How did you check? What were you checking for? How did you know you didn't find what you were checking for? Perhaps you did something wrong in the process. Perhaps you didn't have the right tools for the job-- I mean, besides that elusive blind-faith tool.
How is the illusion of a god comforting? The OT God is a veritable sociopath. The Greek deities were murderous. A great deal of Central American gods demanded sacrifice. I don't know much about Norse mythology, but I don't imagine they were kind.... If I were to buy the existence of a God, I'd feel like a man at a roulette wheel, gambling for his life and soul. I can embrace the fact that life is short, and death is permanent. It makes what I have that much more precious.
And if you don't like where the answers take you, ask yourself whether the truth truly mandates what you think. Some people think a lack of god mandates life being worthless, and other silly things. People should self-criticize whether a conclusion truly mandates the perspective they think it does.
@2Draco39 This is Plato's allegory of the cave. Trouble is, we cannot distinguish one idea from another without some external reference. The universe must be real, and our senses must give us information about it, or we have no hope of reasoning anything, or telling fantasy from reality. If we assume otherwise, all is lost, and we might all as well do and think whatever we like, and may the strongest survive.
i don't mind being wrong when discussing topics with reasonable folk, it's just assholes that you REEEAAAALLLYYY want to be right, just so you can shut them up and move on.
I don't mind being wrong. Sleeping on floor for fear of falling out of bed is a possible consequence of fearing being imperfect. Make mistakes, be wrong, reveal your ignorance... fear not. Life is to short to spend it trying to be right imho.
@NLPNVC I desire to believe what is true, to the greatest extent that it is possible for me to know the truth. Religiosity might be defined as the desire for one's belief to not be challenged, whether it is true or not. Let us not split hairs. Let us instead band together in a community of reason, let us save our fellow man from sliding back into the dark ages and build a civil world on a foundation of reason.
I am with you and your slogan isn't just true of atheism. It is true on all aspects of life. People need to think more. People need to think more about their actions, the consequences, the affect it will have on everyone else, their greed, their beliefs (not just religious), and of their personal lives. If everyone took the time to think, not only would we probably not have religion, but, dare I say it, we may actually live in a better world.
Again this goes for both sides. Both sides have a heavy amount of bias about what each other thinks to be true, while neither truly invest time in "real" investigation. But they both sure know how to slap ---- together and make it believable to their side of choice. So, until both side come together about this multifasited subject...this argument will be pointless.
@thinker900 If a person starts with no belief in gods, is an investigation even warranted? Which god claim should be investigated? Why should any god claim be given any more credence than claims of UFOs, Sasquatch, or ghosts? If a claim is not backed up by credible evidence, what real value does it have?
@Obversity: Ummmm, to the greatest extent possible (hopefully all of it, in the end) scientists wish to demonstrate that purely natural actions, without any trace of the supernatural, is responsible for all the naturally observed phenomena in the universe. That's the goal. It is, must be, inimical to design as you use the term.
So, design is not an satisfactory final answer for science. No one guaranteed us we'll have our way, though.
I referred to the design argument as postulated by Paley and other pre-darwinian theologians, viz that elements of the world display complexity and functionality - two of which are necessary conditions for design. And my words were "not entirely unreasonable". That is, something your average ignoramus might accept.
@Obversity "not entirely unreasonable" So what? Time travel is not entirely unreasonable, but I'm not buying a ticket until it is has been positively demonstrated.
An initial force - the first cause - is a difficult thing to comprehend with purely philosophical methods, as philosophy presumes as an axiom that everything is caused. For this, God is but one hypothesis - albeit a poor one with little explanatory power.
But of course, your analogy's implications are perfect; nothing, especially something so ambiguous, should be taken on faith.
@Obversity "An initial force - the first cause" Well there's your problem. Why postulate a first cause? Our continents, our planet, our solar system, and our galaxy are all examples of emergence rather than something with a first cause. For me therefor, the default position is to also think that the singularity the universe expanded from, emerged from unknown preexisting conditions. Thanks for your complements. Nothing like a good debate when video games get boring.
@gigantibyte That it is ignorant to ignore facts, because they don't fit your view at the time. To imagine or to make up things just to prove you invalid points. It cry's out for real cooperative dialog and research from both parties. Now, if you want to IMAGINE or BURY yourself in the mainstream fantasy..fine. But I ask you...Don't you want to be right?
@thinker900 Please quote me (or Kate) saying I would ignore facts. Facts are demonstrable, unlike any supernatural claim. And what have I made up? All I directed towards you was a bunch of questions, of which you answered none. If you are referring to my thoughts on the origin of the universe, I merely pointed out that saying it had a "first cause" is an assertion that have not been demonstrated. Until that happens, why believe the universe did not have natural origins?
@gigantibyte Did I mention the Big Bang or the Creationalist theories? No I didn't. I'm referring to you having did the same shit Creationalists do. Which is ignore any and all possible explaination given for belief and not taking time to investigate it yourself. Please, stick to the subject matter given by me and the person whom made this video. I don't ahire to individuals that are here just for the ride.
@gigantibyte I used the Darwinian theory of evolution as a metaphore. Not an argument for or against the current theory brought through normal mainstream sciences or that thought up by religious sects. Clearly, just because something hasn't been clearly demonstrated doesn't insure that it does not exist in one form or the other.
@gigantibyte As for your last question, I ask this one. Why does the description given by the bible have to be "supernatural?" The common thing Creationalists and Atheist tend to do is take biblical descriptions of history as completely literal, instead of considering the language or time it was written. It will take some time until both side grow the fuck up for religion to be demystified.
@thinker900 If the bible is being argued as litteral, than many things it describes are not natural. If the bible is metaphorical, then it has nothing to tell us on the origns of the universe.
"..just because something hasn't been clearly demonstrated doesn't insure that it does not exist in one form or the other"
Anything that can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
@gigantibyte Not it's not completely metaphorical or supernatural. Historically, it is very valid. However, the language used to describe things or events have changed. Language change throughout time. You think that future generations will use the exact language used today or use the same things to compare and contrast. NO! But what never seem to change is the fact that people take written word literally when they know it's old.
@thinker900 "Historically, it is very valid" Only as valid as any other ancient religious book. Perhaps the bible has some anthropological value, if that's what you mean. However, it's not a history or science book. One thing is clear though, the bible claims a personable god exists, and gods are supernatural entities.
@gigantibyte No, there is some real historical evidence. However, based on the finds it's scetchy at best. I believe that based on those evidences that the historical part is at least somewhat true. NOT the mythological part of it that you choose to accuse me of believing. Again, a lot about religion screams to be investigated or else neither side will truly know. True it is not a traditional school text book, but it does center around obvious polital and social issues.
@gigantibyte That is if you have read and "interpreted" it in that fashion. Like she mentioned early research without fear of finding out what you might not want to hear. Oh, and another point I'd like to make is that our History books are rettled with incomplete history yet we still fall into the trap of quoting it word for word.
@thinker900 Wow. I take issue with some of your most recent post, but let's forget that for now. It was not my intention to accuse you believing myths, I just question the merits of an atheist investigating god claims, or any other claim not supported by evidence. When you say "...this goes for both sides....neither truly invest time in real investigation", which two sides are you talking about? It's not like believers are all on the same page.
@gigantibyte I was talking about both the theological and atheist communities. And just to correct you on something their are quiet a few "believers" that question the validity of their faith. However, I think your trying to say that religious fundamentalist are not on the same page. There can be a cooperation between the two communities to demystify faith and disbar people that use it for their own purposes...like so many do.
@thinker900 There is not a single belief that all theologians agree on. Thousands of divisions exist within the Christian faith alone. Perhaps they all believe in at least 1 god, but they don't all agree who that god is. Calling them a community is a stretch. (Btw, who's side do you put Buddhists on?) And personally, I find nothing mystifying about faith. I have practical faith in some people and things, but I think spiritual faith is a delusion.
@Obversity Emergence is the known way many complex systems and patterns come into existence. For example, Earth's weather system did not have a first cause, it emerged from favorable conditions. In fact, most natural things in our universe (if not all) emerged, rather than having a single cause. Since we have never found a natural "first cause", saying the universe had one is unjustified. Condidtions that first led to the universe are unknown, but that statement makes no assertions.
I do see the merit of this position. The question of why anything exists at all, however, still stands. Which is not to say God hypotheses can avoid it either.
@Obversity The origin of existence, eh? No idea. But one has the same problem If they say a god did it. Where did the god originate from? A mystery is not solved by creating an even bigger mystery. One thing is clear, without existence we would not be hear to talk about it.
@puncheex "...scientists wish to demonstrate that purely natural actions, without any trace of the supernatural, is responsible..." Science itself is not on a witch hunt to discredit the supernatural. It just happens that the supernatural answer has been wrong every time.
@gigantibyte Good questions..NOT! It's the same cliche' crap every atheist would ask to try and blow off something. The same for a person of faith with Darwinian evolution. Quite frankly your making her and my point. Listen to the video again. She makes the point that, if she were to believe in anything that it has to have valid evidence. That she would want to be right in her assumption. 2bcont
I believe I'm right in saying that nobody can be right about how things truly are ;)
We're truly sitting in Plato's Cave sitting looking at shadow play. Shadows are all we have, so that's what we have to work with. Why do you want to be right?
@BionicDance Agreed, not knowing means you can make mistakes but when you find evidence you can adapt. Being wrong and happy with it condemns you to repeat the mistakes.
Do a google search for "the relativity of wrong" by Isaac Asimov. He points out the difference between a slight error..wrong.. and WRONG.
You're right. Maybe we can't be "perfectly right", but we can be right enough to land and operate rovers on mars, perform open heart surgery without killing the patient, inoculating a population against polio, and feed billions of people.
I'm a relativist I don't need to read that, but I do like Asimov.
I don't believe they were all the achievements of atheists - polio vaccine was discovered by a jew. It's a difficult thing to not conflate science with atheism on the youtubes, it's far easier to fall into a false dichotomy between a/theism. None of these discussions are putting monkeys on the moon ;)
@gratex: I would agree that discoveries are not the sole property of atheists. There is a warning, however: if Christianity follows in the oath of 11th century Islam, it could very well wind up in the same desperate state that Islamic scientists have found themselves in for 900 years. There is no guarantee for anyone that science or rationality will win out in the end. It has to be worked on to succeed.
I very much agree with your sentiment about working on rationality and reason rather than hoping it spreads. I don't believe that it's sane to spread it by the same methods as religions spread, though, IE in an instinctual group identity warfare format. Reason should lead by example rather than win by violence against its' competitors - that stands to reason?
@gratex: In the 18th and 19th centuries Christianity fostered the growth of science in Europe and their colonies, leading to the science powerhouse we have today. Christianity seems to be at the same fork in the road that Islam was in the 11th century, when a philosopher named al-Ghazali started the slide by condemning thought for scripture. Philip Johnson could well signal the same kind of downfall for the west, and the rise of atheism *could* be its saving. No guarantees, though.
if you believe that then I suggest you go watch an inmendham video ;) Saying that santa doesn't exist isn't going to save the idea of santa - in other words the west is built upon a way of thinking about the world that relies upon monotheism - pull the carpet out from under its' feet if you think that will help it remain standing. Curing cultures of monotheism involves more complex surgery than the average youtube atheist (with their leeches) is capable of.
@gratex: I said nothing of trying to cure it. When I was a kid, with the exception of a rarely heard lunatic fringe religion had little to say about politics, but much to say about life. That all ended with Falwell's Moral Majority. It is not my task to try to bring militant religion down, but it certainly is to make sure that it doesn't succeed in derailing the one thing it did right. I do that in a way that is possible for me; you too seem to think it efficacious, or you wouldn't be here.
yes we have to be pragmatic about reality. We may be looking at blurry shapes through a mist, which seems the case, but we still have to say something about those shapes. Then we need an epistemology. A/theism wars don't lay such foundations - both are fighting for certainty in a universe that seems uncertain. I'm happy to be sure.
That is the way to do it. That methodology works for everything, gods are just one tiny category one can apply it to. That is rationalism. I too, am a rationalist, as well as an empiricist. It is the only way one can be right. It is how we know things.
But I think that most people feel (unconsciously) that they don't have time to think in their every day live. So they spew out whatever answers they were fed, because it's more comforting to think to be right. And you're right, they don't go and check.
I hope automatics get recalled for a refit soon. Or to final get the most crucial parts fitted!
I remember my childhood pastor saying at the pulpit, "It's not up to us to always understand what god wants, we just have to believe it." Pretty much sums it up.
@debbieomi: I'm not much for that kind of thought. It seems to me that if we have brains with which to think then thinking has got to be the highest distinction that those brains can be brought to. Belief seems to me to be rationalized emotions or instincts. I don't know of anything we've approached in the intellectual sphere that we see cannot be conquered by understanding, no "forbidden knowledge" has yet been encountered. Hubris? I think not, but there I go again....
there is another way of being right, volume. you know what i am talking about, we all went to school, its much easier to shout down someone with pure unadulterated ignorance, than with a rational argument, it like you may be able to quote a study but i just called you gay, ergo i win.
Hey BionicDance, I love your videos. I don't really have a stake in the god debate, but I like watching. I'm skeptical about your idea of checking for evidence. Believers will often point to a common occurrence(complex life, 3D television) as evidence of a god's existence. The problem isn't that they aren't presenting evidence, it's just not evidence that satisfies your standards. Atheists look at those same occurrences, and see no evidence of a god. I thought I'd point that out.
@ATHEISTIQ For the sake of argument, yes. I am having a personal experience indicating to me that your computer was created by computer-creating fairies. Explain to me how you know my experience of reality is less valid than yours.
@ATHEISTIQ Your experience of reality is supported by objective evidence? Right. How did you come to this conclusion? Do you think this is true because other people confirm your experiences? Do you think this is true because you can make predictions? In any case, I find your commitment to objectivity dogmatic. You haven't given me any real reasons why there is anything less valid about my experience. This is especially troubling because those fairy elves told me personally about your computer.
Yes, I am committed to believing in things which are objectively true. I believe my computer was assembled by the manufacturer. There is objective evidence supporting that. You obviously don't care whether the things you believe in are true, since all beliefs are equally valid, in your opinion. The problem is that delusional people act on delusions, and it affects the rest of us.
@ATHEISTIQ I'm sensing an angry tone. This example is boring now, but I feel compelled. You receipt looks homemade to me, and would you stop shipping it to my house for service? You should also be more cautious about claiming I believe all beliefs are equally valid. Luckily real scientists aren't as overzealous as youtube pseudo scientists. What I have suggested is that people in the scientific community have a responsibility to question science itself. Certainly, you wouldn't object to that?
@sodacop Just look back at your posts. You've been trying to make the case that your unsupported fairy belief is equal to belief supported with objective evidence.
It appears you're trying to maneuver into a subject changing strategy and philosophical rant (typical), let's get back to the main point:
Is it your position that ALL beliefs are equally valid, or not ?
Do you believe that NOTHING is objectively true / factual ?
@ATHEISTIQ I have not been making the case that my unsupported fairy belief is equal to belief supported with what you call objective evidence. My position is not that all beliefs are equally reflective of reality, but that it is impossible for you to know how closely your own vision mirrors reality. As for your second question, I don't know whether there is a single factual realty or not. I generally feel like my interpretation is the most correct. What about you?
@sodacop Of course, there IS an objective reality, and we CAN find out how closely our perceptions and beliefs match. I will explain a real life event that shows you also believe this.......When you approach an intersection, it isn't full of twisted metal and bodies because you and the other drivers recognize there is an objective reality that you can all reference: the lines on the street and color of traffic lights. You trust this objective standard, if you ride or drive.
@ATHEISTIQ I cannot know whether the other drivers are experiencing what I am because I have no direct access to their experiences. I can only know what they tell me, and even that is filtered through my senses and judgment. II know what you're saying though. I do have to trust my senses when I drive. I do the best I can with them, but that is no indication that what I receive and interpret is true or real in any objective way.
@sodacop There's plenty of evidence that other drivers are viewing the same objective reality. Hence the lack of bloody messes at every intersection. I don't think we would've had a chance to evolve or advance, if everyone were seeing and hearing different things all the time. There is an objective standard that can be observed, analyzed, and measured.
@ATHEISTIQ I think it's super cool that you were able to thwart my super ninja-like subject changing strategy, and curb that philosophical rant we were headed for. Since you're so good, maybe you could answer the question I've been posing since the beginning: how are you so sure that the evidence you have for your beliefs gives you a clear picture of what you refer to as truth?
@sodacop Because objective evidence exists outside my own mind, and is available for observation and analysis by everyone. The first time any of us began seeing, hearing, smelling, and touching things, we were observing and analyzing evidence of objective reality. This is the only proven way of identifying truth. Subjective, unverified delusions are not.
@ATHEISTIQ How do you know that objective evidence exists outside of your own mind when nothing you know can be accessed from outside your own mind? Other people and their observations are filtered through your senses. You could be nothing more than a paranoid schizophrenic with a well-established narrative. Belief in your own senses requires a good amount of faith.
@sodacop Oh, the "matrix argument", "brain in a jar", "complex hallucination"or "life is but a dream". The endless what ifs of philosophical pondering. You and I don't believe those to be the case because we proceed through life as if our actions have real consequences....we stop at the red light because we wish to preserve our lives and that family of 4 we would collide with. You've been alive this long because you accept this as real.
@ATHEISTIQ Idealism can't be disproved however two points. 1.) I can dream of eating and wake up hungry. 2.) The minute of life leads me to a stark skepticism of idealism. Not proof but a good reason to doubt. 3.) Anyone who pushes solipsism should be locked in a room without food, water or toilet. They'll change their mind. Again, it's not proof but the belief is usually fixable.
@sodacop: Evidence in the sciences is all well defined, though. For example, Galileo observed balls of differing weight falling and drew a conclusion. I can repeat that experiment today and get the same result. Religion doesn't have that, because there is no common ground; everyone's religious experiences differ, there is only a vague feeling of proceeding together, and often enough even "together" doesn't work.
@puncheex@puncheex Repeatability is a nice idea, but there are a lot of problems with it. One problem that stands out to me is that it might be impossible to separate a subject from her observations. You observe within a context that determines how you interpret sensory experiences. If you think that your observations are objective because Galileo got the same result playing with his balls, I'd disagree. He has simply become your context, making it unlikely you'd have a different experience.
@sodacop: I don't think that's true. If the balls don't land at the same time, then no amount of experimenting through Galileo's eyes is going to make it work out. Experiments, ancient and recent, are reconstructed all the time in science pedagogy. Sometimes they fail, and the circumstances are questioned minutely to understand why. I deny that all those observations can be influenced by "context". Further, the observations can be removed from sensory interpretation, and still work.
@puncheex I don't know of anything in the world that can be divorced from interpretation. Can you experience from outside yourself? Could you teach me? ;)
@sodacop: The method that science uses, the "Aristotelian" view, is to repeat the experiments with multiple other, independent trained investigators. A confluence of their opinions is considered conclusive of objective reality, within the limits imposed by the experiments. There is no other way to test it. Without that touchstone, then not only are we living in Plato's cave, but we are unable to describe what we see to our fellows. We're communicating such a common understanding as we type.
@puncheex This is one of the places I think religion and science have a lot in common. I think religious people want so badly to prove to themselves that there is a god because they have a lot of fear that without a god, existence is meaningless. I think science so badly wants to prove that a single objective reality can be discerned from the collaboration of many minds. Without this, the world seems to be without order, and they would have to recognize how isolated the mind is.
@puncheex There is no other way to test reality but to rely on what we believe to be objective evidence that is accessible to many minds. Unfortunately, we have no way to prove that this is actually a good measuring stick for reality. We have to have faith in our ability to interpret our senses. We also have to have faith in the idea that if a lot of people appear to have similar experiences, this is an indication that the experiences are parallel to truth and realness.
I like you vid. But I would have thought the conclusion should have been "I found checking the evidence made the conclusion of atheism unavoidable. But you should not assume I am right, check for yourself." I guess this was hinted at my "don't run on automatic" but I like it explicitly stated. Keep it up!
@BionicDance, Excelent video, I fully agree with you however I have a problem what you say at 1:47 . Most religious people think they are right, only theist that have done some research might have that position, most are simply ignorant
I'd also add that those of us who would rather say "I don't know" than be wrong or simply guess are more likely to be atheists. Those of us who are not affraid of the unknown, but excited by the puzzles it presents and the prospect of finding out the real answer, rather than fearing them and so crowbarring our favourite fairy story into the holes, simply to make us feel better.
If there was 'proof' for the existence of God then I would not need to "Believe" because I would know. I don't need to believe in my chair I can feel it through my pants.
And at that point he would lose some of that mystique I think. I fear some people want their Gods at arms length. If God did appear now belief would be unnecessary.
I wonder how many Christians would be appalled if the God of the bible appeared to them and carried on from where he left off.
Come Thanksgiving, nothing makes my mouth water like the sight of the holiday infant bourn upon a platter, glazed with butter, trimmed with parsley, an apple in it's speechlees mouth (my cousins like to fight over who gets to split the pelvis).
You gotta get 'em fresh from the orphange though -those frozen ones they sell at the supermarket just ain't the same.
I am one who usually checks and I point out when others don't. Wow I feel like this video pretty much raps up my perspective on life. But to be honest I have made a ton of shitty mistakes while being on just your channel...
LOL You would have a better chance than me getting elected. First woman, bisexual,but married to a man, a Witch, liberal, redneck from WV, I am "white" but thats a "trick" with skeletons coming out of the closet doing a conga line. (Example: I really have snorted cocaine off a hookers ass--but its not as bad as it sounds really)
Great video. I understand and respect Atheists (well, most) But I "feel" right about the path I have chosen. Atheists have treated me with more respect than anyone else.
I'd rather be wrong. If I am right then there is no more discovery to be had on the subject. If I am wrong then I have to be creative, think outside the box. The coolest discoveries of science don't occur when we're right, they occur when we were wrong about how a phenomenon worked. To clarify, my goal is to be right but i want to be wrong.
Least offenseive!? I can only assume you are entirely unaware of Higgelsdorffe's systematic extermination of the Bjorgnenflugian loaylist during the Norweigian civil war.
For many years I have told people that I hate being wrong and love being right and just like you when I discover I am wrong I change my mind and just like that I am right again. It's an awsome feeling always knowing that I will be right in the end so long as I am willing to alter my position when I am demonstrated to be wrong.
Gonna nit pick a bit - sorry. "Atheism is a conclusion" might be misinterpreted as taking a positive stance that no gods exist. Personally, I feel "right" about being an atheist, only because nobody has ever demonstrated they are right about their god claims. The title of this video could also be taken to mean you don't want there to be any gods, and that could open the door to the "You're just running away from God" argument.
@gigantibyte Anyone reaching those conclusions would be nitpicking single points instead of looking at them in context, looking at the whole message. That would be foolish of them.
'Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake! We are making use of only a small part of our physical and mental resourses.
Stating the thing broadly, the human individual thus lives far within his limits. He possesses power of various sorts which he habitually fails to use.'
Sometimes I run on automatic while driving and turn into my old culdesac instead of continually driving where I planned to go. My brain needs to stop running on automatic sometimes.
How did you check? What were you checking for? How did you know you didn't find what you were checking for? Perhaps you did something wrong in the process. Perhaps you didn't have the right tools for the job-- I mean, besides that elusive blind-faith tool.
marasu66 1 month ago in playlist More videos from BionicDance
neretic how dare you reject the god-emperor of man(lol) great subject matter
darthslain 1 year ago
@darthslain *heretic* damn typo
darthslain 1 year ago
How is the illusion of a god comforting? The OT God is a veritable sociopath. The Greek deities were murderous. A great deal of Central American gods demanded sacrifice. I don't know much about Norse mythology, but I don't imagine they were kind.... If I were to buy the existence of a God, I'd feel like a man at a roulette wheel, gambling for his life and soul. I can embrace the fact that life is short, and death is permanent. It makes what I have that much more precious.
jedwards0820 1 year ago
bionicdance you are awesome
sambricky 1 year ago
And if you don't like where the answers take you, ask yourself whether the truth truly mandates what you think. Some people think a lack of god mandates life being worthless, and other silly things. People should self-criticize whether a conclusion truly mandates the perspective they think it does.
Just wanted to put that out there
technologysucks 1 year ago
I like your planets.
ZandRTheFlop 1 year ago
Thanks this video is very clear and well presented.
TheDavidisnumber1 1 year ago
On 0:50 you say you aren't, but are you sure...
I say we all live in a multitude of illusions...
accept it the matrix is real...
2Draco39 1 year ago
@2Draco39 This is Plato's allegory of the cave. Trouble is, we cannot distinguish one idea from another without some external reference. The universe must be real, and our senses must give us information about it, or we have no hope of reasoning anything, or telling fantasy from reality. If we assume otherwise, all is lost, and we might all as well do and think whatever we like, and may the strongest survive.
nothingUnrealExists 1 year ago
Right On!
JAEDOGNYC 1 year ago
i don't mind being wrong when discussing topics with reasonable folk, it's just assholes that you REEEAAAALLLYYY want to be right, just so you can shut them up and move on.
omnigear1975 1 year ago
I don't mind being wrong. Sleeping on floor for fear of falling out of bed is a possible consequence of fearing being imperfect. Make mistakes, be wrong, reveal your ignorance... fear not. Life is to short to spend it trying to be right imho.
NLPNVC 1 year ago
@NLPNVC Well, let's put it this way: when I discover that I AM wrong, I have no interest in STAYING that way.
BionicDance 1 year ago 11
@NLPNVC I desire to believe what is true, to the greatest extent that it is possible for me to know the truth. Religiosity might be defined as the desire for one's belief to not be challenged, whether it is true or not. Let us not split hairs. Let us instead band together in a community of reason, let us save our fellow man from sliding back into the dark ages and build a civil world on a foundation of reason.
nothingUnrealExists 1 year ago
@nothingUnrealExists
"..let us save our fellow man.."
Thank you so much and peace to you.
NLPNVC 1 year ago
I am with you and your slogan isn't just true of atheism. It is true on all aspects of life. People need to think more. People need to think more about their actions, the consequences, the affect it will have on everyone else, their greed, their beliefs (not just religious), and of their personal lives. If everyone took the time to think, not only would we probably not have religion, but, dare I say it, we may actually live in a better world.
mara7987 1 year ago
Again this goes for both sides. Both sides have a heavy amount of bias about what each other thinks to be true, while neither truly invest time in "real" investigation. But they both sure know how to slap ---- together and make it believable to their side of choice. So, until both side come together about this multifasited subject...this argument will be pointless.
thinker900 1 year ago
@thinker900 If a person starts with no belief in gods, is an investigation even warranted? Which god claim should be investigated? Why should any god claim be given any more credence than claims of UFOs, Sasquatch, or ghosts? If a claim is not backed up by credible evidence, what real value does it have?
gigantibyte 1 year ago
@gigantibyte
Assuming limited knowledge of biology and physics - or even of the existence of fields - the design argument is not entirely unreasonable.
Obversity 1 year ago
@Obversity: Ummmm, to the greatest extent possible (hopefully all of it, in the end) scientists wish to demonstrate that purely natural actions, without any trace of the supernatural, is responsible for all the naturally observed phenomena in the universe. That's the goal. It is, must be, inimical to design as you use the term.
So, design is not an satisfactory final answer for science. No one guaranteed us we'll have our way, though.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex
I referred to the design argument as postulated by Paley and other pre-darwinian theologians, viz that elements of the world display complexity and functionality - two of which are necessary conditions for design. And my words were "not entirely unreasonable". That is, something your average ignoramus might accept.
Obversity 1 year ago
@Obversity "not entirely unreasonable" So what? Time travel is not entirely unreasonable, but I'm not buying a ticket until it is has been positively demonstrated.
gigantibyte 1 year ago
@gigantibyte
An initial force - the first cause - is a difficult thing to comprehend with purely philosophical methods, as philosophy presumes as an axiom that everything is caused. For this, God is but one hypothesis - albeit a poor one with little explanatory power.
But of course, your analogy's implications are perfect; nothing, especially something so ambiguous, should be taken on faith.
Obversity 1 year ago
@Obversity "An initial force - the first cause" Well there's your problem. Why postulate a first cause? Our continents, our planet, our solar system, and our galaxy are all examples of emergence rather than something with a first cause. For me therefor, the default position is to also think that the singularity the universe expanded from, emerged from unknown preexisting conditions. Thanks for your complements. Nothing like a good debate when video games get boring.
gigantibyte 1 year ago
@gigantibyte That it is ignorant to ignore facts, because they don't fit your view at the time. To imagine or to make up things just to prove you invalid points. It cry's out for real cooperative dialog and research from both parties. Now, if you want to IMAGINE or BURY yourself in the mainstream fantasy..fine. But I ask you...Don't you want to be right?
thinker900 1 year ago
@thinker900 Please quote me (or Kate) saying I would ignore facts. Facts are demonstrable, unlike any supernatural claim. And what have I made up? All I directed towards you was a bunch of questions, of which you answered none. If you are referring to my thoughts on the origin of the universe, I merely pointed out that saying it had a "first cause" is an assertion that have not been demonstrated. Until that happens, why believe the universe did not have natural origins?
gigantibyte 1 year ago
@gigantibyte Did I mention the Big Bang or the Creationalist theories? No I didn't. I'm referring to you having did the same shit Creationalists do. Which is ignore any and all possible explaination given for belief and not taking time to investigate it yourself. Please, stick to the subject matter given by me and the person whom made this video. I don't ahire to individuals that are here just for the ride.
thinker900 1 year ago
@gigantibyte I used the Darwinian theory of evolution as a metaphore. Not an argument for or against the current theory brought through normal mainstream sciences or that thought up by religious sects. Clearly, just because something hasn't been clearly demonstrated doesn't insure that it does not exist in one form or the other.
thinker900 1 year ago
@gigantibyte As for your last question, I ask this one. Why does the description given by the bible have to be "supernatural?" The common thing Creationalists and Atheist tend to do is take biblical descriptions of history as completely literal, instead of considering the language or time it was written. It will take some time until both side grow the fuck up for religion to be demystified.
thinker900 1 year ago
@thinker900 If the bible is being argued as litteral, than many things it describes are not natural. If the bible is metaphorical, then it has nothing to tell us on the origns of the universe.
"..just because something hasn't been clearly demonstrated doesn't insure that it does not exist in one form or the other"
Anything that can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
gigantibyte 1 year ago
@gigantibyte Not it's not completely metaphorical or supernatural. Historically, it is very valid. However, the language used to describe things or events have changed. Language change throughout time. You think that future generations will use the exact language used today or use the same things to compare and contrast. NO! But what never seem to change is the fact that people take written word literally when they know it's old.
thinker900 1 year ago
@thinker900 "Historically, it is very valid" Only as valid as any other ancient religious book. Perhaps the bible has some anthropological value, if that's what you mean. However, it's not a history or science book. One thing is clear though, the bible claims a personable god exists, and gods are supernatural entities.
gigantibyte 1 year ago
@gigantibyte No, there is some real historical evidence. However, based on the finds it's scetchy at best. I believe that based on those evidences that the historical part is at least somewhat true. NOT the mythological part of it that you choose to accuse me of believing. Again, a lot about religion screams to be investigated or else neither side will truly know. True it is not a traditional school text book, but it does center around obvious polital and social issues.
thinker900 1 year ago
@gigantibyte That is if you have read and "interpreted" it in that fashion. Like she mentioned early research without fear of finding out what you might not want to hear. Oh, and another point I'd like to make is that our History books are rettled with incomplete history yet we still fall into the trap of quoting it word for word.
thinker900 1 year ago
@thinker900 Wow. I take issue with some of your most recent post, but let's forget that for now. It was not my intention to accuse you believing myths, I just question the merits of an atheist investigating god claims, or any other claim not supported by evidence. When you say "...this goes for both sides....neither truly invest time in real investigation", which two sides are you talking about? It's not like believers are all on the same page.
gigantibyte 1 year ago
@gigantibyte I was talking about both the theological and atheist communities. And just to correct you on something their are quiet a few "believers" that question the validity of their faith. However, I think your trying to say that religious fundamentalist are not on the same page. There can be a cooperation between the two communities to demystify faith and disbar people that use it for their own purposes...like so many do.
thinker900 1 year ago
@thinker900 Sorry (there)
thinker900 1 year ago
@thinker900 There is not a single belief that all theologians agree on. Thousands of divisions exist within the Christian faith alone. Perhaps they all believe in at least 1 god, but they don't all agree who that god is. Calling them a community is a stretch. (Btw, who's side do you put Buddhists on?) And personally, I find nothing mystifying about faith. I have practical faith in some people and things, but I think spiritual faith is a delusion.
gigantibyte 1 year ago
@gigantibyte
Define emergence please. Positing 'unknown conditions' does nothing to solve the mystery.
Obversity 1 year ago
@Obversity Emergence is the known way many complex systems and patterns come into existence. For example, Earth's weather system did not have a first cause, it emerged from favorable conditions. In fact, most natural things in our universe (if not all) emerged, rather than having a single cause. Since we have never found a natural "first cause", saying the universe had one is unjustified. Condidtions that first led to the universe are unknown, but that statement makes no assertions.
gigantibyte 1 year ago
@gigantibyte
I do see the merit of this position. The question of why anything exists at all, however, still stands. Which is not to say God hypotheses can avoid it either.
Obversity 1 year ago
@Obversity The origin of existence, eh? No idea. But one has the same problem If they say a god did it. Where did the god originate from? A mystery is not solved by creating an even bigger mystery. One thing is clear, without existence we would not be hear to talk about it.
gigantibyte 1 year ago
@Obversity: Ah, OK then.
puncheex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@puncheex "...scientists wish to demonstrate that purely natural actions, without any trace of the supernatural, is responsible..." Science itself is not on a witch hunt to discredit the supernatural. It just happens that the supernatural answer has been wrong every time.
gigantibyte 1 year ago
@gigantibyte Good questions..NOT! It's the same cliche' crap every atheist would ask to try and blow off something. The same for a person of faith with Darwinian evolution. Quite frankly your making her and my point. Listen to the video again. She makes the point that, if she were to believe in anything that it has to have valid evidence. That she would want to be right in her assumption. 2bcont
thinker900 1 year ago
Another thoughtful video. Thanks.
TooferMan 1 year ago
I'm with you Wallace!
perchedeagle2 1 year ago
I don't want to believe, I want to know.
rollsthepaul 1 year ago
Wherever "pearlism" leads us...
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
I'd rather be on the left =3
Shmuklidooha 1 year ago
That song reminded me a little of He Man.
PluralOfEverything 1 year ago
My slogan is "trust is good, checking is better".
IAmDonar 1 year ago
I believe I'm right in saying that nobody can be right about how things truly are ;)
We're truly sitting in Plato's Cave sitting looking at shadow play. Shadows are all we have, so that's what we have to work with. Why do you want to be right?
gratex 1 year ago
@gratex Becuase being wrong is dangerous and stupid.
BionicDance 1 year ago 9
@BionicDance Agreed, not knowing means you can make mistakes but when you find evidence you can adapt. Being wrong and happy with it condemns you to repeat the mistakes.
BlueGlowingLight4 1 year ago
@gratex
Do a google search for "the relativity of wrong" by Isaac Asimov. He points out the difference between a slight error..wrong.. and WRONG.
You're right. Maybe we can't be "perfectly right", but we can be right enough to land and operate rovers on mars, perform open heart surgery without killing the patient, inoculating a population against polio, and feed billions of people.
That's good enough for me.
maddogdelta 1 year ago
@maddogdelta
I'm a relativist I don't need to read that, but I do like Asimov.
I don't believe they were all the achievements of atheists - polio vaccine was discovered by a jew. It's a difficult thing to not conflate science with atheism on the youtubes, it's far easier to fall into a false dichotomy between a/theism. None of these discussions are putting monkeys on the moon ;)
gratex 1 year ago
@gratex: I would agree that discoveries are not the sole property of atheists. There is a warning, however: if Christianity follows in the oath of 11th century Islam, it could very well wind up in the same desperate state that Islamic scientists have found themselves in for 900 years. There is no guarantee for anyone that science or rationality will win out in the end. It has to be worked on to succeed.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex
I very much agree with your sentiment about working on rationality and reason rather than hoping it spreads. I don't believe that it's sane to spread it by the same methods as religions spread, though, IE in an instinctual group identity warfare format. Reason should lead by example rather than win by violence against its' competitors - that stands to reason?
gratex 1 year ago
@gratex: In the 18th and 19th centuries Christianity fostered the growth of science in Europe and their colonies, leading to the science powerhouse we have today. Christianity seems to be at the same fork in the road that Islam was in the 11th century, when a philosopher named al-Ghazali started the slide by condemning thought for scripture. Philip Johnson could well signal the same kind of downfall for the west, and the rise of atheism *could* be its saving. No guarantees, though.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex
if you believe that then I suggest you go watch an inmendham video ;) Saying that santa doesn't exist isn't going to save the idea of santa - in other words the west is built upon a way of thinking about the world that relies upon monotheism - pull the carpet out from under its' feet if you think that will help it remain standing. Curing cultures of monotheism involves more complex surgery than the average youtube atheist (with their leeches) is capable of.
gratex 1 year ago
@gratex: I said nothing of trying to cure it. When I was a kid, with the exception of a rarely heard lunatic fringe religion had little to say about politics, but much to say about life. That all ended with Falwell's Moral Majority. It is not my task to try to bring militant religion down, but it certainly is to make sure that it doesn't succeed in derailing the one thing it did right. I do that in a way that is possible for me; you too seem to think it efficacious, or you wouldn't be here.
puncheex 1 year ago
@gratex
You're right... noone knows what goes on behind the curtain... or if there even IS
a curtain. Perhaps what we see is what we get.
What it comes down to, is wether we can understand, explain and predict the
shadows of the reality that we do see. If there is a curtain or not, has no true or
false value, though as such makes for a very good conversation over a pint or
two, but nothing more.
ydyammo 1 year ago
@ydyammo
yes we have to be pragmatic about reality. We may be looking at blurry shapes through a mist, which seems the case, but we still have to say something about those shapes. Then we need an epistemology. A/theism wars don't lay such foundations - both are fighting for certainty in a universe that seems uncertain. I'm happy to be sure.
gratex 1 year ago
I agree with Nick.
No, wait.
ScepticalAgnostic 1 year ago
That is the way to do it. That methodology works for everything, gods are just one tiny category one can apply it to. That is rationalism. I too, am a rationalist, as well as an empiricist. It is the only way one can be right. It is how we know things.
sonnygll 1 year ago
The only thing in which I can truly know I'm right, is that I'm right-handed.
Strawedify 1 year ago
Nice slogan. I think some will need new cars.
But I think that most people feel (unconsciously) that they don't have time to think in their every day live. So they spew out whatever answers they were fed, because it's more comforting to think to be right. And you're right, they don't go and check.
I hope automatics get recalled for a refit soon. Or to final get the most crucial parts fitted!
Mehatos 1 year ago
I thunk
and I was wrong
but now I'm right
Shadizar666 1 year ago
I remember my childhood pastor saying at the pulpit, "It's not up to us to always understand what god wants, we just have to believe it." Pretty much sums it up.
debbieomi 1 year ago
@debbieomi: I'm not much for that kind of thought. It seems to me that if we have brains with which to think then thinking has got to be the highest distinction that those brains can be brought to. Belief seems to me to be rationalized emotions or instincts. I don't know of anything we've approached in the intellectual sphere that we see cannot be conquered by understanding, no "forbidden knowledge" has yet been encountered. Hubris? I think not, but there I go again....
puncheex 1 year ago
there is another way of being right, volume. you know what i am talking about, we all went to school, its much easier to shout down someone with pure unadulterated ignorance, than with a rational argument, it like you may be able to quote a study but i just called you gay, ergo i win.
latterdayhertic 1 year ago
you spoke my words! excellent!!
miraj0072004 1 year ago
Hey BionicDance, I love your videos. I don't really have a stake in the god debate, but I like watching. I'm skeptical about your idea of checking for evidence. Believers will often point to a common occurrence(complex life, 3D television) as evidence of a god's existence. The problem isn't that they aren't presenting evidence, it's just not evidence that satisfies your standards. Atheists look at those same occurrences, and see no evidence of a god. I thought I'd point that out.
sodacop 1 year ago
@sodacop
The existence of any type of matter (living organisms, TVs) is only evidence of their existence, not evidence of something that supposedly created it.
Is my computer, evidence of computer-creating fairies ?
ATHEISTIQ 1 year ago
@ATHEISTIQ For the sake of argument, yes. I am having a personal experience indicating to me that your computer was created by computer-creating fairies. Explain to me how you know my experience of reality is less valid than yours.
sodacop 1 year ago
@sodacop
My experience of reality is supported with objective evidence. Your fairy delusion is not, and is contrary to objective evidence.
ATHEISTIQ 1 year ago
@ATHEISTIQ Your experience of reality is supported by objective evidence? Right. How did you come to this conclusion? Do you think this is true because other people confirm your experiences? Do you think this is true because you can make predictions? In any case, I find your commitment to objectivity dogmatic. You haven't given me any real reasons why there is anything less valid about my experience. This is especially troubling because those fairy elves told me personally about your computer.
sodacop 1 year ago
@sodacop
Yes, I am committed to believing in things which are objectively true. I believe my computer was assembled by the manufacturer. There is objective evidence supporting that. You obviously don't care whether the things you believe in are true, since all beliefs are equally valid, in your opinion. The problem is that delusional people act on delusions, and it affects the rest of us.
ATHEISTIQ 1 year ago
@ATHEISTIQ I'm sensing an angry tone. This example is boring now, but I feel compelled. You receipt looks homemade to me, and would you stop shipping it to my house for service? You should also be more cautious about claiming I believe all beliefs are equally valid. Luckily real scientists aren't as overzealous as youtube pseudo scientists. What I have suggested is that people in the scientific community have a responsibility to question science itself. Certainly, you wouldn't object to that?
sodacop 1 year ago
@sodacop Just look back at your posts. You've been trying to make the case that your unsupported fairy belief is equal to belief supported with objective evidence.
It appears you're trying to maneuver into a subject changing strategy and philosophical rant (typical), let's get back to the main point:
Is it your position that ALL beliefs are equally valid, or not ?
Do you believe that NOTHING is objectively true / factual ?
ATHEISTIQ 1 year ago
@ATHEISTIQ I have not been making the case that my unsupported fairy belief is equal to belief supported with what you call objective evidence. My position is not that all beliefs are equally reflective of reality, but that it is impossible for you to know how closely your own vision mirrors reality. As for your second question, I don't know whether there is a single factual realty or not. I generally feel like my interpretation is the most correct. What about you?
sodacop 1 year ago
@sodacop Of course, there IS an objective reality, and we CAN find out how closely our perceptions and beliefs match. I will explain a real life event that shows you also believe this.......When you approach an intersection, it isn't full of twisted metal and bodies because you and the other drivers recognize there is an objective reality that you can all reference: the lines on the street and color of traffic lights. You trust this objective standard, if you ride or drive.
ATHEISTIQ 1 year ago
@ATHEISTIQ I cannot know whether the other drivers are experiencing what I am because I have no direct access to their experiences. I can only know what they tell me, and even that is filtered through my senses and judgment. II know what you're saying though. I do have to trust my senses when I drive. I do the best I can with them, but that is no indication that what I receive and interpret is true or real in any objective way.
sodacop 1 year ago
@sodacop There's plenty of evidence that other drivers are viewing the same objective reality. Hence the lack of bloody messes at every intersection. I don't think we would've had a chance to evolve or advance, if everyone were seeing and hearing different things all the time. There is an objective standard that can be observed, analyzed, and measured.
ATHEISTIQ 1 year ago
@ATHEISTIQ I think it's super cool that you were able to thwart my super ninja-like subject changing strategy, and curb that philosophical rant we were headed for. Since you're so good, maybe you could answer the question I've been posing since the beginning: how are you so sure that the evidence you have for your beliefs gives you a clear picture of what you refer to as truth?
sodacop 1 year ago
@sodacop Because objective evidence exists outside my own mind, and is available for observation and analysis by everyone. The first time any of us began seeing, hearing, smelling, and touching things, we were observing and analyzing evidence of objective reality. This is the only proven way of identifying truth. Subjective, unverified delusions are not.
ATHEISTIQ 1 year ago
@ATHEISTIQ How do you know that objective evidence exists outside of your own mind when nothing you know can be accessed from outside your own mind? Other people and their observations are filtered through your senses. You could be nothing more than a paranoid schizophrenic with a well-established narrative. Belief in your own senses requires a good amount of faith.
sodacop 1 year ago
@sodacop Oh, the "matrix argument", "brain in a jar", "complex hallucination"or "life is but a dream". The endless what ifs of philosophical pondering. You and I don't believe those to be the case because we proceed through life as if our actions have real consequences....we stop at the red light because we wish to preserve our lives and that family of 4 we would collide with. You've been alive this long because you accept this as real.
ATHEISTIQ 1 year ago
@ATHEISTIQ Idealism can't be disproved however two points. 1.) I can dream of eating and wake up hungry. 2.) The minute of life leads me to a stark skepticism of idealism. Not proof but a good reason to doubt. 3.) Anyone who pushes solipsism should be locked in a room without food, water or toilet. They'll change their mind. Again, it's not proof but the belief is usually fixable.
awatson945 1 year ago
@sodacop
Believers point to 3-D TV as evidence of a god?
thirdclass2006 1 year ago
@thirdclass2006 no, that was a joke. :)
sodacop 1 year ago
@sodacop
D'oh!
I wouldn't put it past them, though, to do that. :)
thirdclass2006 1 year ago
@sodacop: Evidence in the sciences is all well defined, though. For example, Galileo observed balls of differing weight falling and drew a conclusion. I can repeat that experiment today and get the same result. Religion doesn't have that, because there is no common ground; everyone's religious experiences differ, there is only a vague feeling of proceeding together, and often enough even "together" doesn't work.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex @puncheex Repeatability is a nice idea, but there are a lot of problems with it. One problem that stands out to me is that it might be impossible to separate a subject from her observations. You observe within a context that determines how you interpret sensory experiences. If you think that your observations are objective because Galileo got the same result playing with his balls, I'd disagree. He has simply become your context, making it unlikely you'd have a different experience.
sodacop 1 year ago
@sodacop: I don't think that's true. If the balls don't land at the same time, then no amount of experimenting through Galileo's eyes is going to make it work out. Experiments, ancient and recent, are reconstructed all the time in science pedagogy. Sometimes they fail, and the circumstances are questioned minutely to understand why. I deny that all those observations can be influenced by "context". Further, the observations can be removed from sensory interpretation, and still work.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex I don't know of anything in the world that can be divorced from interpretation. Can you experience from outside yourself? Could you teach me? ;)
sodacop 1 year ago
@sodacop: The method that science uses, the "Aristotelian" view, is to repeat the experiments with multiple other, independent trained investigators. A confluence of their opinions is considered conclusive of objective reality, within the limits imposed by the experiments. There is no other way to test it. Without that touchstone, then not only are we living in Plato's cave, but we are unable to describe what we see to our fellows. We're communicating such a common understanding as we type.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex This is one of the places I think religion and science have a lot in common. I think religious people want so badly to prove to themselves that there is a god because they have a lot of fear that without a god, existence is meaningless. I think science so badly wants to prove that a single objective reality can be discerned from the collaboration of many minds. Without this, the world seems to be without order, and they would have to recognize how isolated the mind is.
sodacop 1 year ago
@puncheex There is no other way to test reality but to rely on what we believe to be objective evidence that is accessible to many minds. Unfortunately, we have no way to prove that this is actually a good measuring stick for reality. We have to have faith in our ability to interpret our senses. We also have to have faith in the idea that if a lot of people appear to have similar experiences, this is an indication that the experiences are parallel to truth and realness.
sodacop 1 year ago
I always enjoy your vids. Well thought-out and well spoken. Thanks for fightin' the good fight!
drunkenpastafari 1 year ago
Only manual from now on, then!
Shadowfoot1981 1 year ago
Love it, Love it, Love it.
BenSaidIt 1 year ago
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." -Carl Sagan
TheUnblinkingEar 1 year ago
Couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you, BionicDance!
luccaskunk 1 year ago
I'm with you!
Hey, now that I'm with you, can I borrow 5 bucks? Just until next tuesday...
Theophage 1 year ago
Why would you want to be right? Aren't you happy being left? :P
(Okay, that was really lame, wasn't it?)
Excellent message, as always. And it has practically universal application. Not just to theism, but to other subjects.
thirdclass2006 1 year ago
nicely said
nelliediddle 1 year ago
I like you vid. But I would have thought the conclusion should have been "I found checking the evidence made the conclusion of atheism unavoidable. But you should not assume I am right, check for yourself." I guess this was hinted at my "don't run on automatic" but I like it explicitly stated. Keep it up!
sheert 1 year ago
Very good little essay!! with sound points.
dewinthemorning 1 year ago
I'm with you BD :)
Sums it atheism clearly enough even for 'Shockofgod' to see....ok, that's a long shot. :/
OriMeissa 1 year ago
Umm correction you don't need careful scrutiny pretty much any scrutiny would work to disprove a deity. XD *likes*
MistressArte 1 year ago
@BionicDance, Excelent video, I fully agree with you however I have a problem what you say at 1:47 . Most religious people think they are right, only theist that have done some research might have that position, most are simply ignorant
sswelm 1 year ago
Excellently said!
I'd also add that those of us who would rather say "I don't know" than be wrong or simply guess are more likely to be atheists. Those of us who are not affraid of the unknown, but excited by the puzzles it presents and the prospect of finding out the real answer, rather than fearing them and so crowbarring our favourite fairy story into the holes, simply to make us feel better.
mrgodbehere 1 year ago
I'm with you! Manual all the way! Be the frick'n captain of your ship damnit!
Paxmax 1 year ago
Good Video!!!!!
stevenweir76 1 year ago
If there was 'proof' for the existence of God then I would not need to "Believe" because I would know. I don't need to believe in my chair I can feel it through my pants.
And at that point he would lose some of that mystique I think. I fear some people want their Gods at arms length. If God did appear now belief would be unnecessary.
I wonder how many Christians would be appalled if the God of the bible appeared to them and carried on from where he left off.
kalamain 1 year ago 2
Sometimes I like to be wrong. It stings a bit but it serves to remind me that I am still alive and capable of learning something new.
rtottenc 1 year ago
No it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong. The only reason you need to be an atheist is the taste of a good baby. Yummy!
rarrmonkey 1 year ago 2
@rarrmonkey Oh yes indeed!
Come Thanksgiving, nothing makes my mouth water like the sight of the holiday infant bourn upon a platter, glazed with butter, trimmed with parsley, an apple in it's speechlees mouth (my cousins like to fight over who gets to split the pelvis).
You gotta get 'em fresh from the orphange though -those frozen ones they sell at the supermarket just ain't the same.
polymath7 1 year ago 2
Nice slogan/motto there.
ristinraccoon 1 year ago
Bionic Brilliant!!
brklynusa 1 year ago
I'M with you! Who could say no to that cheesy inspirational background music? ;P
thespeedingcookie 1 year ago
good vid.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
I am one who usually checks and I point out when others don't. Wow I feel like this video pretty much raps up my perspective on life. But to be honest I have made a ton of shitty mistakes while being on just your channel...
BeRad117 1 year ago
LOL You would have a better chance than me getting elected. First woman, bisexual,but married to a man, a Witch, liberal, redneck from WV, I am "white" but thats a "trick" with skeletons coming out of the closet doing a conga line. (Example: I really have snorted cocaine off a hookers ass--but its not as bad as it sounds really)
Great video. I understand and respect Atheists (well, most) But I "feel" right about the path I have chosen. Atheists have treated me with more respect than anyone else.
kelliko70 1 year ago
I'd rather be wrong. If I am right then there is no more discovery to be had on the subject. If I am wrong then I have to be creative, think outside the box. The coolest discoveries of science don't occur when we're right, they occur when we were wrong about how a phenomenon worked. To clarify, my goal is to be right but i want to be wrong.
1ProbablyHateYou 1 year ago
EXACTLY!!
KasparHauser4 1 year ago
Im whit you!
Tgclove 1 year ago
Think? Never!
theflamingpi 1 year ago
first women president plox?
MrEnlightenedJourney 1 year ago
@MrEnlightenedJourney *snork* First female atheist lesbian president who isn't exactly white, really...it'd take a miracle to get my ass elected! :D
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance hell i'd vote for ya xD
MrEnlightenedJourney 1 year ago
@BionicDance ...you're not white?
Awesome vid. Agree with you 100%.
ZanderSchubert 1 year ago
@ZanderSchubert I'm not really ANYTHING distinct; my ancestry is Italian, Austrian, Cherokee, French, and Black
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance That's an awesome/interesting mix. Sometimes I wish my ancestry wasn't as bland as it is.
ZanderSchubert 1 year ago
@BionicDance How about president of outer space? Can't say I have ever met a bigoted asteroid.
Either way you have my vote.
Stealth4Health 1 year ago
@BionicDance You would make an awsome President. I can just imagine a State of the Union speech in that unique voice of yours.
HappySkeptic 1 year ago
@HappySkeptic Faugh! I'd last about a week...then, just cuz I'm bored, I'd order the military to bomb the living shit out of Norway or something.
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance
Hey, don't pick on Norway. They've legalized gay marriage, they have a high number of atheists and Norwegian chicks are totally hot.
Now, the Vatican, however...
YourXavier 1 year ago 5
@YourXavier Yeah, see, Norway is one of the least offensive countries I can think of...and that means they've just GOT to be up to something! :D
BionicDance 1 year ago 3
@BionicDance
Well, they are of course a founding member of the Satanist Conspiracy for World Domi...
I mean, they're not up to anything. Don't be silly.
YourXavier 1 year ago 2
@BionicDance They do shoot whales...
(was that under the belt?)
RONLAST 1 year ago
@RONLAST Not even sure why it would be...
BionicDance 1 year ago
@RONLAST
No, that's under the water.
*rimshot*
thirdclass2006 1 year ago
@BionicDance
Least offenseive!? I can only assume you are entirely unaware of Higgelsdorffe's systematic extermination of the Bjorgnenflugian loaylist during the Norweigian civil war.
polymath7 1 year ago
@BionicDance
Norway did bring us some of the guys on the show "Deadliest Catch".
How's that for something?
thirdclass2006 1 year ago
@BionicDance See, Norway is even is the world's BEST country for mum's 2nd best for kids in the world!
There it is for ya, that's what Norway is up to XD
TheX2Com 1 year ago
@YourXavier Hot atheist chicks? Shit! I need to renew my passport!
perchedeagle2 1 year ago
@BionicDance I'll vote for you too!
mara7987 1 year ago
@MrEnlightenedJourney promise to legalize drugs and you've got more than half the country.... xD sad but true
MrEnlightenedJourney 1 year ago
For many years I have told people that I hate being wrong and love being right and just like you when I discover I am wrong I change my mind and just like that I am right again. It's an awsome feeling always knowing that I will be right in the end so long as I am willing to alter my position when I am demonstrated to be wrong.
zthustra 1 year ago
I wanted to be right until I found out what right was and didn't like it so now I'm wrong.
seriouslymatsteele 1 year ago
Excellent excellent video.
bamboo4tameshigiri 1 year ago
Gonna nit pick a bit - sorry. "Atheism is a conclusion" might be misinterpreted as taking a positive stance that no gods exist. Personally, I feel "right" about being an atheist, only because nobody has ever demonstrated they are right about their god claims. The title of this video could also be taken to mean you don't want there to be any gods, and that could open the door to the "You're just running away from God" argument.
gigantibyte 1 year ago
@gigantibyte Anyone reaching those conclusions would be nitpicking single points instead of looking at them in context, looking at the whole message. That would be foolish of them.
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance Sadly, that is exactly how religious folk argue.
sillygames 1 year ago
@sillygames So they're fools, then.
BionicDance 1 year ago
@gigantibyte I would rather put it that Atheism is a result of a conclusion.
Tgclove 1 year ago
@Tgclove Mm, fair enough.
BionicDance 1 year ago
@Tgclove
atheism not Atheism.
SoilderofScience 1 year ago
I'M WITH YOU!!!!
sorry you got me a bit hyped up there.
riseofatheism 1 year ago
I am right.
sillygames 1 year ago
im w you!!
'Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake! We are making use of only a small part of our physical and mental resourses.
Stating the thing broadly, the human individual thus lives far within his limits. He possesses power of various sorts which he habitually fails to use.'
4get who said it
but like stated in Waking Life
'I dont want to be an ant,... Y'know?'
Poisonfrogg 1 year ago
Sometimes I run on automatic while driving and turn into my old culdesac instead of continually driving where I planned to go. My brain needs to stop running on automatic sometimes.
DonF72 1 year ago