Your video is biased against religion, yet you forgot to include the over 100,000,000 people that were ordered to be put to death by atheists who came to power such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, etc., who were intolerant towards religion, and Christianity in particular and set out to eradicate it. Next time try to make a video that doesn't expose your intolerance.
it possible for CIVILATION TO EXIST in a free form,not dictated by leaders or the strongest.Human beings can not function without guidance of some kind to motivate us to be civil.Take a baby for instance, don't teach it anything and it will learn through taste touch sound ,hearing and seeing, Trial and error teaching but unfortunately will not live very long because with no guidance it will repeat history and die because previous generation did not tell him or her of the dangers of Gravity.
This video is 65 percent correct,however human beings are only motivated by some form of government.No matter where in the world a group of humans in a small family require an alpha male role model. laws are setup to enhance the groups well-being. However all humans fail one thing and that is we are inheirently bad, when we can get away with it.By having a perfect person or deity we do not have a leader who will fail us or be tempted to cause injustice, because they are not human.God makes ---
Some ideas are dangerous? No not really. I know I am fighting an uphill battle with this but I don't really care what someone believes. What counts is behavior and choices. I know that thoughts and beliefs play a role in this but the problem have with the thinking in this video has to do with enforcement. How do you stop people from thinking or believing things you think are harmful without becoming a harmful person yourself? This is a real dilemma for all of us.
When will the west head the warning we are in seriously big trouble with islam . They are to scared to speak out , i fear by the time they do it will already be to late .
So, in your tolerance video, you conclude that religion fosters intolerance, and can be even dangerous.
So, what's your solution? Banish religious practices & thoughts? Are we to have a new thought police in the world? Are you SURE it's religion that's the problem, and not HATE driving these evil acts in the name of religion? I sure hope you don't think atheists & secularists can't hateful or violent!
There's nothing in atheism that says you can't hate! All atheism is is disbelief in God.
Heres a condensed and BS filtered version of your entire video.
Everything I think should be tolerated should be tolerated, and everything I don't think should be tolerated, shouldn't. And everything I like is harmless and wonderful, and everything I don't like, is destructive and needs to be eliminated.
And I love how you lump Christians in there, but consider atheists to be pure. Communism is atheist driven, and has killed tons of people.
@girzwald3 Uh, no... Communism is NOT atheist-driven, it's classless-driven. The only reason religion is banished in Communism is because "nothing can be higher than the state."
@girzwald3 not quite as atheism is a lack of a belief not a belief itself. They sought to eliminate all people who had differing opions of them (exactly the oppisite of the beliefs of western humanists.) religion was just another one of those things they had a opinion on and they killed nayone who disagreed same with economics they oppressed capitlaism just as eagerly.
BTW I love the pictures of those Jews who somehow managed to survive the gas chambers! Not only that but they survived a month of being cut off from supplies before the Allies liberated them. They must have been pretty well fed to begin with in order to still be alive, even if emaciated, by the time the doors were opened.
The Holocaust is bullshit. Nazi's are the good guys. And you're an imbecile and I think tolerating imbeciles is dangerous.
How about the belief that a large group of humanity is in fact not human, not worthy of human rights and protection. There is no concrete evidence, let alone proof that this group of people are not human. It's simply a belief system that has grown in popularity and is vigorously defended. Rather than calling it what it is...slavery, they call it "states rights". Oh I'm sorry, you probably thought I was talking about abortion. Well, It doesn't really matter...It's the same thing ,isn't it?
I still think you should tolerate people like murders. They don't just kill people because they feel like it. Theres a camel in their head behind a curtin pulling the fucking strings!!! They CANT HELP IT. Aside from that I like bread.
You didnt mention that we should tolerate the things people choose to put in there body.
Prohibition is one of the biggest forms of intolerance, its unconstitutional and costs us hundreds of billions annually.
The thing is even with prohibition illicit drugs are still readily available and the artificially inflated profits are going to black market drug traffickers, instead of going towards fixing bridges and upgrading schools etc.
You cant get rid of drugs no matter what, SO REGULATE.
Please tell me how not believing in a religion brings hate and intolerance, its ironic because your being intolerant by saying Atheists cause intolerance.
Actually atheists don't have to prove they are correct in not believing in mythological gods. It's not incumbent upon the atheist to prove a negative. God(s) do not exist. It is simply irrational to set aside the intellect and worship what is impossible.The Christian mythic fiction is the best example of all.Their fable says God is Omni-Benevolent. Thus,it is impossible for sin to exist, hell to have been created by him, the devil to be let to live to tempt us. God is a lie that sheep worship.
All anyone can do is try there best to do what they feel is right and try to be true to ourselves all the way threw. If that is killing the world, so be it, or go kill the ones trying to do that. Conflict is inevitable, and immature to think it can be stopped. Peace is an immature concept that mollycoddles to people that are scared. On the other hand, If you stop emotions, and genetically program the human mind, then you can possibly end human(not really human anymore) killing humans.
I’m going to play “devil's advocate”. Moral beliefs, are just that, idea, they are all in the head, none are inherent. They have a personal meaning to person who believes it, but all of it is from emotions. Maybe one is frightened of death, and seeing others dieing scares them, so they say “killing is bad” and makes general statements out of fear, or other emotional reasons. There is no universal power saying killing is bad, there is nothing but some emotions they have pumping threw their head.
this video is right but he very poorly conveys the message. all he is saying is any idea that harbors the message to eradicate other ideas is bad. tolerating is only a viable solution when you have peaceful ideals. you cant shake someones hand when they are pointing a gun at you. but tolerance is a two way street. if they cant reasonably tolerate us then action must be taken.
The one thing you're not addressing here is WHAT KIND of action we should take with regard to intolerable groups or individuals. I would assume that it would be dependent upon what the group or person is advocating or in fact carrying out. I agree with most of your examples of things that I cannot stand to tolerate, but I'm not sure I would rather take agressive action against anyone instead. Can you be more specific as to what form a response should take?
@jerico641 Fight fire with fire. The ground becomes blackened for a while but the true nature of truth will bring back the green sprigs of life. I can tolerate someone who's ideals conflict with mine yet allow me to have my opinion none the less. Tolerance CANNOT be extended to someone who wishes to exterminate me because my ideals are not the same as theirs. They must move more to the center from their extreme ideology, or be removed from the face of the Earth. That is where we are today right?
absolute crap, you're just as bad as everybody else, if we are not to tolerate beliefs then I'm not tolerating someone because of skin color or because they are a homo. Again the double standards of tolerate my low morals and I'll not tolerate yours.
I believe that views should be tolerated up to the point where it does not uphold the law, so a neo-nazi can have thier views and right to free speech whatever but the moment that neo nazi chooses to act on those views then he/she has violated their rights and should therefore have the rights removed.
i like the part "any belief that tells a person he could get his reward after death cannot be tolerated" I think you can only believe in something to get a reward in this world, in this life, not because you think you're better than someone but because you are youself and will always be yourself...
What you need to realise is this. SImply saying tolerance of religion is wrong and the atheist fight against religion is right is hugely fallible. You claim their intolerance of others is dangerous, but does that mean your intolerance of them is qually dangerous. It can be broken down into the chicken and egg situation. If a murderer deserves death and he is killed, the executioner is then a murderer, so who kills him? In other words, your intolerance of intolerance is intolerant. too bad.
"SImply saying tolerance of religion is wrong and the atheist fight against religion is right is hugely fallible."
It also wasn't what I said. I said tolerance of intolerance was intolerant in and of itself. And it is. I will not accept anyone's bigotry. If that makes me a bigot, then you must be using logic in a way I have not hitherto been familiar with.
No. Now you're talking about being intolerant of bigotry. In the vid you were talking about being intolerant of intolerance. Not accepting bigotry is a different thing. It is also a big leap to say that all religions are full of bigotry. It seems you are more interested in pusing an Anti-religion agenda than actually dealing in the facts.
Intolerance and bigotry..... Now, admittedly, English is my second language, so I could be wrong here, but to me, it comes to pretty much the same thing. Bigots are those who are intolerant of the people who differ from them.
And I'm not saying all religions are full of bigotry. Just all the religions I know of.
@bioshockftw123 Oh well the Roman Catholics, the Nazis, the Inquisition, They tried to wipe out whole religions and Ethnic groups but you don't want to bring up the billions of people who lost there lives over it. It was caused by intolerance.
The problem with the vid is that it makes an assumption. The assumption is that extremists of a religion represent that religion. This is not the case. For example: Your faith says dying to defend your faith is honourable. Extremists would take this to mean that you go out and cause your own death and that of others to defend your faith. Cont...
Yes, they do. You seem to have some issues with presenting an argument other than simply trying to wear out the opposition by repeating the same nonsense.
And no, I don't remember the title with certainty. You try remembering the title of over a hundred videos made in the span of more than a year. GLWT. Pissant.
Pissant? Really, aren't you above such petty minded remarks.
I repeated the point because you ignorantly refuse to accept the truth about Atheism. I repeat my point because you constantly deny the truth. You're trying to wear down the opposition by repeating the same inaccurate and illogical rubbish.
Seems you are a hypocrite after all. By the way, that means you're accusing me of doing something that you are actually doing yourself. You are becoming another Youtube Joke. LOL
No, I am not above calling them as I see them. You are claiming you have some "truth" that I am "denying", but all you've done is repeat the same bullshit fallacious argument over and over again.
What doesn't wash is that you make out you are intelligent, yet when faced with facts, you shrivel down to boring insults and pathetically weak claims.
Its such a shame that your intolerant/bigoted opinion makes you blind to the fact you are a stupid hypocrite.
An atheist must have some form of belief on the subject of God, if they truly believe there is no God, then why is there the need to deny God?
The problem is that people think Atheism is the opposite of Theism and therefore is a non-religious position - as the individual doesn't believe in God. All it truly is, is a religious view. It is an opinion on the existence of God.
That is not a religious position. I make no claims that any god(s) exist or don't exist, I simply state that I am not convinced by the claims that they do.
Atheism is a religious position, if you truly believe there is no god then why deny that there is a god?
It's a fascinating fact that so many atheists think that saying "I don't believe in God" means they don't have a religious position. Of course you do, you don't believe in God, that is a religious position. I'm surprised that you cannot actually get that, its remarkable that you can use a computer but not understand a simple fact!
Atheism is not a religious position, just like bald is not a hair colour, and not collecting stamps is not a hobby. It's amazing how hard that can be for some people to understand.
Atheism, again, is a religious position. Bald is a hair style; as it is an option for those who have hair. Atheism is a position on a religious subject - the existence of God, therefore it is a religious position. It's clear logic. If you are an Atheist you have an opinion on the existence of God right? Opinions on the existence of God are religious positions.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Atheism is denying the existence of any gods. (no one can prove without doubt that any god exists or not) You must think about "god" or else there would be nothing to deny. I suggest you try to understand the meaning of what you claim to be before you ram it down people's throats. You are just as intolerant as those you accuse, another pathetic hypocrite using a Youtube account to spout bullshit and dumb ideas.
I don't understand why you bother arguing about atheism when you don't even know what atheism is, and won't accept the explanation you get from atheists. I don't "deny" any god(s), I simply don't believe in them.
Show me sufficient evidence for a deity's existence, and I'll happily believe in it.
But I'm done arguing with you. Your insults and complete lack of coherent arguments is no longer welcome here.
I don't know if it's funny or sad that you are making videos saying people shouldn't tolerate God's people. You fear people who don't value their life as much as you do because it's all you believe you have. As for Christians, the Bible says that faith is rewarded with heaven. Not actions. Also you say people of faith are the reason for the threat of nuclear war, I don't remember North Korea being a very religious country.
Lack of belief in a god isn't a lack of religion. There are plenty of *irreligious* atheists and plenty of atheists that have a religion. We can't get the concept of god confused with the idea of religion. In essence, you both were correct and incorrect, depending on the atheist you're trying to define.
I love your videos and it is absolutely a very important and noble cause to try to wake up the religious people. It is really a deep human tragedy that so many can believe old nonsense in this day and age.
It is pretty clear to me that religion is a case of ignorance which is so extreme that it is even ignorance about being ignorant.
We need to teach our children about reality and let them exercise their brains so they become capable of logical reasoning. We must react against indoctrination.
I don't believe atheism exists. Instead I believe in 'conceptual theism', that is, the belief in the existence of the concept of God. Almost all people are at least conceptual theists, in that they believe God exists as a concept in people's minds. Conceptual theism is even supported by science, as concepts are thoughts, which can be observed in the form of bio-electrical flashes in the brain. The concept of God also has an observable effects.
Conceptual theism, like other forms of theism, has variations. There is non-observant conceptual theism, in which believers merely state their belief in he concept of God, but whom do not use the concept in their lives. There are militant or fundamentalist conceptual theists, who believe absolutely that God is only a concept and/or seek to attack and destroy the other forms of theism, such as sentient theism (the belief that God takes a physical form as a sentient being).
Okay, so you've redefined the idea that a "god" doesn't exist into the idea that "god" only exists as a concept in people's mind, and thus redefined atheism out of existence. Sorry if I seem a little unimpressed, but: So? What's the point?
The point is that we almost all believe in God in some way. It becomes illogical then to argue about whether God exists, because has a concept; he does exist and is proven to exist. The issue of whether God exists as a sentient being or a force of nature, or anything beyond a thought, is a non-issue because as a mere idea, God has far reaching and profound effects on human beings. Would a sentient God have any more of an effect than a thought God?
I'm sorry, I don't (as a general rule) do philosophy. If something only exists as a concept, it doesn't exist.
I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, but I think your way of phrasing it is, at best, bad. It has the potential to be misunderstood in a major way, and thus to me it represents a failure of communication.
(It's also a, to me, completely alien way of looking at the world. Which is a good thing, don't get me wrong, I like the challenge. I just don't see it from that angle.)
My argument is not philosophical at all. I gather by thoughts not existing, you mean not physically. Thoughts do indeed exist physically, as bio-electrical storms in the brain which can be seen with various scanning and imaging technology. As a thought/concept God is real.
Could you elaborate on how my phrasing equates to bad communication and how my points might it be misunderstood? I believe I have made my points quite clear and free from mis-interpretation.
I can try. Yes, thoughts exist, as electrical and chemical processes in brains. True.
But the objects and concepts of these thoughts do not exist in any meaningful way. Once again, if I were to claim to believe in the existence of the concept of gods, but not the reality of gods, then I doubt that many people would understand what I was getting at.
There is a range of intelligence, within which most people fall. You may be at the high end, but don't assume that everyone else is, too.
Respectfully I must say you're quite wrong. Thoughts can have enormous meaning, despite their less-than-profound physical existence. Think of liberty, democracy, human rights. These are concepts which have shaped the lives of billions of people. Yet they too are just bio-electrical impulses. The God concept, systemized into religion and/or theology, has had an incalculable impact on human beings. As for God as an idea, what is more simple than: 'He is a thought in my head'?
You said nothing there, except for the last sentence, that I disagree with in any way whatsoever. In fact, I think that's a perfect example of why your way of phrasing it isn't going to work, because it leads (this is just my opinion, of course) into an area of discourse that isn't pertinent to the object of the discussion, which is establishing the reality (or lack thereof) of the "god entity" rather than the "god concept".
I don't think I can phrase my objection much clearer than I have, now.
We have already established that God exists as a thought.
Regarding God as an entity, I'll reiterate a question I asked before: would a sentient God be any more meaningful or have any more of an effect on human beings as a conceptual God? Or, more precisely, does the form of existence necessitate meaning and or effect?
I believe the question of the existence of a God entity is nothing more than an exercise in shallow empiricism and is meaningless.
Once again, I don't think we actually disagree on anything except the terminology used.
But depending on your definition of the "god entity", yes, a "god entity" could have a profound effect on our world. In the bible, for instance, Yahweh is pictured as killing hundreds directly through miracles. Admittedly, it could be argued that the "god concept" also kills hundreds, but the modus operandi is markedly different.
But the only thing we're really arguing here is semantics.
I find the current definitions used when discussing God and the various positions taken on him to be in need of some modernizing. The term 'atheism' just doesn't make sense to me at all. You need to first acknowledge something before you can deny it. Yet acknowledging God in any way equates to theism. The only way one could not be a theist is if they had no concept of God to begin with, which would make them secular.
Ah... I think I see the stumbling block here. And you're right, going by the dictionary definition of atheism as "the denial of God", being an atheist doesn't make sense. Kinda makes me wonder who wrote the dictionary definition, but whatever ;o)
Anyway, the definition that most of us who call ourselves atheists use is this one: "Atheism = the lack of belief in a god or gods".
In other words, whether we have a concept of god(s) or not is irrelevant, by that definition.
To be more specific, I'd say "atheists" believe that God cannot take a physical form or deny that he can take a physical form or any form other than that of a thought.
I think overall, the concepts and ideas created or promulgated during the 19th and 20th centuries have not been as readily critiqued and reviewed as earlier ideas have and this is why we continue to hold ideas and concepts which might need expanding upon or which might be false altogether.
Well I must say that this has been a very refreshing conversation. It is most refreshing of all to find someone who is open to new ideas. I greatly appreciate your open-mindedness and honesty. As you are probably well aware, the ultimate dickwad theory is well and truly alive on Youtube with people flaming each other daily in a quest to be right rather than to have civil and constructive discussion.
It was nice meeting you CapnOrdinary. Feel free to visit my channel anytime.
Art doesn't affect human affairs, though it does have an effect nonetheless. The thought is real and its effects when acted upon are as well. You're hung up on a physicality which has already been demonstrated but which doesn't stand in front of you to see. Thoughts are observable, physical reactions in the brain. This is what Bugs Bunny is physically. Yet the profoundness of that physicality pales in comparison to the profoundness of its effects on people.
God's physical form is that of a thought yes. This has been scientifically verified. Yet the physicality of God is next to meaningless, it is its effect that is meaningful and profound. Thus to argue about the physical nature of God, i.e. weather he is a sentient being or simply a brain impulse, is pointless. The physical nature of God clearly has no bearing on its effects on human beings. One might ask, since when are concepts physically profound?
when they are acted upon. bush's concept of iraq was that it contained WMDs. no supporting evidence, yet thousands have died as a result. again, seven years later, zero evidence. point being that a physical manifestation of a flawed concept has phsically and profoundly affected every single person on earth.
it appears we share a similar view, just a differing prism through which we observe it.
here's the crux of the issue: i believe everything that is, is the result of a natural process.
I don't consider thoughts and actions to be of consequence to one-another. A thought acted upon does not change its physical nature. Thus, rather than the process of 'think then do' I consider that thinking and doing are two different processes altogether and that their physical characteristics are uniform, even if they change their manifestation. It's kind of like energy. Energy is energy, whether it is transformed from one form to another, its basic form remains unchanged.
Maybe a theist wrote the dictionary and wanted to misrepresent atheism. 'Denial' sounds just like a word that a religulous person might use.
It is at any rate clear that atheist is simply the opposite of theist which means someone who is stupid enough to believe that a magical consciousness rules the universe. This is something people used to believe when science was not even invented and because the ground sometimes trembled or whatever.
Anyway, we are the rational and they are the irrational.
Actually, I do not agree with this. There is no universal ideal by which cultures and standards can be measured. Setting some kind of 'ideal cultural standard' would be a step towards a completely monocultural society, which would be horrifically controlling and boring.
I agree with this apart from the idea that communists should not be tolerated. What's that about? If you actually read Marx or Engels or the anarchist communists like Kropotkin, you'll see that communism is not as 'evil' as the red-scare style propagandists would have you believe. As a communist, I do advocate the organization of the proletariat as a social class and an eventual proletarian revolution, but that doesn't make my ideas 'evil' or 'violent'.
I wholeheartedly agree that EVERY opinion is valuable. I begin to struggle when some of these opinions result in changes to British traditions and cornerstone values. The idea that someone could be offended if I hang Christmas greeting cards in my place of work is something that I will have to consider, in future. The fact that some companies want to ban them is very saddening.
Thank you for taking the time to reply, but I can't help feeling that worse is yet to come.
I'm British. I'm a Christian. I don't believe that multiculturalism can work. I don't believe that different cultures were ever designed to co-exist. Often, in the papers, I read that some parts of Britain have banned Christmas cards or St George celebrations because others may be offended. Offended by what? My belief? My religion? I should not have to feel repressed in my own society.
Why do I have to suffer restrictions and censorship of my religion in my own country?
Wrong question, IMO. The right question would be, why should anyone suffer restrictions and censorship of any opinion anywhere? Orwell called it "thought crime". Having the "wrong" opinions.... Outlawing an opinion, any opinion, is the direct route to a fascist dictatorship.
i could have sworn you said something about "the atheistic fight against religion" near the end of your video.
To me that sounds like you are fighting to keep people from believing what they have chosen to believe.
You need to understand that everyone, atheists included, thinks they know the truth. The truth is, you can be no more certain of your beliefs then anyone else.
I disagree. Since I base my beliefs on evidence and direct observation, rather than on ancient texts and myths, I would (personally, at least) consider them far more solidly founded than, say, christianity or islam.
The "fight against religion" is not a fight to prevent people believing by force. It's a fight to promote thought. It's a war of ideas, not brute force. Hope this makes sense?
can i be intolerant of you based on your beliefs? Basically, as long as someone agrees in your beliefs they are tolerant, if they don't they are intolerant, right?
I do agree it is a shame when people's beliefs lead them to senseless violence (Islam) but I think you've really played a circular game.
No. Intolerance of beliefs is when you discriminate against a group of people based on their beliefs. The same applies to intolerance of skin-colour, gender, nationality, sexuality, etc.
I am in opposition to any kind of intolerance that is based on anything except intolerance. The only thing, in other words, that I will not tolerate, is intolerance.
You have some good points, why does Mr Ordinary get to say that some beliefs and actions are acceptable (culture and sexual preference) but others are not (islam).
I don't agree with some those beliefs or accept them as being as valid as mine, but i will agree to let others think as they please.
Lumping ordinary Christians and Muslims in the same group as fanatical terrorists is inaccurate and dangerously close to thought crime.
I, too, am quite happy and content to let people believe silly things. What I am not pleased to do is to let them discriminate others based on their own beliefs, not shared by those they discriminate against.
And atheism is not a religion, it is simply the lack of belief in a deity. It is no more a religion than "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.
I think you are confusing agnostisim (the lack of belief or undecided) with atheism, which is the explicit position of the nonexistence of gods or the rejection of religion - both require belief without proof and therefore it is a faith.
Please excuse my run on sentence.
I did enjoy your not collecting stamps idea, i myself am an aphilationist as well.
Agnosticism is the position of "not knowing". It comes in many levels of certainty, from militant agnosticism "I don't know because it's impossible to know" to the more simple "I just don't know". Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. SOME (but extremely few) atheists deny even the possibility of a god or gods existing. You will not find many of those here on YT.
I am an agnostic atheist. But 'til someone presents evidence of god(s), I consider the idea equally as likely as Santa Claus...
"the atheistic fight against religion ... is a fight for the survival of our species and our planet" Not all religions are hateful. Many have been and continue to be the basis for thousands of peoples' attitudes of love, tolerance, and equality. Atheistic individuals can be just as distructive and intolerant as religious individuals.
I am _PROUDLY_ intolerant of IN-tolerance. I would love to do to the Bigots, what HITLER did to the Jews. These dumbfuck redneck hicks keep yappin' about how they wanna stick all of us Fags, Niggers and Jews in the cremation furnace? FUCK THAT! GET THEM BEFORE THEY GET US! Gather up every Klantard, every Phelps Phag, every Neo Nazi and Christian Supremecist and do to THEM what they want to do to us! Cease this foolish minority infighting. Opressees, band together and rise against your OPRESSORS!
A great man once said "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". And another one insisted "Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars... Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that" Killing a murder only brings you down to his level. Live by example or cease to be a part of the solution.
I "hope" that there's a God and he's not muslim, but this man made concept of religion is B.S. and has to go! The Dead Sea Scrolls are nothing more than blueprint on how to control the masses and take their wealth. It's all about power and money. NOT right or wrong. It's really sad when so many people in the world can't see that and commit horrible crimes in the name of their Gods. (the Buddhists are the closest to getting it right I think)
Hey, it's been awhile. A quick quote from the video:
"They should be respected and tolerated based on the core ideals that they contain."
And now a quote from you on the board:
"I speak out against the religions, not the religious. There is a non-subtle difference."
My challenge: Put up or shut up, if you will. Supply actual evidence of dangerous core beliefs, eg. for Christianity, quote Christ. Make sense? Comparing religion to random distasteful things like Nazism is not going to cut it.
"I've indicted four billion people (and more, most of Earth's historical humanity have had some form of faith) on the basis of their irrational superstitions, nothing else."
How do you go from "irrational superstitions" to "inherently dangerous?" If all religions are dangerous, and your beliefs "define who you are," you could reasonably expect to find that most religious people are dangerous (and the dangerous activity is causally related to their religion).
We do not find that most religious people are dangerous, and even when we do find some, the dangerous lawless actions are usually not causally related to their religious beliefs. So should we look harder? Expect to find dangerous religious people on a more consistent basis in the future? Or should we conclude that religion is actually not dangerous? I think the third option is best.
"How do you determine who the "real" members of a given faith are?"
Anyone who follows any given faith can tell you what they believe and where it comes from. People who have no clue are what you'd call "nominal believers." In any given faith, the source (whatever or whoever it is) tends to emphasize things like love, peace, mercy, charity, etc. People who break laws and harm others disgrace their family (assuming a religious one.) They do so in spite of their religion rather than because of it.
This commentary on tolerance basically mirrors U.S. law on Free Speech: Free speech should be tolerated unless this speech will cause imminent lawless action. In the same way, religious groups should be tolerated unless they will cause imminent lawless action. Of course, Cap'n Ordinary thinks just about every religious group is a threat of imminent lawless action. I'm a Christian. Does that mean I am a threat? I submit that you need to ask more questions than just that one in order to know.
"Please note, I speak out against the religions, not the religious. There's a non-subtle difference."
First off, sorry I posted twice. I did not mean to.
Second, I was (honestly) under the impression that this was about the scary things a random nut (or group of nuts) could DO with said religions. "All it takes is one fanatic with a bomb." Somebody said that.
Third, "Your beliefs define who you are." You address my beliefs. You can understand how I would think you are addressing me.
Beliefs influence actions. With me so far? I hope so.
It follows, then, that certain beliefs are desirable, and others are not, in terms of the actions they can influence people to take. My argument (and you're quite welcome to disagree, of course, but please be prepared to defend that position) is that religions of all stripes are based on a blind faith, that by its very nature is harmful, because it can and often will be used for causing harm.
Skepticism is a much better base for beliefs, because you cannot convince skepticism of something without a lot of work, which makes it much harder to create a Stalin, a Hitler, a Mao, or even a Saladin or a Mohammad.
That's my argument in a nutshell, really. Blind faith is not a useful basis for beliefs.
The other side of the argument is, that tolerating intolerance IS intolerance. If you don't tolerate eg. homosexuals, I won't tolerate the belief that makes you not do so.
"blind faith...is harmful...often will be used for causing harm...harder to create a Stalin, Hitler, Mao"
There are some extremist religious groups that cause harm; however, the "real" members of any given faith strongly oppose causing harm and generally have a faith-driven set of morals that is stricter than the laws of their country.
Regarding the first three dictators you mentioned, two of them ruled atheistic empires and Pope John Paul II fought against the third one. Yes, he killed Nazis.
I don't feel that I practice what you'd call "blind faith;" perhaps you can't imagine it any other way, though. Even if it were the case, things that are "not useful" don't get banned solely for that reason. They must also be harmful. Some sects of certain religions are harmful, so we should address those. I'll be honest, though: I feel like you've indicted at least four billion people based on the actions of a few thousand. If that.
Believing in a god IS blind faith. There is no other way, because there is no empirical evidence for the existence of any such thing.
Belief that isn't based on evidence is, by nature, blind. I've indicted four billion people (and more, most of Earth's historical humanity have had some form of faith) on the basis of their irrational superstitions, nothing else.
You are trying to make us deny our faith. Everyone has been taught to believe something, even athiests! For example, most people have been exposed to the toothfairy. Despite the fact that there is no actual tooth fairy, people still hope. WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO DESTROY WHAT WE LIVE FOR?!
You are trying to make us deny our faith. Everyone has been taught to believe something, even athiests! For example, most people have been exposed to the toothfairy. Despite the fact that there is no actual tooth fairy, people still hope. WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO DESTROY WHAT WE LIVE FOR?!
I totally agree, the tooth fairy's majesty is above all others. I worship her shadow.
How do you determine who the "real" members of a given faith are?
Where the witch burners of the middle ages "false" followers? Were there (gasp, horror) NO real christians for the majority of christian history, when all christians condoned slavery, witch burnings, and holy wars?
Stalin and Mao were not evil because they were atheists, they were evil because they erected personality cults around themselves, and thus were too much like religions.
..summary, be tollerant of everything but religion. Nice. The voices of tollerance always want to pick and choose what to be tollerant of. Typical BS. How about intollerant athiests on YouTube making constant attack videos and suing everyone all the time? Give me a break.
Correction: Be tolerant of everything except intolerance.
If there existed a tolerant religion, I would be tolerant of it. But I haven't found one yet.
Attack videos? I attack intolerance, ignorance, and irrationality, how is that a bad thing in your opinion? And last time I checked, I had never sued anyone.
..and last time I checked buddy, I never killed anybody. So you want to lump me in with other people, why can't I do that to you?
The answer is you have chosen to be intollerant to religious people because you don't like them. You just said they are "intolerant, ingnorant, irrational". Sounds like double talk to me.
Please don't pretend you understand my motivations. It seems you have a hard enough time understanding my words. I did NOT say "religious people are x, y, and z", I said "I attack x, y, and z". Religion in the form of theism promotes intolerance. When taken to the extreme of creationism, it's pure ignorance, undiluted.
And belief in a personal god is irrational, no matter how you twist it. But religious people, individually, can be (and often are) tolerant, intelligent, rational people.
Heck, I love my family, and most of them are christians. I was a christian for 25 years myself, so I'd be pretty darn hypocritical if I called all theists stupid, intolerant, etc. etc..... No!
I have no problem with the religious. I have a problem with the religion. There's a difference, it's kind of like "hate the sin, love the sinner", I'm sure you can relate :P
"I'd be pretty darn hypocritical if I called all theists stupid, intolerant, etc"
But you just did in your previous post.
Look back at the conversation and look at who is attacking who's beliefs. YOU are the intolerant one, and you prove it over and over.
You complain get mad because I "pretend to understand your motives" and then call all religous people ignorant and intolerant and murderers. Give me a break.
You refuse to listen to what I'm saying, don't you? It seems you really WANT to believe that I called all religious people ignorant, intolerant murderers, when in fact I have never said any such thing nor held that opinion at any point in time.
Yeah, didn't like the last one, but the first 6 were great (especially #6). Piers did the same thing with the Aprentice Adept series. I loved 1-6, hated 7.
so If a Nazi never killed anyone suddenly Nazism is ok? what kind of logic is that? (not comparing Nazism with Christianity but you get the point)
Being intolerant of the intolerant is not a bad thing.
Base your believes (that shape your actions) in something more than a dusty old book from the bronze age, then you will realised that you can not do things, just because your religion says, then you'll be free to do what is right, not what you're told is right.
do unto others like you would like them to do unto you, easy
"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
hey this is a good video, but as to not having found a tolerant religion, how about buddhism?? that doesn't even require faith in God, so how could it be called intolerant? btw i'm not trying to convert anyone, i'm agnostic
I have recently been researching blood atonement within the mormon church. This belief makes the killing of certain people acceptable as it implies that by their blood being spilled they will be forgiven for an otherwise unforgivable sin. Thus the killer is actually doing God's work and makes wrong right.
If sin is merely going against God's will then it makes the concepts of right and wrong relative only to what the scriptures teach.
No need to be tollerant of it. It was an 1800s practice and faded with most of Brigham Young's unique teachings. So obviously Mormons weren't even tollerant of it.
hello soultaker, although it is no longer practised blood atonement was once and still serves as an example of a case where we should not be tolerant of religious practices, just because they are religious.
So, maybe we should call believers who kill, 'MURDERERS', and the rest of the believers who do not kill, can keep their 'believer' status and go on being tolerated by the non-believers and vice versa.
Tolerate MURDERERS? We already do NOT, which is why prisons exist. Tolerate 'believers'? We already DO, which is why religion exist
the person who made this video is obviously overstating the matter on religion. mankind has been killing one onother long before religion came along,and have often used religion to justify their actions.people will fight over anything if given a chance, land oil, water, women etc you get the picture
The main point is true, but the "communist" part was quite stupid and based on ignorance...
grozde 2 weeks ago
Your video is biased against religion, yet you forgot to include the over 100,000,000 people that were ordered to be put to death by atheists who came to power such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, etc., who were intolerant towards religion, and Christianity in particular and set out to eradicate it. Next time try to make a video that doesn't expose your intolerance.
BT3701 1 month ago
it possible for CIVILATION TO EXIST in a free form,not dictated by leaders or the strongest.Human beings can not function without guidance of some kind to motivate us to be civil.Take a baby for instance, don't teach it anything and it will learn through taste touch sound ,hearing and seeing, Trial and error teaching but unfortunately will not live very long because with no guidance it will repeat history and die because previous generation did not tell him or her of the dangers of Gravity.
2009pmatson 1 month ago
This video is 65 percent correct,however human beings are only motivated by some form of government.No matter where in the world a group of humans in a small family require an alpha male role model. laws are setup to enhance the groups well-being. However all humans fail one thing and that is we are inheirently bad, when we can get away with it.By having a perfect person or deity we do not have a leader who will fail us or be tempted to cause injustice, because they are not human.God makes ---
2009pmatson 1 month ago
Some ideas are dangerous? No not really. I know I am fighting an uphill battle with this but I don't really care what someone believes. What counts is behavior and choices. I know that thoughts and beliefs play a role in this but the problem have with the thinking in this video has to do with enforcement. How do you stop people from thinking or believing things you think are harmful without becoming a harmful person yourself? This is a real dilemma for all of us.
phlewis86 1 month ago
When will the west head the warning we are in seriously big trouble with islam . They are to scared to speak out , i fear by the time they do it will already be to late .
starinthehoodmuzz 6 months ago
Can hear him takin a drag on a cigerette !
starinthehoodmuzz 6 months ago
So, in your tolerance video, you conclude that religion fosters intolerance, and can be even dangerous.
So, what's your solution? Banish religious practices & thoughts? Are we to have a new thought police in the world? Are you SURE it's religion that's the problem, and not HATE driving these evil acts in the name of religion? I sure hope you don't think atheists & secularists can't hateful or violent!
There's nothing in atheism that says you can't hate! All atheism is is disbelief in God.
cleanhomer 6 months ago
I can tolerate Nazis, Communists, etc., as long as they don't get to the point of hurting others.
cleanhomer 6 months ago
Pretty blatant hypocrisy here.
Heres a condensed and BS filtered version of your entire video.
Everything I think should be tolerated should be tolerated, and everything I don't think should be tolerated, shouldn't. And everything I like is harmless and wonderful, and everything I don't like, is destructive and needs to be eliminated.
And I love how you lump Christians in there, but consider atheists to be pure. Communism is atheist driven, and has killed tons of people.
girzwald3 9 months ago
@girzwald3 Uh, no... Communism is NOT atheist-driven, it's classless-driven. The only reason religion is banished in Communism is because "nothing can be higher than the state."
cleanhomer 6 months ago 2
@cleanhomer
lets see. so, communism sought to eliminate all religion and God, yet they weren't atheist driven.
Riiiiiiiiight.
Only on youtube
girzwald3 6 months ago
@girzwald3 not quite as atheism is a lack of a belief not a belief itself. They sought to eliminate all people who had differing opions of them (exactly the oppisite of the beliefs of western humanists.) religion was just another one of those things they had a opinion on and they killed nayone who disagreed same with economics they oppressed capitlaism just as eagerly.
lonewolfM16 6 months ago
So this is antifa propaganda?
BTW I love the pictures of those Jews who somehow managed to survive the gas chambers! Not only that but they survived a month of being cut off from supplies before the Allies liberated them. They must have been pretty well fed to begin with in order to still be alive, even if emaciated, by the time the doors were opened.
The Holocaust is bullshit. Nazi's are the good guys. And you're an imbecile and I think tolerating imbeciles is dangerous.
redcorona14 9 months ago
"Beggars can`t be Choosers"!
AClarke2007 1 year ago
i looked at this vid cuz of the pic of the lol cat
molemole90 1 year ago
bronze age primitives - lol, hit it on the head.
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
I've just wasted 3 minutes 13 seconds of my life.
Tununias 1 year ago
How about the belief that a large group of humanity is in fact not human, not worthy of human rights and protection. There is no concrete evidence, let alone proof that this group of people are not human. It's simply a belief system that has grown in popularity and is vigorously defended. Rather than calling it what it is...slavery, they call it "states rights". Oh I'm sorry, you probably thought I was talking about abortion. Well, It doesn't really matter...It's the same thing ,isn't it?
Other299 1 year ago
I still think you should tolerate people like murders. They don't just kill people because they feel like it. Theres a camel in their head behind a curtin pulling the fucking strings!!! They CANT HELP IT. Aside from that I like bread.
Dstock8106 1 year ago
You didnt mention that we should tolerate the things people choose to put in there body.
Prohibition is one of the biggest forms of intolerance, its unconstitutional and costs us hundreds of billions annually.
The thing is even with prohibition illicit drugs are still readily available and the artificially inflated profits are going to black market drug traffickers, instead of going towards fixing bridges and upgrading schools etc.
You cant get rid of drugs no matter what, SO REGULATE.
thedirtynasty 1 year ago
@mattetho
Please tell me how not believing in a religion brings hate and intolerance, its ironic because your being intolerant by saying Atheists cause intolerance.
thedirtynasty 1 year ago
Actually atheists don't have to prove they are correct in not believing in mythological gods. It's not incumbent upon the atheist to prove a negative. God(s) do not exist. It is simply irrational to set aside the intellect and worship what is impossible.The Christian mythic fiction is the best example of all.Their fable says God is Omni-Benevolent. Thus,it is impossible for sin to exist, hell to have been created by him, the devil to be let to live to tempt us. God is a lie that sheep worship.
TheDragonsTooth 1 year ago
to the creator
the whole idea of communism is that everyone is equal dumbass
beepu2 1 year ago
we should tolerate any belief that isn't a hazard, in other words, if it dosnt threaten your rights, it passes.
p.s. i wanna correct you on communism. in true communism, everyone is a proletariat. (im an ex-communist)
Kalahridudex 1 year ago
All anyone can do is try there best to do what they feel is right and try to be true to ourselves all the way threw. If that is killing the world, so be it, or go kill the ones trying to do that. Conflict is inevitable, and immature to think it can be stopped. Peace is an immature concept that mollycoddles to people that are scared. On the other hand, If you stop emotions, and genetically program the human mind, then you can possibly end human(not really human anymore) killing humans.
BloodyPup 1 year ago
I’m going to play “devil's advocate”. Moral beliefs, are just that, idea, they are all in the head, none are inherent. They have a personal meaning to person who believes it, but all of it is from emotions. Maybe one is frightened of death, and seeing others dieing scares them, so they say “killing is bad” and makes general statements out of fear, or other emotional reasons. There is no universal power saying killing is bad, there is nothing but some emotions they have pumping threw their head.
BloodyPup 1 year ago
this video is right but he very poorly conveys the message. all he is saying is any idea that harbors the message to eradicate other ideas is bad. tolerating is only a viable solution when you have peaceful ideals. you cant shake someones hand when they are pointing a gun at you. but tolerance is a two way street. if they cant reasonably tolerate us then action must be taken.
0oRouseticalo0 1 year ago 4
Thank you! That was exactly what I was trying to convey. I'm just not very good at communicating it clearly.
CapnOrdinary 1 year ago 3
@CapnOrdinary
The one thing you're not addressing here is WHAT KIND of action we should take with regard to intolerable groups or individuals. I would assume that it would be dependent upon what the group or person is advocating or in fact carrying out. I agree with most of your examples of things that I cannot stand to tolerate, but I'm not sure I would rather take agressive action against anyone instead. Can you be more specific as to what form a response should take?
jerico641 1 year ago
@jerico641 Fight fire with fire. The ground becomes blackened for a while but the true nature of truth will bring back the green sprigs of life. I can tolerate someone who's ideals conflict with mine yet allow me to have my opinion none the less. Tolerance CANNOT be extended to someone who wishes to exterminate me because my ideals are not the same as theirs. They must move more to the center from their extreme ideology, or be removed from the face of the Earth. That is where we are today right?
1955thekeeper 11 months ago
wtf?! go blow your brains out!! bullshit... this is..
qovalentart 2 years ago
So basically tolerance is good except when tolerating ideas you don't agree with. Inane video.
beejor 2 years ago
absolute crap, you're just as bad as everybody else, if we are not to tolerate beliefs then I'm not tolerating someone because of skin color or because they are a homo. Again the double standards of tolerate my low morals and I'll not tolerate yours.
TabbyLiz 2 years ago
just let it be.
TheHumanpeople 2 years ago
Ai, more more-rational-than-thou Atheist neoliberal "fascist art"... Yawn.
Shufei 2 years ago
intellectual gobbledegook that feeds on hypocrisy.
No Longer Micah's "Tolerant" makes a better point... with music. The whole subject is emotionally based not intellectually based.
holtymusic 2 years ago
I made you a cookie... but I eated it.
lol
wtf does this have to do with anything else in the video??
Dudeyowuzup 2 years ago 4
Here is the rub though: People who test reality ARE SUPERIOR to people who don't.
Not in the "I have license to kill you" sense, but certainly in the "my ideas are more valid than yours" sense.
So what is the moral liscence created by this disparity? What are the limits and responsibilities of that moral liscence?
Good questions no?
psusac 2 years ago 2
I believe that views should be tolerated up to the point where it does not uphold the law, so a neo-nazi can have thier views and right to free speech whatever but the moment that neo nazi chooses to act on those views then he/she has violated their rights and should therefore have the rights removed.
fakesmith797 2 years ago
i like the part "any belief that tells a person he could get his reward after death cannot be tolerated" I think you can only believe in something to get a reward in this world, in this life, not because you think you're better than someone but because you are youself and will always be yourself...
sebO1O1O1O 2 years ago
I could debate the food tolerance angle.
SaganAppreciationSoc 2 years ago
What you need to realise is this. SImply saying tolerance of religion is wrong and the atheist fight against religion is right is hugely fallible. You claim their intolerance of others is dangerous, but does that mean your intolerance of them is qually dangerous. It can be broken down into the chicken and egg situation. If a murderer deserves death and he is killed, the executioner is then a murderer, so who kills him? In other words, your intolerance of intolerance is intolerant. too bad.
Madmonkeymusician 2 years ago
"SImply saying tolerance of religion is wrong and the atheist fight against religion is right is hugely fallible."
It also wasn't what I said. I said tolerance of intolerance was intolerant in and of itself. And it is. I will not accept anyone's bigotry. If that makes me a bigot, then you must be using logic in a way I have not hitherto been familiar with.
CapnOrdinary 2 years ago
No. Now you're talking about being intolerant of bigotry. In the vid you were talking about being intolerant of intolerance. Not accepting bigotry is a different thing. It is also a big leap to say that all religions are full of bigotry. It seems you are more interested in pusing an Anti-religion agenda than actually dealing in the facts.
Madmonkeymusician 2 years ago
Intolerance and bigotry..... Now, admittedly, English is my second language, so I could be wrong here, but to me, it comes to pretty much the same thing. Bigots are those who are intolerant of the people who differ from them.
And I'm not saying all religions are full of bigotry. Just all the religions I know of.
CapnOrdinary 2 years ago
Intolerance: unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.
Bigotry: narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.
A person may not tolerate behaviour, a bigoted person would act against it.
Madmonkeymusician 2 years ago
Fine, if that's your take on it, substitute bigotry every time I say intolerance in this video, and maybe you'll get the point.
CapnOrdinary 2 years ago
It's not a take it's a fact. Besides acting on a negative opinion is the problem, not having that opinion.
Madmonkeymusician 2 years ago
@CapnOrdinary Oh well Capitalism killed a billion people.
bioshockftw123 1 year ago
@bioshockftw123 Oh well the Roman Catholics, the Nazis, the Inquisition, They tried to wipe out whole religions and Ethnic groups but you don't want to bring up the billions of people who lost there lives over it. It was caused by intolerance.
AndarLucifer 1 year ago
The problem with the vid is that it makes an assumption. The assumption is that extremists of a religion represent that religion. This is not the case. For example: Your faith says dying to defend your faith is honourable. Extremists would take this to mean that you go out and cause your own death and that of others to defend your faith. Cont...
Madmonkeymusician 2 years ago
The "moderates" form the power base for the nutters. Without the "moderates", the nutters couldn't exist.
I made a whole video on this topic (I think it's called "Religious Moderates" or something like that).
CapnOrdinary 2 years ago
The moderates do not form a powerbase for the nutters.
(You made a vid on it but aren't sure of the title? It must've been outstanding! lol)
You still seems to have issues with truth here.
Madmonkeymusician 2 years ago
Yes, they do. You seem to have some issues with presenting an argument other than simply trying to wear out the opposition by repeating the same nonsense.
And no, I don't remember the title with certainty. You try remembering the title of over a hundred videos made in the span of more than a year. GLWT. Pissant.
CapnOrdinary 2 years ago
Pissant? Really, aren't you above such petty minded remarks.
I repeated the point because you ignorantly refuse to accept the truth about Atheism. I repeat my point because you constantly deny the truth. You're trying to wear down the opposition by repeating the same inaccurate and illogical rubbish.
Seems you are a hypocrite after all. By the way, that means you're accusing me of doing something that you are actually doing yourself. You are becoming another Youtube Joke. LOL
Madmonkeymusician 2 years ago
No, I am not above calling them as I see them. You are claiming you have some "truth" that I am "denying", but all you've done is repeat the same bullshit fallacious argument over and over again.
Doesn't wash.
CapnOrdinary 2 years ago
What doesn't wash is that you make out you are intelligent, yet when faced with facts, you shrivel down to boring insults and pathetically weak claims.
Its such a shame that your intolerant/bigoted opinion makes you blind to the fact you are a stupid hypocrite.
Madmonkeymusician 2 years ago
LOL. I don't know what side you are on, but I have made that same argument so many times. There's just too many stupid people on youtube.
Dudeyowuzup 2 years ago
Atheism is a religious position: Discuss
Madmonkeymusician 2 years ago
No. It's a position on theistic claims.
Atheists can have a religious position (buddhism, for instance), but in and of itself, no, atheism is merely a lack of belief in gods.
CapnOrdinary 2 years ago
Atheism is a religious position.
An atheist must have some form of belief on the subject of God, if they truly believe there is no God, then why is there the need to deny God?
The problem is that people think Atheism is the opposite of Theism and therefore is a non-religious position - as the individual doesn't believe in God. All it truly is, is a religious view. It is an opinion on the existence of God.
Madmonkeymusician 2 years ago
Atheism = I don't believe in any god(s).
That is not a religious position. I make no claims that any god(s) exist or don't exist, I simply state that I am not convinced by the claims that they do.
I don't have a belief, I have a lack of belief.
CapnOrdinary 2 years ago
Atheism is a religious position, if you truly believe there is no god then why deny that there is a god?
It's a fascinating fact that so many atheists think that saying "I don't believe in God" means they don't have a religious position. Of course you do, you don't believe in God, that is a religious position. I'm surprised that you cannot actually get that, its remarkable that you can use a computer but not understand a simple fact!
Madmonkeymusician 2 years ago
Atheism is not a religious position, just like bald is not a hair colour, and not collecting stamps is not a hobby. It's amazing how hard that can be for some people to understand.
CapnOrdinary 2 years ago
Atheism, again, is a religious position. Bald is a hair style; as it is an option for those who have hair. Atheism is a position on a religious subject - the existence of God, therefore it is a religious position. It's clear logic. If you are an Atheist you have an opinion on the existence of God right? Opinions on the existence of God are religious positions.
Put the two together.
Madmonkeymusician 2 years ago
I have no opinion on the existence of "gods", because nobody has been able to explain what that even means.
I do not _believe_ in any claims of "gods", because every claim I've heard is not only improbable, it's ridiculous.
Atheism is the lack of belief in any "gods". That is not religion, that is lack of religion. Are you really too dumb to get that?
CapnOrdinary 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Atheism is denying the existence of any gods. (no one can prove without doubt that any god exists or not) You must think about "god" or else there would be nothing to deny. I suggest you try to understand the meaning of what you claim to be before you ram it down people's throats. You are just as intolerant as those you accuse, another pathetic hypocrite using a Youtube account to spout bullshit and dumb ideas.
Madmonkeymusician 2 years ago
I don't understand why you bother arguing about atheism when you don't even know what atheism is, and won't accept the explanation you get from atheists. I don't "deny" any god(s), I simply don't believe in them.
Show me sufficient evidence for a deity's existence, and I'll happily believe in it.
But I'm done arguing with you. Your insults and complete lack of coherent arguments is no longer welcome here.
Blocked.
CapnOrdinary 2 years ago
I don't know if it's funny or sad that you are making videos saying people shouldn't tolerate God's people. You fear people who don't value their life as much as you do because it's all you believe you have. As for Christians, the Bible says that faith is rewarded with heaven. Not actions. Also you say people of faith are the reason for the threat of nuclear war, I don't remember North Korea being a very religious country.
DinoDillinger 2 years ago
Lack of belief in a god isn't a lack of religion. There are plenty of *irreligious* atheists and plenty of atheists that have a religion. We can't get the concept of god confused with the idea of religion. In essence, you both were correct and incorrect, depending on the atheist you're trying to define.
Alastair 2 years ago
I love your videos and it is absolutely a very important and noble cause to try to wake up the religious people. It is really a deep human tragedy that so many can believe old nonsense in this day and age.
It is pretty clear to me that religion is a case of ignorance which is so extreme that it is even ignorance about being ignorant.
We need to teach our children about reality and let them exercise their brains so they become capable of logical reasoning. We must react against indoctrination.
drandersw 3 years ago
Interesting!
julzabro 3 years ago
I don't believe atheism exists. Instead I believe in 'conceptual theism', that is, the belief in the existence of the concept of God. Almost all people are at least conceptual theists, in that they believe God exists as a concept in people's minds. Conceptual theism is even supported by science, as concepts are thoughts, which can be observed in the form of bio-electrical flashes in the brain. The concept of God also has an observable effects.
Blackfish100 3 years ago
Conceptual theism, like other forms of theism, has variations. There is non-observant conceptual theism, in which believers merely state their belief in he concept of God, but whom do not use the concept in their lives. There are militant or fundamentalist conceptual theists, who believe absolutely that God is only a concept and/or seek to attack and destroy the other forms of theism, such as sentient theism (the belief that God takes a physical form as a sentient being).
Blackfish100 3 years ago
Okay, so you've redefined the idea that a "god" doesn't exist into the idea that "god" only exists as a concept in people's mind, and thus redefined atheism out of existence. Sorry if I seem a little unimpressed, but: So? What's the point?
Nothing has changed in people's mind.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
The point is that we almost all believe in God in some way. It becomes illogical then to argue about whether God exists, because has a concept; he does exist and is proven to exist. The issue of whether God exists as a sentient being or a force of nature, or anything beyond a thought, is a non-issue because as a mere idea, God has far reaching and profound effects on human beings. Would a sentient God have any more of an effect than a thought God?
Blackfish100 3 years ago
I'm sorry, I don't (as a general rule) do philosophy. If something only exists as a concept, it doesn't exist.
I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, but I think your way of phrasing it is, at best, bad. It has the potential to be misunderstood in a major way, and thus to me it represents a failure of communication.
(It's also a, to me, completely alien way of looking at the world. Which is a good thing, don't get me wrong, I like the challenge. I just don't see it from that angle.)
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
My argument is not philosophical at all. I gather by thoughts not existing, you mean not physically. Thoughts do indeed exist physically, as bio-electrical storms in the brain which can be seen with various scanning and imaging technology. As a thought/concept God is real.
Could you elaborate on how my phrasing equates to bad communication and how my points might it be misunderstood? I believe I have made my points quite clear and free from mis-interpretation.
Blackfish100 3 years ago
I can try. Yes, thoughts exist, as electrical and chemical processes in brains. True.
But the objects and concepts of these thoughts do not exist in any meaningful way. Once again, if I were to claim to believe in the existence of the concept of gods, but not the reality of gods, then I doubt that many people would understand what I was getting at.
There is a range of intelligence, within which most people fall. You may be at the high end, but don't assume that everyone else is, too.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
Respectfully I must say you're quite wrong. Thoughts can have enormous meaning, despite their less-than-profound physical existence. Think of liberty, democracy, human rights. These are concepts which have shaped the lives of billions of people. Yet they too are just bio-electrical impulses. The God concept, systemized into religion and/or theology, has had an incalculable impact on human beings. As for God as an idea, what is more simple than: 'He is a thought in my head'?
Blackfish100 3 years ago
You said nothing there, except for the last sentence, that I disagree with in any way whatsoever. In fact, I think that's a perfect example of why your way of phrasing it isn't going to work, because it leads (this is just my opinion, of course) into an area of discourse that isn't pertinent to the object of the discussion, which is establishing the reality (or lack thereof) of the "god entity" rather than the "god concept".
I don't think I can phrase my objection much clearer than I have, now.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
We have already established that God exists as a thought.
Regarding God as an entity, I'll reiterate a question I asked before: would a sentient God be any more meaningful or have any more of an effect on human beings as a conceptual God? Or, more precisely, does the form of existence necessitate meaning and or effect?
I believe the question of the existence of a God entity is nothing more than an exercise in shallow empiricism and is meaningless.
Blackfish100 3 years ago
Once again, I don't think we actually disagree on anything except the terminology used.
But depending on your definition of the "god entity", yes, a "god entity" could have a profound effect on our world. In the bible, for instance, Yahweh is pictured as killing hundreds directly through miracles. Admittedly, it could be argued that the "god concept" also kills hundreds, but the modus operandi is markedly different.
But the only thing we're really arguing here is semantics.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
I find the current definitions used when discussing God and the various positions taken on him to be in need of some modernizing. The term 'atheism' just doesn't make sense to me at all. You need to first acknowledge something before you can deny it. Yet acknowledging God in any way equates to theism. The only way one could not be a theist is if they had no concept of God to begin with, which would make them secular.
Blackfish100 3 years ago
Ah... I think I see the stumbling block here. And you're right, going by the dictionary definition of atheism as "the denial of God", being an atheist doesn't make sense. Kinda makes me wonder who wrote the dictionary definition, but whatever ;o)
Anyway, the definition that most of us who call ourselves atheists use is this one: "Atheism = the lack of belief in a god or gods".
In other words, whether we have a concept of god(s) or not is irrelevant, by that definition.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
To be more specific, I'd say "atheists" believe that God cannot take a physical form or deny that he can take a physical form or any form other than that of a thought.
I think overall, the concepts and ideas created or promulgated during the 19th and 20th centuries have not been as readily critiqued and reviewed as earlier ideas have and this is why we continue to hold ideas and concepts which might need expanding upon or which might be false altogether.
Blackfish100 3 years ago
Well I must say that this has been a very refreshing conversation. It is most refreshing of all to find someone who is open to new ideas. I greatly appreciate your open-mindedness and honesty. As you are probably well aware, the ultimate dickwad theory is well and truly alive on Youtube with people flaming each other daily in a quest to be right rather than to have civil and constructive discussion.
It was nice meeting you CapnOrdinary. Feel free to visit my channel anytime.
Blackfish100 3 years ago
blackfish:
by your logic, bugs bunny is real and has a profound effect on human affairs
zerogravitybong 3 years ago
Art doesn't affect human affairs, though it does have an effect nonetheless. The thought is real and its effects when acted upon are as well. You're hung up on a physicality which has already been demonstrated but which doesn't stand in front of you to see. Thoughts are observable, physical reactions in the brain. This is what Bugs Bunny is physically. Yet the profoundness of that physicality pales in comparison to the profoundness of its effects on people.
Blackfish100 3 years ago
so you concede that 'god', like a cartoon character, is a construct of the psyche?
zerogravitybong 3 years ago
God's physical form is that of a thought yes. This has been scientifically verified. Yet the physicality of God is next to meaningless, it is its effect that is meaningful and profound. Thus to argue about the physical nature of God, i.e. weather he is a sentient being or simply a brain impulse, is pointless. The physical nature of God clearly has no bearing on its effects on human beings. One might ask, since when are concepts physically profound?
Blackfish100 3 years ago
when they are acted upon. bush's concept of iraq was that it contained WMDs. no supporting evidence, yet thousands have died as a result. again, seven years later, zero evidence. point being that a physical manifestation of a flawed concept has phsically and profoundly affected every single person on earth.
it appears we share a similar view, just a differing prism through which we observe it.
here's the crux of the issue: i believe everything that is, is the result of a natural process.
zerogravitybong 3 years ago
I don't consider thoughts and actions to be of consequence to one-another. A thought acted upon does not change its physical nature. Thus, rather than the process of 'think then do' I consider that thinking and doing are two different processes altogether and that their physical characteristics are uniform, even if they change their manifestation. It's kind of like energy. Energy is energy, whether it is transformed from one form to another, its basic form remains unchanged.
Blackfish100 3 years ago
Maybe a theist wrote the dictionary and wanted to misrepresent atheism. 'Denial' sounds just like a word that a religulous person might use.
It is at any rate clear that atheist is simply the opposite of theist which means someone who is stupid enough to believe that a magical consciousness rules the universe. This is something people used to believe when science was not even invented and because the ground sometimes trembled or whatever.
Anyway, we are the rational and they are the irrational.
drandersw 3 years ago
Actually, I do not agree with this. There is no universal ideal by which cultures and standards can be measured. Setting some kind of 'ideal cultural standard' would be a step towards a completely monocultural society, which would be horrifically controlling and boring.
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago
I agree with this apart from the idea that communists should not be tolerated. What's that about? If you actually read Marx or Engels or the anarchist communists like Kropotkin, you'll see that communism is not as 'evil' as the red-scare style propagandists would have you believe. As a communist, I do advocate the organization of the proletariat as a social class and an eventual proletarian revolution, but that doesn't make my ideas 'evil' or 'violent'.
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago
I wholeheartedly agree that EVERY opinion is valuable. I begin to struggle when some of these opinions result in changes to British traditions and cornerstone values. The idea that someone could be offended if I hang Christmas greeting cards in my place of work is something that I will have to consider, in future. The fact that some companies want to ban them is very saddening.
Thank you for taking the time to reply, but I can't help feeling that worse is yet to come.
legacyofpop 3 years ago
I'm British. I'm a Christian. I don't believe that multiculturalism can work. I don't believe that different cultures were ever designed to co-exist. Often, in the papers, I read that some parts of Britain have banned Christmas cards or St George celebrations because others may be offended. Offended by what? My belief? My religion? I should not have to feel repressed in my own society.
Why do I have to suffer restrictions and censorship of my religion in my own country?
legacyofpop 3 years ago
Wrong question, IMO. The right question would be, why should anyone suffer restrictions and censorship of any opinion anywhere? Orwell called it "thought crime". Having the "wrong" opinions.... Outlawing an opinion, any opinion, is the direct route to a fascist dictatorship.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
I don't see your anti-religious beliefs as any more valid then anyone else unprovable beliefs.
In fact, you are talking about forcing your beliefs on others, and that sounds just like what a oppressive religion would do.
russcarljohnson 3 years ago
I that was how you interpreted my words, then clearly you were not paying attention, or I was not clear enough.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
i could have sworn you said something about "the atheistic fight against religion" near the end of your video.
To me that sounds like you are fighting to keep people from believing what they have chosen to believe.
You need to understand that everyone, atheists included, thinks they know the truth. The truth is, you can be no more certain of your beliefs then anyone else.
russcarljohnson 3 years ago
I disagree. Since I base my beliefs on evidence and direct observation, rather than on ancient texts and myths, I would (personally, at least) consider them far more solidly founded than, say, christianity or islam.
The "fight against religion" is not a fight to prevent people believing by force. It's a fight to promote thought. It's a war of ideas, not brute force. Hope this makes sense?
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
I was raisesd christian, and at the time my beliefs were based on evidence, logic, and direct observation.
I suppose that such is not exactly mainstream though. Most theist are just brainwashed. The idea of a god can be quite logical though.
waldoman7 3 years ago
Then, please explain what this "idea of a god" that can be quite logical, is... And how.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
can i be intolerant of you based on your beliefs? Basically, as long as someone agrees in your beliefs they are tolerant, if they don't they are intolerant, right?
I do agree it is a shame when people's beliefs lead them to senseless violence (Islam) but I think you've really played a circular game.
NoLongerMicah 3 years ago
No. Intolerance of beliefs is when you discriminate against a group of people based on their beliefs. The same applies to intolerance of skin-colour, gender, nationality, sexuality, etc.
I am in opposition to any kind of intolerance that is based on anything except intolerance. The only thing, in other words, that I will not tolerate, is intolerance.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
?? aren't you discriminating on people based on their beliefs that certain things are wrong. Hello! circular reasoning!!
To rewrite your last sentance you will tolerate anything you deem intolerant (which is not you of course!)
NoLongerMicah 3 years ago
You have some good points, why does Mr Ordinary get to say that some beliefs and actions are acceptable (culture and sexual preference) but others are not (islam).
I don't agree with some those beliefs or accept them as being as valid as mine, but i will agree to let others think as they please.
Lumping ordinary Christians and Muslims in the same group as fanatical terrorists is inaccurate and dangerously close to thought crime.
Atheism (not agnosticism) is a religion too.
russcarljohnson 3 years ago
I, too, am quite happy and content to let people believe silly things. What I am not pleased to do is to let them discriminate others based on their own beliefs, not shared by those they discriminate against.
And atheism is not a religion, it is simply the lack of belief in a deity. It is no more a religion than "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
I think you are confusing agnostisim (the lack of belief or undecided) with atheism, which is the explicit position of the nonexistence of gods or the rejection of religion - both require belief without proof and therefore it is a faith.
Please excuse my run on sentence.
I did enjoy your not collecting stamps idea, i myself am an aphilationist as well.
russcarljohnson 3 years ago
Agnosticism is the position of "not knowing". It comes in many levels of certainty, from militant agnosticism "I don't know because it's impossible to know" to the more simple "I just don't know". Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. SOME (but extremely few) atheists deny even the possibility of a god or gods existing. You will not find many of those here on YT.
I am an agnostic atheist. But 'til someone presents evidence of god(s), I consider the idea equally as likely as Santa Claus...
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
"atheism is not a religion, it is simply the lack of belief in a deity. It is no more a religion than "not collecting stamps" is a hobby. "
sure coulda fooled me, with the way the average atheist acts these days.
waldoman7 3 years ago
The cat with the "I made you a cookie but I eated it" is one of the best pictures of all time.
Cougs08 3 years ago
Beliefs are only as good as those, that promote them. We need more independent thinkers and fewer sheep!
billeybop 3 years ago
"the atheistic fight against religion ... is a fight for the survival of our species and our planet" Not all religions are hateful. Many have been and continue to be the basis for thousands of peoples' attitudes of love, tolerance, and equality. Atheistic individuals can be just as distructive and intolerant as religious individuals.
unstr8k8 3 years ago
I am _PROUDLY_ intolerant of IN-tolerance. I would love to do to the Bigots, what HITLER did to the Jews. These dumbfuck redneck hicks keep yappin' about how they wanna stick all of us Fags, Niggers and Jews in the cremation furnace? FUCK THAT! GET THEM BEFORE THEY GET US! Gather up every Klantard, every Phelps Phag, every Neo Nazi and Christian Supremecist and do to THEM what they want to do to us! Cease this foolish minority infighting. Opressees, band together and rise against your OPRESSORS!
Death2Bigots 3 years ago 2
A great man once said "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". And another one insisted "Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars... Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that" Killing a murder only brings you down to his level. Live by example or cease to be a part of the solution.
unstr8k8 3 years ago
I "hope" that there's a God and he's not muslim, but this man made concept of religion is B.S. and has to go! The Dead Sea Scrolls are nothing more than blueprint on how to control the masses and take their wealth. It's all about power and money. NOT right or wrong. It's really sad when so many people in the world can't see that and commit horrible crimes in the name of their Gods. (the Buddhists are the closest to getting it right I think)
Great video.
loathar21 3 years ago
Hey, it's been awhile. A quick quote from the video:
"They should be respected and tolerated based on the core ideals that they contain."
And now a quote from you on the board:
"I speak out against the religions, not the religious. There is a non-subtle difference."
My challenge: Put up or shut up, if you will. Supply actual evidence of dangerous core beliefs, eg. for Christianity, quote Christ. Make sense? Comparing religion to random distasteful things like Nazism is not going to cut it.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"I've indicted four billion people (and more, most of Earth's historical humanity have had some form of faith) on the basis of their irrational superstitions, nothing else."
How do you go from "irrational superstitions" to "inherently dangerous?" If all religions are dangerous, and your beliefs "define who you are," you could reasonably expect to find that most religious people are dangerous (and the dangerous activity is causally related to their religion).
More in a moment.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
Continuing
We do not find that most religious people are dangerous, and even when we do find some, the dangerous lawless actions are usually not causally related to their religious beliefs. So should we look harder? Expect to find dangerous religious people on a more consistent basis in the future? Or should we conclude that religion is actually not dangerous? I think the third option is best.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"How do you determine who the "real" members of a given faith are?"
Anyone who follows any given faith can tell you what they believe and where it comes from. People who have no clue are what you'd call "nominal believers." In any given faith, the source (whatever or whoever it is) tends to emphasize things like love, peace, mercy, charity, etc. People who break laws and harm others disgrace their family (assuming a religious one.) They do so in spite of their religion rather than because of it.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
This commentary on tolerance basically mirrors U.S. law on Free Speech: Free speech should be tolerated unless this speech will cause imminent lawless action. In the same way, religious groups should be tolerated unless they will cause imminent lawless action. Of course, Cap'n Ordinary thinks just about every religious group is a threat of imminent lawless action. I'm a Christian. Does that mean I am a threat? I submit that you need to ask more questions than just that one in order to know.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
Please note, I speak out against the religions, not the religious. There's a non-subtle difference.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
"Please note, I speak out against the religions, not the religious. There's a non-subtle difference."
First off, sorry I posted twice. I did not mean to.
Second, I was (honestly) under the impression that this was about the scary things a random nut (or group of nuts) could DO with said religions. "All it takes is one fanatic with a bomb." Somebody said that.
Third, "Your beliefs define who you are." You address my beliefs. You can understand how I would think you are addressing me.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
Okay, let me try to clarify:
Beliefs influence actions. With me so far? I hope so.
It follows, then, that certain beliefs are desirable, and others are not, in terms of the actions they can influence people to take. My argument (and you're quite welcome to disagree, of course, but please be prepared to defend that position) is that religions of all stripes are based on a blind faith, that by its very nature is harmful, because it can and often will be used for causing harm.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
Skepticism is a much better base for beliefs, because you cannot convince skepticism of something without a lot of work, which makes it much harder to create a Stalin, a Hitler, a Mao, or even a Saladin or a Mohammad.
That's my argument in a nutshell, really. Blind faith is not a useful basis for beliefs.
The other side of the argument is, that tolerating intolerance IS intolerance. If you don't tolerate eg. homosexuals, I won't tolerate the belief that makes you not do so.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
"blind faith...is harmful...often will be used for causing harm...harder to create a Stalin, Hitler, Mao"
There are some extremist religious groups that cause harm; however, the "real" members of any given faith strongly oppose causing harm and generally have a faith-driven set of morals that is stricter than the laws of their country.
Regarding the first three dictators you mentioned, two of them ruled atheistic empires and Pope John Paul II fought against the third one. Yes, he killed Nazis.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
"Blind faith is not a useful basis for beliefs."
I don't feel that I practice what you'd call "blind faith;" perhaps you can't imagine it any other way, though. Even if it were the case, things that are "not useful" don't get banned solely for that reason. They must also be harmful. Some sects of certain religions are harmful, so we should address those. I'll be honest, though: I feel like you've indicted at least four billion people based on the actions of a few thousand. If that.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
Dangit! I posted twice again. And now this is three. Sorry, I think my mouse is touchy. I will try to fix the problem.
mmmcounts 3 years ago
It's okay, it happens to me quite often as well. No worries.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
Believing in a god IS blind faith. There is no other way, because there is no empirical evidence for the existence of any such thing.
Belief that isn't based on evidence is, by nature, blind. I've indicted four billion people (and more, most of Earth's historical humanity have had some form of faith) on the basis of their irrational superstitions, nothing else.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
You are trying to make us deny our faith. Everyone has been taught to believe something, even athiests! For example, most people have been exposed to the toothfairy. Despite the fact that there is no actual tooth fairy, people still hope. WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO DESTROY WHAT WE LIVE FOR?!
goodygossiper 3 years ago
You are trying to make us deny our faith. Everyone has been taught to believe something, even athiests! For example, most people have been exposed to the toothfairy. Despite the fact that there is no actual tooth fairy, people still hope. WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO DESTROY WHAT WE LIVE FOR?!
I totally agree, the tooth fairy's majesty is above all others. I worship her shadow.
bonnienettles 3 years ago
How do you determine who the "real" members of a given faith are?
Where the witch burners of the middle ages "false" followers? Were there (gasp, horror) NO real christians for the majority of christian history, when all christians condoned slavery, witch burnings, and holy wars?
Stalin and Mao were not evil because they were atheists, they were evil because they erected personality cults around themselves, and thus were too much like religions.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
Mathew 7:[12] Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
I'm not going to argue with that.
And Einstein is right in a sense. Except for man's basic desire to do evil, this is what is restrained.
But either way that was a good comment.
soultaker76 3 years ago
..summary, be tollerant of everything but religion. Nice. The voices of tollerance always want to pick and choose what to be tollerant of. Typical BS. How about intollerant athiests on YouTube making constant attack videos and suing everyone all the time? Give me a break.
soultaker76 4 years ago
Correction: Be tolerant of everything except intolerance.
If there existed a tolerant religion, I would be tolerant of it. But I haven't found one yet.
Attack videos? I attack intolerance, ignorance, and irrationality, how is that a bad thing in your opinion? And last time I checked, I had never sued anyone.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
..and last time I checked buddy, I never killed anybody. So you want to lump me in with other people, why can't I do that to you?
The answer is you have chosen to be intollerant to religious people because you don't like them. You just said they are "intolerant, ingnorant, irrational". Sounds like double talk to me.
soultaker76 4 years ago
Please don't pretend you understand my motivations. It seems you have a hard enough time understanding my words. I did NOT say "religious people are x, y, and z", I said "I attack x, y, and z". Religion in the form of theism promotes intolerance. When taken to the extreme of creationism, it's pure ignorance, undiluted.
And belief in a personal god is irrational, no matter how you twist it. But religious people, individually, can be (and often are) tolerant, intelligent, rational people.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
Heck, I love my family, and most of them are christians. I was a christian for 25 years myself, so I'd be pretty darn hypocritical if I called all theists stupid, intolerant, etc. etc..... No!
I have no problem with the religious. I have a problem with the religion. There's a difference, it's kind of like "hate the sin, love the sinner", I'm sure you can relate :P
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
"I'd be pretty darn hypocritical if I called all theists stupid, intolerant, etc"
But you just did in your previous post.
Look back at the conversation and look at who is attacking who's beliefs. YOU are the intolerant one, and you prove it over and over.
You complain get mad because I "pretend to understand your motives" and then call all religous people ignorant and intolerant and murderers. Give me a break.
soultaker76 4 years ago
You refuse to listen to what I'm saying, don't you? It seems you really WANT to believe that I called all religious people ignorant, intolerant murderers, when in fact I have never said any such thing nor held that opinion at any point in time.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
On a completely unrelated note, I love "On a Pale Horse" as well.
soultaker76 4 years ago
LOL that was out of the blue ;o) But yeah, that whole series in fact (have you read all of them?) is very good.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
Yeah, didn't like the last one, but the first 6 were great (especially #6). Piers did the same thing with the Aprentice Adept series. I loved 1-6, hated 7.
soultaker76 4 years ago
I loved the incarnations of immortality. My favourite is war.
bonnienettles 4 years ago
so If a Nazi never killed anyone suddenly Nazism is ok? what kind of logic is that? (not comparing Nazism with Christianity but you get the point)
Being intolerant of the intolerant is not a bad thing.
Base your believes (that shape your actions) in something more than a dusty old book from the bronze age, then you will realised that you can not do things, just because your religion says, then you'll be free to do what is right, not what you're told is right.
tieInterceptor 3 years ago
And you know what's right because...........
soultaker76 3 years ago
do unto others like you would like them to do unto you, easy
"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
Albert Einstein
tieInterceptor 3 years ago
hey this is a good video, but as to not having found a tolerant religion, how about buddhism?? that doesn't even require faith in God, so how could it be called intolerant? btw i'm not trying to convert anyone, i'm agnostic
xxstarchildxx 3 years ago
i agree with these examples, not necessarily the whole idea but in these specific cases u r completely correct
GreencardInMyShoe 4 years ago
your points are blunt and all over the place.
wojtek0000 4 years ago
dug it
NossedEvo 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
islam is the bestest religions in the worlds.
we muslimes are more educatedet than any other religion-people.
we muslimes invented the mathemathetics, fysiks, lightbulp, gravity and chemistry.
we muslims are the smarterst!
converttoislam90210 4 years ago
Poe's Law, methinks.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
I have recently been researching blood atonement within the mormon church. This belief makes the killing of certain people acceptable as it implies that by their blood being spilled they will be forgiven for an otherwise unforgivable sin. Thus the killer is actually doing God's work and makes wrong right.
If sin is merely going against God's will then it makes the concepts of right and wrong relative only to what the scriptures teach.
Why should we be tolerant of that?
sariahtea 4 years ago 4
Excellent example, I'll have to look into that. Thank you :)
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
No need to be tollerant of it. It was an 1800s practice and faded with most of Brigham Young's unique teachings. So obviously Mormons weren't even tollerant of it.
soultaker76 4 years ago
hello soultaker, although it is no longer practised blood atonement was once and still serves as an example of a case where we should not be tolerant of religious practices, just because they are religious.
sariahtea 4 years ago
Charles Darwin once said negative things about black people. Therefor we should be intolerant of evolutionists. (along that line of thinking).
soultaker76 4 years ago
No soultaker, not unless they do something bad. :)
bonnienettles 4 years ago
I think you might be getting my point. Take everyone on a case by case basis.
soultaker76 4 years ago
Believers kill each other
Believers kill non-believers, too
I think the problem isn't 'beliefs', but
KILLING! Which violates the believer's own beliefs, yet they still KILL.
cont...
killyertv0 4 years ago
So, maybe we should call believers who kill, 'MURDERERS', and the rest of the believers who do not kill, can keep their 'believer' status and go on being tolerated by the non-believers and vice versa.
Tolerate MURDERERS? We already do NOT, which is why prisons exist. Tolerate 'believers'? We already DO, which is why religion exist
killyertv0 4 years ago
the person who made this video is obviously overstating the matter on religion. mankind has been killing one onother long before religion came along,and have often used religion to justify their actions.people will fight over anything if given a chance, land oil, water, women etc you get the picture
oratorspeaker 4 years ago
"The person"... that's me. Mankind kills each other for all manner of reasons.
Superstition is just one reason among many, that is not an excuse for that superstition, just a sad testimony for the character of mankind in general.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
I believe that cat ate my cookie
bukfut 4 years ago