Yeah right, because questioning the origin of everything is exactly like questioning there's a teapot around the sun. Come on Dawkins, you are better than that. What's so wrong about "i don't know".Can my assumptions, hypothesis and my scientifical approach be 100% wrong? Yes it can. I'm completely impartial agnostic, and i'll always looking for the truth, but for the time being, i don't know. Richard Dawkins, really, what do you know?
"We are all atheist" is sadly false.. I am not atheist about what is outside of science boundaries. I am agnostic only. Teapot, unicorn, e.c.t are not outside of science or observation but god/s is. If there exist a parrael universe somewhere else then we can not tell how, understand or get a fell for it.
For those who think agnostic are atheist, then try reading about false dilemma. It is not logical in any way and atheist should be ashamed to think so. It is not in the science spirit at all
@steverock85 Agree I think we can't right now, but in the future we don't know how advance our understanding is going to be about what we now see as "unreachable" What today is seen as impossible cause it goes against the current laws of physics can be possible one day. We don't know if the future will bring new scientific views and theories based upon new discoveries, changing what we now know as impossible. My mind finds it very hard to really understand claims of eternal impossibility.
Yes, I know where you are comming from. My mind finds this very hard too. But if you think of a total blank world with nothing in it at all, then how did we come from nothing? If there was this one little ball that exploded and created timespace, then why did it explode? And if we exist because everything exist, then everything we can think of must also exist.
We have this infinity standing in our way. We can always ask ourself what is outside of our world we can explore.
When was established that earth was flat (without empirical evidences) an Agnostic would say, well i don't KNOW if the earth is flat or not. An Atheist would say, I don't BELIEVE the earth is flat. A theist would say, i BELIEVE the earth is flat. Then came science and rational thinking and empirical method and it was proven that the earth was indeed round. Agnostic would say I know the earth is round. And Theist/Atheist would stop saying believe and say I know. Get it?
@tacv observation at that time might intecate that the earth was indeed flat... Science is not about believe, it is about obsere this world and explore. Not to conclude anything.
@steverock85 Wrong. Scientific Method is a technique used to acquire knowledge. Arriving to the TRUTH is the goal of science. Science is indeed to "conclude" something. And at that time there were many mathematicians, philosophers, etc that showed studies/evidences about the fact that Earth was not flat.
Yes knowledge of our suroundings. How are you going to explore something that is not even within our own timespace?? How are you going to observe, calculate or experiment on it?? How do you know our math can fortell anything of it? Maybe magnitue,quantity and our locical connection is useless there. It is imposible to tell. What is outside of what we can apply our scientific method is NOT science!
Maybe in the future we can, but untill then it is a much believe as anything else.
Serious errors with this video. "Science can't disprove the existence of God" Wrong!!! We can't right now. Our way of thinking in this time and the technology we have right now cannot disprove the existence of God or the existence of a teapot orbiting around the sun. But in the future who knows if we don't have the means to do so. We cannot claim something we do not know. I cannot claim God doesn't exist, but i can believe God doesn't exist. Atheism is believing, you cannot claim anything.
@caleron0 Nope. There is no evidence for a god, there is nothing in this world that suggest a god exists. When you operationalize god, he fails to exists. It's scientifically misguided to assume you have to prove a non-existence in order to conclude it doesn't exist. Your kind of thinking is ancient - belonging to unscientific philosophers. Religion has become obsolete, and so has your philosophical opinions. But just like religious people, you'll never accept/believe that.
@ncPsychosis I don't think the lack of evidence is enough to 'disbelieve' in something. There's more than that. The dark matter is accepted as an existing thing even with absolutely no physical evidences. We believe in it because it fits on the behavior of universe's motion, it's very similar to the people who believe in God because it's convenient. We don't believe in unicorns because, along with the lack of evidence, we know the history behind the creation of its myth...
@ncPsychosis You may say we know the history of God's myth too. Agree with you if we put religions on the spot, I absolutely do not believe in them as much as I don't believe in Santa. But the hypotesis that something that can be called a "God" exists has no bad history behind it. It didn't try to control population, didn't try to make people believe in it, since it's a hypotesis, so it has no reason to be more false than any other like it, considering we have no clue about our origin.
The first step in deciding what you believe is defining the word god. Since no definition will ever be universally accepted Agnosticism seems like the appropriate approach.
@8080blank I don't understand how an Atheist chooses to be Atheist over Theism and vice versa when in reality both groups use the same approach to picking their belief which is without providing proof! Of course, an Atheist would argue that the burden of proof is on the believer, but that's being a coward. As an agnostic, the way I see it is that both groups make a claim that they each need to back up with proof!
@akouleze Oh, is that right? It's downright pussy-ish to just shrug your shoulders and say "I dunno" whenever someone asks you. That's agnosticism for you, the epitome of being a pussy. You also don't understand science or critical thinking.
@ncPsychosis “Oh, is that right? It's downright pussy-ish to just shrug your shoulders and say "I dunno" whenever someone asks you. That's agnosticism for you, the epitome of being a pussy. You also don't understand science or critical thinking.” As I’ve said to other dumb ass Atheists, if “We don’t know” is not an answer then you are claiming that you know everything. Do you have all the answers to every question in the universe??? There is your response dumb ass Atheist #3!
@ncPsychosis You Atheists and Theists want to simply pick an answer carelessly without any shred of proof which shows how much you have no critical thinking skills nor understanding of science. It’s “downright pussy-ish” to say I don’t know, well you better be ready to have all the answers to every question out there and they better be right answers or else it really shows how much of a dumb ass you are! Even scientists don’t claim to have answers to everything! I know more than you!
@8080blank Agnosticism is the right attitude towards God and not Atheism or Theism. Agnostics don't pretend to know that God exists or doesn't not exists. Furthermore, there are some things we will never know and therefore it is wrong for Atheists and Theists to fight like little school children and make claims that neither side can prove. I wish we could know the true answer right now, but we don't and lying to oneself that God exists or doesn't exists is pathetic and wrong!
The Barna Group found concering atheism and morality that those who hold to the worldviews of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.
@ARepublicanVictory Note that it does not mention things like stealing, lying, or committing violence.
If a person drinks, does drugs, has sex outside of marriage, gambles or looks at pornography this harms no one but themselves. So indeed if someone actually thinks about it logically, as opposed to unquestioningly believing what they're told to believe; they are quite likely to feel these acts are more morally acceptable.
@KingAdrock420 If you do not know how or why, well then you are a lost soul. And the Bible is the source of all morality. Not referencing the Bible is like not not referencing an automobile and its motor.
@ARepublicanVictory So these things are bad because they bible says so, not because they actually cause harm other people. Cool story bro.
So since you require the bible for morality, do the christian thing and explain to this lost soul where in the bible it states illegal drug use, or cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage ie "a roommate of the opposite sex whom with you live but do not have sex" is a sin.
I've read the bible but I must have missed that part.
@ARepublicanVictory So these things are bad because they bible says so, not because they actually cause harm other people. Cool story bro.
So since you require the bible for morality, do the christian thing and explain to this lost soul where in the bible it states illegal drug use, or cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage ie "a roommate of the opposite sex whom with you live but do not have sex" is a sin.
I've read the bible but I must have missed that part.
So since you require the bible for morality, do the christian thing and explain to this lost soul where in the bible it states illegal drug use, or cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage, i.e. "a roommate of the opposite sex whom with you live but do not have sex" is a sin.
I've read the bible but I must have missed that part.
People would rather convince themselves that they are sure there is no god, for who could stand the constant awareness that there is a god and they might be going to hell. There is too much insecurity in admitting ignorance. For instance people insist that evolution is a fact even though it cant be reproduced in a lab and it mere guessing at what processes ocurred before any of us was here.
@ARepublicanVictory People arent looking for truth but for a good feeling. They equate truth with pain and fantasy will bliss. Thus the rampant spread of twisted minds.
Atheists believe that there is no God and hence they believe that they are each God, bc only God would have the ability to know that there is no God or other God.
Kids are forced into religion. Parents were once the kids who were the ones forced. The ones who escaped as shown by the opinions are the people have the minds of thier own and not tradition that is fake. Do not let people force you and do not belive because you are afraid of hell
@SE7ENSINSxCOM Religion is good for the soul. Kids are also forced into science. The ones who know that science is not the all to end all also know that the Lord is the creator of all things.
@AnHeretick the flying tea pot is a stupid example. This is about the existence in general which science has no explanation for and apparently nobody has. Perhaps agnostics have more brains than balls...
Why must people continue to be so stupid? Atheism deals with belief, agnosticism with knowledge. They're not mutually exclusive. Go home, kids. End of story.
@carlosewm How is there a difference between "absence of belief" and "rejection of belief"? You either believe in something or you don't. My point was exactly that; there is agnostic atheism, a lack (or rejection) of belief, coupled with the position of having no absolute knowledge with regard to the claim.
Hint: Pick up a book in introductory logic. It really might help.
@carlosewm I'm not sure what you mean by "knowing" an idea and "giving credit to it as true." Even though I use the word in a colloquial context, the action of "belief" is completely foreign to me. As human beings, we have developed the language of logic to asses what is and isn't true for the purpose of things that are useful.
Accepting something as true with no regard to criteria that would normally scrutinize its legitimacy is a notion foreign to myself.
@batmanpronz By knowing I mean being familiar with it.
Let's pretend there's some person in a isolated place in the world that wasn't teach about any concept of a deity nor exposed to any theistic religion, does it mean that person then rejects god? I don't see how.
What I mean is that there is no seemingly position on the either the idea is creditable or not by the person when the idea just isn't cogitated by the person, that's why I included the "know" in that comment.
@carlosewm You're generalizing again. Be specific with what you mean about "rejects god." That person automatically rejects "belief in god" because he or she simply does not "believe." We assume that person has never been taught to perform that action. If prompted, he might produce a statement with regard to an objective truth, but that has nothing to do with accepting truth without any evidence (evidence in this case being based on causality).
By "rejects God" I mean rejecting the possibility that this God might exist, and I differentiate that from the lack of belief, because I don't see the lack of belief as rejection.
"but that has nothing to do with accepting truth without any evidence (evidence in this case being based on causality)."
What I said is that we can't assume someone rejects an idea that he doesn't know about, as he must process the idea first (assuming he hadn't the idea earlier).
@batmanpronz About the book introductory to logic, I know what logic is pretty well, but thanks anyway
Curiously, it seems that "You either believe in something or you don't." isn't a valid argument (false dichotomy), because believing and not believing aren't the only psychological positions when facing an idea, there's quantities and ideas you believe more and others you believe less, and 0 and 1 doesn't seem to apply to that very well, I hope we have a consensus about that.
@carlosewm I simply disagree. I don't "believe." Period. I don't know how to perform that action. How can I assess a continuous nature to a concept that is foreign and cannot be explained in logical terms? When an idea fails to be expressed in a universally understood language, there are only two positions with respect to its legitimacy; accept it as a valid idea or reject it as a logical error.
@batmanpronz "When an idea fails to be expressed in a universally understood language, there are only two positions with respect to its legitimacy; accept it as a valid idea or reject it as a logical error."
Yes, but the action of accepting or rejecting the idea requires you to know what that idea is, right? That's what I'm trying to explain.
the very first part is a fallacy. religion does not claim to know everything. Teapots? Flying Spagetti monsters? Hey DICK! stick with biology, you're very good at that.
I do think the definitions of atheists and agnostics need to be worked on. I do think they should be mutually exclusive. In my opinion, atheists believe "no God exists," agnostics "Maybe, maybe not," and theists, "God exists." These are mutually exclusive. If someone told Dawkins his house was on fire, he wouldn't say, "I don't believe it because I have no evidence," he'd investigate. It's all about how possible it sounds. Some gods do not sound unlikely to agnostics.
@TubeofH2O I like that and it centers on 'belief'. An atheists believes in no gods, an agnostic believes there may be a god, and a theist believes there definitely is a god. So far it's simple. Within those camps there can be agnostics that may or may not believe such a thing can be answered at all (if there was a god that made no contact with our world then there'd be no way I suppose of proving either way, then again we can make up anything and say the same so I don't see that as reasonable)
I don't understand the title of this video. Dawkins doesn't mention agnosticism at all, and if anything, I'd reckon this video would an argument for both atheism and agnosticism. They aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
the fact that you think yourself responsible for any of your advantages displays clearly and concisely that you are not truly versed on the nature of your being
@SeerTravisTruman You had best define truth, then. I mean...I'm an agnostic because I'm not certain about what "truth," is. You have, apparently, figured out what philosophers have been arguing about for millenia. How impressive. Do define. Thank you :)
@jalehtri You are most likely agnostic because your rational brain rejected the insane god myth, but you have embraced the god myth at your True Reality core. Either that, or your brain is not functioning properly, which is normal for humans.
Just because I say something is "True", does not mean I need define it. Philosophers have been using the terms "True" and "false" for "millenia". For example, Its True that I can think. See? Got that now?
@SeerTravisTruman Art: the expression of someone, or the portrait of the artist's self.
The reason we know it's true that you can think is because you are a human, like me. Let me demonstrate what I mean:
I am a human, and I think; therefore, humans think.
You are a human; therefore, you think.
That's the only thing we know you can think, but what if I say: It's true that dogs can think. Now, you don't know if it's true, as you are not a dog. You can hypothesize, but you can't know.
@NobiscumDeus1 By that definition of art, the expression using the middle finger is art. So is an outburst of violent rage.
A dog can think. Dogs make choices and decisions. They have memory and can obey commands. I dont need to be a dog to KNOW that, only to experience what it would be like for a dog.
@SeerTravisTruman Yes, it's a silly art, but it's art. Just like the high art of Leonardo DaVinci, Michelangelo, Picasso, and other great artists.
Maybe they can think, unless someone says their choices are made by some instinct. If it belongs to instincts then he is not thinking, but perceiving. In other words, the frontal lobe is so little that is not capable of thinking, and so it uses his parietal lobe to perceive with his senses. In other words, he is not thinking but perceiving.
@SeerTravisTruman Of course, I just invented this, as I am presenting an example. Moreover, you need to know, or your idea will be mere belief. Some experiences will lead to how we perceive the world, and our beliefs and knowledge. Just because you experienced in some way, it doesn't mean someone else experienced the same way.
I will put a more difficult example.
I am aware of my existence, and I am a human.
You're a human; therefore, you are aware of your existence.
@SeerTravisTruman Unfortunately, we have to say: "We don't know." This is the same case of God. Just because some religious people are very retarded, it doesn't make the belief in a God retarded. Many scientists joined science to "know" God. Some still do, even thought many no longer believe in it, or they have another idea of God.
PS: Just to clarify, I don't believe in a personal God. If there would be a God, then it would be close to the Deist idea, or Pantheist idea.
@SeerTravisTruman Just because you think you know, it doesn't mean you know. Your attitude is not that different from a theist. I have confronted the same words from fundamentalist christians who think they know, when they don't.
Our logic, our philosophy, our experience, and our science is limited to our dimension. Even if you have Nietzsche in there, I would dare to say he was just another human limited to his form as human. The truth is that we don't know the truth, and you can't change that.
@SeerTravisTruman Well, if you know the truth of everything, then please, share.
The old dogmatic atheist. You are all a joke who think themselves as philosophers or scientists. Even some rational and spiritual atheists are ashamed of people like you.
Wow! You are no different from a muslim that lead people to read the Q'uran as for that muslim represents the truth, or a christian with the Bible. You are exactly the same as them, but just without God.
You are a total closed minded fool. Do you really believe even in your fantasy world that a philosopher of My caliber could fail to understand the issues surrounding the insane god myth???
Your agnostic position is so simplistic that if you were bright alarm bells would be ringing in your head. Dont you even wonder why I reject your babble??
You are acting just like a god-addict. You also need to update your thinking skills.
@SeerTravisTruman Well, then if you don't know everything, then you don't know the truth. It's like saying you finished a puzzle, and yet it has some pieces missing.
If I were, I would be dogmatic as you. If you were a philosopher, then Kent Hovind is a biologist. You are just a childish arrogant boy who thinks that just because you read Nietzsche, you are a philosopher.
It's not simplistic, it's a fact. My idea comes from Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. Because you are an idiot?
@NobiscumDeus1 I am one of the worlds greatest thinkers.
If you are so stupid that you cannot understand that I can know something is True without having to know everything then there is no point continuing. I will block you.
1+1=2. There. I know the answer, but I did not have to know everything to know it.
The fact of the matter is that I know that the god-myth is a malevolent lie, and you are actually being controlled by the god-myth. You are under it's influence.
@SeerTravisTruman Nah! I am mentally well; on the other hand, you should call a psychiatrist or something for extreme arrogance, or extreme idiocy. Both of them suits you perfectly. :)
@SeerTravisTruman you could use a dose of humility, sir. i promise you that despite your positions on the afterlife, even if you possess a great analytical mind it is through no fault of your own, you are simply lucky enough to be a victim of your specific circumstance. & even if you're intelligent your demeanor shows plainly that you are far from wise
@MikeFavre3 Humility is a rotten and invalid quality, and I am such a wonderful specimen of rational and sane thinking that I should be placed high on a gold pedestal like I clearly deserve.
My demenour shows that I am wise, you are just foolish and wrong in what constitutes such things.
@NobiscumDeus1 Excuse me jumping in but I've been pondering these things 4 some time myself. About the agnos position of claiming we don't know. 1st type believes god may exist , he does not NOT believe in the possibility of gods 2nd it's not possible to know if any exist. Athe's don't believe god exist, agnos say you can't know that he in fact may. but both do not 'believe' correct?. agnos simply add the possibility. athes say no way.Agnos 'Believe' it may be possible one cannot 'know'.
@scotty The agnos give the possibility of what could be. More are some agnos than other, but of course, with a limit. Moreover, there is a way to prove a negative, and that is by proving a positive. I will give you an example, if someone tells you there is a god in a mountain, then I will assure you someone will investigate. If that someone goes and investigate the mountain, and finds nothing, he proved this god doesn't exist. Athes has a problem, and is that Athes might claim.
@NobiscumDeus1 thanks for your answer. Maybe one day that erroneous assumption about not being able to prove a negative will disappear. You gave a nice example of the problem with that reasoning. I'm not understanding this though "Athes has a problem, and is that Athes might claim" Could you explain?
@scotty It is not erroneous. What is erroneous is to claim you can disprove the negative. That is erroneous indeed. What I meant is that you need to prove a positive, to disprove the negative. For instance, by discovering everything of the brain and it's function, you will disprove the idea of a soul in a being. Some Athes can make claims that are false; for instance, there is no creator as the Universe comes from nothing(The creator doesn't have to be a god or something supernatural).
@NobiscumDeus1 Well now you have lost me, what the heck, you said "What is erroneous is to claim you can disprove the negative. That is erroneous indeed." Then you said "you need to prove a positive, to disprove the negative." Fist you said you can't do it then you said you can. You said it was an error to say a negative could be disproved, but then you said if a positive could be proven then it would disprove a negative, ugh, the thing you said was wrong to think you could do. I'm lost.
@scotty Only an example can help: If you prove evolution(positive), you have proven that the idea of intelligent design is false(negative). When someone proved evolution, they have proved that intelligent design is wrong. You cannot prove intelligent design is wrong by just trying to disprove intelligent design, which is the negative. You need to prove another idea, in this case evolution, to prove that intelligent design is wrong. Understand now?
@NobiscumDeus1 Thanks that's better. However, in the evolution example what has been proven is evolution, it does exist and it's working in a certain way. This doesn't mean other things can't be going on as well. But it does mean there is an explanation supported by observation and facts. We can go with this or we can stick with an idea where there is no supporting evidence. Similarly, discovering that our brains do everything doesn't disprove the existence of a soul. But it accounts 4 its wrk
@scotty me, Negatives can be proven though. 1+1=2 this does prove that 1+1 do not equal any other # so we've proven an infinite amount of negatives. 1+1 don't equal 30 for instance. Also, if I say I've parked my car in the living room and I mean 'my car' I'm not being clever no joke I mean the car I drive, then it ought to be verifiable. If it's there then the statement is true if not then false proving the negative. The god in the mt example maybe not god could be undetectable.
@scotty me again, better rephrase that. If they say god is in or on the mountain we can go there and look, we can dig, but if we don't find they'll say he is invisible or something. He is spirit is a good one cause there's no way of detecting that, their delusion is safe. But it is a delusion because they might as well have said a pink unicorn was under the bed. To a sane, reasonable adult this idea ought be recognized as absurd.
@scotty This is what I meant(the example of 1+1=2). The example of god in the mountain is more difficult, but it still can be refuted. If someone says, I searched the mountain entirely and didn't found this god, and yet someone makes an excuse, like it's above our sighting so we can see it, hear it, or feel it. Then it's acceptable to say, this god is whether afraid of us, or limited of his self existence, which makes him not to be god, but I mere invention of comfort.
@scotty By Intelligent Design, I meant the creationist claim of God creating humans 6,000 years ago. If there is something else going on, like God guiding every living cell to make humans by evolving them, then that's another idea. By discovering that the brain does everything, it disproves the Cartesian dualism, which is the most common today. If there is another form that explains the soul, then that's another idea then.
@scotty By Intelligent Design, I meant the creationist claim of God creating humans 6,000 years ago. If there is something else going on, like God guiding every living cell to make humans by evolving them, then that's another idea. By discovering that the brain does everything, it disproves the Cartesian dualism, which is the most common today. If there is another form that explains the soul, then that's another idea then.
I might also add that your idea of no-cycle means that time would have to go back indefinitely or be infinite. Introducing a creator etc does nothing to rectify your problem.
The only True atheist is the one who rejects the insane god myth entirely. Agnostics have failed to face up to the obvious Truth that there is no such thing as the god creature.
Science cant prove or disprove human rights or laws other than people believe in them. All of human culture is simply imagined. Yet we certainly believe in them and are direct products of them.
so silly how this fact is ignored. Humanity as we know it is dogma itself.
@Blitties Some atheists might, but since the term only means that you don't believe in gods, that's a pretty harsh generalisation.
The two terms aren't even really related in the way people usually think they are... You can be a gnostic atheist or an agnostic atheist, just as you can be a gnostic theist or an agnostic theist.
Since I dont suppose nobody watching this has died recently, we are all agnostic no matter what. Nobody can say wether or not there is a god, because there is yet to be any conclusive explanation for our origin. The big bang is the most supported theory, but the matter in the big bang has to come from somewhere too. It's no better a guess than a fat dude sitting under a tree for 20 years, or a poor dude with some magic tricks. Existence itself is a contradiction, so logic can't explain it atm.
@PeGe90 No, No it does not at all. No matter how far science goes back in time it hasn't hit time's beginning yet. If you go all the way back in time you have to end up in nothing at some point, and it can't create anything. But a cycle doesn't make sense either because it has to have a beginning too. That means you can't explain our origin without some other 3rd variable that our minds might not even be able to understand. Religion IS nonsense. But atheism is too. Nothing is conclusive.
@idkwhattonamemyself Yeah yeah yeah, we don't know everything and can't disprove anything. That still doesn't change the fact that there are things so unlikely, that it's reasonable to outright not believe in them. Such as God.
And you should have read my other comment. Especially the part where I said agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. From what you've said, I'd say you're an agnostic atheist. As most atheist are.
@SeerTravisTruman I'm not sure I agree that anything can be disproven with just reasoning and logic. That same logic leads other people to believe in god after all.
And again, it really isn't possible to prove a negative. Russel's teapot etc.
Also, I'm still interested in hearing your "how". You've only answered the "what".
@SeerTravisTruman Some definitions of god are vague enough to be un-disproveable. But what ever. Since you're not willing to actually discuss the matter, I won't bother.
@SeerTravisTruman A cycle with no beginning is illogical no matter what people say, and time is not as reliable as we think anymore. Whether or not our time can be sped up by large masses or slowed down by high speed, REAL time cannot simply be "restarted" and the idea that everything has been here forever isn't something you can wrap your mind around, and it never will be. Most scientists think it's false for that reason. If your clock resets, you did not "go back in time."
@idkwhattonamemyself Wrong. A cycle by definition has no beginning as so the concept is perfectly logical.
What is harder to imagine : infinity (regression) or a loop?
The idea is : If you get the the "edge" of the universe, you come out the other side, sort of like pac-man does. Time should be no different. I think you do not understand time. It has nothing to do with relativity. Time is directly related to the other three dimensions. It is not simply an independant time-line.
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo Then all beliefs, justified or not, takes faith, thereby making "faith" a null statement. And that's just deliberately confusing the issue.
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo I never said anything about being absolutely certain, we can never be absolutely certain about anything! Stop implying that I or any atheist have made that statement. It's a complete fabrication. I ask you again. Does it take faith to conclude that it's not reasonable to believe in something that does not manifest in any way shape or form?
just because something isn't bad doesn't make it good. i said it was fair for someone to hold that position until proven otherwise. i still think it is better to say it is possible, but that doesn't make someone who believes the opposite illogical.
"The ones that do are illogical"
that has nothing to do with the decussion or the point i was making.
your point? some christians believe god wants them to kill their kids, but that doesn't mean all christians do. just because someone in your "group" believes something doesn't everyone does.
"something doesn't exist without having evidence to support your believes"
wrong, it is only bad to believe something doesn't exist if you have evidence that says it does.
"That is illogical"
no it is not. you can lack a belief without holding the opposite belief.
but they all don't believe that. how do i make it any simpler? a person that doesn't believe in bigfoot doesn't necessarily say that it can not be real.
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo " 'And atheism is the BELIEF in a negative' ◄▬ Exactly, negative BELIEF without evidence that god doesn't exist (Or like I say, they have faith god doesn't exist)"
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo I am theist and you think exactly like me. I honestly will not become an agnostic and if I am to switch I would choose Deism, but I still love you :D
@BeondaPale "But agnostics don't believe in God or faries or unicorns"
exactly, but to be at that point you must be atheist. he says agnostics are people that don't know but atheists are people who don't believe. in other words, you are misrepresenting an agnostic atheist as only being agnostic. this is bad because you wind up with people thinking a theist MUST believe 100% because the only people who don't know don't believe.
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo The idea that knowledge is based on faith or more specifically beliefs is an epistemological idea. There's a venn-diagram in wiki explaining it. Knowledge includes those beliefs that you know to be true with absolute certainty. Without beliefs any knowledge except inherent ones are impossible to attain. Beliefs are concepts, knowledge is belief with evidence. I guess you're confusing dogma with faith/belief.
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo Well, unfortunately you need faith and belief because without it you cannot have knowledge. Truth is only a part of knowledge, the rest are beliefs. Without beliefs, you have no reason to say that you would to see tomorrow because there is no evidence. People can be agnostic atheist too. Somethings in life you have to believe without evidence because wishful thinking helps(to some extent).
Listen, I'm an Agnostic too. Agnosticism and Gnosticism deal with the knowledge of deity's. Atheism and Theism deal with beliefs or lack of it.
You are right. There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of any sort of deity. But you still either believe or don't believe. It doesn't compromise your position one bit. I am an Agnostic Atheist and so are a lot of us. You can't seperate Agnosticism from everything else.
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo First off, Atheism is the LACK of belief in deity's. Notice that it;s plural. What about the Goddess/s? And Pragmatic Atheism? Theists made the claim first and they haven't shown ANY proof what so ever. Therefore, it's rational to question and lack belief in supernatural beings. I'm not knocking on-the-fencers or self proclaimed Agnostics. I just notice that some Agnostics will step out of the way when theTheist is on the attack and not associate with Atheists or nonbelivers
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo No. I just belong to the side that sounds a lot more plausible. In fact, there is no so such thing as an Agnostic who isn't either a Theist or an Atheist, And if your just on the fence, then your just on the fence.
Pascal's Wager shouldn't scare anyone. There's too many religions out there to really care! XD!
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo No one likes to be wrong. Maybe that's why there is "on the fence" Agnostics. Or they just don't like being called Atheists because of the social stigma.
Why do atheists always attribute "God" to the archetypal old man in a white beard. Can they give a definition of god? No one can at this stage because we just dont know enough about it. Even to debate about the existence of god is absurd because we cant place a definition on it far less actually talk about it. What if I say God stands for that intangible something that fuels the growth of the universe, dark energy, for instance. I cant talk about God because I dont even know what that is!
@SauronTheConqueror Most Atheists would wonder why you call such a thing god. Would you worship something like that? Does it require worship? I don't get it.
@Sloth7d The dark, energy thing was just an example. My point is that if you can ask any atheist what they truly mean by god, they dont have an answer, none of us do. We know so very little about ourselves, this universe, and our seemingly infinitesimal role in it, that we dont really have enough information to debate about the guiding force behind it. You have to search the corners of the universe before you can be conclusive and that is something unlikely to happen in our lifetime.
@SauronTheConqueror But the point isn't what the atheist means by God but the one making the claim for a God. The fact that the universe is so infinite in it's possibilities is the reason why we shouldn't just let assumptions of blind faith carry us through our entire lively hood and be careful what we accept as true, and take pains not to redefine previously defined marvels and give a new name to them just to prove a point.
@Sloth7d Well, since I am an agnostic and, I flatter myself by saying this, a rationalist, I agree with your point that we cannot let blind faith guide our lives just because we cant prove that God doesn't exist. I am sure that all our miracles and fables, were at some point of time, perfectly rational, believable stories but overtime were excessively romanticized and what metaphors they actually alluded to were understood in the literal sense due to some "holier than thou" zealots.
@Sloth7d I am not trying to defend theists with my arguments: Half the problems in the world today are because of religion, because people understand their holy texts in the wrong way. I'm just saying that If you were truly of a scientific mindset, then rejecting or accepting God is meaningless because we have so little proof to support it either way. You cannot arrive at a conclusion when all of your observations are incomplete. We have to admit that the question is will always be open ended.
@pivotclips Learn to wash your mouth and clean up your toungue before you speak up in a public forum, you filthy foul mouth. I can smell your dirty mouth across the internet. Debate about your grievance, dont abuse anyone blindly just because they dont agree with your view.
@SauronTheConqueror Shut up, you used the word mouth three times in that. You are obliviously not an atheist, so you are a theist, and you are a fuck head.
I'm a great admirer of Dawkins, but he himself when pressed on a Hardtalk interview that may exist on YouTube. Had to admit he was an agnostic. The interview took place sometime after this film was made. His stock arguments such as Zeus, Thor etc are flawed, because we know they were made up by man. My admiration for him is based on his fight against religion that is an evil. There may be some sort of controling force out there. We simply don't know.
Bad analogy! Teapots, fairies, unicorns, ... etc don't make claims about your moral standards, stand on abortion, sexuality, origins of life, holy lands, after-life, ... etc.
@Heissenburger Alright let's say in the holy book of Teapot there was teachings saying to slaughter any woman who aborts a child and to behead any man who is homosexual. And these teachings were taught through generations and accepted, until one day someone says he's a a-teapotist, etc. You get the idea right?
The main confusion atheists fall into when they debate an agnostic is that they take belief as religion and the god as described in various religions.
First think to mention would be:Questioning the existence of a god is totally irrelevant to the question of religion for agnostics. God might be a careless one, might be even forgotten us already.
You can't prove that there is nothing after death. Nothing beyond physical reality. That's why you can be an agnostic atheist.
Samael51760 2 weeks ago
Yeah right, because questioning the origin of everything is exactly like questioning there's a teapot around the sun. Come on Dawkins, you are better than that. What's so wrong about "i don't know".Can my assumptions, hypothesis and my scientifical approach be 100% wrong? Yes it can. I'm completely impartial agnostic, and i'll always looking for the truth, but for the time being, i don't know. Richard Dawkins, really, what do you know?
woovy 1 month ago
@woovy mate richard would take a shit on you <3
NiceCraft 1 month ago
"We are all atheist" is sadly false.. I am not atheist about what is outside of science boundaries. I am agnostic only. Teapot, unicorn, e.c.t are not outside of science or observation but god/s is. If there exist a parrael universe somewhere else then we can not tell how, understand or get a fell for it.
For those who think agnostic are atheist, then try reading about false dilemma. It is not logical in any way and atheist should be ashamed to think so. It is not in the science spirit at all
steverock85 1 month ago
@steverock85 Agree I think we can't right now, but in the future we don't know how advance our understanding is going to be about what we now see as "unreachable" What today is seen as impossible cause it goes against the current laws of physics can be possible one day. We don't know if the future will bring new scientific views and theories based upon new discoveries, changing what we now know as impossible. My mind finds it very hard to really understand claims of eternal impossibility.
tacv 1 month ago
@tacv
Yes, I know where you are comming from. My mind finds this very hard too. But if you think of a total blank world with nothing in it at all, then how did we come from nothing? If there was this one little ball that exploded and created timespace, then why did it explode? And if we exist because everything exist, then everything we can think of must also exist.
We have this infinity standing in our way. We can always ask ourself what is outside of our world we can explore.
steverock85 1 month ago
When was established that earth was flat (without empirical evidences) an Agnostic would say, well i don't KNOW if the earth is flat or not. An Atheist would say, I don't BELIEVE the earth is flat. A theist would say, i BELIEVE the earth is flat. Then came science and rational thinking and empirical method and it was proven that the earth was indeed round. Agnostic would say I know the earth is round. And Theist/Atheist would stop saying believe and say I know. Get it?
tacv 2 months ago
@tacv observation at that time might intecate that the earth was indeed flat... Science is not about believe, it is about obsere this world and explore. Not to conclude anything.
steverock85 1 month ago
@steverock85 Wrong. Scientific Method is a technique used to acquire knowledge. Arriving to the TRUTH is the goal of science. Science is indeed to "conclude" something. And at that time there were many mathematicians, philosophers, etc that showed studies/evidences about the fact that Earth was not flat.
tacv 1 month ago
@tacv
Yes knowledge of our suroundings. How are you going to explore something that is not even within our own timespace?? How are you going to observe, calculate or experiment on it?? How do you know our math can fortell anything of it? Maybe magnitue,quantity and our locical connection is useless there. It is imposible to tell. What is outside of what we can apply our scientific method is NOT science!
Maybe in the future we can, but untill then it is a much believe as anything else.
steverock85 1 month ago
Serious errors with this video. "Science can't disprove the existence of God" Wrong!!! We can't right now. Our way of thinking in this time and the technology we have right now cannot disprove the existence of God or the existence of a teapot orbiting around the sun. But in the future who knows if we don't have the means to do so. We cannot claim something we do not know. I cannot claim God doesn't exist, but i can believe God doesn't exist. Atheism is believing, you cannot claim anything.
tacv 2 months ago
All science and religion aside. This guy is a pig.
Loader2k 3 months ago
tell me: who created the big bang?
caleron0 3 months ago
@caleron0 perhaps it's the same entity who created the creator of the big bang.
ncPsychosis 3 months ago
@ncPsychosis so we agree we just dont know anything at all
caleron0 3 months ago
@caleron0 Nope. There is no evidence for a god, there is nothing in this world that suggest a god exists. When you operationalize god, he fails to exists. It's scientifically misguided to assume you have to prove a non-existence in order to conclude it doesn't exist. Your kind of thinking is ancient - belonging to unscientific philosophers. Religion has become obsolete, and so has your philosophical opinions. But just like religious people, you'll never accept/believe that.
ncPsychosis 3 months ago
@ncPsychosis I don't think the lack of evidence is enough to 'disbelieve' in something. There's more than that. The dark matter is accepted as an existing thing even with absolutely no physical evidences. We believe in it because it fits on the behavior of universe's motion, it's very similar to the people who believe in God because it's convenient. We don't believe in unicorns because, along with the lack of evidence, we know the history behind the creation of its myth...
money7maker 2 months ago
@ncPsychosis You may say we know the history of God's myth too. Agree with you if we put religions on the spot, I absolutely do not believe in them as much as I don't believe in Santa. But the hypotesis that something that can be called a "God" exists has no bad history behind it. It didn't try to control population, didn't try to make people believe in it, since it's a hypotesis, so it has no reason to be more false than any other like it, considering we have no clue about our origin.
money7maker 2 months ago
The first step in deciding what you believe is defining the word god. Since no definition will ever be universally accepted Agnosticism seems like the appropriate approach.
InKa4484 3 months ago
@8080blank I don't understand how an Atheist chooses to be Atheist over Theism and vice versa when in reality both groups use the same approach to picking their belief which is without providing proof! Of course, an Atheist would argue that the burden of proof is on the believer, but that's being a coward. As an agnostic, the way I see it is that both groups make a claim that they each need to back up with proof!
akouleze 3 months ago
@akouleze Oh, is that right? It's downright pussy-ish to just shrug your shoulders and say "I dunno" whenever someone asks you. That's agnosticism for you, the epitome of being a pussy. You also don't understand science or critical thinking.
ncPsychosis 3 months ago
@ncPsychosis “Oh, is that right? It's downright pussy-ish to just shrug your shoulders and say "I dunno" whenever someone asks you. That's agnosticism for you, the epitome of being a pussy. You also don't understand science or critical thinking.” As I’ve said to other dumb ass Atheists, if “We don’t know” is not an answer then you are claiming that you know everything. Do you have all the answers to every question in the universe??? There is your response dumb ass Atheist #3!
akouleze 3 months ago
@ncPsychosis You Atheists and Theists want to simply pick an answer carelessly without any shred of proof which shows how much you have no critical thinking skills nor understanding of science. It’s “downright pussy-ish” to say I don’t know, well you better be ready to have all the answers to every question out there and they better be right answers or else it really shows how much of a dumb ass you are! Even scientists don’t claim to have answers to everything! I know more than you!
akouleze 3 months ago
@8080blank Agnosticism is the right attitude towards God and not Atheism or Theism. Agnostics don't pretend to know that God exists or doesn't not exists. Furthermore, there are some things we will never know and therefore it is wrong for Atheists and Theists to fight like little school children and make claims that neither side can prove. I wish we could know the true answer right now, but we don't and lying to oneself that God exists or doesn't exists is pathetic and wrong!
akouleze 3 months ago
The Barna Group found concering atheism and morality that those who hold to the worldviews of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.
ARepublicanVictory 4 months ago
@ARepublicanVictory Note that it does not mention things like stealing, lying, or committing violence.
If a person drinks, does drugs, has sex outside of marriage, gambles or looks at pornography this harms no one but themselves. So indeed if someone actually thinks about it logically, as opposed to unquestioningly believing what they're told to believe; they are quite likely to feel these acts are more morally acceptable.
KingAdrock420 4 months ago
@KingAdrock420 Porn, doing drugs, sex outside marriage and excessive drinking leads to moral decline which infects the entire community.
ARepublicanVictory 4 months ago
@ARepublicanVictory Can you explain to me how any of these things are harmful to the community without referencing the Bible?
KingAdrock420 4 months ago
@KingAdrock420 If you do not know how or why, well then you are a lost soul. And the Bible is the source of all morality. Not referencing the Bible is like not not referencing an automobile and its motor.
ARepublicanVictory 4 months ago
@ARepublicanVictory So these things are bad because they bible says so, not because they actually cause harm other people. Cool story bro.
So since you require the bible for morality, do the christian thing and explain to this lost soul where in the bible it states illegal drug use, or cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage ie "a roommate of the opposite sex whom with you live but do not have sex" is a sin.
I've read the bible but I must have missed that part.
KingAdrock420 4 months ago
@ARepublicanVictory So these things are bad because they bible says so, not because they actually cause harm other people. Cool story bro.
So since you require the bible for morality, do the christian thing and explain to this lost soul where in the bible it states illegal drug use, or cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage ie "a roommate of the opposite sex whom with you live but do not have sex" is a sin.
I've read the bible but I must have missed that part.
KingAdrock420 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ARepublicanVictory @ARepublicanVictory So these things are bad because they bible says so, not because they actually cause harm other people.
So since you require the bible for morality, do the christian thing and explain to this lost soul where in the bible it states illegal drug use, or cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage, i.e. "a roommate of the opposite sex whom with you live but do not have sex" is a sin.
I've read the bible but I must have missed that part.
KingAdrock420 4 months ago
Comment removed
ARepublicanVictory 4 months ago
People would rather convince themselves that they are sure there is no god, for who could stand the constant awareness that there is a god and they might be going to hell. There is too much insecurity in admitting ignorance. For instance people insist that evolution is a fact even though it cant be reproduced in a lab and it mere guessing at what processes ocurred before any of us was here.
j919or 7 months ago
@j919or Well said. I know this atheist who says God does not exist and he knows it as a fact. I promptly called him a fool who knows NOTHING.
ARepublicanVictory 4 months ago
@ARepublicanVictory People arent looking for truth but for a good feeling. They equate truth with pain and fantasy will bliss. Thus the rampant spread of twisted minds.
j919or 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheists believe that there is no God and hence they believe that they are each God, bc only God would have the ability to know that there is no God or other God.
j919or 7 months ago
Kids are forced into religion. Parents were once the kids who were the ones forced. The ones who escaped as shown by the opinions are the people have the minds of thier own and not tradition that is fake. Do not let people force you and do not belive because you are afraid of hell
SE7ENSINSxCOM 7 months ago
@SE7ENSINSxCOM Religion is good for the soul. Kids are also forced into science. The ones who know that science is not the all to end all also know that the Lord is the creator of all things.
ARepublicanVictory 4 months ago
@AnHeretick the flying tea pot is a stupid example. This is about the existence in general which science has no explanation for and apparently nobody has. Perhaps agnostics have more brains than balls...
appie09 7 months ago
Why is this called "Why Atheism over Agnosticism" when agnosticism is never mentioned?
KingAdrock420 7 months ago
Why must people continue to be so stupid? Atheism deals with belief, agnosticism with knowledge. They're not mutually exclusive. Go home, kids. End of story.
batmanpronz 9 months ago
@batmanpronz I agree, you should probably go home to your mommy. Her tits are getting dry...
some1iknow1 9 months ago
Comment removed
carlosewm 8 months ago
Comment removed
carlosewm 8 months ago
@batmanpronz Atheism deals with belief?
A- Absence
Theos- god.
Atheos - Absence of god.
Atheism - The absence of belief in one or more deities - which is different from the rejection of the belief in one or more deities.
There's a difference between atheism, anti-theism, atheism 3.0...
There's also agnostic atheism.
Try to not make yourself look like a fool next time.
Hint: bold, disrespectful and equivocated statements like the ones you did might not help.
End of story.
carlosewm 8 months ago
@carlosewm How is there a difference between "absence of belief" and "rejection of belief"? You either believe in something or you don't. My point was exactly that; there is agnostic atheism, a lack (or rejection) of belief, coupled with the position of having no absolute knowledge with regard to the claim.
Hint: Pick up a book in introductory logic. It really might help.
batmanpronz 8 months ago
Comment removed
carlosewm 8 months ago
Comment removed
carlosewm 8 months ago
@batmanpronz I get what you mean.
Believing implies you acknowledged the idea and gives credit to it as true (a "Yes").
Lacking a belief means you know (or not) the idea and you don't have given credit to it as true neither false. (Neither "Yes" nor "No").
Rejecting implies you know the proposition of certain idea, but you dismiss it as true. (A "No").
The therm atheism is troublesome as it changed meaning many times and in the past was used often pejoratively.
carlosewm 8 months ago
@carlosewm I'm not sure what you mean by "knowing" an idea and "giving credit to it as true." Even though I use the word in a colloquial context, the action of "belief" is completely foreign to me. As human beings, we have developed the language of logic to asses what is and isn't true for the purpose of things that are useful.
Accepting something as true with no regard to criteria that would normally scrutinize its legitimacy is a notion foreign to myself.
batmanpronz 8 months ago
@batmanpronz By knowing I mean being familiar with it.
Let's pretend there's some person in a isolated place in the world that wasn't teach about any concept of a deity nor exposed to any theistic religion, does it mean that person then rejects god? I don't see how.
What I mean is that there is no seemingly position on the either the idea is creditable or not by the person when the idea just isn't cogitated by the person, that's why I included the "know" in that comment.
carlosewm 8 months ago
@carlosewm You're generalizing again. Be specific with what you mean about "rejects god." That person automatically rejects "belief in god" because he or she simply does not "believe." We assume that person has never been taught to perform that action. If prompted, he might produce a statement with regard to an objective truth, but that has nothing to do with accepting truth without any evidence (evidence in this case being based on causality).
batmanpronz 8 months ago
@batmanpronz
By "rejects God" I mean rejecting the possibility that this God might exist, and I differentiate that from the lack of belief, because I don't see the lack of belief as rejection.
"but that has nothing to do with accepting truth without any evidence (evidence in this case being based on causality)."
What I said is that we can't assume someone rejects an idea that he doesn't know about, as he must process the idea first (assuming he hadn't the idea earlier).
carlosewm 8 months ago
@batmanpronz About the book introductory to logic, I know what logic is pretty well, but thanks anyway
Curiously, it seems that "You either believe in something or you don't." isn't a valid argument (false dichotomy), because believing and not believing aren't the only psychological positions when facing an idea, there's quantities and ideas you believe more and others you believe less, and 0 and 1 doesn't seem to apply to that very well, I hope we have a consensus about that.
carlosewm 8 months ago
@carlosewm I simply disagree. I don't "believe." Period. I don't know how to perform that action. How can I assess a continuous nature to a concept that is foreign and cannot be explained in logical terms? When an idea fails to be expressed in a universally understood language, there are only two positions with respect to its legitimacy; accept it as a valid idea or reject it as a logical error.
batmanpronz 8 months ago
@batmanpronz correction
*attribute a continuous nature, NOT asses a continuous nature.
Long day
batmanpronz 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@batmanpronz "When an idea fails to be expressed in a universally understood language, there are only two positions with respect to its legitimacy; accept it as a valid idea or reject it as a logical error."
Yes, but the action of accepting or rejecting the idea requires you to know what that idea is, right? That's what I'm trying to explain.
carlosewm 8 months ago
@carlosewm In retrospect, "you either believe in something or you don't" is moot. Better phrasing would be "you either believe or you don't."
batmanpronz 8 months ago
the very first part is a fallacy. religion does not claim to know everything. Teapots? Flying Spagetti monsters? Hey DICK! stick with biology, you're very good at that.
helpmetony 9 months ago
@helpmetony religion does claim to know everything.... god created it.... derpaherp.
manugnauinggshtrajk 8 months ago 2
but its alot deeper that a freaking teapot.. we´re talking about creation here! and why..
nanocalp 10 months ago
@nanocalp We might not be talking about creation.
DeadlyRedRing 10 months ago
I do think the definitions of atheists and agnostics need to be worked on. I do think they should be mutually exclusive. In my opinion, atheists believe "no God exists," agnostics "Maybe, maybe not," and theists, "God exists." These are mutually exclusive. If someone told Dawkins his house was on fire, he wouldn't say, "I don't believe it because I have no evidence," he'd investigate. It's all about how possible it sounds. Some gods do not sound unlikely to agnostics.
TubeofH2O 1 year ago
@TubeofH2O I like that and it centers on 'belief'. An atheists believes in no gods, an agnostic believes there may be a god, and a theist believes there definitely is a god. So far it's simple. Within those camps there can be agnostics that may or may not believe such a thing can be answered at all (if there was a god that made no contact with our world then there'd be no way I suppose of proving either way, then again we can make up anything and say the same so I don't see that as reasonable)
scotty 1 year ago
I don't understand the title of this video. Dawkins doesn't mention agnosticism at all, and if anything, I'd reckon this video would an argument for both atheism and agnosticism. They aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
FinnGamble 1 year ago
the fact that you think yourself responsible for any of your advantages displays clearly and concisely that you are not truly versed on the nature of your being
MikeFavre3 1 year ago
i like the naked aphrodite :DDD
za1231in 1 year ago
<--- Get the Forbidden Truth here.
I am proudly an atheist, not a mere agnostic. Atheism is the only Truth-based and fully legitimate position.
SeerTravisTruman 1 year ago
@SeerTravisTruman Nah, I think you are sorely mistaken. Agnosticism is the only true intellectually honest position when it comes to religion.
SaintxOfxSuburbia 1 year ago
@SaintxOfxSuburbia It is you who are mistaken, as you refuse to reject an obvious societal lie. Your position is dishonest in the extreme.
SeerTravisTruman 1 year ago
@SeerTravisTruman Well, we can all have our own beliefs, and I will respect yours.
SaintxOfxSuburbia 1 year ago
@SeerTravisTruman You had best define truth, then. I mean...I'm an agnostic because I'm not certain about what "truth," is. You have, apparently, figured out what philosophers have been arguing about for millenia. How impressive. Do define. Thank you :)
jalehtri 1 year ago
@jalehtri You are most likely agnostic because your rational brain rejected the insane god myth, but you have embraced the god myth at your True Reality core. Either that, or your brain is not functioning properly, which is normal for humans.
Just because I say something is "True", does not mean I need define it. Philosophers have been using the terms "True" and "false" for "millenia". For example, Its True that I can think. See? Got that now?
SeerTravisTruman 1 year ago
@jalehtri Here is another one : "Art"..cannot define it. Can use it. See? Try and use your brain next time.
SeerTravisTruman 1 year ago
@SeerTravisTruman Art: the expression of someone, or the portrait of the artist's self.
The reason we know it's true that you can think is because you are a human, like me. Let me demonstrate what I mean:
I am a human, and I think; therefore, humans think.
You are a human; therefore, you think.
That's the only thing we know you can think, but what if I say: It's true that dogs can think. Now, you don't know if it's true, as you are not a dog. You can hypothesize, but you can't know.
NobiscumDeus1 1 year ago
@NobiscumDeus1 By that definition of art, the expression using the middle finger is art. So is an outburst of violent rage.
A dog can think. Dogs make choices and decisions. They have memory and can obey commands. I dont need to be a dog to KNOW that, only to experience what it would be like for a dog.
SeerTravisTruman 1 year ago
@SeerTravisTruman Yes, it's a silly art, but it's art. Just like the high art of Leonardo DaVinci, Michelangelo, Picasso, and other great artists.
Maybe they can think, unless someone says their choices are made by some instinct. If it belongs to instincts then he is not thinking, but perceiving. In other words, the frontal lobe is so little that is not capable of thinking, and so it uses his parietal lobe to perceive with his senses. In other words, he is not thinking but perceiving.
NobiscumDeus1 1 year ago
@SeerTravisTruman Of course, I just invented this, as I am presenting an example. Moreover, you need to know, or your idea will be mere belief. Some experiences will lead to how we perceive the world, and our beliefs and knowledge. Just because you experienced in some way, it doesn't mean someone else experienced the same way.
I will put a more difficult example.
I am aware of my existence, and I am a human.
You're a human; therefore, you are aware of your existence.
Now, are dogs aware of it?
NobiscumDeus1 1 year ago
@SeerTravisTruman Unfortunately, we have to say: "We don't know." This is the same case of God. Just because some religious people are very retarded, it doesn't make the belief in a God retarded. Many scientists joined science to "know" God. Some still do, even thought many no longer believe in it, or they have another idea of God.
PS: Just to clarify, I don't believe in a personal God. If there would be a God, then it would be close to the Deist idea, or Pantheist idea.
NobiscumDeus1 1 year ago
@NobiscumDeus1 I dont have to say anything of the sort. I DO know.
The correct answer is that god-addicts are all liars and/or delusional and pathetic fools who cling to insane mythology for false comfort.
All religious people are suffering from a delusion-based mental disorder.
Got that now?
SeerTravisTruman 1 year ago
@SeerTravisTruman No you don't! You delude yourself to know, but you don't. In fact, no one knows!
So Galileo was delusional? So Descartes was delusional? So Einstein was delusional? I can go on to refute your fallacy.
What I got is that I see how atheists can be dogmatic, deluded, and dictator like a fundamentalist theist.
NobiscumDeus1 1 year ago
@NobiscumDeus1 I do know. The fact is that YOU dont know. You are a god-myth victim. Just because YOU dont know, does not mean that I dont know.
My Forbidden Truth Media website clearly reveals the correct answer on the insane god myth.
SeerTravisTruman 1 year ago
@SeerTravisTruman Just because you think you know, it doesn't mean you know. Your attitude is not that different from a theist. I have confronted the same words from fundamentalist christians who think they know, when they don't.
Our logic, our philosophy, our experience, and our science is limited to our dimension. Even if you have Nietzsche in there, I would dare to say he was just another human limited to his form as human. The truth is that we don't know the truth, and you can't change that.
NobiscumDeus1 1 year ago
@NobiscumDeus1 "The Truth is that we dont know the Truth?" Is that Truth?
I know the Truth. You are wrong. That is the end of this conversation, as you are clearly infected by the insane god myth. You are pathetic.
For others reading this comment, be on guard at all times against the insane god myth. Only atheism represents Truth. Visit My website for more.
SeerTravisTruman 1 year ago
@SeerTravisTruman Well, if you know the truth of everything, then please, share.
The old dogmatic atheist. You are all a joke who think themselves as philosophers or scientists. Even some rational and spiritual atheists are ashamed of people like you.
Wow! You are no different from a muslim that lead people to read the Q'uran as for that muslim represents the truth, or a christian with the Bible. You are exactly the same as them, but just without God.
Obvious idiots are obvious.:)
NobiscumDeus1 1 year ago
@NobiscumDeus1 I never said I know *everything*.
You are a total closed minded fool. Do you really believe even in your fantasy world that a philosopher of My caliber could fail to understand the issues surrounding the insane god myth???
Your agnostic position is so simplistic that if you were bright alarm bells would be ringing in your head. Dont you even wonder why I reject your babble??
You are acting just like a god-addict. You also need to update your thinking skills.
SeerTravisTruman 1 year ago
@SeerTravisTruman Well, then if you don't know everything, then you don't know the truth. It's like saying you finished a puzzle, and yet it has some pieces missing.
If I were, I would be dogmatic as you. If you were a philosopher, then Kent Hovind is a biologist. You are just a childish arrogant boy who thinks that just because you read Nietzsche, you are a philosopher.
It's not simplistic, it's a fact. My idea comes from Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. Because you are an idiot?
NobiscumDeus1 1 year ago
@NobiscumDeus1 I am one of the worlds greatest thinkers.
If you are so stupid that you cannot understand that I can know something is True without having to know everything then there is no point continuing. I will block you.
1+1=2. There. I know the answer, but I did not have to know everything to know it.
The fact of the matter is that I know that the god-myth is a malevolent lie, and you are actually being controlled by the god-myth. You are under it's influence.
SeerTravisTruman 1 year ago
@SeerTravisTruman If that so, Kent Hovind is next to Einstein.
You might know little part of the truth, but not the truth itself. Awww! How boring!
You had to know the existence of 1, and it's meaning to know that. If you didn't knew that then 1+1=999 would be true.
Do you any evidence to prove such thing?
NobiscumDeus1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NobiscumDeus1 You are mentally deranged.
SeerTravisTruman 1 year ago
@SeerTravisTruman Nah! I am mentally well; on the other hand, you should call a psychiatrist or something for extreme arrogance, or extreme idiocy. Both of them suits you perfectly. :)
NobiscumDeus1 1 year ago
@SeerTravisTruman you could use a dose of humility, sir. i promise you that despite your positions on the afterlife, even if you possess a great analytical mind it is through no fault of your own, you are simply lucky enough to be a victim of your specific circumstance. & even if you're intelligent your demeanor shows plainly that you are far from wise
MikeFavre3 1 year ago
@MikeFavre3 Humility is a rotten and invalid quality, and I am such a wonderful specimen of rational and sane thinking that I should be placed high on a gold pedestal like I clearly deserve.
My demenour shows that I am wise, you are just foolish and wrong in what constitutes such things.
SeerTravisTruman 1 year ago
@NobiscumDeus1 Excuse me jumping in but I've been pondering these things 4 some time myself. About the agnos position of claiming we don't know. 1st type believes god may exist , he does not NOT believe in the possibility of gods 2nd it's not possible to know if any exist. Athe's don't believe god exist, agnos say you can't know that he in fact may. but both do not 'believe' correct?. agnos simply add the possibility. athes say no way.Agnos 'Believe' it may be possible one cannot 'know'.
scotty 1 year ago
@scotty The agnos give the possibility of what could be. More are some agnos than other, but of course, with a limit. Moreover, there is a way to prove a negative, and that is by proving a positive. I will give you an example, if someone tells you there is a god in a mountain, then I will assure you someone will investigate. If that someone goes and investigate the mountain, and finds nothing, he proved this god doesn't exist. Athes has a problem, and is that Athes might claim.
NobiscumDeus1 1 year ago
Comment removed
scotty 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NobiscumDeus1 thanks for your answer. Maybe one day that erroneous assumption about not being able to prove a negative will disappear. You gave a nice example of the problem with that reasoning. I'm not understanding this though "Athes has a problem, and is that Athes might claim" Could you explain?
scotty 1 year ago
@scotty It is not erroneous. What is erroneous is to claim you can disprove the negative. That is erroneous indeed. What I meant is that you need to prove a positive, to disprove the negative. For instance, by discovering everything of the brain and it's function, you will disprove the idea of a soul in a being. Some Athes can make claims that are false; for instance, there is no creator as the Universe comes from nothing(The creator doesn't have to be a god or something supernatural).
NobiscumDeus1 1 year ago
@NobiscumDeus1 Well now you have lost me, what the heck, you said "What is erroneous is to claim you can disprove the negative. That is erroneous indeed." Then you said "you need to prove a positive, to disprove the negative." Fist you said you can't do it then you said you can. You said it was an error to say a negative could be disproved, but then you said if a positive could be proven then it would disprove a negative, ugh, the thing you said was wrong to think you could do. I'm lost.
scotty 1 year ago
@scotty Only an example can help: If you prove evolution(positive), you have proven that the idea of intelligent design is false(negative). When someone proved evolution, they have proved that intelligent design is wrong. You cannot prove intelligent design is wrong by just trying to disprove intelligent design, which is the negative. You need to prove another idea, in this case evolution, to prove that intelligent design is wrong. Understand now?
NobiscumDeus1 1 year ago
@NobiscumDeus1 Thanks that's better. However, in the evolution example what has been proven is evolution, it does exist and it's working in a certain way. This doesn't mean other things can't be going on as well. But it does mean there is an explanation supported by observation and facts. We can go with this or we can stick with an idea where there is no supporting evidence. Similarly, discovering that our brains do everything doesn't disprove the existence of a soul. But it accounts 4 its wrk
scotty 1 year ago
@scotty me, Negatives can be proven though. 1+1=2 this does prove that 1+1 do not equal any other # so we've proven an infinite amount of negatives. 1+1 don't equal 30 for instance. Also, if I say I've parked my car in the living room and I mean 'my car' I'm not being clever no joke I mean the car I drive, then it ought to be verifiable. If it's there then the statement is true if not then false proving the negative. The god in the mt example maybe not god could be undetectable.
scotty 1 year ago
@scotty me again, better rephrase that. If they say god is in or on the mountain we can go there and look, we can dig, but if we don't find they'll say he is invisible or something. He is spirit is a good one cause there's no way of detecting that, their delusion is safe. But it is a delusion because they might as well have said a pink unicorn was under the bed. To a sane, reasonable adult this idea ought be recognized as absurd.
scotty 1 year ago
@scotty This is what I meant(the example of 1+1=2). The example of god in the mountain is more difficult, but it still can be refuted. If someone says, I searched the mountain entirely and didn't found this god, and yet someone makes an excuse, like it's above our sighting so we can see it, hear it, or feel it. Then it's acceptable to say, this god is whether afraid of us, or limited of his self existence, which makes him not to be god, but I mere invention of comfort.
NobiscumDeus1 1 year ago
Comment removed
scotty 1 year ago
@scotty By Intelligent Design, I meant the creationist claim of God creating humans 6,000 years ago. If there is something else going on, like God guiding every living cell to make humans by evolving them, then that's another idea. By discovering that the brain does everything, it disproves the Cartesian dualism, which is the most common today. If there is another form that explains the soul, then that's another idea then.
NobiscumDeus1 1 year ago
@scotty By Intelligent Design, I meant the creationist claim of God creating humans 6,000 years ago. If there is something else going on, like God guiding every living cell to make humans by evolving them, then that's another idea. By discovering that the brain does everything, it disproves the Cartesian dualism, which is the most common today. If there is another form that explains the soul, then that's another idea then.
NobiscumDeus1 1 year ago
I might also add that your idea of no-cycle means that time would have to go back indefinitely or be infinite. Introducing a creator etc does nothing to rectify your problem.
SeerTravisTruman 1 year ago
The only True atheist is the one who rejects the insane god myth entirely. Agnostics have failed to face up to the obvious Truth that there is no such thing as the god creature.
SeerTravisTruman 1 year ago
Ignorant
Science cant prove or disprove human rights or laws other than people believe in them. All of human culture is simply imagined. Yet we certainly believe in them and are direct products of them.
so silly how this fact is ignored. Humanity as we know it is dogma itself.
Twicebakedtaters 1 year ago
Nah I'll stay agnostic, atheists care about religion a bit too much.It kind of cute, if you ask me.
Blitties 1 year ago
@Blitties Some atheists might, but since the term only means that you don't believe in gods, that's a pretty harsh generalisation.
The two terms aren't even really related in the way people usually think they are... You can be a gnostic atheist or an agnostic atheist, just as you can be a gnostic theist or an agnostic theist.
PeGe90 1 year ago
Since I dont suppose nobody watching this has died recently, we are all agnostic no matter what. Nobody can say wether or not there is a god, because there is yet to be any conclusive explanation for our origin. The big bang is the most supported theory, but the matter in the big bang has to come from somewhere too. It's no better a guess than a fat dude sitting under a tree for 20 years, or a poor dude with some magic tricks. Existence itself is a contradiction, so logic can't explain it atm.
idkwhattonamemyself 1 year ago
@idkwhattonamemyself Watch the vid again, it explains why that is nonsense. My reply to Blitties does too.
PeGe90 1 year ago
@PeGe90 No, No it does not at all. No matter how far science goes back in time it hasn't hit time's beginning yet. If you go all the way back in time you have to end up in nothing at some point, and it can't create anything. But a cycle doesn't make sense either because it has to have a beginning too. That means you can't explain our origin without some other 3rd variable that our minds might not even be able to understand. Religion IS nonsense. But atheism is too. Nothing is conclusive.
idkwhattonamemyself 1 year ago
@idkwhattonamemyself Yeah yeah yeah, we don't know everything and can't disprove anything. That still doesn't change the fact that there are things so unlikely, that it's reasonable to outright not believe in them. Such as God.
And you should have read my other comment. Especially the part where I said agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. From what you've said, I'd say you're an agnostic atheist. As most atheist are.
PeGe90 1 year ago
@PeGe90 Actually, the insane god myth has been falsified and disproven, anyway. Just not by science.
SeerTravisTruman 1 year ago
@SeerTravisTruman By what, then, and how?
PeGe90 1 year ago
@PeGe90 By logic and reasoning.
SeerTravisTruman 1 year ago
@SeerTravisTruman I explained the insane god myth on My website. Email Me with any direct questions.
SeerTravisTruman 1 year ago
@SeerTravisTruman I'm not sure I agree that anything can be disproven with just reasoning and logic. That same logic leads other people to believe in god after all.
And again, it really isn't possible to prove a negative. Russel's teapot etc.
Also, I'm still interested in hearing your "how". You've only answered the "what".
PeGe90 1 year ago
@PeGe90 I dont care what you agree with. Some things can be. The insane god myth can be easily disproven via logic and argument alone.
There is no logic that leads anyone to believe in god, but deep seated pathological problems.
You dont prove the negative, you disprove their claims.
If "how" is your interest, then email Me via My website. I do not discuss any depth in philosophy over you-tube.
SeerTravisTruman 1 year ago
@SeerTravisTruman Some definitions of god are vague enough to be un-disproveable. But what ever. Since you're not willing to actually discuss the matter, I won't bother.
Cheers.
PeGe90 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PeGe90 It is you who is not willing.
SeerTravisTruman 1 year ago
@idkwhattonamemyself Wrong. A cycle would have no beginning, because time is relative to dimensions in space.
SeerTravisTruman 1 year ago
@SeerTravisTruman A cycle with no beginning is illogical no matter what people say, and time is not as reliable as we think anymore. Whether or not our time can be sped up by large masses or slowed down by high speed, REAL time cannot simply be "restarted" and the idea that everything has been here forever isn't something you can wrap your mind around, and it never will be. Most scientists think it's false for that reason. If your clock resets, you did not "go back in time."
idkwhattonamemyself 1 year ago
@idkwhattonamemyself Wrong. A cycle by definition has no beginning as so the concept is perfectly logical.
What is harder to imagine : infinity (regression) or a loop?
The idea is : If you get the the "edge" of the universe, you come out the other side, sort of like pac-man does. Time should be no different. I think you do not understand time. It has nothing to do with relativity. Time is directly related to the other three dimensions. It is not simply an independant time-line.
SeerTravisTruman 1 year ago
agnostic is the only thing to be period!
tallyhoman911 1 year ago
Russel was agnostic
soterios11 1 year ago
@soterios11
He would be considered an atheist nowadays since no one really defines atheism in such an absurdly narrow sense anymore.
socrstreets 1 year ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo Then all beliefs, justified or not, takes faith, thereby making "faith" a null statement. And that's just deliberately confusing the issue.
sajfen 1 year ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo I never said anything about being absolutely certain, we can never be absolutely certain about anything! Stop implying that I or any atheist have made that statement. It's a complete fabrication. I ask you again. Does it take faith to conclude that it's not reasonable to believe in something that does not manifest in any way shape or form?
sajfen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo "good according to your statement"
just because something isn't bad doesn't make it good. i said it was fair for someone to hold that position until proven otherwise. i still think it is better to say it is possible, but that doesn't make someone who believes the opposite illogical.
"The ones that do are illogical"
that has nothing to do with the decussion or the point i was making.
atheistnarutofan 1 year ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo "But some do."
your point? some christians believe god wants them to kill their kids, but that doesn't mean all christians do. just because someone in your "group" believes something doesn't everyone does.
"something doesn't exist without having evidence to support your believes"
wrong, it is only bad to believe something doesn't exist if you have evidence that says it does.
"That is illogical"
no it is not. you can lack a belief without holding the opposite belief.
atheistnarutofan 1 year ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo Does it take faith to conclude that something that doesn't manifest in any way shape or form doesn't exists?
sajfen 1 year ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo "If they believe god doesn't exist"
but they all don't believe that. how do i make it any simpler? a person that doesn't believe in bigfoot doesn't necessarily say that it can not be real.
atheistnarutofan 1 year ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo That's funny. Oh, while you make stuff up you might as well claim that atheists eat babies too.
sajfen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo " 'And atheism is the BELIEF in a negative' ◄▬ Exactly, negative BELIEF without evidence that god doesn't exist (Or like I say, they have faith god doesn't exist)"
atheism is the lack of a believe, NOT a belief.
atheistnarutofan 1 year ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo yeah iDeist is really smart.
NintendoDSVampire 1 year ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo Nah, look up Deism.
NintendoDSVampire 1 year ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo I am theist and you think exactly like me. I honestly will not become an agnostic and if I am to switch I would choose Deism, but I still love you :D
NintendoDSVampire 1 year ago
But agnostics don't believe in God or faries or unicorns - they merely wait for evidence either way. Dawkins misrepresents agnosticism here.
There is sometimes an unnecessary stridency, almost a militarism to atheism.
But as always, there is no way to prove a negative. And atheism is the BELIEF in a negative
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale "But agnostics don't believe in God or faries or unicorns"
exactly, but to be at that point you must be atheist. he says agnostics are people that don't know but atheists are people who don't believe. in other words, you are misrepresenting an agnostic atheist as only being agnostic. this is bad because you wind up with people thinking a theist MUST believe 100% because the only people who don't know don't believe.
atheistnarutofan 1 year ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo The idea that knowledge is based on faith or more specifically beliefs is an epistemological idea. There's a venn-diagram in wiki explaining it. Knowledge includes those beliefs that you know to be true with absolute certainty. Without beliefs any knowledge except inherent ones are impossible to attain. Beliefs are concepts, knowledge is belief with evidence. I guess you're confusing dogma with faith/belief.
Achilles9924 1 year ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo Well, unfortunately you need faith and belief because without it you cannot have knowledge. Truth is only a part of knowledge, the rest are beliefs. Without beliefs, you have no reason to say that you would to see tomorrow because there is no evidence. People can be agnostic atheist too. Somethings in life you have to believe without evidence because wishful thinking helps(to some extent).
Achilles9924 1 year ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo In that case, welcome to the club.
MasterAdam100 1 year ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo Let me make this simple.
Listen, I'm an Agnostic too. Agnosticism and Gnosticism deal with the knowledge of deity's. Atheism and Theism deal with beliefs or lack of it.
You are right. There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of any sort of deity. But you still either believe or don't believe. It doesn't compromise your position one bit. I am an Agnostic Atheist and so are a lot of us. You can't seperate Agnosticism from everything else.
MasterAdam100 1 year ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo other non believers. excuse me.
MasterAdam100 1 year ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo First off, Atheism is the LACK of belief in deity's. Notice that it;s plural. What about the Goddess/s? And Pragmatic Atheism? Theists made the claim first and they haven't shown ANY proof what so ever. Therefore, it's rational to question and lack belief in supernatural beings. I'm not knocking on-the-fencers or self proclaimed Agnostics. I just notice that some Agnostics will step out of the way when theTheist is on the attack and not associate with Atheists or nonbelivers
MasterAdam100 1 year ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo No. I just belong to the side that sounds a lot more plausible. In fact, there is no so such thing as an Agnostic who isn't either a Theist or an Atheist, And if your just on the fence, then your just on the fence.
Pascal's Wager shouldn't scare anyone. There's too many religions out there to really care! XD!
MasterAdam100 1 year ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo No one likes to be wrong. Maybe that's why there is "on the fence" Agnostics. Or they just don't like being called Atheists because of the social stigma.
MasterAdam100 1 year ago
We don't believe in AronRa! 1:52
BioNRGy 1 year ago
Why do atheists always attribute "God" to the archetypal old man in a white beard. Can they give a definition of god? No one can at this stage because we just dont know enough about it. Even to debate about the existence of god is absurd because we cant place a definition on it far less actually talk about it. What if I say God stands for that intangible something that fuels the growth of the universe, dark energy, for instance. I cant talk about God because I dont even know what that is!
SauronTheConqueror 1 year ago
@SauronTheConqueror Most Atheists would wonder why you call such a thing god. Would you worship something like that? Does it require worship? I don't get it.
Sloth7d 1 year ago
@Sloth7d The dark, energy thing was just an example. My point is that if you can ask any atheist what they truly mean by god, they dont have an answer, none of us do. We know so very little about ourselves, this universe, and our seemingly infinitesimal role in it, that we dont really have enough information to debate about the guiding force behind it. You have to search the corners of the universe before you can be conclusive and that is something unlikely to happen in our lifetime.
SauronTheConqueror 1 year ago
@SauronTheConqueror But the point isn't what the atheist means by God but the one making the claim for a God. The fact that the universe is so infinite in it's possibilities is the reason why we shouldn't just let assumptions of blind faith carry us through our entire lively hood and be careful what we accept as true, and take pains not to redefine previously defined marvels and give a new name to them just to prove a point.
Sloth7d 1 year ago
@Sloth7d Well, since I am an agnostic and, I flatter myself by saying this, a rationalist, I agree with your point that we cannot let blind faith guide our lives just because we cant prove that God doesn't exist. I am sure that all our miracles and fables, were at some point of time, perfectly rational, believable stories but overtime were excessively romanticized and what metaphors they actually alluded to were understood in the literal sense due to some "holier than thou" zealots.
SauronTheConqueror 1 year ago
@Sloth7d I am not trying to defend theists with my arguments: Half the problems in the world today are because of religion, because people understand their holy texts in the wrong way. I'm just saying that If you were truly of a scientific mindset, then rejecting or accepting God is meaningless because we have so little proof to support it either way. You cannot arrive at a conclusion when all of your observations are incomplete. We have to admit that the question is will always be open ended.
SauronTheConqueror 1 year ago
@SauronTheConqueror You are a fucking imbecile!
pivotclips 1 year ago
@pivotclips Learn to wash your mouth and clean up your toungue before you speak up in a public forum, you filthy foul mouth. I can smell your dirty mouth across the internet. Debate about your grievance, dont abuse anyone blindly just because they dont agree with your view.
SauronTheConqueror 1 year ago
@SauronTheConqueror Shut up, you used the word mouth three times in that. You are obliviously not an atheist, so you are a theist, and you are a fuck head.
pivotclips 1 year ago
I'm a great admirer of Dawkins, but he himself when pressed on a Hardtalk interview that may exist on YouTube. Had to admit he was an agnostic. The interview took place sometime after this film was made. His stock arguments such as Zeus, Thor etc are flawed, because we know they were made up by man. My admiration for him is based on his fight against religion that is an evil. There may be some sort of controling force out there. We simply don't know.
ludvan64 1 year ago
Bad analogy! Teapots, fairies, unicorns, ... etc don't make claims about your moral standards, stand on abortion, sexuality, origins of life, holy lands, after-life, ... etc.
Heissenburger 1 year ago
@Heissenburger Alright let's say in the holy book of Teapot there was teachings saying to slaughter any woman who aborts a child and to behead any man who is homosexual. And these teachings were taught through generations and accepted, until one day someone says he's a a-teapotist, etc. You get the idea right?
PinkFloydShineOn 1 year ago
"Some of us just go one god further", I like that!
alexfanx 1 year ago
Whether you believe in god(s), or do not believe in god(s), people still remain unsatisfied and suffer in life.
Fixation with answering an unanswerable question becomes a major distraction away from doing something about global human suffering.
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
Very bad rhetoric, quite sadly..
I enjoyed watching his other videos though..
The main confusion atheists fall into when they debate an agnostic is that they take belief as religion and the god as described in various religions.
First think to mention would be:Questioning the existence of a god is totally irrelevant to the question of religion for agnostics. God might be a careless one, might be even forgotten us already.
The answer is simple: We don'