Christian fundamentalists might cause genocides, Islamic fundamentalists might tell children to blow themselves up and Jewish fundamentalists might be kicking people out of their homes in the name of a so-called holy land, but I'll be damned if these dastardly atheist fundamentalists not take a book's word on the existence of a supernatural being!
Well if we're overlooking poets such as Keats, and even up to the Beats and postmodernists, what about Rabbie Burns? World-revered as one of the greatest poets, and a noted agnostic, at least.
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
Unlike many of the opposition of atheism, this guy was incredible - we worked both with the audience and did not contend. He just brought up points and worked on their view. Enjoyed, even from an Atheist.
Think with you brain at least once in your life, try to think as you think when you are working and doing real things that put you somewhere. This will lead you to the real place, no religion nor Atheism, because you are above it all.
When I see anyone sporting a back to front collar, or any religious object, I switch off because time's too precious to waste on the ignorant spewing religions drivel. Blah, blah, blah!!!
well d'uh, you cant convince creationalists....its like trying to be reasonable with someone who puts a bucket over their head and shouts to drown out your voice
True.. that is probably what he was intending to do and it is somewhat valid for this purpose. BUT: one must consider the penalty for STATING one was not religious in former times (often death - as it is in many Muslim countries now). Should also consider that it was ACCEPTED practice to cite the supernatural to explain away the inexplicable THEN regardless of one's intelligence - now, apart from the US, it is not.
@2001Horatio I think it's more an answer to the claim that only irrational or unintelligent people can be religious, and that religion is inherently destructive or evil. I still agree he doesn't make a really strong point even if that is the case.
Religious people do not know what they want. When you tell them you're atheïst, you're immoral because your morals are unfounded. And when you're criticizing religion, you're suddenly a fundamentalist. Aty first, religion is superior to atheïsm, but when you criticize religion, atheïsm suddenly becomes a religion as well. The more you criticize religion, the more religious you get, according to the religious.
Thank you for uploading this. Saw the one with Fry, Hitchens, Widdecombe, and the Archbiship, and so wanted to see if there were more. Seems there are!
A question for atheists. In a world where there's no proof of God's existence or of life after death; how will you explain to your children why you brought them into the world and why they should die?
"Composers passionate about the Christian inspiration ... [etc]"
BULLSHIT. Western music never flourished until the rise of secular music during the renaissance. Eg, syncopation never appeared in recorded/written music until the renaissance.
The Ex Bishop speaks of Auden.......Auden was gay and the church would reject him if he were alive today.
God was in Auschwitz? Really? I can't imagine believing in a god who is so weak that he is beaten by insane megalomaniacs........a god who can't help his own devote people.......what good is he?
This opening is absolutely laughable. If I were not ashamed of ever having been religious, I absolutely am now. Completely thwarting the reality, gj. Maybe religious preachers and the likes should just be kept the fuck away from these kinds of debates so we might have intelligent discussions?
Despite what Harries thinks, he doesn't get to define the word Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is a strict adherence to a set of beliefs. It describes a particular approach to a religion or philosophy. Atheism isn't even a belief; it's the lack of belief in gods. That is it's only defining characteristic. You're either an atheist, or you're not. There's no such thing as liberal atheism or fundamentalist atheism. The whole damn premise of this debate is based on a misconception.
@nin8halos "Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life."
--Wikipedia
It could also be said that atheists believe there is no god. Or that they don't believe there is a god. Frankly, it doesn't matter. One's philosophy could be that ultimately what we do on earth doesn't matter because there is no god.
One thing about the "VOTE" MUST BE SAID, because it's such a big #FAIL in every IQ2 debate:
The initial vote is ALWAYS manipulated by lots of the voters who vote FALSELY against their own opinion.
These people long for a surprise "AHAAA" effect at the end, when by seemingly changing their position, they want to falsely emphasize the persuasive power of the position they fancied from the beginning on.
One thing about the "VOTE" MUST BE SAID, because it's such a big #FAIL in every IQ2 debate:
The initial vote is ALWAYS manipulated by lots of the voters who vote FALSELY against their own opinion.
These people long for a surprise "AHAAA" effect at the end, when by seemingly changing their position, they want to falsely emphasize the persuasive power of the position they fancied from the beginning on.
7:12 bravo to Dawkins for respectfully sitting there. I couldn't participate in a debate like that...I couldn't control myself by the time that bishop started talking about the Atheistic view on the "grand perhaps". ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?! YOU FUCKING DIPSHIT HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHAT AMAZING THINGS ARE WITHIN A BLACK HOLE JUST TO NAME ONE OUT OF MANY EXAMPLES...THINGS THAT DEFY EVERYTHING THAT WE KNOW TO BE TRUE AND REAL?! THINGS THAT, IF WE KNEW, WOULD CHANGE ALL OF OUR VIEWS ON REALITY
5:09 LoL just look at Richard Dawkins writing as fast as he can to keep up with all the bullshit the bishop is spewing out...just so that he can later explain to him why he's completely misrepresented Atheism.
I honestly think that all this preaching has to stop. No God has given anyone the right to preach what is right or wrong or to condemn people for their beliefs. The god that everyone refers to, be it by whatever name is in my opinion (and it is only my opinion) an energy that is connected through the Universe. Thats what makes me happy and what I tend to believe. Everyone should chill, believe what they want, dont push it on others and stop preaching. Lets just get on! Support each other!
@SmoothReinvention What we should be encouraging is critical thought processes. If something is a fundamentalist mindset, then they are close minded by nature. We cannot allow something fundamentalist to become any sort of dominating belief in the world. Luckily, Atheism most certainly is not fundamentalist, especially not New Atheism. New Atheism is merely an aggressive form of atheism, an atheism in which we day, "No more of this 'faith is just as plausible as science' nonsense."
is this man implying that art and philosophy only happened because of religion? is that actually what he was saying? i thought this was meant to be an intelligent debate
fundamentalism : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles.
I believe in literal and sometimes strict adherence to reason, logic, critical thinking, compassion, empathy, and justice. As an atheist I very firmly believe it is the responsibility of human beings to practice critical thinking and to reject assertions (especially supernatural ones) without evidence to back them up. So yeah, I suppose in that regard I'm fundamentalist.
So because a given composer might have a strong religious influence, religion itself is more plausible? Bullshit. It merely means his muse is religion. It does not make the argument for christian faith or god(s) any more substantiated. Not to mention there are plenty of artists who drawn inspiration from things very unlike and unattached to christianity or religion, thus making the conjecture demonstrably baseless.
There is no new atheism or old atheism or fundamental atheism, there is merely not believing in god(s) and/or the supernatural in general. Atheism is simply not believing what theism claims.
@GermanChocolateCake Indeed about the only thing that could be new about atheism is the people standing up to argue its point, the freedom with which to do so (historically speaking) and the technological advancements that make it possible for that argument to be heard far and wide.
at 3:00 "First of all it's impervious to the facts." Haha, The opposite of what a thinking atheist does. We come to our conclusions through the facts. oyg 5:00 Bring the hardest arguments. We burn them all with proof that they are wrong or at least cast enough doubt on them so that they would not stand in an impartial court.
Secularism is God's work. He hates Muslims more than he hates Catholics but he knows Catholics are bigger hypocrites, so the conversion rate should be pretty good.
hitler was a christian insofar as it forwarded his plans. it was a useful tool in his eyes as he and his "inner circle" were really harking back to a mix of old Norse gods and the psudo religion of madame blavadskys' (false) hypothesis of an "Aryan race" that started everything of "high culture on this planet.
and thats just for starters!
the deeper ya get into the NAZI thing..the fucking weirder it gets!!!!!!
like any good dick tatter he USED religion as a means to an end.
@flugcojg Hitler wasn't your kind of Christian, but he was nonetheless a Christian. He publicly proclaimed he was acting as he believed Christ wished us to act. He ordered the killing of of millions on the firm belief that God Himself made Jews inferior and desired their extermination. His motivations were religiously based.
Sorry. Hitler was a Christian, just not the kind we want.
Atheism doesn't have that divine infallibility imperative and it doesn't support totalitarianism.
Talk shit on youtube, facebook, various internet forums. Write books about how religion is bullshit. Make fun of believers for being "idiots". National Academy of Sciences. Royal Society.
Actually you can't talk shit on any sort of online media forum if "kill heathen" is on the agenda of the militant faith since any not of their own is a target. Except atheist probably won't actually commit genocide based that started in faith.
Disassociate yourself from the world much? I can't believe you even made top comment.
Keep on "Keep it real", in your own personal world.
Did you really respond to a 3 month old post? Wow. Bet you feel important now.
Maybe the reason my comment is well received is because other people realized the hilarity in calling people like Dawkins a "militant atheist", when if you compare him to anyone that could be described as a "militant Christian" or a "militant Muslim", you would see they are not very apt comparisons.
@imperator332 - While largely true there have been militant atheists who have killed people before. Like some of the Red Army under Stalin and Mao who demolished religious buildings and forced de-conversion of followers and religious figures at gunpoint. However, you're right that in the Western world what you listed is pretty much the extent of what militant atheists do.
@A86 "Like some of the Red Army under Stalin and Mao who demolished religious buildings and forced de-conversion of followers and religious figures at gunpoint."
and what part of atheism told them to do that? In fact what part of atheism even encourages any conversion of others? What those supposed atheists supposedly did was under no instruction, guidance or doctrine of atheism.
The same cannot be said of the atrocities committed in the name of religion.
@stiimuli - Do you know about Marxist-Leninist and Maoist ideology? They believed that all religion is oppressive and that only atheistic dialectical materialism could allow man to be free. They killed religious people because they believed that all religion is oppression and that religious people by nature will be supportive of the class system and would eventually become counter-revolutionaries.
The State allowed some religious practice but it had to be edited and ok-ed by the government.
@A86 "Do you know about Marxist-Leninist and Maoist ideology?"
yes, those are specific ideologies instituted by specific people involving much more than atheism. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in a god. Thats it. Nothing else. No course of action or doctrine is included or implied. No part of atheism instructed or recommended their actions.
Blaming atheism for what those people did is as illogical as blaming the theory of evolution for what Hitler did.
@stiimuli - That's about like saying Christianity has nothing to do with the Klan or Nazism. It could be considered a perversion but religion is still involved.
Whether or not it's a perversion of atheism they did claim to be at least partially inspired by atheism. If the belief that all religion is oppressive and only atheistic dialectical materialism is suitable for a socialist society would they still have committed the same actions against religious people?
@A86 "That's about like saying Christianity has nothing to do with the Klan or Nazism."
Except that...like I pointed out....specific instruction and example for many of these acts is given in the teachings of these religions. The bible specificly describes and promotes bigotry and discrimination. God himself orders followers to brutally kill those of other faiths, tribes and lands.....and even kills them himself.
atheism contains no such motivation or instruction
@stiimuli - No cosmological view contains inspiration towards any act of violence in and of itself. Atheism doesn't and neither does theism. Theism is a simple belief in god/higher power(s). That in and of itself doesn't contain any inspiration for action either. These views can be used for violence when a person feels that their view is "the only truth" and that those who disagree are either less deserving of life or need to be made to agree by force.
@A86 "No cosmological view contains inspiration towards any act of violence in and of itself. Atheism doesn't and neither does theism"
really? “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Leviticus 20:13
do you have any idea how many american christians TODAY use this and similar verses as a mandate to either discriminate or kill gays?
@stiimuli - This is one of the laws of a Bronze Age tribe in the Middle East. For some historical context this verse has been argued to be a law referring to the punishment of people who engaged in a war crime - sometimes after defeating foreign armies some Israelite soldiers would rape the dead bodies as an act of disrespect. Of course, over the years some Jews and Christians (the latter especially selectively since this is part of the Mosaic Law) have tried to apply this to all homosexuality.
@A86 "This is one of the laws of a Bronze Age tribe in the Middle East."
ask a fundamentalist if they believe any of their divine teachings should be left in the bronze age. Right here on youtube there is a plethora of creationists who believe EVERY PART of the bible is eternal and unchanging....because the bible sais so!
do you see yet how all of this is a recipe for disaster.....and is often USED specifically for those ends?
@stiimuli - Of course if I told this to a Fundamentalist they wouldn't care. I HAVE on family members who are fundie Christians. It meant little to them and they just resolved the cognitive dissonance by ignoring and forgetting what I said. People like that have effectively shut off parts of their mind.
"do you see yet how all of this is a recipe for disaster"
How could I not? It's the reason those idiots flew a plane into the Twin Towers and why idiots feel they should control women's bodies.
@A86 "It meant little to them and they just resolved the cognitive dissonance by ignoring and forgetting what I said. People like that have effectively shut off parts of their mind"
another point apon which we agree. I dont understand why you dont see this as a problem....one that religion actively encourages.
@stiimuli - I didn't say religion wasn't a problem. I was simply saying theism and atheism don't cause anything inherently but both can be abused like anything else in this world.
@A86 "I didn't say religion wasn't a problem. I was simply saying theism and atheism don't cause anything inherently but both can be abused like anything else in this world."
How did theism become the point of this discussion? I initially was adressing your comments about atheism with referances to the atrocities religion causes. I get the feeling this slight-of-hand was deliberate O_o
@stiimuli "No, I think you'll find Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is still sold. So is "The Turner Diaries". These instructions on how to commit evil acts have more to do with race and nationality than God or religion. Especially the latter."
I'm not sure what the "no" is specificly referring to but the examples you gave further my point: Ideologies/institutions which encourage attrocious acts need to be scrutinized.
@stiimuli - Oh, I thought you were saying only religions have screeds advocating violence. That's what I was saying "no" about. I wasn't intended to discuss merits of theism (lol) only that theism and atheism in and of themselves are neutral but can still be used by the wrong people to justify violence. Ideologies/institutions which encourage atrocities need to be scrutinized, but my point was that even that's not enough. Anything can be used to justify violence as long as humans don't change.
@A86 "only that theism and atheism in and of themselves are neutral but can still be used by the wrong people to justify violence"
Except that no logical line of thinking exists from atheism to any atrocity. By contrast, anyone who believes strongly enough in an imaginary being can imagine that being wanting them to perform any act that person may already be inclined to perform.
This has been documented time and time again from terrorist bombings to Ted Bundy to HW Bush.
@stiimuli - "no logical line of thinking exists from atheism to any atrocity"
Really? Read what happened to churches, mosques and synagogues in the Soviet Union and Buddhist and Daoist temples and Christian churches in Mao's China. Read about Enver Hoxha's regime which declared Albania "the first officially atheistic state" and officially closed down all churches and had priests imprisoned and/or executed. They still would have done that were atheism not a part of Marxist-Leninist ideology?
@A86 "Really? Read what happened to churches, mosques and synagogues in the Soviet Union and..."
lack of belief in a god does not logicly lead to the acts perpetrated in those situations. Persecution and killing of members of every faith has occurred quite often wether atheism was present or not.
It necassarily requires the application of another ideology to make that logical connection beyween atheism and these acts.
@A86 Yes they would have, much like in ancient Rome, during the Empire days, where Apostasy was not so much a religious 'crime' than rather a form of treason to the high command of the emperor. Being Christian or any other religion was punishable by death because you denied the absolute power of the emperor. Much in the same way these regimes you touched upon, opposed religion because they were ABSOLUTIST regimes. The problem here is ABSOLUTISM (like religions are too). Atheism =/= absolutism.
@lebannerfan65 - That's true and that's what I've essentially trying to argue (though you summed it up much better). :) A lot of views can seem harmless when they're a minority who can do little more than run their mouths. Christians used to be little more than a messianic cult who most people just rolled their eyes at like people do with some New Agers today. However, if atheists became some kind of established power equivalent to what the Church it shouldn't be surprising if some abuse it.
@A86 So then logically, the fact that religion MUST be absolutist (or it isn't religion) and absolutism is never good, it follows that religion should be shunned. Religion is and must be absolutist (belief in a great absolute truth) so it is bad in THAT regard. But what many who seem to defend religion don't seem to get is that they are basically deriving their morals from society and human values, so they are not basing it on absolute truth. You could say most believers are humanists in drag
@lebannerfan65 - MUST religion be absolutist? No. There are many religions which aren't absolutist. Many Wiccans, Buddhists, Hindus, Christian Universalists, Sufis, etc. aren't absolutist. Is absolutism inherently bad? I would say when it comes to things which are based on opinion and not fact (such as whether or not "god" exists) but not for things that are scientific fact (like the Law of Gravity). But even the latter can be taken too far if you believe those who disagree should be hurt.
@A86 "But even the latter can be taken too far if you believe those who disagree should be hurt."
Sorry that is nonsensical. 1) that to my knowledge, has not happened, 2) if it did happen, there's nothing IN SCIENCE that would have made the person do that. The contrary is true for religion, because there are RELIGIOUS INJUNCTIONS for persecution, in the holy texts themselves.
That attempt at a parallel simply doesn't hold up.
@AR333 - Atheism is not science, it's a philosphy just like theism and deism. There have been atheists who have prosecuted non-atheists on a mass scale claiming their philosophy justified it. Like the religious purges in the Soviet Union and Red China. They claimed Marx's credo about religion being poisonous and supposedly inherently linked with the class system justified closing churches and temples and occasionally having the Red Guard force believers and priests to de-convert at gunpoint.
@AR333 - There is nothing in science that condones crimes against humanity but there is nothing in science that condemns it either. The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a big science experiment in some ways. Ever heard of the "Tuskegee Experiment" where black men with syphillis were left to die so doctors could see the effects of syphillis as it kills people? That was science. So were Nazi experiments on the effects of barometric pressure on Jewish test subjects in concentration camps.
@A86 Nobody denies that science is a HUMAN endeavour. Historically, science has been skewed by cultural prejudices. Difference: we don't say GOD told us.
Science is a way of studying reality. If someone said "let me see if Blacks burn alive slower than White's", the question of whether or not the test should be done is a question of ethics and culture.
Returning to your original claim: there are religious injunctions to kill and enslave. They are there in print, apparently the world of god.
@AR333 - Saying that effed up things were done "for the progress of humanity" or "for the progress of knowledge" really isn't much better (if at all better) than saying you God told you. If some guy tortured you to death would you really care whether he believes God wants him to do this or he's doing it for the greater good of human knowledge? Either way it hurts and you're screwed.
I'm sure you know that science isn't perfect, I just pointed that out to say that science isn't an ethics system.
@AR333 - Religion can do immoral things in the name of their twisted idea of moral absolutism (or sometimes in the name of moral relativism when it comes to the more zany or permissive religions, like the Children of God for instance) and science can do immoral things because science itself is amoral.
"there are religious injunctions to kill and enslave"
True, but that's not true of every religion. Just like not every scientist would approve of nuking people to take notes.
@A86 "True, but that's not true of every religion. Just like not every scientist would approve of nuking people to take notes."
Sorry but the point doesn't seem to have gone across. "Not every scientists would approve of..." misses the point completely. It's IN the text THEMSELVES. It's in the Pentateuch, it's in the Qu'ran. In the latter case, that's god's literal words. If you meant to say "not every believer takes it seriously", it doesn't change the fact that it's in the text.
@AR333 - You do know that most religions don't follow the Pentateuch or the Qu'ran as a holy book? You keep saying "religion" but it seems you mostly have an axe to grind with Abrahamic religions and project them onto all other systems of belief. Would you appreciate it if some religious person described all or most scientific-minded persons as believers in eugenics, Social Darwinism or scientific racism?
@A86 after reading over your discussion with AR333 it seems that you're not only missing the prevelant point being made but also incorrectly conflating certain ideologies with atheism.
These major religions specificly instruct and/or set divine example for bigotry, hatred, enslavement, violent oppression, genocide and a host of other atrocities. No part of "not believing in a god" provides such deplorable guidance.
To compare the two as you have been is intellectually irresponsible.
@stiimuli - I never said atheism = Stalinism. When on earth did I say that? However, the fact remains that most Stalinists are atheists and most view being religious and following their ideology as incompatible. Many also view belief in a god as something that needs to be wiped out. There are no commandments in atheism but Stalinism demands atheism and it demands forceful anti-theism.
Not all atheists are like that but not all religious people are like bin Laden or the Klan either.
@A86 "I never said atheism = Stalinism. When on earth did I say that?"
Yet you keep repeating stalinism as an example of atheism causing atrocity when atheism wasnt what caused the atrocity. All Stalinists breathe oxygen too but oxygen is not to blame.
"Many also view belief in a god as something that needs to be wiped out."
So what? They arent getting that behavior or belief from atheism itself. The same cannot be said of the abrahamic religions.
@stiimuli - "as an example of atheism causing atrocity"
It's an example of atheism being used as justification for an atrocity. I never said atheism specifically instructs or commands such things. Atheism doesn't have a belief system per se, hence it doesn't condone or condemn such things. Now it seems you're trying to turn atheism into an ethics system because some atheists did bad things and used their views to justify it.
@A86 "There are no commandments in atheism but Stalinism demands atheism and it demands forceful anti-theism"
Exactly. As I've already explained, it takes the application of another ideology to impart the type of extremism to atheism that the abrahamic religions already come pre-packaged with right in their holy books.
So please stop attempting to conflate the dangers of religious ideology with attrocities committed by people who were also atheists or scientists.....or brunettes.
@stiimuli - "it takes the application of another ideology to impart the type of extremism to atheism"
Not really. There have been atheists who aren't Stalinists or Maoists who have killed religious people before just on the justification that they believe religious people are dangerous - thus they see themselves as ridding the world of an evil person. Atheism is not a belief so it doesn't require another belief/view to be used to do bad or good things. It's ethically neutral.
@A86 "There have been atheists who aren't Stalinists or Maoists who have killed religious people before just on the justification that they believe religious people are dangerous - thus they see themselves as ridding the world of an evil person."
Once again...SO WHAT? Did atheism instruct them to commit such acts? No. Another ideology had to be applied to inform those actions.
Religion specificly instructs actions.
how many more ways can we attempt to explain this point?
@stiimuli - "neither science nor atheism instruct morality"
Hence why I don't see why you were so offended by my mention of some atrocities in the former Soviet Union or Red China that used atheism as a justification. As you said atheism is not a moral system, thus it's not like there's anything in atheism that specifically prohibits such things. If there was a code of behavior or ethics it would be like a belief system, wouldn't it? Atheism neither condones nor condemns those actions.
@A86 1) atheism does not instruct the atrocities committed by atheists
2) science does not instruct the atrocities committed by scientists
3) religion not only DOES instruct these many types of atrocities but gives divine example of it AND, in many cases, MANDATES it with the ultimate carrot and stick of heaven and hell.
PLEASE tell me you understand these 3 points and why they make your repeated attempts at drawing a paralell invalid
@stiimuli - 2) Science does not "instruct" atrocities but it has no compunction against it; 3) It also instructs people to do good things. It can be moral or immoral.
My point: if a person wants to commit evil being religious or not won't change their heart. Not believing in a god does not make humans more or less caring about each other. At least it doesn't appear so. Religion provides excuses for evil but so do a host of other secular causes: Politics, Economics, Property, Nationalism, etc.
@A86 "My point: if a person wants to commit evil being religious or not won't change their heart"
No but it's teachings deeply effect how a person behaves and makes decisions. A person prone to prejudice or cruelty finds holy teachings reinforcing these tribal tendancies and even giving permission, recommendation and example to commit such acts by the supposed supernatural lord of all things.
This kind of thing attracts and emboldens the mentally unstable.
@stiimuli - If something didn't instruct you but provided justification it's not much different other than semantics. Your post about religious justification was indeed true but that same kind of person could also be "justified" without a religon or a belief in a god if they believe that ethics are totally subjective. Since atheism is not an ethics system it doesn't offer prohibition against anything. Technically theism is not an ethical system either but that's different from religion.
@A86 "Not believing in a god does not make humans more or less caring about each other"
It clears away an extremely powerful corrupting influence on the mind.
Getting people to not believe in gods is not the goal......the goal is to get people to examine and assess themselves, others and their environment critically and objectively without the taint of superstition clouding their judgement.
@stiimuli - Believing in a god does not have a corrupting influence on everyone. It depends on what kind of god or higher power one believes in. Some people honestly become better people after they start believing in a god while some people stay the same or only become worse. Besides deities there are hundreds of other influences and reasons man comes up with to justify his desire to kill.
Thinking critically is always important but like theism atheism does have some constraints of its own.
@A86 "Believing in a god does not have a corrupting influence on everyone. It depends on what kind of god or higher power one believes in."
Its the dogma packaged with it that does the most harm....that along side the delusion of an imperceptable, all-powerful being other adults tell you is talking to you. This opens the door to any deranged voice in one's head becoming the guiding voice of god.
There is not a single point of parallel that could be drawn between this and atheism.
@stiimuli - Dogma would be in the realm of religion. You don't necessarily have to be a theist to be a religion (look at Buddhism and some of the Hindu religions). I agree the harm that religion does when one views god in certain ways but I don't think ALL forms of belief in a higher power are inherently dangerous. Atheism does not have a higher power but that does not mean it can never be harmful. If an atheist is so convinced they're "right" that they can't tolerate others disagreeing
@A86 "Dogma would be in the realm of religion. You don't necessarily have to be a theist to be a religion (look at Buddhism and some of the Hindu religions)."
Yes that's why I stated it that way. Theism in itself is not as dangerous as the religious dogma its almost always packaged with.
@stiimuli - That could be interpreted as meaning stand up for your Islamic beliefs, which is something most people do for their views, whatever they are, when they're seriously challenged. Christians have indeed used that reference to Christ "bring[ing] a sword" as validation for religious wars but the verse could also just be Jesus predicting that his teachings will cause conflict and strife among some people in the future. It already was even during his own life.
@A86 "Christians have indeed used that reference to Christ "bring[ing] a sword" as validation for religious wars but the verse could also just be Jesus predicting that his teachings will cause conflict and strife among some people in the future."
Then why didnt he say that? Why confuse the message with a violent metaphor? It seems so odd that a supposed all-powerful, all-knowing entity would communicate such important instructions so badly to its "flock".
@stiimuli - Why didn't he? Supposedly he did. Read Matthew 26:52.
"I would challenge you to point me to an atheist who makes claims of absolute certainty"
Anyone who is a "gnostic atheist". Anyone who says, "God does not exist" or "I know there is no god/I know god is imaginary" is claiming absolute knowledge. The same as gnostic theists who say "God exists" or "I know that god exists" instead of just "I believe in god".
@A86 "Why didn't he? Supposedly he did. Read Matthew 26:52."
Which demonstrates my point about conflicting messages and bad communication.
"Anyone who is a "gnostic atheist""
I know what a gnostic atheist is...I was asking you to point me to one. They are few and far between. I am not even aware of any that make videos on youtube. Every prominant atheist I've studied openly refutes claims of certainty even if, at other times, their wording might make it seem otherwise.
@stiimuli - Well, technically in the "Think not I came to bring peace" verse he doesn't explicitly advertise violence. The way it's written it could simply be a predictive statement. Which makes sense even from a secular point of view as his teachings were already causing strife and division among Jews who heard his message while he was alive.
"point me to one"
P.Z. Meyers. Richard Dawkins (just about, he has hinted he could be wrong but he views it as a very remote possibility)
@A86 Dawkins has famously stated on several occasions that he isnt absolutely certain. His famous quote goes something like "on a scale of 1-7, 1 being certain of a god and 7 being certain of no gods I'm a 6.9"
Why he chose 7 as a top of the scale perplexes me lol.
As for PZ....could you please cite the text or video in which he makes a statement of absolute certainty of no gods?
@stiimuli - Well, I think there are few gnostic theists or atheists who are a "7" (as Dawkins put it) on a scale of certainty. 6.9 is close enough to complete certainty that one could comfortably consider that person a "gnostic" whatever. You're right that it's curious he chose 7 as the highest level of certainty. Lol
I have to look but I think Myers said something in similar spirit.
@A86 You may think its close enough to classify them as gnostic but thats contrary to the specific point they're making. Science is not about absolute certainty. Only in mathematics are absolutes valid and even there is philosophically debateable.
6.9 is not 7. It leaves open the tentative scientific availability for evidence afforded to gravity, germ theory, newtonian physics, evolution and a host of other "facts" we're as close to sure about as is intellectually honest to be.
@stiimuli - Well, by the standards you're using NO ONE is either a gnostic atheist or a gnostic theist since almost every sane human being has even the tiniest speck of doubt somewhere in their mind. I could say I'm only 99.99% sure the Earth is round and not flat. That doesn't make me truly "agnostic" on the subject. The only reason there's ANY doubt is because I haven't gone into space to see it for myself. Most sane theists and atheists have at least a little doubt somewhere.
@A86 "Well, by the standards you're using NO ONE is either a gnostic atheist or a gnostic theist since almost every sane human being has even the tiniest speck of doubt somewhere in their mind."
Well, no. I'm not talking about a viewpoint constant. Many theists I debate with assert an absolute certainty about a god and their may be atheists who do the same about no gods...but this is an intellectually dishonest stance to take.
As Im sure you're aware, some of these people are NOT sane.
@A86 If an atheist is so convinced they're "right" that they can't tolerate others disagreeing they can be come just as batshit as some religious people."
As can happen with any point of view....but ONCE AGAIN I must point out that no part of atheism informs or mandates such behavior....the clear distinction between religion and other ideologies.
@stiimuli - Well, perhaps I phrased my original statement wrong because it seems that we largely agree much more than we originally thought. Maybe I just said what I said in a way that gave the wrong impression. In the current climate the idea of a mass genocide in the name of atheism is far-fetched, but it wouldn't be impossible at some point (though it doesn't seem likely).
On the thing about "fighting for the faith" that could be interpreted many ways.
@A86 "Besides deities there are hundreds of other influences and reasons man comes up with to justify his desire to kill."
Of all possible influences, history has shown divine inspiration to be the most common and the most sinister. No other influence carries the same alluring potency or potential for harm.
and for the millionth time...religion SPECIFICLY INSTRUCTS these behaviors. How many more times are you going to sidestep this key point?
@stiimuli - they can be come just as batshit as some religious people. I've seen it personally as I knew a guy who said he honestly believed we should start branding religious people as "clinically insane" and putting them in some sort of sanitariums or camps. How is that not a dangerous view? You can't say this guy believes a god told him to do it but it makes little difference because he's unhinged regardless. I wouldn't call that a rational mind.
@stiimuli - If you read history a shitload of wars are usually over land or resources. They often use religion to justify the wars to motivate the uneducated masses to fight and die but they also use things like nationalism, race and macho pride to motivate.
"religion SPECIFICLY INSTRUCTS"
I know religion instructs a lot of dumb shit but where does the Bible say fight for America? Or the Koran? The problem is you're trying to say religious fundie reasoning is valid when in reality
@A86 "I know religion instructs a lot of dumb shit but where does the Bible say fight for America? Or the Koran?"
It doesnt....it says to fight for the faith. Even jesus speaks of bringing a sword for the faith turning households against each other because one should not put family before Jesus. Where do you think the "christian warrior" mentality comes from? Its commanded in the text.
and they have the nerve to brandish "family values". Its disgusting.
@A86 "Thinking critically is always important but like theism atheism does have some constraints of its own."
Like what? What constraints can atheism possibly have when its a single position on a single issue? Its not even an ideology....its more of a yes or no question.
And superstitious belief contains its own pitfals even without the dogmatic brainwashing of religion. Steadfast belief in the supernatural reinforces blind faith as a virtue and stifles logical evaluation.
@stiimuli - it's often not even valid using their own religious books. Religionists don't necessarily have a corner in understanding or interpreting the books they claim to follow. I can't think of any religious verses that justify Manifest Destiny for America or the Iraq War.
"Like what?"
Atheism has no inherent positions other tha a lack of belief in god but in the West most atheists are materialists and lean towards "scientism" (the belief that only science can validate reality).
@A86 "it's often not even valid using their own religious books. Religionists don't necessarily have a corner in understanding or interpreting the books they claim to follow."
Very true, as demonstrated by the massive Pew research poll released last fall showing that atheists and agnostics know more about religions than the believers who follow them.
This does not change the fact that believers often find versus that support abhorent behavior and use them as divine inspiration.
@stiimuli - Of course I could be wrong but according to the Gospels Jesus was already seeing the strife between Jews his teachings were causing. Part of the reason I don't think he was encouraging violence is because later in the Gospels he supposedly tells off Peter for cutting off a Roman Centurion's ear and says that famous line of those who live by the sword dying by the sword. A verse a lot of reactionary Christians love to conveniently forget.
@A86 "I can't think of any religious verses that justify Manifest Destiny for America or the Iraq War."
I cant think of any for manifest destiny either...but for the Iraq war...Bush stated publicly that god told him to go to war. That sais it all right there. It exemplifies what I said earlier about believers interpreting any voice in their head as the word of god.
Apparently god's voice oddly resembles the voice of Donald Rumsfeld. Bible verses were used throughout that crusade.
@A86 "Atheism has no inherent positions other tha a lack of belief in god but in the West most atheists are materialists and lean towards "scientism" (the belief that only science can validate reality).
1) so what? Atheism does not instruct adherance to materialism, "scientism" or any other ism.
2) What is so bad about those things?
3) please cite a better method of investigation and detirmining reality from fantasy than science.
@stiimuli - Scientism is a limited way of determining things and rests on some unfalsifiable principles. Materialism is an unfalsifiable belief. The belief that there is no afterlife is unfalsifiable just like the belief that there is an afterlife.
"Atheism doesnt adhere to anything"
That's why I said "tendency" as many atheists tend to be materialists though atheism itself is not innately materialistic. In the West it's not very common to find atheists who aren't materialists however.
@A86 "Scientism is a limited way of determining things and rests on some unfalsifiable principles."
Once again...please cite a more reliable method of detirmining facts about...well...anything.
"Materialism is an unfalsifiable belief"
Its unfalsified but not unfalsifiable. Its unfalsified because no other state of reality has yet been verified (unless you count imagination as a state of reality). As soon as one is, then strict materialism will be shown invalid.
@A86 "The belief that there is no afterlife is unfalsifiable just like the belief that there is an afterlife."
Again, dont confuse unfalsified with unfalsifiable. Its intellectually irresponsible to claim the existance of something which has not been shown to be existant....therefor the logical default stance on such a thing is disbelief until belief is warranted.
This applies to claims of an afterlife, gods, werewolves, unicorns, bigfoot, angels etc.
@A86 "That's why I said "tendency" as many atheists tend to be materialists though atheism itself is not innately materialistic. In the West it's not very common to find atheists who aren't materialists however."
Agreed....but I would be careful about labeling atheists strict materialists. The same way many atheists dont assert that absolutely no god does, ever did or ever will exist anywhere with absolute certainty, those same atheists will concede there may be more outside the material.
@stiimuli - "Agreed....but I would be careful about labeling atheists strict materialists"
Agreed too. It's not that common (but it might be a growing trend) but I have seen or heard of some atheists who aren't strict materialists. Such as Sam Harris and Ron Reagan (Ronald Reagan's son), the latter of whom has stated he believes there might be some sort of afterlife even if a god doesn't exist.
@A86 its not that common? I would challenge you to point me to an atheist who makes claims of absolute certainty on any of these big questions.
There has been no reliable indication of an afterlife of any kind thus far (such a thing would actually violate the laws of physics) so to adhere to belief in one is, again, wishful thinking.
This is not the same as asserting absolute certainty that there is no afterlife....just like no evidence thus far for pixies does not rule them out.
@stiimuli - Even someone borderline insane like Pat Robertson and crazy Islamic fundamentalist imams. The reason they have the tiniest bit of doubt is because they've never personally seen "god" and they're not dead to truly confirm that they will meet him. The same goes for most religious people. The same goes for atheists because they realize they don't know everything about the universe and, like theists, they aren't dead to truly verify once and for all.
@A86 as a good example, I'm currently debating with a theist under the video "Seth Mcfarlane on atheism and gay rights" who is absolutely certain every word of the bible is 100% fact, does not understand the omportance of evidence or falsification of concepts and, In my opinion, not entirely sane.
This person stated flat out that its morally just to torture a good person for eternity for not believing in god while a murdererous monster who DOES believe should get into heaven. CHeck it out.
@A86 for people like this, absolute, dogmatic blind faith is a mandate and they're so brainwashed by the church culture they will not accept reasonable standards of verification if it means a challenge to their belief system.
I can point you to many others I've debated with in the past few months who are just as far gone or even (shockingly) worse.
@stiimuli - I'd be willing to bet even in people like that they'd only score a 6.9/7 on a scale of certainty. Almost everyone has some smidgen of doubt about something they believe in. Just like in some corner of our rational mind we realize there is at least a 0.001% margin of error for the belief that the Earth is round or that the Moon exists. If anyone is a true "7" on that scale they're probably not even sane because even a misguided mind realizes there is a room for error.
@stiimuli - We all know the weaknesses of theism but one of the weaknesses of atheism can be its tendency to adhere to materialism or physicalism, which isn't always a satisfactory methodology (in terms of methodological materialism) and existential materialism, like dualism and idealism, is an unfalsifiable worldview. So, theism, deism and atheism all have their limits and flaws. But in a critically thinking world its not surprising that not everyone will come to a theist or deist conclusion.
Christian fundamentalists might cause genocides, Islamic fundamentalists might tell children to blow themselves up and Jewish fundamentalists might be kicking people out of their homes in the name of a so-called holy land, but I'll be damned if these dastardly atheist fundamentalists not take a book's word on the existence of a supernatural being!
rootfifth001 1 week ago 2
"The two greatest poets..."
Well if we're overlooking poets such as Keats, and even up to the Beats and postmodernists, what about Rabbie Burns? World-revered as one of the greatest poets, and a noted agnostic, at least.
gregorisgod 1 week ago
How weird is the chair's voice!
Just started watching, looking forward to debate.
gregorisgod 1 week ago
I spent the whole of that speech waiting for his argument to show up. It never did.
Zoot101 1 week ago
His whole speech was one long straw man...
reznor12 3 weeks ago in playlist Intelligence Squared Debate #2 2
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 2 months ago
Unlike many of the opposition of atheism, this guy was incredible - we worked both with the audience and did not contend. He just brought up points and worked on their view. Enjoyed, even from an Atheist.
Unadmiserable 2 months ago
The impotent God
xmenprince 2 months ago
Would someone mind answering something for me? It is this: What fundamentals, if any, do atheists adhere to?
evey0259 2 months ago
@evey0259 being good people, just because it's right to be good people. not because we are told to be.
THEDRUMMERJOSH 1 month ago
Think with you brain at least once in your life, try to think as you think when you are working and doing real things that put you somewhere. This will lead you to the real place, no religion nor Atheism, because you are above it all.
knoxkuken34 2 months ago
the religious is saying nothing new just the same old crap
FIGHTFANNERD3 3 months ago
the god of the bible is not real because of logic
FIGHTFANNERD3 3 months ago
lol religious people trying to turn atheist into the bad guys
FIGHTFANNERD3 3 months ago
the first speaker's argument is pathetically weak.
quasarwaves 3 months ago
"Many great philosophers, authors, composers believed in god." = Argument from authority.
jessiessica 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
""Many great philosophers, authors, composers believed in god." = Argument from authority."
You don't have enough up-votes for me to take you seriously. I'm sorry.
Mattnesss 1 month ago
When I see anyone sporting a back to front collar, or any religious object, I switch off because time's too precious to waste on the ignorant spewing religions drivel. Blah, blah, blah!!!
privetgreetings 3 months ago
It's interesting, but I think "topic of the millennium" is an overstatement.
NightmareCinemaChild 3 months ago
Richard Harris. What an idiot. Never speak again.
Torquemadia 4 months ago
the guy who came up with that title should get his ass fired ....*looks right* ... its disrespectful to the victims of TRUE FUNDAMENTALISM.
rosmer00 4 months ago 10
Does anyone else think the thumbnail for this video looks utterly demonic? lol
HYP03L 4 months ago 12
Theres so much wrong with what that guy is saying...
lostfanvanjellies22 4 months ago in playlist lostfanvanjellies22's favorites
well d'uh, you cant convince creationalists....its like trying to be reasonable with someone who puts a bucket over their head and shouts to drown out your voice
MilitantOldLady 4 months ago
True.. that is probably what he was intending to do and it is somewhat valid for this purpose. BUT: one must consider the penalty for STATING one was not religious in former times (often death - as it is in many Muslim countries now). Should also consider that it was ACCEPTED practice to cite the supernatural to explain away the inexplicable THEN regardless of one's intelligence - now, apart from the US, it is not.
2001Horatio 5 months ago
Arguing FOR religion by saying WHO was religious and as they were such fine men then it must be true????
2001Horatio 5 months ago in playlist Intelligence Squared
@2001Horatio I think it's more an answer to the claim that only irrational or unintelligent people can be religious, and that religion is inherently destructive or evil. I still agree he doesn't make a really strong point even if that is the case.
Erufailon42 5 months ago
Religious people do not know what they want. When you tell them you're atheïst, you're immoral because your morals are unfounded. And when you're criticizing religion, you're suddenly a fundamentalist. Aty first, religion is superior to atheïsm, but when you criticize religion, atheïsm suddenly becomes a religion as well. The more you criticize religion, the more religious you get, according to the religious.
Skoda130 5 months ago
he didn't mention sam harris :(
freiheitsalv 6 months ago
G-d is good.
joshrj7 6 months ago
It's "HIS Dark Materials". Idiot.
SirSebastianWang 6 months ago
Great debate, but they might've invited a speaker who wasn't an old, straight, middle class white man.
MisterAlexGabriel 6 months ago
Thank you for uploading this. Saw the one with Fry, Hitchens, Widdecombe, and the Archbiship, and so wanted to see if there were more. Seems there are!
Thanks again!
Helios9025 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A question for atheists. In a world where there's no proof of God's existence or of life after death; how will you explain to your children why you brought them into the world and why they should die?
QuestionForAtheists 7 months ago in playlist Atheism Debate
"Composers passionate about the Christian inspiration ... [etc]"
BULLSHIT. Western music never flourished until the rise of secular music during the renaissance. Eg, syncopation never appeared in recorded/written music until the renaissance.
wikinerd 8 months ago
Comment removed
LordZentei 9 months ago
Yes so you have great artists, composers and poets. You also have a lot of scum, but you don't want to attach that to their religion do you bishop?
ragerancher 9 months ago 2
1:47 I half expect Richard Dawkins and the Former Bishop of Oxford to burst into flames due to their mutual proximity.
easyTree77 9 months ago
The Ex Bishop speaks of Auden.......Auden was gay and the church would reject him if he were alive today.
God was in Auschwitz? Really? I can't imagine believing in a god who is so weak that he is beaten by insane megalomaniacs........a god who can't help his own devote people.......what good is he?
wildheartmuse 10 months ago
The Ex Bishop speaks of Auden.......Auden was gay and the church would reject him if he were alive today.
wildheartmuse 10 months ago
Fucking spoiler alert of the Dark Materials.
PetterStrom1 10 months ago
This opening is absolutely laughable. If I were not ashamed of ever having been religious, I absolutely am now. Completely thwarting the reality, gj. Maybe religious preachers and the likes should just be kept the fuck away from these kinds of debates so we might have intelligent discussions?
M3t4lManiac 10 months ago
Philosophy? Art? What has that got to do with truth? Beliving in something has nothing to do with truth.
rcguy69 10 months ago
Despite what Harries thinks, he doesn't get to define the word Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is a strict adherence to a set of beliefs. It describes a particular approach to a religion or philosophy. Atheism isn't even a belief; it's the lack of belief in gods. That is it's only defining characteristic. You're either an atheist, or you're not. There's no such thing as liberal atheism or fundamentalist atheism. The whole damn premise of this debate is based on a misconception.
nin8halos 10 months ago
@nin8halos "Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life."
--Wikipedia
It could also be said that atheists believe there is no god. Or that they don't believe there is a god. Frankly, it doesn't matter. One's philosophy could be that ultimately what we do on earth doesn't matter because there is no god.
tpl2000 10 months ago
What on Earth?
Atheism is almost the opposite of fundamentalism by defenition.
Theism is almost %100 fundamentalism by defenition.
NormanAngle 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One thing about the "VOTE" MUST BE SAID, because it's such a big #FAIL in every IQ2 debate:
The initial vote is ALWAYS manipulated by lots of the voters who vote FALSELY against their own opinion.
These people long for a surprise "AHAAA" effect at the end, when by seemingly changing their position, they want to falsely emphasize the persuasive power of the position they fancied from the beginning on.
DELUSION AT ITS WORST.
sooperfukker 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One thing about the "VOTE" MUST BE SAID, because it's such a big #FAIL in every IQ2 debate:
The initial vote is ALWAYS manipulated by lots of the voters who vote FALSELY against their own opinion.
These people long for a surprise "AHAAA" effect at the end, when by seemingly changing their position, they want to falsely emphasize the persuasive power of the position they fancied from the beginning on.
DELUSION at its worst #FAIL
sooperfukker 11 months ago
Feodor Dostoevski cough*
RaggedM88 11 months ago
7:12 bravo to Dawkins for respectfully sitting there. I couldn't participate in a debate like that...I couldn't control myself by the time that bishop started talking about the Atheistic view on the "grand perhaps". ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?! YOU FUCKING DIPSHIT HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHAT AMAZING THINGS ARE WITHIN A BLACK HOLE JUST TO NAME ONE OUT OF MANY EXAMPLES...THINGS THAT DEFY EVERYTHING THAT WE KNOW TO BE TRUE AND REAL?! THINGS THAT, IF WE KNEW, WOULD CHANGE ALL OF OUR VIEWS ON REALITY
andyrooney12 11 months ago
5:09 LoL just look at Richard Dawkins writing as fast as he can to keep up with all the bullshit the bishop is spewing out...just so that he can later explain to him why he's completely misrepresented Atheism.
andyrooney12 11 months ago
atheists are NOT fundamentalists, end of story.
marcohorowitz8 11 months ago
He could at least have sung MacArhur Park
Thoughtland 11 months ago
I honestly think that all this preaching has to stop. No God has given anyone the right to preach what is right or wrong or to condemn people for their beliefs. The god that everyone refers to, be it by whatever name is in my opinion (and it is only my opinion) an energy that is connected through the Universe. Thats what makes me happy and what I tend to believe. Everyone should chill, believe what they want, dont push it on others and stop preaching. Lets just get on! Support each other!
SmoothReinvention 11 months ago
@SmoothReinvention What we should be encouraging is critical thought processes. If something is a fundamentalist mindset, then they are close minded by nature. We cannot allow something fundamentalist to become any sort of dominating belief in the world. Luckily, Atheism most certainly is not fundamentalist, especially not New Atheism. New Atheism is merely an aggressive form of atheism, an atheism in which we day, "No more of this 'faith is just as plausible as science' nonsense."
BigLundi 11 months ago
is this man implying that art and philosophy only happened because of religion? is that actually what he was saying? i thought this was meant to be an intelligent debate
donorleone 1 year ago
Look pot calling kettle black, stupid preacher.
TheSwingingSword 1 year ago
Well his argument held no water. Som artists and Museo's are Christian? I fail to see what that proves.
For an opening statement it focused very little on the actual point of debate.
steevee4610 1 year ago
I hate religion so much
MegaKarlos88 1 year ago
From Webster:
fundamentalism : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles.
I believe in literal and sometimes strict adherence to reason, logic, critical thinking, compassion, empathy, and justice. As an atheist I very firmly believe it is the responsibility of human beings to practice critical thinking and to reject assertions (especially supernatural ones) without evidence to back them up. So yeah, I suppose in that regard I'm fundamentalist.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@GermanChocolateCake To which I say "so what", just because you can put a label on something doesn't invalidate its worth.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
So because a given composer might have a strong religious influence, religion itself is more plausible? Bullshit. It merely means his muse is religion. It does not make the argument for christian faith or god(s) any more substantiated. Not to mention there are plenty of artists who drawn inspiration from things very unlike and unattached to christianity or religion, thus making the conjecture demonstrably baseless.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
There is no new atheism or old atheism or fundamental atheism, there is merely not believing in god(s) and/or the supernatural in general. Atheism is simply not believing what theism claims.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@GermanChocolateCake Indeed about the only thing that could be new about atheism is the people standing up to argue its point, the freedom with which to do so (historically speaking) and the technological advancements that make it possible for that argument to be heard far and wide.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
at 3:00 "First of all it's impervious to the facts." Haha, The opposite of what a thinking atheist does. We come to our conclusions through the facts. oyg 5:00 Bring the hardest arguments. We burn them all with proof that they are wrong or at least cast enough doubt on them so that they would not stand in an impartial court.
TheAnubisDrake 1 year ago
I heard there's a book that, if you read it very carefully, turns you into an atheist.
It's called The Bible.
darthspliffius 1 year ago
Secularism is God's work. He hates Muslims more than he hates Catholics but he knows Catholics are bigger hypocrites, so the conversion rate should be pretty good.
Do God's work, become Secular.
NewEnlightened1 1 year ago
hitler was a christian insofar as it forwarded his plans. it was a useful tool in his eyes as he and his "inner circle" were really harking back to a mix of old Norse gods and the psudo religion of madame blavadskys' (false) hypothesis of an "Aryan race" that started everything of "high culture on this planet.
and thats just for starters!
the deeper ya get into the NAZI thing..the fucking weirder it gets!!!!!!
like any good dick tatter he USED religion as a means to an end.
classic brain wash.
zencat999 1 year ago
Well, sir, an argument is only as strong as its weakest point.
Ematched 1 year ago
@flugcojg Hitler wasn't your kind of Christian, but he was nonetheless a Christian. He publicly proclaimed he was acting as he believed Christ wished us to act. He ordered the killing of of millions on the firm belief that God Himself made Jews inferior and desired their extermination. His motivations were religiously based.
Sorry. Hitler was a Christian, just not the kind we want.
Atheism doesn't have that divine infallibility imperative and it doesn't support totalitarianism.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
Militant Christian:
Kill heathens, heretics, abortion doctors. Crusades. Oppress non-Christians, gays. Hutaree Christian Militia. Lord's Resistance Army.
Militant Islam:
Kill heathens, heretics. Jihad. Oppress women, non-Muslims. Al-Qaeda, Taliban.
Militant Atheism:
Talk shit on youtube, facebook, various internet forums. Write books about how religion is bullshit. Make fun of believers for being "idiots". National Academy of Sciences. Royal Society.
imperator332 1 year ago 79
@imperator332 Well said, Militant is such a strong word for us, it's laughable.
Rut267 1 year ago
@imperator332
LoL fucking bravo! You took the words right out of my mouth. Cheers!
andyrooney12 11 months ago
@imperator332
Actually you can't talk shit on any sort of online media forum if "kill heathen" is on the agenda of the militant faith since any not of their own is a target. Except atheist probably won't actually commit genocide based that started in faith.
Disassociate yourself from the world much? I can't believe you even made top comment.
Keep on "Keep it real", in your own personal world.
Neosaigo 10 months ago
@Neosaigo Did you type that while you were drunk?
tman916x 10 months ago
@Neosaigo
Did you really respond to a 3 month old post? Wow. Bet you feel important now.
Maybe the reason my comment is well received is because other people realized the hilarity in calling people like Dawkins a "militant atheist", when if you compare him to anyone that could be described as a "militant Christian" or a "militant Muslim", you would see they are not very apt comparisons.
imperator332 10 months ago
@imperator332 - While largely true there have been militant atheists who have killed people before. Like some of the Red Army under Stalin and Mao who demolished religious buildings and forced de-conversion of followers and religious figures at gunpoint. However, you're right that in the Western world what you listed is pretty much the extent of what militant atheists do.
A86 10 months ago
@A86 "Like some of the Red Army under Stalin and Mao who demolished religious buildings and forced de-conversion of followers and religious figures at gunpoint."
and what part of atheism told them to do that? In fact what part of atheism even encourages any conversion of others? What those supposed atheists supposedly did was under no instruction, guidance or doctrine of atheism.
The same cannot be said of the atrocities committed in the name of religion.
stiimuli 10 months ago
@stiimuli - Do you know about Marxist-Leninist and Maoist ideology? They believed that all religion is oppressive and that only atheistic dialectical materialism could allow man to be free. They killed religious people because they believed that all religion is oppression and that religious people by nature will be supportive of the class system and would eventually become counter-revolutionaries.
The State allowed some religious practice but it had to be edited and ok-ed by the government.
A86 10 months ago
@A86 "Do you know about Marxist-Leninist and Maoist ideology?"
yes, those are specific ideologies instituted by specific people involving much more than atheism. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in a god. Thats it. Nothing else. No course of action or doctrine is included or implied. No part of atheism instructed or recommended their actions.
Blaming atheism for what those people did is as illogical as blaming the theory of evolution for what Hitler did.
stiimuli 10 months ago
@stiimuli - That's about like saying Christianity has nothing to do with the Klan or Nazism. It could be considered a perversion but religion is still involved.
Whether or not it's a perversion of atheism they did claim to be at least partially inspired by atheism. If the belief that all religion is oppressive and only atheistic dialectical materialism is suitable for a socialist society would they still have committed the same actions against religious people?
A86 10 months ago
@A86 "That's about like saying Christianity has nothing to do with the Klan or Nazism."
Except that...like I pointed out....specific instruction and example for many of these acts is given in the teachings of these religions. The bible specificly describes and promotes bigotry and discrimination. God himself orders followers to brutally kill those of other faiths, tribes and lands.....and even kills them himself.
atheism contains no such motivation or instruction
stiimuli 10 months ago
@A86 "Whether or not it's a perversion of atheism they did claim to be at least partially inspired by atheism"
which part of atheism? Which specific part of atheism contains any inspiration towards such acts...or any act for that matter?
stiimuli 10 months ago
@stiimuli - No cosmological view contains inspiration towards any act of violence in and of itself. Atheism doesn't and neither does theism. Theism is a simple belief in god/higher power(s). That in and of itself doesn't contain any inspiration for action either. These views can be used for violence when a person feels that their view is "the only truth" and that those who disagree are either less deserving of life or need to be made to agree by force.
A86 10 months ago
@A86 "No cosmological view contains inspiration towards any act of violence in and of itself. Atheism doesn't and neither does theism"
really? “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Leviticus 20:13
do you have any idea how many american christians TODAY use this and similar verses as a mandate to either discriminate or kill gays?
stiimuli 10 months ago
@stiimuli - This is one of the laws of a Bronze Age tribe in the Middle East. For some historical context this verse has been argued to be a law referring to the punishment of people who engaged in a war crime - sometimes after defeating foreign armies some Israelite soldiers would rape the dead bodies as an act of disrespect. Of course, over the years some Jews and Christians (the latter especially selectively since this is part of the Mosaic Law) have tried to apply this to all homosexuality.
A86 10 months ago
@A86 "This is one of the laws of a Bronze Age tribe in the Middle East."
ask a fundamentalist if they believe any of their divine teachings should be left in the bronze age. Right here on youtube there is a plethora of creationists who believe EVERY PART of the bible is eternal and unchanging....because the bible sais so!
do you see yet how all of this is a recipe for disaster.....and is often USED specifically for those ends?
stiimuli 10 months ago
@stiimuli - Of course if I told this to a Fundamentalist they wouldn't care. I HAVE on family members who are fundie Christians. It meant little to them and they just resolved the cognitive dissonance by ignoring and forgetting what I said. People like that have effectively shut off parts of their mind.
"do you see yet how all of this is a recipe for disaster"
How could I not? It's the reason those idiots flew a plane into the Twin Towers and why idiots feel they should control women's bodies.
A86 10 months ago
@A86 "It meant little to them and they just resolved the cognitive dissonance by ignoring and forgetting what I said. People like that have effectively shut off parts of their mind"
another point apon which we agree. I dont understand why you dont see this as a problem....one that religion actively encourages.
stiimuli 10 months ago
@stiimuli - I didn't say religion wasn't a problem. I was simply saying theism and atheism don't cause anything inherently but both can be abused like anything else in this world.
A86 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@A86 "I didn't say religion wasn't a problem. I was simply saying theism and atheism don't cause anything inherently but both can be abused like anything else in this world."
How did theism become the point of this discussion? I initially was adressing your comments about atheism with referances to the atrocities religion causes. I get the feeling this slight-of-hand was deliberate O_o
stiimuli 10 months ago
@stiimuli "No, I think you'll find Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is still sold. So is "The Turner Diaries". These instructions on how to commit evil acts have more to do with race and nationality than God or religion. Especially the latter."
I'm not sure what the "no" is specificly referring to but the examples you gave further my point: Ideologies/institutions which encourage attrocious acts need to be scrutinized.
stiimuli 10 months ago
@stiimuli - Oh, I thought you were saying only religions have screeds advocating violence. That's what I was saying "no" about. I wasn't intended to discuss merits of theism (lol) only that theism and atheism in and of themselves are neutral but can still be used by the wrong people to justify violence. Ideologies/institutions which encourage atrocities need to be scrutinized, but my point was that even that's not enough. Anything can be used to justify violence as long as humans don't change.
A86 10 months ago
@A86 "only that theism and atheism in and of themselves are neutral but can still be used by the wrong people to justify violence"
Except that no logical line of thinking exists from atheism to any atrocity. By contrast, anyone who believes strongly enough in an imaginary being can imagine that being wanting them to perform any act that person may already be inclined to perform.
This has been documented time and time again from terrorist bombings to Ted Bundy to HW Bush.
stiimuli 9 months ago
@stiimuli - "no logical line of thinking exists from atheism to any atrocity"
Really? Read what happened to churches, mosques and synagogues in the Soviet Union and Buddhist and Daoist temples and Christian churches in Mao's China. Read about Enver Hoxha's regime which declared Albania "the first officially atheistic state" and officially closed down all churches and had priests imprisoned and/or executed. They still would have done that were atheism not a part of Marxist-Leninist ideology?
A86 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@A86 "Really? Read what happened to churches, mosques and synagogues in the Soviet Union and..."
lack of belief in a god does not logicly lead to the acts perpetrated in those situations. Persecution and killing of members of every faith has occurred quite often wether atheism was present or not.
It necassarily requires the application of another ideology to make that logical connection beyween atheism and these acts.
stiimuli 9 months ago
@A86 Yes they would have, much like in ancient Rome, during the Empire days, where Apostasy was not so much a religious 'crime' than rather a form of treason to the high command of the emperor. Being Christian or any other religion was punishable by death because you denied the absolute power of the emperor. Much in the same way these regimes you touched upon, opposed religion because they were ABSOLUTIST regimes. The problem here is ABSOLUTISM (like religions are too). Atheism =/= absolutism.
lebannerfan65 7 months ago
@lebannerfan65 - That's true and that's what I've essentially trying to argue (though you summed it up much better). :) A lot of views can seem harmless when they're a minority who can do little more than run their mouths. Christians used to be little more than a messianic cult who most people just rolled their eyes at like people do with some New Agers today. However, if atheists became some kind of established power equivalent to what the Church it shouldn't be surprising if some abuse it.
A86 7 months ago
@A86 So then logically, the fact that religion MUST be absolutist (or it isn't religion) and absolutism is never good, it follows that religion should be shunned. Religion is and must be absolutist (belief in a great absolute truth) so it is bad in THAT regard. But what many who seem to defend religion don't seem to get is that they are basically deriving their morals from society and human values, so they are not basing it on absolute truth. You could say most believers are humanists in drag
lebannerfan65 7 months ago
@lebannerfan65 - MUST religion be absolutist? No. There are many religions which aren't absolutist. Many Wiccans, Buddhists, Hindus, Christian Universalists, Sufis, etc. aren't absolutist. Is absolutism inherently bad? I would say when it comes to things which are based on opinion and not fact (such as whether or not "god" exists) but not for things that are scientific fact (like the Law of Gravity). But even the latter can be taken too far if you believe those who disagree should be hurt.
A86 7 months ago
@A86 "But even the latter can be taken too far if you believe those who disagree should be hurt."
Sorry that is nonsensical. 1) that to my knowledge, has not happened, 2) if it did happen, there's nothing IN SCIENCE that would have made the person do that. The contrary is true for religion, because there are RELIGIOUS INJUNCTIONS for persecution, in the holy texts themselves.
That attempt at a parallel simply doesn't hold up.
AR333 7 months ago
@AR333 - Atheism is not science, it's a philosphy just like theism and deism. There have been atheists who have prosecuted non-atheists on a mass scale claiming their philosophy justified it. Like the religious purges in the Soviet Union and Red China. They claimed Marx's credo about religion being poisonous and supposedly inherently linked with the class system justified closing churches and temples and occasionally having the Red Guard force believers and priests to de-convert at gunpoint.
A86 7 months ago
@AR333 - There is nothing in science that condones crimes against humanity but there is nothing in science that condemns it either. The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a big science experiment in some ways. Ever heard of the "Tuskegee Experiment" where black men with syphillis were left to die so doctors could see the effects of syphillis as it kills people? That was science. So were Nazi experiments on the effects of barometric pressure on Jewish test subjects in concentration camps.
A86 7 months ago
@A86 Nobody denies that science is a HUMAN endeavour. Historically, science has been skewed by cultural prejudices. Difference: we don't say GOD told us.
Science is a way of studying reality. If someone said "let me see if Blacks burn alive slower than White's", the question of whether or not the test should be done is a question of ethics and culture.
Returning to your original claim: there are religious injunctions to kill and enslave. They are there in print, apparently the world of god.
AR333 7 months ago
@AR333 - Saying that effed up things were done "for the progress of humanity" or "for the progress of knowledge" really isn't much better (if at all better) than saying you God told you. If some guy tortured you to death would you really care whether he believes God wants him to do this or he's doing it for the greater good of human knowledge? Either way it hurts and you're screwed.
I'm sure you know that science isn't perfect, I just pointed that out to say that science isn't an ethics system.
A86 7 months ago
@AR333 - Religion can do immoral things in the name of their twisted idea of moral absolutism (or sometimes in the name of moral relativism when it comes to the more zany or permissive religions, like the Children of God for instance) and science can do immoral things because science itself is amoral.
"there are religious injunctions to kill and enslave"
True, but that's not true of every religion. Just like not every scientist would approve of nuking people to take notes.
A86 7 months ago
@A86 "True, but that's not true of every religion. Just like not every scientist would approve of nuking people to take notes."
Sorry but the point doesn't seem to have gone across. "Not every scientists would approve of..." misses the point completely. It's IN the text THEMSELVES. It's in the Pentateuch, it's in the Qu'ran. In the latter case, that's god's literal words. If you meant to say "not every believer takes it seriously", it doesn't change the fact that it's in the text.
AR333 7 months ago
@AR333 - You do know that most religions don't follow the Pentateuch or the Qu'ran as a holy book? You keep saying "religion" but it seems you mostly have an axe to grind with Abrahamic religions and project them onto all other systems of belief. Would you appreciate it if some religious person described all or most scientific-minded persons as believers in eugenics, Social Darwinism or scientific racism?
A86 7 months ago
@A86 after reading over your discussion with AR333 it seems that you're not only missing the prevelant point being made but also incorrectly conflating certain ideologies with atheism.
These major religions specificly instruct and/or set divine example for bigotry, hatred, enslavement, violent oppression, genocide and a host of other atrocities. No part of "not believing in a god" provides such deplorable guidance.
To compare the two as you have been is intellectually irresponsible.
stiimuli 7 months ago
@stiimuli - I never said atheism = Stalinism. When on earth did I say that? However, the fact remains that most Stalinists are atheists and most view being religious and following their ideology as incompatible. Many also view belief in a god as something that needs to be wiped out. There are no commandments in atheism but Stalinism demands atheism and it demands forceful anti-theism.
Not all atheists are like that but not all religious people are like bin Laden or the Klan either.
A86 7 months ago
@A86 "I never said atheism = Stalinism. When on earth did I say that?"
Yet you keep repeating stalinism as an example of atheism causing atrocity when atheism wasnt what caused the atrocity. All Stalinists breathe oxygen too but oxygen is not to blame.
"Many also view belief in a god as something that needs to be wiped out."
So what? They arent getting that behavior or belief from atheism itself. The same cannot be said of the abrahamic religions.
stiimuli 7 months ago
@stiimuli - "as an example of atheism causing atrocity"
It's an example of atheism being used as justification for an atrocity. I never said atheism specifically instructs or commands such things. Atheism doesn't have a belief system per se, hence it doesn't condone or condemn such things. Now it seems you're trying to turn atheism into an ethics system because some atheists did bad things and used their views to justify it.
A86 7 months ago
@A86 "There are no commandments in atheism but Stalinism demands atheism and it demands forceful anti-theism"
Exactly. As I've already explained, it takes the application of another ideology to impart the type of extremism to atheism that the abrahamic religions already come pre-packaged with right in their holy books.
So please stop attempting to conflate the dangers of religious ideology with attrocities committed by people who were also atheists or scientists.....or brunettes.
stiimuli 7 months ago
@stiimuli - "it takes the application of another ideology to impart the type of extremism to atheism"
Not really. There have been atheists who aren't Stalinists or Maoists who have killed religious people before just on the justification that they believe religious people are dangerous - thus they see themselves as ridding the world of an evil person. Atheism is not a belief so it doesn't require another belief/view to be used to do bad or good things. It's ethically neutral.
A86 7 months ago
@A86 "There have been atheists who aren't Stalinists or Maoists who have killed religious people before just on the justification that they believe religious people are dangerous - thus they see themselves as ridding the world of an evil person."
Once again...SO WHAT? Did atheism instruct them to commit such acts? No. Another ideology had to be applied to inform those actions.
Religion specificly instructs actions.
how many more ways can we attempt to explain this point?
stiimuli 7 months ago
@A86 "Not all atheists are like that but not all religious people are like bin Laden or the Klan either."
ok this is getting ridiculous.
Right above this sentance of yours you demonstrated that you understand why this sentance is invalid....yet you said it again anyway!
for the last time: the abrahamic religions specificly instruct these abominable behaviors right in their holy texts!
THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE! These religions TEACH abhorant morality!
stiimuli 7 months ago
@stiimuli - "neither science nor atheism instruct morality"
Hence why I don't see why you were so offended by my mention of some atrocities in the former Soviet Union or Red China that used atheism as a justification. As you said atheism is not a moral system, thus it's not like there's anything in atheism that specifically prohibits such things. If there was a code of behavior or ethics it would be like a belief system, wouldn't it? Atheism neither condones nor condemns those actions.
A86 7 months ago
@A86 1) atheism does not instruct the atrocities committed by atheists
2) science does not instruct the atrocities committed by scientists
3) religion not only DOES instruct these many types of atrocities but gives divine example of it AND, in many cases, MANDATES it with the ultimate carrot and stick of heaven and hell.
PLEASE tell me you understand these 3 points and why they make your repeated attempts at drawing a paralell invalid
stiimuli 7 months ago
@stiimuli - 2) Science does not "instruct" atrocities but it has no compunction against it; 3) It also instructs people to do good things. It can be moral or immoral.
My point: if a person wants to commit evil being religious or not won't change their heart. Not believing in a god does not make humans more or less caring about each other. At least it doesn't appear so. Religion provides excuses for evil but so do a host of other secular causes: Politics, Economics, Property, Nationalism, etc.
A86 7 months ago
@A86 "My point: if a person wants to commit evil being religious or not won't change their heart"
No but it's teachings deeply effect how a person behaves and makes decisions. A person prone to prejudice or cruelty finds holy teachings reinforcing these tribal tendancies and even giving permission, recommendation and example to commit such acts by the supposed supernatural lord of all things.
This kind of thing attracts and emboldens the mentally unstable.
stiimuli 7 months ago
@stiimuli - If something didn't instruct you but provided justification it's not much different other than semantics. Your post about religious justification was indeed true but that same kind of person could also be "justified" without a religon or a belief in a god if they believe that ethics are totally subjective. Since atheism is not an ethics system it doesn't offer prohibition against anything. Technically theism is not an ethical system either but that's different from religion.
A86 7 months ago
@A86 "Not believing in a god does not make humans more or less caring about each other"
It clears away an extremely powerful corrupting influence on the mind.
Getting people to not believe in gods is not the goal......the goal is to get people to examine and assess themselves, others and their environment critically and objectively without the taint of superstition clouding their judgement.
Atheism is just a logical by-product of this.
stiimuli 7 months ago
@stiimuli - Believing in a god does not have a corrupting influence on everyone. It depends on what kind of god or higher power one believes in. Some people honestly become better people after they start believing in a god while some people stay the same or only become worse. Besides deities there are hundreds of other influences and reasons man comes up with to justify his desire to kill.
Thinking critically is always important but like theism atheism does have some constraints of its own.
A86 7 months ago
@A86 "Believing in a god does not have a corrupting influence on everyone. It depends on what kind of god or higher power one believes in."
Its the dogma packaged with it that does the most harm....that along side the delusion of an imperceptable, all-powerful being other adults tell you is talking to you. This opens the door to any deranged voice in one's head becoming the guiding voice of god.
There is not a single point of parallel that could be drawn between this and atheism.
stiimuli 7 months ago
@stiimuli - Dogma would be in the realm of religion. You don't necessarily have to be a theist to be a religion (look at Buddhism and some of the Hindu religions). I agree the harm that religion does when one views god in certain ways but I don't think ALL forms of belief in a higher power are inherently dangerous. Atheism does not have a higher power but that does not mean it can never be harmful. If an atheist is so convinced they're "right" that they can't tolerate others disagreeing
A86 7 months ago
@A86 "Dogma would be in the realm of religion. You don't necessarily have to be a theist to be a religion (look at Buddhism and some of the Hindu religions)."
Yes that's why I stated it that way. Theism in itself is not as dangerous as the religious dogma its almost always packaged with.
stiimuli 6 months ago
@stiimuli - That could be interpreted as meaning stand up for your Islamic beliefs, which is something most people do for their views, whatever they are, when they're seriously challenged. Christians have indeed used that reference to Christ "bring[ing] a sword" as validation for religious wars but the verse could also just be Jesus predicting that his teachings will cause conflict and strife among some people in the future. It already was even during his own life.
A86 6 months ago
@A86 "Christians have indeed used that reference to Christ "bring[ing] a sword" as validation for religious wars but the verse could also just be Jesus predicting that his teachings will cause conflict and strife among some people in the future."
Then why didnt he say that? Why confuse the message with a violent metaphor? It seems so odd that a supposed all-powerful, all-knowing entity would communicate such important instructions so badly to its "flock".
stiimuli 6 months ago
@stiimuli - Why didn't he? Supposedly he did. Read Matthew 26:52.
"I would challenge you to point me to an atheist who makes claims of absolute certainty"
Anyone who is a "gnostic atheist". Anyone who says, "God does not exist" or "I know there is no god/I know god is imaginary" is claiming absolute knowledge. The same as gnostic theists who say "God exists" or "I know that god exists" instead of just "I believe in god".
A86 6 months ago
@A86 "Why didn't he? Supposedly he did. Read Matthew 26:52."
Which demonstrates my point about conflicting messages and bad communication.
"Anyone who is a "gnostic atheist""
I know what a gnostic atheist is...I was asking you to point me to one. They are few and far between. I am not even aware of any that make videos on youtube. Every prominant atheist I've studied openly refutes claims of certainty even if, at other times, their wording might make it seem otherwise.
stiimuli 6 months ago
@stiimuli - Well, technically in the "Think not I came to bring peace" verse he doesn't explicitly advertise violence. The way it's written it could simply be a predictive statement. Which makes sense even from a secular point of view as his teachings were already causing strife and division among Jews who heard his message while he was alive.
"point me to one"
P.Z. Meyers. Richard Dawkins (just about, he has hinted he could be wrong but he views it as a very remote possibility)
A86 6 months ago
@A86 Dawkins has famously stated on several occasions that he isnt absolutely certain. His famous quote goes something like "on a scale of 1-7, 1 being certain of a god and 7 being certain of no gods I'm a 6.9"
Why he chose 7 as a top of the scale perplexes me lol.
As for PZ....could you please cite the text or video in which he makes a statement of absolute certainty of no gods?
stiimuli 6 months ago
@stiimuli - Well, I think there are few gnostic theists or atheists who are a "7" (as Dawkins put it) on a scale of certainty. 6.9 is close enough to complete certainty that one could comfortably consider that person a "gnostic" whatever. You're right that it's curious he chose 7 as the highest level of certainty. Lol
I have to look but I think Myers said something in similar spirit.
A86 6 months ago
@A86 You may think its close enough to classify them as gnostic but thats contrary to the specific point they're making. Science is not about absolute certainty. Only in mathematics are absolutes valid and even there is philosophically debateable.
6.9 is not 7. It leaves open the tentative scientific availability for evidence afforded to gravity, germ theory, newtonian physics, evolution and a host of other "facts" we're as close to sure about as is intellectually honest to be.
stiimuli 6 months ago
@stiimuli - Well, by the standards you're using NO ONE is either a gnostic atheist or a gnostic theist since almost every sane human being has even the tiniest speck of doubt somewhere in their mind. I could say I'm only 99.99% sure the Earth is round and not flat. That doesn't make me truly "agnostic" on the subject. The only reason there's ANY doubt is because I haven't gone into space to see it for myself. Most sane theists and atheists have at least a little doubt somewhere.
A86 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@A86 "Well, by the standards you're using NO ONE is either a gnostic atheist or a gnostic theist since almost every sane human being has even the tiniest speck of doubt somewhere in their mind."
Well, no. I'm not talking about a viewpoint constant. Many theists I debate with assert an absolute certainty about a god and their may be atheists who do the same about no gods...but this is an intellectually dishonest stance to take.
As Im sure you're aware, some of these people are NOT sane.
stiimuli 6 months ago
@A86 If an atheist is so convinced they're "right" that they can't tolerate others disagreeing they can be come just as batshit as some religious people."
As can happen with any point of view....but ONCE AGAIN I must point out that no part of atheism informs or mandates such behavior....the clear distinction between religion and other ideologies.
stiimuli 6 months ago
@stiimuli - Well, perhaps I phrased my original statement wrong because it seems that we largely agree much more than we originally thought. Maybe I just said what I said in a way that gave the wrong impression. In the current climate the idea of a mass genocide in the name of atheism is far-fetched, but it wouldn't be impossible at some point (though it doesn't seem likely).
On the thing about "fighting for the faith" that could be interpreted many ways.
A86 6 months ago
@A86 "Besides deities there are hundreds of other influences and reasons man comes up with to justify his desire to kill."
Of all possible influences, history has shown divine inspiration to be the most common and the most sinister. No other influence carries the same alluring potency or potential for harm.
and for the millionth time...religion SPECIFICLY INSTRUCTS these behaviors. How many more times are you going to sidestep this key point?
stiimuli 7 months ago
@stiimuli - they can be come just as batshit as some religious people. I've seen it personally as I knew a guy who said he honestly believed we should start branding religious people as "clinically insane" and putting them in some sort of sanitariums or camps. How is that not a dangerous view? You can't say this guy believes a god told him to do it but it makes little difference because he's unhinged regardless. I wouldn't call that a rational mind.
A86 7 months ago
@stiimuli - If you read history a shitload of wars are usually over land or resources. They often use religion to justify the wars to motivate the uneducated masses to fight and die but they also use things like nationalism, race and macho pride to motivate.
"religion SPECIFICLY INSTRUCTS"
I know religion instructs a lot of dumb shit but where does the Bible say fight for America? Or the Koran? The problem is you're trying to say religious fundie reasoning is valid when in reality
A86 7 months ago
@A86 "I know religion instructs a lot of dumb shit but where does the Bible say fight for America? Or the Koran?"
It doesnt....it says to fight for the faith. Even jesus speaks of bringing a sword for the faith turning households against each other because one should not put family before Jesus. Where do you think the "christian warrior" mentality comes from? Its commanded in the text.
and they have the nerve to brandish "family values". Its disgusting.
stiimuli 6 months ago
@A86 "Thinking critically is always important but like theism atheism does have some constraints of its own."
Like what? What constraints can atheism possibly have when its a single position on a single issue? Its not even an ideology....its more of a yes or no question.
And superstitious belief contains its own pitfals even without the dogmatic brainwashing of religion. Steadfast belief in the supernatural reinforces blind faith as a virtue and stifles logical evaluation.
stiimuli 7 months ago
@stiimuli - it's often not even valid using their own religious books. Religionists don't necessarily have a corner in understanding or interpreting the books they claim to follow. I can't think of any religious verses that justify Manifest Destiny for America or the Iraq War.
"Like what?"
Atheism has no inherent positions other tha a lack of belief in god but in the West most atheists are materialists and lean towards "scientism" (the belief that only science can validate reality).
A86 7 months ago
@A86 "it's often not even valid using their own religious books. Religionists don't necessarily have a corner in understanding or interpreting the books they claim to follow."
Very true, as demonstrated by the massive Pew research poll released last fall showing that atheists and agnostics know more about religions than the believers who follow them.
This does not change the fact that believers often find versus that support abhorent behavior and use them as divine inspiration.
stiimuli 6 months ago
@stiimuli - Of course I could be wrong but according to the Gospels Jesus was already seeing the strife between Jews his teachings were causing. Part of the reason I don't think he was encouraging violence is because later in the Gospels he supposedly tells off Peter for cutting off a Roman Centurion's ear and says that famous line of those who live by the sword dying by the sword. A verse a lot of reactionary Christians love to conveniently forget.
A86 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@A86 "I can't think of any religious verses that justify Manifest Destiny for America or the Iraq War."
I cant think of any for manifest destiny either...but for the Iraq war...Bush stated publicly that god told him to go to war. That sais it all right there. It exemplifies what I said earlier about believers interpreting any voice in their head as the word of god.
Apparently god's voice oddly resembles the voice of Donald Rumsfeld. Bible verses were used throughout that crusade.
stiimuli 6 months ago
@A86 "Atheism has no inherent positions other tha a lack of belief in god but in the West most atheists are materialists and lean towards "scientism" (the belief that only science can validate reality).
1) so what? Atheism does not instruct adherance to materialism, "scientism" or any other ism.
2) What is so bad about those things?
3) please cite a better method of investigation and detirmining reality from fantasy than science.
stiimuli 6 months ago
@stiimuli - Scientism is a limited way of determining things and rests on some unfalsifiable principles. Materialism is an unfalsifiable belief. The belief that there is no afterlife is unfalsifiable just like the belief that there is an afterlife.
"Atheism doesnt adhere to anything"
That's why I said "tendency" as many atheists tend to be materialists though atheism itself is not innately materialistic. In the West it's not very common to find atheists who aren't materialists however.
A86 7 months ago
@A86 "Scientism is a limited way of determining things and rests on some unfalsifiable principles."
Once again...please cite a more reliable method of detirmining facts about...well...anything.
"Materialism is an unfalsifiable belief"
Its unfalsified but not unfalsifiable. Its unfalsified because no other state of reality has yet been verified (unless you count imagination as a state of reality). As soon as one is, then strict materialism will be shown invalid.
stiimuli 6 months ago
@A86 "The belief that there is no afterlife is unfalsifiable just like the belief that there is an afterlife."
Again, dont confuse unfalsified with unfalsifiable. Its intellectually irresponsible to claim the existance of something which has not been shown to be existant....therefor the logical default stance on such a thing is disbelief until belief is warranted.
This applies to claims of an afterlife, gods, werewolves, unicorns, bigfoot, angels etc.
stiimuli 6 months ago
@A86 "That's why I said "tendency" as many atheists tend to be materialists though atheism itself is not innately materialistic. In the West it's not very common to find atheists who aren't materialists however."
Agreed....but I would be careful about labeling atheists strict materialists. The same way many atheists dont assert that absolutely no god does, ever did or ever will exist anywhere with absolute certainty, those same atheists will concede there may be more outside the material.
stiimuli 6 months ago
@stiimuli - "Agreed....but I would be careful about labeling atheists strict materialists"
Agreed too. It's not that common (but it might be a growing trend) but I have seen or heard of some atheists who aren't strict materialists. Such as Sam Harris and Ron Reagan (Ronald Reagan's son), the latter of whom has stated he believes there might be some sort of afterlife even if a god doesn't exist.
A86 6 months ago
@A86 its not that common? I would challenge you to point me to an atheist who makes claims of absolute certainty on any of these big questions.
There has been no reliable indication of an afterlife of any kind thus far (such a thing would actually violate the laws of physics) so to adhere to belief in one is, again, wishful thinking.
This is not the same as asserting absolute certainty that there is no afterlife....just like no evidence thus far for pixies does not rule them out.
stiimuli 6 months ago
@stiimuli - Even someone borderline insane like Pat Robertson and crazy Islamic fundamentalist imams. The reason they have the tiniest bit of doubt is because they've never personally seen "god" and they're not dead to truly confirm that they will meet him. The same goes for most religious people. The same goes for atheists because they realize they don't know everything about the universe and, like theists, they aren't dead to truly verify once and for all.
A86 6 months ago
@A86 as a good example, I'm currently debating with a theist under the video "Seth Mcfarlane on atheism and gay rights" who is absolutely certain every word of the bible is 100% fact, does not understand the omportance of evidence or falsification of concepts and, In my opinion, not entirely sane.
This person stated flat out that its morally just to torture a good person for eternity for not believing in god while a murdererous monster who DOES believe should get into heaven. CHeck it out.
stiimuli 6 months ago
@A86 for people like this, absolute, dogmatic blind faith is a mandate and they're so brainwashed by the church culture they will not accept reasonable standards of verification if it means a challenge to their belief system.
I can point you to many others I've debated with in the past few months who are just as far gone or even (shockingly) worse.
stiimuli 6 months ago
@stiimuli - I'd be willing to bet even in people like that they'd only score a 6.9/7 on a scale of certainty. Almost everyone has some smidgen of doubt about something they believe in. Just like in some corner of our rational mind we realize there is at least a 0.001% margin of error for the belief that the Earth is round or that the Moon exists. If anyone is a true "7" on that scale they're probably not even sane because even a misguided mind realizes there is a room for error.
A86 6 months ago
@stiimuli - We all know the weaknesses of theism but one of the weaknesses of atheism can be its tendency to adhere to materialism or physicalism, which isn't always a satisfactory methodology (in terms of methodological materialism) and existential materialism, like dualism and idealism, is an unfalsifiable worldview. So, theism, deism and atheism all have their limits and flaws. But in a critically thinking world its not surprising that not everyone will come to a theist or deist conclusion.
A86 7 months ago