believe we never went to the Moon you're a believer. The mental process you do is the very same. If you don't want to be called a "believer" even though you believe in something, and so you change the meaning of the word, well...you're fooling yourself. ^_^
@Giby86 I explained the context of the term 'believer' and 'non-believer' (in the religious context) in my last comment. Someone who "believes" that something is false can still accurately describe themselves as someone who doesn't believe that that particular something is true. In that sense, it is accurate to say that atheists are non-believers.
And looking at your other comments, I wanna point out that Bill Maher now feels comfortable calling himself an atheist.
@Giby86 No, my answer is that the question can't be answered because it's meaningless. What is your position on the question "are flgvtz brtzly?" Define God and existence, and we can have a conversation. If God is unknowable in principle, then the question is meaningless in principle, and the proper response is "what a dumb question; next ..."
I guess we should just throw out the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence because its not like our unalienable rights are GUARANTEED FROM GOD or anything...
Isn't this putting a human understanding on God? I mean, isn't God supposed to be beyond human rationale? Also, I would like to know what translation/s of the Bible Penn Jillette read. He is speaking about something that is totally foreign to me.
@cuartodelocos Yes. There are rules in the Old Testament that are considered barbaric by our standards today, but I believe that those rules were made by humans in order to expand on God's Ten Commandments. I can understand why Jillette would find those rules to be terrible. However, he also talks about Jesus's message in the New Testament as being "anti-family," particularly when Jesus commands his followers to leave their family to serve Him and to love Him more than you love you're family.
@cuartodelocos (continued) I understand how a literal interpretation of Jesus's words would cause someone to think Jesus is "anti-family", but I don't think it was meant to be taken in such a literal sense. That's why I asked what translation of the Bible he read.
@IQ178 Hello again. Yes, I do think he is a litle too extremist on that point. But you can note that the idea of the salvation in the bible says that you sould leave your family (or anyone) if they are sinners. Then, when a sin is as simple as to work on sabbath...
Probably I'm wrong. But at least that's what I heard from ministers here in Bolivia.
@cuartodelocos Again, I believe that the type of translation you read can lead to this misunderstanding. Also, if you take the Bible's lessons as being strictly literal, than you won't really be able to receive Jesus's message. For example, the King James version of the Bible has Jesus saying something like "this temple will be destroyed and I will rebuild it in 3 days". If you take this literally (as some did) then you would think that Jesus was insane! But if you realize...
@cuartodelocos ...he was talking about his own body, then it wouldn't seem so crazy. Jesus was killed because "religious people" misinterpreted his message and thought he was a blasphemer. If they truly believed that Jesus was the Son of God and were able to truly accept and understand his message, there is no way that they would have marked him as a blasphemer and tortured him the way that they did. Alas, there was purpose for the pain and a method to the madness: Jesus died for our freedom...
@cuartodelocos ...Sorry, I got a little preachy toward the end, but people should stop trying to put a human understanding on God. It's just doesn't work.
He is so much better on interviews than on his show. I really think he makes more sense than most of the other atheist talk show people as he tries to put things in human terms, and doesn't get condescending.
one point to bring up is that one cannot get to heaven through works, which is repeated many times in the Bible...i.e. being good or bad isn't what saves you, it's merely a biproduct. One is saved by grace through faith...faith doesn't mean you act right because you are scared of the consequences, it means you act the way you do because of a love for God. Good deeds without faith are useless
@awswas4 So, when an atheist donates their time to a charity it's "useless," but when you do the exact same thing groveling in the name of you imaginary BFF, it's the product of selfless love?
He's right is all about love. which is the central message of the bible. the morality of the bible is not based on the fear of going to hell or striving to get the reward of everlasting life. These are just the end result of our choice to accept the love of our heavenly father.
@TheBr00ksie Never needed a bible or a god to tell me that life is all about love though ,why the props ? I wish people to truly come to that conclusion without arcane superstition and ritual ,peace and love from an atheist ?
@TheBr00ksie sorry, but you must not have read the bible if you think the central message is love. genocide, murder, rape, blind worship, all to further god's domain. THAT is not love my friend. read your bible. he's a jealous conceited and afraid boogeyman. that does not sound like a god, does it? brainwashed... *facepalm*
Thank you! Technically I'm an agnostic atheist, as I don't believe any form of god or divine being exists at all , however I cannot bring solid proof to the table that shows he doesn't, In the same way theists don't have any REAL scientifically credible evidence that there is.
Bit to indepth to discuss why here, sorry.
No, but whenever I put a question to him he couldn't answer, pointed out he was contradicting himself or god forbid the other students agreed with ME, I'd get the boot.
I normally don't comment on this site, but Penn Jillette is a very wise, and funny man. He has a wonderful way of summing up what I've been thinking and feeling for many years, and without screaming or insulting. I am an atheist, and find his arguments compelling and accurate. Gonna go out and get that book right now!
The definition of religion isn't all too clear. These guys seem to think of it as a club. Like joining the scouts. That is not actually correct. While some may treat it as such, the deeper meaning of religion transcends the material designations of man, woman, rich, poor, black, white, christian, hindu.. etc. Of course one must as a prerequisite, embrace the knowledge that he is non-material in essence. If not, then discussing the topic is somewhat pointless.
@loremdolorfu There is a difference between being a religious person and being part of an organized religion. I think most everybody understands that. The problem is that most people don't think you believe in god unless you believe in some kind of being that actually influences our day to day lives in a conscious manner instead of just accepting the universe for what it is and knowing that there is more to it all than your material body you are experiencing now.
I 100% agree with Penn on loving each other and treating each other well. But the rest of his comments just show ignorance to the scripture. God is all knowing, no problem you have is foreign to him. You cannot serve him with less love than you have for your own family. Family can betray you, God never will.
@MsLenard23 Well personally I believe that "God" is a concept synonymous with nature, the universe or the unknown. I'm an atheist in the sense that I don't believe in a fatherly deity that cares for humanity. But let me ask you a question. Are you familiar with the story of Job in the bible where God allows Satan to harm Job by killing his children and livestock and giving him disease even though Job was 1 of God's most loyal followers?
@Blackman1000ify God does work in mysterious ways, but I would never want to deny his power over everything, and embrace a lie that only the Devil, the adversary would want you to believe. I do not have all the answers, nor am I an expert on anything. But I would like people to look within themselves, and ask what drives and motivates them.
@MsLenard23 You know what? I think that's humble and I can respect that. But in all fairness, there is room for little healthy skepticism now and again. That's what I think freethought is for in cases like this. Take care miss.
I know some christians will sigh and be like "yeah right". But when i was a christian when i was younger, it was only until i opened the bible and read it, the more i thought it was manipulating bullcrap.
The thing that I can't stand the most about atheism is how smug it is in terms of human psychology. Some peope NEED RELIGION, for the same reason why some children only respond to spanking while others can just be disciplined with a time out or no TV for awhile. It's not enough for certain people to just be taught "morality". Some of them have to be scared into it. That's because not everyone who is taught to be moral will actually see the wisdom in being nice, kind, considerate.
@atomicgirlnyc Firstly, nothing with Atheism prohibits those who need religion from being religious.
Secondly I live in a country where all forms of hitting children, even spanking, is considered child abuse and hence is illegal. So from such a society where even though it does happen spanking and etc is incredibly rare, I can tell you that no "certain children" do not only respond to such things, it's just a lazy method used by people who either don't know better or are simply malicious people
Did you not watch the same video as everyone else? The ideas expressed in this interview regarding things like love and morality are actually widely held by atheists, despite what you may want to think about them. It's not just towards their own, or specific religions, either. But rather, people in general. I realise that it's difficult to swallow, especially given the ridiculous behaviour of some atheists. But you may be surprised how many of them think this way.
lol...I'm agnostic and I admit, Penn's right. Atheists are scrappy while we're just trying to get home unharmed. Do I believe...I guess the answer's "no" because I don't believe any religion's God could be real. I think God could be something that doesn't even knows it's God, or that it even created something. It sneezes and within the mucus bubble is a germ that carries a universe. That's the kind of "God" I could consider as being real. It's mortal and not the end all be all.
@jackiedegracia There is a difference between "I believe there is no God" and "I don´t believe there is a god". Knowing is not about believing either. Claiming to know is just as bad, no matter if you claim to know that God does excist, or not.
I had to read that a few times to grasp it, lol. I agree with you. I really don't ever claim to know. I think the creation or the beginning, whether it's because of a god or a big bang, is simply beyond human comprehension and something we can never completely prove. Same with the afterlife. So for anyone to look at me with a straight face and claim to know for certain isn't something I could ever take seriously. (cont.)
I'm not entirely sure who's right here, you or him. Now we're just getting into semantics. Perhaps I'm just not intelligent enough to fully grasp it? I don't know...I don't want to claim to "know" anything of this sort, hence I'm an agnostic.
@jackiedegracia Exactly! I don´t believe in god, but I will not go as far as to sismiss the whole idea. I mean, who am I to know, anyway? To claim to KNOW about god is the highest form of hybris imaginable. Plus, religion is about belief, not about knowledge. You may believe it´s wrong to rape people, but can you PROVE it? No.
I'm wondering. What is morality? How can we gauge if something is moral or not without a measuring stick? Things that seemed right many years ago are not right now? How can I say a person is good, evil, moral etc. without having some way to decide what is right and what is wrong? I've always respected Penn even though I rarely agree with him, but on this point I believe he is wrong.
@jehjeh37111 When you weigh the consequences of your actions, if you choose what is beneficial to society as a whole, then as a general guideline I would say that is moral.
That's why I'm Agnostic, because I DON'T KNOW! That's what the enlightened answer is. The honest answer. No one knows. Who gives a fuck what one believes. I believe the universe was created by a pink elephant with blue pokadots. Prove me wrong. I don't know. Great scientists know when to say this. Bad ones try to explain everthing.
@itsanameisntit If you're an agnostic theist then you still believe in god (but you don't know) and follow the dogma anyways. Whereas if you're an agnostic atheist then you don't believe in god (but you don't know) and don't follow the dogma. So the people who care comes down to whether or not they think the dogma is healthy.
@CotyKelly I'd love to say that this is a situation in which a dictionary would do very well, but I've lost all faith in those as well. Philosophy was my major at university. Personally, I'd tend to agree with Wittgenstein in regards to how words deceive us, which is essentially a reiteration of the teachings of many Buddhist philosophers. There is a reason for why the only true philosophers alive today are Linguists.
@itsanameisntit words can't deceive us, we put the meaning behind words. It's only one's misunderstanding and self-established limitations that hold them back from understanding with excuses like that. Whats your reason for replying then? That's like saying here's my opinion but my opinions are often misleading...thanks for the input? Philosophy is a mere segway from the ignorant to the uninformed, a necessary step mind you, and when you become informed it becomes useless to you.
@itsanameisntit and don't take that the wrong way, I'm saying philosophy opens up your mind to other possibilities. Those possibilities don't have a basis yet though, but once you understand them philosophy is then just the exit that brought you to information and the idea of other possibilities; it quits helping there.
@CotyKelly I couldn't possibly agree with you more about philosophy, which is exactly why I said that the best philosophers today are linguists. My point was that something as sublime as agnosticism, very much like Buddhism is very easily usurped by a more crass ideology such as theism, or atheism. I think it is instinctual that people do not like mystery, the unknown, and especially the unknowable. Wittgenstein said that language can only be used to describe, not to explain.
@CotyKelly even in the theorem of Schroedinger's Cat, there is a flaw, which had been addressed by the fifth century Buddhis philosopher Nagarjuna. " not existence, not nonexistence, not existence and nonexistence, and not anything other then existence and nonexistence. Words cannot be used, whether to say "there is" or "there is not". To me, agnosticism says, " beyond this, I cannot go, I do not know, I cannot say." It is intellectually consistent.
@CotyKelly if a man walked into a room full of people with a sealed box and asked everyone in the room if the box contained something, or did not contain anything; of what possible value is it to say that the box and contain something, or does not contain something. " I don't know" is the only logical, and honest answer.
@itsanameisntit in the sense that they don't believe in a god for their religion and in fact say at some point, "a god is not necessary". Their religion isn't based on a god in other words.
LOTS of people think the same way, and are generally treated the same way you were when you bring up any reasonable argument (of which there are MANY) against religion.
@whale0melette Shit, I went to a "Christian" school (trust me, it wasn't a religious choice) I know exactly what it's like to try to bring up any conversation like this in a place like that.
I think most people deep down already believe there's no God. I just think most people are afraid to consider the possibility because the Bible scares the shit out of them.
@HillChris1234 Think of this way. "Heaven" has nothing bad in it. No pain, no sorrow, no bad cooking. How long would you enjoy such a place before you got bored out of your mind? Then what? In "Hell" you burn in fire and get tortured. How long would it be until you became acclimated to such pains and it is now a dull ache? Then what? In either case, "eternity" would be dull and pointless, would it not? If this is all true (which I doubt) then you better live it up now, good and evil both.
Simple statement...the bible may have been written by YHVH, but it was edited by man
The Guttenberg bible was originally printed about 1452, and it did say the Earth was flat and that the Jews found the end of the Earth (why they turned around to face the Egyptians and had to part the sea) Someone had the foresight to edit that stuff out when Magellan went around the world.
Incidentally, the Qu'ran still said the Earth was flat in the 1960's
The only people who honestly seem to think heaven and hell are strong motivators are people who don't believe in them. Also, saying that the Bible should be read like a history textbook or a science textbook when portions of it are so explicitly and obviously allegory or poetic is like saying F. Scott Fitzgerald was a schizophrenic and came up with a "Gatsby character" and compulsively documented his life as well as another fellow's. Art speaks at least as powerfully as a history book.
@nofalltoofar Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
Why is it when people talk about religion, they always blast Christians? Isn't that kind of selective? It's like when people call the KKK racist and say that the Black Panthers are just mad.
@metalahhhhhhhhhhhh You're right. that didn't happen. But gunning down police officers, voter intimidation, making threats towards other races, and exercising black supremacy is not better by ANY stretch of the imagination. Racism is racism regardless of the parties involved.
I call it "kosher racism" and was created in the wake of the racism hysteria that's come over the country in the last few decades, ensuring that racism will never go away. Fanatics always become what they despise. Example: Nazis blamed the Jews for being murderers and thieves so in the end that's what they became. Same with anti-racists, they cry racism over every trivial thing and in the end become racist themselves by only focusing on one race, white people.
I call it "kosher racism" and was created in the wake of the racism hysteria that's come over the country in the last few decades, ensuring that racism will never go away. Fanatics always become what they despise. Example: Nazis blamed the Jews for being murderers and thieves so in the end that's what they became. Same with anti-racists, they cry racism over every trivial thing and in the end become racist themselves by only focusing on one race, white people.
That itself becomes a form of hate speech and it conditions other races to hate whites. The fruits of that type of conditioning can be found in interracial crime stats today, which are overwhelmingly nonwhite on white. When looking at those stats keep in mind Hispanics (who are usually Mestizo or mixed, i.e. not white) are counted as whites when they're the perpetrators but counted as nonwhites when they're victims.
The solution is to view things not racially, but as a negative human condition.
@SOCOM018 Ur right but thats not all they did plus there are/were separate factions so Idk if they all worked together. Plus I tend to think the whole movement is an offshoot of Malcom X and his early views. But honestly after being told your nothing for over half a century is it so hard to expect a group claiming some sort of pride/supremacy? Also the real reason they got stopped was cause they provided decent food for inner city youth.
@shmoriy See now you've taken a philosophy and turned it into a weapon. Now nobody can take what you say seriously because your hubris is so great that you call everyone who believes in a deity of any form is "hilariously retarded."
I really hope that every serious atheist (that isn't some rebellious angsty teen that disliked getting up early on Sundays) finds your approach to this philosophy embarrassing. Bigot. I'm not calling atheists "idiots" or "retarded", they just think differently.
I would say, as a Christian, that I agree that we need to do what is right because it is right. I agree. And actually, the bible doesn't really teach any different. It doesn't say do this because if you do I will reward and if you don't I punish. That is inferred. My question is simply (granting that I agree - do what is right BECAUSE it is right - no fear, no reward - selfless) why is it right? what makes it right?
Penn Jillette is confused. The theist claim is "god exists". The atheist claim is "god doesn't exist. This has nothing to do with belief. Belief means you don't know, so at best you can only believe. If you don't know you are an agnostic. The agnostic can believe or not believe in a god because they don't know. If you ask if I "believe" in god there are still three choice: "Yes", "No" and "I don't know". In any Yes/No question, "I don't know" is always an option.
@residentatheist the atheist claim is more "god is irrelevant", and an agnostic cannot believe by definition (a-gnostic literally means "who has no faith").
But anyway, if the question is "do you believe in a god?" and you answer "I don't know", either you're being lazy, or you don't know yourself very well. Even if you don't know in which god to believe, surely you know if it's because they are all bullshit or because they are equally attractive.
@residentatheist also, you're mixing up two different uses of "belief". Belief can mean either conviction/certainty due to faith (that's what opposes theists and atheists), or uncertainty but weighing on one side due to partial information or intuition (which is the one you refer to by "belief means you don't know"). Agnostics cannot have the former, and the latter is off-topic…
@dzzz78 Belief is always belief no matter how you try to use it. Belief is never certainty. A belief may be true or false but is still a belief until proven either way. If it was certainty it would be truth. Truth and belief are mutually exclusive.
@residentatheist belief (sense 1) is certainty for whoever believes, but that does not mean he's not mistaken. Truth is an absolute thing, or at least it has an element of objectivity. You can believe something and be right, or believe and be wrong, so they are not mutually exclusive. But people sometimes confuse a strong belief for truth, and that's their error.
@dzzz78 Belief can be taken as certainty by the believer but that doesn't make their belief a certainty. It is still just a belief but I know what you are saying. If your belief turns out to be right it is no longer a belief. It is a truth. So yes, truth and belief are mutually exclusive. They are not interchangeable.
@dzzz78 Start at the beginning. Theism is the claim. You now have three options. You can accept the claim and believe in god. You can reject the claim and disbelieve in god or you can simply not know (or care). If you accept the claim you are a theist. If you reject the claim you are an atheist and if you don’t know you are an agnostic. These are the only three options when it comes to the theist claim. It has nothing to do with belief. It has to do with choices.
@residentatheist yes, but note that in your initial comment, you said "If you ask if I "believe" in god", which is about the presence of some belief in you, not on the presence of god in the existing universe. I think anyone is able to know if they have some belief about something, so "I don't know" is not a productive answer. The 3 answers possible are belief pro / belief against / no belief. If the question is "do you think god exists" then being undecided is a reasonable answer, I agree.
@dzzz78 Penn's trying to use "belief" or "nonbelief" as the cause or reason for being an atheist or theist. Here is the problem with that. A "belief" or a "lack of belief" don't mean squat. A belief is not a determining factor of anything. Example: I don't "believe" pigs can fly. Does this make me an atheist? Of course not. You can't separate atheism from theism. They are connected at the hip and any beliefs you may or may not have does nothing to determine if you are an atheist or theist.
@art0neable The context of the statement is what determines you are a christian, not the belief. If you claim you "believe" the earth is 10 years old you are saying you don't know if the earth is ten years old. It is just a belief.
Man, if there's one public figure I love, it's that guy.
semperFi4ever100 2 days ago
Here's Jillette's mistake: the question about the knowledge about the existence of god has only one possible answer, which is "I don't know". It's true for theists, atheists and everyone else. God is supposed to be unknowable by principle. To the second question it's not enough to answer that you don't believe in god to be an atheist. Agnostics don't believe in god too. There's a follow-up: do you believe god does NOT exist? Agnostics' answer is no, atheists' answer is yes. Big difference.
Giby86 3 days ago
@Giby86 im sorry but thats wrong, atheism is lack of belief in god, not belief that there is no god.
IneffableLifestyle 2 days ago
@IneffableLifestyle According to Bill Maher and Penn Jillette, it's not. Personally, I am not against anyone being an atheist; I know how difficult it is to put your faith in a God that seems to take on a non-interventionist type of ideology. But Maher and Jillette just deny the existence of God and antagonize Christianity and any form of religious belief on the grounds that people who believe in God are stupid sheep who have been indoctrinated and need to be saved by their amazing logic.
IQ178 2 days ago
@IQ178 No, Maher and Jilette has said it time and time again, and the common understanding and use of the term by atheists is that atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, while christians in particular deny this definition and try to impose their own that its the belief that there is no god. And frankly im tired of it.
IneffableLifestyle 2 days ago
@IneffableLifestyle Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to you being an atheist means that you don't believe in a deity regardless of whether one exists. Forgive me if I made a false assumption about atheism, but I know that some atheists do believe that God (or any type of deity) does not exist. Ricky Gervais, Seth MacFarlane, Penn Jillete and Bill Maher have all openly denied the existence of a God or deity.
IQ178 1 day ago
@IQ178 they say the existence of a god, in particular theistic gods, seems very unlikely. But none of them have openly denied the possibility of the existence of a god or a deity. No one is saying there definatly isnt a god, or unicorns, but there is little reason to believe in there is. And being an atheist simply means at this present moment, you do not hold any belief in the existence of a god. If evidence arises that strongly indicatet the existence of a god, that could change.
IneffableLifestyle 1 day ago
@IneffableLifestyle Okay I understand that, but it just seems like atheists (at least the ones that I know of) leave no room for any type of God. But if that's what you say as an atheist (if I assume correctly), I'll believe it.
IQ178 1 day ago
@IQ178 "I had no need for that hypothesis."
More like we just don't...need an invisible deity to explain the universe and how it works, so we don't unnecessarily insert one where it isn't needed. Occam's razor. Not that we "purposely leave [Him] out."
macgeek2004 1 day ago
@macgeek2004 I'm sorry, but what are you replying to? Is that quote something that I typed, or what?
IQ178 1 day ago
@IneffableLifestyle Then how would you call anyone who BELIEVES there is not god?
Giby86 1 day ago
@Giby86 unwise, ignorant etc.
IneffableLifestyle 10 hours ago
@IneffableLifestyle In that case, it's just a matter of semantics. The important thing is to be aware that there's a difference between not believing in something and claiming that something does not exist. Most atheists seem to just ignore this fact.
Giby86 10 hours ago
@Giby86 I dont know if most do or not, and i dont think you do either, dawkins, hitchens, dennet, maher, all acknowledge the fact that there is a chance god does exist, however small it is, just like unicorns may exist.
IneffableLifestyle 8 hours ago
@IneffableLifestyle And in fact, Dawkins acknowledged the fact that strictly speaking, he is a "toothfairy" agnostic, but sticks to labelling himself as an "atheist" for political reasons (in his TED talk "an atheist call to arms"). And Maher himself always pointed out that the certitude of atheists mirrors that of religious people. There's a quote by Isaac Asimov that I love and I will post...in my next comment because I'm all out of space here! ^^
Giby86 8 hours ago
"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. [continues]
Giby86 8 hours ago
[...] I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."
This right here is the difference. Atheism is an emotional stance which is unjustifiable on the sole ground of reason.
Giby86 8 hours ago
@Giby86 i dont think he labels himself as an atheist for political reasons, why do you say that? Its better to call themselves an atheist, then agnostic just because there is a chance dogs can fly and that toothfairys exist. Otherwise any conversation would be pointsless if you can agree on certain fundementals.
IneffableLifestyle 2 hours ago
@Giby86 If an atheist says there is no god, he is making a claim, and he can either prove it or retract it. Reilgious nuts say there is a god and an intellectually honest atheist can say, I'll believe it when I see it. So, put up or shut up.
toelesshoe 2 days ago
@toelesshoe No, the supernatural/superstitious side needs to prove their retarded beliefs, not the rest of us. To me, saying you don't believe in a god is the same as thinking there is no god. The differences is semantics.
233259 2 days ago
@toelesshoe Nope. You won't BELIEVE it when you see it. You can BELIEVE anything only as long as you DON'T see it. If you see it, you KNOW it.
Giby86 1 day ago
@Giby86 @Giby86 Agnostics are atheists, by default. As said in the video, if you don't believe in a god, you are an atheist. Theist=believe in a god. Atheist=do not believe in a god.
All these different labels are stupid. Whether someone calls themselves atheist, agnostic, rationalist, secularist, freethinker, humanist, etc., you are all in the same boat, you're a non-believer (or in other words, an a-theist.)
233259 1 day ago
@233259 Then what would you call someone who actively believes that there is no god?
Giby86 1 day ago
@Giby86 Atheist, obviously.
233259 1 day ago
@233259 Then atheists are not non-believers. Obviously.
Giby86 1 day ago
@Giby86 Yes, we are. We don't believe in a deity. That's what makes us non-believers, as far as the religious subject goes. There's even a few delusional passages in the Bible and the Koran that refer to everyone who doesn't worship that god as a "non-believer."
233259 1 day ago
@233259 Did you just use the Bible to strenghten your argument? ^^ Now, seriously. How can you go from "people believing in the non-existence of god are atheists" to "atheists are non-believers"? It doesn't matter what you believe, but if you DO believe, you are a believer. See, saying "there is no god" is a positive claim, and if you make it you have burden of proof. You make a claim and you have nothing to support it. If this is wrong for religious people, it is wrong for atheists too.
Giby86 1 day ago
@Giby86 "Does God exist?" is a meaningless question, since It contains two undefined terms, "God" and "exist". I can't answer a meaningless question. If you define those two terms, then you are making a claim, and it is up to you to prove it. If by "God" you mean the God of Abraham, and by "exist" you "is an idea, a metaphor and a social reality", then I can happily agree with you. But if you mean actual physical existence, then I say: hogwash, show me the evidence.
gspaulsson 1 day ago
@gspaulsson You're absolutely right. Moreover, I find it meaningless even defining god. If, by definition, "god" is "that which is mysterious, unknowable and supernatural", then regardless of any other attribute you choose to give it (be it a name, a power -or all of them-, a purpose), that question still is not answerable.
Giby86 1 day ago
@Giby86 Because the terms 'believer' and 'non-believer' have to with the question of god(s). A believer is a person who believes in a deity, and a non-believer (atheist) is someone who doesn't.
233259 17 hours ago
@233259 That's what you decided, correct? The term "believer" means "he/she who believes". If you believe in astrology you're a believer. If you believe in fairies you're a believer. If you believe we never went to the Moon you're a believer. The mental process you do is the very same. If you don't want to be called a "believer" even though you believe in something, and so you change the meaning of the word, well...you're fooling yourself. ^_^
Giby86 10 hours ago
@Giby86 I explained the context of the term 'believer' and 'non-believer' (in the religious context) in my last comment. Someone who "believes" that something is false can still accurately describe themselves as someone who doesn't believe that that particular something is true. In that sense, it is accurate to say that atheists are non-believers.
And looking at your other comments, I wanna point out that Bill Maher now feels comfortable calling himself an atheist.
233259 5 hours ago
@Giby86 No, my answer is that the question can't be answered because it's meaningless. What is your position on the question "are flgvtz brtzly?" Define God and existence, and we can have a conversation. If God is unknowable in principle, then the question is meaningless in principle, and the proper response is "what a dumb question; next ..."
gspaulsson 3 hours ago
Comment removed
Nem33 3 days ago 5
@Nem33 I always say I've read far too much of the Bible to believe any of it.
Noxshus 1 day ago
I guess we should just throw out the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence because its not like our unalienable rights are GUARANTEED FROM GOD or anything...
FDNY94 3 days ago
@FDNY94 yeah thats sound logic :)
IneffableLifestyle 2 days ago
17 people are creationists.
Phlac0 3 days ago
Isn't this putting a human understanding on God? I mean, isn't God supposed to be beyond human rationale? Also, I would like to know what translation/s of the Bible Penn Jillette read. He is speaking about something that is totally foreign to me.
IQ178 4 days ago
@IQ178
Hello. First of all, please forgive me if I have some mistakes. english is not my first language.
I think that when he talks about the horrible things written in the bible he is pointing out things like Deuteronomy 13 (from 6 to 10).
I do not belive that is something good about killing peoples with stones when they think different than you.
I hope you can respond me so we can talk about it.
cuartodelocos 3 days ago
@cuartodelocos Yes. There are rules in the Old Testament that are considered barbaric by our standards today, but I believe that those rules were made by humans in order to expand on God's Ten Commandments. I can understand why Jillette would find those rules to be terrible. However, he also talks about Jesus's message in the New Testament as being "anti-family," particularly when Jesus commands his followers to leave their family to serve Him and to love Him more than you love you're family.
IQ178 3 days ago
@cuartodelocos (continued) I understand how a literal interpretation of Jesus's words would cause someone to think Jesus is "anti-family", but I don't think it was meant to be taken in such a literal sense. That's why I asked what translation of the Bible he read.
IQ178 3 days ago
@IQ178 Hello again. Yes, I do think he is a litle too extremist on that point. But you can note that the idea of the salvation in the bible says that you sould leave your family (or anyone) if they are sinners. Then, when a sin is as simple as to work on sabbath...
Probably I'm wrong. But at least that's what I heard from ministers here in Bolivia.
cuartodelocos 2 days ago
@cuartodelocos Again, I believe that the type of translation you read can lead to this misunderstanding. Also, if you take the Bible's lessons as being strictly literal, than you won't really be able to receive Jesus's message. For example, the King James version of the Bible has Jesus saying something like "this temple will be destroyed and I will rebuild it in 3 days". If you take this literally (as some did) then you would think that Jesus was insane! But if you realize...
IQ178 2 days ago
@cuartodelocos ...he was talking about his own body, then it wouldn't seem so crazy. Jesus was killed because "religious people" misinterpreted his message and thought he was a blasphemer. If they truly believed that Jesus was the Son of God and were able to truly accept and understand his message, there is no way that they would have marked him as a blasphemer and tortured him the way that they did. Alas, there was purpose for the pain and a method to the madness: Jesus died for our freedom...
IQ178 2 days ago
@cuartodelocos ...Sorry, I got a little preachy toward the end, but people should stop trying to put a human understanding on God. It's just doesn't work.
IQ178 2 days ago
He is so much better on interviews than on his show. I really think he makes more sense than most of the other atheist talk show people as he tries to put things in human terms, and doesn't get condescending.
kuzumisama 4 days ago
fuuuuuuuuuuuuuck!!!! i thought a bear walked up to bill maher
eternalcrumpet 6 days ago
one point to bring up is that one cannot get to heaven through works, which is repeated many times in the Bible...i.e. being good or bad isn't what saves you, it's merely a biproduct. One is saved by grace through faith...faith doesn't mean you act right because you are scared of the consequences, it means you act the way you do because of a love for God. Good deeds without faith are useless
awswas4 1 week ago
@awswas4 So, when an atheist donates their time to a charity it's "useless," but when you do the exact same thing groveling in the name of you imaginary BFF, it's the product of selfless love?
In the spirit of Penn Jillette, "BULL SHIT!"
eyeammi 6 days ago 12
He's right is all about love. which is the central message of the bible. the morality of the bible is not based on the fear of going to hell or striving to get the reward of everlasting life. These are just the end result of our choice to accept the love of our heavenly father.
TheBr00ksie 1 week ago
@TheBr00ksie Never needed a bible or a god to tell me that life is all about love though ,why the props ? I wish people to truly come to that conclusion without arcane superstition and ritual ,peace and love from an atheist ?
woofalot13 1 week ago
@TheBr00ksie sorry, but you must not have read the bible if you think the central message is love. genocide, murder, rape, blind worship, all to further god's domain. THAT is not love my friend. read your bible. he's a jealous conceited and afraid boogeyman. that does not sound like a god, does it? brainwashed... *facepalm*
RandomTrollAccount 5 days ago
I love Penn Jillette , but I think in another interview he "criticized" Bill for being a cynic and talking about religion the way he does !
But that's exactly what these people need , and why I love Maher .
But anyways , both great man !!
NexisFilms 1 week ago
To every Atheist!! search George Carlins Standup on religion Hahaha its awesome! :D
fightmastaC10 1 week ago
@kenomi812 Look up George Carlins Stand up on religion! Its awesome lol
fightmastaC10 1 week ago
@whale0melette The only proof you need is that nobody has ever seen god? Haha more of an answer then any Christian lol
fightmastaC10 1 week ago
Comment removed
whale0melette 1 week ago
@fightmastaC10 haha!
whale0melette 1 week ago
The best way to become an an atheist is to read the Qur'an. Qur'an goes hardcore.
kenomi812 1 week ago
Thank you! Technically I'm an agnostic atheist, as I don't believe any form of god or divine being exists at all , however I cannot bring solid proof to the table that shows he doesn't, In the same way theists don't have any REAL scientifically credible evidence that there is.
Bit to indepth to discuss why here, sorry.
No, but whenever I put a question to him he couldn't answer, pointed out he was contradicting himself or god forbid the other students agreed with ME, I'd get the boot.
whale0melette 1 week ago
Religion is the biggest con ever pulled on man kind.
BOXCHEVYBOY350 1 week ago
i like the ''dump your family love jesus'' practice....to each his own ,i guess....family is why i'm an atheist.
theforestero 1 week ago
Penn seems like a cool guy. Even if you don't agree with his views, he's still fun to talk and listen to.
ThePhantom135 1 week ago 2
@ThePhantom135 me too
BOXCHEVYBOY350 1 week ago
@ThePhantom135 Well, in this case, how can one NOT agree? The man is RIGHT for fucks sake. ^-^
ShadowReubenKee 1 week ago 2
I normally don't comment on this site, but Penn Jillette is a very wise, and funny man. He has a wonderful way of summing up what I've been thinking and feeling for many years, and without screaming or insulting. I am an atheist, and find his arguments compelling and accurate. Gonna go out and get that book right now!
fforestb 1 week ago
The definition of religion isn't all too clear. These guys seem to think of it as a club. Like joining the scouts. That is not actually correct. While some may treat it as such, the deeper meaning of religion transcends the material designations of man, woman, rich, poor, black, white, christian, hindu.. etc. Of course one must as a prerequisite, embrace the knowledge that he is non-material in essence. If not, then discussing the topic is somewhat pointless.
loremdolorfu 1 week ago
@loremdolorfu There is a difference between being a religious person and being part of an organized religion. I think most everybody understands that. The problem is that most people don't think you believe in god unless you believe in some kind of being that actually influences our day to day lives in a conscious manner instead of just accepting the universe for what it is and knowing that there is more to it all than your material body you are experiencing now.
EyeNoMrGREEN 1 week ago
@mradamconrad23 what makes you say that?
vladhorf 1 week ago
@mradamconrad23 what makes you say that?
vladhorf 1 week ago
@mradamconrad23 what makes you say that?
vladhorf 1 week ago
I'm an atheist, but Penn is being a dumb ass here with apparently no capacity for logic.
MrAdamconrad23 1 week ago
@MrAdamconrad23 How do you figure? O_o
EvilRubberDucky 1 week ago
@MrAdamconrad23 Explain yourself.
musicplayah 1 week ago
big words from a big man
chickenmcfuck 1 week ago
I 100% agree with Penn on loving each other and treating each other well. But the rest of his comments just show ignorance to the scripture. God is all knowing, no problem you have is foreign to him. You cannot serve him with less love than you have for your own family. Family can betray you, God never will.
MsLenard23 1 week ago
Comment removed
Blackman1000ify 1 week ago
@MsLenard23 Well personally I believe that "God" is a concept synonymous with nature, the universe or the unknown. I'm an atheist in the sense that I don't believe in a fatherly deity that cares for humanity. But let me ask you a question. Are you familiar with the story of Job in the bible where God allows Satan to harm Job by killing his children and livestock and giving him disease even though Job was 1 of God's most loyal followers?
Blackman1000ify 1 week ago
@Blackman1000ify God does work in mysterious ways, but I would never want to deny his power over everything, and embrace a lie that only the Devil, the adversary would want you to believe. I do not have all the answers, nor am I an expert on anything. But I would like people to look within themselves, and ask what drives and motivates them.
God bless.
MsLenard23 1 week ago
@MsLenard23 You know what? I think that's humble and I can respect that. But in all fairness, there is room for little healthy skepticism now and again. That's what I think freethought is for in cases like this. Take care miss.
Blackman1000ify 1 week ago
I know some christians will sigh and be like "yeah right". But when i was a christian when i was younger, it was only until i opened the bible and read it, the more i thought it was manipulating bullcrap.
Josh04731 2 weeks ago
"I don't wanna be Lenny Bruce"
Oh you don't have worry about ever accomplishing something like that lol
VegitoVai90 2 weeks ago
The thing that I can't stand the most about atheism is how smug it is in terms of human psychology. Some peope NEED RELIGION, for the same reason why some children only respond to spanking while others can just be disciplined with a time out or no TV for awhile. It's not enough for certain people to just be taught "morality". Some of them have to be scared into it. That's because not everyone who is taught to be moral will actually see the wisdom in being nice, kind, considerate.
atomicgirlnyc 2 weeks ago
@atomicgirlnyc Firstly, nothing with Atheism prohibits those who need religion from being religious.
Secondly I live in a country where all forms of hitting children, even spanking, is considered child abuse and hence is illegal. So from such a society where even though it does happen spanking and etc is incredibly rare, I can tell you that no "certain children" do not only respond to such things, it's just a lazy method used by people who either don't know better or are simply malicious people
rv186rs 1 week ago
Those damn atheists. Preaching love and respect. Who do they think they are?
obglobgablob 2 weeks ago 116
@obglobgablob
Love and respect? To religious people? You're either new in this world or really stupid.
vikingWindmill 1 week ago
@vikingWindmill
Did you not watch the same video as everyone else? The ideas expressed in this interview regarding things like love and morality are actually widely held by atheists, despite what you may want to think about them. It's not just towards their own, or specific religions, either. But rather, people in general. I realise that it's difficult to swallow, especially given the ridiculous behaviour of some atheists. But you may be surprised how many of them think this way.
obglobgablob 1 week ago
@obglobgablob
lol you just made my day thanks
SIXITHS 6 days ago
lol...I'm agnostic and I admit, Penn's right. Atheists are scrappy while we're just trying to get home unharmed. Do I believe...I guess the answer's "no" because I don't believe any religion's God could be real. I think God could be something that doesn't even knows it's God, or that it even created something. It sneezes and within the mucus bubble is a germ that carries a universe. That's the kind of "God" I could consider as being real. It's mortal and not the end all be all.
jackiedegracia 2 weeks ago
@jackiedegracia There is a difference between "I believe there is no God" and "I don´t believe there is a god". Knowing is not about believing either. Claiming to know is just as bad, no matter if you claim to know that God does excist, or not.
OxygenChrist 2 weeks ago
@OxygenChrist
I had to read that a few times to grasp it, lol. I agree with you. I really don't ever claim to know. I think the creation or the beginning, whether it's because of a god or a big bang, is simply beyond human comprehension and something we can never completely prove. Same with the afterlife. So for anyone to look at me with a straight face and claim to know for certain isn't something I could ever take seriously. (cont.)
jackiedegracia 2 weeks ago
I'm not entirely sure who's right here, you or him. Now we're just getting into semantics. Perhaps I'm just not intelligent enough to fully grasp it? I don't know...I don't want to claim to "know" anything of this sort, hence I'm an agnostic.
jackiedegracia 2 weeks ago
@jackiedegracia Exactly! I don´t believe in god, but I will not go as far as to sismiss the whole idea. I mean, who am I to know, anyway? To claim to KNOW about god is the highest form of hybris imaginable. Plus, religion is about belief, not about knowledge. You may believe it´s wrong to rape people, but can you PROVE it? No.
OxygenChrist 2 weeks ago
I'm wondering. What is morality? How can we gauge if something is moral or not without a measuring stick? Things that seemed right many years ago are not right now? How can I say a person is good, evil, moral etc. without having some way to decide what is right and what is wrong? I've always respected Penn even though I rarely agree with him, but on this point I believe he is wrong.
jehjeh37111 2 weeks ago
@jehjeh37111 When you weigh the consequences of your actions, if you choose what is beneficial to society as a whole, then as a general guideline I would say that is moral.
shnibly12 2 weeks ago
@shnibly12 i think that was his point from the start but that clearly flew over the person head.
Akumatrunigga 1 week ago
This was amazing. Jillette is instantly and permanently my favorite person.
Faerlon123 2 weeks ago 23
@Faerlon123 That name is reserved for my razors unfortunately
DietDrMario 2 weeks ago
There are times I love Penn and times I hate Penn. This time I love him.
bushbasher85 2 weeks ago
@bushbasher85 Why would you ever hate him? Sure, I might disagree with him about something, but that doesn't make me hate him.
MuikuliWander 2 weeks ago
I don't know why he is so bitter lately, him and Teller needs to shut up and play their magic tricks.
UrielEternal 2 weeks ago
@UrielEternal Bitter? If you belive in god you are bitter.
kentriz182 2 weeks ago
define irony.penn says it is all about love.the bible says God is love.
cassidy99ful 3 weeks ago
That's why I'm Agnostic, because I DON'T KNOW! That's what the enlightened answer is. The honest answer. No one knows. Who gives a fuck what one believes. I believe the universe was created by a pink elephant with blue pokadots. Prove me wrong. I don't know. Great scientists know when to say this. Bad ones try to explain everthing.
itsanameisntit 3 weeks ago
@itsanameisntit If you're an agnostic theist then you still believe in god (but you don't know) and follow the dogma anyways. Whereas if you're an agnostic atheist then you don't believe in god (but you don't know) and don't follow the dogma. So the people who care comes down to whether or not they think the dogma is healthy.
CotyKelly 3 weeks ago
@CotyKelly I'd love to say that this is a situation in which a dictionary would do very well, but I've lost all faith in those as well. Philosophy was my major at university. Personally, I'd tend to agree with Wittgenstein in regards to how words deceive us, which is essentially a reiteration of the teachings of many Buddhist philosophers. There is a reason for why the only true philosophers alive today are Linguists.
itsanameisntit 3 weeks ago
@itsanameisntit words can't deceive us, we put the meaning behind words. It's only one's misunderstanding and self-established limitations that hold them back from understanding with excuses like that. Whats your reason for replying then? That's like saying here's my opinion but my opinions are often misleading...thanks for the input? Philosophy is a mere segway from the ignorant to the uninformed, a necessary step mind you, and when you become informed it becomes useless to you.
CotyKelly 3 weeks ago
@itsanameisntit and don't take that the wrong way, I'm saying philosophy opens up your mind to other possibilities. Those possibilities don't have a basis yet though, but once you understand them philosophy is then just the exit that brought you to information and the idea of other possibilities; it quits helping there.
CotyKelly 3 weeks ago
@CotyKelly I couldn't possibly agree with you more about philosophy, which is exactly why I said that the best philosophers today are linguists. My point was that something as sublime as agnosticism, very much like Buddhism is very easily usurped by a more crass ideology such as theism, or atheism. I think it is instinctual that people do not like mystery, the unknown, and especially the unknowable. Wittgenstein said that language can only be used to describe, not to explain.
itsanameisntit 3 weeks ago
@CotyKelly even in the theorem of Schroedinger's Cat, there is a flaw, which had been addressed by the fifth century Buddhis philosopher Nagarjuna. " not existence, not nonexistence, not existence and nonexistence, and not anything other then existence and nonexistence. Words cannot be used, whether to say "there is" or "there is not". To me, agnosticism says, " beyond this, I cannot go, I do not know, I cannot say." It is intellectually consistent.
itsanameisntit 3 weeks ago
@CotyKelly if a man walked into a room full of people with a sealed box and asked everyone in the room if the box contained something, or did not contain anything; of what possible value is it to say that the box and contain something, or does not contain something. " I don't know" is the only logical, and honest answer.
itsanameisntit 3 weeks ago
@itsanameisntit I agree, I don't know should be the default position. For the record, however, Buddhism is an atheist religion.
CotyKelly 3 weeks ago
@itsanameisntit in the sense that they don't believe in a god for their religion and in fact say at some point, "a god is not necessary". Their religion isn't based on a god in other words.
CotyKelly 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
CotyKelly 3 weeks ago
F you atheists and agnosttics and christians,being a vaginist is the way to go
blindedby2monkeys 3 weeks ago
@blindedby2monkeys mmmm gimme some of THAT!
dkthg 3 weeks ago
I brought up his carrot and stick morality reasoning in my school RE lessons years ago, and I was thrown out of class.
It's nice to see someone thinks the same way.
whale0melette 3 weeks ago 32
@whale0melette
LOTS of people think the same way, and are generally treated the same way you were when you bring up any reasonable argument (of which there are MANY) against religion.
Good work for speaking up.
We need more people to do it...
Clint945 2 weeks ago
@whale0melette "I brought up his carrot and stick morality reasoning in my school RE lessons years ago, and I was thrown out of class."
-What is a school RE lesson?
52000rightwing 2 weeks ago
@52000rightwing I went to a religious school, nuns etc the whole shebang.
So we had religious education lessons (re) a few times a week
whale0melette 2 weeks ago
@whale0melette Oh. I get it.
52000rightwing 2 weeks ago
@whale0melette Shit, I went to a "Christian" school (trust me, it wasn't a religious choice) I know exactly what it's like to try to bring up any conversation like this in a place like that.
RMac777 1 week ago
@whale0melette Good on you! I take it you're an Atheist? Just another question and I'll let you be. Did they ever say WHY you got thrown out?
ShadowReubenKee 1 week ago
As someone who went to two catholic schools (with nuns and everything) this is true. 2:20
whale0melette 3 weeks ago
Dude this is weird, one of Penn fingernails is red at 2:52.
Blackman1000ify 3 weeks ago
@Blackman1000ify It always is.
HillChris1234 3 weeks ago
@HillChris1234 Really, hmm didn't know that.
Blackman1000ify 3 weeks ago
@Blackman1000ify I think it's a tribute or something to his mother.
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
I think most people deep down already believe there's no God. I just think most people are afraid to consider the possibility because the Bible scares the shit out of them.
HillChris1234 3 weeks ago
@HillChris1234 Think of this way. "Heaven" has nothing bad in it. No pain, no sorrow, no bad cooking. How long would you enjoy such a place before you got bored out of your mind? Then what? In "Hell" you burn in fire and get tortured. How long would it be until you became acclimated to such pains and it is now a dull ache? Then what? In either case, "eternity" would be dull and pointless, would it not? If this is all true (which I doubt) then you better live it up now, good and evil both.
jeffthecoder 3 weeks ago
@HillChris1234 Well said! & Very true!
RivaWitch 3 weeks ago
Simple statement...the bible may have been written by YHVH, but it was edited by man
The Guttenberg bible was originally printed about 1452, and it did say the Earth was flat and that the Jews found the end of the Earth (why they turned around to face the Egyptians and had to part the sea) Someone had the foresight to edit that stuff out when Magellan went around the world.
Incidentally, the Qu'ran still said the Earth was flat in the 1960's
quidda1 3 weeks ago
The only people who honestly seem to think heaven and hell are strong motivators are people who don't believe in them. Also, saying that the Bible should be read like a history textbook or a science textbook when portions of it are so explicitly and obviously allegory or poetic is like saying F. Scott Fitzgerald was a schizophrenic and came up with a "Gatsby character" and compulsively documented his life as well as another fellow's. Art speaks at least as powerfully as a history book.
nofalltoofar 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nofalltoofar Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
marionetemanJ 4 weeks ago
Why is it when people talk about religion, they always blast Christians? Isn't that kind of selective? It's like when people call the KKK racist and say that the Black Panthers are just mad.
SOCOM018 4 weeks ago
@SOCOM018 Because (at least in America) Christians are the most abundant and the most combative.
HillChris1234 3 weeks ago
@SOCOM018 Black Panthers never hung white people from trees.
metalahhhhhhhhhhhh 3 weeks ago
@metalahhhhhhhhhhhh You're right. that didn't happen. But gunning down police officers, voter intimidation, making threats towards other races, and exercising black supremacy is not better by ANY stretch of the imagination. Racism is racism regardless of the parties involved.
SOCOM018 2 weeks ago
@SOCOM018
I call it "kosher racism" and was created in the wake of the racism hysteria that's come over the country in the last few decades, ensuring that racism will never go away. Fanatics always become what they despise. Example: Nazis blamed the Jews for being murderers and thieves so in the end that's what they became. Same with anti-racists, they cry racism over every trivial thing and in the end become racist themselves by only focusing on one race, white people.
jackiedegracia 2 weeks ago
@SOCOM018
I call it "kosher racism" and was created in the wake of the racism hysteria that's come over the country in the last few decades, ensuring that racism will never go away. Fanatics always become what they despise. Example: Nazis blamed the Jews for being murderers and thieves so in the end that's what they became. Same with anti-racists, they cry racism over every trivial thing and in the end become racist themselves by only focusing on one race, white people.
jackiedegracia 2 weeks ago
That itself becomes a form of hate speech and it conditions other races to hate whites. The fruits of that type of conditioning can be found in interracial crime stats today, which are overwhelmingly nonwhite on white. When looking at those stats keep in mind Hispanics (who are usually Mestizo or mixed, i.e. not white) are counted as whites when they're the perpetrators but counted as nonwhites when they're victims.
The solution is to view things not racially, but as a negative human condition.
jackiedegracia 2 weeks ago
@SOCOM018 Ur right but thats not all they did plus there are/were separate factions so Idk if they all worked together. Plus I tend to think the whole movement is an offshoot of Malcom X and his early views. But honestly after being told your nothing for over half a century is it so hard to expect a group claiming some sort of pride/supremacy? Also the real reason they got stopped was cause they provided decent food for inner city youth.
metalahhhhhhhhhhhh 2 weeks ago
I dont believe in god for the same reason i dont believe in santa claus or the tooth fairy........because they're all hilariously retarded.
shmoriy 1 month ago
@shmoriy See now you've taken a philosophy and turned it into a weapon. Now nobody can take what you say seriously because your hubris is so great that you call everyone who believes in a deity of any form is "hilariously retarded."
I really hope that every serious atheist (that isn't some rebellious angsty teen that disliked getting up early on Sundays) finds your approach to this philosophy embarrassing. Bigot. I'm not calling atheists "idiots" or "retarded", they just think differently.
SOCOM018 4 weeks ago
Why can't we have a show like this in the U.K?
ThePsycoDolphin 1 month ago
The bible has no inconsistancies....you have to really read into it if you find some
day 1 made light, day 4 made the sun......I know I am missing something here (might be what is making the light or what a 'day' is)
Might be an obscure example, that one must be buried in one of the parts noone reads.
In short, do you really have to read the whole thing?
Paul's letter to Romans would be 187 pages if it were double spaced and typed. Why would they have read it, or saved it?
quidda1 1 month ago
Comment removed
TheScydeFX 4 weeks ago
that is one of the most intelligently spoken views on morality I have ever heard. Penn Jillette as the Profit of good
quidda1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I would say, as a Christian, that I agree that we need to do what is right because it is right. I agree. And actually, the bible doesn't really teach any different. It doesn't say do this because if you do I will reward and if you don't I punish. That is inferred. My question is simply (granting that I agree - do what is right BECAUSE it is right - no fear, no reward - selfless) why is it right? what makes it right?
Follower172 1 month ago
4:00!!!!!!!!
iluire 1 month ago
Jesus is love
CassieDynomite 1 month ago
Penn Jillette is confused. The theist claim is "god exists". The atheist claim is "god doesn't exist. This has nothing to do with belief. Belief means you don't know, so at best you can only believe. If you don't know you are an agnostic. The agnostic can believe or not believe in a god because they don't know. If you ask if I "believe" in god there are still three choice: "Yes", "No" and "I don't know". In any Yes/No question, "I don't know" is always an option.
residentatheist 1 month ago
@residentatheist the atheist claim is more "god is irrelevant", and an agnostic cannot believe by definition (a-gnostic literally means "who has no faith").
But anyway, if the question is "do you believe in a god?" and you answer "I don't know", either you're being lazy, or you don't know yourself very well. Even if you don't know in which god to believe, surely you know if it's because they are all bullshit or because they are equally attractive.
dzzz78 1 month ago
@residentatheist also, you're mixing up two different uses of "belief". Belief can mean either conviction/certainty due to faith (that's what opposes theists and atheists), or uncertainty but weighing on one side due to partial information or intuition (which is the one you refer to by "belief means you don't know"). Agnostics cannot have the former, and the latter is off-topic…
dzzz78 1 month ago
@dzzz78 Belief is always belief no matter how you try to use it. Belief is never certainty. A belief may be true or false but is still a belief until proven either way. If it was certainty it would be truth. Truth and belief are mutually exclusive.
residentatheist 1 month ago
@residentatheist belief (sense 1) is certainty for whoever believes, but that does not mean he's not mistaken. Truth is an absolute thing, or at least it has an element of objectivity. You can believe something and be right, or believe and be wrong, so they are not mutually exclusive. But people sometimes confuse a strong belief for truth, and that's their error.
dzzz78 1 month ago
@dzzz78 Belief can be taken as certainty by the believer but that doesn't make their belief a certainty. It is still just a belief but I know what you are saying. If your belief turns out to be right it is no longer a belief. It is a truth. So yes, truth and belief are mutually exclusive. They are not interchangeable.
residentatheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dzzz78 Start at the beginning. Theism is the claim. You now have three options. You can accept the claim and believe in god. You can reject the claim and disbelieve in god or you can simply not know (or care). If you accept the claim you are a theist. If you reject the claim you are an atheist and if you don’t know you are an agnostic. These are the only three options when it comes to the theist claim. It has nothing to do with belief. It has to do with choices.
residentatheist 1 month ago
@residentatheist yes, but note that in your initial comment, you said "If you ask if I "believe" in god", which is about the presence of some belief in you, not on the presence of god in the existing universe. I think anyone is able to know if they have some belief about something, so "I don't know" is not a productive answer. The 3 answers possible are belief pro / belief against / no belief. If the question is "do you think god exists" then being undecided is a reasonable answer, I agree.
dzzz78 1 month ago
@dzzz78 Penn's trying to use "belief" or "nonbelief" as the cause or reason for being an atheist or theist. Here is the problem with that. A "belief" or a "lack of belief" don't mean squat. A belief is not a determining factor of anything. Example: I don't "believe" pigs can fly. Does this make me an atheist? Of course not. You can't separate atheism from theism. They are connected at the hip and any beliefs you may or may not have does nothing to determine if you are an atheist or theist.
residentatheist 1 month ago
@residentatheist Yes it does. Bibles fly in the bible. Just like saying i believe the earth is 10 k years old maks you a christian.
art0neable 1 month ago
@art0neable The context of the statement is what determines you are a christian, not the belief. If you claim you "believe" the earth is 10 years old you are saying you don't know if the earth is ten years old. It is just a belief.
residentatheist 1 month ago
@art0neable What does this mean: "Bibles fly in the bible." or is it some kind of typo?
residentatheist 1 month ago
@residentatheist yeah meant pigs fly in the bible sorry
art0neable 1 month ago