I am actually beginning to think that very religious people and atheists have very different brains. The differences are so completely opposing and it runs so deep. Religious people seem to talk in nothing but circular rhetoric.... their rhetoric seems to be their proof .. it's nonsense
Dont you guys/girls get tired of repeating the same arguments over and over?, if you dont believe in god then why pursue the subject any further?. or are you trying to wage war and convert others to an atheist way of life?
I see atheist preachers all over youtube, your all hiding in your basements and preaching in darkness. while we preach in the daylight among the people of the world.
@ShaolinEast : Excuse me? Atheists don't preach, we react to the preaching of the religious. If you guys got rid of your churches, got off our TVs and stayed out of our government you probably wouldn't hear so much from us.
@websnarf Well, that's only most of us. I know people who go to churches and hand out demotivational posters. He actually got someone to deconvert. I dont think it's a bad thing to do that, though. As long as he is respectful.
In part of the video you seemed to not know about what people might be referring to when they say atheism has its own preachers. I believe that people like Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and Dennett would probably be those preachers.
@virtualguitarist: You are absolutely right. In fact every single atheist is unaware that we even have a religion. We should probably discuss this fact the next time we're in church or praying or engaging in our rituals or speaking in tongues or ...
Atheism is a religion in the same sense that health is a disease. But you need to actually turn your brain on to understand what that means.
I am certainly not interested in arguing this topic. I am quite interested in discussing it, however. Some logic: My axioms will be the existence of infinity in the universe, the probabilistic nature of the universe, and the resulting infinite probability matrix implied therein. With this matrix, I suspect, but cannot prove, that everything is true and false at once. Based on this assumption, an omnipotent, benevolent sentience is unavoidable, I do not pretend to understand it however.
Omnipotence and omniscience would seem to possess some trumping quality over it's own non-existence. In fact, I think any existence probably trumps non-existence as nothingness seems somehow irrelevant. This also seems wholly out of the realm of empiricism, as I cannot formulate an experiment that would allow us to observe any of this directly or indirectly. Mind you, empiricism trumps intuition, but just being unable to observe something should not completely discount it.
This rises no higher than the most pathetic ontological proofs. Being greater is not evidence or rational support for any argument or point. Its wishful thinking combined with assuming the conclusion.
I take infinity as I can observe it in mathematics, and in thought experiments about the edge of the universe. What is past that boundary? I take probability because I can observe it in particle interactions at subatomic scales and because the mathematics of probability models events with such clarity that I must give it creedence as an underlying structure of physical interaction.
Infinity in the ideal world of mathematics is different than infinity in the real world. Infinity can not exist in the real world because of the absurdities that follow. "For example, imagine a library with an actually infinite number of books. Suppose also that the library contains an infinite number of red books and an infinite number of black books.
Your gonna have to get used to dichotomy. Its all around you. In all matter, there are subatomic particles which pop in and out of existence, often in two places at once. On the infinity front, look up the calculus proof called gabriel's trumpet. It just so happens that rotating 1/x around the x axis produces a shape with surface area pi. Its volume however, is infinite. You could paint its surface, but there is not enough paint to fill it, ever. It is the shape of a black hole.
How can you be so sure about what I will find? How is that not unfounded arrogance?
I assure you that there is no reasonable way in which I could become theist without incurring very severe brain damage. There is no substance to the question that has not been fully addressed; i.e., merely adding information is of no use. You therefore must remove what I know, or remove my ability to reason to see me convert to theism.
Atheists and Religious are all brainwashings. You can't say either way, it is impossible without evidence either way. You were born Atheist so you think Atheist, if you were born Christian you would think Christian. Quantum Science shows there is an intelligent force in all things, it doesn't say it is religious but it is observably there.There is obviously design, evolution or not it is a design. You cannot fully reject a "creator" and be a scientist. You can however reject brainwashings
And so you know :) I am middle-of-the-road agnostic, I don't believe in any religion but with reason I can see there is intelligent design, and through research on quantum science I understand that all things are made of pure conscious awareness and the unified field. It is that awareness which I reason to be the creative force or creator. It's not some guy in the clouds with a beard but it is a force of creation. We are all animated by it, it runs our "software"which is in our brains.
I´m an atheist too, though not of the most fundamentalist sort. I think you deny the "faith aspect" of science. We can agree on that science is based on reason, but what is the basis of reason itself? You got to have some faith in reason (I think you would be nuts if you hadn't, but that's not the point). The same goes for the Popperian falsifiabilty, according to the well-known "Quine-Duhem thesis".
Being an atheist is perfect, but don't make science sacrosanct!
The basis of reason is ultimate accountability. Objective, clear and sound reason will transcend time, place and context -- it can be written down and verified to whatever standards are available.
While I have never heard of this "Quine-Duhem thesis" hypothesis before, the brief wikipedia article on it suggests to me its completely unsound and missing the point of falsifiability.
You there born as human male species (or at least it looks like male). And in pass off time, then when you started to reasoning and realize who you are and what you are - you did a choice (by your own or by influence).
No. Like you, I was born atheist. As a young child I was exposed to a little religion, and felt it to be a foreign and unsound external influence. My parents made it clear that it was exactly what I thought it was, and so my atheism was just retained.
"No. Like you, I was born theist. As a young child I was exposed to a little atheism, and felt it to be a foreign and unsound external influence. My parents made it clear that it was exactly what I thought it was, and so my theism was just retained."
That's what I am talking about - choice. Born child has no knowledge about all things including god (yes - I did heard about Holbach :) ). Born child can't describe, express or defend his point of view including theism or atheism. He simply have no choice nor ability. In regard of terminology it will be fair to call him just homo sapiens.
Atheism doesn't need description or elaboration or choice. You are atheist with respect to orbitting teapots, Zeus, and all sorts of other things. A non-indoctrinated person (like a baby) just happens to be atheist with respect to *all* things.
The act of believing is a choice made on top of a default position. The default position is not a choice. You are trying to equate not make a choice as itself being a choice, which at best is a semantic argument, and nevertheless *still* wrong.
Atheism is a word invented as a derogatory term by theists. The problem is that they didn't realize that to be called atheist (without god) is the same as saying someone is not burdened by a particular delusion. Its a description, not an ideology.
Think about it this way: When did I make a *choice* to become intelligent? I can *choose* to be unintelligent, by starting to believe or say stupid things. I cannot *choose* to be intelligent; its at best a description for something I achieve.
Now, every Materialist/Atheist seems to have an explanation and answer to everything except the following, and I can't really wait for a few more centuries for you to develope more sophosticated instruments to answer these questions. I want to know my fate before I die, please answer these questions Right Now!
I have no idea. But I do know that it is as much likely to be a Christian "God" in heaven as it is to be a Flying Spahetti Monster, who's Nooodly Appendages work in mysterious ways, that heaven consists of at least a Beer Factory and the reason for global warming is the decline in number of Pirates over the years. Aaarg!
Well, there do exist hard questions, and those are some of them. What we know for sure, though, is that the theists are certainly wrong as they don't supply one iota of credible evidence, and say inherently contradictory things for their so called "answers" to such questions.
Notice how he never aknowledges that he was wrong on so many of his assertions or presumptions. None of them ever do. Or they quickly change the subject and after a while make exactly the same assertion and presumptions as they did before.
Evry Human race out there in the world is a sign of evaluation. We Evolve to better fit are environment.
'That is why there are Black people, white people, and all other shades of people. all those races of humans have there own structure, one race shorter than a nother, that helps them live in a more dense environment. You find people that live in open areas are taller. (O man o man I love logic.)
Pascal's Wager is flawed. I'm not sure what the exact quote is, but somewhere in the Bible, Jesus mentions something along the lines of "Not everyone who says 'Oh lord, oh lord' will be saved. I did not even know them! They must form a relationship with me to be saved."
Therefore, just "believing" will not get you to heaven, especially if it's insincere.
This doesn't prove that there is no God, fair enough that you can refuse to place your faith in something that cannot be proven to exist, but to actively disbelieve in God is in fact an act of faith, you are putting faith in the nonexistance of any deity.
Loving your point about scientists knowing that anything they say might be wrong.
Wouldn't disbelieiving something be a lack of faith? And thus there is no putting faith into the idea of a non existant god, its more just a dismissal, see no reason to believe in something because nothing has been presented to allow the mind to believe. You don't need faith to not have faith. It doesn't even make sense.
Actually I am more interested in why the Pro-Koran (and pro-Xian) videos on YouTube so typically have their comments and ratings disabled, while I have never seen an atheist video on YouTube under similar restrictions.
I am actually beginning to think that very religious people and atheists have very different brains. The differences are so completely opposing and it runs so deep. Religious people seem to talk in nothing but circular rhetoric.... their rhetoric seems to be their proof .. it's nonsense
MasterMark123 1 month ago
Dude, you really need to shave.
wasniski 1 year ago
Dont you guys/girls get tired of repeating the same arguments over and over?, if you dont believe in god then why pursue the subject any further?. or are you trying to wage war and convert others to an atheist way of life?
I see atheist preachers all over youtube, your all hiding in your basements and preaching in darkness. while we preach in the daylight among the people of the world.
ShaolinEast 1 year ago
@ShaolinEast : Excuse me? Atheists don't preach, we react to the preaching of the religious. If you guys got rid of your churches, got off our TVs and stayed out of our government you probably wouldn't hear so much from us.
websnarf 1 year ago
@websnarf Well, that's only most of us. I know people who go to churches and hand out demotivational posters. He actually got someone to deconvert. I dont think it's a bad thing to do that, though. As long as he is respectful.
Aresftfun 1 year ago
In part of the video you seemed to not know about what people might be referring to when they say atheism has its own preachers. I believe that people like Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and Dennett would probably be those preachers.
Elhardt 1 year ago
@Elhardt: Preachers need followers, churches and sermons. Those people don't have any of those.
websnarf 1 year ago
There is alot of Atheists like this that appear to be clueless about there own religion.
virtualguitarist 1 year ago
@virtualguitarist: You are absolutely right. In fact every single atheist is unaware that we even have a religion. We should probably discuss this fact the next time we're in church or praying or engaging in our rituals or speaking in tongues or ...
Atheism is a religion in the same sense that health is a disease. But you need to actually turn your brain on to understand what that means.
websnarf 1 year ago 2
Dear Cain,
Once upon a time, long long ago...a powerful intelligence was bored, and feeling pretty low.
It must have been dull with nothing much to do....which is perhaps why he created us ex-nihilo, both me and you.
True there are differences between you and I, but we were both created in his image, in this we share a tie.
What an amazing story about how we came to be.....You his son and me his God.....What a MAN was he.
Regards, God
akamadscientist 3 years ago
Oops, left few words out, heres the fix'd one
Dear Cain,
Once upon a time, long long ago...a powerful intelligence was bored, and feeling pretty low.
It must have been dull with nothing much to do..which is perhaps why he created us ex-nihilo,both me and you.
True there are differences between you and I, but we were both created by him and in his image,in this we share a tie.
What an amazing story about how we came to be...You his son and me his God.....What a MAN was he.
Regards, God
akamadscientist 3 years ago
I am certainly not interested in arguing this topic. I am quite interested in discussing it, however. Some logic: My axioms will be the existence of infinity in the universe, the probabilistic nature of the universe, and the resulting infinite probability matrix implied therein. With this matrix, I suspect, but cannot prove, that everything is true and false at once. Based on this assumption, an omnipotent, benevolent sentience is unavoidable, I do not pretend to understand it however.
bowakowa 3 years ago
Omnipotence and omniscience would seem to possess some trumping quality over it's own non-existence. In fact, I think any existence probably trumps non-existence as nothingness seems somehow irrelevant. This also seems wholly out of the realm of empiricism, as I cannot formulate an experiment that would allow us to observe any of this directly or indirectly. Mind you, empiricism trumps intuition, but just being unable to observe something should not completely discount it.
bowakowa 3 years ago
This rises no higher than the most pathetic ontological proofs. Being greater is not evidence or rational support for any argument or point. Its wishful thinking combined with assuming the conclusion.
websnarf 3 years ago
That is not logic. If something does not have a knowable governing proof that does not imply the existence of sentience.
If you start with axioms in an attempt to convince me of something, you have to *justify* those axioms.
If this truly is your thoughts on the universe, its woefully undeveloped.
websnarf 3 years ago
I take infinity as I can observe it in mathematics, and in thought experiments about the edge of the universe. What is past that boundary? I take probability because I can observe it in particle interactions at subatomic scales and because the mathematics of probability models events with such clarity that I must give it creedence as an underlying structure of physical interaction.
bowakowa 3 years ago
Infinity in the ideal world of mathematics is different than infinity in the real world. Infinity can not exist in the real world because of the absurdities that follow. "For example, imagine a library with an actually infinite number of books. Suppose also that the library contains an infinite number of red books and an infinite number of black books.
(continued on next comment)
taktikmike 3 years ago
Your gonna have to get used to dichotomy. Its all around you. In all matter, there are subatomic particles which pop in and out of existence, often in two places at once. On the infinity front, look up the calculus proof called gabriel's trumpet. It just so happens that rotating 1/x around the x axis produces a shape with surface area pi. Its volume however, is infinite. You could paint its surface, but there is not enough paint to fill it, ever. It is the shape of a black hole.
bowakowa 2 years ago
How can you be so sure about what I will find? How is that not unfounded arrogance?
I assure you that there is no reasonable way in which I could become theist without incurring very severe brain damage. There is no substance to the question that has not been fully addressed; i.e., merely adding information is of no use. You therefore must remove what I know, or remove my ability to reason to see me convert to theism.
websnarf 3 years ago
Atheists and Religious are all brainwashings. You can't say either way, it is impossible without evidence either way. You were born Atheist so you think Atheist, if you were born Christian you would think Christian. Quantum Science shows there is an intelligent force in all things, it doesn't say it is religious but it is observably there.There is obviously design, evolution or not it is a design. You cannot fully reject a "creator" and be a scientist. You can however reject brainwashings
Shakeitupyes 3 years ago
And so you know :) I am middle-of-the-road agnostic, I don't believe in any religion but with reason I can see there is intelligent design, and through research on quantum science I understand that all things are made of pure conscious awareness and the unified field. It is that awareness which I reason to be the creative force or creator. It's not some guy in the clouds with a beard but it is a force of creation. We are all animated by it, it runs our "software"which is in our brains.
Shakeitupyes 3 years ago
this was a very thorough and well-made video. Thank you for your time
machfivechild 3 years ago
Just one?
websnarf 4 years ago
I´m an atheist too, though not of the most fundamentalist sort. I think you deny the "faith aspect" of science. We can agree on that science is based on reason, but what is the basis of reason itself? You got to have some faith in reason (I think you would be nuts if you hadn't, but that's not the point). The same goes for the Popperian falsifiabilty, according to the well-known "Quine-Duhem thesis".
Being an atheist is perfect, but don't make science sacrosanct!
charlemagne7 4 years ago
The basis of reason is ultimate accountability. Objective, clear and sound reason will transcend time, place and context -- it can be written down and verified to whatever standards are available.
While I have never heard of this "Quine-Duhem thesis" hypothesis before, the brief wikipedia article on it suggests to me its completely unsound and missing the point of falsifiability.
websnarf 4 years ago
I was born as atheist?!
What a bul...t!
You there born as human male species (or at least it looks like male). And in pass off time, then when you started to reasoning and realize who you are and what you are - you did a choice (by your own or by influence).
gingas666 4 years ago
No. Like you, I was born atheist. As a young child I was exposed to a little religion, and felt it to be a foreign and unsound external influence. My parents made it clear that it was exactly what I thought it was, and so my atheism was just retained.
websnarf 4 years ago
"No. Like you, I was born theist. As a young child I was exposed to a little atheism, and felt it to be a foreign and unsound external influence. My parents made it clear that it was exactly what I thought it was, and so my theism was just retained."
gingas666 4 years ago
My point is that there was no choice in the matter. Just as I don't *choose* to reject the idea that 1+1=3 or any other self-contradictory concept.
websnarf 4 years ago
That's what I am talking about - choice. Born child has no knowledge about all things including god (yes - I did heard about Holbach :) ). Born child can't describe, express or defend his point of view including theism or atheism. He simply have no choice nor ability. In regard of terminology it will be fair to call him just homo sapiens.
gingas666 4 years ago
Atheism doesn't need description or elaboration or choice. You are atheist with respect to orbitting teapots, Zeus, and all sorts of other things. A non-indoctrinated person (like a baby) just happens to be atheist with respect to *all* things.
The act of believing is a choice made on top of a default position. The default position is not a choice. You are trying to equate not make a choice as itself being a choice, which at best is a semantic argument, and nevertheless *still* wrong.
websnarf 4 years ago
"Atheism doesn't need description or elaboration..."
Sure. So, how would you like to call yourself? :). How that word should sound, that has no description in philosophical nor semantical aspect?
gingas666 4 years ago
Atheism is a word invented as a derogatory term by theists. The problem is that they didn't realize that to be called atheist (without god) is the same as saying someone is not burdened by a particular delusion. Its a description, not an ideology.
Think about it this way: When did I make a *choice* to become intelligent? I can *choose* to be unintelligent, by starting to believe or say stupid things. I cannot *choose* to be intelligent; its at best a description for something I achieve.
websnarf 4 years ago
Now, every Materialist/Atheist seems to have an explanation and answer to everything except the following, and I can't really wait for a few more centuries for you to develope more sophosticated instruments to answer these questions. I want to know my fate before I die, please answer these questions Right Now!
1. Origin of the universe
2. Origin of life
3. Origin of the mind
4. Origin of morality
YourPurposeInLife 4 years ago
I have no idea. But I do know that it is as much likely to be a Christian "God" in heaven as it is to be a Flying Spahetti Monster, who's Nooodly Appendages work in mysterious ways, that heaven consists of at least a Beer Factory and the reason for global warming is the decline in number of Pirates over the years. Aaarg!
kingsize566 4 years ago
Origin of universe. This is the only question that will never be answered as you would have to leave the universe to understand it.
doford 4 years ago
Well, there do exist hard questions, and those are some of them. What we know for sure, though, is that the theists are certainly wrong as they don't supply one iota of credible evidence, and say inherently contradictory things for their so called "answers" to such questions.
websnarf 4 years ago
HOT ATHEISTS!
BLACKHEART6666 4 years ago
come join the church of the flying spaghetti monster! our version of heaven is better we got beer volcanos and stripper factories
venganza(dot)org/
we got pirates too!
kenmabie 4 years ago
Notice how he never aknowledges that he was wrong on so many of his assertions or presumptions. None of them ever do. Or they quickly change the subject and after a while make exactly the same assertion and presumptions as they did before.
DeimosSaturn 4 years ago
Evry Human race out there in the world is a sign of evaluation. We Evolve to better fit are environment.
'That is why there are Black people, white people, and all other shades of people. all those races of humans have there own structure, one race shorter than a nother, that helps them live in a more dense environment. You find people that live in open areas are taller. (O man o man I love logic.)
Darkphoenix3450 5 years ago
Pascal's Wager is flawed. I'm not sure what the exact quote is, but somewhere in the Bible, Jesus mentions something along the lines of "Not everyone who says 'Oh lord, oh lord' will be saved. I did not even know them! They must form a relationship with me to be saved."
Therefore, just "believing" will not get you to heaven, especially if it's insincere.
HexDemon666 5 years ago
Well said.
riversonthemoon 5 years ago
Thank you very much for intelligently representing atheists.
jessiebart 5 years ago
Well spoken...
Katalyzt 5 years ago
"there is no evidence (of God's existence)"
This doesn't prove that there is no God, fair enough that you can refuse to place your faith in something that cannot be proven to exist, but to actively disbelieve in God is in fact an act of faith, you are putting faith in the nonexistance of any deity.
Loving your point about scientists knowing that anything they say might be wrong.
Haywire101 5 years ago
Wouldn't disbelieiving something be a lack of faith? And thus there is no putting faith into the idea of a non existant god, its more just a dismissal, see no reason to believe in something because nothing has been presented to allow the mind to believe. You don't need faith to not have faith. It doesn't even make sense.
Swidhelm 5 years ago
I enjoy your videos.
Sloobag 5 years ago
That was well argued. Good job. Like swatting a fly, huh?
metaknight419 5 years ago
fyi, many forms of buddhism admit that they may not be true, and seek actively to disprove their own beliefs.
simex909 5 years ago
I've noticed that you asked about scientific discovery in the Koran before, (p1)
tawfeeq234 5 years ago
Actually I am more interested in why the Pro-Koran (and pro-Xian) videos on YouTube so typically have their comments and ratings disabled, while I have never seen an atheist video on YouTube under similar restrictions.
websnarf 5 years ago
Is that the sound of crickets I hear?
websnarf 5 years ago
Well, also can't be said about some atheists :)
mrmortonblogs 5 years ago
exactly
constust 5 years ago
Very well thought out and presented as usual. You have wonderful logic and reason.
evo311 5 years ago