Good video. Here's a question I'd like to ask Christians.
Q: At what point in the timeline of humanity did God imbue us with his morality? We've been around as a species for well over a hundred thousand years, if we include other human like species (Neanderthal, etc), you can go back millions of years. Did early stone age man have gods morals?, or was it a recent thing?
You don't have to accept God...it is your personal choice.
God may reveal himself or not...btw: what is your education level...publications...studies..degrees? peer reviews?
curious to know..As there are so many of these vids, One of which speaks openly of being a YouTube partner to make money from his 'ideas' make money from nothing is what he said...humm..whonder if he is a fake? i don't thik you are.
I can't see the difference between my evangelising; and your videos of posting reasons to not believe in God. I do acknowledge 2 truths in your video however. 1: No one can go through your own personal experiences, and 2: Many evangelical christians are indeed the doucher's you make them out to be at the end of the video. Truth 1 however bothers me, if you are a true atheist, how are you indeed so happy believing nothing has your back when no one else will?
Well done, congratulations on a very elegant articulation on the nature of subjectivity and reason. I would like to suggest that you consider writing a book. I think it would be an interesting and informative experience. Perhaps you could add in an explanation of why testimonials and other subjective claims offered as "evidence" are not logically viable. It annoys me to hear people use their personal experiences as if it were "proof".
Essentially, every molecule is god, every force strong or weak, time itself, space itself...it's all god. I'm god, you're god, my dog is god, my couch is god. = P
God is infinite. Yet, we all are god in a finite moment, finite location, in a finite perspective. We are god experiencing itself as a human. Existence looking back in on itself through the flux of spacetime. It makes perfect sense to me, and is evident everywhere you look...be it microscopic or macroscopic observation.
I always did my best to dismiss the idea of god and find a rational solution for existence. Inevitably, all of the observations and rationality led me directly to intelligent design. Strange, I know...but extremely logical none the less. Religious nuts still hate me and think I'm an atheist, but no, I am infact not. From my perspective, existence is god. That is probably the easiest way to describe it.
I know this is long, I feel like shit and I'm not up for making a vid response...so please bear with me here...this is good stuff.
Ok so long story short...there was always something about existence that made me wonder and question it's very nature. That is what led me down this road to begin with.
In my experiences, I have rode a wave of information. As a child, I was raised in a strict Catholic home. I never bought into the bible, and that was my first "turn off" to religion. A book written by men, but is god's word...that one always stood out like a sore thumb from my perspective. That amongst many others. My early concept of god was actually more of a paranoid concept, because of god's wrath and the fact he was supposedly always watching me. Always found that one creepy. = S
I think about that a lot, always have. I have heard many religious followers say, "you must have faith and not question." My response is very simple, that's impossible and I will never be capable of it. I think it is essential for human beings to share perspectives on creation and existence. That is why I am sharing the concepts I consider.
I am not a typical atheist, because I am infact not an atheist. I don't fit anywhere, really.
Ahhh, the paradox. Simply conversing with another individual can offer that experience. That's what is so fascinating about the human mind and it's ability to adapt with the environment. Can we ever truly know the answer to any question, and know that our experiences are real? I can't say never, but I will say that I eagerly anticipate a solution for that quandary. = D
I am not trolling. I am correcting bad Latin. But yes I see the joke now... but the grammar is still attrocious. There is a difference between trolling and correcting one's use of an ancient language after all. If I wanted to troll, I'd probably name call, which I haven't.
All I'm saying is, if you're going to use a language other than English, use it correctly, please and thankyou.
Lastly, even though the quote you used may be well known (i assume you picked it out because it is), that's no excuse for bad grammar. Whoever wrote it failed at Latin.
@DasAmericanAtheist Well, to vindicate Mike, the joke seems unnecessarily demanding to me, too. Firstly, there is one error more than required, an arbitrariness that thwarts a forcible epiphany, and, secondly, the comprehension of the joke is predicated upon one’s awareness of its self-referentiality, which, in turn, is obscured by the surplus error (“I show” vs. “show me”). Hence, both—the first error and the self-referentiality—have to be guessed at correctly, before the guffaw can ensue.
@DasAmericanAtheist Certainly no one should be barred from the fun of mangling the grammar of any language, whether Latin or English, dead or alive. Or German. ;-)
And in my last comment I didn’t have the characters left to tell you that I enjoy your videos. Thanks!
On an amusing note, the definition for error is as follows: error, erroris, n
declension: 3, gender: M
1. deception
2. error
3. uncertainty
4. wandering
5. winding, maze
Who here is uncertain/has been deceived/ is in error? You or the theist? I just find it interesting that you would use that phrase at the end given your argument and your confidence in it.
secondly, meus is the masculine NOMINATIVE, which would be used for the subject and not the object. but since meus modifies errorem, it must agree with it in case, therefore it must also be in the accusative, and thus you would want to use MEUM not MEUS. Therefore the latin SHOULD read:
the case we want here is accusative. Why? your error is not nominative, the subject of your verb (ostendo which is the first person singular present active indicative), but rather the OBJECT of your verb, aka the direct object of the action of revelation found in your verb, ostendo. since error is a third diclension noun, the accusative case would be errorem.
Since you remember the first lie you ever told, how did you know at that time that lying was worthy of punitive consequences?
What is the point of having "personal integrity"?
If you don't trust anyone else's experiences, and you regard your own as suspect if they don't sync up with this pre-packaged philosophy, I wonder what use it is to attempt a discourse with someone like you.
The "pre-packaged philosophy" in question is methodological naturalism, the fruits of which you are using to type up bitchy commentary.
Revelation did not provide you with a computer. It's the product of generations of scientists who have been able to replicate and build upon the work of their predecessors.
The experience of prophets is irreproducible. You can't discourse with them because their source is hidden and infallible.
As for equating of the creation of mechanical technology to superior philosophical pragmatism; it's a clear non sequitur. What the Bible says can be applied and also experienced.
Naturalism goes hand in hand with technological advancement. We can trust results that can be replicated, and that is indeed how we as a society advanced. Accepting outrageous claims on faith has provided us with no such thing. That's why James won't accept any claim, even his own, on faith.
How is the Bible applied? Last I checked, there was no such discipline as biblical engineering, and Israeli archaeology has only cast doubt on exodus.
You can remember an event without remembering every part of that event.
For example, you can remember eating dinner at a particular restaurant and yet not remember what you ordered, if you had dessert, or if your server was a man or a woman. N'est pas?
Actually it is odd. I'm a paramedic and PTSD is very common in our profession. That's why we know a lot about it. In fact there is a lot of research on it and the fact is memories just don't work that way. That's why so called "recovered" memories are unreliable.
And you're right I did say "all". All the ones who are fawning all over him with words like bravo, moving, and brilliant. NOT the ones who are thinking critically regardless if they agree with him or not. There's a difference.
I didn't make any generalizations because I wasn't referring to all freethinkers here. Only the ones who are accepting what he says without analyzing it. Personally I happen to agree with a lot of what he says but I do find some things rather odd. For example he says he remembers the first lie he ever told but doesn't remember ANYTHING about it. Really? That's not how memories work. Memories that are even slightly traumatic tend to be more detailed.
It sounds like you were a "classical theist" with all the problems that ths viewpoint entails. It's a good step, I think, to move away from classical theism, even if it means a step into atheism.
I am an atheist after a lifetime of theism. I thought the ideas found in this video before becoming an atheist. This is one reason I stopped evangelizing while still Christian. I realized that god didn't need me to speak for him and if he did then that is weak. So I concluded that god would do his will as he saw fit. I thought a glorious god could never be denied if he revealed himself to the world. He/She/It has not. If it does, we'll be here waiting. Until then there is no reason to believe.
Would the reasoning in this video apply to, say, the electron? Other people have had experiences from the experiments they did. These experiences have brought them to believe in the existence of the electron. I very much doubt that your experiences are similar in this respect. Are you an a-electronist? I suspect that you believe the electron exists, solely on the basis of experiences by others. It then seems that personal experience is relevant for belief in gods but not in electrons. Why?
well I would say the difference is that even though they were the ones who got the experience of the experiment, it is possible to replicate the experiment. It is directly observable and repeatable. They could, in effect, show you exactly what their experience was. In my Chem class, the professor went over how the electron was discovered and measured. It is very interesting.
5 Stars from me.Esp. liked your description of lying to your Father. It triggered a memory of when I was six in a similar situation, where I decided to regulate my behaviour. i.e. stopped going against my parents wishes. In retrospect a really dumb decision. I wouldn't have ended up in the christian youth group years later. Still, it added to the sum of my experience and made me who I am. I never had a "revelation" nor could I accept revelations from this group. It Never Felt Right.
GREAT GREAT VIDEO! Absolutely loved it! However, a small critique, the "meat" of your video was towards the end. Maybe put some of the good stuff towards the beginning in future videos. Many people watch the first few minutes and if it's slow they go onto something else. Keep up the fight.
I'm not sure how to respond to this video. As an atheist I think most of what DAA says is blatantly obvious. Of course we are the sum of our experiences and yes revelation is one of topics that isn't *really* up for debate. But I really can't fault theists (or atheists for that matter) for trying to SHARE their experience. Its human nature to share what we learn and learn from what other people share. We wouldn't read books if this weren't true.
The video seems aimed at particular comments by theists, so if its blatantly obvious then I guess it's because the comments are blatantly not seeing the obvious.
Experiences are not truely shared. We share stories based on memories of experiences. A lot can be learnt from these stories, but when it comes to knowlage, we would hope that the writer of a science artical for example isn't relying on her memory of a series of temperature readings she made 5 years ago.
Great video, dude. The watch was made all the better by the fact that, a couple of hours ago, I sparkeda debate with a preacher on a street corner. This video throws a whole new perspective on that debate
Trouble is nobody's listening. Basically he's the Atheist version of a charismatic preacher and all these people who call themselves "skeptics" and "freethinkers" are all enraptured by him.
No. I think he's enraptured with himself. His points are valid, but being able to communicate concisely is a better marker for intelligence than having a large vocabulary. I used to do the same thing back in college, but that was because papers had to be a certain length. Teachers call it "snowballing".
I don't think he's enraptured with himself. I think he has a love of language itself and delights in using it abundantly as a form of creative expression.
In the same way that I don't make art to impress people, I make it because it's how I express myself.
(Concise: marked by brevity of expression or statement : free from all elaboration and superfluous detail)
I'm not bashing Das, but speaking really fast and using flowery language is counterproductive to communicating an idea to "the masses". What creationist/fundamentalist is going to sit through this lecture? Now, if his intent is something else (i.e. praise seeking), then I'll be the first to congratulate him. For now, I'll stick by my constructive criticism.
@similaritiesendhere Or maybe he's ranting. Or maybe he's just sharing an opinion. Maybe you're an idiot. I don't know about any the above but I have a a good feeling that all the above are true.
I did make my point. You don't know what his intentions are/were. You assumed. So I assumed you were an idiot when I know nothing about you. The logic there is the same.
And I'm jus gonna throw this out there... Just because you don't like things to be elaborate or spoken on a higher plane of dialogue doesn't mean others don't as well. Taking your time to say/do something well is evidence of thought.
First vid of yours I've seen (via noelplum99 link) and though I thought the beginning was rather slow, by the time you got into this it was effing brilliant! You made a lot of good points and explained them well.
This is my favorite video of yours so far DAA... If this isn't moving to a certain degree to christians, then they're more thick headed than I would've thought.
Reminds me of Matt's consistent question; What do you believe in, and why should I believe in it too?
Arguments for personal experience are undoubtedly passionate, but really of no use when trying to convince someone who doesnt already share the same perspective.
Did you learn the definition of fundamentalist yet, or are you still deleting the comments of and blocking those who raise (even nicely put) comments?
I know I don't have any subs compared to big names like DAA, but why aren't you willing to engage anyway? You kinda play into the sub-whore idea when you do stuff like that...
Too bad too... was gonna engage you in some video responses. I was even going to be nice.
All right, I have to say it. You need to work out the whole "wide screen" thing, because you just look like a midget in all your recent videos. Now, maybe you just had a piano dropped on your head by a roadrunner and haven't popped back out like an accordian yet, and if so, I apologize.
1)Firsthand experience is evidence ONLY to the individual that experiences it.
2)It is easy for us to accept that which supports beliefs that we have an emotional investment with little evidence
3)The more times something is repeated as truth the more you may believe it yourself (like a ghost story)
4)As a former theist I had revelations that I previously attributed to God that I now believe can be explained by natural means or at least have no causal chain to a diving being
@tyrantslayer999 I have. They call themselves Christians. Google it. Okay...That sounded really mean. What I mean is: that whole worldview espouses the concept that you should preach to others. That involves taking personal revelations and sincerely believing they are good enough for everyone else. Were they to consider other peoples' experiences as valid in any way, they wouldn't preach, it seems.
This is a straw man. My skepticism is not so cynical. I only seek a prosaic answer to human psychology. The ancient Greeks put us on a path to find the truth. We know that personal experience is plagued with bias and is notoriously contradictory. There is a better way.
BTW: James Randi has an excellent argument about daily assumptions. We need such assumptions or we would go mad. We can and should make assumptions about the world. That's no justification for supernatural beliefs.
Oddly enough the experiences of people raised in cultures steeped in Buddhism and/or whose friends and family are Buddhist are more likely to result in those people being Buddhist. And you can substitute Islam for Buddhism or substitute any other theology or ideology for that matter.
I think there is good reason to be skeptical of our experiences.
? Yeah. Because I believed in God I served a mission. There is no way I would have left my girlfriend and the life I loved to be a full time missionary if I didn't believe in God. I went willingly. I certainly wouldn't have stayed either. Going door to door preaching the gospel is a very difficult thing to do. I did it because I believed it was the right thing to do.
I am wondering how you became skeptical in a country that allows skepticism? I'd be willing to bet that you'd be a buddahist in a buddahist country, a muslim in a muslim country, etc. etc. It's funny that the skeptics only live in countries that tolerate skepticism... muslims mostly live in countries that allow islam, and so on, and so on...
I believe in questioning everything including my means and methods of discerning truth. I've no problem with, from time to time, questioning first principles (axioms/assumptions). That can only be good. I don't need to curl up into a fetal position I just need to use parsimony and tried and tested methods.
How did we get to the moon? How did we discover the structure of the atom and DNA?
If I have ever insisted that you believe in God because of my experience, then either I miscommunicated or you misunderstood. Most likely the former.
As a theist, I have always respected your opinion and I often wonder if I would not be standing in your shoes today had I not had my experience.
Knowing that my experience was as real as any experience that I've ever had, do I not then have a responsibility to share it with you. I mean, if chocolate cake were the best tasting food ever... con't
... invented, but people had never tasted it, wouldn't it be cruel of me to not let others know how delicious chocolate cake is? Moreover, wouldn't it be even worse of me to keep that recipe to myself? If you knew how good choc cake was and you didn;t share with me... I'd be ticked =)
But... I understand where you're coming from. I cannot force you into this experience. All I can do is hope that you have it and that one day we can share the recipe with others.
I served a mission because I believed that my experiences demonstrated to me that Mormonism was true. I loved being a Mormon and wanted others to have my experience.
Because my experience was real I felt I had a responsibility to share it with others. I gave up two years of my life and paid my expenses to share the message with others.
I now believe that human psychology is an imperfect medium for finding truth from experience... (cont)
The experience of Budhism leads to certainty of Budhism. The experience of Islam leads to the certainty of Islam. The experience of Mormonism leads to the certainty of Mormonism, Scientology, Hindusim, Sikhism, etc., etc.
Perhaps the parsimonious view is that we sould be skeptical of our experiences no matter how real they are.
Not to pick a fight or anything but what makes you think that I have not been skeptical about my experiences? Because you and I did not reach the same conclusions about life (and God) makes you the authority and me the automaton?
I have spent more time than you can imagine being skeptical about my God and my exoerience(s) with Him. But I am drawn to him, much like I am to my wife, because of how good they are to me and how they constantly remind me how much they love me.
I'm no authority and make no such claim. I can't reconcile the myriad contradictory beliefs and I understand that confirmation bias is a better explanation than coincidence that you have found the truth and others have not.
So are you saying that you've never reached a conclusion? You think you know the answer but you really don't have one? You just tell people that have reached conclusions that they are wrong? Excuse my bluntness but you're like the guy who doesn't vote for the president just so he can scream and yell about whichever person gets elected.
I think that you're an atheist, not a skeptic. But I am skeptical about that statement. =D
Yes I have reached a conclusion. I spent years of my life after my mission studying human psychology and philosophy. I wanted to know why people's experiences led to so many contradictory beliefs. I now understand the problems inherent in indoctrination and confirmation bias. I have reached a conclusion. There is no evidence for god and human psychology is fallible.
The parsimonious answer is that the magician doesn't really cut the woman in half, my experiences not withstanding.
On the contrary. I believe it is fundamentally important to question my own beliefs. Not to the point where I'm scared to leave my house but I love to debate and discuss precisely because it causes me to question my own beliefs. Over the years I've altered my views on a number of things. I don't do so easily but when someone offers a compelling argument I seriously consider the argument. I admit when my arguments are weak and when the weight of the evidence is sufficient I change my opinion.
-what makes you think I have not been skeptical about my experiences?
If I told you I had a friend name Harvey a 6' tall rabbit, and that I was absolutely convinced my experience were true, you would suggest I have a brain scan for tumors, or get psychiatric treatment. The only difference between you, and me in that scenario is the fact that a significant percentage of the society you're a part of have also experienced your rabbit, and say you should be open to experiencing the rabbit..
..and if you try hard enough, and believe in the rabbit you will experience it as well. The problem is every religion experiences a different rabbit that is JUST as real to them.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@DAA If 90% of humanity claimed that something existed... and even you had seen one of these things before, but could no longer see them, unlike the other 90% who could still see them - would you believe that 90% of humanity is hallucinating or that you went blind?
Given The Miracle Of The Sun (google it) I'd say it's likely mass delusion. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything though. Many people testify to the divinity of Sathya Sai Baba because of the miracles they witness on a regular basis. Oddly enough Christians discount these testimonials and refuse to worship Sai Baba. One could ask if the Christians are blind?
Truth, it seems, is in the confirmation bias of the person who witnesses.
Dude, you're scary me! Why are you reflecting on the conversations I as an atheist keep having with my dad the former pastor. It's spooky, knock it off.
So nobody can convince anybody of anything unless the two people happen to have some relevantly similar experiences. Are you leaving YT? Just gonna make descriptive videos about your daily life?
Also, how exactly does this work? Are people supposed to be CONVINCED by your argument that they shouldn't argue with you about God? No that can't be, as they could only be convinced it it lined up with their experience. Seems that what you're doing here is either self-refuting or a waste of time.
Well said. You do such a good job of communicating your thoughts - not just the word choice, but the timing and intonation. I suppose it's very similar to playing music. Whatever it is, I enjoyed it. It made me think of my own past experiences and how memories get edited by perspective.
"God has chosen to reveal himself to you, and has chosen NOT to reveal himself to me."
Your notion of god is one in which it is somehow separate from YOU and somehow a "he". And however has been claiming that there exists a god that is separate from himself and that He has revealed Himself to that person is worthy of your skepticism.
But what if YOU are god...
Well then I suppose you have chosen not to reveal yourself to... yourself.
Could you still blame God's choice in that scenerio?
I'm not very familiar with Feuerbach, but I mean it in the sense of panentheism.
Time, Space, all forms of separation are illusions. We are all One. This "one" which is all that exists, is what most have termed "God", yet "god" has been perverted into being thought of as some Super Human cartoon character sitting on a cloud all day punishing and rewarding his slaves... us.
Your ostensibly bombastic yet luminous prose in this video exemplifies your obvious grandiloquence. Eschewing the verbose vacuity that too often spews from thoughtless blatherskites, you instead infuse each sentence with sheer lucidity that sends a tingling down my toes. TheoWarner's sesquipedalian poppycock wishes it had the profundity of your poetic prose. What a cotton-headed ninny muggins! Ok, enough of that. And just kidding, The
Good video. Here's a question I'd like to ask Christians.
Q: At what point in the timeline of humanity did God imbue us with his morality? We've been around as a species for well over a hundred thousand years, if we include other human like species (Neanderthal, etc), you can go back millions of years. Did early stone age man have gods morals?, or was it a recent thing?
bonnie43uk 3 weeks ago
You don't have to accept God...it is your personal choice.
God may reveal himself or not...btw: what is your education level...publications...studies..degrees? peer reviews?
curious to know..As there are so many of these vids, One of which speaks openly of being a YouTube partner to make money from his 'ideas' make money from nothing is what he said...humm..whonder if he is a fake? i don't thik you are.
baysideful 11 months ago
What I'm curious about is...why is A*Teens - Sugar Rush suggested in the side? Is there something you're not telling us James?
Idofphoenix 1 year ago
I can't see the difference between my evangelising; and your videos of posting reasons to not believe in God. I do acknowledge 2 truths in your video however. 1: No one can go through your own personal experiences, and 2: Many evangelical christians are indeed the doucher's you make them out to be at the end of the video. Truth 1 however bothers me, if you are a true atheist, how are you indeed so happy believing nothing has your back when no one else will?
LinkMaster1711 1 year ago
lol someones clearly lreading from something they wrote earlier in this video (which isn't bad)
adam4810 1 year ago
hellzTotheYa!
RobotzAreAwesome 1 year ago
@ DasAmericanAtheist,
Well done, congratulations on a very elegant articulation on the nature of subjectivity and reason. I would like to suggest that you consider writing a book. I think it would be an interesting and informative experience. Perhaps you could add in an explanation of why testimonials and other subjective claims offered as "evidence" are not logically viable. It annoys me to hear people use their personal experiences as if it were "proof".
Thanks for your video.
DarwinPHX 1 year ago
Let me know what you think. I rarely get to discuss this theory to any great depth, and I'm curious what you think about the notion.
BTW...nice to make your acquaintance James, glad I sub'd. = D
SexyWifey135 1 year ago
Essentially, every molecule is god, every force strong or weak, time itself, space itself...it's all god. I'm god, you're god, my dog is god, my couch is god. = P
God is infinite. Yet, we all are god in a finite moment, finite location, in a finite perspective. We are god experiencing itself as a human. Existence looking back in on itself through the flux of spacetime. It makes perfect sense to me, and is evident everywhere you look...be it microscopic or macroscopic observation.
SexyWifey135 1 year ago
I always did my best to dismiss the idea of god and find a rational solution for existence. Inevitably, all of the observations and rationality led me directly to intelligent design. Strange, I know...but extremely logical none the less. Religious nuts still hate me and think I'm an atheist, but no, I am infact not. From my perspective, existence is god. That is probably the easiest way to describe it.
SexyWifey135 1 year ago
I know this is long, I feel like shit and I'm not up for making a vid response...so please bear with me here...this is good stuff.
Ok so long story short...there was always something about existence that made me wonder and question it's very nature. That is what led me down this road to begin with.
SexyWifey135 1 year ago
In my experiences, I have rode a wave of information. As a child, I was raised in a strict Catholic home. I never bought into the bible, and that was my first "turn off" to religion. A book written by men, but is god's word...that one always stood out like a sore thumb from my perspective. That amongst many others. My early concept of god was actually more of a paranoid concept, because of god's wrath and the fact he was supposedly always watching me. Always found that one creepy. = S
SexyWifey135 1 year ago
I think about that a lot, always have. I have heard many religious followers say, "you must have faith and not question." My response is very simple, that's impossible and I will never be capable of it. I think it is essential for human beings to share perspectives on creation and existence. That is why I am sharing the concepts I consider.
I am not a typical atheist, because I am infact not an atheist. I don't fit anywhere, really.
SexyWifey135 1 year ago
Ahhh, the paradox. Simply conversing with another individual can offer that experience. That's what is so fascinating about the human mind and it's ability to adapt with the environment. Can we ever truly know the answer to any question, and know that our experiences are real? I can't say never, but I will say that I eagerly anticipate a solution for that quandary. = D
SexyWifey135 1 year ago
i think deep down u know the truth......
imallloveandpeacenow 2 years ago
I would like to hear more details about all the little things that added up and pushed you towards atheism.
Spiderwoman77 2 years ago
I can't understand the irony in a sentence that makes no sense and that i can't understand
how is there irony in i reveal to myself my of error?
mikenagoda 2 years ago
You okay bud? It is a very, very frustrating situation.
UrieWhore68 2 years ago
I am not trolling. I am correcting bad Latin. But yes I see the joke now... but the grammar is still attrocious. There is a difference between trolling and correcting one's use of an ancient language after all. If I wanted to troll, I'd probably name call, which I haven't.
All I'm saying is, if you're going to use a language other than English, use it correctly, please and thankyou.
But I do like your video, even though I disagree.
mikenagoda 2 years ago
You do realise his Latin grammar was intentional? Do you not understand the humour found in irony?
UrieWhore68 2 years ago
What's the joke, aside from bad grammar, if i may ask?
mikenagoda 2 years ago
Seriously? It's irony.
That's cool. You can keep trolling if you want.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
Lastly, even though the quote you used may be well known (i assume you picked it out because it is), that's no excuse for bad grammar. Whoever wrote it failed at Latin.
mikenagoda 2 years ago
You don't get the joke...
That's alright.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
@DasAmericanAtheist Well, to vindicate Mike, the joke seems unnecessarily demanding to me, too. Firstly, there is one error more than required, an arbitrariness that thwarts a forcible epiphany, and, secondly, the comprehension of the joke is predicated upon one’s awareness of its self-referentiality, which, in turn, is obscured by the surplus error (“I show” vs. “show me”). Hence, both—the first error and the self-referentiality—have to be guessed at correctly, before the guffaw can ensue.
telofy 1 year ago
@DasAmericanAtheist Certainly no one should be barred from the fun of mangling the grammar of any language, whether Latin or English, dead or alive. Or German. ;-)
And in my last comment I didn’t have the characters left to tell you that I enjoy your videos. Thanks!
telofy 1 year ago
On an amusing note, the definition for error is as follows: error, erroris, n
declension: 3, gender: M
1. deception
2. error
3. uncertainty
4. wandering
5. winding, maze
Who here is uncertain/has been deceived/ is in error? You or the theist? I just find it interesting that you would use that phrase at the end given your argument and your confidence in it.
mikenagoda 2 years ago
(continued from previous comment)
secondly, meus is the masculine NOMINATIVE, which would be used for the subject and not the object. but since meus modifies errorem, it must agree with it in case, therefore it must also be in the accusative, and thus you would want to use MEUM not MEUS. Therefore the latin SHOULD read:
OSTENDO MIHI MEUM ERROREM
I reveal to myself my error
or
I reveal my error to myself
mikenagoda 2 years ago
(continued from the previous comment)
the case we want here is accusative. Why? your error is not nominative, the subject of your verb (ostendo which is the first person singular present active indicative), but rather the OBJECT of your verb, aka the direct object of the action of revelation found in your verb, ostendo. since error is a third diclension noun, the accusative case would be errorem.
mikenagoda 2 years ago
Your latin is terrible.
Ostendo mihi meus erroris:
this is wrong, it translates to:
I reveal to myself my of error
Why is this incorrect? Ostendo mihi is fine, the issue is the last two words.
Error, erroris- masculine
firstly, erroris is the genitive case of error (in the singular). this is used for possession and is usually translated "of (word)" in english.
mikenagoda 2 years ago
I like this , i think it was well said,
good stuff overall
MrDeathtower 2 years ago
Since you remember the first lie you ever told, how did you know at that time that lying was worthy of punitive consequences?
What is the point of having "personal integrity"?
If you don't trust anyone else's experiences, and you regard your own as suspect if they don't sync up with this pre-packaged philosophy, I wonder what use it is to attempt a discourse with someone like you.
RighteousPaladin 2 years ago
@righteouspaladin
The "pre-packaged philosophy" in question is methodological naturalism, the fruits of which you are using to type up bitchy commentary.
Revelation did not provide you with a computer. It's the product of generations of scientists who have been able to replicate and build upon the work of their predecessors.
The experience of prophets is irreproducible. You can't discourse with them because their source is hidden and infallible.
wilfredthebold 2 years ago
You failed to address my objections.
As for equating of the creation of mechanical technology to superior philosophical pragmatism; it's a clear non sequitur. What the Bible says can be applied and also experienced.
God resists the proud.
RighteousPaladin 2 years ago
@righteouspaladin
Naturalism goes hand in hand with technological advancement. We can trust results that can be replicated, and that is indeed how we as a society advanced. Accepting outrageous claims on faith has provided us with no such thing. That's why James won't accept any claim, even his own, on faith.
How is the Bible applied? Last I checked, there was no such discipline as biblical engineering, and Israeli archaeology has only cast doubt on exodus.
wilfredthebold 2 years ago
You're still telling that lie. Mr. Atheist.
That you don't remember is significant. The consequences of forgetting: DasAmericanAtheist
"Author of your own life." Prepare to be rewritten. lol
We are all the sum of all experiences albeit from separate perspectives.
It's your definition of God that is the issue.
The lady doth protest too much.
astrotometry 2 years ago
@astrotometry (my other channel)
"I remember the first lie I ever told."
"I don't remember what the lie was."
That's intellectual honesty alright. lol
There's a book called "People of the Lie" check it out. But beware, the author killed himself.
patternsinchaos 2 years ago
@patternsinchaos
You can remember an event without remembering every part of that event.
For example, you can remember eating dinner at a particular restaurant and yet not remember what you ordered, if you had dessert, or if your server was a man or a woman. N'est pas?
wilfredthebold 2 years ago
how can a person ever have a personal experience of God if they're completely closed to the possibility?
is that not denying it before it happens?
that's illogical
mindDefyButtin 2 years ago
Actually it is odd. I'm a paramedic and PTSD is very common in our profession. That's why we know a lot about it. In fact there is a lot of research on it and the fact is memories just don't work that way. That's why so called "recovered" memories are unreliable.
And you're right I did say "all". All the ones who are fawning all over him with words like bravo, moving, and brilliant. NOT the ones who are thinking critically regardless if they agree with him or not. There's a difference.
stretmediq 2 years ago
My favorite is by teniguafez:
"Crowning Moment of Awesome."
Don't tell me that's not fawning.
stretmediq 2 years ago
I didn't make any generalizations because I wasn't referring to all freethinkers here. Only the ones who are accepting what he says without analyzing it. Personally I happen to agree with a lot of what he says but I do find some things rather odd. For example he says he remembers the first lie he ever told but doesn't remember ANYTHING about it. Really? That's not how memories work. Memories that are even slightly traumatic tend to be more detailed.
stretmediq 2 years ago
Too scripted. Zzzzzzzzzzz. It got a LOT better after the titles. Wish the "prologue" had been excised.
KevJJ888 2 years ago
Bravo!
gronkar66 2 years ago
That is the best answer I have ever heard to the question why are you an atheist?
I am an atheist out of personal integrity
FactVsReligion 2 years ago
I'm a thesit. Awesome video. I can only hope that you WANT to experience God personally.
shotinthedark90 2 years ago
Crowning Moment of Awesome.
FAIBU SUTAASU
teniguafez 2 years ago
It sounds like you were a "classical theist" with all the problems that ths viewpoint entails. It's a good step, I think, to move away from classical theism, even if it means a step into atheism.
Aloha
directspirit 2 years ago
I am an atheist after a lifetime of theism. I thought the ideas found in this video before becoming an atheist. This is one reason I stopped evangelizing while still Christian. I realized that god didn't need me to speak for him and if he did then that is weak. So I concluded that god would do his will as he saw fit. I thought a glorious god could never be denied if he revealed himself to the world. He/She/It has not. If it does, we'll be here waiting. Until then there is no reason to believe.
eldogg4life 2 years ago 2
You're videos always captivate me with your eloquent understanding "James Here".
5 stars
Tigerzeeclawz 2 years ago
Would the reasoning in this video apply to, say, the electron? Other people have had experiences from the experiments they did. These experiences have brought them to believe in the existence of the electron. I very much doubt that your experiences are similar in this respect. Are you an a-electronist? I suspect that you believe the electron exists, solely on the basis of experiences by others. It then seems that personal experience is relevant for belief in gods but not in electrons. Why?
materiasacra 2 years ago
well I would say the difference is that even though they were the ones who got the experience of the experiment, it is possible to replicate the experiment. It is directly observable and repeatable. They could, in effect, show you exactly what their experience was. In my Chem class, the professor went over how the electron was discovered and measured. It is very interesting.
scott5878 2 years ago
5 Stars from me.Esp. liked your description of lying to your Father. It triggered a memory of when I was six in a similar situation, where I decided to regulate my behaviour. i.e. stopped going against my parents wishes. In retrospect a really dumb decision. I wouldn't have ended up in the christian youth group years later. Still, it added to the sum of my experience and made me who I am. I never had a "revelation" nor could I accept revelations from this group. It Never Felt Right.
AureliusIX 2 years ago
You remember the first lie you ever told but you don't remember anything about it? Right.
stretmediq 2 years ago
***** & favorited!!
Great video!
WntrSolstice2012 2 years ago
Truly excellent work, good sir.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Autonomy, choice, and space to discover a personal truth... We all share this need. Peace to you...
NLPNVC 2 years ago
GREAT GREAT VIDEO! Absolutely loved it! However, a small critique, the "meat" of your video was towards the end. Maybe put some of the good stuff towards the beginning in future videos. Many people watch the first few minutes and if it's slow they go onto something else. Keep up the fight.
freedomtruthfreedom 2 years ago
5 star and fav'd! great video!
OneShot187 2 years ago
so obvious things put into so many words, but done so very well :-)
Florence00pi 2 years ago
I could not have put it better myself! Although I can actually remember the moment I became an atheist......
scitzz 2 years ago
I'm not sure how to respond to this video. As an atheist I think most of what DAA says is blatantly obvious. Of course we are the sum of our experiences and yes revelation is one of topics that isn't *really* up for debate. But I really can't fault theists (or atheists for that matter) for trying to SHARE their experience. Its human nature to share what we learn and learn from what other people share. We wouldn't read books if this weren't true.
askirojadu 2 years ago
The video seems aimed at particular comments by theists, so if its blatantly obvious then I guess it's because the comments are blatantly not seeing the obvious.
Experiences are not truely shared. We share stories based on memories of experiences. A lot can be learnt from these stories, but when it comes to knowlage, we would hope that the writer of a science artical for example isn't relying on her memory of a series of temperature readings she made 5 years ago.
kevinscales 2 years ago
Now, James, you haven't experienced god because you haven't OPENED YOUR HEART TO HIM! ;) nice vid.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
X-Men isn't a religion, it's a relationship with Professor Charles Xavier.
You atheist people need to grow up, stop being disobedient, and accept Prof X into your heart, as I did.
*just inserting other fictional characters into other's arguments, in the place of 'God' or 'Jesus' or the 'Holy Spirit'**
MinervaInTheBrain 2 years ago 3
Well written, well annunciated. Good video.
FaganRoberts 2 years ago
Great video, dude. The watch was made all the better by the fact that, a couple of hours ago, I sparkeda debate with a preacher on a street corner. This video throws a whole new perspective on that debate
TheInsaneBastard 2 years ago
I thought this was an amazing video. The level of dialogue you used is not something you get to hear much anymore.
Idofphoenix 2 years ago
You don't think this guy can be a bit pretentious at times? He's great, but he goes overboard at times.
similaritiesendhere 2 years ago
A "BIT" pretentious? LOL!
stretmediq 2 years ago
I didn't want to sound like a troll, but someone had to say it.
similaritiesendhere 2 years ago
Trouble is nobody's listening. Basically he's the Atheist version of a charismatic preacher and all these people who call themselves "skeptics" and "freethinkers" are all enraptured by him.
stretmediq 2 years ago
No. I think he's enraptured with himself. His points are valid, but being able to communicate concisely is a better marker for intelligence than having a large vocabulary. I used to do the same thing back in college, but that was because papers had to be a certain length. Teachers call it "snowballing".
similaritiesendhere 2 years ago
I don't think he's enraptured with himself. I think he has a love of language itself and delights in using it abundantly as a form of creative expression.
In the same way that I don't make art to impress people, I make it because it's how I express myself.
TatsujinSan 2 years ago
(Concise: marked by brevity of expression or statement : free from all elaboration and superfluous detail)
I'm not bashing Das, but speaking really fast and using flowery language is counterproductive to communicating an idea to "the masses". What creationist/fundamentalist is going to sit through this lecture? Now, if his intent is something else (i.e. praise seeking), then I'll be the first to congratulate him. For now, I'll stick by my constructive criticism.
similaritiesendhere 2 years ago
Perhaps it's intended to filter out theists who are intimidated by big words.
TatsujinSan 2 years ago
@similaritiesendhere Or maybe he's ranting. Or maybe he's just sharing an opinion. Maybe you're an idiot. I don't know about any the above but I have a a good feeling that all the above are true.
Idofphoenix 2 years ago
You've mastered the art of name calling. Didn't you also have a point to make?
similaritiesendhere 2 years ago
I did make my point. You don't know what his intentions are/were. You assumed. So I assumed you were an idiot when I know nothing about you. The logic there is the same.
And I'm jus gonna throw this out there... Just because you don't like things to be elaborate or spoken on a higher plane of dialogue doesn't mean others don't as well. Taking your time to say/do something well is evidence of thought.
Idofphoenix 2 years ago
@similaritiesendhere
No. You do know what the word means right? He doesn'tever really exaggerate anything. Just because he uses big words doesn't make him pretentious.
Idofphoenix 2 years ago
I loved the language you used. Brilliant. Your points were well made. Thanks.
rryuan 2 years ago
Comment removed
similaritiesendhere 2 years ago
that was great! bravo!
DIRTYDUNNZ 2 years ago
I couldn't pay attention to your speech cuz I decided to turn on the Google Brand Speech Recognition Software Closed Captioning.
Reading what it thinks you're saying is, to put it mildly, fuckin hilarious.
I dang near LOL'd my nuggets off.
patienceking 2 years ago
You're absolutely right! I'm sure they added that feature for comical purposes only.
askirojadu 2 years ago
First vid of yours I've seen (via noelplum99 link) and though I thought the beginning was rather slow, by the time you got into this it was effing brilliant! You made a lot of good points and explained them well.
HappyApostate 2 years ago
I have no idea who this is... Normally i know ''it's james here'' but i guess that's not true any more...
1234funsies 2 years ago
great video
although the 2.35:1 aspect ratio is a little distracting at times :P
LuigiStl 2 years ago
This is my favorite video of yours so far DAA... If this isn't moving to a certain degree to christians, then they're more thick headed than I would've thought.
djzapz 2 years ago
Reminds me of Matt's consistent question; What do you believe in, and why should I believe in it too?
Arguments for personal experience are undoubtedly passionate, but really of no use when trying to convince someone who doesnt already share the same perspective.
FlightIsLife 2 years ago
Let's hope Veritas48 watches this video... you've squarely made my argument for me.
theowarner 2 years ago
Very good video. I like stories like this.
I remember the instant I became an atheist, and it had a lot to do with integrity as well.
Tyrtamus 2 years ago
Veritas! How's it going?
Did you learn the definition of fundamentalist yet, or are you still deleting the comments of and blocking those who raise (even nicely put) comments?
I know I don't have any subs compared to big names like DAA, but why aren't you willing to engage anyway? You kinda play into the sub-whore idea when you do stuff like that...
Too bad too... was gonna engage you in some video responses. I was even going to be nice.
Tyrtamus 2 years ago
Great stuff!
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
Whoa, great stuff!
DASDASDAS AMERICAN ATHEIST!
SkepticsClaw 2 years ago
Well done!
wavymavy 2 years ago
All right, I have to say it. You need to work out the whole "wide screen" thing, because you just look like a midget in all your recent videos. Now, maybe you just had a piano dropped on your head by a roadrunner and haven't popped back out like an accordian yet, and if so, I apologize.
GoblinXXX 2 years ago
I wish I knew how to fix it...WMM has only start doing this recently.
I'll double check all my settings and such...
it annoys me too.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
At least I'm not the only one seeing it. You don't have a fisheye lens, do you? (It kind of looks like that kind of distortion, a little.)
GoblinXXX 2 years ago
Bravo! Very well put.
Yesitis808 2 years ago
James, James, JAMES!
groovy x)
jericomovie 2 years ago
You like this one?
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
yes, that's right
jericomovie 2 years ago
First video I've seen of you.
This is awesome.
sputnikowns 2 years ago
Welcome to the wild world of DasAmericanAtheist. Sub him at once, his stuff is always good. (And he can play the piano, too!)
GoblinXXX 2 years ago
Brilliant.
Remijdio 2 years ago
Really really well done. I wish I could write and articulate like you.
ercvstr 2 years ago
incredible.
that's all i can say.
Jnthn44 2 years ago
FUCKING BEAUTIFUL MAN!
freethinker3161 2 years ago
1)Firsthand experience is evidence ONLY to the individual that experiences it.
2)It is easy for us to accept that which supports beliefs that we have an emotional investment with little evidence
3)The more times something is repeated as truth the more you may believe it yourself (like a ghost story)
4)As a former theist I had revelations that I previously attributed to God that I now believe can be explained by natural means or at least have no causal chain to a diving being
RGF
RelaxGodfolk 2 years ago 2
#1 on my list of criteria for proving god exists is that the evidence must be empirical, a posteriori.
That is non-negotiable.
BionicDance 2 years ago
What if I gave you a cookie? Would you negotiate THEN?
GoblinXXX 2 years ago
Does the cookie have raisins?
BionicDance 2 years ago
Raisins AND nuts!
GoblinXXX 2 years ago
No deal; I HATE raisins.
Zombie grapes...ew!
BionicDance 2 years ago
Damn you! You are too clever for us naughty people!
GoblinXXX 2 years ago
Yes, I know. ;)
BionicDance 2 years ago
@tyrantslayer999 I have. They call themselves Christians. Google it. Okay...That sounded really mean. What I mean is: that whole worldview espouses the concept that you should preach to others. That involves taking personal revelations and sincerely believing they are good enough for everyone else. Were they to consider other peoples' experiences as valid in any way, they wouldn't preach, it seems.
Dogstolmychi 2 years ago
Extremely well put!
Had you not just won it, this would have put well in the running for the TS again.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
SHIT!
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
Hell yeah ;o)
(That's "amen" in atheist ;P)
myintellectualjourny 2 years ago
Excellent video brother.
Seek truth, and truth only.
Beatnuk 2 years ago
my first... it's all a blur to me, my memory has always been flawed so such things as my firsts are faded at best.
DiceWarwick 2 years ago
This is a straw man. My skepticism is not so cynical. I only seek a prosaic answer to human psychology. The ancient Greeks put us on a path to find the truth. We know that personal experience is plagued with bias and is notoriously contradictory. There is a better way.
BTW: James Randi has an excellent argument about daily assumptions. We need such assumptions or we would go mad. We can and should make assumptions about the world. That's no justification for supernatural beliefs.
awatson945 2 years ago
My first lie: telling my friend that jumping from a treehouse wouldn't hurt his leg.
Raskolnikhov 2 years ago
29?
theowarner 2 years ago
Love this. Excellent video.
seraphinapandora 2 years ago
Oddly enough the experiences of people raised in cultures steeped in Buddhism and/or whose friends and family are Buddhist are more likely to result in those people being Buddhist. And you can substitute Islam for Buddhism or substitute any other theology or ideology for that matter.
I think there is good reason to be skeptical of our experiences.
awatson945 2 years ago
Have you ever believed in God, like James has?
thereprieve 2 years ago
? Yeah. Because I believed in God I served a mission. There is no way I would have left my girlfriend and the life I loved to be a full time missionary if I didn't believe in God. I went willingly. I certainly wouldn't have stayed either. Going door to door preaching the gospel is a very difficult thing to do. I did it because I believed it was the right thing to do.
awatson945 2 years ago
I am wondering how you became skeptical in a country that allows skepticism? I'd be willing to bet that you'd be a buddahist in a buddahist country, a muslim in a muslim country, etc. etc. It's funny that the skeptics only live in countries that tolerate skepticism... muslims mostly live in countries that allow islam, and so on, and so on...
thereprieve 2 years ago
I believe in questioning everything including my means and methods of discerning truth. I've no problem with, from time to time, questioning first principles (axioms/assumptions). That can only be good. I don't need to curl up into a fetal position I just need to use parsimony and tried and tested methods.
How did we get to the moon? How did we discover the structure of the atom and DNA?
I've no problem with epistemology.
Bring it on. :-)
awatson945 2 years ago
*awed*
Wow...
I don't ever really know how to transcribe what I'm thinking right now...
But...I agree.
TheOriginalArchetype 2 years ago
This is the one of best argument I've ever heard from you. Excellent
TheLionOfMars 2 years ago
If I have ever insisted that you believe in God because of my experience, then either I miscommunicated or you misunderstood. Most likely the former.
As a theist, I have always respected your opinion and I often wonder if I would not be standing in your shoes today had I not had my experience.
Knowing that my experience was as real as any experience that I've ever had, do I not then have a responsibility to share it with you. I mean, if chocolate cake were the best tasting food ever... con't
thereprieve 2 years ago
... invented, but people had never tasted it, wouldn't it be cruel of me to not let others know how delicious chocolate cake is? Moreover, wouldn't it be even worse of me to keep that recipe to myself? If you knew how good choc cake was and you didn;t share with me... I'd be ticked =)
But... I understand where you're coming from. I cannot force you into this experience. All I can do is hope that you have it and that one day we can share the recipe with others.
thereprieve 2 years ago
I served a mission because I believed that my experiences demonstrated to me that Mormonism was true. I loved being a Mormon and wanted others to have my experience.
Because my experience was real I felt I had a responsibility to share it with others. I gave up two years of my life and paid my expenses to share the message with others.
I now believe that human psychology is an imperfect medium for finding truth from experience... (cont)
awatson945 2 years ago 2
The experience of Budhism leads to certainty of Budhism. The experience of Islam leads to the certainty of Islam. The experience of Mormonism leads to the certainty of Mormonism, Scientology, Hindusim, Sikhism, etc., etc.
Perhaps the parsimonious view is that we sould be skeptical of our experiences no matter how real they are.
awatson945 2 years ago 4
Not to pick a fight or anything but what makes you think that I have not been skeptical about my experiences? Because you and I did not reach the same conclusions about life (and God) makes you the authority and me the automaton?
I have spent more time than you can imagine being skeptical about my God and my exoerience(s) with Him. But I am drawn to him, much like I am to my wife, because of how good they are to me and how they constantly remind me how much they love me.
thereprieve 2 years ago
I'm no authority and make no such claim. I can't reconcile the myriad contradictory beliefs and I understand that confirmation bias is a better explanation than coincidence that you have found the truth and others have not.
In short, I'm a skeptic.
awatson945 2 years ago
So are you saying that you've never reached a conclusion? You think you know the answer but you really don't have one? You just tell people that have reached conclusions that they are wrong? Excuse my bluntness but you're like the guy who doesn't vote for the president just so he can scream and yell about whichever person gets elected.
I think that you're an atheist, not a skeptic. But I am skeptical about that statement. =D
thereprieve 2 years ago
Yes I have reached a conclusion. I spent years of my life after my mission studying human psychology and philosophy. I wanted to know why people's experiences led to so many contradictory beliefs. I now understand the problems inherent in indoctrination and confirmation bias. I have reached a conclusion. There is no evidence for god and human psychology is fallible.
The parsimonious answer is that the magician doesn't really cut the woman in half, my experiences not withstanding.
awatson945 2 years ago 2
So you're skeptical of the beliefs of others, just not your own?
thereprieve 2 years ago
On the contrary. I believe it is fundamentally important to question my own beliefs. Not to the point where I'm scared to leave my house but I love to debate and discuss precisely because it causes me to question my own beliefs. Over the years I've altered my views on a number of things. I don't do so easily but when someone offers a compelling argument I seriously consider the argument. I admit when my arguments are weak and when the weight of the evidence is sufficient I change my opinion.
awatson945 2 years ago
-what makes you think I have not been skeptical about my experiences?
If I told you I had a friend name Harvey a 6' tall rabbit, and that I was absolutely convinced my experience were true, you would suggest I have a brain scan for tumors, or get psychiatric treatment. The only difference between you, and me in that scenario is the fact that a significant percentage of the society you're a part of have also experienced your rabbit, and say you should be open to experiencing the rabbit..
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
(cont)
..and if you try hard enough, and believe in the rabbit you will experience it as well. The problem is every religion experiences a different rabbit that is JUST as real to them.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
You've never offended me...I like you, even!
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DAA If 90% of humanity claimed that something existed... and even you had seen one of these things before, but could no longer see them, unlike the other 90% who could still see them - would you believe that 90% of humanity is hallucinating or that you went blind?
theDracoIX 2 years ago
You are such a fucking mutt.
sammcalpine 2 years ago
@sammcalpine Oh hai thur, Spinoza... had any drinkz lately?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
theDracoIX 2 years ago
@Draco,
Don't hate. I'm just saying what's on everybody's mind but that other people are too polite to say. Sometimes you just gotta call a spade a spade.
sammcalpine 2 years ago 2
Given The Miracle Of The Sun (google it) I'd say it's likely mass delusion. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything though. Many people testify to the divinity of Sathya Sai Baba because of the miracles they witness on a regular basis. Oddly enough Christians discount these testimonials and refuse to worship Sai Baba. One could ask if the Christians are blind?
Truth, it seems, is in the confirmation bias of the person who witnesses.
awatson945 2 years ago 2
Wow, now that was really good
5 stars for you
I wish I could explain my thoughts as good as you did in this video.
bye from Germany
ferechi
ferechi 2 years ago
Seriously that intro and outro song is starting to piss me off :S.
Tespri 2 years ago
Great video, and as a theist, I agree with everything that you said.
solid444 2 years ago
James, as always...that was AWESOME!
supermanlives1973 2 years ago
OMG!
Pause at 2:35 to tell you that that is the greatest opening monologue you have ever done!
Ok, going back now to see where you take this.
sammcalpine 2 years ago
Have you read Doug Hoffstadter? Because your opening monologue very closely mirrors many of his thoughts about philosophy of consciousness.
If you haven't read him - check him out!
Start with "I am a Strange Loop".
sammcalpine 2 years ago
Dude, you're scary me! Why are you reflecting on the conversations I as an atheist keep having with my dad the former pastor. It's spooky, knock it off.
LJonYT 2 years ago
So nobody can convince anybody of anything unless the two people happen to have some relevantly similar experiences. Are you leaving YT? Just gonna make descriptive videos about your daily life?
Also, how exactly does this work? Are people supposed to be CONVINCED by your argument that they shouldn't argue with you about God? No that can't be, as they could only be convinced it it lined up with their experience. Seems that what you're doing here is either self-refuting or a waste of time.
anrchyvk 2 years ago
*totally in awe*
You remind me of a friend of mine.
Kinda weird following a monologue and reminiscing
lol
peqdf 2 years ago
be a skeptic because you should question everything.
-god Bless you :D
veggiedounut 2 years ago
Wonderful way you layed it out.
KasparHauser4 2 years ago
Eloquent, sincere, incisive.
atthetopofmyvoice 2 years ago 2
Well said. You do such a good job of communicating your thoughts - not just the word choice, but the timing and intonation. I suppose it's very similar to playing music. Whatever it is, I enjoyed it. It made me think of my own past experiences and how memories get edited by perspective.
durtygrrrl 2 years ago
"God has chosen to reveal himself to you, and has chosen NOT to reveal himself to me."
Your notion of god is one in which it is somehow separate from YOU and somehow a "he". And however has been claiming that there exists a god that is separate from himself and that He has revealed Himself to that person is worthy of your skepticism.
But what if YOU are god...
Well then I suppose you have chosen not to reveal yourself to... yourself.
Could you still blame God's choice in that scenerio?
theprodigy2186 2 years ago
What is you are God supposed to mean?
Do you mean it in the sense of Feuerbach?
ThaGMan51 2 years ago
I'm not very familiar with Feuerbach, but I mean it in the sense of panentheism.
Time, Space, all forms of separation are illusions. We are all One. This "one" which is all that exists, is what most have termed "God", yet "god" has been perverted into being thought of as some Super Human cartoon character sitting on a cloud all day punishing and rewarding his slaves... us.
/watch?v=ofuvH5Mm30A
theprodigy2186 2 years ago
Your ostensibly bombastic yet luminous prose in this video exemplifies your obvious grandiloquence. Eschewing the verbose vacuity that too often spews from thoughtless blatherskites, you instead infuse each sentence with sheer lucidity that sends a tingling down my toes. TheoWarner's sesquipedalian poppycock wishes it had the profundity of your poetic prose. What a cotton-headed ninny muggins! Ok, enough of that. And just kidding, The