JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
Im a Agnostic Atheist... I guess that's weak huh... :)
I don't think I can prove there is no god, or there is god... as a matter of fact, I think the concept/definition of "god" is way too vague... no point of proving something I don't really know what the heck it is...
@askegg what's to defend? i dont understand "debates' on these topics of philosophy. It's like debating what kind of music is the best. You can't debate it because it depends on the person. So what is a "strong" argument when you're talking about something as pointless as religion? I think you are mixing position with opinion. After all, if it's not a fact, its an opinion.
I am a non-believer in ANY religion or GOD/S. I have seen more evidence to show that there is NO GOD than I have seen that there is! Label it however you want. Until I see extreme proof that is verifiable I will NOT believe in any GOD or religion! Any claim made by a human is ignored out right by me and treated simply as non-sense and even out right lies! I don't need a label or a title to think this way and I don't need my belief or disbelief agreed with. I just do not and will not believe!
Since immemorial times, people described transcendent experiences of the numinous, of connection, of love and mystery of the universe in poetic and personal terms of mythology and parables.
these experiences were put in boxes - doctrines of men who insist on literal interpretation of these artistic expressions.
Atheism (for lack of a better term) objects against boxes that men construct around God (for lack of a better term).
It objects against vain invocation of defined Gods.
Cthulhu lives in my heart. I have a personal relationship with his tentacly self. And if you're thinking naughty things about *that* then you're obviously a godless squid hater! /sarcasm
I define "strong/positive atheist" as one who BELIEVES gods do not exist; not one who makes claims that they don't exist. Claims need to be supported by evidence, but beliefs don't.
I identify as a strong or positive atheist under that definition.
It seems as though this is the same conversation you had with Zarlan, but I've only skimmed a portion of that.
@ZarlanTheGreen I would not say it's an argument from convenience. Strictly we cannot be absolutely certain about anything beyond our own existence. This is one of base reasons we need to examine claims of existence based on the merit of evidence in favour.
@askegg "This is slightly different to claiming "there ARE no gods""
No it isn't.
I say "there are no gods".
I do not claim this as absolute knowledge, just as I don't claim, pretty much anything, as absolute knowledge, where I say "there are/is no X", "there is/are X", "X is true" or "X is false".
there is not enough evidence of god for me to believe, faith is not proof it is delusion.. i'd like to be prooved wrong anyone is willing to try, the bible is not proof as it requries god to be real for it to be right.
This may be just a dream. You might not exist , only think that you do. This dream , may be a way of testing you. To see what you will do. For , a Gods entertainment. as if you were a doll or puppet, for amusement.
Now what do you think ? And it you are a BAd toy, you could be throw away. Never to exist again. Think about that concept,... and enjoy existing for the moment.
which came first ? thechicken or the EGG,..? and Why ? For someone who does not believe in a GOD, you sure put a lot of energy into making a video ... talking about the subject. ! Why does it matter to you ? There were those who once thought the world was flat. or that electricity didn't exist because they had never seen it ,or don't believe in Gravity because it couldn't be explained. Do you believe in Hades, or evil, or the devil?
I'm a practical atheist that strongly asserts "there is no god" but reserves the right to change my mind should sufficient evidence be presented...I'm hereby coining that as a "steel toed flip flop atheist!" (best I could come up with on short notice)
Oh, and another thing: strong atheism and positive atheism is synonymous with gnostic atheism; weak atheism and negative atheism is synonymous with agnostic atheism. Seeing all you people using the terms together like they're not synonymous has made me a little depressed.
@Hez0 They are not synonymous if you're using Flew's definition, which almost nobody does. Otherwise we are using different terms coined by different people for the same thing.
Sorry, but all this unnecessary terminology seems so stupid. Here's the best definition for atheism: the lack of belief in god(s). Why? Because it's the only definition that encompasses both gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists. Gnostic atheists are people who claim knowledge to their belief, and agnostic atheists are everything else. It's as simple as that.
Strong Gnostic Atheist. I believe we can learn everything and that there is no such things as "divine" knowledge. No gods have ever existed. It's all been a power game of some men over others; the ignorant masses. We have always been the gods. Acquiring god's knowledge is acquiring man's knowledge.
I have dropped the term agnostic, since the more I see, the less likely there seems to be a deity that resembles any of those proposed by extant and past religions based on lack of evidence. So I label myself as atheist: I have no knowledge of or proof of and therefore no belief in any mystical beings. Because I have a strong sense of compassion and justice, I've coined the term "rational eupraxist" after Eupraxia, the Greek spirit of good conduct.
you are the embodiment of atheist hypocrisy, and the reason people don't listen to the rest of us. you make unprovable claims and boast of your imagined superiority, just like the religious.
but that's not what you said you're doing. you called yourself "strong atheist" by the terms laid out in this video, making a claim to knowledge, holding an active belief that gods do not exist. that's entirely different from lacking a belief, that's posessing a belief, one you agreed you have no basis for. all that remains is for you to apply the correct word to it: faith.
Nice video. I reject all labels, because I don't define myself against categories that are ill stated, ill defined, non-falsifiable, have shown contrary evidence and so forth.
But I think it is very valuable to carve this definitions out because theists want atheism to be the binary opposite along the metaphysical axis, whereas virtually all unbelievers I know reject superstitions on epistemological grounds.
I'm an Atheist as in the sense I'm a none Theist. I just don't believe in "God or gods." I started off Agnostic then asserted my Atheism - which is damned hard to do when people look at you as though you are a murdering, pillaging and hating heathen - oh well I can live with that. So I suppose my definition of myself is - although I can't prove my beliefs - I just don't believe in gods. Voila!
I am a secular humanist, a skeptic, philosophical naturalist and a pantheist. I don't see god(s) as physical beings, but rather metaphors for describing how I feel about the world around me.
I think just the notion of atheism as not beliving in any god(s) or supernatural dieties fits just fine. It's when you add what I have already mentioned is when you seperate yourself compleatly from religon, and not just a religon without dieites but with supernatural.
Nice video and good of you to show that the burden of proof can shift to the atheist if they claim strong atheism.
On friendlyatheistDOTcom, a commenter left a funny response to the claim "Atheism is a religion": Atheism is not a religion, it's a personal relationship with reality. I lol'ed at that one.
@XXWhambarXX I don't think so, I like Fry's style but Hitchens has been a usually captures my own sentiments. Would appriciate a link to it if you have one to save me the time of searching through tons of vids. :D
@neomp5 I shouldn't feel sorry for the passing of one of my heroes? I don't get it. So what if he smokes? I did too, I stopped because I couldn't afford it anymore. What people put into their bodies is their own damn business and shouldn't be put into account of their character. You're as shallow as the rest of these Californian Yuppies I have to help on a daily basis.
@neomp5 That isn't what I said, the text is still there on the screen. I said you shouldn't judge a person because they drink or smoke. There are plenty of moral and upstanding people that drink, smoke, do illicit drugs. I don't condone their usage but I'm NOT going to judge their ability to be a good person or be sad for their passing because they chose not to adhere to some warning sign. I was sad when S.Erwin died but he died doing what he loved, something few people get to do.
no, i think his support of the iraq invasion says enough about how "moral" he is, never mind the self-harm
but self-harm is a choice, and choices are how you judge people.
and i know you'll be tempted to compare it with risk-taking. it's not risk-taking when the risk is 100%. so comparing it to being a firefighter or a bungee jumper is not a comparison unless the firefighter covers himself in gasoline and the bungee jumper doesn't use a cord.
if you're going to take the insane position of saying that harming oneself is completely different from harming someone else, and say that he had every right to make the choice, then not only should you not feel sorry for him, you should be standing behind his choice, and being happy that he accomplished what he set out to do.
@neomp5 harming oneself is completely different from harming someone else. We own our bodies. You're the one that's insane. If I want to cut myself that's completely different from stabbing someone. Wow you seemed smarter than that. You respect everyone's freewill or apparent freewill (since it can be argued that too doesn't exist). Sure if you don't like it a good friend would bring it up and talk about it but you can't force people to do what you want. That's called being an ass.
@neomp5 no the harm does not disappaer when it's voluntary I'm through with you. You're sick. You want to control people for inflicting harm on themselves of their own volition. Did you ever stop to think it might be soothing, help relieve stress or any number of reasons? You own you're body.
then you ought to be able to point out something functionally different between cutting yourself and cutting someone else. if you can't, it's the same act.
@neomp5 no I shouldn't but I will since you seem to be mentally deficient. Cutting yourself involves striking your own body. Cutting someone else is striking foreign flesh. Do you understand now or are you intentionally doing this because you don't like the idea of other people cutting their own skin regardless of the fact that your body is yours? If you infringe on someone elses freedom you better be ready to face the consequences.
I and I hope you do too aknowledge everybody else's right to life. I don't want to face the consequences for trying to cut someone else and I don't believe in it unless I have to in defense. If you want to go cut someone else try it but you better be ready for their retaliation. What you gain personally out of harming yourself is completely different from harming someone else. There is no sense stress relief, or a feeling of cleansing, in harming someone else.
@neomp5 oh and right and wrong don't exist. Take the cops and Judicial system away and go rob a store. God's not going to come down to try and stop you. You are programmed to restrict certain actions and behaviours at birth. It is drilled into religious children's brains continuously. The problem is that almost all of those actions are not actions that people would naturally condone. If you want to live in a civilized society you don't kill people or steal from the productive members.
all you need to understand right and wrong is newton's third law of motion. a society is an environment, where actions have consequences that cause chain reactions that permeate the environment. if you cause harm to part of that system, you harm the entire system.
@neomp5 Ah yes so you admit right and wrong comes from society. That's good. yes when you break it all down the restrictions come from wanting the best for ourselves and our children. If people would just think they would realize that we don't follow the law because of god we do it so we and our children can survive in the easiest manner possible. People always aggregate toward the easiest solutions.
no, right and wrong do not come from society. they are natural laws that exist within the environment of a society. they are not subjective, relative, cultural, or arbitrary. they do not ebb and flow with cultural prejudices. they are real, practical, and causal.
@neomp5 no they are not. We are going to have to agree to disagree. You cannot look at things from a truly objective standpoint. I am not going to waste anymore time. You look at humans as somehow better than other animals. We are not. We are just another animal making our way. Right and Wrong are contrived from the winners of conflicts and from what we personally like other people doing to us and not. Believing in some magical set of restrictions is no better than believing in god.
not like any other animal. like ants, termites. colony insects. you'll notice they don't murder fellow members of their colony. it would endanger their collective survival. these are the simple, objective, physical facts of a collective society. we have the social structure of colony insects, with the brain of a herd mammal. our social structure demands cooperation, our brain demands competition.
right and wrong are laid out by the structure of the society, the simple physics of the environment. these are objective rules that exist whether we like it or not. as i said, newton's third law.
@neomp5 no You are beneath me. I was nice enough to take the time and try to help someone of your level understand but it's a waste of time. You can't see the world objectively and see us as an animal like we are. You cling to comparisons of other creatures to explain our nature but it's wrong. Everyone goes back to looking out for themselves and their family first. Trying to compare us to a colony is completely flawed. No one cares about anyone else in a city just themselves.
one day you might come to accept that you're just an animal, not superior to anyone or anything. you can't change the rules, right and wrong are physical laws. they don't change just to appease your ego. you and the religious, and all those who embrace their mammalian impulses, will have to understand that the universe does not change just to make you feel special.
@neomp5 We help other people because of an evolutionary misfire from times when doing so could directly affect us in the future. Good and Evil do not exist. It is possible to live your life completely isolated from society. We do not need it. As I said it is easier on the whole physically to take part in so most humans naturally flock to it to meet their needs. Did you get those comparisons off of national geographic?
it still directly effects us in the future, there's no misfire about it.
it is not possible to live isolated from society, we're long since past that. people have died trying. our social structure has changed. we need to change our brains to match, and understand that collective survival and individual survival are the same thing.
@neomp5 you didn't just say that. I can claim a piece of land build a home grow a garden and hunt. I would do just fine. Just like hermits all over the world do. I've made my point. hopefully you have gained something from this discussion. In fact I wish to live like that one day.
what are you going to live in while you build that home? where will you get the tools and methods? where are you going to get the knowledge of how to grow food and hunt? who will care for you when you get injured or sick? what about when you get old? you need a society for that. unless you expect to live like a tiger, relying on your teeth, claws, and speed. if you do, you need a reality check.
@neomp5 These questions have not relevance towards what I said. The point I was making was that I can survive by myself. It is entirely possible to build a gun, which actually has a very simple design, build a home, find a temporary place to stay etc. You don't need a society. You're starting to anger me with your ardent clinging to this flawed mentality that you have to turn to a large group of people in order to do anything and accomplish any task or take care of you. It's not true.
so you're going to build a gun with knowledge gained from SOCIETY, build a home with knowledge and tools taken from SOCIETY, find a place to stay in SOCIETY, and use this to prove you don't need society?
you're forgetting what sagan said about making an apple pie.
@neomp5 When I get old it's my problem. I'm not going to burden others with my issues. My life is my responsibility. It is only recently that we even had the ability to provide decent healthcare. Man doesn't need it. It is a service which you pay for. Just like fast food or anything else. We didn't need it for 10's of thousands of years. We can live just fine without a society. We had to survive before we formed them and farmers have been self sustaining since the beginning of man.
if right and wrong were fictions invented by conquerors, as you so needily insist, why are they posessed by animals you automatically assume are lesser than us? why can any being with a CNS figure them out, within the rules of their social structure?
@neomp5 As I said the goal is survival. You can't seem to distinguish between what is necessary to survive and what is good. I have to eat is eating good? no good and evil have no tangible meaning outside of what we give them. Life is a lot more complex than you are making it. Look at nationalism. Depending on who we are talking about it could be looked at as good or bad. The Nazi's looked at themselves as good but most of the world doesn't. Good and evil are tools constructed for control.
look at what germany was like in the late 40s and you'll see why their actions were objectively wrong, for the very reason you names, that is endangered their survival.
you need to learn that human morality is irrelevant to nature's morality. the desire that you and the religious have to rewrite morality to fit your personal prejudices and justify your behaviors doesn't change the rules laid down in the very fabric of space and time.
@neomp5 Their actions were not wrong you perceive them as wrong. If we nuked ourselves today we would cease to exist but the world and life would go on.
@neomp5 Look at war veterans. Trying to reassimilate into society is impossible for a good chunk of them because they have been shown the fallacy of the good and evil concept. good and evil are just labels. I don't know why you keep going back to science to try and prove labels invented by man. There is only survival when you break it all down. You are either strong and hopefully get selected for and continue on or you are weak and don't.
war veterans often they can't reassimilate because they've been taken out of the society and placed back into the herd mammal environment, except that the herd is the unit. there are still objective rules of right and wrong in that environment. the unit that does not work together does not survive. different environment, different rules, but still rules.
the real problem that modern warfare faces is trying to solve the problems of a colony society populated by competitive herd mammals using herd mammals who've been encouraged to live under heard mammal rules. it's a mess of incompatible mindsets. add to that the inability to distinguish who they're supposed to help from who they're supposed to kill.
@neomp5 Like I said right and wrong technically don't exist. If you kill someone or you steal god isn't going to come down and punish you. We do what we must to survive.. We mustn't forget who and what we are and our relationship to nature in our complacency. We must always be ready to stand up and exert ourselves, exert our freedom. Because with too much complacency comes abuse and Tyranny. We must never forget that everyone is just a human like us.
@neomp5 Wrong, you're making an strawman argument and I'll thank you not to. His choices, like everyones, is their own. There are plenty of people that smoke and drink and don't get cancer. Yes, it is a risk and it is a choice but I'm not going to stop showing emotion for an individual I respect because he wasn't so lucky. The choices you judge a person by aren't something stupid and superficial as drinking or smoking. It just makes you a shallow tool.
is there a relativist hanbook you're reading from?
his choices are his own. you're the one saying they should be respected. so respect his choice to destroy himself and feel no sympathy.
classic, the cancer routine. yes, not every smoker gets cancer. my dad diddn't get cancer, he just had all his teeth ripped out because there were no gums holding them in anymore. nobody becomes a smoker and walks away unharmed, the risk is 100%. luck has nothing to do with it.
what better thing is there to judge someone by than a complete disregard for their own life? someone who does not respect themself does not respect others. self hatred leads to other kinds of hatred. and that's quite aside from the refusal to acknowledge scientific evidence and make smart choices.
@neomp5 A what handbook? I'm not saying YOU should respect him. I'm saying that I MYSELF respect him and will mourn his passing if he does. I chose cancer because it's the most prevalent risk involved but I'm not stupid enough think it's the only one. You apparently just think that I am. And whom I feel sympathy for and for what reason are my own. Whom I respect and for what reason I chose/don't chose are my own.
so stop being hypocritical. if you think it's so important to respect his choice, support him in his decision to destroy himself. why feel sympathy for something he deliberately did?
@neomp5 I'm not being a hypocrite. Again, you're ignoring the fact that people can live to a long goddamn age having smoked a cart a week. I'd still feel the way if he was ill with something else, regardless if he was at fault or not. We're loosing another voice against organized religion and even if it is at his own hand, I still feel something for losing one of my heroes.
hero-worship is bad for you. being occasionally right doesn't justify warmongering and self-harm.
oh yes, some live to a very old age. some live into their 90s on a fucking respirator. some just feel like they're in their 90s when they're actually in their 30s. others look like they're in their 90s when they're only in their 40s.
no smoker is completely healthy. smoking causes illness in all cases. it makes me green and disoriented just walking by the stuff
@neomp5 I didn't say that I worshipped him or that every smoker was completely healthy. You're doing it again, putting words in my mouth! And I don't agree with every goddamn thing that comes out of his mouth, he's not some perfect idol that should be placed on a pedestal. Yet this comment "it makes me green and disoriented just walking by the stuff" more then explains why you keep arguing this. Someone considers another person a good person regardless of his habits. Freakin' shallow, dude.
@neomp5 It was an assumption, not a strawman. It's irrational to judge someone by something to inane and insipid as if they smoke or not. Pull your head out of your ass.
you act like it's something as trivial as how they tie their shoelaces. it's active self-harm, it speaks of self-hatred. it gives you fundamental information about who they are as a person.
@Satanicallyfree No doubt, I could invoke a rant that could make everyone's Godwin Alarms go off but I won't. All I've taken away from that argument was that I now have evidence that all atheist don't get a long, dispite what theist will claim about the "Atheist-Homosexual-NWO Agenda".
@Manoichan Well if that's all you take away from it at least you know we are all individuals like Theists. Our humanity doesn't disappear when you realize that God isn't real. We or at least I am responsible directly for everything I do. I just try to live a productive life and be a contributing member to society. To help my species continue on. To discover the truth and have a real understanding of the everchanging universe we live in.
@neomp5 The risk isn't 100%. That's the dumbest thing I've read all day. And there are a ton of factors. I smoke every now and then. I'm not worried about cancer. You have to look at how frequent they smoke, the quantity, hygiene. I understand you've been through a lot but people are gonna be people. And it also takes decades of heavy smoking almost every time to get those really bad long term effects like cancer.
that's like saying cutters face an increased risk of skin lacerations.
it's not that the act can lead to harm, that the act in excess can be harmful, that the act done irresponsibly can be harmful. the act itself is harm.
I don't agree that the statements: "No gods exist." and "I believe that no gods exist." indicate different beliefs.
If you believe that no gods exist, surely you would say that "No gods exist." is a true statement, otherwise you don't really believe it. I believe lots of things without certain knowledge that they are true. There are very few things that I'm absolutely certain of.
I'm almost certain that there are no gods, but I'll change my mind if given evidence to the contrary.
@askegg This was a great video. I think getting terms, like atheism, clearly defined is of paramount importance. Getting atheism to be understood, in its most basic form, as merely the LACK of belief in God, is pivotal in determining who has the burden of proof. Once atheism is defined in this way, and once it is universally accepted to be just this, then we can avoid the irritating rubbish from apologists about how it is incumbent of atheists to DISPROVE God.
That whole: "you cannot say there is no god because it is impossible to know positively that a god does not exist perhaps in another part of the universe or a different dimension etc" is just a bunch of clergy fabricated bull shit. Many many clergymen their first response to you if you claim to be an atheist is to prove to you that you are not. That you are an agnostic. By that standard I cannot say that a Leprechaun is not sitting on my computer monitor at this very moment.
@askegg I'm with you up to the definition of Agnostic. Agnosticism isn't that you personally do not know something but that you positively believe that total knowledge of a specific thing/ claim is impossible to attain.
If it were to mean what you suggest then it becomes a nonsense word because the only person who would not be agnostic would be someone all-knowing.
I see atheism as a binary choice, and as such impossible to reduce into catagories. Other positions require other names.
I'm a gnostic atheist. We evolved from simpler organisms, and tried to explain our existence by citing a magic fairy in the sky. We now have the technology to explore our actual origin and the world around us, so the magic fairy has outlived its usefulness.
Interesting video, Egg, and thanks for posting it.
I'm a confidential coordinating first chief deputy executive assistant. ;)
No, seriously...I'm an agnostic weak atheist learning quite heavily toward strong. I see no evidence and therefore no reason to believe in a deity, I see that the vast majority of scriptural claims about deities have been debunked, I think the likelihood of a deity's existence is ludicrously low. I cannot in good conscience assert that there is no god FOR CERTAIN, but for all intents and purposes, I'm a strong atheist.
@askegg BionicDance is fond of asserting other things without evidence, though, and banning people who challenge her assumptions--for example, that all animals are self-aware. Possible, but far from a scientific consensus.
@Yfelsung the earliest NT ms. is a fragment of Jon, from ca. 125, no that long after its composition. There are attestations for almost the whole text from around 200.
I used to define atheism as "Lack of belief in a god or gods" but I have since revised this to "belief that there are no gods." The reason for this is that it was explained to me quite convincingly by another atheist that you cannot define a thing logically by what it is not, therefore atheism cannot be about what you don't believe.
This definition does not shift the burden of proof to me however, since it is still a position of belief and not knowledge.
@cyxgun "since it is still a position of belief and not knowledge." same could be said about christianity.
The reason that Atheism is a valid term comes from the fact that many do belive in god. In a world where noone belived in god the term atheist would be pointless.
there are people we call "geocentrists".. these are people that belive that the earth is the center of the universe. 2000 years ago noone would be called that, since the majority of people belived it.
@FurieMan Exactly my point! Even though atheism is a belief about the world, it is still the default position, and does not require the support of proof simply because it is a negative claim. Christianity, which makes positive claims about the world, (regardless of it being based on claims to belief, or claims to knowledge) must show evidence because their claims are positive ones.
to answer you question, i guess i do fit the definition of a weak atheist, but i do go as far as to say that the, by the big monotheistic religions, asserted desert god el, does not exist.
it is much too obvious from the historical background of the beginning of judaism that the torah was in no way written as portrayed and that the bigger portion of it is "influenced" by many other stories and myths from the assyro-babylonian religion.
so i am a strong atheist against these based on their books.
they way i like to look at atheism is like looking at a tree-structure. if theism is the root of the religions we have all kinds of branches, siblings, subgroups and so on and so forth. atheism itself is on the same level as theism.
for the same reason theism cannot be a religion, atheism cannot be either.
now you can also build a tree structure from the subdenominations of atheism, like scientism or humanism, but these are philosphies.
@heterodoxism That's the point. Since we cannot disprove the non-existence of any proposed entity, then we should steer clear of claiming things do not exist (unless they are logically impossible).
I like this quote to help me with any theists who cannot understand how I could belong to such a bunch of heathens;
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen Roberts
i find it important to make a distinction between an "opinion" and a "belief" when discussing these things. an opinion being a conclusion reached through reasoning and examination of evidence. a belief being an article of faith, a desired outcome settled on without consideration, and indifferent to evidence
basically, an opinion is an idea that the mind posesses, and a belief is an idea that posesses the mind.
@neomp5 Gotta love semantics. For a connotation, your distinction is fine. As for being descriptive of reality, though, while you can distinguish between many aspects of the mind, I've never seen any evidence that opinions are different than beliefs. They are the same, as far as the mechanisms in the brain that create them.
no, beliefs are formed based on desires and fears, opinions are formed based on observations and estimations. opinions change with changing situations, beliefs only change when the believer suffers a devastating, painful, shattering dissilusionment. then, like a narcotic, they almost always imefiately replace it with another. it's a dependancy.
@neomp5 no, yes. Sounds to me like your opinion about the distinction between belief and opinion is more akin to a belief. Show me some evidence that the brain treats what you refer to as opinions differently than what you refer to as beliefs, and we'll discuss it further. I'm no expert on the brain, neurology, or neurobiology, but from what I understand about the brain you are making a distinction that the mechanisms of the brain do not. There are no neat categories of ideas there.
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 2 months ago
atheist people should just say your evil
Just pray for them they don't know
svt283 2 months ago
No proof ,No reason.
Lunarmoon67 5 months ago
Screw you. Cthulhu is real dammit.
TheBiAtheist 5 months ago
So he is a Jew?
TheMrgoku1985 5 months ago
Anytime I'm talking with a theist Who says "Atheism means...derp-a-derp derp", I just say: This is what atheism is to me.
Theist: There is a god.
Atheist: I don't believe you.
It's that simple. I just don't believe you. Do you have any reasons why I should?
Zentz29 6 months ago
@Zentz29 And they'll never get it.
TheBiAtheist 5 months ago
I'm a human. Why isn't that enough?
AweAttack 9 months ago 4
Im a Agnostic Atheist... I guess that's weak huh... :)
I don't think I can prove there is no god, or there is god... as a matter of fact, I think the concept/definition of "god" is way too vague... no point of proving something I don't really know what the heck it is...
dvfer444 9 months ago
@dvfer444 "Im a Agnostic Atheist... I guess that's weak huh... :)"
Not weak. It' the strongest position to defend by far.
askegg 9 months ago
@askegg what's to defend? i dont understand "debates' on these topics of philosophy. It's like debating what kind of music is the best. You can't debate it because it depends on the person. So what is a "strong" argument when you're talking about something as pointless as religion? I think you are mixing position with opinion. After all, if it's not a fact, its an opinion.
AweAttack 9 months ago
Comment removed
TheBiAtheist 5 months ago
I am a non-believer in ANY religion or GOD/S. I have seen more evidence to show that there is NO GOD than I have seen that there is! Label it however you want. Until I see extreme proof that is verifiable I will NOT believe in any GOD or religion! Any claim made by a human is ignored out right by me and treated simply as non-sense and even out right lies! I don't need a label or a title to think this way and I don't need my belief or disbelief agreed with. I just do not and will not believe!
twiztidsidfreak13 9 months ago
I'm fabulous! :p
mazle100 1 year ago
Also, atheists do have morality. Do your research before you make retarded remarks
DustinTheGoth 1 year ago
@DustinTheGoth Is this aimed at me? A moral atheist? Did you listen to the video, or just comment without bothering to watch?
askegg 1 year ago
@askegg let me tell you why you are atheist...your life is so fucked up that you think that god has forggot about you...hope it stayis that way
stfub100 9 months ago
Atheist: noun- a man or woman with no invisible means of support from an imaginary being.
DustinTheGoth 1 year ago
i cant understand most stuff your saying so basiclly if im athiest i dont belive in any god
TheHuntersRevenge 1 year ago
@TheHuntersRevenge
What he saying is an atheist is someone that has seen no clear evidence in a god, so yeah if you watched it all he stated that at the end.
SpyVsSpyFan95 1 year ago
Since immemorial times, people described transcendent experiences of the numinous, of connection, of love and mystery of the universe in poetic and personal terms of mythology and parables.
these experiences were put in boxes - doctrines of men who insist on literal interpretation of these artistic expressions.
Atheism (for lack of a better term) objects against boxes that men construct around God (for lack of a better term).
It objects against vain invocation of defined Gods.
vdizhoor 1 year ago
1:20 is that picture from one of those city building game? LOL
mindsoulbody 1 year ago
@0:27 "The word atheist has specific meaning to the person using it"
From Through The Looking Glass,
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
ozredneck22 1 year ago
Cthulhu lives in my heart. I have a personal relationship with his tentacly self. And if you're thinking naughty things about *that* then you're obviously a godless squid hater! /sarcasm
Nocturnalux 1 year ago
Oh, and I use the term "gnostic atheist" for those rare few who do claim to know there are no gods.
Antifides 1 year ago
I define "strong/positive atheist" as one who BELIEVES gods do not exist; not one who makes claims that they don't exist. Claims need to be supported by evidence, but beliefs don't.
I identify as a strong or positive atheist under that definition.
It seems as though this is the same conversation you had with Zarlan, but I've only skimmed a portion of that.
Antifides 1 year ago
To equate strong atheism with the position of ABSOLUTE knowledge that god(s) don't exist, is to render the term, largely useless.
I can see the point of separating atheism into:
* those who do not believe in gods (weak)
* those who believe that god(s) don't exist (strong).
...but to separate it into:
* Those who claim ABSOLUTE certainty.
* Everyone else.
WTF?
Also, it seems you are making a argument from convenience: It's convenient to be weak, so be weak,
No thanks. I believe what I believe.
ZarlanTheGreen 1 year ago
@ZarlanTheGreen I would not say it's an argument from convenience. Strictly we cannot be absolutely certain about anything beyond our own existence. This is one of base reasons we need to examine claims of existence based on the merit of evidence in favour.
askegg 1 year ago
@askegg "Strictly we cannot be absolutely certain about anything beyond our own existence."
I thought I could expect more from you, than red herrings.
I never said anything about absolute certainty. You're the one obsessing about it, like some theist or the type of agnostic that Matt despises.
It IS an argument from convenience. At least in the way you present it.
I believe that there are no god(s). I will/can not back down to "I am not convinced there are no god(s)", for convenience.
ZarlanTheGreen 1 year ago
@ZarlanTheGreen It's not a red herring - it extreme scepticism. In our usual lives we do not bother with such distinctions.
"I believe that there are no god(s)."
I agree.
"I am not convinced there are no god(s)"
This is slightly different to claiming "there ARE no gods", and that's the important distinction in my mind.
askegg 1 year ago
@askegg Now you're just changing the subject, which further strengthens my claim that you're using a red herring.
I repeat:
To equate strong atheism with the position of ABSOLUTE knowledge that god(s) don't exist, is to render the term, largely useless.
I can see the point of separating atheism into:
* those who do not believe in gods (weak)
* those who say that god(s) don't exist (strong).
...but to separate it into:
* Those who claim ABSOLUTE certainty.
* Everyone else.
...is useless.
ZarlanTheGreen 1 year ago
@askegg "This is slightly different to claiming "there ARE no gods""
No it isn't.
I say "there are no gods".
I do not claim this as absolute knowledge, just as I don't claim, pretty much anything, as absolute knowledge, where I say "there are/is no X", "there is/are X", "X is true" or "X is false".
ZarlanTheGreen 1 year ago
I do like the point you make about claiming knowledge puts the burden in your court.
findo 1 year ago
there is not enough evidence of god for me to believe, faith is not proof it is delusion.. i'd like to be prooved wrong anyone is willing to try, the bible is not proof as it requries god to be real for it to be right.
Uselesschris 1 year ago
I happen to belong to the STRONG Atheistic Society. I assert that there IS NO 'God'. ;-)
OneLogicalAtheist 1 year ago
This may be just a dream. You might not exist , only think that you do. This dream , may be a way of testing you. To see what you will do. For , a Gods entertainment. as if you were a doll or puppet, for amusement.
Now what do you think ? And it you are a BAd toy, you could be throw away. Never to exist again. Think about that concept,... and enjoy existing for the moment.
merlinspower 1 year ago
which came first ? thechicken or the EGG,..? and Why ? For someone who does not believe in a GOD, you sure put a lot of energy into making a video ... talking about the subject. ! Why does it matter to you ? There were those who once thought the world was flat. or that electricity didn't exist because they had never seen it ,or don't believe in Gravity because it couldn't be explained. Do you believe in Hades, or evil, or the devil?
merlinspower 1 year ago
@merlinspower watch?v=xnbXlkNavwo
askegg 1 year ago
5:15 - That should be a poster.
Diasanti 1 year ago
Theology is just a Theory.
incoherentpoet 1 year ago
@incoherentpoet
So is everything in science :)
darkdestiny0002 1 year ago
@darkdestiny0002 Correction: Theology is just a hypothesis.
incoherentpoet 1 year ago
excellently put....
I'm a practical atheist that strongly asserts "there is no god" but reserves the right to change my mind should sufficient evidence be presented...I'm hereby coining that as a "steel toed flip flop atheist!" (best I could come up with on short notice)
KingHeathen 1 year ago
@KingHeathen I am stealing that term.
askegg 1 year ago
I'm an explicit, positive, weak agnostic, practical and theoretical atheist, too.
I think I'll call myself an agdeist.
8WholeThing 1 year ago
Oh, and another thing: strong atheism and positive atheism is synonymous with gnostic atheism; weak atheism and negative atheism is synonymous with agnostic atheism. Seeing all you people using the terms together like they're not synonymous has made me a little depressed.
Hez0 1 year ago
@Hez0 They are not synonymous if you're using Flew's definition, which almost nobody does. Otherwise we are using different terms coined by different people for the same thing.
askegg 1 year ago
Sorry, but all this unnecessary terminology seems so stupid. Here's the best definition for atheism: the lack of belief in god(s). Why? Because it's the only definition that encompasses both gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists. Gnostic atheists are people who claim knowledge to their belief, and agnostic atheists are everything else. It's as simple as that.
Hez0 1 year ago
I am an agnostic weak positive atheist. i am not sure about practical or theoretical. But i do believe i am theoretical
atheistfromnorway 1 year ago
Strong Gnostic Atheist. I believe we can learn everything and that there is no such things as "divine" knowledge. No gods have ever existed. It's all been a power game of some men over others; the ignorant masses. We have always been the gods. Acquiring god's knowledge is acquiring man's knowledge.
Satanicallyfree 1 year ago
Very nice analysis and retrospective on the term "atheist."
laraesque 1 year ago
I have dropped the term agnostic, since the more I see, the less likely there seems to be a deity that resembles any of those proposed by extant and past religions based on lack of evidence. So I label myself as atheist: I have no knowledge of or proof of and therefore no belief in any mystical beings. Because I have a strong sense of compassion and justice, I've coined the term "rational eupraxist" after Eupraxia, the Greek spirit of good conduct.
laraesque 1 year ago
strong. Large period at the end.
mtsac1 1 year ago
@heterodoxism
you are the embodiment of atheist hypocrisy, and the reason people don't listen to the rest of us. you make unprovable claims and boast of your imagined superiority, just like the religious.
neomp5 1 year ago
@heterodoxism
but that's not what you said you're doing. you called yourself "strong atheist" by the terms laid out in this video, making a claim to knowledge, holding an active belief that gods do not exist. that's entirely different from lacking a belief, that's posessing a belief, one you agreed you have no basis for. all that remains is for you to apply the correct word to it: faith.
neomp5 1 year ago
I'm an infidel
TheLionOfMars 1 year ago
@heterodoxism
i'm going by your words. you agreed that a negative cannot be proved, yet that you believe a negative. that is faith.
neomp5 1 year ago
@heterodoxism
see above for my OPINION of dictionaries
you've missed the point.
you said you hold a view that you have no evidence for.
it should be evidence that leads you to a view in the first place. otherwise it is simply an article of faith.
neomp5 1 year ago
Nice video. I reject all labels, because I don't define myself against categories that are ill stated, ill defined, non-falsifiable, have shown contrary evidence and so forth.
But I think it is very valuable to carve this definitions out because theists want atheism to be the binary opposite along the metaphysical axis, whereas virtually all unbelievers I know reject superstitions on epistemological grounds.
Hence we don't talk the same language.
socrates856 1 year ago
I'm an Atheist as in the sense I'm a none Theist. I just don't believe in "God or gods." I started off Agnostic then asserted my Atheism - which is damned hard to do when people look at you as though you are a murdering, pillaging and hating heathen - oh well I can live with that. So I suppose my definition of myself is - although I can't prove my beliefs - I just don't believe in gods. Voila!
flyingfisbeefilms 1 year ago
I am a secular humanist, a skeptic, philosophical naturalist and a pantheist. I don't see god(s) as physical beings, but rather metaphors for describing how I feel about the world around me.
I think just the notion of atheism as not beliving in any god(s) or supernatural dieties fits just fine. It's when you add what I have already mentioned is when you seperate yourself compleatly from religon, and not just a religon without dieites but with supernatural.
Nightmare060 1 year ago
@heterodoxism
why would you hold an opinion you could not prove?
neomp5 1 year ago
Nice video and good of you to show that the burden of proof can shift to the atheist if they claim strong atheism.
On friendlyatheistDOTcom, a commenter left a funny response to the claim "Atheism is a religion": Atheism is not a religion, it's a personal relationship with reality. I lol'ed at that one.
wimsweden 1 year ago
@wimsweden
Oh wow i got a good laugh there. I am going to start using that phrase now. That is GREAT! :)
lordtalon69 1 year ago
Another great video, askegg!
.
I'm quite pleased you mentioned the bit about this being about beliefs and not knowledge. Awesome job!
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
Nice little video, didn't realize that there was so much to speak on atheism.
adambungle 1 year ago
@adambungle Much ado about nothing?
askegg 1 year ago
@askegg That's very clever!
laraesque 1 year ago
great video!
smashbeans 1 year ago
Eggcellent video :P
Seriously, one of the better "open a fucking dictionary" videos I've seen in a while. Great job explaining the definitions.
arcooke 1 year ago
i am norton.
:)
666norton420 1 year ago
If Christopher Hitchens passes away I think I might actually weep for the passing of someone I don't personally know. D:
Manoichan 1 year ago
@Manoichan Im guessing you have seen the Intelligence Squared Debate with Hitchens and Fry.
I have never seen a team that worked together so well!
Frys passionate and heartfealt talk was the perfect counterpoint to Hitchens style. I could spend hours listening to them both.
If there was a world debate league they would be the tag team champs hehe
XXWhambarXX 1 year ago
@XXWhambarXX I don't think so, I like Fry's style but Hitchens has been a usually captures my own sentiments. Would appriciate a link to it if you have one to save me the time of searching through tons of vids. :D
Manoichan 1 year ago
@Manoichan
you should never feel sorry for a smoker who gets sick
neomp5 1 year ago
@neomp5 I shouldn't feel sorry for the passing of one of my heroes? I don't get it. So what if he smokes? I did too, I stopped because I couldn't afford it anymore. What people put into their bodies is their own damn business and shouldn't be put into account of their character. You're as shallow as the rest of these Californian Yuppies I have to help on a daily basis.
Manoichan 1 year ago
@Manoichan
this is what you just said:
"you should not judge a person's character by their choices"
that is in fact the exact thing you judge character by.
let me put it this way
if a man sawed his arm off out of boredom, would you then feel sorry for him for having no arm?
even if you folow the insane notion that a person has the right to harm themself, they made their own choice. you can't treat them like victims.
neomp5 1 year ago
@neomp5 That isn't what I said, the text is still there on the screen. I said you shouldn't judge a person because they drink or smoke. There are plenty of moral and upstanding people that drink, smoke, do illicit drugs. I don't condone their usage but I'm NOT going to judge their ability to be a good person or be sad for their passing because they chose not to adhere to some warning sign. I was sad when S.Erwin died but he died doing what he loved, something few people get to do.
Manoichan 1 year ago
@Manoichan
no, i think his support of the iraq invasion says enough about how "moral" he is, never mind the self-harm
but self-harm is a choice, and choices are how you judge people.
and i know you'll be tempted to compare it with risk-taking. it's not risk-taking when the risk is 100%. so comparing it to being a firefighter or a bungee jumper is not a comparison unless the firefighter covers himself in gasoline and the bungee jumper doesn't use a cord.
neomp5 1 year ago
if you're going to take the insane position of saying that harming oneself is completely different from harming someone else, and say that he had every right to make the choice, then not only should you not feel sorry for him, you should be standing behind his choice, and being happy that he accomplished what he set out to do.
neomp5 1 year ago
@neomp5 harming oneself is completely different from harming someone else. We own our bodies. You're the one that's insane. If I want to cut myself that's completely different from stabbing someone. Wow you seemed smarter than that. You respect everyone's freewill or apparent freewill (since it can be argued that too doesn't exist). Sure if you don't like it a good friend would bring it up and talk about it but you can't force people to do what you want. That's called being an ass.
Satanicallyfree 1 year ago
@Satanicallyfree
so suddenly the harm dissapears when it's voluntary?
why would you make free will more important than right and wrong?
neomp5 1 year ago
@neomp5 no the harm does not disappaer when it's voluntary I'm through with you. You're sick. You want to control people for inflicting harm on themselves of their own volition. Did you ever stop to think it might be soothing, help relieve stress or any number of reasons? You own you're body.
Satanicallyfree 1 year ago
@neomp5 There is nothing wrong with cutting yourself. You really are a hopeless case.
Satanicallyfree 1 year ago
@Satanicallyfree
then you ought to be able to point out something functionally different between cutting yourself and cutting someone else. if you can't, it's the same act.
neomp5 1 year ago
@neomp5 no I shouldn't but I will since you seem to be mentally deficient. Cutting yourself involves striking your own body. Cutting someone else is striking foreign flesh. Do you understand now or are you intentionally doing this because you don't like the idea of other people cutting their own skin regardless of the fact that your body is yours? If you infringe on someone elses freedom you better be ready to face the consequences.
Satanicallyfree 1 year ago
I and I hope you do too aknowledge everybody else's right to life. I don't want to face the consequences for trying to cut someone else and I don't believe in it unless I have to in defense. If you want to go cut someone else try it but you better be ready for their retaliation. What you gain personally out of harming yourself is completely different from harming someone else. There is no sense stress relief, or a feeling of cleansing, in harming someone else.
Satanicallyfree 1 year ago
@neomp5 oh and right and wrong don't exist. Take the cops and Judicial system away and go rob a store. God's not going to come down to try and stop you. You are programmed to restrict certain actions and behaviours at birth. It is drilled into religious children's brains continuously. The problem is that almost all of those actions are not actions that people would naturally condone. If you want to live in a civilized society you don't kill people or steal from the productive members.
Satanicallyfree 1 year ago
@Satanicallyfree
all you need to understand right and wrong is newton's third law of motion. a society is an environment, where actions have consequences that cause chain reactions that permeate the environment. if you cause harm to part of that system, you harm the entire system.
neomp5 1 year ago
@neomp5 Ah yes so you admit right and wrong comes from society. That's good. yes when you break it all down the restrictions come from wanting the best for ourselves and our children. If people would just think they would realize that we don't follow the law because of god we do it so we and our children can survive in the easiest manner possible. People always aggregate toward the easiest solutions.
Satanicallyfree 1 year ago
@Satanicallyfree
no, right and wrong do not come from society. they are natural laws that exist within the environment of a society. they are not subjective, relative, cultural, or arbitrary. they do not ebb and flow with cultural prejudices. they are real, practical, and causal.
neomp5 1 year ago
@neomp5 no they are not. We are going to have to agree to disagree. You cannot look at things from a truly objective standpoint. I am not going to waste anymore time. You look at humans as somehow better than other animals. We are not. We are just another animal making our way. Right and Wrong are contrived from the winners of conflicts and from what we personally like other people doing to us and not. Believing in some magical set of restrictions is no better than believing in god.
Satanicallyfree 1 year ago
@Satanicallyfree
not like any other animal. like ants, termites. colony insects. you'll notice they don't murder fellow members of their colony. it would endanger their collective survival. these are the simple, objective, physical facts of a collective society. we have the social structure of colony insects, with the brain of a herd mammal. our social structure demands cooperation, our brain demands competition.
neomp5 1 year ago
right and wrong are laid out by the structure of the society, the simple physics of the environment. these are objective rules that exist whether we like it or not. as i said, newton's third law.
neomp5 1 year ago
@neomp5 And none of that has anything to do with good and evil. Goodbye. Enjoy your delusions.
Satanicallyfree 1 year ago
@Satanicallyfree
that's a concession.
neomp5 1 year ago
@neomp5 no You are beneath me. I was nice enough to take the time and try to help someone of your level understand but it's a waste of time. You can't see the world objectively and see us as an animal like we are. You cling to comparisons of other creatures to explain our nature but it's wrong. Everyone goes back to looking out for themselves and their family first. Trying to compare us to a colony is completely flawed. No one cares about anyone else in a city just themselves.
Satanicallyfree 1 year ago
@Satanicallyfree
one day you might come to accept that you're just an animal, not superior to anyone or anything. you can't change the rules, right and wrong are physical laws. they don't change just to appease your ego. you and the religious, and all those who embrace their mammalian impulses, will have to understand that the universe does not change just to make you feel special.
neomp5 1 year ago
@neomp5 We help other people because of an evolutionary misfire from times when doing so could directly affect us in the future. Good and Evil do not exist. It is possible to live your life completely isolated from society. We do not need it. As I said it is easier on the whole physically to take part in so most humans naturally flock to it to meet their needs. Did you get those comparisons off of national geographic?
Satanicallyfree 1 year ago
@Satanicallyfree
it still directly effects us in the future, there's no misfire about it.
it is not possible to live isolated from society, we're long since past that. people have died trying. our social structure has changed. we need to change our brains to match, and understand that collective survival and individual survival are the same thing.
neomp5 1 year ago
@neomp5 you didn't just say that. I can claim a piece of land build a home grow a garden and hunt. I would do just fine. Just like hermits all over the world do. I've made my point. hopefully you have gained something from this discussion. In fact I wish to live like that one day.
Satanicallyfree 1 year ago
@Satanicallyfree
they die. even a wild ape will die if forced to live alone. it is not possible.
neomp5 1 year ago
@Satanicallyfree
what are you going to live in while you build that home? where will you get the tools and methods? where are you going to get the knowledge of how to grow food and hunt? who will care for you when you get injured or sick? what about when you get old? you need a society for that. unless you expect to live like a tiger, relying on your teeth, claws, and speed. if you do, you need a reality check.
neomp5 1 year ago
@neomp5 These questions have not relevance towards what I said. The point I was making was that I can survive by myself. It is entirely possible to build a gun, which actually has a very simple design, build a home, find a temporary place to stay etc. You don't need a society. You're starting to anger me with your ardent clinging to this flawed mentality that you have to turn to a large group of people in order to do anything and accomplish any task or take care of you. It's not true.
Satanicallyfree 1 year ago
@Satanicallyfree
so you're going to build a gun with knowledge gained from SOCIETY, build a home with knowledge and tools taken from SOCIETY, find a place to stay in SOCIETY, and use this to prove you don't need society?
you're forgetting what sagan said about making an apple pie.
neomp5 1 year ago
@neomp5 When I get old it's my problem. I'm not going to burden others with my issues. My life is my responsibility. It is only recently that we even had the ability to provide decent healthcare. Man doesn't need it. It is a service which you pay for. Just like fast food or anything else. We didn't need it for 10's of thousands of years. We can live just fine without a society. We had to survive before we formed them and farmers have been self sustaining since the beginning of man.
Satanicallyfree 1 year ago
@Satanicallyfree
we've lived in groups since we were rodents. we would not have survived otherwise. your belief requires a denial of evolution.
neomp5 1 year ago
@Satanicallyfree
if right and wrong were fictions invented by conquerors, as you so needily insist, why are they posessed by animals you automatically assume are lesser than us? why can any being with a CNS figure them out, within the rules of their social structure?
neomp5 1 year ago
@neomp5 As I said the goal is survival. You can't seem to distinguish between what is necessary to survive and what is good. I have to eat is eating good? no good and evil have no tangible meaning outside of what we give them. Life is a lot more complex than you are making it. Look at nationalism. Depending on who we are talking about it could be looked at as good or bad. The Nazi's looked at themselves as good but most of the world doesn't. Good and evil are tools constructed for control.
Satanicallyfree 1 year ago
@Satanicallyfree
look at what germany was like in the late 40s and you'll see why their actions were objectively wrong, for the very reason you names, that is endangered their survival.
you need to learn that human morality is irrelevant to nature's morality. the desire that you and the religious have to rewrite morality to fit your personal prejudices and justify your behaviors doesn't change the rules laid down in the very fabric of space and time.
neomp5 1 year ago
@neomp5 Their actions were not wrong you perceive them as wrong. If we nuked ourselves today we would cease to exist but the world and life would go on.
Satanicallyfree 1 year ago
@Satanicallyfree
THAT's what defines right and wrong.
at this point you're just repeating everything i say. it's only the WORDS you object to.
neomp5 1 year ago
@neomp5 Look at war veterans. Trying to reassimilate into society is impossible for a good chunk of them because they have been shown the fallacy of the good and evil concept. good and evil are just labels. I don't know why you keep going back to science to try and prove labels invented by man. There is only survival when you break it all down. You are either strong and hopefully get selected for and continue on or you are weak and don't.
Satanicallyfree 1 year ago
@Satanicallyfree
war veterans often they can't reassimilate because they've been taken out of the society and placed back into the herd mammal environment, except that the herd is the unit. there are still objective rules of right and wrong in that environment. the unit that does not work together does not survive. different environment, different rules, but still rules.
neomp5 1 year ago
the real problem that modern warfare faces is trying to solve the problems of a colony society populated by competitive herd mammals using herd mammals who've been encouraged to live under heard mammal rules. it's a mess of incompatible mindsets. add to that the inability to distinguish who they're supposed to help from who they're supposed to kill.
neomp5 1 year ago
@neomp5 Like I said right and wrong technically don't exist. If you kill someone or you steal god isn't going to come down and punish you. We do what we must to survive.. We mustn't forget who and what we are and our relationship to nature in our complacency. We must always be ready to stand up and exert ourselves, exert our freedom. Because with too much complacency comes abuse and Tyranny. We must never forget that everyone is just a human like us.
Satanicallyfree 1 year ago
Comment removed
Satanicallyfree 1 year ago
@neomp5 Wrong, you're making an strawman argument and I'll thank you not to. His choices, like everyones, is their own. There are plenty of people that smoke and drink and don't get cancer. Yes, it is a risk and it is a choice but I'm not going to stop showing emotion for an individual I respect because he wasn't so lucky. The choices you judge a person by aren't something stupid and superficial as drinking or smoking. It just makes you a shallow tool.
Manoichan 1 year ago
@Manoichan
is there a relativist hanbook you're reading from?
his choices are his own. you're the one saying they should be respected. so respect his choice to destroy himself and feel no sympathy.
classic, the cancer routine. yes, not every smoker gets cancer. my dad diddn't get cancer, he just had all his teeth ripped out because there were no gums holding them in anymore. nobody becomes a smoker and walks away unharmed, the risk is 100%. luck has nothing to do with it.
neomp5 1 year ago
what better thing is there to judge someone by than a complete disregard for their own life? someone who does not respect themself does not respect others. self hatred leads to other kinds of hatred. and that's quite aside from the refusal to acknowledge scientific evidence and make smart choices.
neomp5 1 year ago
@neomp5 Another goddamn fallacy! What the hell!? Slippery Slope!?! Jesus-Muhammand-Porking-Christ!
Manoichan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Manoichan
that's not a slippery slope, please don't use words you don't know.
neomp5 1 year ago
@neomp5 Yeah, it really is.
Manoichan 1 year ago
@neomp5 A what handbook? I'm not saying YOU should respect him. I'm saying that I MYSELF respect him and will mourn his passing if he does. I chose cancer because it's the most prevalent risk involved but I'm not stupid enough think it's the only one. You apparently just think that I am. And whom I feel sympathy for and for what reason are my own. Whom I respect and for what reason I chose/don't chose are my own.
Manoichan 1 year ago
@Manoichan
so stop being hypocritical. if you think it's so important to respect his choice, support him in his decision to destroy himself. why feel sympathy for something he deliberately did?
neomp5 1 year ago
@neomp5 I'm not being a hypocrite. Again, you're ignoring the fact that people can live to a long goddamn age having smoked a cart a week. I'd still feel the way if he was ill with something else, regardless if he was at fault or not. We're loosing another voice against organized religion and even if it is at his own hand, I still feel something for losing one of my heroes.
Manoichan 1 year ago
@Manoichan
hero-worship is bad for you. being occasionally right doesn't justify warmongering and self-harm.
oh yes, some live to a very old age. some live into their 90s on a fucking respirator. some just feel like they're in their 90s when they're actually in their 30s. others look like they're in their 90s when they're only in their 40s.
no smoker is completely healthy. smoking causes illness in all cases. it makes me green and disoriented just walking by the stuff
neomp5 1 year ago
@neomp5 I didn't say that I worshipped him or that every smoker was completely healthy. You're doing it again, putting words in my mouth! And I don't agree with every goddamn thing that comes out of his mouth, he's not some perfect idol that should be placed on a pedestal. Yet this comment "it makes me green and disoriented just walking by the stuff" more then explains why you keep arguing this. Someone considers another person a good person regardless of his habits. Freakin' shallow, dude.
Manoichan 1 year ago
@Manoichan
don't you dare try to strawman me.
once again, you've said that you shouldn't judge by choices.
neomp5 1 year ago
@neomp5 It was an assumption, not a strawman. It's irrational to judge someone by something to inane and insipid as if they smoke or not. Pull your head out of your ass.
Manoichan 1 year ago
@Manoichan
you act like it's something as trivial as how they tie their shoelaces. it's active self-harm, it speaks of self-hatred. it gives you fundamental information about who they are as a person.
neomp5 1 year ago
@Manoichan That guys crazy everybody has to be like him in his book.
Satanicallyfree 1 year ago
@Satanicallyfree No doubt, I could invoke a rant that could make everyone's Godwin Alarms go off but I won't. All I've taken away from that argument was that I now have evidence that all atheist don't get a long, dispite what theist will claim about the "Atheist-Homosexual-NWO Agenda".
Manoichan 1 year ago
@Manoichan Well if that's all you take away from it at least you know we are all individuals like Theists. Our humanity doesn't disappear when you realize that God isn't real. We or at least I am responsible directly for everything I do. I just try to live a productive life and be a contributing member to society. To help my species continue on. To discover the truth and have a real understanding of the everchanging universe we live in.
Satanicallyfree 1 year ago
@neomp5 The risk isn't 100%. That's the dumbest thing I've read all day. And there are a ton of factors. I smoke every now and then. I'm not worried about cancer. You have to look at how frequent they smoke, the quantity, hygiene. I understand you've been through a lot but people are gonna be people. And it also takes decades of heavy smoking almost every time to get those really bad long term effects like cancer.
Satanicallyfree 1 year ago
@Satanicallyfree
that's like saying cutters face an increased risk of skin lacerations.
it's not that the act can lead to harm, that the act in excess can be harmful, that the act done irresponsibly can be harmful. the act itself is harm.
neomp5 1 year ago
I'm an explicit, positive, strong, agnostic, practical and theoretical atheist.
ZarlanTheGreen 1 year ago
I don't agree that the statements: "No gods exist." and "I believe that no gods exist." indicate different beliefs.
If you believe that no gods exist, surely you would say that "No gods exist." is a true statement, otherwise you don't really believe it. I believe lots of things without certain knowledge that they are true. There are very few things that I'm absolutely certain of.
I'm almost certain that there are no gods, but I'll change my mind if given evidence to the contrary.
AThagoras 1 year ago 3
I see from some of the comments you have recieved that some people are still having trouble understanding... Or do not want to.
I thought you explained it pretty well, but this is how I describe it in a ultra simple way.
Atheism is nothing more than a reply to a yes/no question. That question is:
'Do you believe in any god or gods?'
Atheism is nothing more than the answer
'I do not.'
I think this is a very accurate and solid description and gives no room for manipulation.
XXWhambarXX 1 year ago 2
@XXWhambarXX That would make a short video :)
askegg 1 year ago
@askegg This was a great video. I think getting terms, like atheism, clearly defined is of paramount importance. Getting atheism to be understood, in its most basic form, as merely the LACK of belief in God, is pivotal in determining who has the burden of proof. Once atheism is defined in this way, and once it is universally accepted to be just this, then we can avoid the irritating rubbish from apologists about how it is incumbent of atheists to DISPROVE God.
alphacause 1 year ago
That whole: "you cannot say there is no god because it is impossible to know positively that a god does not exist perhaps in another part of the universe or a different dimension etc" is just a bunch of clergy fabricated bull shit. Many many clergymen their first response to you if you claim to be an atheist is to prove to you that you are not. That you are an agnostic. By that standard I cannot say that a Leprechaun is not sitting on my computer monitor at this very moment.
KasparHauser4 1 year ago
@KasparHauser4 It's not a choice between agnostic and atheist. One deals with knowledge, the other belief. You can happily be both, as I am.
askegg 1 year ago
@askegg I'm with you up to the definition of Agnostic. Agnosticism isn't that you personally do not know something but that you positively believe that total knowledge of a specific thing/ claim is impossible to attain.
If it were to mean what you suggest then it becomes a nonsense word because the only person who would not be agnostic would be someone all-knowing.
I see atheism as a binary choice, and as such impossible to reduce into catagories. Other positions require other names.
AnonEyeMouse 1 year ago
im a rationalist
robertwc82 1 year ago
I'm a fucking atheist. God told me, personally, that he does not exist. He said it, I believe it.
bdf2718 1 year ago
I'm a gnostic atheist. We evolved from simpler organisms, and tried to explain our existence by citing a magic fairy in the sky. We now have the technology to explore our actual origin and the world around us, so the magic fairy has outlived its usefulness.
Interesting video, Egg, and thanks for posting it.
thomasnonsense 1 year ago
I'm a confidential coordinating first chief deputy executive assistant. ;)
No, seriously...I'm an agnostic weak atheist learning quite heavily toward strong. I see no evidence and therefore no reason to believe in a deity, I see that the vast majority of scriptural claims about deities have been debunked, I think the likelihood of a deity's existence is ludicrously low. I cannot in good conscience assert that there is no god FOR CERTAIN, but for all intents and purposes, I'm a strong atheist.
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance That's it exactly :)
askegg 1 year ago
@askegg BionicDance is fond of asserting other things without evidence, though, and banning people who challenge her assumptions--for example, that all animals are self-aware. Possible, but far from a scientific consensus.
TritonAlias 1 year ago
@Yfelsung the earliest NT ms. is a fragment of Jon, from ca. 125, no that long after its composition. There are attestations for almost the whole text from around 200.
HConstantine 1 year ago
A clear, much needed exploration and explanation of the word 'atheist'. Favourited for reference.
dewinthemorning 1 year ago
I used to define atheism as "Lack of belief in a god or gods" but I have since revised this to "belief that there are no gods." The reason for this is that it was explained to me quite convincingly by another atheist that you cannot define a thing logically by what it is not, therefore atheism cannot be about what you don't believe.
This definition does not shift the burden of proof to me however, since it is still a position of belief and not knowledge.
cyxgun 1 year ago
@cyxgun "since it is still a position of belief and not knowledge." same could be said about christianity.
The reason that Atheism is a valid term comes from the fact that many do belive in god. In a world where noone belived in god the term atheist would be pointless.
there are people we call "geocentrists".. these are people that belive that the earth is the center of the universe. 2000 years ago noone would be called that, since the majority of people belived it.
FurieMan 1 year ago
@FurieMan Exactly my point! Even though atheism is a belief about the world, it is still the default position, and does not require the support of proof simply because it is a negative claim. Christianity, which makes positive claims about the world, (regardless of it being based on claims to belief, or claims to knowledge) must show evidence because their claims are positive ones.
cyxgun 1 year ago
@cyxgun "that you cannot define a thing logically by what it is not"
Yes you can!
And you do.
All the time.
What about apolitical, asexual, nude, naked, broke, barefoot...
Coughlan666 made a good video about this: watch?v=X189in5UtSs
ZarlanTheGreen 1 year ago
to answer you question, i guess i do fit the definition of a weak atheist, but i do go as far as to say that the, by the big monotheistic religions, asserted desert god el, does not exist.
it is much too obvious from the historical background of the beginning of judaism that the torah was in no way written as portrayed and that the bigger portion of it is "influenced" by many other stories and myths from the assyro-babylonian religion.
so i am a strong atheist against these based on their books.
nuckable 1 year ago
they way i like to look at atheism is like looking at a tree-structure. if theism is the root of the religions we have all kinds of branches, siblings, subgroups and so on and so forth. atheism itself is on the same level as theism.
for the same reason theism cannot be a religion, atheism cannot be either.
now you can also build a tree structure from the subdenominations of atheism, like scientism or humanism, but these are philosphies.
nuckable 1 year ago
@heterodoxism That's the point. Since we cannot disprove the non-existence of any proposed entity, then we should steer clear of claiming things do not exist (unless they are logically impossible).
askegg 1 year ago
I like this quote to help me with any theists who cannot understand how I could belong to such a bunch of heathens;
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen Roberts
saxmanchiro 1 year ago
i find it important to make a distinction between an "opinion" and a "belief" when discussing these things. an opinion being a conclusion reached through reasoning and examination of evidence. a belief being an article of faith, a desired outcome settled on without consideration, and indifferent to evidence
basically, an opinion is an idea that the mind posesses, and a belief is an idea that posesses the mind.
neomp5 1 year ago
@neomp5 Gotta love semantics. For a connotation, your distinction is fine. As for being descriptive of reality, though, while you can distinguish between many aspects of the mind, I've never seen any evidence that opinions are different than beliefs. They are the same, as far as the mechanisms in the brain that create them.
TritonAlias 1 year ago
@TritonAlias
no, beliefs are formed based on desires and fears, opinions are formed based on observations and estimations. opinions change with changing situations, beliefs only change when the believer suffers a devastating, painful, shattering dissilusionment. then, like a narcotic, they almost always imefiately replace it with another. it's a dependancy.
neomp5 1 year ago
@neomp5 no, yes. Sounds to me like your opinion about the distinction between belief and opinion is more akin to a belief. Show me some evidence that the brain treats what you refer to as opinions differently than what you refer to as beliefs, and we'll discuss it further. I'm no expert on the brain, neurology, or neurobiology, but from what I understand about the brain you are making a distinction that the mechanisms of the brain do not. There are no neat categories of ideas there.
TritonAlias 1 year ago