I appreciate the idea that challenging a minor, peripheral belief may help move the believer to question his belief better than challenging a deeper held idea. I will try to use this approach. My own deconversion started with a challenge to the idea of how holidays came about. That escalated into questioning origins of religions, then onto whether prayer even worked or not, then months later as to whether there was a god. Totally consistent with Fausts's idea.
I discovered Thomas Aquinas when I was in Grade 10. I was pleased that I could *prove* my faith. By my first year of university I realized none of the arguments were valid. They all begged the question, or worse. I still believed, feeling sure religious experiences were evidence. Meeting groups whose religious experiences seemed to be purely psychological made me question my own. With this pillar gone ( & a neurology video making me question 'the soul'), I realized I no longer believed.
My personal experience is that I grew up thinking there was a god, but was encourage to question things and came to realize that the god I was told of was not right, so I looked at other religions but found them all to be the same. I am still a person in search of faith, I WANT to think there's something more out there and I sometimes search it out but always end up *disappointingly* realizing that no one has a good reasonable proof of any god or anything else.
@templarart haha funnily enough,i was "deconverted" when i began studying my reglioun aswell! if every believer truly looked at the facts and the science we have today then the religious population would decrease drasticly!
My 2 cents is 1) Yes 'religious arguments', my own studies etc deconverted me. 2) Even as a Christian I could see that some of the Christian apologetics were nonsensical - sometimes intelligence can be found in the religious. 3) My approach to the 'doxastic question' is to use other beliefs like Scientology or Islam to cajole out of a Christian what he will believe in and why - this puts us on the same doxastic level though often they aren't smart enough to understand comparisons. Great Video!
I can't find all of Faust's essay and probably wouldn't understand it if I did, so if she addresses this, I'm sorry to be redundant. Is belief in rationality itself a "core belief"? If "you can't rely on logic to decide what is true" is a core belief, then isn't it also true "it's no use trying to reason with some people"? Also, one of her examples was Descartes apparently proving I can't know I have a body. Sometimes our response is "I can't find the mistake, but I know there must be one."
Hm. Well, I was raised as a Christian for most of my life, and while I stopped caring about organized religion at the age of 12, when I joined the military I found myself grasping on to "god" a little closer. It was during a time when I had a lower body injury, and lots of time to sit around and do nothing, that I decided to give the good ol' bible a read from cover to cover. I remember that, by the time I had gotten to Ecclesiastes, I was thinking "This is so much bullshit. What the Hell?" cont
@palerider1775 Following this, a belief that the writers of the bible misunderstood "god" developed, and I began looking down on organized religion even more. Then, during some of the events that I witness while deployed to Iraq really made me begin to question whether therereally a "god" at all, and became disillusioned about it. By about 2008 I began to search for my own answers and began labeling myself "agnostic", and then midway through 2011 I accepted my atheism, and am now vocal about it.
I think that after taking the arguments from both sides into account, atheism might continue to generate some philosophical questions as; "why is there something instead of nothing etc", but it is consistent with the rest of our reality. Religion can only explain away our daily life, while atheism (and most of all randomness) just provides a clear consistent and testable answer.
I agree with you that mosr atheists have cone to thier beliefs through arguements and evidence. Some sepcifically from the lack of evidence for the existance of a god. While most theists believe like they do because they were raised in such a way and refuse to be swayed by the same arguements and evidence that swayed others. They even go so far as to deny that there's no evidence for the existance of god.
@lautz73 I'm also going around with a theist over what he calls the ontological arguemnt. It goes like this:
1) It is possible that God exists. 2) Because it is possible that God exists, God must exist in some possible world. 3) Because God exists in some possible world, He must exist in every possible world. 4) Because God exists in every possible world, God must exist in the actual world. C) Therefore, God exists.
@lautz73 Where I'm having problems with him is premise 3. He says that because god is self-existant that 3 is true. I can't get him to understand that 3 is faulty because he must first prove that a god (specfically his god) is self-existant. Do you have any advice as to how I can get him to understand that?
Faust's premise is, in my experience, the common denominator in just about every argument I hear from everybody, concerning anything whatever. People initially choose their conclusions, then reverse-engineer the arguments to support them. Then don't "arrive" at their conclusion "from" the arguments. People in general are like lawyers, assigned to defend their side, regardless of competing/refuting evidence & argument. This assertion, for me, is both my perceived conclusion & core belief.
My religious views have never been handled with by outside sources. When I was growing up, my parents never forced anything. My parents were Christian, but felt like I should discover my own path. Coming from such a weird environment where I was allowed to rely only on argumentation, I am an Atheist. I still look at other beliefs from time to time, but Atheism makes more sense to me. If there is a creator, it isn't perfect by any stretch. It'd still be cool to meet them though.
This is probably the best and most insightful video series you have ever produced. I've been circling around this idea for at least 3 years now, but I think Faust described it perfectly. I knew that people are rarely argued into or out of theism, that religious arguments are not for the faithful but for atheists, and that people cling to religion as part of their identity and react explosively when that identity is challenged. Faust puts it all together and you explain it wonderfully.
@h8uall66 Thank you *very* much, good sir. I had been wrestling with this for some time. I was starting to write a paper about it last summer when I realized that I was really just working out my own issues. So, I made it into a video.
How are you? Long time no hear. I hope all is well on your side of the screen. On my side, the latest big news is that the partner and I will finally, after 15 and 1/2 years together, be getting married. :-)
A long career of successful executive consulting in strategy and transformation has demonstrated to me that meaningful change usually requires a clear understanding of the situation, including a compelling case for change; a shared vision of what to change to; and, agreement and buy-in on the steps required to realize the change. Even after failure is recognized, execs often cling to their old ideas. A religious-like conversion to the new vision is often required to "save them" from themselves.
I turned away from religious faith in 2010 at the age of 20. As a believer, I wanted to know that I believed the truth, so I always looked for arguments that made me feel comfortable. I accepted them as good arguments mostly based on their conclusions and not their premises. I did always think the ontological argument was stupid, though.
My current disbelief is entirely dependent on the failure of these arguments that used to convince me, not on emotion. I actually wish God existed still.
I think tlaniganschmidt is trolling, because they are really funny. If they aren't, well, they are funny regardless, like the dimwit who answers a question in class very wrong because they were distracted by the porno tucked in to their textbook.
Faust seems to ignore or forget that a antecedently held belief may be TRUE!! LIke the cosmological arguments assumptions are valid or sound, and even if they were the argument itself is not valid or sound.
Also doesn't account for the fact that I and many atheists have clear ideas of what would convince me which are not unrealistic if such a god were real, especially considering the way that god is described by it's apologists.
@dlandon2000 As an example how would faust differentiate something like the following from another argument.
If A=B and B=C
Then A=C
Do people accept that argument because they antecendently accept the conclusion? I doubt it.
The problem of evil is very similar in a very limited way. Once you define the meaning of benevolent and omnipotent you would have to accept the conclusion or disagree with the definitions. It's limited because it only applies to that definition of a god.
There´s no such thing as people becoming religious through reasoning. Talk to any "converted atheist" and they will tell you that something emotional occurred in the process. The same can´t be said for religious becoming atheists. It´s often a painful process, since you have to give up the idea that we are special and will live forever, and will face the prejudice of the religious majority. These things are very hard to do. This is enough to undermine Faust´s point.
I've often said that, 'One can alter a religious person's stance on their faith, in the same moment that a Klansman would date a homosexual black man.'
For me there was no journey. Attempts to raise me religious failed completely even as a child. I always thought it was nonsense and I still do.
In fact I have a very very hard time understanding religious belief and why anyone would hold it. And for the longest time honestly thought it was just an excuse to be bigotted and/or make money, and that only the stupidest believers actually believed it. (But I know now this isn't true (And I find that more horrifying then comforting.)
Anyway the conclusion I come to is that the big gap between me and religious people is that I'm an extremely unusual person, who goes far more with reason then with emotion. And that for most humans this is reversed.
And I think religious belief as such is based not so much on core beliefs, but on emotions. And that's why people won't give up god concepts. It's their security blanket, and being emotional (and thus naturally unstable) they need it to have some stability.
I'll freely admit though that I'm not really a good person to try and fathom believers, because I truly cannot comprehend them that well. And honestly don't have all that much respect for them. If one primarily lives by their emotions, how are they in any way above animals?
Reason is the one thing humans can do better then any animal (even though I do think based on what I know that animals have SOME reason, humans have much more.) So if you don't use it, what's the point?
And indeed lo... Guess what else is capable of religion? Pigeons.
Pigeons (and zoo animals as well) will often start to perform elaborate (sometimes self-destructive) rituals if they are fed constantly at a certain time, because they'll wrongly draw a link between whatever they where doing at the time and being fed.
That... is religion. It's purely created by and for the ape in humans. And nothing more.
I think there's something very important for those of us who have been on both sides of the fence, & I'm especially referring to those of us who were immovable in our so-called faith. The believer is still in the position we were back then.
I think the big diff. is, we understand the mentality involved in this kind of "belief."
Believers of today, don't know anymore than we did as believers. As much as I wanted to believe at the time, I never honestly had a reason to believe...I just wanted to.
Both Atheist & Theists construct their own system of questions & answers.So they both sound like Catechism-lessons.Most people that leave Religion do so because of its selective-proscriptions.Honestly,i don't know anyone who ever converted to atheism or religion cause of the arguments.The arguments come-later.Atheist tend to sound,at-first more-intelligent,but it soon starts to sound like a looped-tape.Religion goes into a pre-verbal-psychology that atheists refuse to grasp as important-stuff.
@tlaniganschmidt "i don't know anyone who ever converted to atheism or religion cause of the arguments" Conversion from religion to atheism is done most by reasoning. You analyze the reasons that support your religious belief and then conclude that, no matter how cool you think the idea that there´s a God out there that will give you eternal life, such belief is not justifiable, and you become atheist. This is the most common path to atheism. The same can´t be said for religious conversion.
@lfzadra not only am i a theist.....but i believe in the physicality of Mysticism united in the transcendent sublime-orgasmic-state of sexual-unity that happens in the continual (re)discovery of GOD every-time I've gotten-layed in & within the mutuality of throbing-inter-intra-personal-primal Energies reaching for "Heaven".To be quite frank,both theists & atheists tend to be be bores & prigs.The Sexual-Sublime is worth the search & God is the ultimate Sexual-Spirituality beyond logic & Longing.
@lfzadra gadzooks...honey-child..never once did i mention some "Vampire-ish" Desire 4 "Eternal-life"...it seems Las if you think that every Theist is some moronic-fundamentalist-lobotomized-Christian that you met in high school....."GOD & LOVE & SEX & ART.....Will never make sense....For both a Theist & an atheist "A GOOD LAY COVERS A MULTITUDE OF SINS"....Cling to the Love you have & you transcend " Eternal-life" & other such pietistic-puke. Eternal-Life without Love is a Dracula-Movie
Just rewatched these vids (as I often do your videos! :)) and one thing struck me.
Given that, logically, there must either be a god or not, one of the two sides must be correct. As a result, all the arguments for one of the sides must necessarily be flawed in some way.
That being the case, it is entirely possible for one or other of the sides to hold their (non)belief because the arguments presented to them are just plain wrong, rather than any antecedently held belief influencing them.
I think this is perhaps among the greatest videos on the problem of knowledge and belief in the human experience. I am a Christian, because I a priori accept them as true, and accept that at least in some sense my natural reason is incapable of understanding truth in the absolute sense. As such, I turn to sources outside of myself (I.E. God, the bible) in an attempt to make sense of it all. I also think there may be psychological reasons why a person prefers one option over another.
I not only think it does, I think it must. Even if Jesus touched down tomorrow, there would be no way to affirm he represents the infinite God I believe he does. How could I ask the infinite number of questions to affirm or deny it? Because of this, belief in God can be based on a mountain of evidence but still fail to convince, because the topic (I.E. God) is beyond the reach of the human mind. That being said, I do believe Alvin Plantinga is right when he says belief in God is properly basic.
@AuxentiusZ Epistemologically knowledge is a kind of belief, so is faith. From belief comes both knowledge and faith. But knowledge is clearly pragmatically (and empirically) superior to the other.
I'm a little late getting to this party. I think you and Faust are both right--I don't think her ideas apply when an atheist or a theist is in *transition.* By nature, a transitional state in belief implies that you have heavy doubt already about your former beliefs, and thus, are much more willing to consider alternative arguments. Doubt caused by fear, by negative experiences, can rock one's belief foundation in a way that argumentation alone cannot.
I was of a strong Christian Fundamentalist Believer for about my first 20 years. In my 'heart' I 'knew' that my redeemer lived. For the next 35 years I moved toward Atheism by considering Intellectual Persuasive Arguments. I was an unwilling de-convert to Atheism. I wanted there to be a God. I desperately attempted to prove that there was a loving, saving, personal, God. At 55 I became a full blown Atheist. Like the author of Shifting Sands videos, I have lived on both sides of the fence.
i think as an atheist i do hold on to my fundamental beliefs, when i read epicurus' quote or when i hear solid arguments against religion. but this is after trying to hold on to christian fundamental beliefs and eventually realizing how unsound it is. i am and have been like this for a while: i am open to believing jesus, god, the whole thing. but i havent heard any sound arguments before or after my deconversion.
I believe I've always been an atheist, even having grown up in a moderately religious household and Catholic school from K-8. It was always just so UNBELIEVABLE to me. I remember going to mass or sitting in religion class, staring dumbfounded at the ornamentation, the rituals, the stories, and thinking grownups can't possibly believe this, it must just be about the rituals and customs. Only later in life did I come to truly realize the extent of the hold religion has over people.
My mother believes that 'there is something', my dad never said anything about 'god'. There were mandatory religious courses in elementary school (and later - up to and including 10th class). As a child I believed in god and Jesus. As a teenager I started to think. I was a history buff, I compared what we know with what was written in the bible (on pillars? with water above the earth? wtf? 7 days?). But still - ok, some stories were questionable.. but.. according to the bible,
god himself was saying this on one day and that on the other. What? It was ok what David's family did - because he was David? Genocide... ok?
And their I lost my faith. Reading the bible 'cured' me. At that point I was thinking 'if god exist, he is a total asshole' I was also wondering if not the greek or nordic or slawic gods were 'the right ones'. And then, revelation. A teacher of mine postulated that all religions were made up, to force people to adhere to rules.
god himself was saying this on one day and that on the other. What? It was ok what David's family did - because he was David? Genocide... ok?
And their I lost my faith. Reading the bible 'cured' me. At that point I was thinking 'if god exist, evil' I was also wondering if not the greek or nordic or slawic gods were 'the right ones'. And then, revelation. A teacher of mine postulated that all religions were made up, to force people to adhere to rules.
Suddenly it all made sense. Religions were invented, so people would follow rules and laws even without a 'real' authority being able to enforce it. Don't murder your neighbour, god will punish you! All the quirks, all the glorified genocides, the murders and rapes, all the inconsistencies suddenly made sense. It was all written to make the current actions 'sellable' to the masses.
@ProfMTH I'd like to weigh in if I may, but first I'd like to know what the default position is as far as belief or non belief in a God. Is atheism the default position? or is theism the default position? The reason I ask is because I am accused of being delusional myself for not accepting the possibility of a God despite the fact that there is no evidence to support a God. Am I being irrational? This is a very interesting topic and i;m going to have to call Matt Dillahunty about this lol.
These may be your 2 most important videos as far as us non-believers are concerned. We need to be sure we're not falling into the same trap we accuse the religious of being in. Indeed, it's the trap I feel I left religion to get out of.
But I don't know how valuable the responses describing journeys to faith/unbelief will be. All of us like to think we're rational. And as honest as we may try to be with our answers, this is a tough bias to neutralise.
When it comes to that particular argument that supposedly only an atheist would find convincing, I do not agree. In fact I think only someone who is already a believer in the omnipotent omnibenevolent being would dismiss the argument.
My reasoning is that the argument itself is very specific. It does not say that no god could exist, only that that specific description of a god is impossible because it contradicts itself.
I was raised casually Catholic, but in high school, deepened my faith with Christian friends, Bible studies, etc. I felt that "belief comes before understanding". Later, I became more skeptical, wary of correlation/causation fallacies perpetuated in society, and seeking verifiable evidence. This mindset came to affect my own religious beliefs. I gave up using my own emotions as evidence for God, and recognized the Bible as an unreliable source of information. I think I fit your hypothesis.
There is a difference between the Cosmological Argument and the Problem of Evil:
The Cosmological Argument doesn't actually conclude that there is a god, it only concludes that there is a first cause. Of course, for believers, it is a given that the first cause is god. Therefore, the Cosmological Argument only seems like an argument for god to people who already believe in him.
@TomSFox The Problem of Evil, however, is a solid, self-contained argument that shows clearly that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god cannot exist (one might argue that god lacks either of these properties, but few believers are willing to do so) regardless of whether you already believe in god or not. So even though believer don't want to accept it, they have to admit that it is a valid argument.
I personally was not raised religious, but grew up in a community where everyone else was. I found the whole churchgoing, praying, belief thing to be very confusing. However, I did not *not believe* in God. I just had no opinion on the issue. One day I was reading a history book and it noted that "man created religion to escape fear of death." This meshed perfectly with what I was seeing around me, and that (admittedly poor) argument led me to nonbelief. Looking further solidified my position.
Thank you for challenging my beliefs on this issue, ProfMTH. I was never a theist, but I have often sought the truth of the matter regardless. I remember asking God, honestly, for a minor sign of his existence when I was in high school - namely to change the flavor of a drink on one sip from root beer to orange soda, just as personal proof to me. It didn't happen, of course, or I would have become a theist. I then raced into philosophy to see what the best thinkers had to say on this issue. cont
I went in with the exact premise that you claimed was naive, that if I could not help but accept an argument for God, I would have to accept its conclusion. I came out having rejected all of them, but not on reasons that were based on non-theism, as the one rejection of the cosmological argument seems to rely on.
So, did I arrive at my non-theism through argumentation? No.
Do I remain a non-theist because of argumentation? I like to think so.
As most of the time, Prof, I find that I completely agree with you. Most 'deconversion' stories that I've heard of involve that 'long and painful process' which comes from debate, argumentation and introspective thought. I'd hate to use the phrase but 'chipping away' seems to sum up the process. However, whenever I enter into a religious debate, especially one that is face-to-face, I always raise the caveat that I am NOT out to change someone's belief set, I'm only here to question them.
I think that most religious beliefs (with the possible exception of deism) are fundamentally non-rational. Not *irrational* as some people have claimed, but non-rational -- they are grounded in the same sorts of tribal instincts as our feelings about our spouses, our children and our "tribes."
On the other hand, things like atheism, deism, agnosticism, are essentially rational and analytical in character -- they are *grounded* in argument -- they are not symmetrical with theistic beliefs.
Most Theists became what they are because they imprinted on their parents, who conditioned them not only with language and social mores, but religion.
Most Atheists became what they are because they questioned their core beliefs and hold intellectual honesty in higher regard than personal mental comfort or even their social connections.
I think that personal tragedy can instigate a change, and oddly, a change either towards or away from religion.
Excellent video and I very much agree. I´ve never heard of a non-believer converting because of arguments, but rather due to emotional reasons. But I know of many who deconverted due to arguments (Matt Dillahunty, Richard Dawkins etc.) and I know many people personally who did it too.
At home, the topic of religion simply never came up (my dad is against teaching, intellectually defenceless, children about religion).
Outside of home, I was exposed to christianity (dunno when exactly. When I started school, at the latest. I think my 1-3 grade teacher was probably christian), but...
I never found christianity convincing.
I don't think I was defending any fundamental beliefs, as I doubt I was old enough to really have any.
By not being imprinted with religion during your most formative years (think how one easily learns language that young), your public? school teachers would have had to really lay it on thick (and use a mixture of positive and negative reinforcement) to turn you towards the dark side.
And I do see the things that divide mankind unnecessarily as the evil of the dark side...includes homophobia, sexism, racism and other forms of hate.
Indeed. I _like_ to believe that I wouldn't have been convinced anyway, but...
"school teachers would have had to really lay it on thick (and use a mixture of positive and negative reinforcement) to turn you towards the dark side."
I should have pointed out that I'm in Sweden.
They never lay it on thick here, most being respectful to all beliefs or nonbeliefs.
Respecting the religious I'm fine with, but their beliefs...
@ZarlanTheGreen When people argue that without strong religious beliefs society would collapse into depraved anarchy I usually point to Sweden...and how they top the charts with most quality of life indexes...and have the highest percentage of non-believers in the world.
Thank you Sweden, for providing evidence to refute the faith-based hypothesis that the world NEEDS religion!
I would generally agree. Most people are religious because they were raised that way and it requires a traumatic experience or a lot of good argumentation to stop believing. Most people who convert to a religion were still raised religious, and thus returning to that set of beliefs is not nearly as difficult. Generally I think people who participate in arguments are too prideful to admit the lack of soundness of their argument thus making the the process moot to any but the audience.
I can attest that I de-converted by paying the heavy price tag of core beliefs. I was not as estudious as say yourself prof.. But I was an avid reader of my bible and considered more than a few times becomming a deacon.
I came about the deconversion through many avenues. Mostly observations of my current faith and my attempts to justify that with rationalizations/debates.
Common misconception is that people believe in god, when in fact there is no one who believes in god. Religion is about belief in leader who speaks in name of god. Conversion is usually just change of leaders.
My deconversion happened when I noticed corruption of church. at that time god was detached from church and became copy of myself, what seems to happen for most of intelligent people who remain theists.
Later god just lost its meaning because uncorrupted god is pretty useless.
I read this somewhere but i forgot where,,a Little light hearted humor..
I have proof and evidence my god exist and here is the kicker all atheist and christians will have to accept my evidence becuase my evidence is so profound we all on this planet would die.... ok here it is...drum rolllll.... The sun go ahead and dosprove the sun ..In Ur face atheist and christians LOL
Jennifer Faust's argument, against argument, is a good one. Since both beliefs, either, for or against the existence of a higher being, is based upon faith! Arguing the fact, with someone who does not believe as you do is futile. Only if someone, was seeking, to believe something different, than what they currently believe to be truth, then they might be persuaded to change their mind. Once one's faith is strongly planted, it cannot be shaken!
@Niveous23 I have always thought it futile, even damaging, to try to force one's beliefs upon another, it's usually just best to state what you think, then move on, if the other person, wants to know more, they will ask. If not, then at least you planted a seed, and the next time someone brings up the subject, they might be more apt to hear them, then to just close their ears.
Faust's point is completely valid, but concludes with a false equivalency as you aptly pointed out, ProfMTH.
More invested, wide-spread and unbiased research perpetuates non-belief far more frequently than belief; highlighted by the consistently higher scores on religious based testing by nonbelievers than believers.
Strong, self-assured belief unequivocally requires a suspension of objective critical analysis at some point/s - this conclusion is unavoidable on some level in every theist.
@ProfMTH You are familiar with the problem of other minds, right? If not, google it. Anyhow, that is a belief that we all come to know without the use of arguments. Would it be irrational for me to seek evidential justification for that belief to convince others? No, not necessarily. I don't see what's wrong with coming up with more reasons to believe a position once you are already rational in believing it.
@lifeandphilosophy " You are familiar with the problem of other minds, right?"
Yes. I'm not seeing its relevance to what's discussed in this video.
"I don't see what's wrong with coming up with more reasons to believe a position once you are already rational in believing it."
Assuming arguendo that one is rational in believing X absent reasons to believe X, Faust isn't arguing that there's anything "wrong" with believing without reasons, but rather that religious arguments tend not...
(con't) @lifeandphilosophy ...to persuade anyone to be a believer (or to abandon religious belief, for that matter). Instead, religious arguments serve to confirm and eluciate already held beliefs. She also sets out to explain why this is the case.
I remember forming my atheist view at a very young age listening to sermon. Good job Reverend!
It was at the age I was coming to the realization that magic was not real, so pretty young. On that day, the stories of the miracles struck me as implausible to the point I suspected them to be outright lies.
I can see quite a bit of Faust's argument in me, as I know I have always been more open to atheist argument since I rejected God at the get-go.
Former theist checking in. Just wanted to say that I was persuaded by argument that God does not exist. I could spend a very long time recounting exactly what arguments, how they interacted with previously held beliefs, in what exact ways they persuaded me, and so on. (If you're curious, I can send you off to some heavy reading.) But Youtube doesn't give me space for that, so I'll just chime in with another "I was persuaded." And, I maintain, I could still be so.
As a "Theist", when you are asked for the basis of your faith, you can either give a rational argument (e.g. law of causes and consequence in creation) or an irrational basis (e.g. a testimony by the Holy Spirit). As an Atheist - if I am not mistaken - you do not have this option, because in Atheistic circles only reasonable argumentations are considered as valid. The real basis for a belief or unbelief may be rational or irrational, but the Atheist absolutely has to appear as rational.
@Troul478 There are Atheists that assert they are ''Atheists'' specifically because they lost a loved one they believed God, if he existed, would have protected from harm. ...is that rational?
@ndjm00 In my use of inverted comments I was signifying a spoken statement. That is correct usage. These people believe they are Atheist as much as the next Atheist. My whole point here is one you have yet to address. You stated, and I quote: ''but the Atheist absolutely has to appear as rational.'' unquote. I provided an example where a person declares they are an Atheist because they lost a loved one they believed God, if he existed would have saved. Is this rational?
I stopped believing in a deity when I was very young, for the same reason I gradually stopped believing in Santa Clause even though (even to this day) no one had ever actually told me there was no such person. As I grew and learned more about the world, I simply found that the things I KNEW to be true (in the actual sense of the word "to know," as in things I could objectively verify) were diametrically opposed to what I BELIEVED to be true. First it just made me agnostic, but more recently...
... I came to the conclusion that there was no special position that should be granted to the concept of a deity any more than the concept of magic in general. My "deconversion" happened pretty slowly and deliberately, I guess, which might be the reason it wasn't at all painful, but more like realizing the moon isn't made of cheese. It was kind of a "oh, well" thing. Maybe it's also because, since I was young, it was never really a core belief.
By the way, these two videos are an example of Youtube at its best. They illustrate the exciting potential of a medium like Youtube for getting a group of people to focus on and discuss difficult but important issues.
In fact, I suspect that Faust doesn't really believe there is such an equivalence. I think she just wanted to avoid alienating believers. In doing so, I think she traded intellectual rigor for the promise of a wider audience, a Faustian bargain if there ever was one. (Okay, I admit I spent an unreasonable amount of time trying to figure out a way to work in the phrase Faustian bargain).
A believer, on the other hand, might vigorously defend belief, not because of its soundness, not because of its logic and truth value, but simply because there is an emotional commitment to it, because its loss would occasion much discomfort, because it is a core belief. This asserted equivalence in the reasons for doxastic inertia in both directions is in my view a serious flaw in Faust's argument. ... cont.
Doxastic inertia may occur in both directions, but it doesn't follow that the inertia can be attributed in both cases to the same tendency to defend core beliefs. A non-believer might vigorously defend non-belief, not because the non-belief is core, not because there is an emotional commitment to it, not because its loss would be painful, but simply because the non-belief happens to be the sounder position ... cont.
... I was simply "charmed" by the figure of Jesus as depicted in the gospel stories. But even at the time, I thought of my belief as being irrational and contrary to logic and evidence. I just thought I had accessed a supernatural source of truth that trumped the normal sources of truth. By contrast, I lost my faith through a slow deliberative process of considering the arguments and evidence against faith.
Your two hypotheses are borne out in my experience. When I was growing up, I received no religious indoctrination and thought of myself as a non-believer. Then, in college, I read for the first time the gospel stories about Jesus, and I spontaneously started believing in Jesus without going through any real deliberative process. ... cont.
I believe (assuming I understood) that your contention is the correct one. Far more non-believers came to the conclusion after a doubt in the existence of God became present, and objectively attempted to find an answer. Where as believers are attempting to justify their beliefs because of that core understanding, God exists, and then objectively try and find reasons for God to exist. They are not objectively looking for the right answer, more looking for their answer to be correct..
i think im like MOST non-believers; i rejected religious belief by deliberative process BECAUSE it was against my core fundamental beliefs. know what i mean?
i am interested, because you claim to have followed a deliberate process that resulted in atheism. what is your argument that proves the impossibility of a creator of the universe
@ghjurx452 It's not my claim that it is impossible for "a creator of the universe" to exist any more than it's my claim that it is impossible that the sun won't rise tomorrow.
@ProfMTH Your claim of atheism is very much more closely related to the non existence of a creator of the universe than it is to the rising of the sun so that analogy is poor.
But that is irrelevant because there is an unfounded assumption in my question. It could be the case (according to the distinction of Practical atheism vs. Theoretical atheism provided by the Wikipedia page on atheism lol) that you are a Practical atheist. continued..
@ProfMTH This distinction between Practical and Theoretical atheism is new to me. The assumption that I made in my question was that you were a Theoretical atheist and made the claim that "a creator" cannot exist. But you could be an atheist and make no such claim.
Most of the atheists on youtube are Theoretical atheists and either attempt to prove that "a creator" does not exist or they are completely ignorant to the fact that the claim that a creator does not exist needs proof. continued..
@ghjurx452 No one can ever prove that a creator does not exist, an invisible conscious being/s could be behind natural processes. What people can do is show arguments for the likelihood of this being very, very small.
We can show that the Bible, Judaism, and Christianity are the evolution of older Canaanite, Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, etc. myths, legends, laws, gods.
We can show that there is no reason to fear the fairy tales or close our minds to reality and this life.
@ProfMTH Biased on your non answer to my original question i will assume that you are either a "Practical atheist" and make no claims about the possible existence of "a creator" with which i have no qualms or you are a Theoretical atheist that is ignorant to the fact that proof is necessary for the claim that "a creator" doesn't exist.
@ghjurx452 "Biased on your non answer to my original question...."
Are you kidding me? Your question assumed something that I never argued, i.e., that it is impossible that there a creator of the universe. I corrected your faulty assumption in my response.
I regard myself as an atheist agnostic. If you find that term unsatisfactory, I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about that. I find quibbles about atheistic terminology to be as interesting and useful as watching paint dry. Thanks.
I would postulate that the true reason that arguments regarding theology are unpersuasive is because it is impossible to create an argument that proves or disproves the existence of something that could be outside our universe and comprehension.
If you agree with the previous statement, you are agnostic.(like me)
I've made this point many times in explaining my atheism!!
My event of being Born Again was a totally emotional experience, which took place when I was in a critically needful situation. My deconversion came about after seeing a friend lose her mind to her religious addiction. What happened to her gave me the impetuous to study scripture again, but this time on a scholarly level. After 3 years of intense study, I deconverted which was not an emotional experience, but rather a rational one.
I believe it has varying degrees, completely dependent on applications of contiguous forces.
The "core beliefs" however it's manifested will take on full defense naturally. Greater change to the sum, will yield (destruction) to the present state.
Because of relativity, we all will experience a slightly or dramatically different view of existence (reality).
Truth unfortunately has little weight if it's remote, like the act of gravity on matter.
Religion has always held the greater sum of parts, simple because the transfer of (A's) subjective concepts are automatically transformed by the receiver (B) to best fit (B's) view of reality. Without objectivity, the transfer can be altered and changed without (A) and (B) confronting dramatic changes.
This is why religion make such good Communion outlets. Thus yielding greater contiguous forces and continues to snowball.
The mind isn't meant to be intelligent , but has potential.
Part 5 but so to not offend his family and humiliate them to others, he/she took the revenge or died trying.) I do not want to take the argument elsewhere but Personally Culture has a huge impact but is it religion that Affects culture or culture that effects religion. Either way religion is a complicated extremely difficult subject to argue with. And to be honest I don’t care so long as no one tries to interfere with my belief or life due to my beliefs.
I conclude that believers are irrational and in deep denial. I don't say that flippantly, as I was a believer for many years before I became an atheist.
Religion can, and does, have a profound effect on culture and individual. 500 years ago, Europeans invaded my country (the Americas) and nearly wiped out every member of my race. This was done for power and greed but religion was it's foundation & justification for rape & genocide.
@Cootabux Well yes these kind of things happen because of the values of a few people. Do you value god or money, food or socialization. My problem is, a religious man knows something is wrong, but continues to do so, best example sex. sex before marriage is forbidden in Islam but many do have sex before marriage and cheat. my rationalization of the whole issue is that society can have a profound effect on ones conscious and also, will. Does one have the will to carry out gods words.
@Cootabux People are selfish, and regardless of their own morality, they continue to do somthing that they know they are going to feel guilty about but it pleasures them. An argument of a Muslim man on this issue is that "they are not true Muslims". I beg to differ. As this is humn reality, people make mistakes, regardless of whether they feel it's write or wrong. Religion is the tool used to try and put themselves back in line. ooh and the devil always trys to make people do bad things (excuse)
@Cootabux do u understand that in order to claim that you are an atheist you have to do more that refute all religions that exist in the world you have to prove the impossibility of a creator of the universe. if you cannot do this then you are agnostic.
just so u know
reply if you disagree or would like to share your proof.
Part 4 - interlinked throughout history. Personally I like to concentrate on culture. Culture proves to me how weak human kind can be to even disobey their religion. Example (In Turkey a century ago, it was very common to see one shoot another, but in certain tribes and cultures within Turkey, the brother, son or other loved one of the killed man must kill the person who killed in revenge, Turkey is Muslim and such act is forbidden and sometimes not wanted by the person taking the revenge,
Part 3 - in something which cannot be seen nor proven other than a belief in ones heart sole or inner self. Therefore religion is a concept from the inner self which will be very difficult to break whether a believer or non believer but is not impossible. Experiences, psychological states, illnesses, speeches, etc can all change, allow people to think or weaken ones thoughts if rational to ones state of mind and belief. Culture is as complicated and fanatical as religion as both have
Part 2 - the act of probability is at work and thus, “shit happens”. The only evident books with miracles written in it are the so called holly books, which believers try and learn their religion of belief from. However non believers may just turn another book and show the image of a fire breathing dragon which was supposed to be alive just 150 years back, thus proving that people at large were irrational in those days. But non-believers still believe, believers are irrational due to believing
Part 1 - More than people trying to convert or di convert one from a particular belief, I believe one has already made up their mind in such cases thus allowing that person or event even to open the door where the subject must just walk through. However if acts of miracles (as believers say) is evident then it will act as a catalyst for many to believe. However, such evidence or miracles or divine intervention is very very rear if not nonexistent, while non believers mainly believe that
More people need to see these videos, including the "God is not God" series from TrenchantAtheist. The League of Reason would do well in seeing these videos to revise and improve their approach to the undecided.
As a kid I was a socially indoctrinated Christian. My deconversion came later due to an accumulation of information. Reading the bible was the catalyst; learning philosophy, critical thinking, and history accelerated my skepticism.
I don't think my core belief, "I doubt supernatural entities" is unassailable... as it's merely a conclusionary theory from numerous factoids. If someone presents a more plausable conclusion I'm open game.
I agree with your assessment, although I think a lot of people will have their minds changed by something they already agree with. I became an atheist 20 some odd years ago deconverting from a protestant christian background. It wasn't any one person who convinced me, but was compelled that a triple O god is the only viable option and if there was one it would be incumbent for him to have his presence validated to all. This not being the case I ceased in my belief.
Lol dude you coulda just said everything in a few seconds instead of repeating the same point over and over just to make people who don't understand think your saying something much more complicated.
So, that was my story at least. There was no abrupt change from belief in God to nonbelief in gods, it was all very gradual. I do not think I would have accepted an abrupt change. To put it in the context of Faust and this video, my belief in God migrated (or was gradually displaced) from the core to the periphery, before dropping off altogether. Rome wasn't built in a day.
My own journey from Christianity to atheism started when I was around 10 years old. That's when I started thinking that eg. a Muslim was just as convinced of his faith, and for the same reasons, as I was of mine. My conclusion then was that force of conviction could not be considered evidence, and I became as open to ALL theistic beliefs as I had been to Christianity. This was in part wishful thinking: "wouldn't it be cool if they were ALL true?" (Cont....)
(...cont.) When I was around 13-14, I became very open to the idea that perhaps NONE of them were true. This was a very cynical, "what's the point of it all" period of my life, and it is possible that had I been happier, my beliefs would not have changed in that direction, either. This, I feel, is an important point: my happiness and general outlook on life did not change with my beliefs, but rather the other way around. (Cont....)
(...cont.) Around 17-18 years of age, I was very much agnostic with regards to God's existence, and this is when I decided I was a Buddhist. First of all I agreed with their take on God's existence: whether gods exist or not is irrelevant. Second, the first noble truth, "life is suffering", is something many a teenager can identify with, though they may take it far to literally (as I did). Third, I agreed with the ecclectic nature of Buddhism. (Cont....)
(...cont.) However, I also had the naive (and rather un-Buddhist) impression that "since I am a Buddhist, that means I have to believe all the teachings". So I decided I also believed in karma and reincarnation, because I "had to". That didn't last long, however, as I realized how silly that was. After my Buddhist period, I simply remained agnostic and agreeing with a lot of what Buddhism had to say. (Cont....)
(...cont.) Later I would relabel myself as an agnostic atheist, but with no actual change in beliefs, only the definitions of the labels. So from around the age of 18-20, my beliefs in the existence of gods has remained pretty much unchanged.
However, I should mention that my childhood faith lingered for a long time, even after it was dismissed. So for a long time, possibly even into my early 20s, I could feel the subconscious beckoning me to tap into the old faith. (Cont....)
(...cont.) Consciously, of course, I saw it as a bunch of nonsense, but it was the same kind of wishful thinking that I felt as a child, wanting the make-believe to be real. I remember as a kid, realizing that those big holes in the old asphalt weren't really dinosaur tracks, and that the mountains weren't really trolls caught in the sun, but it felt so good believing that. My subconscious beckoned me the same way then: "What if it's true after all?" But that's just sentimentality.
"Brainwashing" usually starts at an early age. Whether it is Christianity, Islam or Nazism, ideologies need to brainwash children to survive. How many Christians in Pakistan, Hindus in USA etc. Science does not because it is openly demonstrable.
The real argument is do theists, or Nazis for that matter, have the right of ultimate access to pollute children's minds with their naive lies.
My problem with Faust's position is that it is philosophy, and thus suffers from the inevitable defect of philosophy: viz, it is unconcerned with evidence. The so called arguments are really no more than word games. If one wishes to know something, like is there bread in the cupboard, one does not sit around thinking about the problem, constructing plausible logical sequences; what one does is get up an look in the cupboard. Running out of space. Will continue.
I appreciate the idea that challenging a minor, peripheral belief may help move the believer to question his belief better than challenging a deeper held idea. I will try to use this approach. My own deconversion started with a challenge to the idea of how holidays came about. That escalated into questioning origins of religions, then onto whether prayer even worked or not, then months later as to whether there was a god. Totally consistent with Fausts's idea.
judysaint 2 weeks ago
@judysaint Thanks for the comment and for sharing some of your own experience.
ProfMTH 1 week ago
I discovered Thomas Aquinas when I was in Grade 10. I was pleased that I could *prove* my faith. By my first year of university I realized none of the arguments were valid. They all begged the question, or worse. I still believed, feeling sure religious experiences were evidence. Meeting groups whose religious experiences seemed to be purely psychological made me question my own. With this pillar gone ( & a neurology video making me question 'the soul'), I realized I no longer believed.
philosofrenzy 2 weeks ago
My personal experience is that I grew up thinking there was a god, but was encourage to question things and came to realize that the god I was told of was not right, so I looked at other religions but found them all to be the same. I am still a person in search of faith, I WANT to think there's something more out there and I sometimes search it out but always end up *disappointingly* realizing that no one has a good reasonable proof of any god or anything else.
faceshed 1 month ago
@templarart haha funnily enough,i was "deconverted" when i began studying my reglioun aswell! if every believer truly looked at the facts and the science we have today then the religious population would decrease drasticly!
reeceyhiggs 1 month ago
My 2 cents is 1) Yes 'religious arguments', my own studies etc deconverted me. 2) Even as a Christian I could see that some of the Christian apologetics were nonsensical - sometimes intelligence can be found in the religious. 3) My approach to the 'doxastic question' is to use other beliefs like Scientology or Islam to cajole out of a Christian what he will believe in and why - this puts us on the same doxastic level though often they aren't smart enough to understand comparisons. Great Video!
templarart 1 month ago
I can't find all of Faust's essay and probably wouldn't understand it if I did, so if she addresses this, I'm sorry to be redundant. Is belief in rationality itself a "core belief"? If "you can't rely on logic to decide what is true" is a core belief, then isn't it also true "it's no use trying to reason with some people"? Also, one of her examples was Descartes apparently proving I can't know I have a body. Sometimes our response is "I can't find the mistake, but I know there must be one."
gmsherry1953 1 month ago
Hm. Well, I was raised as a Christian for most of my life, and while I stopped caring about organized religion at the age of 12, when I joined the military I found myself grasping on to "god" a little closer. It was during a time when I had a lower body injury, and lots of time to sit around and do nothing, that I decided to give the good ol' bible a read from cover to cover. I remember that, by the time I had gotten to Ecclesiastes, I was thinking "This is so much bullshit. What the Hell?" cont
palerider1775 2 months ago
@palerider1775 Following this, a belief that the writers of the bible misunderstood "god" developed, and I began looking down on organized religion even more. Then, during some of the events that I witness while deployed to Iraq really made me begin to question whether therereally a "god" at all, and became disillusioned about it. By about 2008 I began to search for my own answers and began labeling myself "agnostic", and then midway through 2011 I accepted my atheism, and am now vocal about it.
palerider1775 2 months ago
I think that after taking the arguments from both sides into account, atheism might continue to generate some philosophical questions as; "why is there something instead of nothing etc", but it is consistent with the rest of our reality. Religion can only explain away our daily life, while atheism (and most of all randomness) just provides a clear consistent and testable answer.
pegasusfreedom 2 months ago
I agree with you that mosr atheists have cone to thier beliefs through arguements and evidence. Some sepcifically from the lack of evidence for the existance of a god. While most theists believe like they do because they were raised in such a way and refuse to be swayed by the same arguements and evidence that swayed others. They even go so far as to deny that there's no evidence for the existance of god.
lautz73 2 months ago
@lautz73 I'm also going around with a theist over what he calls the ontological arguemnt. It goes like this:
1) It is possible that God exists. 2) Because it is possible that God exists, God must exist in some possible world. 3) Because God exists in some possible world, He must exist in every possible world. 4) Because God exists in every possible world, God must exist in the actual world. C) Therefore, God exists.
lautz73 2 months ago
@lautz73 Where I'm having problems with him is premise 3. He says that because god is self-existant that 3 is true. I can't get him to understand that 3 is faulty because he must first prove that a god (specfically his god) is self-existant. Do you have any advice as to how I can get him to understand that?
lautz73 2 months ago
Faust's premise is, in my experience, the common denominator in just about every argument I hear from everybody, concerning anything whatever. People initially choose their conclusions, then reverse-engineer the arguments to support them. Then don't "arrive" at their conclusion "from" the arguments. People in general are like lawyers, assigned to defend their side, regardless of competing/refuting evidence & argument. This assertion, for me, is both my perceived conclusion & core belief.
iamzeronothing 3 months ago
My religious views have never been handled with by outside sources. When I was growing up, my parents never forced anything. My parents were Christian, but felt like I should discover my own path. Coming from such a weird environment where I was allowed to rely only on argumentation, I am an Atheist. I still look at other beliefs from time to time, but Atheism makes more sense to me. If there is a creator, it isn't perfect by any stretch. It'd still be cool to meet them though.
Idontlikelobster 5 months ago
This is probably the best and most insightful video series you have ever produced. I've been circling around this idea for at least 3 years now, but I think Faust described it perfectly. I knew that people are rarely argued into or out of theism, that religious arguments are not for the faithful but for atheists, and that people cling to religion as part of their identity and react explosively when that identity is challenged. Faust puts it all together and you explain it wonderfully.
h8uall66 8 months ago 4
@h8uall66 Thank you *very* much, good sir. I had been wrestling with this for some time. I was starting to write a paper about it last summer when I realized that I was really just working out my own issues. So, I made it into a video.
How are you? Long time no hear. I hope all is well on your side of the screen. On my side, the latest big news is that the partner and I will finally, after 15 and 1/2 years together, be getting married. :-)
ProfMTH 8 months ago
A long career of successful executive consulting in strategy and transformation has demonstrated to me that meaningful change usually requires a clear understanding of the situation, including a compelling case for change; a shared vision of what to change to; and, agreement and buy-in on the steps required to realize the change. Even after failure is recognized, execs often cling to their old ideas. A religious-like conversion to the new vision is often required to "save them" from themselves.
0gods 8 months ago
Theist "logic" is hilarious...
MrTruthAddict 9 months ago
I turned away from religious faith in 2010 at the age of 20. As a believer, I wanted to know that I believed the truth, so I always looked for arguments that made me feel comfortable. I accepted them as good arguments mostly based on their conclusions and not their premises. I did always think the ontological argument was stupid, though.
My current disbelief is entirely dependent on the failure of these arguments that used to convince me, not on emotion. I actually wish God existed still.
Ledwix 9 months ago
@Ledwix In the early days of my atheism, I also found myself wishing that God existed.
ProfMTH 9 months ago
@Ledwix you wish he existed? you dont know he doesnt
HelicalColossus 9 months ago
I think tlaniganschmidt is trolling, because they are really funny. If they aren't, well, they are funny regardless, like the dimwit who answers a question in class very wrong because they were distracted by the porno tucked in to their textbook.
ArcasDevlin 9 months ago
Faust seems to ignore or forget that a antecedently held belief may be TRUE!! LIke the cosmological arguments assumptions are valid or sound, and even if they were the argument itself is not valid or sound.
Also doesn't account for the fact that I and many atheists have clear ideas of what would convince me which are not unrealistic if such a god were real, especially considering the way that god is described by it's apologists.
dlandon2000 10 months ago
@dlandon2000 As an example how would faust differentiate something like the following from another argument.
If A=B and B=C
Then A=C
Do people accept that argument because they antecendently accept the conclusion? I doubt it.
The problem of evil is very similar in a very limited way. Once you define the meaning of benevolent and omnipotent you would have to accept the conclusion or disagree with the definitions. It's limited because it only applies to that definition of a god.
dlandon2000 10 months ago
There´s no such thing as people becoming religious through reasoning. Talk to any "converted atheist" and they will tell you that something emotional occurred in the process. The same can´t be said for religious becoming atheists. It´s often a painful process, since you have to give up the idea that we are special and will live forever, and will face the prejudice of the religious majority. These things are very hard to do. This is enough to undermine Faust´s point.
lfzadra 10 months ago
I've often said that, 'One can alter a religious person's stance on their faith, in the same moment that a Klansman would date a homosexual black man.'
kazen2 10 months ago
For me there was no journey. Attempts to raise me religious failed completely even as a child. I always thought it was nonsense and I still do.
In fact I have a very very hard time understanding religious belief and why anyone would hold it. And for the longest time honestly thought it was just an excuse to be bigotted and/or make money, and that only the stupidest believers actually believed it. (But I know now this isn't true (And I find that more horrifying then comforting.)
TheSkunkCat 11 months ago
@TheSkunkCat
Anyway the conclusion I come to is that the big gap between me and religious people is that I'm an extremely unusual person, who goes far more with reason then with emotion. And that for most humans this is reversed.
And I think religious belief as such is based not so much on core beliefs, but on emotions. And that's why people won't give up god concepts. It's their security blanket, and being emotional (and thus naturally unstable) they need it to have some stability.
TheSkunkCat 11 months ago
@TheSkunkCat
I'll freely admit though that I'm not really a good person to try and fathom believers, because I truly cannot comprehend them that well. And honestly don't have all that much respect for them. If one primarily lives by their emotions, how are they in any way above animals?
Reason is the one thing humans can do better then any animal (even though I do think based on what I know that animals have SOME reason, humans have much more.) So if you don't use it, what's the point?
TheSkunkCat 11 months ago
@TheSkunkCat
And indeed lo... Guess what else is capable of religion? Pigeons.
Pigeons (and zoo animals as well) will often start to perform elaborate (sometimes self-destructive) rituals if they are fed constantly at a certain time, because they'll wrongly draw a link between whatever they where doing at the time and being fed.
That... is religion. It's purely created by and for the ape in humans. And nothing more.
TheSkunkCat 11 months ago
I think there's something very important for those of us who have been on both sides of the fence, & I'm especially referring to those of us who were immovable in our so-called faith. The believer is still in the position we were back then.
I think the big diff. is, we understand the mentality involved in this kind of "belief."
Believers of today, don't know anymore than we did as believers. As much as I wanted to believe at the time, I never honestly had a reason to believe...I just wanted to.
Cootabux 11 months ago
Both Atheist & Theists construct their own system of questions & answers.So they both sound like Catechism-lessons.Most people that leave Religion do so because of its selective-proscriptions.Honestly,i don't know anyone who ever converted to atheism or religion cause of the arguments.The arguments come-later.Atheist tend to sound,at-first more-intelligent,but it soon starts to sound like a looped-tape.Religion goes into a pre-verbal-psychology that atheists refuse to grasp as important-stuff.
tlaniganschmidt 11 months ago
@tlaniganschmidt "i don't know anyone who ever converted to atheism or religion cause of the arguments" Conversion from religion to atheism is done most by reasoning. You analyze the reasons that support your religious belief and then conclude that, no matter how cool you think the idea that there´s a God out there that will give you eternal life, such belief is not justifiable, and you become atheist. This is the most common path to atheism. The same can´t be said for religious conversion.
lfzadra 10 months ago
@lfzadra not only am i a theist.....but i believe in the physicality of Mysticism united in the transcendent sublime-orgasmic-state of sexual-unity that happens in the continual (re)discovery of GOD every-time I've gotten-layed in & within the mutuality of throbing-inter-intra-personal-primal Energies reaching for "Heaven".To be quite frank,both theists & atheists tend to be be bores & prigs.The Sexual-Sublime is worth the search & God is the ultimate Sexual-Spirituality beyond logic & Longing.
tlaniganschmidt 10 months ago
@lfzadra gadzooks...honey-child..never once did i mention some "Vampire-ish" Desire 4 "Eternal-life"...it seems Las if you think that every Theist is some moronic-fundamentalist-lobotomized-Christian that you met in high school....."GOD & LOVE & SEX & ART.....Will never make sense....For both a Theist & an atheist "A GOOD LAY COVERS A MULTITUDE OF SINS"....Cling to the Love you have & you transcend " Eternal-life" & other such pietistic-puke. Eternal-Life without Love is a Dracula-Movie
tlaniganschmidt 10 months ago
Just rewatched these vids (as I often do your videos! :)) and one thing struck me.
Given that, logically, there must either be a god or not, one of the two sides must be correct. As a result, all the arguments for one of the sides must necessarily be flawed in some way.
That being the case, it is entirely possible for one or other of the sides to hold their (non)belief because the arguments presented to them are just plain wrong, rather than any antecedently held belief influencing them.
Afterthoughtbtw 1 year ago
@Afterthoughtbtw Indeed. I don't completely agree with Faust, but she does point to a phenomenon that is more common than we might like to think.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I think this is perhaps among the greatest videos on the problem of knowledge and belief in the human experience. I am a Christian, because I a priori accept them as true, and accept that at least in some sense my natural reason is incapable of understanding truth in the absolute sense. As such, I turn to sources outside of myself (I.E. God, the bible) in an attempt to make sense of it all. I also think there may be psychological reasons why a person prefers one option over another.
AuxentiusZ 1 year ago
@AuxentiusZ "I think this is perhaps among the greatest videos on the problem of knowledge and belief in the human experience."
Thanks very much.
So you would agree that faith comes before argument or reasons?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I not only think it does, I think it must. Even if Jesus touched down tomorrow, there would be no way to affirm he represents the infinite God I believe he does. How could I ask the infinite number of questions to affirm or deny it? Because of this, belief in God can be based on a mountain of evidence but still fail to convince, because the topic (I.E. God) is beyond the reach of the human mind. That being said, I do believe Alvin Plantinga is right when he says belief in God is properly basic.
AuxentiusZ 1 year ago
@AuxentiusZ Epistemologically knowledge is a kind of belief, so is faith. From belief comes both knowledge and faith. But knowledge is clearly pragmatically (and empirically) superior to the other.
TheTruthWanderer 9 months ago
I'm a little late getting to this party. I think you and Faust are both right--I don't think her ideas apply when an atheist or a theist is in *transition.* By nature, a transitional state in belief implies that you have heavy doubt already about your former beliefs, and thus, are much more willing to consider alternative arguments. Doubt caused by fear, by negative experiences, can rock one's belief foundation in a way that argumentation alone cannot.
greengeekgirl 1 year ago 5
I was of a strong Christian Fundamentalist Believer for about my first 20 years. In my 'heart' I 'knew' that my redeemer lived. For the next 35 years I moved toward Atheism by considering Intellectual Persuasive Arguments. I was an unwilling de-convert to Atheism. I wanted there to be a God. I desperately attempted to prove that there was a loving, saving, personal, God. At 55 I became a full blown Atheist. Like the author of Shifting Sands videos, I have lived on both sides of the fence.
generalzard1940 1 year ago 2
i think as an atheist i do hold on to my fundamental beliefs, when i read epicurus' quote or when i hear solid arguments against religion. but this is after trying to hold on to christian fundamental beliefs and eventually realizing how unsound it is. i am and have been like this for a while: i am open to believing jesus, god, the whole thing. but i havent heard any sound arguments before or after my deconversion.
evanisamazinggtfo 1 year ago
I believe I've always been an atheist, even having grown up in a moderately religious household and Catholic school from K-8. It was always just so UNBELIEVABLE to me. I remember going to mass or sitting in religion class, staring dumbfounded at the ornamentation, the rituals, the stories, and thinking grownups can't possibly believe this, it must just be about the rituals and customs. Only later in life did I come to truly realize the extent of the hold religion has over people.
jfinite 1 year ago
My mother believes that 'there is something', my dad never said anything about 'god'. There were mandatory religious courses in elementary school (and later - up to and including 10th class). As a child I believed in god and Jesus. As a teenager I started to think. I was a history buff, I compared what we know with what was written in the bible (on pillars? with water above the earth? wtf? 7 days?). But still - ok, some stories were questionable.. but.. according to the bible,
methanbreather 1 year ago
@methanbreather
god himself was saying this on one day and that on the other. What? It was ok what David's family did - because he was David? Genocide... ok?
And their I lost my faith. Reading the bible 'cured' me. At that point I was thinking 'if god exist, he is a total asshole' I was also wondering if not the greek or nordic or slawic gods were 'the right ones'. And then, revelation. A teacher of mine postulated that all religions were made up, to force people to adhere to rules.
methanbreather 1 year ago
@methanbreather
god himself was saying this on one day and that on the other. What? It was ok what David's family did - because he was David? Genocide... ok?
And their I lost my faith. Reading the bible 'cured' me. At that point I was thinking 'if god exist, evil' I was also wondering if not the greek or nordic or slawic gods were 'the right ones'. And then, revelation. A teacher of mine postulated that all religions were made up, to force people to adhere to rules.
methanbreather 1 year ago
@methanbreather
Suddenly it all made sense. Religions were invented, so people would follow rules and laws even without a 'real' authority being able to enforce it. Don't murder your neighbour, god will punish you! All the quirks, all the glorified genocides, the murders and rapes, all the inconsistencies suddenly made sense. It was all written to make the current actions 'sellable' to the masses.
I left religion behind and never looked back.
methanbreather 1 year ago
From my own perspective, as a theist, my "foundational truth" was "God exists"...every argument/thought stemmed from that (faith-based) certainty.
As a non-theist, my "foundational truth" is "I exist."...and my arguments/thoughts now stem from that (provable) certainty.
To me, that's the fundamental difference between the minds of theists and non-theists - our foundational certainty.
TheHigherVoltage 1 year ago
Great vid and even better discussion.
TY ♥
stramster1 1 year ago
@stramster1 Thank *you* for the comment and nice words.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I'd like to weigh in if I may, but first I'd like to know what the default position is as far as belief or non belief in a God. Is atheism the default position? or is theism the default position? The reason I ask is because I am accused of being delusional myself for not accepting the possibility of a God despite the fact that there is no evidence to support a God. Am I being irrational? This is a very interesting topic and i;m going to have to call Matt Dillahunty about this lol.
surshot56 11 months ago
Prof,
These may be your 2 most important videos as far as us non-believers are concerned. We need to be sure we're not falling into the same trap we accuse the religious of being in. Indeed, it's the trap I feel I left religion to get out of.
But I don't know how valuable the responses describing journeys to faith/unbelief will be. All of us like to think we're rational. And as honest as we may try to be with our answers, this is a tough bias to neutralise.
SatyaVenugopal 1 year ago
@SatyaVenugopal Thanks for the comment. And, yes, it *is* a very tough bias to neutralize. We all need to be mindful of it.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
When it comes to that particular argument that supposedly only an atheist would find convincing, I do not agree. In fact I think only someone who is already a believer in the omnipotent omnibenevolent being would dismiss the argument.
My reasoning is that the argument itself is very specific. It does not say that no god could exist, only that that specific description of a god is impossible because it contradicts itself.
Nails077 1 year ago
One problem with the cosmological argument is that it does not lead to which god diddit all.
Cosmological argument => Creator => [Big gap in logic and argument] => MY God.
Believers does not usually notice the gap.
The problem of evil OTOH still allows for the existens of a malevolent god. Most non-theists have no problem acknowleding that.
lizzand 1 year ago
I was raised casually Catholic, but in high school, deepened my faith with Christian friends, Bible studies, etc. I felt that "belief comes before understanding". Later, I became more skeptical, wary of correlation/causation fallacies perpetuated in society, and seeking verifiable evidence. This mindset came to affect my own religious beliefs. I gave up using my own emotions as evidence for God, and recognized the Bible as an unreliable source of information. I think I fit your hypothesis.
KaineSpawnX 1 year ago
There is a difference between the Cosmological Argument and the Problem of Evil:
The Cosmological Argument doesn't actually conclude that there is a god, it only concludes that there is a first cause. Of course, for believers, it is a given that the first cause is god. Therefore, the Cosmological Argument only seems like an argument for god to people who already believe in him.
TomSFox 1 year ago
@TomSFox The Problem of Evil, however, is a solid, self-contained argument that shows clearly that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god cannot exist (one might argue that god lacks either of these properties, but few believers are willing to do so) regardless of whether you already believe in god or not. So even though believer don't want to accept it, they have to admit that it is a valid argument.
TomSFox 1 year ago
@TomSFox In other words: Non-believers don't find the Cosmological Argument convincing because it is a bad argument.
Believers don't find the Problem of Evil convincing because they already made up their minds in advance that god exists.
Clearly, the comparison is invalid.
TomSFox 1 year ago
I personally was not raised religious, but grew up in a community where everyone else was. I found the whole churchgoing, praying, belief thing to be very confusing. However, I did not *not believe* in God. I just had no opinion on the issue. One day I was reading a history book and it noted that "man created religion to escape fear of death." This meshed perfectly with what I was seeing around me, and that (admittedly poor) argument led me to nonbelief. Looking further solidified my position.
wall0645 1 year ago
@wall0645 Thanks for the comment.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Thank you for challenging my beliefs on this issue, ProfMTH. I was never a theist, but I have often sought the truth of the matter regardless. I remember asking God, honestly, for a minor sign of his existence when I was in high school - namely to change the flavor of a drink on one sip from root beer to orange soda, just as personal proof to me. It didn't happen, of course, or I would have become a theist. I then raced into philosophy to see what the best thinkers had to say on this issue. cont
balanceseeker 1 year ago
(cont from prev)
I went in with the exact premise that you claimed was naive, that if I could not help but accept an argument for God, I would have to accept its conclusion. I came out having rejected all of them, but not on reasons that were based on non-theism, as the one rejection of the cosmological argument seems to rely on.
So, did I arrive at my non-theism through argumentation? No.
Do I remain a non-theist because of argumentation? I like to think so.
What do you think?
balanceseeker 1 year ago
As most of the time, Prof, I find that I completely agree with you. Most 'deconversion' stories that I've heard of involve that 'long and painful process' which comes from debate, argumentation and introspective thought. I'd hate to use the phrase but 'chipping away' seems to sum up the process. However, whenever I enter into a religious debate, especially one that is face-to-face, I always raise the caveat that I am NOT out to change someone's belief set, I'm only here to question them.
vryc 1 year ago
I think that most religious beliefs (with the possible exception of deism) are fundamentally non-rational. Not *irrational* as some people have claimed, but non-rational -- they are grounded in the same sorts of tribal instincts as our feelings about our spouses, our children and our "tribes."
On the other hand, things like atheism, deism, agnosticism, are essentially rational and analytical in character -- they are *grounded* in argument -- they are not symmetrical with theistic beliefs.
prodprod 1 year ago
A generalization I think is true.
Most Theists became what they are because they imprinted on their parents, who conditioned them not only with language and social mores, but religion.
Most Atheists became what they are because they questioned their core beliefs and hold intellectual honesty in higher regard than personal mental comfort or even their social connections.
I think that personal tragedy can instigate a change, and oddly, a change either towards or away from religion.
Highlyskeptical 1 year ago
Excellent video and I very much agree. I´ve never heard of a non-believer converting because of arguments, but rather due to emotional reasons. But I know of many who deconverted due to arguments (Matt Dillahunty, Richard Dawkins etc.) and I know many people personally who did it too.
rokkvi1 1 year ago
@rokkvi1 Thanks a lot for your comment.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I've always been an atheist.
At home, the topic of religion simply never came up (my dad is against teaching, intellectually defenceless, children about religion).
Outside of home, I was exposed to christianity (dunno when exactly. When I started school, at the latest. I think my 1-3 grade teacher was probably christian), but...
I never found christianity convincing.
I don't think I was defending any fundamental beliefs, as I doubt I was old enough to really have any.
ZarlanTheGreen 1 year ago
@ZarlanTheGreen I think you dodged a bullet.
By not being imprinted with religion during your most formative years (think how one easily learns language that young), your public? school teachers would have had to really lay it on thick (and use a mixture of positive and negative reinforcement) to turn you towards the dark side.
And I do see the things that divide mankind unnecessarily as the evil of the dark side...includes homophobia, sexism, racism and other forms of hate.
Highlyskeptical 1 year ago
@Highlyskeptical "I think you dodged a bullet."
Indeed. I _like_ to believe that I wouldn't have been convinced anyway, but...
"school teachers would have had to really lay it on thick (and use a mixture of positive and negative reinforcement) to turn you towards the dark side."
I should have pointed out that I'm in Sweden.
They never lay it on thick here, most being respectful to all beliefs or nonbeliefs.
Respecting the religious I'm fine with, but their beliefs...
I'm not most.
ZarlanTheGreen 1 year ago
@ZarlanTheGreen When people argue that without strong religious beliefs society would collapse into depraved anarchy I usually point to Sweden...and how they top the charts with most quality of life indexes...and have the highest percentage of non-believers in the world.
Thank you Sweden, for providing evidence to refute the faith-based hypothesis that the world NEEDS religion!
Highlyskeptical 1 year ago
I would generally agree. Most people are religious because they were raised that way and it requires a traumatic experience or a lot of good argumentation to stop believing. Most people who convert to a religion were still raised religious, and thus returning to that set of beliefs is not nearly as difficult. Generally I think people who participate in arguments are too prideful to admit the lack of soundness of their argument thus making the the process moot to any but the audience.
Uhlbelk 1 year ago
I can attest that I de-converted by paying the heavy price tag of core beliefs. I was not as estudious as say yourself prof.. But I was an avid reader of my bible and considered more than a few times becomming a deacon.
I came about the deconversion through many avenues. Mostly observations of my current faith and my attempts to justify that with rationalizations/debates.
Niveous23 1 year ago
Common misconception is that people believe in god, when in fact there is no one who believes in god. Religion is about belief in leader who speaks in name of god. Conversion is usually just change of leaders.
My deconversion happened when I noticed corruption of church. at that time god was detached from church and became copy of myself, what seems to happen for most of intelligent people who remain theists.
Later god just lost its meaning because uncorrupted god is pretty useless.
deltaxcd 1 year ago
I read this somewhere but i forgot where,,a Little light hearted humor..
I have proof and evidence my god exist and here is the kicker all atheist and christians will have to accept my evidence becuase my evidence is so profound we all on this planet would die.... ok here it is...drum rolllll.... The sun go ahead and dosprove the sun ..In Ur face atheist and christians LOL
johndebbra 1 year ago
Excellent video, by the way!
RudeAwakning 1 year ago
@RudeAwakning Thanks a lot.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Jennifer Faust's argument, against argument, is a good one. Since both beliefs, either, for or against the existence of a higher being, is based upon faith! Arguing the fact, with someone who does not believe as you do is futile. Only if someone, was seeking, to believe something different, than what they currently believe to be truth, then they might be persuaded to change their mind. Once one's faith is strongly planted, it cannot be shaken!
RudeAwakning 1 year ago
@RudeAwakning Sometimes its a battle of core beliefs.
When a god clashes with your idea of the world. Both are firmly held beliefs.
But if someone doesn't ignore the clash between the two, its a long bitter inner struggle.
It's not hard to find these clashes. It's hard to deal with them. Most people take the path to wait for new info. to bridge the two back into one.
Niveous23 1 year ago
@Niveous23 I have always thought it futile, even damaging, to try to force one's beliefs upon another, it's usually just best to state what you think, then move on, if the other person, wants to know more, they will ask. If not, then at least you planted a seed, and the next time someone brings up the subject, they might be more apt to hear them, then to just close their ears.
RudeAwakning 1 year ago
@RudeAwakning I was refering to clashes of core beliefs inside the mind of a single person.
like ( i hate death...with empathy + i love meat) they conflict.
But that's an excellent approach to dealing with it.
Niveous23 1 year ago
For me it was no less then an private disaster. Losing my faith that is. I don't know if 3 years in the military were harder or losing my faith.
Forkroute 1 year ago
Faust's point is completely valid, but concludes with a false equivalency as you aptly pointed out, ProfMTH.
More invested, wide-spread and unbiased research perpetuates non-belief far more frequently than belief; highlighted by the consistently higher scores on religious based testing by nonbelievers than believers.
Strong, self-assured belief unequivocally requires a suspension of objective critical analysis at some point/s - this conclusion is unavoidable on some level in every theist.
bjwilly69 1 year ago
@TheDevilWorks Same here.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Not very convincing. I believe other minds exist but I welcome the discovery of proofs to convince my solipsist friends.
lifeandphilosophy 1 year ago
@lifeandphilosophy Hmm?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH You are familiar with the problem of other minds, right? If not, google it. Anyhow, that is a belief that we all come to know without the use of arguments. Would it be irrational for me to seek evidential justification for that belief to convince others? No, not necessarily. I don't see what's wrong with coming up with more reasons to believe a position once you are already rational in believing it.
lifeandphilosophy 1 year ago
@lifeandphilosophy " You are familiar with the problem of other minds, right?"
Yes. I'm not seeing its relevance to what's discussed in this video.
"I don't see what's wrong with coming up with more reasons to believe a position once you are already rational in believing it."
Assuming arguendo that one is rational in believing X absent reasons to believe X, Faust isn't arguing that there's anything "wrong" with believing without reasons, but rather that religious arguments tend not...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @lifeandphilosophy ...to persuade anyone to be a believer (or to abandon religious belief, for that matter). Instead, religious arguments serve to confirm and eluciate already held beliefs. She also sets out to explain why this is the case.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I remember forming my atheist view at a very young age listening to sermon. Good job Reverend!
It was at the age I was coming to the realization that magic was not real, so pretty young. On that day, the stories of the miracles struck me as implausible to the point I suspected them to be outright lies.
I can see quite a bit of Faust's argument in me, as I know I have always been more open to atheist argument since I rejected God at the get-go.
alghaf 1 year ago
@alghaf
In that specific case what Faust says didn't actually apply to you since you didn't have a prior non-belief before you stopped believing.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
Not only is she right about that, the doxastic question applies to other areas of human beliefs as well. (e.g. Politics)
Get five people to agree on anything, and you know what you've got?
Utter chaos, because I'd be freaking out.
YouAmYeknur 1 year ago
Former theist checking in. Just wanted to say that I was persuaded by argument that God does not exist. I could spend a very long time recounting exactly what arguments, how they interacted with previously held beliefs, in what exact ways they persuaded me, and so on. (If you're curious, I can send you off to some heavy reading.) But Youtube doesn't give me space for that, so I'll just chime in with another "I was persuaded." And, I maintain, I could still be so.
swimmylionni 1 year ago
@swimmylionni Thanks very much.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
As a "Theist", when you are asked for the basis of your faith, you can either give a rational argument (e.g. law of causes and consequence in creation) or an irrational basis (e.g. a testimony by the Holy Spirit). As an Atheist - if I am not mistaken - you do not have this option, because in Atheistic circles only reasonable argumentations are considered as valid. The real basis for a belief or unbelief may be rational or irrational, but the Atheist absolutely has to appear as rational.
Troul478 1 year ago
@Troul478 There are Atheists that assert they are ''Atheists'' specifically because they lost a loved one they believed God, if he existed, would have protected from harm. ...is that rational?
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00 Let's face it: A decision for a certain religion or philosophy is hardly ever a rational one.
Troul478 1 year ago
@Troul478 ...that doesn't really address the counter argument to your initial point that I made ...but whatever...
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00 What I tried to say is that those people you called "Atheists" in your comment are not the exception, but the rule.
Troul478 1 year ago
@Troul478 When you put the word '''Atheist'' in inverted commas... are you making the ''No true Scotsman fallacy''?...
ndjm00 1 year ago
@ndjm00 You put the word in inverted commas, see your first reply. So you can ask yourself this question.
Troul478 1 year ago
@ndjm00 In my use of inverted comments I was signifying a spoken statement. That is correct usage. These people believe they are Atheist as much as the next Atheist. My whole point here is one you have yet to address. You stated, and I quote: ''but the Atheist absolutely has to appear as rational.'' unquote. I provided an example where a person declares they are an Atheist because they lost a loved one they believed God, if he existed would have saved. Is this rational?
ndjm00 1 year ago
Sweet song. What is it?
qwertyzz7 1 year ago
@qwertyzz7 Palestrina's "Credo".
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH
Thank you very much :).
qwertyzz7 1 year ago
I stopped believing in a deity when I was very young, for the same reason I gradually stopped believing in Santa Clause even though (even to this day) no one had ever actually told me there was no such person. As I grew and learned more about the world, I simply found that the things I KNEW to be true (in the actual sense of the word "to know," as in things I could objectively verify) were diametrically opposed to what I BELIEVED to be true. First it just made me agnostic, but more recently...
bicokun 1 year ago
... I came to the conclusion that there was no special position that should be granted to the concept of a deity any more than the concept of magic in general. My "deconversion" happened pretty slowly and deliberately, I guess, which might be the reason it wasn't at all painful, but more like realizing the moon isn't made of cheese. It was kind of a "oh, well" thing. Maybe it's also because, since I was young, it was never really a core belief.
bicokun 1 year ago
By the way, these two videos are an example of Youtube at its best. They illustrate the exciting potential of a medium like Youtube for getting a group of people to focus on and discuss difficult but important issues.
LiberalsAndChurls 1 year ago
@LiberalsAndChurls Thanks a lot.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
In fact, I suspect that Faust doesn't really believe there is such an equivalence. I think she just wanted to avoid alienating believers. In doing so, I think she traded intellectual rigor for the promise of a wider audience, a Faustian bargain if there ever was one. (Okay, I admit I spent an unreasonable amount of time trying to figure out a way to work in the phrase Faustian bargain).
LiberalsAndChurls 1 year ago
@LiberalsAndChurls Interesting and, of course, possible.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
A believer, on the other hand, might vigorously defend belief, not because of its soundness, not because of its logic and truth value, but simply because there is an emotional commitment to it, because its loss would occasion much discomfort, because it is a core belief. This asserted equivalence in the reasons for doxastic inertia in both directions is in my view a serious flaw in Faust's argument. ... cont.
LiberalsAndChurls 1 year ago
Doxastic inertia may occur in both directions, but it doesn't follow that the inertia can be attributed in both cases to the same tendency to defend core beliefs. A non-believer might vigorously defend non-belief, not because the non-belief is core, not because there is an emotional commitment to it, not because its loss would be painful, but simply because the non-belief happens to be the sounder position ... cont.
LiberalsAndChurls 1 year ago
... I was simply "charmed" by the figure of Jesus as depicted in the gospel stories. But even at the time, I thought of my belief as being irrational and contrary to logic and evidence. I just thought I had accessed a supernatural source of truth that trumped the normal sources of truth. By contrast, I lost my faith through a slow deliberative process of considering the arguments and evidence against faith.
LiberalsAndChurls 1 year ago
Your two hypotheses are borne out in my experience. When I was growing up, I received no religious indoctrination and thought of myself as a non-believer. Then, in college, I read for the first time the gospel stories about Jesus, and I spontaneously started believing in Jesus without going through any real deliberative process. ... cont.
LiberalsAndChurls 1 year ago
I believe (assuming I understood) that your contention is the correct one. Far more non-believers came to the conclusion after a doubt in the existence of God became present, and objectively attempted to find an answer. Where as believers are attempting to justify their beliefs because of that core understanding, God exists, and then objectively try and find reasons for God to exist. They are not objectively looking for the right answer, more looking for their answer to be correct..
idrinkwine732 1 year ago
i think im like MOST non-believers; i rejected religious belief by deliberative process BECAUSE it was against my core fundamental beliefs. know what i mean?
bobbyb826 1 year ago
i am interested, because you claim to have followed a deliberate process that resulted in atheism. what is your argument that proves the impossibility of a creator of the universe
ghjurx452 1 year ago
@ghjurx452 It's not my claim that it is impossible for "a creator of the universe" to exist any more than it's my claim that it is impossible that the sun won't rise tomorrow.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Your claim of atheism is very much more closely related to the non existence of a creator of the universe than it is to the rising of the sun so that analogy is poor.
But that is irrelevant because there is an unfounded assumption in my question. It could be the case (according to the distinction of Practical atheism vs. Theoretical atheism provided by the Wikipedia page on atheism lol) that you are a Practical atheist. continued..
ghjurx452 1 year ago
@ProfMTH This distinction between Practical and Theoretical atheism is new to me. The assumption that I made in my question was that you were a Theoretical atheist and made the claim that "a creator" cannot exist. But you could be an atheist and make no such claim.
Most of the atheists on youtube are Theoretical atheists and either attempt to prove that "a creator" does not exist or they are completely ignorant to the fact that the claim that a creator does not exist needs proof. continued..
ghjurx452 1 year ago
@ghjurx452 No one can ever prove that a creator does not exist, an invisible conscious being/s could be behind natural processes. What people can do is show arguments for the likelihood of this being very, very small.
We can show that the Bible, Judaism, and Christianity are the evolution of older Canaanite, Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, etc. myths, legends, laws, gods.
We can show that there is no reason to fear the fairy tales or close our minds to reality and this life.
NoThanksDesertCults 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Biased on your non answer to my original question i will assume that you are either a "Practical atheist" and make no claims about the possible existence of "a creator" with which i have no qualms or you are a Theoretical atheist that is ignorant to the fact that proof is necessary for the claim that "a creator" doesn't exist.
So which is it? :D
ghjurx452 1 year ago
@ghjurx452 "Biased on your non answer to my original question...."
Are you kidding me? Your question assumed something that I never argued, i.e., that it is impossible that there a creator of the universe. I corrected your faulty assumption in my response.
I regard myself as an atheist agnostic. If you find that term unsatisfactory, I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about that. I find quibbles about atheistic terminology to be as interesting and useful as watching paint dry. Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I would postulate that the true reason that arguments regarding theology are unpersuasive is because it is impossible to create an argument that proves or disproves the existence of something that could be outside our universe and comprehension.
If you agree with the previous statement, you are agnostic.(like me)
respond if you disagree
ghjurx452 1 year ago
I've made this point many times in explaining my atheism!!
My event of being Born Again was a totally emotional experience, which took place when I was in a critically needful situation. My deconversion came about after seeing a friend lose her mind to her religious addiction. What happened to her gave me the impetuous to study scripture again, but this time on a scholarly level. After 3 years of intense study, I deconverted which was not an emotional experience, but rather a rational one.
Cootabux 1 year ago
I believe it has varying degrees, completely dependent on applications of contiguous forces.
The "core beliefs" however it's manifested will take on full defense naturally. Greater change to the sum, will yield (destruction) to the present state.
Because of relativity, we all will experience a slightly or dramatically different view of existence (reality).
Truth unfortunately has little weight if it's remote, like the act of gravity on matter.
More contiguous forces is the key. *Connections*
Fastlan3 1 year ago
@Fastlan3
Religion has always held the greater sum of parts, simple because the transfer of (A's) subjective concepts are automatically transformed by the receiver (B) to best fit (B's) view of reality. Without objectivity, the transfer can be altered and changed without (A) and (B) confronting dramatic changes.
This is why religion make such good Communion outlets. Thus yielding greater contiguous forces and continues to snowball.
The mind isn't meant to be intelligent , but has potential.
Fastlan3 1 year ago
Part 5 but so to not offend his family and humiliate them to others, he/she took the revenge or died trying.) I do not want to take the argument elsewhere but Personally Culture has a huge impact but is it religion that Affects culture or culture that effects religion. Either way religion is a complicated extremely difficult subject to argue with. And to be honest I don’t care so long as no one tries to interfere with my belief or life due to my beliefs.
sinans11 1 year ago
@sinans11
I conclude that believers are irrational and in deep denial. I don't say that flippantly, as I was a believer for many years before I became an atheist.
Religion can, and does, have a profound effect on culture and individual. 500 years ago, Europeans invaded my country (the Americas) and nearly wiped out every member of my race. This was done for power and greed but religion was it's foundation & justification for rape & genocide.
So yes, no question of religions impact.
Cootabux 1 year ago
@Cootabux Well yes these kind of things happen because of the values of a few people. Do you value god or money, food or socialization. My problem is, a religious man knows something is wrong, but continues to do so, best example sex. sex before marriage is forbidden in Islam but many do have sex before marriage and cheat. my rationalization of the whole issue is that society can have a profound effect on ones conscious and also, will. Does one have the will to carry out gods words.
sinans11 1 year ago
@Cootabux People are selfish, and regardless of their own morality, they continue to do somthing that they know they are going to feel guilty about but it pleasures them. An argument of a Muslim man on this issue is that "they are not true Muslims". I beg to differ. As this is humn reality, people make mistakes, regardless of whether they feel it's write or wrong. Religion is the tool used to try and put themselves back in line. ooh and the devil always trys to make people do bad things (excuse)
sinans11 1 year ago
@Cootabux do u understand that in order to claim that you are an atheist you have to do more that refute all religions that exist in the world you have to prove the impossibility of a creator of the universe. if you cannot do this then you are agnostic.
just so u know
reply if you disagree or would like to share your proof.
ghjurx452 1 year ago
Part 4 - interlinked throughout history. Personally I like to concentrate on culture. Culture proves to me how weak human kind can be to even disobey their religion. Example (In Turkey a century ago, it was very common to see one shoot another, but in certain tribes and cultures within Turkey, the brother, son or other loved one of the killed man must kill the person who killed in revenge, Turkey is Muslim and such act is forbidden and sometimes not wanted by the person taking the revenge,
sinans11 1 year ago
Part 3 - in something which cannot be seen nor proven other than a belief in ones heart sole or inner self. Therefore religion is a concept from the inner self which will be very difficult to break whether a believer or non believer but is not impossible. Experiences, psychological states, illnesses, speeches, etc can all change, allow people to think or weaken ones thoughts if rational to ones state of mind and belief. Culture is as complicated and fanatical as religion as both have
sinans11 1 year ago
Part 2 - the act of probability is at work and thus, “shit happens”. The only evident books with miracles written in it are the so called holly books, which believers try and learn their religion of belief from. However non believers may just turn another book and show the image of a fire breathing dragon which was supposed to be alive just 150 years back, thus proving that people at large were irrational in those days. But non-believers still believe, believers are irrational due to believing
sinans11 1 year ago
Part 1 - More than people trying to convert or di convert one from a particular belief, I believe one has already made up their mind in such cases thus allowing that person or event even to open the door where the subject must just walk through. However if acts of miracles (as believers say) is evident then it will act as a catalyst for many to believe. However, such evidence or miracles or divine intervention is very very rear if not nonexistent, while non believers mainly believe that
sinans11 1 year ago
More people need to see these videos, including the "God is not God" series from TrenchantAtheist. The League of Reason would do well in seeing these videos to revise and improve their approach to the undecided.
gininginin 1 year ago
As a kid I was a socially indoctrinated Christian. My deconversion came later due to an accumulation of information. Reading the bible was the catalyst; learning philosophy, critical thinking, and history accelerated my skepticism.
I don't think my core belief, "I doubt supernatural entities" is unassailable... as it's merely a conclusionary theory from numerous factoids. If someone presents a more plausable conclusion I'm open game.
bozzutoman 1 year ago
I agree with your assessment, although I think a lot of people will have their minds changed by something they already agree with. I became an atheist 20 some odd years ago deconverting from a protestant christian background. It wasn't any one person who convinced me, but was compelled that a triple O god is the only viable option and if there was one it would be incumbent for him to have his presence validated to all. This not being the case I ceased in my belief.
TheLummer66 1 year ago
because u would not believe any arguments for atheism she said a person wont change beleif because they r 2 busy defendin their side
dragonmaster613 1 year ago
Lol dude you coulda just said everything in a few seconds instead of repeating the same point over and over just to make people who don't understand think your saying something much more complicated.
Evrythn1outof8infnty 1 year ago
@Evrythn1outof8infnty And, dude, you can go back to watching moronic videos that don't require you to think.
ProfMTH 1 year ago 11
if wat she said is tru than there would b no atheiests. profmth would still b a theiest
dragonmaster613 1 year ago
@dragonmaster613 Why?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
The aesthetic quality and rigor of argumentation exhibited by your videos just keeps increasing; keep it up.
JOEFRO2 1 year ago
@JOEFRO2 Thanks very much.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
So, that was my story at least. There was no abrupt change from belief in God to nonbelief in gods, it was all very gradual. I do not think I would have accepted an abrupt change. To put it in the context of Faust and this video, my belief in God migrated (or was gradually displaced) from the core to the periphery, before dropping off altogether. Rome wasn't built in a day.
Gilmaris 1 year ago
My own journey from Christianity to atheism started when I was around 10 years old. That's when I started thinking that eg. a Muslim was just as convinced of his faith, and for the same reasons, as I was of mine. My conclusion then was that force of conviction could not be considered evidence, and I became as open to ALL theistic beliefs as I had been to Christianity. This was in part wishful thinking: "wouldn't it be cool if they were ALL true?" (Cont....)
Gilmaris 1 year ago
(...cont.) When I was around 13-14, I became very open to the idea that perhaps NONE of them were true. This was a very cynical, "what's the point of it all" period of my life, and it is possible that had I been happier, my beliefs would not have changed in that direction, either. This, I feel, is an important point: my happiness and general outlook on life did not change with my beliefs, but rather the other way around. (Cont....)
Gilmaris 1 year ago
(...cont.) Around 17-18 years of age, I was very much agnostic with regards to God's existence, and this is when I decided I was a Buddhist. First of all I agreed with their take on God's existence: whether gods exist or not is irrelevant. Second, the first noble truth, "life is suffering", is something many a teenager can identify with, though they may take it far to literally (as I did). Third, I agreed with the ecclectic nature of Buddhism. (Cont....)
Gilmaris 1 year ago
(...cont.) However, I also had the naive (and rather un-Buddhist) impression that "since I am a Buddhist, that means I have to believe all the teachings". So I decided I also believed in karma and reincarnation, because I "had to". That didn't last long, however, as I realized how silly that was. After my Buddhist period, I simply remained agnostic and agreeing with a lot of what Buddhism had to say. (Cont....)
Gilmaris 1 year ago
(...cont.) Later I would relabel myself as an agnostic atheist, but with no actual change in beliefs, only the definitions of the labels. So from around the age of 18-20, my beliefs in the existence of gods has remained pretty much unchanged.
However, I should mention that my childhood faith lingered for a long time, even after it was dismissed. So for a long time, possibly even into my early 20s, I could feel the subconscious beckoning me to tap into the old faith. (Cont....)
Gilmaris 1 year ago
(...cont.) Consciously, of course, I saw it as a bunch of nonsense, but it was the same kind of wishful thinking that I felt as a child, wanting the make-believe to be real. I remember as a kid, realizing that those big holes in the old asphalt weren't really dinosaur tracks, and that the mountains weren't really trolls caught in the sun, but it felt so good believing that. My subconscious beckoned me the same way then: "What if it's true after all?" But that's just sentimentality.
Gilmaris 1 year ago
"Brainwashing" usually starts at an early age. Whether it is Christianity, Islam or Nazism, ideologies need to brainwash children to survive. How many Christians in Pakistan, Hindus in USA etc. Science does not because it is openly demonstrable.
The real argument is do theists, or Nazis for that matter, have the right of ultimate access to pollute children's minds with their naive lies.
movieklump 1 year ago
My problem with Faust's position is that it is philosophy, and thus suffers from the inevitable defect of philosophy: viz, it is unconcerned with evidence. The so called arguments are really no more than word games. If one wishes to know something, like is there bread in the cupboard, one does not sit around thinking about the problem, constructing plausible logical sequences; what one does is get up an look in the cupboard. Running out of space. Will continue.
stevehayes13 1 year ago