BEING ATHEIST IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH - ( version 2 )

[IsraeliAdamRusso]

true and accurate

[SexyMelon]

Absence of belief is not a belief in absence.

Most broadly, Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of God or gods. That's also called "weak atheism", where "strong atheism" is the belief in non-existence of god or gods.

Everyone is born an Atheist. And if it irks you, well, too bad. People certainly aren't born with any kind of pre-defined beliefs.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

Well said, SexyMelon.

However, I would go even further. Everyone is born without any kind of blind belief ( dogma ). Therefore everyone is born adogmatic.

Most ideologies are also based, partially or entirelly, on delusional and blind beliefs ( dogmas )like all religions.

[SexyMelon]

Yep, there's also that.

[TheNeognostic]

Everyone is born adogmatic is a better way to put it than everyone is born atheist.

I'll go with that.

[TheNeognostic]

There is no such thing as 'strong' vs. 'weak' atheism. You either are, or you aren't, because atheism requires a conscious choice. Before a person has developed enough, they shouldn't be presented with any label, because labelling someone 'atheist' is the same as labelling someone 'theist'. It leads others to make assumptions about the person that are not neccesarily correct. It's pretty clear cut. At the risk of sounding smarmy, if it irks you, well, too bad.

[SexyMelon]

"There is no such thing as 'strong' vs. 'weak' atheism."

There is. Look it up.

"Before a person has developed enough, they shouldn't be presented with any label, because labelling someone 'atheist' is the same as labelling someone 'theist'."

Since atheism is lack of belief in gods, however, and any person is born without belief in any gods, they are, by default, atheists.

"At the risk of sounding smarmy, if it irks you, well, too bad."

And if it irks you, well, too bad.

[TheNeognostic]

Not quite true - an infant is not yet old enough to create an informed opinion. To be atheist requires such an informed choice. A young child does not yet know. I do not believe there is such a thing as an atheist infant anymore than I believe there is such a thing as a Christian, Jewish or Muslim infant.

[SexyMelon]

I'd suggest looking up the word "atheism".

[TheNeognostic]

I have. What's your point?

[SexyMelon]

Atheism is the lack of belief in a God. Infants don't believe in God.

2 + 2

[TheNeognostic]

You're 2 + 2 appears to equal 5.

Perhaps you should look up a more thorough definition of atheism for yourself...

[OtterIsGod]

Lol!!! What is that meant to mean?

[TheNeognostic]

I would have thought that was obvious.

Read the thread.

[SexyMelon]

Basically, you're confusing lack of belief in something with a positive belief - in this case, "God does not exist". Lack of belief in anything, God, morals, politics, science, whatever, is what we all start with.

Belief in existence or non-existence of God can only be inferred from interpretation of life experience or, in case of most religions, blatant brainwashing.

[TheNeognostic]

Not correct.

If atheism is not thoroughly defined, people argue for pointless reasons, as in this case.

Whilst atheism can be described as a simple absence of belief in God, it ALSO can be defined as an actual conscious rejection of theism or deism. This is a belief in it's own right, and not one that any infant can possess. In this sense and definition of the word, an infant cannot be atheist, anymore than it can be a theist/deist.

Your definition of atheism is over-simplfied.

[SexyMelon]

Correct.

But since one side of the definition is most commonly used and, indeed, most demographically common, it's generally safe to say that "everyone is born an atheist". It's a generalisation, and should really read: "everyone is born without belief in God or Gods", but that's about it.

You could also say "everyone is born agnostic", but that's against pretty much all dictionary definitions of the word, and possibly it's real-world use (i.e. fence-sitters).

[TheNeognostic]

Maybe so, but I would avoid it - applying labels of ANY form: atheist, theist, agnostic etc. to an infant is unfair because, as said before, others generate their own assumptions from such labels.

[SexyMelon]

I really have no idea what you mean by "labels" here.

"Atheist", "Theist", "Agnostic", or whatever else are just terms used to describe things. It's how language works.

[SexyMelon]

Very, very good point. I'd phrase it differently though: *everything* should always be questioned.

Accepting or rejecting something "just because" is the attitude that simply doesn't work and is, frankly, not how we do things anyway. At least not until it comes to religion and social norms.

[inglefud]

To the producer of this video. If you are an atheist you would probably know that most atheist are such because they rely upon evidence to support the existing of something. There should be no need to suggest that a non belief in god is not enough to consider oneself a rational, dogma-free thinker. Or perhaps I misread message of this video (?)

[MysteriousMaskMan]

Yes, inglefud, you misread it.

For instance, there are marxist atheists who do not believe in religious dogmas BUT believe in the ideological dogmas derived from Marxist assumptions like, for instance, that somehow "magically" people will erase their genetic differences and their instincts for competition, "greed", exploitation and aggressive tribalism and then brotherly assembly in a communist stateless harmonic and equalitarian society.

This dogma contradicts scientific evidence.

[akinadownhillace]

I haven't seen someone lay the night and day differences between faith and reason so perfectly. I'm a atheist, I think faith is lazy. All a person of faith has to do is write everything they don't understand off as the 'GOD' answer. They can't explain because they don't even know the basic laws of the universe. My girlfriend believes in a mother and father god. When I ask her what she is basing this on. She just says that's what she believes in. A person can have a opinion, but that's all it is.

[supersmash43]

An excellent video! People should question the thinks we are told to believe in and follow just because they explain it by using just because.

[Backtrakk21]

eckostream, your point is more true then you know...religion USED to be a choice...then it became popular, now everyone who isn't doing it gets shit over it, and those who are get riddiculed for it, and we thought we outgrew the Peer Pressure crap in highschool...if you don't like what i got to say, don't read it, no offence meant, just why i think

[GentleSavage1]

oh man, that music is so catchy... after hearing it quite some times, as I was awaking this morning, I heard the music in my "mental ears" for many minutes! *lol*

[Gringoman911]

The current Dalai Lama is more b9 then his predecessors since he doesn't rule over a draconian theocracy in Tibet; Is now exiled into being a self help leader for Richard Gear and co.

[EckoStream]

I doubt the Dalai Lama, is really a religious person... putting in the same categories as Stalin and etc not really logical, he never forced anyone else into what he beleive he only preached peace and said himself that he would never put any religion argument in front of science... Religion and personnal beleive even if they are false, are not the real problem, the problem is when people try to convert other into beleiving what they say...

[kwolf002]

I agree with you... but I must admit that I am continually surprised by things in my life that I haven't questioned

[guitarz333]

you bring up a brilliant and valid argument with this video. government dogma, like the religious kind, should be questioned at all times. but what about when questioning that dogma becomes irreverence for, if not actually breaking the law? how to we change that?

[MysteriousMaskMan]

The pursuing of truth is above law and should not respect any form of false beliefs ( regardless if they are wrongly legitimated by society or not ).

Falsehood, deception, delusion and self-serving lies do not deserve any respect.

Quite the opposite.

[lanceauthor2525]

Caution to scientific reasoning for leads to its own dogma. All science is: is the common measurement and description of the physical world. These descriptions and measurements change as observations improve along with the tools that are used to make them. Survival of the planet is of utmost importance and that must include religious philosophies.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

As long science is based on continuous open mutual critical examination, continuous verification of evidence and continuous replacement of obsolete theories, unlike religion, any tentative of dogmatization does not last more than few years.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

It is precisely the lack of critical examination, experimental verification and the absolute intolerance to alternative explanations what makes religions so dogmatic, rigid and arrogant. It is their dogmatic character what makes them riddled with absurd and ridiculous superstitions and false beliefs.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

And it is exactly the opposite, the extreme intolerance and irrationality of religious "philosophies" could be one of the main possible causes for a future destruction of humankind.

[lanceauthor2525]

It will only take a few years to finish the project, then it matters not.

[jetmanisme]

Very well done. Great message, and I even enjoyed the music.

[SuperiorMind]

Excellent vid! :) Some extremely important points. I wish more people would watch this.

[MatthewLeee]

You exist, to deny that you exist is an act that verifies the subjective idea of existance. To say that all things are subjective is to use the subjective concepts of "Subjective, things, are" these are all creations of the human mind, to claim that they are subjective is an affirmation of itself.

[prometheusarisen]

Couple of points. First, science and logic are social/linguistic constructions. In biological terms, scientific and logical thinking are very unatural to the human mind. Second, there is evidence that our psychological make-up has evolved towards religious, or magical thinking. So I have to ask, did evolution make a mistake? or did science? Science is, in reality, the supreme dogma of our times.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

Wrong points.

Basic logic is an evolutionary trait and it depends of individual genetic variability. Further development of logic is obtained through learning and exercise. Science is a social/linguistic construct based on logic that, so far, builds the most reliable models of reality as the countless of superb technologic achievements demonstrate. Furthermore it creates the most satisfactory unifying theories capable to explain a multitude of phenomena.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

Regarding religion, there is not a definitive explanation yet, but the most credible so far, is that it is partially a sub-product of human brain trying to see patterns in all things even when the pattern is false or there is none. Religion patterns are specially created to satisfy certain human emotions and they are oblivious to or even against reality.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

Basically, religion satisfy the human emotions of tribal identity ( the set of beliefs that identify the members of a group ), obedience to an alpha-male ( authority ) and his rules, illusory certainty ( simple , but false, answers to "everything" ), delusional security and psychological comfort ( blissful afterlife, "divine" protection, etc ).

[prometheusarisen]

MMM: Let us recognize that the brain has evolved specific modules and circuits. The mind is not tabula rasa, we have innate ideas, such a space, time, language, etc... Magical thinking, spirituality, and religious proclivities are built into the structure of the brain. This is not in question. There is a price to be paid for scientific realism, this price is our admission that the physical realm does not exhaust reality, but is in effect, a dim reflection of a deeper truth.

[j1082sejj]

the human brain has evolved to involve logic in such a way to find food or to capture prey or defend itself against attack. logic helped form social societies, because people started to understand if they worked together they could accomplish a greater amount of work and help the entire community prosper. logic is part of our genetic makeup, and mysticism, religion, and irrational thoughts are created to explain things people don't understand...

[prometheusarisen]

MMM: Logic is not a map of how the brain works. Logic is a reconstruction of thought processes, that puts them together in a way which as we say, makes sense. So if we have a process of thought which can be reconstructed logically into a pattern which makes sense, we can endorse it logically, whether the thought process itself was carried out in some linear, logical fashion or not.

[prometheusarisen]

(Cont.) Science must refer to a special form of knowledge. If science really were a distinctive mode of knowing, demonstrably superior to common sense and all other methods, we might be under a kind of intellectual duty to base all of our beliefs on science alone. However, since science cannot be demarcated from the rest of knowledge, our ordinary ways of warranting beliefs are under no such cloud of suspicion and remain innocent until proven guilty.

[madeye0]

Valid points.. from philosophical point of view. But I personally dont like the relativistic smell of nothing/everything.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

False argument.

"Common sense" ( ex:"the earth is flat" ) and superstitions ( miracles, gods, angels, demons, etc ) were proved lacking of evidence thousands of times.

So they are not "innocent" at all.

Stupid fictions cannot ever have the same status of credibility that science has.

[DeletedDelusion]

SPOT ON.

I´d like to add, that todays challange is to handle and organise all the knowledge we have obtained.

Thank you for this video. 5/5

[MysteriousMaskMan]

Thanks, DeleteDelusion.

[yedrellow]

Atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god; it is good you understand that as many don't. Despite me being an Atheist, I can't really find much to disagree with in this video. My atheism has to do with a lack of evidence for the proposition of god and not due to evidence to the contrary. This is a similar reasoning to my lack of belief in leprechauns.

[yedrellow]

Oops, I misinterpreted this video as it was recommended by a theist ...

Heh, interesting how my prediction on the nature of this video was affected by a preconceived bias.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

Lol.. Yep, our brains play tricks with us. That is why we always have to check our hurried assumptions before expressing them.

[GodlessLife]

Notice how you missed out the received wisdoms (Dogmas) of the USA. Capitalism, Monetraism, Globalisation, The free market, Wall Street, Imperialism... But other than that, that what I call Free Thinking. Good Stuff.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

I didn't really miss them. Remember the word "etc" after my few examples.

[dfarmer1584]

I have only one dogmatic belief: Subscribe to no dogma.

[GnosticAtheist]

The rule of science. As a researcher I agree fully with this video.

5/5 and fav'ed.

[SmokeCloudz]

Do you belive in absolute truths?

[MysteriousMaskMan]

I don't believe in absolute truths and perhaps, neither in absolute lies. You see "absolutes" have a very low credit. Hahaha...

[planetfrog]

Are you absolutely rigid on this principle - are you dogmatically anti-dogmatic?

[MysteriousMaskMan]

You cannot apply a rule or its anti-rule onto itself. When you do it, you frequently ( or perhaps always ) create a logical paradox or invalidates the rule.

For instance, when you try to answer to the question "Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift ?" Both, the affirmative and the negative answers are false. It creates a paradox.

Another example, if you say "everything is false". If you apply it to itself, it invalidates the assertion.

[yedrellow]

Why do you believe that the invalidation of the rule through its application on itself is invalid? Wouldn't this be a valid way of questioning its validity?

[MysteriousMaskMan]

Logic,like any other tool, no matter how powerful and useful it is, has some few limitations. But this does not remove its immense power.

[fidetecabraodemerda1]

through rational thinking you can't even proof anything but yourself exists dear friend...Sensations dont count as rational thinking or anything based on them. Science uses the dogma of existence.

[wonderist]

Do you deny your own existence???????

The 'dogma' of existence? I've never laughed so hard. I wonder 'who' it is that is trying to tell us about the dangers of the dogma of existence. Oops, I guess this person doesn't really exist.

[tusgodeireadh]

I wonder if you have considered that science was created by man and therefore not perfect. Science can't prove everything, they are all based on theories.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

This is a usual dumb and ignorant argument coming from people who have not even basic knowledge of science.

Science is very cautious and humble and it never claimed to prove everything. Yet, despite its cautiousness, its creative prodigy deeply revolutionized and transformed human society.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

Actually scientists are so cautious that they use the term "evidence" instead of "proof". To understand this conceptual difference you should read Popper but I am afraid that he is "light-years" above your intelligence.

[sleepyhead666]

haha made me laugh. cool video. it was long tho rock music next time please? :D

[tusgodeireadh]

Haha I like how you said light-years above my intelligence, being that you do not even know my level of intelligence. I do understand the basic knowledge of science. You were making claims in your video and I thought I would just point it out again.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

In the same way that a doctor diagnoses a disease by observing the patient's symptoms, I evaluate someone's intelligence from what he says and how he thinks.

[Shadrach76]

nice

[Xenocult]

Gorgeous video, amazing editing... i'm definately suscribing.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

Thanks, Xenocult.

[bassandit]

Not all Communism is dogmatic. Marxism-Leninism and its derivatives are all dogmatic, and they are the most widely known, but they are not representative of all Communisms.

Marx even opposed dogmatism, famously quipping "I am not a Marxist."

Just wanted to point that out. Otherwise great vid, and I agree with you.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

You are right, I, for instance, can imagine the possibility of a scientific communism. I mean, a communist society resulting from a genetic engineered humankind were all people have individual differences but comparable and valuable skills, talents and pleasant aesthetical appearance.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

With our current genetic evolutionary "baggage" which generates wild competition, primitive tribalism, blind obedience to alpha males and shallow selfishness, communism, by means of dogmatic ideology or masses education, is impossible ( the social experiments already demonstrated that ).

[MysteriousMaskMan]

Marx exchanged correspondence with Darwin. If he only could have exchanged knowledge as well and ended up aware of biological evolution he might have changed his socio-economic theory.

[invertedbeardthe2nd]

maskedman, you realise that your video could be seen as being dogmatic. It could be seen as your preaching a world view to the Masses. Let people believe what they want, unless it adversely harms others. I feel atheism popularity is part fashion, as well as rational thought.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

That is bit funny, don't you think ?

So I am dogmatic because I am against dogmas ?

What you are saying makes as much sense as saying that every filter carefully designed to purify water makes it dirtier. It seems that you are not a good friend of logic. Are you ?

[MysteriousMaskMan]

In the beginning I thought that you were potentially a free thinker. Now I suspect that what you really want is people being drowned by myriads of delusions. I would not have a problem on people being deluded if they did not wanted to force their delusions and the mad moral rules embedded in them, on me.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

If they did not threaten to kill or blow me up because I do not fancy their delusions or try to paralyse science because it contradicts with their mad beliefs it would be even better.

Furthermore, how could I prevent them to believe what they want simply by expressing my opinion in a video?

[bassandit]

If someone whines that you're dogmatic, just say, "I am not dogmatically anti-dogmatic. Show me a dogma that conforms reliably to testable observations of reality and I'll consider blindly embracing it."

lol

[invertedbeardthe2nd]

lol

[invertedbeardthe2nd]

Again, you throw the baby out with the bath water. And miss quite a simple observation.

[invertedbeardthe2nd]

fallacious reasoning based on empty assumptions, and your own psychological structure.

[invertedbeardthe2nd]

you are missing the observation. You are telling people how to think, and effectively concluding that there is no other way to operate. That is dogmatic. The world is not polarised, it consists of middles, and grey areas.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

Since you are not stating what are those "grey areas"

are and how relevant they are for increasing our understanding of the universe, I think that you ar just playing with pointless vagueries.

Honest arguments demand solidity and clarity. Your arguments, so far, lack both of these important attributes.

[invertedbeardthe2nd]

ive proven my point. You only want rationalities that fit with your paradigm. Ive poked a stick at you, and you have almost had a heart attack. Finally, I suggest a man in a mask is in no position to talk about clarity and logic.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

Stop deluding yourself. Vague and ethereal assertions prove nothing my dear friend. You just added more smoke on top of your previous smoke. What paradigm exactly you are objecting to and why ? Furthermore, what is your alternative paradigm ? Tell us about that, may be you can convert us to it. ;^>

[wonderist]

Why are you posting this comment. You TOO are trying to change the way MMM thinks. I guess that makes you dogmatic too, and hence a hypocrite for getting annoyed at anti-dogmatism.

It is just silly to say that trying to convince people of a different way of thinking is necessarily dogma. Dogma is rigid belief that cannot be questioned. Anti-dogmatism is against rigid belief that can't be questioned. Being against something doesn't automatically make you dogmatic.

[invertedbeardthe2nd]

Your comment sounds rather dogmatic :o)

[MysteriousMaskMan]

And you do not just "sound". You ARE a typically and intellectually dishonest individual.

[YOURGOD78]

this is a great video, and should be the way we all approach life, and it's questions.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

nadiaTeeze:

excellent. I've seen this arguement going around that if women dress in a provactive manner they are not earning their human rights.. Talk about Dogmatic.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

Yes, people create dogmas in order to defend and excuse their selfish interests or the interests of their "tribe" ( the group that they are loyal to ). So, dogmas are frequently used as fallacious rationalization to justify injustice and domination.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

Disgracefully, frequently, another group that starts opposing them also create dogmas to defend their own selfish interests. So, ironically, people create a new type of injustice to combat an older one, which then perpetuates social injustice. As someone said, "in a war the first victim is the truth".

[MysteriousMaskMan]

invertedbeardthe2nd:

destroy all ism's. In a soul free from emotion, even the fiercest tiger finds no room for its claws.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

Yes, no label can express the totality of a human being.

However, we need at least an "introductory" label that gives us a first approximation of what a person stands for.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

invertedbeardthe2nd:

indeed its hard to get away from labels. I like the philosophy of "No way, as way", and "No label as a label". People end up identifying with the definitions, and not the dynamics of the organism. Cheers!

[MysteriousMaskMan]

I replaced the old video for this one, but I saved some important posters' questions and the answers to them:

Davethesilentone :

whay not just call it rationalism?

[MysteriousMaskMan]

If I am not wrong, rationalism does not emphasize the need of scientific evidence and the permanent evolution of knowledge. And, mainly, rationalism does not emphasize the danger of DOGMAS to human knowledge ( probably it does not even mention the dogmas problem ).