Nice vdeo mate, I found myself agreeing with nearly everything you said whch is very rare on this subject. The part about willam lane craig is 1 billion percent spot on.
To me everything is used to create uniformity the free spirit is dieing out because school,parents,and religion all teach you how you are supposed to be and if you aren't that way you will shunned and made an outcast.
@warmonger158 I think you're right. And that might be a real horror show. It's like the world is a box factory, a large box with a way to reproduce more boxes.
I don't know. That's kind of what makes life worth living though. I have a feeling of some kind of creator but I would never be so arrogant as to say I know what it wants if anything. I do think it is benevolent or at least not a jerk. I've had good and bad happen throughout life but there seems to be a balance.
The thing that really pisses me off about atheists is how they talk down to me "oh, you are not informed." and the like. You admit to your own humanity though and I respect that.
You make good points. I screw with my mom all the time. " don't eat beef cows are gods sacrid creatures. Then I pull a fast one "how do you know?" " what if he"s having steak atm" parents are Hindustani. Dad told me to belive what I want to and eat what you want because in the end it comes down to you.
...(cont), That is based on personal experience which I have learned to trust over and above what the scientists are saying (who all oppose also). I watched Steven Hawkins talk the other night about aliens he believes exist in the universe who have long sucker like mouths and lives on the vertical sides of cliffs.....Sure Steven....
I love your open mindedness. I've always found that hard core atheists lose their open-mindedness; having as much faith in 'theories' as religionists do in their 'faiths' and both sides being equally agressive to one another's opposing 'BELIEFS!' Because at the end of the day, no-one know's all the answers! Life seems futile, and I think it was set up that way. In my own experiences if someone asked me what I worship or what I believe in, I would say it would be a creator, whom I call 'love'
not much time after this lengthy video to comment more but what is your theory or side of where the natural conscience of right and wrong come from? Enjoy your thoughts.
Right and wrong are a little polaric for my tastes, but with regards to morality, I currently think it is incredinly complex. Fundamentally, I believe it derives from our biology; our natural inclinations as social creatures seem to be the foundations of the empathy that is the seat of morality.
However, homo sapiens as a species is far more than a simple pack or communal entity. Our moral inclinations, as with so many aspects of our characters, have become abstracted into..
...rather baroque structures of ideology, some of which have reasonable, practical application, some of which do not.
I do not believe in Morality with a big "M" that is some universal, external force or state from which morality is derived, nor do I believe there is any intrinsic morality to the universe or reality (certainly not in application to human beings anyway).
At present, I believe human beings determine morality based on an extremely wide variety of factors...
...ranging from the aforementioned natural inclinations, socio-cultural influence and imposition and, most usefully insofar as I'm concerned, critical consideration of situations based upon empathy and imagination. I personally believe that the development of imagination automatically breeds empathy; if one is able to imagine acutely what it is to be this person in this circumstance, one is less likely to bring about or allow that circumstance if it happens to result in...
...suffering or a detriment to human dignity. This is why I would advocate the development of imagination to the Nth degree. But fundaemtnally, I think it's rather difficult to argue against the evidence that morality, at its core. derives from our biology; it is ingrained in us as communal creatures to maintain one another for wider social and individual benefit.
Is that a TV I see in the background? That wasn't there before! What do you watch? I like documentaries, usually. I don't watch much TV though, and I certainly don't watch movies at all! I like to spend most of my spare time reading like you! Did you get my PM? Have you read it? I'm waiting for your response! Please put up more debate videos like this! You have a dedicated fan here! I want to see more debates, please! Take care, bye.
It´s a terrible question, it implies that atheism is some kind of believe, similar to religion it self, besides, I´m cool with the atheist community but, what kind of bastard gives up his believes in exchange of a benefit. So, if atheism actually offers something, you´ll simply stop believing in God? I respect the atheists, but the behavior described above is just coward.
I can't tell based on this video if you hold the position of lets call it anti- anti-theism for lack of a better term. Do you perceive the actions of dawkins, hitchens etc to be harmful or immoral, either in the sense of what they espouse, televise, or publish, or in the sense of the communities that arise from their fandom? I've heard you express your distaste for anti-theism before and I'm wondering where you draw the line on this one. Very good rant by the way. :D
I suppose "anti-anti-theism" is a fairly accurate label for my current position on this matter. Though I often agree with many of the points Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris etc espouse, I am also in fundamental disagreement on many factors, most pertinently, their blanket condemnation of all who adhere to particular religious labels.
I believe the position originally derives from Sam Harris's book "The End of Faith," in which he argues that everyone who describes themselves as...
..."Christian" or "Muslim" bears some measure of responsibility for what extremists who adhere to the same label do. I could not disagree more: one cannot make one individual or group of individuals take responsibility for the actions of those whom they have no direct affiliation with or control over. Harris et al go on to justify their position by stating that what they term religious "moderates" provide cover for the extremists; what utter nonsense. this is tantamount to a...
...teacher in a classroom punishing everyone in that class for what one individual or group of individuals does. It is a very flimsy excuse for setting up ideological/tribalistic barriers between the "atheist/nonadherent" and the "religious," and is patently damaging to the overall situation, since it only serves to alienate those within Christendom or Islam who are as adversely affected by the extremists as anyone else. I ultimately draw the line where position or belief...
...becomes a matter of imposition, and that functions equally with regards to a concerted atheistic stance as it does to those of a religious persuasion. For example, I am personally affiliated with a great many quiet christians; people who do not believe the bible to be literally true, or that their beliefs are fundamental and universally applicable, rather they simply regard Christ as a useful moral figure for their own lives. From what I read of Harris, Dawkins et al, they...
...are as condemning of these as they are of the extremists who preach young earth creationism or who promote violence towards homosexuals. I personally have absolutely no time for that kind of tribalistic, chest beating nonsense, especially since, as already mentioned, it actually fuels a situation which the extremists want: a tribalistic division between the "faithful" and the "apostate."
As for the various atheist "communities" that are currently arising here on YouTube and out in wider culture, I understand why this is happening, particularly in cultures such as the U.S. where particular forms of extreme religion are so culturally and politically dominant, but it is in many ways the worst possible thing that could happen, in that such communities cannot seem to help but develop their own standardised ideologies, their own parameters, their own figureheads and...
...dogmas. This phenomena is certainly in evidence here on YouTube, where we have our own little atheistic tribes accrued around particular figureheads, and people who mindlessly quote the arguments of Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens as if they are holy writ.
Ideally, one's "atheism" should be exactly that: one's own, determined by experience and consideration, not some measure of tribalistic affiliation or self definition. THAT is the situation I would like to see avoided.
@ExaggeratedElegy Ah, I see where the contention is now. Listening to your rants I notice I quite often share a similar perspective. But on this point I must voice disagreement, but only on the grounds that there appears to be some misunderstanding. The message I carried away from Harris's position was not an absolutist or tribal one: namely that all moderates carry responsibility for the actions of a few extremists. Rather, I think his point was that a large subset of moderates stifle our...
@ExaggeratedElegy ...capacity to be necessarily critical of religious texts that play into extremism. According to him, they do this by rationalizing the fundamentalist’s actions by purely environmental, social, or cultural circumstances instead of religious motivations. And since the religious reasons aren’t challenged, he believes that it continues to give extremists “cover” for those beliefs that beget atrocities. I no doubt see from this Harris placing some responsibility to this set...
@ExaggeratedElegy ...of moderates for simply making the problem of fundamentalism that much more difficult to resolve. But that is not a punishable offense, and doing so would be absurd. But I agree on the point that if Harris was charging moderates for the acts of extremists, it would be quite ridiculous and dogmatic. I sure hope that characterization is not true. :D
And thank you very much YouTube for not notifying me that you'd responded! Of course, had I known I'd have responded sooner! I'll be getting back to you with a more fulsome response in due course.
Perhaps its a matter of misunderstanding on my part, but I fail to see the difference in terms of consequence and implication: pared down to its brute core, Harris's position is that those who might be described as religious moderates or incidentally religious should necessarily abandon or put down their belief system, their self description as "Christian" or as "Muslim" or whatever so that the extremists who operate under the same label may be tackled...
...tackled in a more direct fashion. I fail to see how this can be interpreted other than heaping responsibility for the actions of extremists upon the shoulders of moderates, and again, something that I can only profoundly disagree with, no matter how politely it's stated. It seems that the position derives from a desire for the situation to be simpler than it is: if only there were no "moderates," things would be so much easier (and many atheists, particularly here on Youtube...
...go out of their way to make it seem as if there are not). BUt the raw fact of the matter is: there are those who adhere to some notion of biblical or koranic ideology who exhibit no negative or detrimental behaviours with regards to wider humanity whatsoever. I'd even go so far as to say thereare those who use said self description as a basis for great humanity, for personal transcendence etc. This is the situation that must be handled, whether we like it or not: it is the...
....it is the nature of fiction, of mythology, of abstraction and ideology that differing human beings will interpret them differently, and derive different implications therefrom, regardless of what said ideologies specifically state. The same is true of any ideology you care to speak of: take Nietzschen philosophy for example: there are certain proclamations by Nietzsche concerning the status of human beings with, say, mental or physical disabilities that can be interpreted...
...as an implication that the very existence of such human beings is utterly detrimental to the well being of society and our species as a whole. This, of course, requires an ignorance of context and of Nietzschen philosophy as a whole, but it is still a defendable interpretation of his work, which has been deliberately twisted by certain political parties (most notably the Nazis) as a basis for hideous atrocities. Does this necessarily mean that everyone who describes...
...themselves as a Nietzschean philosopher is somehow responsible for what extremists have done in the name of his work? Does it necessarily mean they should abandon their self description as such and their adherence to his philosophies so that critics of those extremists may criticise them more directly? I, personally, think not, yet see little difference between this and what Harris et al propose with regards to religious moderates and extremists. Are there problems with the...
...problems with the scriptures from which both proclaim to derive their morals etc? Absolutely. Are the self proclaimed moderates standing in the way of criticising those scriptural problems as profoundly as Harris et al suggest? Not necessarily. Rather, it's a matter of focussing upon interpretations of the scriptures, i.e. the moronically literal. The raw fact of the matter is the scriptures in question are so varied, so contradictory, one can justify practically any act...
..be they humanitarian or otherwise on their basis. One can therefore only conclude that fault lies with the individual interpretation; what the individual or the group in question CHOOSES to take from the scriptures and act upon, rather than the scriptures themselves, which are largely inert objects; in the manner of parasites, they require living, protean minds to make them anything more.
Not sure if any of that made sense. Feeling rambly today :D
@ExaggeratedElegy Again I appreciate much the lengthy reply George. :D You do not seem rambly to me. As always you make very incisive points, which is why I enjoy your channel. I have to hit the hay right now, but you brought up a really interesting and fresh direction to the conversation I'd like to continue a bit later if I haven't worn it out too much. lol, Thanks again.
Hey there Gerard. What massive...? Oh. Not sure. It just seemed to materialise a couple of weeks back. Not sure what it's doing there. Think it might be some sort of alien life form. The tests are on-going.
The thing with Derren Brown is that he's next to impossible to read; he's massively clever in that regard. He deliberately does things with his face, his voice, his gestures and inflections to throw people off so they can't tell how sincere he is. He is in actor after a sense; he has a fantastic sense of showmanship and can make people engage very deeply, but as to wether or not his tricks are all or primarily performance, I can't tell.
I think electricity may be an appropriate metaphor or example of sorts about invisible forces. It has an undeniable influence on the physical world, it is even complicit in all our brain functions and metabolic functions, but we can't actually see it, we can only measure it, harness it, direct it according to our will and see the heat it generates .
In a so called spiritual level, emotions may have the same effect on our consciousness
I think we all know inherently what we should do according to the reality of our world, sometimes we may rebel against this dynamic knowledge.
I don't think everything comes from the brain or originates from it, i think much like sound waves, some of our actions are influenced by outside or invisible forces ( a feeling ?) , the brain is just the conduit for these forces and we act according to how we feel we should respond.
Sometimes George, I feel I can just sow my lips shut and let you speak for me. (though I am a little too opinionated to ever let that happen haha). Great video.
Would certainly be an interesting subject for a vid. I'd have to say: yes, it's entirely possible for an atheist to believe in an afterlife or continuation of conscious existence after death, simply because the notion is not contingent on the belief in a deity, as various traditional belief systems (e.g. Taoism, certain forms of Buddhism), not to mention personal belief systems attest to.
@ExaggeratedElegy I think that, in modern times, people tend to equate the term "atheist" with one who rejects any and all spiritual or religious beliefs of any kind whatsoever, and as you point out, theism and atheism are simply terms used to illustrate one's position on the existence of one or more Gods. The arguments made by Aristotle on the existence of a soul do not rely on any higher power (i.e. the color green still exists even if a green object has ceased to exist.)
I posted a similar rambling response to TogeatherForPeace asking this question about a year ago. After re-watching it, I think we attacked the question differently, but clearly have about the same opinion of it. This video is quite a worthy add to the YouTube noise on this subject, in my opinion.. :)
Many thanks. I noticed it cropping up alot recently, and was rather surprised to be asked it myself, simply because it is such an odd question. Its implications are, ironically, rather telling of the manner in which the questioner regards ideology, beliefs and standards of truth, i.e. that such things are ultimately utilitarian and matters of conscious choice, rather than being more organic intellectual accruals, which is how I perceive such things. BTW...
..there will be a response to your poetry tag very soon. I actually already recorded a rather extensive response; readings of my own poetry along with some William Blake, finished by a candle light reading of The Raven. Then my computer ate the video >:(
@ExaggeratedElegy I feel for you on the computer losses. For something so amazing, so almost "magical" as computers, there sure seem to be plenty of ways for things to go horribly wrong... I tried to come up with some witty quip about Intelligent Design of computers, but failed pretty badly. I guess I'll just have to allude to such a quip and leave it for the more ingeniously jocular to complete the thought. I do look forward to seeing your next poetry vid, whether it's a tag response or not. ;)
The question is of course an antagonistic one. "Well, what does atheism offer ME? I'm getting something from religion, why should I switch to YOU?" It's essentially an almost capitalistic move, give me something I'll be an atheist. If you can't give some benefit, you are therefore wrong. And since ultimately, I don't see there being a major benefit to either position, the asker will always "win" the argument.
It's the same as any move in an argument. People attack each others position rather than defend their own, a simple and as you might say, fundamentally flawed, move. Why should a belief offer something? I'm not sure I'd get some sense of confidence from believing in a deity than if I said "THERE IS NO GOD!" Basically, ignoring the ideological implication, it's a cheap way of ending an argument.
The question seems to betray a very mercenary approach to choosing what to believe. It implies that evidence to support a belief is secondary to whether you get something out of the belief; be it peace of mind or pleasing promises about an afterlife.
Hehe, "what does it offer"? Atheism simply means a lack of theism, so it's a moronic question. But what do the superstitious wnat to be "offered" then? A thumb to suck, a teddy bear or sleeping pillow like thing, like "the magic jewish space-zombie superman"? Yes, that is what they usually want. I wonder why, though..do their lives suck really hard or something..? Hehe, I'm glad I don't need any moronic superstition/religion anyway, glad that I can cope with reality as described by science.
atheism is not an ideology or a world view, it's a word that is used to cover up the world view that leads to it. if you're a materialist, of course you're an atheist. identifying with the term "atheism" is very convenient, because atheism itself can not be attacked, because it's a non-position. people don't think about their basic philosophical assumptions and world views and that's why they keep misunderstanding each other
social club... I would say that's exactly how I saw church and sunday school when I was very young. I didn't quite get what was going on, other than we had some snacks, did a bit of reading, coloring and story telling and we all played. The message never got to me, just a bunch of stories.
Nice vdeo mate, I found myself agreeing with nearly everything you said whch is very rare on this subject. The part about willam lane craig is 1 billion percent spot on.
greeny202a 11 months ago
To me everything is used to create uniformity the free spirit is dieing out because school,parents,and religion all teach you how you are supposed to be and if you aren't that way you will shunned and made an outcast.
warmonger158 11 months ago
@warmonger158 I think you're right. And that might be a real horror show. It's like the world is a box factory, a large box with a way to reproduce more boxes.
ahauntedhistory 9 months ago
I don't know. That's kind of what makes life worth living though. I have a feeling of some kind of creator but I would never be so arrogant as to say I know what it wants if anything. I do think it is benevolent or at least not a jerk. I've had good and bad happen throughout life but there seems to be a balance.
The thing that really pisses me off about atheists is how they talk down to me "oh, you are not informed." and the like. You admit to your own humanity though and I respect that.
JonesSpirius 1 year ago
You make good points. I screw with my mom all the time. " don't eat beef cows are gods sacrid creatures. Then I pull a fast one "how do you know?" " what if he"s having steak atm" parents are Hindustani. Dad told me to belive what I want to and eat what you want because in the end it comes down to you.
No offence to anybody who belives in god.
crunkinthis 1 year ago
...(cont), That is based on personal experience which I have learned to trust over and above what the scientists are saying (who all oppose also). I watched Steven Hawkins talk the other night about aliens he believes exist in the universe who have long sucker like mouths and lives on the vertical sides of cliffs.....Sure Steven....
Grownuptoys 1 year ago
I love your open mindedness. I've always found that hard core atheists lose their open-mindedness; having as much faith in 'theories' as religionists do in their 'faiths' and both sides being equally agressive to one another's opposing 'BELIEFS!' Because at the end of the day, no-one know's all the answers! Life seems futile, and I think it was set up that way. In my own experiences if someone asked me what I worship or what I believe in, I would say it would be a creator, whom I call 'love'
Grownuptoys 1 year ago
not much time after this lengthy video to comment more but what is your theory or side of where the natural conscience of right and wrong come from? Enjoy your thoughts.
-John
thumtac098 1 year ago
@thumtac098
Right and wrong are a little polaric for my tastes, but with regards to morality, I currently think it is incredinly complex. Fundamentally, I believe it derives from our biology; our natural inclinations as social creatures seem to be the foundations of the empathy that is the seat of morality.
However, homo sapiens as a species is far more than a simple pack or communal entity. Our moral inclinations, as with so many aspects of our characters, have become abstracted into..
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
@thumtac098
...rather baroque structures of ideology, some of which have reasonable, practical application, some of which do not.
I do not believe in Morality with a big "M" that is some universal, external force or state from which morality is derived, nor do I believe there is any intrinsic morality to the universe or reality (certainly not in application to human beings anyway).
At present, I believe human beings determine morality based on an extremely wide variety of factors...
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
@thumtac098
...ranging from the aforementioned natural inclinations, socio-cultural influence and imposition and, most usefully insofar as I'm concerned, critical consideration of situations based upon empathy and imagination. I personally believe that the development of imagination automatically breeds empathy; if one is able to imagine acutely what it is to be this person in this circumstance, one is less likely to bring about or allow that circumstance if it happens to result in...
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
@thumtac098
...suffering or a detriment to human dignity. This is why I would advocate the development of imagination to the Nth degree. But fundaemtnally, I think it's rather difficult to argue against the evidence that morality, at its core. derives from our biology; it is ingrained in us as communal creatures to maintain one another for wider social and individual benefit.
George
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
Is that a TV I see in the background? That wasn't there before! What do you watch? I like documentaries, usually. I don't watch much TV though, and I certainly don't watch movies at all! I like to spend most of my spare time reading like you! Did you get my PM? Have you read it? I'm waiting for your response! Please put up more debate videos like this! You have a dedicated fan here! I want to see more debates, please! Take care, bye.
sripathyakasrip 1 year ago
It´s a terrible question, it implies that atheism is some kind of believe, similar to religion it self, besides, I´m cool with the atheist community but, what kind of bastard gives up his believes in exchange of a benefit. So, if atheism actually offers something, you´ll simply stop believing in God? I respect the atheists, but the behavior described above is just coward.
transfan1988 1 year ago
I can't tell based on this video if you hold the position of lets call it anti- anti-theism for lack of a better term. Do you perceive the actions of dawkins, hitchens etc to be harmful or immoral, either in the sense of what they espouse, televise, or publish, or in the sense of the communities that arise from their fandom? I've heard you express your distaste for anti-theism before and I'm wondering where you draw the line on this one. Very good rant by the way. :D
doedicurus 1 year ago
@doedicurus
I suppose "anti-anti-theism" is a fairly accurate label for my current position on this matter. Though I often agree with many of the points Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris etc espouse, I am also in fundamental disagreement on many factors, most pertinently, their blanket condemnation of all who adhere to particular religious labels.
I believe the position originally derives from Sam Harris's book "The End of Faith," in which he argues that everyone who describes themselves as...
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
@doedicurus
..."Christian" or "Muslim" bears some measure of responsibility for what extremists who adhere to the same label do. I could not disagree more: one cannot make one individual or group of individuals take responsibility for the actions of those whom they have no direct affiliation with or control over. Harris et al go on to justify their position by stating that what they term religious "moderates" provide cover for the extremists; what utter nonsense. this is tantamount to a...
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
@doedicurus
...teacher in a classroom punishing everyone in that class for what one individual or group of individuals does. It is a very flimsy excuse for setting up ideological/tribalistic barriers between the "atheist/nonadherent" and the "religious," and is patently damaging to the overall situation, since it only serves to alienate those within Christendom or Islam who are as adversely affected by the extremists as anyone else. I ultimately draw the line where position or belief...
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
@doedicurus
...becomes a matter of imposition, and that functions equally with regards to a concerted atheistic stance as it does to those of a religious persuasion. For example, I am personally affiliated with a great many quiet christians; people who do not believe the bible to be literally true, or that their beliefs are fundamental and universally applicable, rather they simply regard Christ as a useful moral figure for their own lives. From what I read of Harris, Dawkins et al, they...
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
@doedicurus
...are as condemning of these as they are of the extremists who preach young earth creationism or who promote violence towards homosexuals. I personally have absolutely no time for that kind of tribalistic, chest beating nonsense, especially since, as already mentioned, it actually fuels a situation which the extremists want: a tribalistic division between the "faithful" and the "apostate."
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
@doedicurus
As for the various atheist "communities" that are currently arising here on YouTube and out in wider culture, I understand why this is happening, particularly in cultures such as the U.S. where particular forms of extreme religion are so culturally and politically dominant, but it is in many ways the worst possible thing that could happen, in that such communities cannot seem to help but develop their own standardised ideologies, their own parameters, their own figureheads and...
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
@doedicurus
...dogmas. This phenomena is certainly in evidence here on YouTube, where we have our own little atheistic tribes accrued around particular figureheads, and people who mindlessly quote the arguments of Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens as if they are holy writ.
Ideally, one's "atheism" should be exactly that: one's own, determined by experience and consideration, not some measure of tribalistic affiliation or self definition. THAT is the situation I would like to see avoided.
George
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
@ExaggeratedElegy Ah, I see where the contention is now. Listening to your rants I notice I quite often share a similar perspective. But on this point I must voice disagreement, but only on the grounds that there appears to be some misunderstanding. The message I carried away from Harris's position was not an absolutist or tribal one: namely that all moderates carry responsibility for the actions of a few extremists. Rather, I think his point was that a large subset of moderates stifle our...
doedicurus 1 year ago
@ExaggeratedElegy ...capacity to be necessarily critical of religious texts that play into extremism. According to him, they do this by rationalizing the fundamentalist’s actions by purely environmental, social, or cultural circumstances instead of religious motivations. And since the religious reasons aren’t challenged, he believes that it continues to give extremists “cover” for those beliefs that beget atrocities. I no doubt see from this Harris placing some responsibility to this set...
doedicurus 1 year ago
@ExaggeratedElegy ...of moderates for simply making the problem of fundamentalism that much more difficult to resolve. But that is not a punishable offense, and doing so would be absurd. But I agree on the point that if Harris was charging moderates for the acts of extremists, it would be quite ridiculous and dogmatic. I sure hope that characterization is not true. :D
-Richard
doedicurus 1 year ago
@doedicurus
Hey there Richard,
And thank you very much YouTube for not notifying me that you'd responded! Of course, had I known I'd have responded sooner! I'll be getting back to you with a more fulsome response in due course.
Regards,
George
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
@ExaggeratedElegy : D
doedicurus 1 year ago
@doedicurus
Hey there Richard,
Perhaps its a matter of misunderstanding on my part, but I fail to see the difference in terms of consequence and implication: pared down to its brute core, Harris's position is that those who might be described as religious moderates or incidentally religious should necessarily abandon or put down their belief system, their self description as "Christian" or as "Muslim" or whatever so that the extremists who operate under the same label may be tackled...
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
@doedicurus
...tackled in a more direct fashion. I fail to see how this can be interpreted other than heaping responsibility for the actions of extremists upon the shoulders of moderates, and again, something that I can only profoundly disagree with, no matter how politely it's stated. It seems that the position derives from a desire for the situation to be simpler than it is: if only there were no "moderates," things would be so much easier (and many atheists, particularly here on Youtube...
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
@doedicurus
...go out of their way to make it seem as if there are not). BUt the raw fact of the matter is: there are those who adhere to some notion of biblical or koranic ideology who exhibit no negative or detrimental behaviours with regards to wider humanity whatsoever. I'd even go so far as to say thereare those who use said self description as a basis for great humanity, for personal transcendence etc. This is the situation that must be handled, whether we like it or not: it is the...
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
@doedicurus
....it is the nature of fiction, of mythology, of abstraction and ideology that differing human beings will interpret them differently, and derive different implications therefrom, regardless of what said ideologies specifically state. The same is true of any ideology you care to speak of: take Nietzschen philosophy for example: there are certain proclamations by Nietzsche concerning the status of human beings with, say, mental or physical disabilities that can be interpreted...
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
@doedicurus
...as an implication that the very existence of such human beings is utterly detrimental to the well being of society and our species as a whole. This, of course, requires an ignorance of context and of Nietzschen philosophy as a whole, but it is still a defendable interpretation of his work, which has been deliberately twisted by certain political parties (most notably the Nazis) as a basis for hideous atrocities. Does this necessarily mean that everyone who describes...
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
@doedicurus
...themselves as a Nietzschean philosopher is somehow responsible for what extremists have done in the name of his work? Does it necessarily mean they should abandon their self description as such and their adherence to his philosophies so that critics of those extremists may criticise them more directly? I, personally, think not, yet see little difference between this and what Harris et al propose with regards to religious moderates and extremists. Are there problems with the...
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
@doedicurus
...problems with the scriptures from which both proclaim to derive their morals etc? Absolutely. Are the self proclaimed moderates standing in the way of criticising those scriptural problems as profoundly as Harris et al suggest? Not necessarily. Rather, it's a matter of focussing upon interpretations of the scriptures, i.e. the moronically literal. The raw fact of the matter is the scriptures in question are so varied, so contradictory, one can justify practically any act...
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
@doedicurus
..be they humanitarian or otherwise on their basis. One can therefore only conclude that fault lies with the individual interpretation; what the individual or the group in question CHOOSES to take from the scriptures and act upon, rather than the scriptures themselves, which are largely inert objects; in the manner of parasites, they require living, protean minds to make them anything more.
Not sure if any of that made sense. Feeling rambly today :D
Regards,
George
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
@ExaggeratedElegy Again I appreciate much the lengthy reply George. :D You do not seem rambly to me. As always you make very incisive points, which is why I enjoy your channel. I have to hit the hay right now, but you brought up a really interesting and fresh direction to the conversation I'd like to continue a bit later if I haven't worn it out too much. lol, Thanks again.
-Richard
doedicurus 1 year ago
An interesting question that came into my mind whilst watching this was: ... Where did that massive TV came from in the background?
WolfKang1 1 year ago
@WolfKang1
Hey there Gerard. What massive...? Oh. Not sure. It just seemed to materialise a couple of weeks back. Not sure what it's doing there. Think it might be some sort of alien life form. The tests are on-going.
George
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
The big bang was obviously caused by Azathoth.
jiidee 1 year ago
@jiidee
Blasphemer! Shub-Niggurath will devour your soul!
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
i like where you're at.
TWITfromURANUS 1 year ago
i hope Darren Brown's not an actor ...it would make his lottery tips useless
DingoBabyEat 1 year ago
@DingoBabyEat
The thing with Derren Brown is that he's next to impossible to read; he's massively clever in that regard. He deliberately does things with his face, his voice, his gestures and inflections to throw people off so they can't tell how sincere he is. He is in actor after a sense; he has a fantastic sense of showmanship and can make people engage very deeply, but as to wether or not his tricks are all or primarily performance, I can't tell.
George
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
I think electricity may be an appropriate metaphor or example of sorts about invisible forces. It has an undeniable influence on the physical world, it is even complicit in all our brain functions and metabolic functions, but we can't actually see it, we can only measure it, harness it, direct it according to our will and see the heat it generates .
In a so called spiritual level, emotions may have the same effect on our consciousness
jvforever72 1 year ago
I think we all know inherently what we should do according to the reality of our world, sometimes we may rebel against this dynamic knowledge.
I don't think everything comes from the brain or originates from it, i think much like sound waves, some of our actions are influenced by outside or invisible forces ( a feeling ?) , the brain is just the conduit for these forces and we act according to how we feel we should respond.
jvforever72 1 year ago
Sometimes George, I feel I can just sow my lips shut and let you speak for me. (though I am a little too opinionated to ever let that happen haha). Great video.
GrimJim8000 1 year ago
@ExaggeratedElegy
Great video. One question I've had in my head for a while which I think you should do a video on is:
Can an atheist, who by definition simply lacks a belief in a God or higher power, believe in an afterlife? What would be your opinion on that?
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver
Hey there JRserver,
Would certainly be an interesting subject for a vid. I'd have to say: yes, it's entirely possible for an atheist to believe in an afterlife or continuation of conscious existence after death, simply because the notion is not contingent on the belief in a deity, as various traditional belief systems (e.g. Taoism, certain forms of Buddhism), not to mention personal belief systems attest to.
George
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
@ExaggeratedElegy I think that, in modern times, people tend to equate the term "atheist" with one who rejects any and all spiritual or religious beliefs of any kind whatsoever, and as you point out, theism and atheism are simply terms used to illustrate one's position on the existence of one or more Gods. The arguments made by Aristotle on the existence of a soul do not rely on any higher power (i.e. the color green still exists even if a green object has ceased to exist.)
JRserver 1 year ago
I posted a similar rambling response to TogeatherForPeace asking this question about a year ago. After re-watching it, I think we attacked the question differently, but clearly have about the same opinion of it. This video is quite a worthy add to the YouTube noise on this subject, in my opinion.. :)
renegade4dio 1 year ago
@renegade4dio
Hey there Renegade,
Many thanks. I noticed it cropping up alot recently, and was rather surprised to be asked it myself, simply because it is such an odd question. Its implications are, ironically, rather telling of the manner in which the questioner regards ideology, beliefs and standards of truth, i.e. that such things are ultimately utilitarian and matters of conscious choice, rather than being more organic intellectual accruals, which is how I perceive such things. BTW...
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
@renegade4dio
..there will be a response to your poetry tag very soon. I actually already recorded a rather extensive response; readings of my own poetry along with some William Blake, finished by a candle light reading of The Raven. Then my computer ate the video >:(
Still, I shall persevere!
George
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
@ExaggeratedElegy
The Raven is UBER! I take it you've heard Christopher Walken's reading of The Raven? It's amazing, you'll have to get your version up asap :D
RazorShultzor 1 year ago
@ExaggeratedElegy I feel for you on the computer losses. For something so amazing, so almost "magical" as computers, there sure seem to be plenty of ways for things to go horribly wrong... I tried to come up with some witty quip about Intelligent Design of computers, but failed pretty badly. I guess I'll just have to allude to such a quip and leave it for the more ingeniously jocular to complete the thought. I do look forward to seeing your next poetry vid, whether it's a tag response or not. ;)
renegade4dio 1 year ago
You can believe in whatever makes you happy or you can believe in the truth, you can't do both.
Jordellfreshbreeze 1 year ago
@Jordellfreshbreeze
I think everyone chooses the first. If not what makes them happy, then what they're most comfortable with
GWolfV3 1 year ago
The question is of course an antagonistic one. "Well, what does atheism offer ME? I'm getting something from religion, why should I switch to YOU?" It's essentially an almost capitalistic move, give me something I'll be an atheist. If you can't give some benefit, you are therefore wrong. And since ultimately, I don't see there being a major benefit to either position, the asker will always "win" the argument.
GWolfV3 1 year ago
It's the same as any move in an argument. People attack each others position rather than defend their own, a simple and as you might say, fundamentally flawed, move. Why should a belief offer something? I'm not sure I'd get some sense of confidence from believing in a deity than if I said "THERE IS NO GOD!" Basically, ignoring the ideological implication, it's a cheap way of ending an argument.
GWolfV3 1 year ago
I can imagine people advertising atheism. Lol
Tag line: Atheism, because you're worth it.
rockerwere 1 year ago
@rockerwere more like "Atheism, because you're worthless!"
Interesting vid EE!
mothartrucker 1 year ago
@mothartrucker
LOL!
"Atheism, because God's worthless" =P
rockerwere 1 year ago
The question seems to betray a very mercenary approach to choosing what to believe. It implies that evidence to support a belief is secondary to whether you get something out of the belief; be it peace of mind or pleasing promises about an afterlife.
AleximusMaximus 1 year ago
Hehe, "what does it offer"? Atheism simply means a lack of theism, so it's a moronic question. But what do the superstitious wnat to be "offered" then? A thumb to suck, a teddy bear or sleeping pillow like thing, like "the magic jewish space-zombie superman"? Yes, that is what they usually want. I wonder why, though..do their lives suck really hard or something..? Hehe, I'm glad I don't need any moronic superstition/religion anyway, glad that I can cope with reality as described by science.
winterstellar 1 year ago
atheism is not an ideology or a world view, it's a word that is used to cover up the world view that leads to it. if you're a materialist, of course you're an atheist. identifying with the term "atheism" is very convenient, because atheism itself can not be attacked, because it's a non-position. people don't think about their basic philosophical assumptions and world views and that's why they keep misunderstanding each other
GeistWerk 1 year ago
osho does a good and simple refutation of that bullshit cosmological argument
watch?v=31WdaBusl2Q
GeistWerk 1 year ago
social club... I would say that's exactly how I saw church and sunday school when I was very young. I didn't quite get what was going on, other than we had some snacks, did a bit of reading, coloring and story telling and we all played. The message never got to me, just a bunch of stories.
excellent video
tattooskin72 1 year ago
We receive a free book and brand new book bag just like a book club.
ScaperSteph 1 year ago
wait I was told if I recruited x number I would get a free toaster oven... you mean I don't? ;) Great explanation George!
nelliediddle 1 year ago
Like Dhorpatan said, "you don't get anything from a negation."
JoakimfromAnka 1 year ago
porn and shit tonnes of it XD
darthslain 1 year ago
HELL.
TheFreedomWatch 1 year ago
@TheFreedomWatch
Yay!
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago