@jjason55740 Have you had someone spit in your face and water bottle because you were an atheist, or because you were instigating a fight? Just curious.
PS - I think that you are conflating extremism and atheism wrongly. It is very hard to have a militant non-belief, despite what many theists say. Atheists can be passionate about the injustice they see caused by religion - who would not be angry with 9/11? I've never heard of an atheist suicide bomber, however, and I doubt many atheists would kill for a lack of belief in God.
@TheBikermanUK I disagree with you. I think that many people even call themselves militant atheists because they militantly oppose any religion, and think that the worshipers should not be allowed to worship due to what they see as the destructive nature of religion. This is a belief that could easily escalate into violence the same way that any bigoted belief could escalate into violence.
@starfleetofficer1 OK, here's a challenge for you. Find me a 'militant atheist' who says that worshippers should be prevented from worshipping. I know a great many atheists (we have many more here in Europe) and I don't know a single one that would advocate banning religion or restricting people from worship. Neither do the famous atheists you probably know - Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Chistopher Hitchens. Most atheists I know believe, as I do, in freedom of expression, including belief.
@TheBikermanUK Just go read the comments. There were a few who said, "The reason why we're angry is because you're WRONG! And people shouldn't be allowed to say stupid things!" Read the comments here and the comments on the Angry Atheist video too.
@starfleetofficer1 But I think it is a mistake to generalise from comments made on particular topics on a social networking site. It is a self-selecting sample which is unlikely to be representative, so any general conclusions are suspect. Nonetheless I still haven't seen any example of someone killing because they didn't believe in God.....
@TheBikermanUK You haven't? What about the Chinese government, who has banned religion, who have killed approximately 3000 Christians in the past decade just for being Christian? You can Google that, and it pops up all over the place. Multiple sources confirm that the death toll is in the thousands. Want more examples? Or will you now argue that Christians have killed more than atheists? Because that is hardly justification for killing Christians...
@starfleetofficer1 But that wasn't done in the name of atheism, it was done because of rigid belief in another doctrine - Marxism. The argument about who has killed more people is not really interesting, since it tells us little. I don't, for example, hold Catholicism responsible for Hitler's killings, even though he was a catholic. I think the same applies to Stalin, Mao and others - they just happened to be atheists.
@TheBikermanUK By the way, the Chinese government isn't very Marxist anymore, considering its economic strategies that it employs. It would be better to call it Socialist, since the government supports and controls the flow of money. So if anything, it's done in the name of Socialism. There are other Socialist countries, mostly in Europe, who do not kill Christians. And the Chinese government is not killing atheists for being atheists but they are killing Christians for being Christians.
@starfleetofficer1 I thought we were talking about Mao. If you want to talk about modern china then, yes, it is no longer a marxist regime. Sure, they kill Christians (and others), but the point is - as you yourself point out - that it isn't done in the name of atheism. Most of Europe is pretty secular but we don't see Christians being targetted. China represses religion for the same reason it represses trade unions - it enourages loyalty to bodies other than government. Atheism doesn't figure.
Respond to this video...If my tone appears "angry", I apologize. That is not my intention. My intention *is* to come across as forcefully and firmly disagreeing with your comment--I have not generalized from comments made on this site, I have generalized from what I have read, seen, and heard. My video was asking the question "why". That you brought up killing tells me that you believe atheists are more moralistic than Christians. I believe this to be inherently false.
@starfleetofficer1 No, I don't make that generalisation. I would say that atheism doesn't inspire evil in the same way that religion frequently does, but that isn't saying that religion is, per se, immoral.
@TheBikermanUK I would say we have a fundamental disagreement. I think that religion does not frequently inspire evil nearly as much as atheism does for the simple reason that most religions come with morality, therefore most people in those religions are striving toward (and failing, of course, as we are all human) morality. Atheism doesn't inspire anything except challenging what you perceive as the status quo, so you challenge morality more than you adhere to it.
@starfleetofficer1 But the evidence is clear - check any syatistic you like - marriage breakup, prison sentences, teenage pregnancy....you name it. Then compare the number of atheists with the number of religious, and standardise for population (the US is, according to a reasonable estimate, 8% atheist) and I think you might be surprised to find that atheists generally do better than theists....
@TheBikermanUK That's just completely false. Recent studies show the exact opposite, that the key to a healthy marriage is faith. Survival experts, like Ben Sherwood, have written books on the subject and cite faith, among other factors, as key to surviving life's rough spots as well as extraordinary challenges. The media likes to ignore the actual facts and find the isolated incidents that condemn religion, but you should look into the actual research.
@starfleetofficer1 Hold on. I don't make false claims. The atheist prison population of the US is 0.209%. That is about 40 times less than it should be, given an 8% atheist rate in the general population.
I'll work the stats out for the others later.
If you don't believe the figures, check them, but don't quote anecdotes because that shows nothing.
@TheBikermanUK PS - that previous study was a bit old (1999). There is a newer one (2008) but it shows the same pattern - atheist divorce rates lower than born again Christians, non-born-again Christians and other religious.
PPS - the survey is done by a religious organisation, so it isn't atheist bias :-)
@TheBikermanUK Besides, you are doing what every other atheist has done in conversation with me. You present an argument, I counter it, you change the subject slightly, I counter your new argument, you change the subject again. To backtrack, you started on stating that you had never heard of a militant/violent atheist. I gave you examples of the Chinese atheists who kill Christians for their Christianity. You say you don't know atheists who ban people from worship. (cont)
@starfleetofficer1 I cite those here and in China again who would ban or do ban Christians from worship. Then you say that who killed more doesn't actually matter (even though you brought it up). Then you say that religion frequently inspires evil, and I say that religion inspires morality even if its worshipers fail at it, while atheism doesn't inspire anything but questioning the status quo, which frequently leads to violence (like OWS)...(cont)
@starfleetofficer1 and you say check statistics that will prove your point, which are just completely false because there are TONS of statistics (check the spelling of "statistics" btw) that will prove my point, mostly done by prominent experts in survival, marriage, and social studies, and NOT done by left-wing professors in universities who purposely fudge their data and write their papers in a biased manner. You will likely come back with something entirely new and different. (cont)
@starfleetofficer1 If you want to have an actual discussion, why don't you pick a topic and stick to it? What is it you are trying to say? You are always on the attack and I am always on the defense (have you noticed)? Until now, when I have actually stepped up and decided to "attack" your method of attack. I want to know what it is that you are trying to prove. Anything? Or are you just throwing everything but the kitchen sink that you can think of, to argue against religion?
@starfleetofficer1 Please show me these statistics then. The statistics I referenced are from the Barna group - an influential evangelical Christian group well known for their surveys and used by many many Churches in the US - hardly a 'left wing professor'. The 'fudge' and 'biased' comment is just ad-hominem.
Have you noticed that I am not angry and you are? That's sort of the whole point really....
@TheBikermanUK Second of all, your statistics are probably not even statistically significant. Have you ever heard of this? Statistical significance states that when two statistics are close together, the significance is negligible. 27, 21, 24, these numbers are all very close. I don't even know what the sample size for that study was. As for my statistics...(cont)
@starfleetofficer1 ...there are a TON on this page alone that support the fact that religious people are healthier godandscience . org / apologetics / religionhealth . html. This study talks about how leaving religion is bad for health christianpost . com / news / study-leaving-religion-may-be-bad-for-health-46914 /. This study suggests that religion is linked to health: sciencedaily . com / releases / 2007 / 10 / 071023104134 . (cont)
@starfleetofficer1 This one suggests similarly that religion, health, and marriage are all linked: onlinelibrary . wiley . com / doi / 10 . 1111 / j . 1728-4457 . 2003 . 00255 . x / abstract. This one talks about longevity and religion: biomedgerontology . oxfordjournals . org / content / 54 / 7 / M370 . short. (cont)
@starfleetofficer1 And finally, my favorite one, in survival expert Ben Sherwood's "The Survivor's Club", he states "Faith is the most powerful and universal survival tool. In a crisis, faith gives you remarkable power and confidence to prevail." It doesn't matter whether God exists or not, Sherwood suggests in his book, His healing power in the minds of the believers is undeniable. Atheism does not inherently give you any hope. Religion does.
@starfleetofficer1 By this argument you may as well be Muslim or Hindu since, as you say, it doesn't actually matter if God exists or not. Taking cocaine will make you feel powerful and confident. That is not a good reason to do it. Since each religion makes similar claims to truth, then it follows that the vast majority are wrong, since their 'truths' are exlusive. Should one believe something that is wrong, simply because it has positive physiological effects?
@starfleetofficer1 This is all a red-herring. I never mentioned health. The point under discussion was whether atheists were more or less moral than theists. Showing that theists live longer, or have better health, whilst nice for theists, says absolutely nothing about morality.
@TheBikermanUK Actually, you did allude to it quite clearly. @starfleetofficer1 But the evidence is clear - check any syatistic you like - marriage breakup, prison sentences, teenage pregnancy....you name it. Then compare the number of atheists with the number of religious, and standardise for population (the US is, according to a reasonable estimate, 8% atheist) and I think you might be surprised to find that atheists generally do better than theists....
The point of the discussion was not whether atheism leads to more or less morality, but a better quality lifestyle. And you stated that no one ever killed because of a lack of belief in Gods. I disagree. I think that a lack in belief in Gods, when it enters the government and becomes mandatory, has been shown time and again in history to lead to killing people who do believe in God. Atheism is not an exception to the rule--it is still a belief, and therefore susceptible to leaders' folly.
@starfleetofficer1 I said that I have never heard of anyone who killed because of a lack of belief in Gods. You didn't counter it, you simply chose to answer a different question. Mao didn't kill millions because he was an atheist, he did it because he was a believer in Marxism - every bit as fervently as any religious believer.
@TheBikermanUK Okay, first of all, one of the main tenants of Marxism is that there is no God, that the government provides all you need, and you have no need for God. Even if it wasn't, Marxism singled out people of religion specifically in killings, therefore they DID kill because of their atheism. They didn't specifically kill atheists because of atheism.
@starfleetofficer1 This is a terrible argument. Atheism isn't one of the main tennets of marxism - it is absolutely possible to have a religious communist society - in fact many of the early Christian sects were communist and we have the Hutterites, the Shakers, the Society of Friends....etc. It was Lenin that brought the anti-religious emphasis to marxism and it is in Maxist-Leninist states that were avoidely anti-religious - not because they were atheist, but because they were Marxist-Leninist
@TheBikermanUK Correction, many of the early Christian sects were run like charities and had no economy, therefore could not be communist, socialist, capitalist, or anything else. Donations are not the same as mandatory taxes. Government is not charity and charity cannot be government. There have been no religious communist societies because when members donate either a penny or whatever they have, they have chosen to do so. A communist society can only work with an overarching authority.
@starfleetofficer1 Err...what? Where do you get this stuff? Of course they had economies. I suggest you read Kreissig or Horsley. Communism doesn't require an overarching authority - the whole point is that authority comes from the people. Now, of course, states which have called themselves communist HAVE been authoritarian, but it is perfectly possible to conceive of states which are communist and have no over-arching authority.
@TheBikermanUK There is no such thing as a society without an overarching authority, either a republic or an oligarchy. Communism requires an oligarchy to work, because a republic requires individualism and the ability to form individual wealth in order to work. An economy of communism works only when the citizens are not able, under the law, to freely accumulate wealth because, as we have found with recent studies, the accumulation of wealth is human nature.
@TheBikermanUK Of course. You start with Ori Friedman's study that appeared in Science News that indicated that capitalism was innate. You can also look into the RealClearMarkets article by Mark Hunter that outlined why attacking capitalism is akin to attacking human nature (though not a study, it does a very good job of proving its point). There are others, if you are interested. If you agree once you explore these, do you admit I am right that atheism is just as likely to produce genocide?
@starfleetofficer1 Because, of course, atheism is a belief system and when a belief system becomes the governance of law, it falls into the same fallacy that any other oligarchy would? And that communism is the best vehicle through which to push atheism because it insists that you cannot have an individual idea of who rules over you, since the state must be your overarching authority? You cannot have a personal God under communism, since it directly goes against its philosophy?
And it is a main tenant of Marxism--the entire idea of having a God means that your rights come from something greater than humans, which means that each individual is uniquely created, which means that someone may earn more than another, which is the opposite of Marxism, where everyone is equal under the government, which decides who gets what (according to what they presume is your need). If Someone Else determines your need, you have no need for the government.
@starfleetofficer1 Marxism doesn't propose a government at all. It is Leninism that requires the 'vanguard party' acting 'in the name of the workers'.
@TheBikermanUK Point to me a stable society without an overarching authority of some sort. Go ahead, attempt to find one. I assure you, there is no society in existence, nor has there ever been a society in existence, that is run without an overarching authority. There are 2 kinds of societies--oligarchy, and republic. In an oligarchy, the many are controlled by the few. In a republic, the government is run by the people. There is a comprehensive video about this here: /watch?v=uIcOfu6Udec
The thing is that when atheists debate christians we know what is coming - the resort to faith. We cannot go there, so the argument is then moot. Because this is all so predictable we sometimes get a bit narky, though there is no excuse for someone calling you an idiot - you are clearly an intelligent young man.
@TheBikermanUK Thank you. I wish more people would choose their words carefully. Sometimes we resort to name-calling because we have no better argument. But my original point was, if you are not trying to evangelize anyone into being an atheist, why bother arguing at all? Why not just be of the mindset that others have beliefs and as long as they don't force you to believe those things, let them alone?
@starfleetofficer1 OK, fair question. To answer here would take too many characters, so I've put a video answer up. If you click my link, the video is called
My dad is an atheist (I am Jewish) and is a true atheist. He doesn't care what others think about G-d. He just does not believe. I have found many You Tube Atheists to be "evangelical" in their approach and actually tend to base their atheism on what they view as their own intellectual superiority. I have only met 1 or 2 people on You Tube that I consider to be true atheists. The rest are these "evangelical" types which have inflated egos and think they are right 100% of the time.
Quite generally many people seem to experience a subjective "sudden insight" at some point, and this "knowing the truth" gives them a feeling of security and superiority - all the stronger if shared by others, e.g. as in political movements. Dictatorships then sanction possible doubts by all kinds of intimidation and group pressure ("Do not foul your own nest"), thereby discouraging most people from open opposition.
I hope you forgive my "digression" to politics ;-)
But one must always be aware that one's own "certainties" might sometimes need some correction as well ;-)
Btw, looking on your page I understood your username - you are blind, and obviously very bright and proud as well. My honest respect - and that's not meant patronizing at all!
@eltamin1966 My "certainties" are ever changing in some respects and in others, they don't change. I keep an open mind and on my mothers side come from several scientists, professors,doctors, lawyers etc and had a strong science background at the Yeshiva (Jewish school) I went to. I don't have all the answers about either science or religion but I don't think they are mutually exclusive but my views on both are evolving as I evolve and grow in my learning of both science and religion.
@DarkQuietWyattON You're part of a long Jewish intellectual tradition. I got a friendly attitude towards the Jews from my parents, btw we are of Lutheran-Christian descent. I still remember my enthusiastic dad after the successful Entebbe operation in 1976, and he often said Germany lost a lot with the Jews gone. It's really very sad and absurd that this arrogant fanatic Hitler could gain so much power. Key political figures - blinded by nationalism - totally misjudged his dangerousness.
@DarkQuietWyattON And his luck: There was Elser's plot to kill Hitler on his annual Munich speech in November 1939. Normally Hitler spoke till 22:00, but on that evening fog prevented a fly back to Berlin and so he left 21:07 to take the night train - the bomb devastatingly went off 21:20. 13 minutes! Without the fanatic Hitler on top - obsessed by the idea of Jewish world conspiracy - probably nobody would have set the Holocaust in motion.
As you said, that's a little extreme.The point is that atheists believe,or at least I do, that my views are supported by physical evidence and reasoned logic,and that of course,Christianity is not. The fact that beliefs inform actions is motivation for me and other atheists to at least respond to theistic preaching and/or augments on youtube.I imagine that is why many make youtube videos on the subject,and I believe it is a valid justification especially considering plentiful christian preaching
One thing that does get in the way is the religious perception that atheism is an assertion when it is the exact opposite to an assertion. It is not a definition of a position, it is the label for the group of thing a person is not. An atheist may also not be pedophile, a murderer, a rapist.Atheism has nothing to defend and therefore nothing get excited about - I quite like your definition of evangelical atheist if even it only refers to the behaviour.
@MilitantPeaceist I'm actually talking to an atheist right now who has been trying to convert me to his position for several weeks. I made the assertion that an atheist SHOULD, by definition, have no stake in whether or not others believe in God(s) because they come from a constructionist, Occam's Razor point of view where they cannot prove God exists, so they don't believe in him. Instead, he comes from a deconstructionist point of view (everyone else is wrong), which makes him angry.
The actual term is deconvert - atheist is like a default position of no religious faith. This does not mean humans do not use faith intrinsicly, I know the human mind needs it, so no-one ever gets converted to atheism as much as the behaviour imitaes it, the behaviour only imitates a fresh awareness or philosophy >> proseltysing & what you said b4, evangelical, save the world mindset!
But may I add another concept here. Often due to atheism not being an assertion, most debates will end up with the atheist oinly on the attack, defending only shadow dragons as there is no positive position for a religious person to argue against thus causing maximun frustration. It really is a futile discussion unless you have 2 tollerable opponants!
You are such an intelligent human, well done for taking the unbias time to get to this point from your philisophical angle. From my atheist angle I have put it down to freshly converted, &/or deconverted in an atheist POV, zest to share and justify their new position. I call it the anti-theist touch. A moderate atheist is still quite liberal minded incl freedom of thought, Dogma is the only monster that want's to control your mind, religious or not!
I am German. Trust me when I tell you I am an expert at understanding how total control of the mind and the masses works. In his famous book 'Mein Kampf' Adolf Hitler wrote how he would achieve it and what he needed for it. He emphasized the importance of religion to the mindset of a human. The religiously conditioned brain would have in it the authoritarian structure he needed to achieve total submission of the individual to his rule without question- also known as faith.
@MWcrazyhorse Did it ever occur to you that if you had been born in a different place, where you didn't have access to the Internet or to anyone else with atheist beliefs, that you would have fallen into the same "trap" that you are accusing those who live as Christians of falling into? My faith is something that I reasoned out, something I spent a great deal on. I was once agnostic, and it is by reason that I am Christian--if you're interested in my reasoning, PM me.
you say you don't have faith, instead you have evidence to believe. even hardcore fundamentalists admit they have faith and cannot prove anything.
so Hitler was just lucky in finding the right trigger yes? did you ever ask yourself why 75 million indians were killed? over 50 million died in ww2 etc. etc. yes? no? this is the essence of your question. I provided you the answer. authoritarian mindset.
@MWcrazyhorse Yes, of course, let's get rid of all religion. That's free thought, right there. *sarcasm* Think about what you're saying. My point is that it's only when some crazy big-government whacko like Hitler or Stalin or Amhadenijad (spelling?) gets in power that they push the right button to kill people. You're giving examples when the government was "Christian." I can give you examples of the atheist Communist governments killing hundreds of millions.
@starfleetofficer1 it isn't about who is christian or muslim or commie or the biggest mass murderer. I thought I made that clear. do I need to repeat myself?
@MWcrazyhorse In my PM to you, I explained this position but I'll explain it briefly here. Faith is not what causes the killing, nor is religion. It is only the human, the flawed, imperfect, hopeless human, who does the killing. People kill for much less than their religion. If we abolished all things that could cause killing, we'd all be living wrapped up in bubble wrap so we couldn't hurt each other.
@MWcrazyhorse Well, a ship in the harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for. I have a very different view of life. I believe bubble wrap exists just to pop the bubbles.
@starfleetofficer1 again to iterate my point to you so you understand. it isn't about being christian or muslim or communist or facist. it is about the dogma. it is about the mindset. the submission to a superior power, an ideology, a supreme leader, a god, an authoritarian structure of thinking with the supposedly infallible truth at its peak.
right or wrong, god or no god. you will tell me god is infallible. that is the indication of the structure in your mind, that is the frame.
@MWcrazyhorse But what's to say that the structure of your mind isn't just as rigid? If you are unwilling to entertain the possibility that I might be right? I am willing to entertain the possibility that you might be right, and that's why I respect your right to your own beliefs. Most conflicts on Earth are caused by big government controlling the masses, not a mass of people trying to kill others who don't agree with them.
@starfleetofficer1 it isn't about right or wrong. have you begun watching the video series I sent you? the person you mentioned in your video may have become angry and hateful towards christians. and these emotions if nurtured can also lead him to resort to violence, so far I have not heard of incidents of an atheist harming a christian however, so I don't see how calling this particular person a radical serves any purpose or is accurate. hate crimes are different alltogether.
@MWcrazyhorse They're not different psychologically, just a different name for the same mechanism. Look at China if you want examples of atheists harming Christians. Plenty of other examples, too. I watched the whole video series and responded to your comment below. And it is about "right" and "wrong" so long as you believe it is "wrong" to nurture hate. Religious views don't nurture hate, opinions about others' religious views do.
Except for anyone that does not conform with ones religious cutural demographic ideal. I am transgender and the only reason why my gender is not only not recognised, but still wrongly hidden as a mental illness is due to religion interfering with secular philosophy. Many cultures had more than 2 genders and a different gender/sex structure. Dogma forces me to live under the radar!
@MilitantPeaceist I am a Christian and I read up on transgenderism and learned that current science points to individuals who have the "opposite gender's" brain structure from the time they are in the womb. This means that it is not a sin, quite obviously, and anyone who thinks it is just hasn't read the science. Fetuses cannot sin, as they cannot choose. Indeed, even if it started when one was a newborn, it wouldn't be a sin as a baby can't choose until he's about 2 yrs old.
And it is people like you that logically prevent me from being dogmatic in reaction to the overall treatment I get. I feel no need to argue against what I feel is the concept of God but only with people that will not take it personally, otherwise it is to protect my safety and right to happiness generally from bigoted religious people as you would bigoted atheist and other religious bigots. We have more in common than we don't ;) Peace 8))
@MilitantPeaceist We do indeed. It's people like you that give me hope that all points of view of the world, provided they're not violent or threatening to others' well-being, deserve respect. And also that all people who don't wish to harm each other can live together peacefully, and accept that they think differently but tolerate each other. I made a video about tolerance and how important it is--you might want to check it out.
I've done more than that, ya got me 8))))) And I will check it out and i will prolly agree with everything you say but from my angle. And yeah, I am all for peace and diversity 8) I feel sometimes my personal values are closer to jesus than some Christians, lolololol, in fact alot of those charletons act like the very Pharsies that Jesus woed about LMAO! I am hard on the clergy!
@MilitantPeaceist haha, you're right! Most Christians that get any press are the ones saying stupid things like, "Haiti brought this earthquake on themselves!" *facepalm* Congrats for being a reasonable human being--there aren't many of you out there, regardless of religious preference, and so it's a high honor to know you belong to a small club.
There are quite a few of us, one guy to check out is Gothafunk, he is such a nice & good person, it hurts, lol.
HAHAHAHAHA we are both blown out someone else respects something that they are not - LMAO, I had the same response from a muslim the other day, they were dumb struck, lol, it's so cute hehehehe I know how it feels. It's a good thing!
But I can be a bitch, TG = god reversed my periods too ;)
There are quite a few of us, one guy to check out is Gothafunk, he is such a nice & good person, it hurts, lol.
HAHAHAHAHA we are both blown out someone else respects something that they are not - LMAO, I had the same response from a muslim the other day, they were dumb struck, lol, it's so cute hehehehe I know how it feels. It's a good thing!
But I can be a bitch, TG = god reversed my periods too ;)
@MilitantPeaceist I think it's unfortunate that you've encountered hate in the Christian faith for your gender identity. You've probably encountered hate among political conservatives as well. Don't lose hope in all of conservative Christian humanity, though. I'm proof that you can be conservative and Christian and accept other gender identities, and there are plenty of others like me--they just don't get any press coverage.
@starfleetofficer1 that is the fascinating bit!! taking the example of Naziism, Hitler didn't enforce or write any of the laws damming the Jews the upcomming Genocide. The apparatus of Judges and clerks and Gestapo worked entirely on their own towards this genocide. Hitler had just planted the seed by warning of the 'zionist conspiracy to rule the world' (aka today: NWO) the propaganda machinery was running and the clerks obeyed its will. no need for a government to do the dirty work from there.
@MWcrazyhorse But you should consider the possibility that you simply have come to a different conclusion than other people, and that it isn't right to tout your beliefs around as "absolute truth" and to make excuses for rude people, saying that they were just 'frustrated' after debating those who disagreed with them. Would you give me that leeway if I were to preach to you?
@starfleetofficer1 you say you were agnostic and reasoned it out. here is someone who reasoned it out. I am interested to know were you think his knowledge and logic is flawed.
@MWcrazyhorse I've watched the series, and we came to many of the same conclusions. It comes down to this: he and I both agree that you cannot prove there is a God, and that all things can be explained without God. For him, that was enough to stop worshiping God. For me, it was not, because I understand that it's God's *point* that we cannot prove His existence. Ever. But I respect Evid3nc3's logic and reason, and I think he is an exceptionally calm, reasonable individual.
@starfleetofficer1 glad to hear you watched the series (hope you didn't just skip to the end, lol). I find it the most compelling summary of what atheists 'believe' (rather what they do not believe) and why (not). I have reffered christians to the series before, even some who have refered myself to Schroeder's book and I had lengthy discussions with, but they never even watched it, which I find sad. they seemed to just want to convert me and weren't interested in anything else. so kudos to you!
@MWcrazyhorse Only when we truly understand another person's point of view can we hope to have a meaningful conversation. So I watched the videos and found that I agreed entirely with Chris, but came to another conclusion. I think it makes my faith even more meaningful, actually, that since you say this is what atheists "believe" that I mostly agree with you, but still believe in God. Someone told me atheism is not the disbelief in God, but the understanding that it could be "Not God"
when you hear an atheist sounding extreme he is usually just very frustrated after having debated with dozens of christians (or muslims) without getting them to move their minds an Inch further.
Because: Faith by definition does not permit ANYTHING to interfere with it.
The greatest attrocities in history happened when people submissed fully to one total authority without question (Hitler, Communism, Kings, Nationalism, God). Once this grasp is established the masses can be led to whatever ends.
Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true. Faith is further defined as the belief of something in the absense of testable evidence or reason. That is why it is called faith and not knowledge or reason or logic.
Wouldn't you agree it makes more sense to substitute the former with the latter in your own mind?
Or do you rather think the dictionaries need to be rewritten?
Extremist views come from your mind shutting down to reason entirely.
Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true. Faith is further defined as the belief of something in the absense of testable evidence or reason. That is why it is called faith and not knowledge or reason or logic.
Wouldn't you agree it makes more sense to substitute the former with the latter in your own mind?
Or do you rather think the dictionaries need to be rewritten?
Extremist views come from your mind shutting down to reason entirely.
hahah, try finding a xtian who says that there ALMOST certaintly is a god and it ALMOST certainly is their god. You wont because the religious are the ones with the close minds, not atheists. Should I consider that 1 +1 = 3?
---validate your point to another person, and validate your own existence sort of thing. does that make sense? But there are so many different reasons for people to act offensively or defensively, those are just some possibilities.
To end, I enjoyed your video. It came of sincere and it seems you like to learn. keep it up. 5 star
But also let me add. Some people need an identity. and that goes for any "sect." Just simply because you make a title that you are atheist does not make you right. and simply because you say there is no god, that doesn't make you right either, nor your logic to that conclusion. Someone who holds a belief because of an emotional void will act differently because it creates an emotional need. these people have something to gain for their self in some sort of confrontation.----
I think most atheists just want to domesticate the fanaticism.
But, on your point of atheist who are "evangelicals." you have to understand that some people who "like" the title atheist are usually previous Christians who their actual atheism is a rejection of the Christian god and not necessarily a philosophical attitude. They repeat the rhetoric of someone like myself who may adopt the title atheist when it fits the description but that does not define my identity.
I think your comparision is flawed. Evangelicals try to convert people to "save their souls", like a doctor tries to heal his patients. The "evangelical atheist" on the other hand is afraid that the christians belief may indirectly screw up his life, so he sees himself as an enlightener.
These atheists are saying: "Hey, your worldviews have a bad effect on my life. Stop being stupid! Your stupidity affects your politics and thus my life or the education of my children!" (see W. Bushs politics)
You're assuming that they want to do this because it helps them only. Their argument is usually something like, "Don't you realize how dumb you're being?" But yes, they do try to play the, "You being a Christian infringes on my rights to be free," card as well. I'd love to see one of them actually prove that current Christians are infringing on their rights.
As I said, see the politics of W. Bush. What I am talking about is how widespread religious perceptions do form politics and by this shape the world, not allways to the better.
I agree with what you said. Most Christians don't want their religion in laws, though. It's just the ones who shout the loudest, and the politicians who are too stupid to get away from that platform. But as far as religions having influence on law-making...every religion in the history of mankind has done that, and in the US it's as lax as it gets. I don't consider some of the eastern "religions" to be religions, though, because they don't consider them to be religions either.
I think a lot of the younger/newer atheists these days are a bit angry and many of them don't really understand the logical arguments behind atheism in a fundamental way. A lot of them seemed to declare their atheism due to it being trendy these last few years.
I became an atheist a little over 10 years ago, and don't care what other people believe for the most part. However, I do think Christianity is mostly harmless these days and Islam is the most dangerous religion.
I agree with you in all your points but the last one. The harmful Muslims are in the minority, and it's a dangerous step to assume that Islam as a religion is any more dangerous than Christianity. Why? Because it's assumptions like that, that lead to limits on free speech and unconstitutional laws. It's kind of like, if all liberals in power declared conservatives dangerous, they might impose restrictions on free speech. Not cool! Right? Though I appreciate your viewpoint.
I understand what you are saying and I'm not advocating anything unconstitutional. I just think it is important to recognize reality, especially when it has to do with the crimes committed due to the influence of Islam.
Anyway, I don't think the harmful muslims are in a small minority. I read a poll of British muslims and huge numbers of them advocated extremists/dangerous beliefs and I think those that aren't tend to be enablers in every sense of the word.
Islam desperately needs to go through a reformation but I'm not sure how this can feasibly happen since they are always blaming others for their problems (e.g. the Jews, the US, etc).
Hate is both a great uniter and a preservative - until Islam conquers the world and has no-one to hate there can be no motivation to change.
I'm not sure if the majority of Muslims would agree with you here, but I'm not going to try to speak for them because I'm not one myself. However, I will say this. People blaming others for their problems is inherent in every culture but especially in historically maltreated minorities. It hinders growth and equality and is a REALLY big problem. It leads to an entitlement mentality and holds people down in their current place. I think education is the solution to the problem.
I agree with what you are saying, but I don't think it really applies in this case. Most (not all) of majority Muslim countries are extremist and frankly quite disgusting.
For example, in Iran the prison guards "marry" women and then rape them before execution because they believe virgins go to heaven and they wanted to make sure they went to hell.
When a religion declares someone to be an enemy then that is extremely difficult to change - mostly because enemies are a good method of control.
In the case of Iran, though, I'd say that's just more humans screwing up the religion. I do know that it's difficult to change what humans say about a religion after it's said by a powerful human, but I would hope that centuries from now, Muslims are as peaceful worldwide as Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews are (and this is obviously a generalization).
It isn't just Iran, it is lots of them - look at the countries with Sharia law. If you convert away from Islam then you get executed. If you commit adultery then you are executed. It is barbarous.
I think the basic problem is that the Jesus-concept is more benevolent than the Mohamed-concept.
Mohamed, the figure Islam glorifies, was a pedophile and a murderous warlord.
Sure, the old testament has some of that stuff, but the new testament isn't as bad.
Again, I can't speak for Muslims because I'm not one. But those that I've met, in the Western world, are very peaceful. I've met some with really ridiculous political views, but that doesn't make them murderous or dangerous. This just makes me think it's this whole Sharia law thing, not really the religion. I have a feeling if the terrorists were born where I live with the values I was raised with, they wouldn't be violent and they could still practice their religion.
I've met peaceful muslims too, who were nice people, and when religion came up a lot of them got quite "intense."
I think people naturally tend not to be total psychopaths. Personally, I'd say about half of Muslims are probably not too screwed up by their religion - the other half cheer when things like 9/11 happen, teach their children that Jews are apes/pigs/evil/whatever, and enable terrorism through both inaction and action.
Yeah, I'd agree with you. Did you know that some terrorists teach their children how to be suicide bombers by making instructional videos with Mickey Mouse? When I saw that, I was completely shocked. Though I shouldn't have been. If they're willing to kill innocent children in the WTC, why not corrupt innocent children's minds, after all. It's pretty disgusting.
Definitely true. I judge terrorists as a group. I judge Muslims as individuals. If they happen to be terrorist Muslims, then they lose their right for individual judgment because they joined a group that has an 'our way or the death way' mentality.
Well, you can judge a terrorist as an individual too, and I'm sure some of them are quite nice if you get to know them (lots of friends/family testify to this).
Of course, by definition a terrorist is one who engages or enables some pretty horrific acts, while Muslims are defined by their religious beliefs which promote sexism, anti-Semitism, murder in the name of religion and several other unsavory behaviors.
This is further complicated by the fact that there are groups of moderate Muslims.
While this isn't as black and white, I think it is safe to say that there are serious problems with the Islamic faith, but I really have no idea what to do about it.
Change can only come from within and, as I said before, this isn't possible for Muslims since they are laser-focused on outward "enemies."
I can see the dilemma, but just think about this. The Catholic church was taking people's money in exchange for a ticket out of purgatory for years until Martin Luther stood up and said, "enough is enough." I think all the Muslim faith needs is a Martin al-Luther. :)
Yes that was my point when i said they needed a Reformation, but back in the day the Catholic church essentially ruled the "known" world and couldn't scapegoat their crimes away.
With Muslims all their problems can be blamed on a whole host of enemies, which means there will never be a cry for reformation. In a way it is a sort of like 1984 - you have the endless war, or jihad in this case, as a way of keeping the populace under control and towing the party line.
@starfleetofficer1 speaking of Martin Luther and the division of the church, do you know how many of my countrymen in Germany died after the following religious wars? HALF THE FUCKING POPULATION OF WHAT IS TODAY GERMANY!!! sry the caps but I felt I had to at least bold type that ...
There's a problem with the argument that Christianity draws more criticism than Sikhism, though, because most societies where Sikhism is prevalent are not pluralistic like most societies where Christianity is prevalent. Those growing up in a pluralistic society are allowed to think out of the box, and therefore can become atheists. You won't find many surrounded by Sikhs, though. If Sikhism was more prevalent, you would find it drawing just as much criticism.
I absolutely agree with you! I think an intellectual debate can only happen when both parties agree to hear each others' side and not name-call at every chance they get, but instead look to develop an open-mindedness about each others' beliefs and accept that they will not reach an agreement, but rather will just expand their mutual understanding.
I've noticed a lot of screaming and playing victim by religious supremacists at 'uppity' atheists.
"I've never seen a joyous atheist video or met a joyful atheist. "
This is an excellent example of dehumanization (obviously motivated by a deep seated hate). A fundamental ingredient in validating the illusion of supremacy.
I wonder what your response is to those who are 'angry' about racists? Your comments read like a white supremacist defending themselves from the dirty and impure.
This comment is obviously ill-informed and YOU obviously have jumped to a conclusion about white supremacy and Christianity...I think you need to do a little reading, or perhaps watch my other videos. Until then, I won't justify that accusation with a response.
where is the joy in your writing and clips? Get it?
Yes I know why you are afraid to answer my earlier post. It wasn't for you to answer, but the others to read.
I'm familiar with 'faith' AKA narcissism, and I know you are powerless to subvert it. Reading your channel blip tells me you are a puppet for someone else in your environment. I hope you learn a little more about the terms you are using and how they are mutually exclusive. You can not build a mind on rhetoric.
You seem extremely narcissistic yourself, and you're making vast assumptions about me and my education that I'd be careful with if I were you. Asking questions might be better if you want to learn something about someone. If you just want to talk, well, join the club--there are plenty of talking heads who spout hate and have no wish to learn about anyone else's point of view. You are not unique.
Well you are pretty much going down the pit with this last one. As far as spewing hate? That is you with your 'no joy' statement. You also haven't answered my question about the joy in your clips have you?
I know, you can't honestly answer it any more than you can honestly make the assertion that you did.
You can't escape your own actions. Not even with an invisible friend. Learn that now because the world is no longer interested in what you are mimicking.
Just listen to yourself. And watch some of my videos. And ask yourself if you're accomplishing anything by saying what you're saying. I can't convince you of anything--you're too closed-minded and narcissistic.
Well I actually would accept that characterization for myself as long you drop the absolute qualifiers.
And I would add that not all false beilefs are directly or as obviuosly harmful as others, even among religious beliefs.
But Yes I dont see why I should tolerate the intolerace of religious claims to objective truth , many of which do directly infringe on the lives of other. Same-sex equalily, teaching fariy tales of creationism and abstance only Ed, instead of science....
Okay, but you should do a little research. Most Christians today do not believe on infringing on others' rights...the ones who do happen to yell the loudest and get the most press, of course. This accusation is oftentimes cited by atheists as justification for their discrimination against theists, and I think it's ill-informed and shows ignorance and fear.
Im sorry I think your very wrong, It was just last election cycle that my liberal state voted to prevent gay people from having that same rights as straight people.
Not that it matters if it were true most Christians were on the right side of these civil rights issues, Because the bible is very clear on this issue.
where are all the true Christians speaking out about the catholic chruch preaching that condom use causes HIV in AIDS ravaged Africa, Christian silence on these issues is odd.
Oh, I know. It's because even though they don't really believe what the clergy preaches, they fear speaking out because they'd lose their community. You have to understand, churches form very powerful communities, in politics and in social life. Look at Obama--he is where he is because of the connections he made, not because of his merit. His church played a huge role in that. I think it's wrong, but it's how it works, unfortunately.
@starfleetofficer1 'It's because even though they don't really believe what the clergy preaches"
I dont think it can be just that the clery is not holding their hand in the voting booth, and as far as I know its a secrete ballot. Maybe true Christians are just apathetic about what they believe and dont vote.
But I still would partly blame there neglegence. Werent most of the german people during WW2 christians?
Yeah! You're really onto something here! The explanation lies in the group mentality, and the power of authority. Look at the Milgram Experiments. 80% of the people tested (in the 60s and in the early 2000s) would go as far as killing someone if ordered to by a person in authority, even though they felt bad about it! This, in my mind, is large evidence to point to people's beliefs being overridden by authority of the clergy and politicians.
Yes well my POV is a bit more critical of how one authoritarian belief and credulity of it opens the way to others of the same type. I cant site the study but I do remember seeing a somthing on pbs where religious people were more likely to inflict punishment and higher amounts of it to others if they were simply told to by the doctors in the experiment to do so.
There were other groups of people more likely to inflict punishment and higher amounts of it if told to, as well, so "religious" is just one denomination. Also, the study isn't really fair because there weren't an equally represented number of atheists. It took a sample of the population, which has only 10% no declared religion/ atheism. Therefore, you'd have to do another study to get conclusive results.
@MWcrazyhorse You probably want to look at Milgram's results on Google Scholar. But you also want to look at the most recent study, just Google "Green shoppers more likely to cheat" and you'll find that it's a mechanism at work here. People who believe they are 'righteous' in one way or another (which is NOT the Christian teaching, btw, but it is the way many "Christians" feel) are more likely to make excuses for themselves and readily do bad things.
@starfleetofficer1 ye I know that experiment and this line touches the point I am making quote [agentic state theory, wherein, per Milgram, the essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another person's wishes, and he therefore no longer sees himself as responsible for his actions ] instrument of god... the more a person is trained to obedience the easier this will effect him.
@starfleetofficer1 speaking of christian teachings I will quote Jesus: [luke 19:27] But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.
The pope issued a decre saying every Indian converting to christianity would be spared any harm. Now as I have explained to you with the example of Naziism this is all it takes for the genocide to happen in this instance. Obedience in an authoritarian mind set and the process has a life of its own.
When atheists take a large public stand against religion, hundreds of religious groups instantly rise to attack their right to speak. The internet seems to be the last place where we can speak freely. It's not from fear, or idiocy, or weakness. Sure, they feel extremist. But who doesn't? Christians believe they are right. Hindus believe they are right.
Generally speaking, it's natural for people to share the *joy* of their discoveries. Especially when these discoveries are life changing.
Two examples: The former alcoholic who becomes "born again". He is dead CERTAIN this is the only way to true happiness and will crusade for the rest of his life to bring this joy to all others.
The former Christian who, after a crisis of faith, throws off the shackles of religion and feels free for the first time in his life. He too will go on a crusade , first hand experience tells him that only rejecting superstition is the only way to truly live free.
In both cases, the individuals lack the ability to even imagine that someone WOULDN'T benefit from their course of action. First hand experience!
Yeah, that makes sense. Doesn't make it any less annoying when the advice wasn't asked for, but it does make sense. And also, it explains the anger. Imagine someone rejecting that advice! Telling you you're wrong. Of course you'd get angry. I think this explanation might just be the best one.
One thing it doesn't explain is how they seek out things that they disagree with and then angrily blast it from the get-go instead of sharing the joy. Maybe I just haven't met enough atheists or watched enough of their videos (because I'm not into looking for things I already know I disagree with, unless they're recommended), but I've never seen a joyous atheist video or met a joyful atheist.
"I'm not into looking for things I already know I disagree with..."
I'd ask you to reconsider. Think of how many atheists have rejected Christianity after one half-assed attempt at reading the bible. I still read and listen to Christian apologists. I hardly think I'll change my mind, but who knows? G. K. Chesterton is one I've found recently who approaches Christianity much differently than a Lee Strobel *shudder* or C.S. Lewis. Brilliant man. Seek out talented writers you disagree with.
If most of your experiences with atheists are on YouTube or the new brand of young angry atheists out there, I can see why it's been discouraging. On the other side, to the young atheists on YouTube, the Christian with the disabled comments and an inability to type one sentence without multiple grammar and spelling mistakes is the norm. Horay for YouTube!
You might have a valid point there. Too bad someone marked it as spam. Probably one of those grammar-challenged, hate-monger young atheists who think they know everything.
I think I will look for things I disagree with. But you won't find me bashing their viewpoints for no reason, I draw the line there! :)
"but I've never seen a joyous atheist video or met a joyful atheist."
o_O Chances are you wouldn't even know someone is an atheist until you get in their face/onto the public arena with ridiculous assertions, or even outright insults against the atheists themselves.
So, I guess you either have never met any atheists, or only met them situations where they are already pissed off by people polluting humanity with unsupported drivel.
@jjason55740 Have you had someone spit in your face and water bottle because you were an atheist, or because you were instigating a fight? Just curious.
starfleetofficer1 7 months ago
PS - I think that you are conflating extremism and atheism wrongly. It is very hard to have a militant non-belief, despite what many theists say. Atheists can be passionate about the injustice they see caused by religion - who would not be angry with 9/11? I've never heard of an atheist suicide bomber, however, and I doubt many atheists would kill for a lack of belief in God.
TheBikermanUK 7 months ago
@TheBikermanUK I disagree with you. I think that many people even call themselves militant atheists because they militantly oppose any religion, and think that the worshipers should not be allowed to worship due to what they see as the destructive nature of religion. This is a belief that could easily escalate into violence the same way that any bigoted belief could escalate into violence.
starfleetofficer1 7 months ago
@starfleetofficer1 OK, here's a challenge for you. Find me a 'militant atheist' who says that worshippers should be prevented from worshipping. I know a great many atheists (we have many more here in Europe) and I don't know a single one that would advocate banning religion or restricting people from worship. Neither do the famous atheists you probably know - Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Chistopher Hitchens. Most atheists I know believe, as I do, in freedom of expression, including belief.
TheBikermanUK 4 months ago
@TheBikermanUK Just go read the comments. There were a few who said, "The reason why we're angry is because you're WRONG! And people shouldn't be allowed to say stupid things!" Read the comments here and the comments on the Angry Atheist video too.
starfleetofficer1 3 months ago
@starfleetofficer1 But I think it is a mistake to generalise from comments made on particular topics on a social networking site. It is a self-selecting sample which is unlikely to be representative, so any general conclusions are suspect. Nonetheless I still haven't seen any example of someone killing because they didn't believe in God.....
TheBikermanUK 3 months ago
@TheBikermanUK You haven't? What about the Chinese government, who has banned religion, who have killed approximately 3000 Christians in the past decade just for being Christian? You can Google that, and it pops up all over the place. Multiple sources confirm that the death toll is in the thousands. Want more examples? Or will you now argue that Christians have killed more than atheists? Because that is hardly justification for killing Christians...
starfleetofficer1 3 months ago
@starfleetofficer1 But that wasn't done in the name of atheism, it was done because of rigid belief in another doctrine - Marxism. The argument about who has killed more people is not really interesting, since it tells us little. I don't, for example, hold Catholicism responsible for Hitler's killings, even though he was a catholic. I think the same applies to Stalin, Mao and others - they just happened to be atheists.
TheBikermanUK 3 months ago
@TheBikermanUK By the way, the Chinese government isn't very Marxist anymore, considering its economic strategies that it employs. It would be better to call it Socialist, since the government supports and controls the flow of money. So if anything, it's done in the name of Socialism. There are other Socialist countries, mostly in Europe, who do not kill Christians. And the Chinese government is not killing atheists for being atheists but they are killing Christians for being Christians.
starfleetofficer1 3 months ago
@starfleetofficer1 I thought we were talking about Mao. If you want to talk about modern china then, yes, it is no longer a marxist regime. Sure, they kill Christians (and others), but the point is - as you yourself point out - that it isn't done in the name of atheism. Most of Europe is pretty secular but we don't see Christians being targetted. China represses religion for the same reason it represses trade unions - it enourages loyalty to bodies other than government. Atheism doesn't figure.
TheBikermanUK 3 months ago
Respond to this video...If my tone appears "angry", I apologize. That is not my intention. My intention *is* to come across as forcefully and firmly disagreeing with your comment--I have not generalized from comments made on this site, I have generalized from what I have read, seen, and heard. My video was asking the question "why". That you brought up killing tells me that you believe atheists are more moralistic than Christians. I believe this to be inherently false.
starfleetofficer1 3 months ago
@starfleetofficer1 No, I don't make that generalisation. I would say that atheism doesn't inspire evil in the same way that religion frequently does, but that isn't saying that religion is, per se, immoral.
TheBikermanUK 3 months ago
@TheBikermanUK I would say we have a fundamental disagreement. I think that religion does not frequently inspire evil nearly as much as atheism does for the simple reason that most religions come with morality, therefore most people in those religions are striving toward (and failing, of course, as we are all human) morality. Atheism doesn't inspire anything except challenging what you perceive as the status quo, so you challenge morality more than you adhere to it.
starfleetofficer1 3 months ago
@starfleetofficer1 But the evidence is clear - check any syatistic you like - marriage breakup, prison sentences, teenage pregnancy....you name it. Then compare the number of atheists with the number of religious, and standardise for population (the US is, according to a reasonable estimate, 8% atheist) and I think you might be surprised to find that atheists generally do better than theists....
TheBikermanUK 3 months ago
@TheBikermanUK That's just completely false. Recent studies show the exact opposite, that the key to a healthy marriage is faith. Survival experts, like Ben Sherwood, have written books on the subject and cite faith, among other factors, as key to surviving life's rough spots as well as extraordinary challenges. The media likes to ignore the actual facts and find the isolated incidents that condemn religion, but you should look into the actual research.
starfleetofficer1 3 months ago
@starfleetofficer1 Hold on. I don't make false claims. The atheist prison population of the US is 0.209%. That is about 40 times less than it should be, given an 8% atheist rate in the general population.
I'll work the stats out for the others later.
If you don't believe the figures, check them, but don't quote anecdotes because that shows nothing.
TheBikermanUK 3 months ago
OK, now here's the US stats for divorce:
27% of born-again Christians have had at least one divorce
24% of all non-born-again Christians have been divorced
21% of atheists have been divorced
So, wrong again I'm afraid.
TheBikermanUK 3 months ago
@TheBikermanUK PS - that previous study was a bit old (1999). There is a newer one (2008) but it shows the same pattern - atheist divorce rates lower than born again Christians, non-born-again Christians and other religious.
PPS - the survey is done by a religious organisation, so it isn't atheist bias :-)
Google Barna Group surveys
TheBikermanUK 3 months ago
@TheBikermanUK Besides, you are doing what every other atheist has done in conversation with me. You present an argument, I counter it, you change the subject slightly, I counter your new argument, you change the subject again. To backtrack, you started on stating that you had never heard of a militant/violent atheist. I gave you examples of the Chinese atheists who kill Christians for their Christianity. You say you don't know atheists who ban people from worship. (cont)
starfleetofficer1 3 months ago
@starfleetofficer1 I cite those here and in China again who would ban or do ban Christians from worship. Then you say that who killed more doesn't actually matter (even though you brought it up). Then you say that religion frequently inspires evil, and I say that religion inspires morality even if its worshipers fail at it, while atheism doesn't inspire anything but questioning the status quo, which frequently leads to violence (like OWS)...(cont)
starfleetofficer1 3 months ago
@starfleetofficer1 and you say check statistics that will prove your point, which are just completely false because there are TONS of statistics (check the spelling of "statistics" btw) that will prove my point, mostly done by prominent experts in survival, marriage, and social studies, and NOT done by left-wing professors in universities who purposely fudge their data and write their papers in a biased manner. You will likely come back with something entirely new and different. (cont)
starfleetofficer1 3 months ago
@starfleetofficer1 If you want to have an actual discussion, why don't you pick a topic and stick to it? What is it you are trying to say? You are always on the attack and I am always on the defense (have you noticed)? Until now, when I have actually stepped up and decided to "attack" your method of attack. I want to know what it is that you are trying to prove. Anything? Or are you just throwing everything but the kitchen sink that you can think of, to argue against religion?
starfleetofficer1 3 months ago
@starfleetofficer1 Please show me these statistics then. The statistics I referenced are from the Barna group - an influential evangelical Christian group well known for their surveys and used by many many Churches in the US - hardly a 'left wing professor'. The 'fudge' and 'biased' comment is just ad-hominem.
Have you noticed that I am not angry and you are? That's sort of the whole point really....
TheBikermanUK 3 months ago
@TheBikermanUK Second of all, your statistics are probably not even statistically significant. Have you ever heard of this? Statistical significance states that when two statistics are close together, the significance is negligible. 27, 21, 24, these numbers are all very close. I don't even know what the sample size for that study was. As for my statistics...(cont)
starfleetofficer1 3 months ago
@starfleetofficer1 ...there are a TON on this page alone that support the fact that religious people are healthier godandscience . org / apologetics / religionhealth . html. This study talks about how leaving religion is bad for health christianpost . com / news / study-leaving-religion-may-be-bad-for-health-46914 /. This study suggests that religion is linked to health: sciencedaily . com / releases / 2007 / 10 / 071023104134 . (cont)
starfleetofficer1 3 months ago
@starfleetofficer1 This one suggests similarly that religion, health, and marriage are all linked: onlinelibrary . wiley . com / doi / 10 . 1111 / j . 1728-4457 . 2003 . 00255 . x / abstract. This one talks about longevity and religion: biomedgerontology . oxfordjournals . org / content / 54 / 7 / M370 . short. (cont)
starfleetofficer1 3 months ago
@starfleetofficer1 And finally, my favorite one, in survival expert Ben Sherwood's "The Survivor's Club", he states "Faith is the most powerful and universal survival tool. In a crisis, faith gives you remarkable power and confidence to prevail." It doesn't matter whether God exists or not, Sherwood suggests in his book, His healing power in the minds of the believers is undeniable. Atheism does not inherently give you any hope. Religion does.
starfleetofficer1 3 months ago
@starfleetofficer1 By this argument you may as well be Muslim or Hindu since, as you say, it doesn't actually matter if God exists or not. Taking cocaine will make you feel powerful and confident. That is not a good reason to do it. Since each religion makes similar claims to truth, then it follows that the vast majority are wrong, since their 'truths' are exlusive. Should one believe something that is wrong, simply because it has positive physiological effects?
TheBikermanUK 3 months ago
@starfleetofficer1 This is all a red-herring. I never mentioned health. The point under discussion was whether atheists were more or less moral than theists. Showing that theists live longer, or have better health, whilst nice for theists, says absolutely nothing about morality.
TheBikermanUK 3 months ago
@TheBikermanUK Actually, you did allude to it quite clearly. @starfleetofficer1 But the evidence is clear - check any syatistic you like - marriage breakup, prison sentences, teenage pregnancy....you name it. Then compare the number of atheists with the number of religious, and standardise for population (the US is, according to a reasonable estimate, 8% atheist) and I think you might be surprised to find that atheists generally do better than theists....
TheBikermanUK 4 days ago
starfleetofficer1 3 months ago
The point of the discussion was not whether atheism leads to more or less morality, but a better quality lifestyle. And you stated that no one ever killed because of a lack of belief in Gods. I disagree. I think that a lack in belief in Gods, when it enters the government and becomes mandatory, has been shown time and again in history to lead to killing people who do believe in God. Atheism is not an exception to the rule--it is still a belief, and therefore susceptible to leaders' folly.
starfleetofficer1 3 months ago
@starfleetofficer1 I said that I have never heard of anyone who killed because of a lack of belief in Gods. You didn't counter it, you simply chose to answer a different question. Mao didn't kill millions because he was an atheist, he did it because he was a believer in Marxism - every bit as fervently as any religious believer.
TheBikermanUK 3 months ago
@TheBikermanUK Okay, first of all, one of the main tenants of Marxism is that there is no God, that the government provides all you need, and you have no need for God. Even if it wasn't, Marxism singled out people of religion specifically in killings, therefore they DID kill because of their atheism. They didn't specifically kill atheists because of atheism.
starfleetofficer1 3 months ago
@starfleetofficer1 This is a terrible argument. Atheism isn't one of the main tennets of marxism - it is absolutely possible to have a religious communist society - in fact many of the early Christian sects were communist and we have the Hutterites, the Shakers, the Society of Friends....etc. It was Lenin that brought the anti-religious emphasis to marxism and it is in Maxist-Leninist states that were avoidely anti-religious - not because they were atheist, but because they were Marxist-Leninist
TheBikermanUK 3 months ago
@TheBikermanUK Correction, many of the early Christian sects were run like charities and had no economy, therefore could not be communist, socialist, capitalist, or anything else. Donations are not the same as mandatory taxes. Government is not charity and charity cannot be government. There have been no religious communist societies because when members donate either a penny or whatever they have, they have chosen to do so. A communist society can only work with an overarching authority.
starfleetofficer1 3 months ago
@starfleetofficer1 Err...what? Where do you get this stuff? Of course they had economies. I suggest you read Kreissig or Horsley. Communism doesn't require an overarching authority - the whole point is that authority comes from the people. Now, of course, states which have called themselves communist HAVE been authoritarian, but it is perfectly possible to conceive of states which are communist and have no over-arching authority.
TheBikermanUK 3 months ago
@TheBikermanUK There is no such thing as a society without an overarching authority, either a republic or an oligarchy. Communism requires an oligarchy to work, because a republic requires individualism and the ability to form individual wealth in order to work. An economy of communism works only when the citizens are not able, under the law, to freely accumulate wealth because, as we have found with recent studies, the accumulation of wealth is human nature.
starfleetofficer1 3 months ago
@starfleetofficer1 What recent studies would these be? Have you any references?
TheBikermanUK 3 months ago
@TheBikermanUK Of course. You start with Ori Friedman's study that appeared in Science News that indicated that capitalism was innate. You can also look into the RealClearMarkets article by Mark Hunter that outlined why attacking capitalism is akin to attacking human nature (though not a study, it does a very good job of proving its point). There are others, if you are interested. If you agree once you explore these, do you admit I am right that atheism is just as likely to produce genocide?
starfleetofficer1 3 months ago
@starfleetofficer1 Because, of course, atheism is a belief system and when a belief system becomes the governance of law, it falls into the same fallacy that any other oligarchy would? And that communism is the best vehicle through which to push atheism because it insists that you cannot have an individual idea of who rules over you, since the state must be your overarching authority? You cannot have a personal God under communism, since it directly goes against its philosophy?
starfleetofficer1 3 months ago
And it is a main tenant of Marxism--the entire idea of having a God means that your rights come from something greater than humans, which means that each individual is uniquely created, which means that someone may earn more than another, which is the opposite of Marxism, where everyone is equal under the government, which decides who gets what (according to what they presume is your need). If Someone Else determines your need, you have no need for the government.
starfleetofficer1 3 months ago
@starfleetofficer1 Marxism doesn't propose a government at all. It is Leninism that requires the 'vanguard party' acting 'in the name of the workers'.
TheBikermanUK 3 months ago
@TheBikermanUK Point to me a stable society without an overarching authority of some sort. Go ahead, attempt to find one. I assure you, there is no society in existence, nor has there ever been a society in existence, that is run without an overarching authority. There are 2 kinds of societies--oligarchy, and republic. In an oligarchy, the many are controlled by the few. In a republic, the government is run by the people. There is a comprehensive video about this here: /watch?v=uIcOfu6Udec
starfleetofficer1 3 months ago
The thing is that when atheists debate christians we know what is coming - the resort to faith. We cannot go there, so the argument is then moot. Because this is all so predictable we sometimes get a bit narky, though there is no excuse for someone calling you an idiot - you are clearly an intelligent young man.
TheBikermanUK 7 months ago
@TheBikermanUK Thank you. I wish more people would choose their words carefully. Sometimes we resort to name-calling because we have no better argument. But my original point was, if you are not trying to evangelize anyone into being an atheist, why bother arguing at all? Why not just be of the mindset that others have beliefs and as long as they don't force you to believe those things, let them alone?
starfleetofficer1 7 months ago
@starfleetofficer1 OK, fair question. To answer here would take too many characters, so I've put a video answer up. If you click my link, the video is called
Creationism. Why bother?
That should explain why I bother, hopefully....
TheBikermanUK 4 months ago
I'm not angry an atheist, I am a proud Humanist.
iversonmatthew 1 year ago
My dad is an atheist (I am Jewish) and is a true atheist. He doesn't care what others think about G-d. He just does not believe. I have found many You Tube Atheists to be "evangelical" in their approach and actually tend to base their atheism on what they view as their own intellectual superiority. I have only met 1 or 2 people on You Tube that I consider to be true atheists. The rest are these "evangelical" types which have inflated egos and think they are right 100% of the time.
DarkQuietWyattON 1 year ago
@DarkQuietWyattON
Quite generally many people seem to experience a subjective "sudden insight" at some point, and this "knowing the truth" gives them a feeling of security and superiority - all the stronger if shared by others, e.g. as in political movements. Dictatorships then sanction possible doubts by all kinds of intimidation and group pressure ("Do not foul your own nest"), thereby discouraging most people from open opposition.
I hope you forgive my "digression" to politics ;-)
eltamin1966 1 year ago
@eltamin1966 I do and I think you are right
DarkQuietWyattON 1 year ago
@DarkQuietWyattON
But one must always be aware that one's own "certainties" might sometimes need some correction as well ;-)
Btw, looking on your page I understood your username - you are blind, and obviously very bright and proud as well. My honest respect - and that's not meant patronizing at all!
eltamin1966 1 year ago
@eltamin1966 My "certainties" are ever changing in some respects and in others, they don't change. I keep an open mind and on my mothers side come from several scientists, professors,doctors, lawyers etc and had a strong science background at the Yeshiva (Jewish school) I went to. I don't have all the answers about either science or religion but I don't think they are mutually exclusive but my views on both are evolving as I evolve and grow in my learning of both science and religion.
DarkQuietWyattON 1 year ago
@DarkQuietWyattON You're part of a long Jewish intellectual tradition. I got a friendly attitude towards the Jews from my parents, btw we are of Lutheran-Christian descent. I still remember my enthusiastic dad after the successful Entebbe operation in 1976, and he often said Germany lost a lot with the Jews gone. It's really very sad and absurd that this arrogant fanatic Hitler could gain so much power. Key political figures - blinded by nationalism - totally misjudged his dangerousness.
eltamin1966 1 year ago
@DarkQuietWyattON And his luck: There was Elser's plot to kill Hitler on his annual Munich speech in November 1939. Normally Hitler spoke till 22:00, but on that evening fog prevented a fly back to Berlin and so he left 21:07 to take the night train - the bomb devastatingly went off 21:20. 13 minutes! Without the fanatic Hitler on top - obsessed by the idea of Jewish world conspiracy - probably nobody would have set the Holocaust in motion.
Sorry starfleetofficer, I'm off-topic again ...
eltamin1966 1 year ago
@eltamin1966 Oh and thank you for the compliment
DarkQuietWyattON 1 year ago
Another great Video, you have an incredible perspective, Ive thought about this before, but you put it into much better context.
SARGENTSCRUFY 1 year ago
As you said, that's a little extreme.The point is that atheists believe,or at least I do, that my views are supported by physical evidence and reasoned logic,and that of course,Christianity is not. The fact that beliefs inform actions is motivation for me and other atheists to at least respond to theistic preaching and/or augments on youtube.I imagine that is why many make youtube videos on the subject,and I believe it is a valid justification especially considering plentiful christian preaching
logicalmind4 1 year ago
One thing that does get in the way is the religious perception that atheism is an assertion when it is the exact opposite to an assertion. It is not a definition of a position, it is the label for the group of thing a person is not. An atheist may also not be pedophile, a murderer, a rapist.Atheism has nothing to defend and therefore nothing get excited about - I quite like your definition of evangelical atheist if even it only refers to the behaviour.
MilitantPeaceist 1 year ago
@MilitantPeaceist I'm actually talking to an atheist right now who has been trying to convert me to his position for several weeks. I made the assertion that an atheist SHOULD, by definition, have no stake in whether or not others believe in God(s) because they come from a constructionist, Occam's Razor point of view where they cannot prove God exists, so they don't believe in him. Instead, he comes from a deconstructionist point of view (everyone else is wrong), which makes him angry.
starfleetofficer1 1 year ago
@starfleetofficer1
The actual term is deconvert - atheist is like a default position of no religious faith. This does not mean humans do not use faith intrinsicly, I know the human mind needs it, so no-one ever gets converted to atheism as much as the behaviour imitaes it, the behaviour only imitates a fresh awareness or philosophy >> proseltysing & what you said b4, evangelical, save the world mindset!
MilitantPeaceist 1 year ago
@starfleetofficer1
But may I add another concept here. Often due to atheism not being an assertion, most debates will end up with the atheist oinly on the attack, defending only shadow dragons as there is no positive position for a religious person to argue against thus causing maximun frustration. It really is a futile discussion unless you have 2 tollerable opponants!
MilitantPeaceist 1 year ago
You are such an intelligent human, well done for taking the unbias time to get to this point from your philisophical angle. From my atheist angle I have put it down to freshly converted, &/or deconverted in an atheist POV, zest to share and justify their new position. I call it the anti-theist touch. A moderate atheist is still quite liberal minded incl freedom of thought, Dogma is the only monster that want's to control your mind, religious or not!
MilitantPeaceist 1 year ago
I am German. Trust me when I tell you I am an expert at understanding how total control of the mind and the masses works. In his famous book 'Mein Kampf' Adolf Hitler wrote how he would achieve it and what he needed for it. He emphasized the importance of religion to the mindset of a human. The religiously conditioned brain would have in it the authoritarian structure he needed to achieve total submission of the individual to his rule without question- also known as faith.
MWcrazyhorse 1 year ago
@MWcrazyhorse Did it ever occur to you that if you had been born in a different place, where you didn't have access to the Internet or to anyone else with atheist beliefs, that you would have fallen into the same "trap" that you are accusing those who live as Christians of falling into? My faith is something that I reasoned out, something I spent a great deal on. I was once agnostic, and it is by reason that I am Christian--if you're interested in my reasoning, PM me.
starfleetofficer1 1 year ago
@starfleetofficer1 have you read what I wrote?
you say you don't have faith, instead you have evidence to believe. even hardcore fundamentalists admit they have faith and cannot prove anything.
so Hitler was just lucky in finding the right trigger yes? did you ever ask yourself why 75 million indians were killed? over 50 million died in ww2 etc. etc. yes? no? this is the essence of your question. I provided you the answer. authoritarian mindset.
the ONLY solution is free thought. NO DOGMA!!!
MWcrazyhorse 1 year ago
@MWcrazyhorse Yes, of course, let's get rid of all religion. That's free thought, right there. *sarcasm* Think about what you're saying. My point is that it's only when some crazy big-government whacko like Hitler or Stalin or Amhadenijad (spelling?) gets in power that they push the right button to kill people. You're giving examples when the government was "Christian." I can give you examples of the atheist Communist governments killing hundreds of millions.
starfleetofficer1 1 year ago
@starfleetofficer1 it isn't about who is christian or muslim or commie or the biggest mass murderer. I thought I made that clear. do I need to repeat myself?
MWcrazyhorse 1 year ago
@MWcrazyhorse In my PM to you, I explained this position but I'll explain it briefly here. Faith is not what causes the killing, nor is religion. It is only the human, the flawed, imperfect, hopeless human, who does the killing. People kill for much less than their religion. If we abolished all things that could cause killing, we'd all be living wrapped up in bubble wrap so we couldn't hurt each other.
starfleetofficer1 1 year ago
@starfleetofficer1 I like bubbles and bubble wrap. And I have described the psychology enough not to reiterate here.
MWcrazyhorse 1 year ago
@MWcrazyhorse Well, a ship in the harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for. I have a very different view of life. I believe bubble wrap exists just to pop the bubbles.
starfleetofficer1 1 year ago
@starfleetofficer1 again to iterate my point to you so you understand. it isn't about being christian or muslim or communist or facist. it is about the dogma. it is about the mindset. the submission to a superior power, an ideology, a supreme leader, a god, an authoritarian structure of thinking with the supposedly infallible truth at its peak.
right or wrong, god or no god. you will tell me god is infallible. that is the indication of the structure in your mind, that is the frame.
MWcrazyhorse 1 year ago
@MWcrazyhorse But what's to say that the structure of your mind isn't just as rigid? If you are unwilling to entertain the possibility that I might be right? I am willing to entertain the possibility that you might be right, and that's why I respect your right to your own beliefs. Most conflicts on Earth are caused by big government controlling the masses, not a mass of people trying to kill others who don't agree with them.
starfleetofficer1 1 year ago
@starfleetofficer1 it isn't about right or wrong. have you begun watching the video series I sent you? the person you mentioned in your video may have become angry and hateful towards christians. and these emotions if nurtured can also lead him to resort to violence, so far I have not heard of incidents of an atheist harming a christian however, so I don't see how calling this particular person a radical serves any purpose or is accurate. hate crimes are different alltogether.
MWcrazyhorse 1 year ago
@MWcrazyhorse They're not different psychologically, just a different name for the same mechanism. Look at China if you want examples of atheists harming Christians. Plenty of other examples, too. I watched the whole video series and responded to your comment below. And it is about "right" and "wrong" so long as you believe it is "wrong" to nurture hate. Religious views don't nurture hate, opinions about others' religious views do.
starfleetofficer1 1 year ago
@starfleetofficer1
Except for anyone that does not conform with ones religious cutural demographic ideal. I am transgender and the only reason why my gender is not only not recognised, but still wrongly hidden as a mental illness is due to religion interfering with secular philosophy. Many cultures had more than 2 genders and a different gender/sex structure. Dogma forces me to live under the radar!
MilitantPeaceist 1 year ago
@MilitantPeaceist I am a Christian and I read up on transgenderism and learned that current science points to individuals who have the "opposite gender's" brain structure from the time they are in the womb. This means that it is not a sin, quite obviously, and anyone who thinks it is just hasn't read the science. Fetuses cannot sin, as they cannot choose. Indeed, even if it started when one was a newborn, it wouldn't be a sin as a baby can't choose until he's about 2 yrs old.
starfleetofficer1 1 year ago
@starfleetofficer1
And it is people like you that logically prevent me from being dogmatic in reaction to the overall treatment I get. I feel no need to argue against what I feel is the concept of God but only with people that will not take it personally, otherwise it is to protect my safety and right to happiness generally from bigoted religious people as you would bigoted atheist and other religious bigots. We have more in common than we don't ;) Peace 8))
MilitantPeaceist 1 year ago
@MilitantPeaceist We do indeed. It's people like you that give me hope that all points of view of the world, provided they're not violent or threatening to others' well-being, deserve respect. And also that all people who don't wish to harm each other can live together peacefully, and accept that they think differently but tolerate each other. I made a video about tolerance and how important it is--you might want to check it out.
starfleetofficer1 1 year ago
@starfleetofficer1
I've done more than that, ya got me 8))))) And I will check it out and i will prolly agree with everything you say but from my angle. And yeah, I am all for peace and diversity 8) I feel sometimes my personal values are closer to jesus than some Christians, lolololol, in fact alot of those charletons act like the very Pharsies that Jesus woed about LMAO! I am hard on the clergy!
MilitantPeaceist 1 year ago
@MilitantPeaceist haha, you're right! Most Christians that get any press are the ones saying stupid things like, "Haiti brought this earthquake on themselves!" *facepalm* Congrats for being a reasonable human being--there aren't many of you out there, regardless of religious preference, and so it's a high honor to know you belong to a small club.
starfleetofficer1 1 year ago
@starfleetofficer1
There are quite a few of us, one guy to check out is Gothafunk, he is such a nice & good person, it hurts, lol.
HAHAHAHAHA we are both blown out someone else respects something that they are not - LMAO, I had the same response from a muslim the other day, they were dumb struck, lol, it's so cute hehehehe I know how it feels. It's a good thing!
But I can be a bitch, TG = god reversed my periods too ;)
MilitantPeaceist 1 year ago
@starfleetofficer1
There are quite a few of us, one guy to check out is Gothafunk, he is such a nice & good person, it hurts, lol.
HAHAHAHAHA we are both blown out someone else respects something that they are not - LMAO, I had the same response from a muslim the other day, they were dumb struck, lol, it's so cute hehehehe I know how it feels. It's a good thing!
But I can be a bitch, TG = god reversed my periods too ;)
MilitantPeaceist 1 year ago
@MilitantPeaceist I think it's unfortunate that you've encountered hate in the Christian faith for your gender identity. You've probably encountered hate among political conservatives as well. Don't lose hope in all of conservative Christian humanity, though. I'm proof that you can be conservative and Christian and accept other gender identities, and there are plenty of others like me--they just don't get any press coverage.
starfleetofficer1 1 year ago
@starfleetofficer1 that is the fascinating bit!! taking the example of Naziism, Hitler didn't enforce or write any of the laws damming the Jews the upcomming Genocide. The apparatus of Judges and clerks and Gestapo worked entirely on their own towards this genocide. Hitler had just planted the seed by warning of the 'zionist conspiracy to rule the world' (aka today: NWO) the propaganda machinery was running and the clerks obeyed its will. no need for a government to do the dirty work from there.
MWcrazyhorse 1 year ago
@MWcrazyhorse But you should consider the possibility that you simply have come to a different conclusion than other people, and that it isn't right to tout your beliefs around as "absolute truth" and to make excuses for rude people, saying that they were just 'frustrated' after debating those who disagreed with them. Would you give me that leeway if I were to preach to you?
starfleetofficer1 1 year ago
@starfleetofficer1 you say you were agnostic and reasoned it out. here is someone who reasoned it out. I am interested to know were you think his knowledge and logic is flawed.
/watch?v=JOmSYHzeoNA
it is a 5 videos series.
best wishes!
MWcrazyhorse 1 year ago
@MWcrazyhorse I've watched the series, and we came to many of the same conclusions. It comes down to this: he and I both agree that you cannot prove there is a God, and that all things can be explained without God. For him, that was enough to stop worshiping God. For me, it was not, because I understand that it's God's *point* that we cannot prove His existence. Ever. But I respect Evid3nc3's logic and reason, and I think he is an exceptionally calm, reasonable individual.
starfleetofficer1 1 year ago
@starfleetofficer1 glad to hear you watched the series (hope you didn't just skip to the end, lol). I find it the most compelling summary of what atheists 'believe' (rather what they do not believe) and why (not). I have reffered christians to the series before, even some who have refered myself to Schroeder's book and I had lengthy discussions with, but they never even watched it, which I find sad. they seemed to just want to convert me and weren't interested in anything else. so kudos to you!
MWcrazyhorse 1 year ago
@MWcrazyhorse Only when we truly understand another person's point of view can we hope to have a meaningful conversation. So I watched the videos and found that I agreed entirely with Chris, but came to another conclusion. I think it makes my faith even more meaningful, actually, that since you say this is what atheists "believe" that I mostly agree with you, but still believe in God. Someone told me atheism is not the disbelief in God, but the understanding that it could be "Not God"
starfleetofficer1 1 year ago
when you hear an atheist sounding extreme he is usually just very frustrated after having debated with dozens of christians (or muslims) without getting them to move their minds an Inch further.
Because: Faith by definition does not permit ANYTHING to interfere with it.
The greatest attrocities in history happened when people submissed fully to one total authority without question (Hitler, Communism, Kings, Nationalism, God). Once this grasp is established the masses can be led to whatever ends.
MWcrazyhorse 1 year ago
Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true. Faith is further defined as the belief of something in the absense of testable evidence or reason. That is why it is called faith and not knowledge or reason or logic.
Wouldn't you agree it makes more sense to substitute the former with the latter in your own mind?
Or do you rather think the dictionaries need to be rewritten?
Extremist views come from your mind shutting down to reason entirely.
MWcrazyhorse 1 year ago
Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true. Faith is further defined as the belief of something in the absense of testable evidence or reason. That is why it is called faith and not knowledge or reason or logic.
Wouldn't you agree it makes more sense to substitute the former with the latter in your own mind?
Or do you rather think the dictionaries need to be rewritten?
Extremist views come from your mind shutting down to reason entirely.
MWcrazyhorse 1 year ago
hahah, try finding a xtian who says that there ALMOST certaintly is a god and it ALMOST certainly is their god. You wont because the religious are the ones with the close minds, not atheists. Should I consider that 1 +1 = 3?
AllHeathens1 1 year ago
---validate your point to another person, and validate your own existence sort of thing. does that make sense? But there are so many different reasons for people to act offensively or defensively, those are just some possibilities.
To end, I enjoyed your video. It came of sincere and it seems you like to learn. keep it up. 5 star
OskyATL 1 year ago
@OskyATL Thanks, I do want to learn, and I agree with you. You seem to have a unique but insightful perspective on the phenomenon.
starfleetofficer1 1 year ago
But also let me add. Some people need an identity. and that goes for any "sect." Just simply because you make a title that you are atheist does not make you right. and simply because you say there is no god, that doesn't make you right either, nor your logic to that conclusion. Someone who holds a belief because of an emotional void will act differently because it creates an emotional need. these people have something to gain for their self in some sort of confrontation.----
OskyATL 1 year ago
I think most atheists just want to domesticate the fanaticism.
But, on your point of atheist who are "evangelicals." you have to understand that some people who "like" the title atheist are usually previous Christians who their actual atheism is a rejection of the Christian god and not necessarily a philosophical attitude. They repeat the rhetoric of someone like myself who may adopt the title atheist when it fits the description but that does not define my identity.
OskyATL 1 year ago
@epanek It certainly does.
starfleetofficer1 1 year ago
I think your comparision is flawed. Evangelicals try to convert people to "save their souls", like a doctor tries to heal his patients. The "evangelical atheist" on the other hand is afraid that the christians belief may indirectly screw up his life, so he sees himself as an enlightener.
These atheists are saying: "Hey, your worldviews have a bad effect on my life. Stop being stupid! Your stupidity affects your politics and thus my life or the education of my children!" (see W. Bushs politics)
13otany13ay 2 years ago
You're assuming that they want to do this because it helps them only. Their argument is usually something like, "Don't you realize how dumb you're being?" But yes, they do try to play the, "You being a Christian infringes on my rights to be free," card as well. I'd love to see one of them actually prove that current Christians are infringing on their rights.
starfleetofficer1 2 years ago
As I said, see the politics of W. Bush. What I am talking about is how widespread religious perceptions do form politics and by this shape the world, not allways to the better.
watch?v=sTRDRP2n4Sk
watch?v=fxdt_f0hwUg&feature=related
watch?v=RHesVH-MUEc&feature=related
13otany13ay 2 years ago
Then don't get mad at Christians, get mad at the politicians who drag religion into politics.
starfleetofficer1 2 years ago
Its not that simple. Politicians drag religion into politics because a high enough percentage of voters wants them to.
Watch the clips from my last post and you will understand.
You have to copy and paste the adresses into your searchbar behind the com/
13otany13ay 2 years ago
woohoo!
starfleetofficer1 2 years ago
I agree with what you said. Most Christians don't want their religion in laws, though. It's just the ones who shout the loudest, and the politicians who are too stupid to get away from that platform. But as far as religions having influence on law-making...every religion in the history of mankind has done that, and in the US it's as lax as it gets. I don't consider some of the eastern "religions" to be religions, though, because they don't consider them to be religions either.
starfleetofficer1 2 years ago
I think a lot of the younger/newer atheists these days are a bit angry and many of them don't really understand the logical arguments behind atheism in a fundamental way. A lot of them seemed to declare their atheism due to it being trendy these last few years.
I became an atheist a little over 10 years ago, and don't care what other people believe for the most part. However, I do think Christianity is mostly harmless these days and Islam is the most dangerous religion.
thegoodlocust 2 years ago
I agree with you in all your points but the last one. The harmful Muslims are in the minority, and it's a dangerous step to assume that Islam as a religion is any more dangerous than Christianity. Why? Because it's assumptions like that, that lead to limits on free speech and unconstitutional laws. It's kind of like, if all liberals in power declared conservatives dangerous, they might impose restrictions on free speech. Not cool! Right? Though I appreciate your viewpoint.
starfleetofficer1 2 years ago
I understand what you are saying and I'm not advocating anything unconstitutional. I just think it is important to recognize reality, especially when it has to do with the crimes committed due to the influence of Islam.
Anyway, I don't think the harmful muslims are in a small minority. I read a poll of British muslims and huge numbers of them advocated extremists/dangerous beliefs and I think those that aren't tend to be enablers in every sense of the word.
thegoodlocust 2 years ago
Islam desperately needs to go through a reformation but I'm not sure how this can feasibly happen since they are always blaming others for their problems (e.g. the Jews, the US, etc).
Hate is both a great uniter and a preservative - until Islam conquers the world and has no-one to hate there can be no motivation to change.
thegoodlocust 2 years ago
I'm not sure if the majority of Muslims would agree with you here, but I'm not going to try to speak for them because I'm not one myself. However, I will say this. People blaming others for their problems is inherent in every culture but especially in historically maltreated minorities. It hinders growth and equality and is a REALLY big problem. It leads to an entitlement mentality and holds people down in their current place. I think education is the solution to the problem.
starfleetofficer1 2 years ago
I agree with what you are saying, but I don't think it really applies in this case. Most (not all) of majority Muslim countries are extremist and frankly quite disgusting.
For example, in Iran the prison guards "marry" women and then rape them before execution because they believe virgins go to heaven and they wanted to make sure they went to hell.
When a religion declares someone to be an enemy then that is extremely difficult to change - mostly because enemies are a good method of control.
thegoodlocust 2 years ago
In the case of Iran, though, I'd say that's just more humans screwing up the religion. I do know that it's difficult to change what humans say about a religion after it's said by a powerful human, but I would hope that centuries from now, Muslims are as peaceful worldwide as Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews are (and this is obviously a generalization).
starfleetofficer1 2 years ago
It isn't just Iran, it is lots of them - look at the countries with Sharia law. If you convert away from Islam then you get executed. If you commit adultery then you are executed. It is barbarous.
I think the basic problem is that the Jesus-concept is more benevolent than the Mohamed-concept.
Mohamed, the figure Islam glorifies, was a pedophile and a murderous warlord.
Sure, the old testament has some of that stuff, but the new testament isn't as bad.
thegoodlocust 2 years ago
Most Christians think of "turn the other cheek" and stuff when they think of Jesus and try to emulate that (or should).
What do Muslims think of when they read about Mohamed? They think war, violence and barbarism are the tools to spread their religion.
thegoodlocust 2 years ago
Again, I can't speak for Muslims because I'm not one. But those that I've met, in the Western world, are very peaceful. I've met some with really ridiculous political views, but that doesn't make them murderous or dangerous. This just makes me think it's this whole Sharia law thing, not really the religion. I have a feeling if the terrorists were born where I live with the values I was raised with, they wouldn't be violent and they could still practice their religion.
starfleetofficer1 2 years ago
I've met peaceful muslims too, who were nice people, and when religion came up a lot of them got quite "intense."
I think people naturally tend not to be total psychopaths. Personally, I'd say about half of Muslims are probably not too screwed up by their religion - the other half cheer when things like 9/11 happen, teach their children that Jews are apes/pigs/evil/whatever, and enable terrorism through both inaction and action.
thegoodlocust 2 years ago
Yeah, I'd agree with you. Did you know that some terrorists teach their children how to be suicide bombers by making instructional videos with Mickey Mouse? When I saw that, I was completely shocked. Though I shouldn't have been. If they're willing to kill innocent children in the WTC, why not corrupt innocent children's minds, after all. It's pretty disgusting.
starfleetofficer1 2 years ago
Yeah I've heard of those ones but hadn't seen them.
A lot of atheists tend to think that all religions are just as bad, but I try to judge them by their actions.
It really is kind of ridiculous saying all religions are equal when you had the aztecs sacrificing humans by the thousands.
thegoodlocust 2 years ago
I judge their members by their actions, and their religion by its meaning.
starfleetofficer1 2 years ago
Yeah judge the individual first, but groups can be judged too.
LIke during WWII would you have said, "Well, I don't judge Germany's army, I judge the individual soldiers?"
No, of course not, we judge both groups and individuals.
thegoodlocust 2 years ago
Definitely true. I judge terrorists as a group. I judge Muslims as individuals. If they happen to be terrorist Muslims, then they lose their right for individual judgment because they joined a group that has an 'our way or the death way' mentality.
starfleetofficer1 2 years ago
Well, you can judge a terrorist as an individual too, and I'm sure some of them are quite nice if you get to know them (lots of friends/family testify to this).
Of course, by definition a terrorist is one who engages or enables some pretty horrific acts, while Muslims are defined by their religious beliefs which promote sexism, anti-Semitism, murder in the name of religion and several other unsavory behaviors.
This is further complicated by the fact that there are groups of moderate Muslims.
thegoodlocust 2 years ago
While this isn't as black and white, I think it is safe to say that there are serious problems with the Islamic faith, but I really have no idea what to do about it.
Change can only come from within and, as I said before, this isn't possible for Muslims since they are laser-focused on outward "enemies."
thegoodlocust 2 years ago
I can see the dilemma, but just think about this. The Catholic church was taking people's money in exchange for a ticket out of purgatory for years until Martin Luther stood up and said, "enough is enough." I think all the Muslim faith needs is a Martin al-Luther. :)
starfleetofficer1 2 years ago
Yes that was my point when i said they needed a Reformation, but back in the day the Catholic church essentially ruled the "known" world and couldn't scapegoat their crimes away.
With Muslims all their problems can be blamed on a whole host of enemies, which means there will never be a cry for reformation. In a way it is a sort of like 1984 - you have the endless war, or jihad in this case, as a way of keeping the populace under control and towing the party line.
thegoodlocust 2 years ago
@starfleetofficer1 speaking of Martin Luther and the division of the church, do you know how many of my countrymen in Germany died after the following religious wars? HALF THE FUCKING POPULATION OF WHAT IS TODAY GERMANY!!! sry the caps but I felt I had to at least bold type that ...
MWcrazyhorse 1 year ago
There's a problem with the argument that Christianity draws more criticism than Sikhism, though, because most societies where Sikhism is prevalent are not pluralistic like most societies where Christianity is prevalent. Those growing up in a pluralistic society are allowed to think out of the box, and therefore can become atheists. You won't find many surrounded by Sikhs, though. If Sikhism was more prevalent, you would find it drawing just as much criticism.
starfleetofficer1 2 years ago
I absolutely agree with you! I think an intellectual debate can only happen when both parties agree to hear each others' side and not name-call at every chance they get, but instead look to develop an open-mindedness about each others' beliefs and accept that they will not reach an agreement, but rather will just expand their mutual understanding.
starfleetofficer1 2 years ago
I've noticed a lot of screaming and playing victim by religious supremacists at 'uppity' atheists.
"I've never seen a joyous atheist video or met a joyful atheist. "
This is an excellent example of dehumanization (obviously motivated by a deep seated hate). A fundamental ingredient in validating the illusion of supremacy.
I wonder what your response is to those who are 'angry' about racists? Your comments read like a white supremacist defending themselves from the dirty and impure.
yubarraboo 2 years ago
This comment is obviously ill-informed and YOU obviously have jumped to a conclusion about white supremacy and Christianity...I think you need to do a little reading, or perhaps watch my other videos. Until then, I won't justify that accusation with a response.
starfleetofficer1 2 years ago
@starfleetofficer1
where is the joy in your writing and clips? Get it?
Yes I know why you are afraid to answer my earlier post. It wasn't for you to answer, but the others to read.
I'm familiar with 'faith' AKA narcissism, and I know you are powerless to subvert it. Reading your channel blip tells me you are a puppet for someone else in your environment. I hope you learn a little more about the terms you are using and how they are mutually exclusive. You can not build a mind on rhetoric.
yubarraboo 2 years ago
You seem extremely narcissistic yourself, and you're making vast assumptions about me and my education that I'd be careful with if I were you. Asking questions might be better if you want to learn something about someone. If you just want to talk, well, join the club--there are plenty of talking heads who spout hate and have no wish to learn about anyone else's point of view. You are not unique.
starfleetofficer1 2 years ago
@starfleetofficer1
Well you are pretty much going down the pit with this last one. As far as spewing hate? That is you with your 'no joy' statement. You also haven't answered my question about the joy in your clips have you?
I know, you can't honestly answer it any more than you can honestly make the assertion that you did.
You can't escape your own actions. Not even with an invisible friend. Learn that now because the world is no longer interested in what you are mimicking.
yubarraboo 2 years ago
Just listen to yourself. And watch some of my videos. And ask yourself if you're accomplishing anything by saying what you're saying. I can't convince you of anything--you're too closed-minded and narcissistic.
starfleetofficer1 2 years ago
@starfleetofficer1 Is your response an example of what you consider joy?
You remind me of those kids that throw rocks at people and run away. Pure cowardice.
yubarraboo 2 years ago
this is freedominsomalia saying fuck all religion
return135 2 years ago
Well I actually would accept that characterization for myself as long you drop the absolute qualifiers.
And I would add that not all false beilefs are directly or as obviuosly harmful as others, even among religious beliefs.
But Yes I dont see why I should tolerate the intolerace of religious claims to objective truth , many of which do directly infringe on the lives of other. Same-sex equalily, teaching fariy tales of creationism and abstance only Ed, instead of science....
gusb232 2 years ago
Okay, but you should do a little research. Most Christians today do not believe on infringing on others' rights...the ones who do happen to yell the loudest and get the most press, of course. This accusation is oftentimes cited by atheists as justification for their discrimination against theists, and I think it's ill-informed and shows ignorance and fear.
starfleetofficer1 2 years ago
Im sorry I think your very wrong, It was just last election cycle that my liberal state voted to prevent gay people from having that same rights as straight people.
Not that it matters if it were true most Christians were on the right side of these civil rights issues, Because the bible is very clear on this issue.
where are all the true Christians speaking out about the catholic chruch preaching that condom use causes HIV in AIDS ravaged Africa, Christian silence on these issues is odd.
gusb232 2 years ago
Oh, I know. It's because even though they don't really believe what the clergy preaches, they fear speaking out because they'd lose their community. You have to understand, churches form very powerful communities, in politics and in social life. Look at Obama--he is where he is because of the connections he made, not because of his merit. His church played a huge role in that. I think it's wrong, but it's how it works, unfortunately.
starfleetofficer1 2 years ago
@starfleetofficer1 'It's because even though they don't really believe what the clergy preaches"
I dont think it can be just that the clery is not holding their hand in the voting booth, and as far as I know its a secrete ballot. Maybe true Christians are just apathetic about what they believe and dont vote.
But I still would partly blame there neglegence. Werent most of the german people during WW2 christians?
gusb232 2 years ago
Yeah! You're really onto something here! The explanation lies in the group mentality, and the power of authority. Look at the Milgram Experiments. 80% of the people tested (in the 60s and in the early 2000s) would go as far as killing someone if ordered to by a person in authority, even though they felt bad about it! This, in my mind, is large evidence to point to people's beliefs being overridden by authority of the clergy and politicians.
starfleetofficer1 2 years ago
Yes well my POV is a bit more critical of how one authoritarian belief and credulity of it opens the way to others of the same type. I cant site the study but I do remember seeing a somthing on pbs where religious people were more likely to inflict punishment and higher amounts of it to others if they were simply told to by the doctors in the experiment to do so.
gusb232 2 years ago
There were other groups of people more likely to inflict punishment and higher amounts of it if told to, as well, so "religious" is just one denomination. Also, the study isn't really fair because there weren't an equally represented number of atheists. It took a sample of the population, which has only 10% no declared religion/ atheism. Therefore, you'd have to do another study to get conclusive results.
starfleetofficer1 2 years ago
@gusb232 hey man if you dig up that study be sure to send me a link, please! yes?!
MWcrazyhorse 1 year ago
@MWcrazyhorse You probably want to look at Milgram's results on Google Scholar. But you also want to look at the most recent study, just Google "Green shoppers more likely to cheat" and you'll find that it's a mechanism at work here. People who believe they are 'righteous' in one way or another (which is NOT the Christian teaching, btw, but it is the way many "Christians" feel) are more likely to make excuses for themselves and readily do bad things.
starfleetofficer1 1 year ago
@starfleetofficer1 ye I know that experiment and this line touches the point I am making quote [agentic state theory, wherein, per Milgram, the essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another person's wishes, and he therefore no longer sees himself as responsible for his actions ] instrument of god... the more a person is trained to obedience the easier this will effect him.
MWcrazyhorse 1 year ago
@starfleetofficer1 speaking of christian teachings I will quote Jesus: [luke 19:27] But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.
The pope issued a decre saying every Indian converting to christianity would be spared any harm. Now as I have explained to you with the example of Naziism this is all it takes for the genocide to happen in this instance. Obedience in an authoritarian mind set and the process has a life of its own.
MWcrazyhorse 1 year ago
@starfleetofficer1
watch?v=Ae_VhJK9DsI
that video should be relevant.
gusb232 2 years ago
When atheists take a large public stand against religion, hundreds of religious groups instantly rise to attack their right to speak. The internet seems to be the last place where we can speak freely. It's not from fear, or idiocy, or weakness. Sure, they feel extremist. But who doesn't? Christians believe they are right. Hindus believe they are right.
TopazT145 2 years ago
Generally speaking, it's natural for people to share the *joy* of their discoveries. Especially when these discoveries are life changing.
Two examples: The former alcoholic who becomes "born again". He is dead CERTAIN this is the only way to true happiness and will crusade for the rest of his life to bring this joy to all others.
(Cont.)
Edella 2 years ago
(Cont.)
The former Christian who, after a crisis of faith, throws off the shackles of religion and feels free for the first time in his life. He too will go on a crusade , first hand experience tells him that only rejecting superstition is the only way to truly live free.
In both cases, the individuals lack the ability to even imagine that someone WOULDN'T benefit from their course of action. First hand experience!
Edella 2 years ago
Yeah, that makes sense. Doesn't make it any less annoying when the advice wasn't asked for, but it does make sense. And also, it explains the anger. Imagine someone rejecting that advice! Telling you you're wrong. Of course you'd get angry. I think this explanation might just be the best one.
starfleetofficer1 2 years ago
One thing it doesn't explain is how they seek out things that they disagree with and then angrily blast it from the get-go instead of sharing the joy. Maybe I just haven't met enough atheists or watched enough of their videos (because I'm not into looking for things I already know I disagree with, unless they're recommended), but I've never seen a joyous atheist video or met a joyful atheist.
starfleetofficer1 2 years ago
"I'm not into looking for things I already know I disagree with..."
I'd ask you to reconsider. Think of how many atheists have rejected Christianity after one half-assed attempt at reading the bible. I still read and listen to Christian apologists. I hardly think I'll change my mind, but who knows? G. K. Chesterton is one I've found recently who approaches Christianity much differently than a Lee Strobel *shudder* or C.S. Lewis. Brilliant man. Seek out talented writers you disagree with.
Edella 2 years ago
If most of your experiences with atheists are on YouTube or the new brand of young angry atheists out there, I can see why it's been discouraging. On the other side, to the young atheists on YouTube, the Christian with the disabled comments and an inability to type one sentence without multiple grammar and spelling mistakes is the norm. Horay for YouTube!
Edella 2 years ago
You might have a valid point there. Too bad someone marked it as spam. Probably one of those grammar-challenged, hate-monger young atheists who think they know everything.
I think I will look for things I disagree with. But you won't find me bashing their viewpoints for no reason, I draw the line there! :)
starfleetofficer1 2 years ago
"but I've never seen a joyous atheist video or met a joyful atheist."
o_O Chances are you wouldn't even know someone is an atheist until you get in their face/onto the public arena with ridiculous assertions, or even outright insults against the atheists themselves.
So, I guess you either have never met any atheists, or only met them situations where they are already pissed off by people polluting humanity with unsupported drivel.
Gnomefro 2 years ago