atheism is based on a completely unsupported presumption that there is no greater power. many atheists say that people who believe in God do so out of ignorance, but can someone clarify how what they are doing is any different?
@10YNWA10 It's not a presumption. Atheism is the rejection of claims (there is a god) that haven't me their burdon of proof. Extraordinary claims (there is a god) DEMAND extraordinary evidence. It may sound harsh but what is more ignorant than believing in ANYTHING out of faith?
@dkthg im not arguing for the existence of god, im making a case for agnosticism. you seem to agree that blindly believing in a god is presumptuous and ignorant. however, i believe it is just as presumtuous and ignorant to simply declare that there is no meaning. the argument can be rephrased as "we cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is meaning to the universe. therefore, there is no meaning." this sounds like arguing from ignorance to me
@10YNWA10 1st) WHAT case for agnosticism? Agnostism says "I neither believe nor disbelieve." Atheism says "I reject the CLAIM until i see evidence" Where is the ignorance? ITS COMMON LOGIC. Haven't you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? 2nd) Yes, the phrase "we cannot prove there is a meaning to the universe therefore there is no meaning" is indeed ignorant...what's your point? Are you quoting an Atheist? Who specifically?? I'VE never heard that.
Atheism is a Religion, because you believe, you have faith there is no God without proof. When you die, it is only then you see the truth.
Go back to the definition of faith. Faith is believing in something without proof. Religion is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Atheism is defined as the doctrine or belief that there is no God. Therefore Atheism is a religion.
@Oktoberfesting " Atheism is a Religion, because you believe "
that's stupid. i believe i will wake up tomorrow, i dont believe unicorns. would that be considered a religion simply because i believe or not believe?
"Atheism is not a dogmatic presumption; it is a conclusion arrived at after meticulously, and critically, examining all of the evidence using logic." This isn't true. The people who were never exposed to religion don't have to evaluate anything in order to be an atheist.
@bottledsoul I love people like you. (Satire). You take the incredibly detailed definition and nit-pick words out of the sentence to form your point, yet some people can see past it. Let me give you an example: The people who were never exposed to "something (this could be Invisible, All-powerful Unicorn)", don't have to evaluate anything in order to be a "non-believer of something". See how stupid you look when I put it in lame terms?
@i6o4 No, I don't think I look stupid at all. You are the one who isn't making any sense.
If you aren't exposed to something [you have never heard of that thing], then you don't have to make a decision about that thing.
Does my friend want a jizzdog candy bar? It doesn't matter, because he has never heard of one. It hasn't crossed his mind. He has nothing to evaluate in that instance.
A=without
Theism=belief in God
Atheism is nothing more than that definition. Don't try to make it so.
@TruthWatch No. We don't come together and deliberately not pray. The term "shared" can mean Person A and Person B both use/like/have Thing A or Idea A. But in this context, no.
@TruthWatch But a common disbelief/belief is completely different from religion. Someone claims that they saw a Pink Flying Unicorn, and several people don't believing in that. Just because of that, they're all of a sudden religious? No.
@i6o4 The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved on the basis
of physical evidence. So any conclusions about that existence are based on a choice in a matter of belief. Atheists take a position with regard to metaphysical
questions in a way that agnostics do not. Because they do, this qualifies them as
@amcrae2251 Again... another retard. By saying you "don't BELIEVE in god(s), that is part of the word BELIEF. Are you that blind? Agnostic atheism IS pointless because it is the SAME thing as atheism, just put in a different light.
Look, I do not know if you are joking but I have to say that there is nothing more ridiculous then all the agnostics lately, that think there position is superior. Firstly, agnosticism is not a position. You are not making a statement. Secondly, it is a cop out. Third, Most Atheists are agnostic at the same time. Fourth, Atheism states there is no god, usually based upon what evidence there is for such a presence. There is none. Therefore you either believe or you don't, agnostic is pointless.
Well I wrote that in response to some people, and the people I think I was addressing at that point in time were people who weren't usually participants in a lot of religious debate.
How is it a copout? Well it depends on what I meant by "copout." What I meant was: people who answer the question "do you believe in god" with "I'm an agnostic." Agnostic only talks about the certainty/knowledge of a position and not the belief of said position. So I was attacking the colloquial.
@duskateteam2 I should also add that I'm an atheist who is agnostic. That means, I do not believe in any gods, however I do not claim to have certainty or knowledge that they do/do not exist.
This is commonly referred to as agnostic atheism.
The other kind is strong atheism; people of this position claim to know god doesn't exist.
@UncomfortableSilence No. By definition it's one who does not believe in a God or Gods. There is nothing saying we can confirm it's non-existence. Therefore agnostic atheism shouldn't even have a place. There's no "Strong" atheism. It's just atheism. Why do religious people implement that... jeeze -_-. Stop assuming shit about atheists!!! :(
@UncomfortableSilence Yeah I know. I was referring to them. Now, No belief in God(s) is the same thing as "Without Knowledge/Certainty in God(s) existence". There's no in-between.
Belief and Knowledge are two very different things.
I can believe something and not know; Eg. I believe my friend stole money from me.
I can also believe something and know; Eg. I believe my friend stole money from me, and he confessed.
Now, I could not believe in any god and be sure that none exist or I could not believe in any gods and be unsure that any are around that I just haven't seen.
@UncomfortableSilence Since when does believe mean "BE SURE"? When you don't believe something, it means YOU DO NOT KNOW WHETHER OR NOT IT IS REAL, THEREFORE YOU DON'T KNOW IF ITS TRUE! Get it? And if you "believe" your friend stole money from you and he confessed, that is no longer belief. It's knowledge.
Atheism is compatible with belief in the supernatural. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god/gods. Atheists can still believe in ghosts, spirits, etc. Atheism is consistent with certain sects of Buddism as well. The video fails to take this into account, though it is otherwise well done.
Your state of belief is that there is nothing supernatural. Therfore, you believe in Atheism. Atheism is a religion.
Why are you even arguing this? Why am I even responding? As if it accomplishes anything...trying to proclaim that "you believe nothing because religion is dumb blah blah blah" as if it's something to be proud of.
people seem to need to group people together. Atheism just means that you don't believe in bible stories. there is not a belief that holds all atheist together...there's just a freedom of thought..in which you can use the real laws of nature and make a credible decission on life's problems...without some dogma that was put there to inhibit creative thinking..which is a "god given gift".
I believe there is a spiritual connection between all people.
But that is not a belief, more of a disbelief. And I have met atheists that believe in the afterlife, actually. Just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean they don't have other spiritual beliefs. The ONLY thing that ties atheists together is the disbelief in any God, deity, or Dogma. That's it.
==>PROOF: @ 0:20 BY definition, cutting through the "ORs"
1a. Belief in and reference for powers (i.e. power of "materialism" blah... blah blah, in the eyes of atheists) regarded as creator or governor of the universe.
i'm an atheist, but think it's utterly absurd that any atheists would consider themselves part of a religion. seriously, as atheist we don't congregate toghether, worship anything, hell, we atheists don't ever even get toghether for a fuckin punch social. atheism is just a belief of no god in general. that's it. that's all it ever will be. period.
The most striking thing about the religionist claim that athiesm is a religion is that it is always intended in a PEJORATIVE mode! I find it supremely ironic that they nonetheless seem to fail to see the irony of this...
"A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion."
Yeah, and the American justice system's always right, isn't it? For example, a lost man walks up to the front door of a house, knocks, and asks if he can use the telephone. The house owner blows him away. Then he escapes jail because "the man was on his land" OK in America, shocking everywhere else.
That's not atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, period. There are certainly those atheists who do more than simply have a lack of belief, but they are often referred to as "strong atheists" and are not representative of the whole.
Many people don't realize that the majority of agnostics are atheists, and that more than half of all Buddhists are as well.
But because atheisim is an abstract concept, by definition , the argument will never be decided to the definitive. Unless they broaden the parameters of what a religion is and isn't
Atheism is generally a lack of belief in all things supernatural and all religions.
If NOT following a religon is a religion, then NOT playing chess is a hobby, as is NOT collecting stamps; NOT having hair would be a particular hair color, etc.
BTW - what the courts do/say has nothing to do with objectivity or logic. e.g., jim crow laws, blue laws, etc.
Firegod001, finally... someone else on the face of the planet that understands the idea that agnostics and Buddhists are often also atheist. (though they may not realize it)
I am so sick of people, even prominent atheists in the media confusing what agnosticism and atheism are.
Also so you know greendragon23, atheists can be religions.
Atheism is, by its very definition, a LACK of belief in the supernatural (i.e., gods). Atheism is a lack of religion, therefore it cannot be a religion.
BTW - agnosticism answers the epistemological question of god, even an agnostic has to be either a theist or an atheist.
Being an atheist cannot be a religion. Correct. But an atheist can have a religion, like about half of Buddhists, because being an atheist is just not having a belief in a any gods, and some people who follow a religion don't.
Greendragon, yes atheism is not a religion, but atheists can be religious. In the same way wearing a hat is not a job, but people with jobs can wear hats.
Though if an atheists is religious, then it is a given that the beliefs of the religion cannot involve a god. Ie. you can't get an atheistic Christian, but you can get an atheistic Buddhist.
No, THEoldy and firegod001, atheist people also can't have a religion, the example of job and hat is not correct, either. An atheist having a religion is like a bald man with hair on his head. Atheists lack belief in anything that is spiritual, ie ghosts, not only gods.
If someone has a religion (with or without a god) and calls themselves atheists, they're not atheists, they're followers of their religion, no less.
No, the word "Atheist" talks about only belief in god. It comes from the root word "theist" which means "one who has a belief in a god/gods" and the prefix "a" means "without"
"Atheist" = "Without a belief in god/gods"
But that is all that this definition covers, it does not cover 'supernatural' beliefs.
What you are describing is naturalist. Someone who does not believe in anything supernatural/spiritual. This does however cover god/gods so Naturalists are also atheist by definition.
Lol, don't worry, i would say about 95% of people have the same misconception that you had.
Also, just to clear up some possible confusion about what i was saying before, many versions the religion of Buddhism do not involve a gd/gods. That is why Buddhists are often atheists.
I have read a definition that goes like this: A lack of belief in a god or gods the supernatural or metaphysical, myths, legends and the like. And I think that is the best ive read. But I see no reason as an atheist not to look for these things in life. I mean why not? If you dont find them so what? Just be critical of all these things and dont just believe them. Its obvious if something of that nature exists we dont know it yet. But keep an open mind because knowledge is a life long quest.
The dogmatic structure of religion means it is brainwash. No once chooses to be religious. Religion is the result of environment or mental defect, so called belief requires extreme ignorance of history above and beyond all else... Forget arguing science, religion is the result of geography, economic and military success. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are prime examples with overlapping stories, beliefs, ethnicities, locales, and an extreme form of racist selective history...
Exactly. Is it any wonder most people in america end up christian? And most people in India end up Hindu? I think its hilarious how you can grow up in a place be fed a religion and think you were lucky enough to be taught the right one from birth, and most of them who think this no nothing of other religions at all.
wow, some people on youtube are smart. most people i normally see are stupid. anyways what i wanted to say was visit zeitgeistmoviedotcom it has the most informational movie on there
I'm agnostic, and I don't know (or care) of the existance of god. It's possible he's not real, based on scientific and logical principles, but than again, those very same principles are based on our limited scope of mortal human knowledge.
DrButler, from your description you are also an atheist. You lack of positive belief in god (taking the position of not knowing/not caring) fits the definition of atheistic.
UcanbeGOD, I'm sorry, but the only applicable part of your definition is the part about god/gods. Other stuff is irrelevant. Statistically speaking, most atheists will not believe in supernatural, metaphysical ect. but your definition is technically wrong.
I copied and pasted THE ENTIRE THING. As a matter of fact I was temptred to leave out the first definition because I disacree with "Doctorin" oir any kind of doctorin but I decided to leave it in out of INTELECTUAL HONESTY.
Tell me, what exactly did I leave out? Huh? I only saw two definitions of Atheism. Did you even CHECK?
So now yopu're a BLATANT liar. Not only are you lying about the content of an online dictionary that anyone can check for themselves, you're lying to ME about MY OWN ACTIONS. It's possible that you're noty lying, maybe you simply didn't check. But that's even worse, because it still makes you a liar for claiming to have knowledge you do not have, so you're a liar AND willfully ignorant.
Good work with your series of clips about Atheism. As a matter of interest how do you see the relationship between Atheism and Science. Many scientists are religious, but ultimately (as the Jesuits put it), a proof of God makes a mockery of both faith and science. IMO, Science is the foundation of the Atheist
theory and without reliable proof to the contrary God is disproven. Where do you stand ?
My personal view is that science inevitably invalidates all religons/gods.
Faith and scientific reason are diametrically opposed concepts; faith is blndly accepting a set of propositions, science seeks support for ideas/generates propositions based on past observations.
Atheists should carefully examine the Anthropic Principle and also the tenets of deism. These two things, when combined, could change their views. I don't think anyone can really call themselves atheists until they've explored all of the religious perspectives and philosophical perspectives they possibly can. The same goes for theists. They should investigate as much as possible about the plausibility of intelligent creation.
The anthropic principle suffers from the same basic problems that many other easily fabriacted 'explanations' do - they lack explanatory power, predictive power, evidence, etc.
Desism suffers from a lack of evidence/logical support as well.
I do agree that everyone should seek knowledge of ALL religions, schools of thought, etc.
It is that very pursuit that has reinforced atheism in many people (myself included).
Well, the Anthropic Principle was not easily fabricated. Contributions from Steven Hawking's and other notable scientists to the argument should not be overlooked. Numerous calculations and experiments were done showing that chance creation is not nearly as plausible as people assume. Deism renounces a lot of religious conjecture, and is much more logical than theism. Atheism ultimately is not a foolproof school of thought.
Also, looking at religion from a purely practical point of view, Pascal's Wager has strong force. If atheism cannot be proven as a factual set of beliefs, and theism or deism brings more purpose to human life, why not follow the set of beliefs with a coherence of meaning and a strong objective morality?
Your use of the argumentum ad verecundiam is inherently irrational. The petitio principii fallacy is not a logical base for developing a sound argument. Scientific speculation does not equal scientific fact. In believing that God does not exist, you are taking as much as if not more of a leap of faith than if you believed that God does exist.
First off, deism is indeed stronger than theism; but atheism is the strongest of the three systems.
Secondly, Pascal's wager is horribly weak. It presupposes that there is merely one deity, out of all of the thousands of possibilities (i.e., other religions). Even if you were to accept the Christian god, then what if you are wrong and it is one of the other some-odd thousand deities who really exists; one whose belief systems are incompatible with Christianity?
You still only have a 1 in thousands shot of getting the right deity (presupposing that there even are deities, and presupposing that said supernatural force's ways are known by a particular religion) if you randomly choose, and each religion/deity has an equal chance of being the "true" one.
If there was "one-true religion" (which is a faulty starting assumption, but I digress) and you randomly choose among all of the alternatives, you would still have a less than .0005% chance of getting the right one!!
This is one of the MANY flaws of Pascal's wager -- it is Jeudo-Christian-centric. It shows the ethnocentric bias of its creator (Pascal).
Also, another potent logical counter-example is as follows:
If I tell you that there is a sentient washing machine from another universe that will send you into a painful watery purgatory when you die (which I will call 'the spin-cycle') if you do not believe in it, but will give you eternal bliss if you do believe in it, then is it rational to believe in the sentient washing machine out of fear of 'the spin-cycle'?
Pascal's wage is merely a poorly veiled appeal to fear.
Thirdly, atheism is not a set of propositions that need be affirmed; it is simply a rejection of an unproven set of propositions. Logically, the burden of proof is on he who makes the claim (e.g., religion); as you should know, given your apparent knowledge of logic, it is impossible to prove a negative, and it is illogical to accept a proposition merely because there is no evidence against it (or for it, for that matter).
Since when we logically reason, we assume that a proposition is incorrect (a null hypothesis) until we find evidence to reject the null and affirm our proposition (the alternative hypothesis), it is illogical to accept ANY belief merely because there is no evidence to refute it. [Note: this is merely a restatement of the burden of proof]
Fourthly, you are assuming that religion is necessary to give life a deeper purpose; you are assuming that people lack the cognitive and social capabilities to ascribe an even deeper meaning to their life without the aid of one set of myths or another.
You do not give the human animal enough credit.
To refute your baseless claim that I am taking a "logical leap" in embracing atheism, I refer you back to my third point, and to my point below (about 3 posts below).
Also, all moral systems are far from objective, since they change over time, and from place to place, they are clearly subjective human constructs (social constructs), with no objective basis in reality; and no system of moral criteria is any more objective than any other (e.g., an individual's self-made system of morality based on evolutionary mechanisms and early adulthood social interactions).
I.e., moral systems, be they religious or otherwise, hold no more objectivity than any other social construct, such as race. E.g., we can fabricate a set of criteria that differentiates races based on skin color, and call these criteria objective, but they are still of subjective human construction.
Does it take more faith to not believe in the Easter bunny than it does to believe in the Easter bunny? What about Santa Claus? What about an invisible yellow dog? I could go on ad infinitum with these, you get the picture.
Your argument hinges on this fallacious course of reasoning, and your presupposition that the 'god concept' should be given more weight than these other concepts, even though there is an equal amount (zero pieces) of evidence and logic to support ALL of these concepts.
You continually presuppose that there is only one possible god. Your whole set of arguments is based on this baseless presupposition (which is, in itself, driven by an ethnocentric bias).
Also, you ignore the burden of proof, the principle of parsimony (occam's razor), the principle of falsification, etc.
I apologize for the length of this response, but I have barely even scratched the surface of what I want to say; you are a much more interesting debate partner than I usually encounter.
Thus far, it has been quite interesting interacting with you.
You're saying that a rejection does not need its own support? You cannot prove that the universe was created from random chance, so I am rejecting that. By your thinking, I don't need support either. Where is your logical base? Why must you make scientific speculation so disparate from reasonable conclusions about the universe's creation? How is your speculation any more conclusive than my own?
Let's remove all of the ethnocentric bias. I think you believe that man only comes to develop convictions concerning God because of his culture or what he learns from others. That cannot be the only source of such convictions. What is more natural than a human being questioning how he was created, and arriving at the conclusion that a world so complex requires an intelligent origin? Where is the anthropological support for men naturally arriving at ideas about washing machines?
Well, I think the Christians, and Pascal, support the Wager because atheists don't know that there is not an intelligent creator. I realize this is not a proper argument, technically. However, where is the impracticality in being cautious, for these people?
Deism rejects religion. Albert Einstein, Thomas Paine, John Locke, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, and Thomas Jefferson were deists. These men had profoundly powerful writings in support of deism and its tenets. Besides, when you envision the possibility of more than one intelligent creator, you run into the irrationality of contingent beings vs. necessary beings. Atheism takes the leap of faith that something can come from absolutely nothing.
Well, in following with Ockham's Razor, the simplest option is usually correct when given a myriad of choices, many of which are totally nonsensical anyways. Also, it's more logical to follow an exclusive religion like Christianity in case it does turn out to be right. That is beside the point though. You can use Pascal's Wager simply to accept that there is an intelligent creator of the universe, such as in supporting deism.
Actually, the washing machine example has the EXACT same amount of evidence to support it as every conception of god PLUS it follows the same pattern of reasoning as Pascal's wager does. There is no evidence, empirical or logical, that would make Pascal's wager, or even its presupposition, any more logical than my counter-example.
By stating that you are an 'educated man' that does not need to respond to it, you have completely ignored it with a red herring and an appeal to unreliable authority. I expected better from you.
It is impossible to know 100% that there is no a creator, just as it is impossible for you to know 100% that I am not a purple alien in human disguise.
The thing that theists, and deists, ignore is that burden of proof. They claim that there is a creative deity; therefore it is up to them to provide even ONE piece of evidence or logic to support their claim.
Even presupposing that there has to be a creative deity is absurd. Also, you are begging the question, where did the deity (or deities) come from?
This is just one of the many flaws of deism.
However, multiple creative deities are actually less absurd in many ways. Think about this; multiple deities working on different creative tasks at once (i.e., specializing) could more efficiently create something. Your assumption of one deity is an ethnocentric leap.
When you try to associate famous names with a concept you are merely trying to influence with an appeal to authority; you are not actually providing ANY support for the idea; you are merely saying "individuals A,B, and C support this idea, and A,B, and C had great achievements in other fields, therefore, lets accept their idea."
It is important to note that expertise does not transfer outside of one's field of expertise.
You have still not addressed the holes in your argument.
You have just shown me your utter lack of understanding of the big bang theory. No scientist, nor any atheist that I know, has ever tried to claim that things came from nothing. Please read up on the big bang theory, I do not have time to give you an astrophysics course over YT (But I will answer small questions).
[BTW atheism is not necessarily tied to scientific knowledge/cosmology]
All ideas of creative deities are nonsensical (i.e., they all presuppose that this being existed, without answering the questions of its origins, they all make this assertion based on zero evidence, etc.), they all lack evidence, etc.
Occam's razor does indeed indicate that we should reject any nonsensical explanation, esp. if it is wholly unsupported by evidence.
Actually, it is just as logical to follow ANY religion, just in case it turns out to be right. Your leap that Christianity is more logical (without ANY evidence to support that idea) is generated from an ethnocentric bias. In another culture, they would claim that their dominant religion is more logical (e.g., Hindus would say that their beliefs are more logical; Muslims that their belief is more logical, etc.).
And, most importantly, you are still basing your illogical leaps on the presupposition that there has to be a god, and that if there were gods, that there would only have to be one, and that that one would be the dominant one worshipped by your culture. [This directly ties to your ethnocentric bias.]
Deism has many logical holes that you have yet to address, as does Pascal's wager (and the ethnocentric leaps that it takes).
Please, direct me to men of any recognizable intelligence who spend their time exhaustively arguing with all of the wild possibilities presented to contrast intelligent creation. You assume I haven't grown tired of assertions such as the washing machine example. How can one get anywhere in an argument if his opponent says "Well, what if there are one million universes?, or "What if the world was created by an infant deity?" It's pointless.
Yes, you said "any more logical." That is the terminology I apply to atheism when comparing it to deism. The origins of the universe are unknown, therefore, intelligent creation cannot be any less logical than atheism. You have to remove theistic perspective from your mind when looking at deism. There is no ethnocentric bias in deism. It is pure reason.
Yes, it is pointless to posit the absurd (such as god). God and the sentient washing machine are just as well known (i.e., just as logical/supported by equal amounts of evidence).
It is good to see you openly admitting that deities, creative or not, are illogical and pointless because they are just made-up positions that lack all reason/evidence and cannot defend themselves from logically-identical counter-example.
Also, since you have not presented a single reason, logical or otherwise, to support deism (even your feeble use of Pascal's wager and your inability to defend it were amusing), you are making an assertion and betraying the burden of proof when you claim that desim (i.e., affirming an unknown) is more logical that atheism (i.e., not affirming that for which there is no reason to affirm).
I somehow doubt that you really have a doctorate in philosophy... you ignore the burden of proof in all your arguments, and you refuse to address counter-examples (i.e., either disprove them or say why they are invalid).
You use of fallacies, proof by assertion is particular, is disheartening.
I hope that you do realize that most Atheists, like myself, don't consider Atheism to be a religion.
- And to MisadventureFilms, your statement is corrupt, this video has only stated why Atheism is not a religion. Not believing in supernatural forces doesn't make you retarded, just an Atheist who sees the world in a different point of view.
Sadly, in some people's eyes, not accepting the far-fetched tells of religion does make someone "retarded." The most amusing thing is that these people are often the same ones calling others "close-minded."
Many fundies are taught to associate all non-christian (or non-whatever-their-religion-is) people and ideas with satan. It is a fascinating phenomenon, abusrd, but fascinating.
Music makes this unwatchable. This combined with the fact that this, at least in the first 30 secs seems to be just text, wrong medium. That should be on a blog.
As far as the visual presentation. It is merely text with some graphics because I wanted to put the message out there in a way that relied on subtanse over style. Too many lay people these days overly focus on style at the exclusion of substance.
I would make the argument that atheism sprouts from doubt in a particular theistic system, which is felt in that intangible part of a body called whatever (be it the heart, the soul or whatever it is that drives our emotions). The entirety of this debate that bugs me every keeps saying it relies on logic. Emotional beliefs inspire logic. The proof is in how this video was crafted, as how the response was.
First off, atheism is not a 'doubt' in a theistic system - it is a conclusion that all beliefs in the supernatural are illogical by examining the facts that logical counterarguments can be made against all supernatural forces AND by seeing that there is ZERO evidence for ANY supernatural force.
Hence, as you should be able to see, strong atheism is a logical conclusion; not an emotion driven assumption (such as religion).
Also, I would like to note that the brain is actually where emotions come from. A complex process of electrochemical reactions in the following structures (as well as some others) are what generate emtoiosn: amygdala, prefrontal cortex, insula, Ventral striatum, adn the anterior cingulate cortex.
Okay, I agree with you on your sentiments. While I still believe in God, I have much heartburn toward religion itself. You make consider this idea a bold-faced deception, but some Christians have said that they have faith in God and Jesus, that's not religion. Religion is man-made, God and Jesus come from above. And, like you I'm sure, I have found to edify both sides of the argument and the citations are numerous.
For me, logically, fighting over the existence of God is a moot point. Believe or not, neither answer is wrong. You said so in a prior post that there is no core atheist dogma. There are shared tenets, but beyond that, it's like every other flavor Christian church. We may be united in belief in Christ, but that's likely where it stops. This idea burns me all over, but that's why mankind is fallen.
I agree that there are too many people who are radical on both sides, but my point still stands - all of the evidence suggests that god is indeed a human construct.
Not one single human culture has been able of make up a god that withstands logical scrutiny; not one culture has created a god that remains unchanging from time to time and place to place (this indicates that god, like religion, is merely of human construction).
BTW - There are no shared tenents among atheists - it is a lack of tenents and beliefs that unites, which is odd in a way, and quite different than religious denominations.
Great points. I think the key word is 'set' or 'system' of beliefs (plural). There is a lack of belief in a deity. Some may even believe there absolutely is no deity. In either case that could be a shared BELIEF, but it is not a shared SET of beliefs (which is what a religion entails).
atheism is based on a completely unsupported presumption that there is no greater power. many atheists say that people who believe in God do so out of ignorance, but can someone clarify how what they are doing is any different?
10YNWA10 5 months ago
@10YNWA10 It's not a presumption. Atheism is the rejection of claims (there is a god) that haven't me their burdon of proof. Extraordinary claims (there is a god) DEMAND extraordinary evidence. It may sound harsh but what is more ignorant than believing in ANYTHING out of faith?
dkthg 3 months ago
@dkthg im not arguing for the existence of god, im making a case for agnosticism. you seem to agree that blindly believing in a god is presumptuous and ignorant. however, i believe it is just as presumtuous and ignorant to simply declare that there is no meaning. the argument can be rephrased as "we cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is meaning to the universe. therefore, there is no meaning." this sounds like arguing from ignorance to me
10YNWA10 3 months ago
@10YNWA10 1st) WHAT case for agnosticism? Agnostism says "I neither believe nor disbelieve." Atheism says "I reject the CLAIM until i see evidence" Where is the ignorance? ITS COMMON LOGIC. Haven't you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? 2nd) Yes, the phrase "we cannot prove there is a meaning to the universe therefore there is no meaning" is indeed ignorant...what's your point? Are you quoting an Atheist? Who specifically?? I'VE never heard that.
dkthg 3 months ago
It's simple, really.
Actually, atheists CAN be religious (as long as their religion is not theistic). Atheism is simply the belief that there are no gods.
pianokid54 9 months ago
Atheism is a Religion, because you believe, you have faith there is no God without proof. When you die, it is only then you see the truth.
Go back to the definition of faith. Faith is believing in something without proof. Religion is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Atheism is defined as the doctrine or belief that there is no God. Therefore Atheism is a religion.
.
Allen West 2012
Oktoberfesting 11 months ago
@Oktoberfesting " Atheism is a Religion, because you believe "
that's stupid. i believe i will wake up tomorrow, i dont believe unicorns. would that be considered a religion simply because i believe or not believe?
mrfwest 9 months ago
lol Atheism isn't a religion...Atheists belive in facts, science, REAL STUFF, we don't believe in prophets, gods, heaven or hell.
rawrtities 1 year ago
@rawrtities we don't believe in facts. We know facts.
i6o4 1 year ago
@i6o4 Yeah...We KNOW Facts. sorry dude.
rawrtities 1 year ago
@rawrtities :) Always good to back ourselves up properly, so people don't use our incorrect choice of words against us. ^^
i6o4 1 year ago
"Atheism is not a dogmatic presumption; it is a conclusion arrived at after meticulously, and critically, examining all of the evidence using logic." This isn't true. The people who were never exposed to religion don't have to evaluate anything in order to be an atheist.
bottledsoul 1 year ago
@bottledsoul I love people like you. (Satire). You take the incredibly detailed definition and nit-pick words out of the sentence to form your point, yet some people can see past it. Let me give you an example: The people who were never exposed to "something (this could be Invisible, All-powerful Unicorn)", don't have to evaluate anything in order to be a "non-believer of something". See how stupid you look when I put it in lame terms?
i6o4 1 year ago
@i6o4 No, I don't think I look stupid at all. You are the one who isn't making any sense.
If you aren't exposed to something [you have never heard of that thing], then you don't have to make a decision about that thing.
Does my friend want a jizzdog candy bar? It doesn't matter, because he has never heard of one. It hasn't crossed his mind. He has nothing to evaluate in that instance.
A=without
Theism=belief in God
Atheism is nothing more than that definition. Don't try to make it so.
bottledsoul 1 year ago
if jesus was real then how come hes not born on january 1st????
checkmate christians!!!1!
massine10 1 year ago
Well in order qualify as an atheist, wouldn't one have to share the belief that
there is no God? If one is unsure or not convinced one way or the other, one would
then fall into agnostic catagory. So then by self-identifying as an atheist, one acknowledges the commonly held belief in the non-existance of God.
The diversity in belief between atheists is analogous to the diversity
of belief among theistic reigions. One could say even that each atheist would
qualify as a sect of one
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch No. We don't come together and deliberately not pray. The term "shared" can mean Person A and Person B both use/like/have Thing A or Idea A. But in this context, no.
i6o4 1 year ago
Comment removed
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@i6o4 In this context all that is necesary for the sharing is that both person A and person B BELIEVE the same thing, namely that there is no God.
The reverse is certainly true, the qualification for the title THEIST is a belief in a God.
There is no need for shared prayer or litergy, only a basic common belief.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch But a common disbelief/belief is completely different from religion. Someone claims that they saw a Pink Flying Unicorn, and several people don't believing in that. Just because of that, they're all of a sudden religious? No.
i6o4 1 year ago
@i6o4 The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved on the basis
of physical evidence. So any conclusions about that existence are based on a choice in a matter of belief. Atheists take a position with regard to metaphysical
questions in a way that agnostics do not. Because they do, this qualifies them as
being religious in a very generic sense.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
Atheism is the belief that there is NO god. I'm an agnostic .. I don't believe in belief. That is why agnostic is superior to all ... Go BIG A!!
soulsoup1234 2 years ago
atheism/ theism deals with belief.
agnostic/gnostic deals with knowlege.
that's great you're agnostic, but is the belief in god there or not? claiming you don't know isn't superior.
i am an agnostic atheist- i do not have a belief in any god(s), but i do not claim to have the knowlege the it doesn't exist
amcrae2251 2 years ago
@amcrae2251 Again... another retard. By saying you "don't BELIEVE in god(s), that is part of the word BELIEF. Are you that blind? Agnostic atheism IS pointless because it is the SAME thing as atheism, just put in a different light.
i6o4 1 year ago
Look, I do not know if you are joking but I have to say that there is nothing more ridiculous then all the agnostics lately, that think there position is superior. Firstly, agnosticism is not a position. You are not making a statement. Secondly, it is a cop out. Third, Most Atheists are agnostic at the same time. Fourth, Atheism states there is no god, usually based upon what evidence there is for such a presence. There is none. Therefore you either believe or you don't, agnostic is pointless.
UncomfortableSilence 2 years ago
@UncomfortableSilence how is agnosticism a cop out? i'm just curious, honestly.
duskateteam2 1 year ago
@duskateteam2
Well I wrote that in response to some people, and the people I think I was addressing at that point in time were people who weren't usually participants in a lot of religious debate.
How is it a copout? Well it depends on what I meant by "copout." What I meant was: people who answer the question "do you believe in god" with "I'm an agnostic." Agnostic only talks about the certainty/knowledge of a position and not the belief of said position. So I was attacking the colloquial.
UncomfortableSilence 1 year ago
@duskateteam2 I should also add that I'm an atheist who is agnostic. That means, I do not believe in any gods, however I do not claim to have certainty or knowledge that they do/do not exist.
This is commonly referred to as agnostic atheism.
The other kind is strong atheism; people of this position claim to know god doesn't exist.
UncomfortableSilence 1 year ago
@UncomfortableSilence No. By definition it's one who does not believe in a God or Gods. There is nothing saying we can confirm it's non-existence. Therefore agnostic atheism shouldn't even have a place. There's no "Strong" atheism. It's just atheism. Why do religious people implement that... jeeze -_-. Stop assuming shit about atheists!!! :(
i6o4 1 year ago
@i6o4 Alright, first of all, I am one. I'm an atheist.
Secondly, the Agnosticism is separate from the Atheism.
Atheism: No belief in God/gods
Agnosticism: Without Knowledge/Certainty that God/Gods exist.
Besides, I didn't come up with "Strong and Weak Atheism," other people did.
UncomfortableSilence 1 year ago
@UncomfortableSilence Yeah I know. I was referring to them. Now, No belief in God(s) is the same thing as "Without Knowledge/Certainty in God(s) existence". There's no in-between.
i6o4 1 year ago
@i6o4 I don't see how this is.
Belief and Knowledge are two very different things.
I can believe something and not know; Eg. I believe my friend stole money from me.
I can also believe something and know; Eg. I believe my friend stole money from me, and he confessed.
Now, I could not believe in any god and be sure that none exist or I could not believe in any gods and be unsure that any are around that I just haven't seen.
UncomfortableSilence 1 year ago
@UncomfortableSilence Since when does believe mean "BE SURE"? When you don't believe something, it means YOU DO NOT KNOW WHETHER OR NOT IT IS REAL, THEREFORE YOU DON'T KNOW IF ITS TRUE! Get it? And if you "believe" your friend stole money from you and he confessed, that is no longer belief. It's knowledge.
i6o4 1 year ago
@i6o4 I'm trying to clear up the most ambiguous English language and I have asserted anything so far, just discussion.
But you sir, now you're just being a dick. Repeating what you said before doesn't make something true, neither does putting it in caps.
Look, this believe knowledge problem, it's because the English language is ambiguous.
It's also because people keep defining the word Atheist wrong.
Here's it, I don't believe in god, that's it. I'm an atheist and I don't want to talk to you.
UncomfortableSilence 1 year ago
@i6o4 Final word other than my last comment because I have to point this out.
"Since when does believe mean "BE SURE"?"; You're dealing with "Certainty here
"When you don't believe something, it means YOU DO NOT KNOW WHETHER OR NOT IT IS REAL,": Also pertaining to Certainty.
"And if you "believe" your friend stole money from you and he confessed, that is no longer belief. It's knowledge."
How do you miss that you're quantifying belief as degrees or certainty here.
Believe is ambiguous. Done.
UncomfortableSilence 1 year ago
@UncomfortableSilence No point in talking to an idiot who can't make the difference between certainty, knowledge, belief, faith and assumption.
i6o4 1 year ago
Atheism is compatible with belief in the supernatural. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god/gods. Atheists can still believe in ghosts, spirits, etc. Atheism is consistent with certain sects of Buddism as well. The video fails to take this into account, though it is otherwise well done.
bathory714 3 years ago
No they can't. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods and all things supernatural. The only thing that exists is the natural world.
I am one so I should know.
GiaAndScott 3 years ago
isn't this a christian band.... =/
GodKillerAtheist 3 years ago
Disturbed...Christian? ROFL!!!
ulthea 3 years ago
ok never mind then maybe I'm thinking that they were Creed now they suck ass!
GodKillerAtheist 3 years ago
Great job dude
BloodLustWulf 3 years ago
"Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour," as Don Hirschberg famously pointed out.
Great video.
ApostateChristian 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
On another note, we all have a religion. It's something that is a part of what describes us.
Saying atheism isn't a religion is like saying, "I don't have a sexuality," or "I don't have any political views".
Futil1ty 3 years ago
*State of belief in the supernatural.
Your state of belief is that there is nothing supernatural. Therfore, you believe in Atheism. Atheism is a religion.
Why are you even arguing this? Why am I even responding? As if it accomplishes anything...trying to proclaim that "you believe nothing because religion is dumb blah blah blah" as if it's something to be proud of.
Ugh...atheists are so STUPID...
Futil1ty 3 years ago
Yes, why DID you respond?
ApostateChristian 3 years ago 3
religion is evolving to a brainwashing machine!!
burningyoutuve 3 years ago
people seem to need to group people together. Atheism just means that you don't believe in bible stories. there is not a belief that holds all atheist together...there's just a freedom of thought..in which you can use the real laws of nature and make a credible decission on life's problems...without some dogma that was put there to inhibit creative thinking..which is a "god given gift".
I believe there is a spiritual connection between all people.
man has used it to con man since day one!
beckpod1 3 years ago
yes there is a belief which holds them together which is No God. No afterlif etc
xtremerace 3 years ago
But that is not a belief, more of a disbelief. And I have met atheists that believe in the afterlife, actually. Just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean they don't have other spiritual beliefs. The ONLY thing that ties atheists together is the disbelief in any God, deity, or Dogma. That's it.
defythestarss 3 years ago
Well that's a deist that you are referring to. one who believes in God but not religion.
xtremerace 3 years ago
If you didn't notice, he only said things of Spiritual beliefs, not religious. You don't have to have a god to have an afterlife.
ZombieGuy1 3 years ago
ATHEISM IS A (FORM OF) RELIGION
==>PROOF: @ 0:20 BY definition, cutting through the "ORs"
1a. Belief in and reference for powers (i.e. power of "materialism" blah... blah blah, in the eyes of atheists) regarded as creator or governor of the universe.
1b. Personal system grounded in such belief.
Q.E.D.
teleutube 3 years ago
Spammer
dechha1981 3 years ago
GET THE FACTS ABOUT GOD
You can find out factual knowledge about God; you've just been asking the wrong people. Any and all questions you ask will be answered.
Go to my channel, "Purushadasa" to ask your question NOW!
Purushadasa 3 years ago
For a humorous look at religion, type "George Carlin God', then click search.
Part of Carlin's segment is used in Zeitgeistmovie dot com
84kedld0f9gh 3 years ago
Atheism is not a religion it is a world view. Christianity is both.
If Atheists seek to attack Christians or visa versa, they should seek common ground to have a good discussion.
TheBigLebbowski 3 years ago
i'm an atheist, but think it's utterly absurd that any atheists would consider themselves part of a religion. seriously, as atheist we don't congregate toghether, worship anything, hell, we atheists don't ever even get toghether for a fuckin punch social. atheism is just a belief of no god in general. that's it. that's all it ever will be. period.
madhatter0719 4 years ago 10
The most striking thing about the religionist claim that athiesm is a religion is that it is always intended in a PEJORATIVE mode! I find it supremely ironic that they nonetheless seem to fail to see the irony of this...
AltaMirage 4 years ago 2
amazing song. what is it?
K0M99 4 years ago
It's a song by disturbed on the same album as Prayer.
GeneticistAtheist 4 years ago
lol
You are an excellent example of insanity and delusion working hand-in-hand.
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
So many holes in this I dont' know where to start! lol
How about here:
A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
Atheism falls under religion as defined by Websters Dictionary , the worlds foremost authority on English words, and the 7'th circuit appeals court
mlmr11 4 years ago
"A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion."
Yeah, and the American justice system's always right, isn't it? For example, a lost man walks up to the front door of a house, knocks, and asks if he can use the telephone. The house owner blows him away. Then he escapes jail because "the man was on his land" OK in America, shocking everywhere else.
99999222221111 4 years ago
I don't know where you're getting that example from but I'm assuming, if it is true, that there is more to that story than you're telling us.
99.9% of Americans aren't going to blow someone away for simply standing on their property.
In addition I googled your example and nothing turned up. Oh well.
mlmr11 4 years ago
That's not atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, period. There are certainly those atheists who do more than simply have a lack of belief, but they are often referred to as "strong atheists" and are not representative of the whole.
Many people don't realize that the majority of agnostics are atheists, and that more than half of all Buddhists are as well.
firegod001 4 years ago
This is the secon part of what I wanted to say. Youtube is not letting my other comment go through, and it's pissing me off.
firegod001 4 years ago
I think we're both technically right.
But because atheisim is an abstract concept, by definition , the argument will never be decided to the definitive. Unless they broaden the parameters of what a religion is and isn't
mlmr11 4 years ago
Atheism is generally a lack of belief in all things supernatural and all religions.
If NOT following a religon is a religion, then NOT playing chess is a hobby, as is NOT collecting stamps; NOT having hair would be a particular hair color, etc.
BTW - what the courts do/say has nothing to do with objectivity or logic. e.g., jim crow laws, blue laws, etc.
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Firegod001, finally... someone else on the face of the planet that understands the idea that agnostics and Buddhists are often also atheist. (though they may not realize it)
I am so sick of people, even prominent atheists in the media confusing what agnosticism and atheism are.
Also so you know greendragon23, atheists can be religions.
THEoldy 4 years ago
Atheism is, by its very definition, a LACK of belief in the supernatural (i.e., gods). Atheism is a lack of religion, therefore it cannot be a religion.
BTW - agnosticism answers the epistemological question of god, even an agnostic has to be either a theist or an atheist.
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Being an atheist cannot be a religion. Correct. But an atheist can have a religion, like about half of Buddhists, because being an atheist is just not having a belief in a any gods, and some people who follow a religion don't.
firegod001 4 years ago
Greendragon, yes atheism is not a religion, but atheists can be religious. In the same way wearing a hat is not a job, but people with jobs can wear hats.
Though if an atheists is religious, then it is a given that the beliefs of the religion cannot involve a god. Ie. you can't get an atheistic Christian, but you can get an atheistic Buddhist.
THEoldy 4 years ago
No, THEoldy and firegod001, atheist people also can't have a religion, the example of job and hat is not correct, either. An atheist having a religion is like a bald man with hair on his head. Atheists lack belief in anything that is spiritual, ie ghosts, not only gods.
If someone has a religion (with or without a god) and calls themselves atheists, they're not atheists, they're followers of their religion, no less.
Rocky183 4 years ago
No, the word "Atheist" talks about only belief in god. It comes from the root word "theist" which means "one who has a belief in a god/gods" and the prefix "a" means "without"
"Atheist" = "Without a belief in god/gods"
But that is all that this definition covers, it does not cover 'supernatural' beliefs.
What you are describing is naturalist. Someone who does not believe in anything supernatural/spiritual. This does however cover god/gods so Naturalists are also atheist by definition.
THEoldy 4 years ago
Hm, I see. I should have done my research, I apologize.
Rocky183 4 years ago
Lol, don't worry, i would say about 95% of people have the same misconception that you had.
Also, just to clear up some possible confusion about what i was saying before, many versions the religion of Buddhism do not involve a gd/gods. That is why Buddhists are often atheists.
THEoldy 4 years ago
I have read a definition that goes like this: A lack of belief in a god or gods the supernatural or metaphysical, myths, legends and the like. And I think that is the best ive read. But I see no reason as an atheist not to look for these things in life. I mean why not? If you dont find them so what? Just be critical of all these things and dont just believe them. Its obvious if something of that nature exists we dont know it yet. But keep an open mind because knowledge is a life long quest.
UcanbeGOD 4 years ago
The dogmatic structure of religion means it is brainwash. No once chooses to be religious. Religion is the result of environment or mental defect, so called belief requires extreme ignorance of history above and beyond all else... Forget arguing science, religion is the result of geography, economic and military success. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are prime examples with overlapping stories, beliefs, ethnicities, locales, and an extreme form of racist selective history...
TheFallenWon 4 years ago
Exactly. Is it any wonder most people in america end up christian? And most people in India end up Hindu? I think its hilarious how you can grow up in a place be fed a religion and think you were lucky enough to be taught the right one from birth, and most of them who think this no nothing of other religions at all.
UcanbeGOD 4 years ago
wow, some people on youtube are smart. most people i normally see are stupid. anyways what i wanted to say was visit zeitgeistmoviedotcom it has the most informational movie on there
duck7759 4 years ago
Seen it, great flick. I hope its wrong though. I guess my skepticism will be thwarted if by may we all have I.D. cards!!!!
UcanbeGOD 4 years ago
I'm agnostic, and I don't know (or care) of the existance of god. It's possible he's not real, based on scientific and logical principles, but than again, those very same principles are based on our limited scope of mortal human knowledge.
DrButler 4 years ago
DrButler, from your description you are also an atheist. You lack of positive belief in god (taking the position of not knowing/not caring) fits the definition of atheistic.
UcanbeGOD, I'm sorry, but the only applicable part of your definition is the part about god/gods. Other stuff is irrelevant. Statistically speaking, most atheists will not believe in supernatural, metaphysical ect. but your definition is technically wrong.
THEoldy 4 years ago
mlmr11,
Webster's online dictionary;
ATHEISM 1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Religion
1. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality".
2. Institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him".
Therefore, you are a liar.
dechha1981 3 years ago
Print the entire definition.
You only took , from the definition, what suits your argument
That's called being disingenuous.
I don't know how you intend on getting around the 7'th circuit ruling.
I've given up on arguing this with you zealots
In the great tradition of religions past , your only concerned about furthering your agenda logic be damned.
mlmr11 3 years ago
I copied and pasted THE ENTIRE THING. As a matter of fact I was temptred to leave out the first definition because I disacree with "Doctorin" oir any kind of doctorin but I decided to leave it in out of INTELECTUAL HONESTY.
Tell me, what exactly did I leave out? Huh? I only saw two definitions of Atheism. Did you even CHECK?
Also, YOU'RE the zealot.
dechha1981 3 years ago
I know you are but what am I
mlmr11 3 years ago
Now you're just being silly. Great. Real mature. Certainly disproves my point, doesn't it?
dechha1981 3 years ago
I could be equally condescending and claim victory, like yourself, but then we'd just be two jack asses at an impasse.
Therefore , the only rational way to view this conversation is to be over.
You may view my response as silly but it ticked you off didn't it?
That shows you just how silly your point of view is doesn't it?
mlmr11 3 years ago
You think you won because you ticked someone off by doing something stupid. Yeah. Great.
But you still have not addressed the fact that you are lying about the dictionary.
dechha1981 3 years ago
noise
mlmr11 3 years ago
Incidentally I still don't know how you're going to get around the 7'th court ruling.
But that is obviously not part of your intellectual honesty :)
mlmr11 3 years ago
As for court ruling; Ever heard of Dred Scott vs Sandford? I suppose if you think courts are infalable then you support slavery.
dechha1981 3 years ago
go appeal it
mlmr11 3 years ago
So now yopu're a BLATANT liar. Not only are you lying about the content of an online dictionary that anyone can check for themselves, you're lying to ME about MY OWN ACTIONS. It's possible that you're noty lying, maybe you simply didn't check. But that's even worse, because it still makes you a liar for claiming to have knowledge you do not have, so you're a liar AND willfully ignorant.
dechha1981 3 years ago
GREAT VID! we need more of this stuff on youtube to define, describe, and defend atheism!
TranceDevotee 4 years ago
Thanks :)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Good work with your series of clips about Atheism. As a matter of interest how do you see the relationship between Atheism and Science. Many scientists are religious, but ultimately (as the Jesuits put it), a proof of God makes a mockery of both faith and science. IMO, Science is the foundation of the Atheist
theory and without reliable proof to the contrary God is disproven. Where do you stand ?
formless777 4 years ago
My personal view is that science inevitably invalidates all religons/gods.
Faith and scientific reason are diametrically opposed concepts; faith is blndly accepting a set of propositions, science seeks support for ideas/generates propositions based on past observations.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
I think that science can often lead one to atheism, but it does not necessarily; and there are also other philosophical paths to atheism.
Therefore I would say that science is NOT the base of atheism; but pure scientific thought certainly would lead to atheism.
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
nice vid, whats that song
emobloomer 4 years ago
"Voices" by Disturbed.
;)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Atheists should carefully examine the Anthropic Principle and also the tenets of deism. These two things, when combined, could change their views. I don't think anyone can really call themselves atheists until they've explored all of the religious perspectives and philosophical perspectives they possibly can. The same goes for theists. They should investigate as much as possible about the plausibility of intelligent creation.
DrRearden 4 years ago
The anthropic principle suffers from the same basic problems that many other easily fabriacted 'explanations' do - they lack explanatory power, predictive power, evidence, etc.
Desism suffers from a lack of evidence/logical support as well.
I do agree that everyone should seek knowledge of ALL religions, schools of thought, etc.
It is that very pursuit that has reinforced atheism in many people (myself included).
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Well, the Anthropic Principle was not easily fabricated. Contributions from Steven Hawking's and other notable scientists to the argument should not be overlooked. Numerous calculations and experiments were done showing that chance creation is not nearly as plausible as people assume. Deism renounces a lot of religious conjecture, and is much more logical than theism. Atheism ultimately is not a foolproof school of thought.
DrRearden 4 years ago
Also, looking at religion from a purely practical point of view, Pascal's Wager has strong force. If atheism cannot be proven as a factual set of beliefs, and theism or deism brings more purpose to human life, why not follow the set of beliefs with a coherence of meaning and a strong objective morality?
DrRearden 4 years ago
Your use of the argumentum ad verecundiam is inherently irrational. The petitio principii fallacy is not a logical base for developing a sound argument. Scientific speculation does not equal scientific fact. In believing that God does not exist, you are taking as much as if not more of a leap of faith than if you believed that God does exist.
DrRearden 4 years ago
First off, deism is indeed stronger than theism; but atheism is the strongest of the three systems.
Secondly, Pascal's wager is horribly weak. It presupposes that there is merely one deity, out of all of the thousands of possibilities (i.e., other religions). Even if you were to accept the Christian god, then what if you are wrong and it is one of the other some-odd thousand deities who really exists; one whose belief systems are incompatible with Christianity?
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
You still only have a 1 in thousands shot of getting the right deity (presupposing that there even are deities, and presupposing that said supernatural force's ways are known by a particular religion) if you randomly choose, and each religion/deity has an equal chance of being the "true" one.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
If there was "one-true religion" (which is a faulty starting assumption, but I digress) and you randomly choose among all of the alternatives, you would still have a less than .0005% chance of getting the right one!!
This is one of the MANY flaws of Pascal's wager -- it is Jeudo-Christian-centric. It shows the ethnocentric bias of its creator (Pascal).
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Also, another potent logical counter-example is as follows:
If I tell you that there is a sentient washing machine from another universe that will send you into a painful watery purgatory when you die (which I will call 'the spin-cycle') if you do not believe in it, but will give you eternal bliss if you do believe in it, then is it rational to believe in the sentient washing machine out of fear of 'the spin-cycle'?
The answer is no; it is not logical.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Pascal's wage is merely a poorly veiled appeal to fear.
Thirdly, atheism is not a set of propositions that need be affirmed; it is simply a rejection of an unproven set of propositions. Logically, the burden of proof is on he who makes the claim (e.g., religion); as you should know, given your apparent knowledge of logic, it is impossible to prove a negative, and it is illogical to accept a proposition merely because there is no evidence against it (or for it, for that matter).
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Since when we logically reason, we assume that a proposition is incorrect (a null hypothesis) until we find evidence to reject the null and affirm our proposition (the alternative hypothesis), it is illogical to accept ANY belief merely because there is no evidence to refute it. [Note: this is merely a restatement of the burden of proof]
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Fourthly, you are assuming that religion is necessary to give life a deeper purpose; you are assuming that people lack the cognitive and social capabilities to ascribe an even deeper meaning to their life without the aid of one set of myths or another.
You do not give the human animal enough credit.
To refute your baseless claim that I am taking a "logical leap" in embracing atheism, I refer you back to my third point, and to my point below (about 3 posts below).
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Also, all moral systems are far from objective, since they change over time, and from place to place, they are clearly subjective human constructs (social constructs), with no objective basis in reality; and no system of moral criteria is any more objective than any other (e.g., an individual's self-made system of morality based on evolutionary mechanisms and early adulthood social interactions).
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
I.e., moral systems, be they religious or otherwise, hold no more objectivity than any other social construct, such as race. E.g., we can fabricate a set of criteria that differentiates races based on skin color, and call these criteria objective, but they are still of subjective human construction.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Does it take more faith to not believe in the Easter bunny than it does to believe in the Easter bunny? What about Santa Claus? What about an invisible yellow dog? I could go on ad infinitum with these, you get the picture.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Your argument hinges on this fallacious course of reasoning, and your presupposition that the 'god concept' should be given more weight than these other concepts, even though there is an equal amount (zero pieces) of evidence and logic to support ALL of these concepts.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
In summary,
You continually presuppose that there is only one possible god. Your whole set of arguments is based on this baseless presupposition (which is, in itself, driven by an ethnocentric bias).
Also, you ignore the burden of proof, the principle of parsimony (occam's razor), the principle of falsification, etc.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
I apologize for the length of this response, but I have barely even scratched the surface of what I want to say; you are a much more interesting debate partner than I usually encounter.
Thus far, it has been quite interesting interacting with you.
;)
But I digress.
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
You're saying that a rejection does not need its own support? You cannot prove that the universe was created from random chance, so I am rejecting that. By your thinking, I don't need support either. Where is your logical base? Why must you make scientific speculation so disparate from reasonable conclusions about the universe's creation? How is your speculation any more conclusive than my own?
DrRearden 4 years ago
This is absurd. I don't need to respond to this. I'm an educated man, and you know very well examples such as this hold no weight against deism.
DrRearden 4 years ago
I meant for the above to apply to the washing machine example only. Sorry.
DrRearden 4 years ago
Let's remove all of the ethnocentric bias. I think you believe that man only comes to develop convictions concerning God because of his culture or what he learns from others. That cannot be the only source of such convictions. What is more natural than a human being questioning how he was created, and arriving at the conclusion that a world so complex requires an intelligent origin? Where is the anthropological support for men naturally arriving at ideas about washing machines?
DrRearden 4 years ago
Well, I think the Christians, and Pascal, support the Wager because atheists don't know that there is not an intelligent creator. I realize this is not a proper argument, technically. However, where is the impracticality in being cautious, for these people?
DrRearden 4 years ago
Deism rejects religion. Albert Einstein, Thomas Paine, John Locke, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, and Thomas Jefferson were deists. These men had profoundly powerful writings in support of deism and its tenets. Besides, when you envision the possibility of more than one intelligent creator, you run into the irrationality of contingent beings vs. necessary beings. Atheism takes the leap of faith that something can come from absolutely nothing.
DrRearden 4 years ago
Well, in following with Ockham's Razor, the simplest option is usually correct when given a myriad of choices, many of which are totally nonsensical anyways. Also, it's more logical to follow an exclusive religion like Christianity in case it does turn out to be right. That is beside the point though. You can use Pascal's Wager simply to accept that there is an intelligent creator of the universe, such as in supporting deism.
DrRearden 4 years ago
Actually, the washing machine example has the EXACT same amount of evidence to support it as every conception of god PLUS it follows the same pattern of reasoning as Pascal's wager does. There is no evidence, empirical or logical, that would make Pascal's wager, or even its presupposition, any more logical than my counter-example.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
By stating that you are an 'educated man' that does not need to respond to it, you have completely ignored it with a red herring and an appeal to unreliable authority. I expected better from you.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
It is impossible to know 100% that there is no a creator, just as it is impossible for you to know 100% that I am not a purple alien in human disguise.
The thing that theists, and deists, ignore is that burden of proof. They claim that there is a creative deity; therefore it is up to them to provide even ONE piece of evidence or logic to support their claim.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Even presupposing that there has to be a creative deity is absurd. Also, you are begging the question, where did the deity (or deities) come from?
This is just one of the many flaws of deism.
However, multiple creative deities are actually less absurd in many ways. Think about this; multiple deities working on different creative tasks at once (i.e., specializing) could more efficiently create something. Your assumption of one deity is an ethnocentric leap.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
When you try to associate famous names with a concept you are merely trying to influence with an appeal to authority; you are not actually providing ANY support for the idea; you are merely saying "individuals A,B, and C support this idea, and A,B, and C had great achievements in other fields, therefore, lets accept their idea."
It is important to note that expertise does not transfer outside of one's field of expertise.
You have still not addressed the holes in your argument.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
You have just shown me your utter lack of understanding of the big bang theory. No scientist, nor any atheist that I know, has ever tried to claim that things came from nothing. Please read up on the big bang theory, I do not have time to give you an astrophysics course over YT (But I will answer small questions).
[BTW atheism is not necessarily tied to scientific knowledge/cosmology]
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Occam's razor supports atheism.
All ideas of creative deities are nonsensical (i.e., they all presuppose that this being existed, without answering the questions of its origins, they all make this assertion based on zero evidence, etc.), they all lack evidence, etc.
Occam's razor does indeed indicate that we should reject any nonsensical explanation, esp. if it is wholly unsupported by evidence.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Actually, it is just as logical to follow ANY religion, just in case it turns out to be right. Your leap that Christianity is more logical (without ANY evidence to support that idea) is generated from an ethnocentric bias. In another culture, they would claim that their dominant religion is more logical (e.g., Hindus would say that their beliefs are more logical; Muslims that their belief is more logical, etc.).
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
In summary, you have engaged in at least four fallacies (possibly more) just in your last set of posts attempting to support deism.
You have also shown a lack of understanding with regard to the big bang.
You have also consistently engaged in an ethnocentric fallacy.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
And, most importantly, you are still basing your illogical leaps on the presupposition that there has to be a god, and that if there were gods, that there would only have to be one, and that that one would be the dominant one worshipped by your culture. [This directly ties to your ethnocentric bias.]
Deism has many logical holes that you have yet to address, as does Pascal's wager (and the ethnocentric leaps that it takes).
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Please, direct me to men of any recognizable intelligence who spend their time exhaustively arguing with all of the wild possibilities presented to contrast intelligent creation. You assume I haven't grown tired of assertions such as the washing machine example. How can one get anywhere in an argument if his opponent says "Well, what if there are one million universes?, or "What if the world was created by an infant deity?" It's pointless.
DrRearden 4 years ago
Yes, you said "any more logical." That is the terminology I apply to atheism when comparing it to deism. The origins of the universe are unknown, therefore, intelligent creation cannot be any less logical than atheism. You have to remove theistic perspective from your mind when looking at deism. There is no ethnocentric bias in deism. It is pure reason.
DrRearden 4 years ago
Yes, it is pointless to posit the absurd (such as god). God and the sentient washing machine are just as well known (i.e., just as logical/supported by equal amounts of evidence).
It is good to see you openly admitting that deities, creative or not, are illogical and pointless because they are just made-up positions that lack all reason/evidence and cannot defend themselves from logically-identical counter-example.
;)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Also, since you have not presented a single reason, logical or otherwise, to support deism (even your feeble use of Pascal's wager and your inability to defend it were amusing), you are making an assertion and betraying the burden of proof when you claim that desim (i.e., affirming an unknown) is more logical that atheism (i.e., not affirming that for which there is no reason to affirm).
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
I somehow doubt that you really have a doctorate in philosophy... you ignore the burden of proof in all your arguments, and you refuse to address counter-examples (i.e., either disprove them or say why they are invalid).
You use of fallacies, proof by assertion is particular, is disheartening.
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
I hope that you do realize that most Atheists, like myself, don't consider Atheism to be a religion.
- And to MisadventureFilms, your statement is corrupt, this video has only stated why Atheism is not a religion. Not believing in supernatural forces doesn't make you retarded, just an Atheist who sees the world in a different point of view.
littlebites 4 years ago
Sadly, in some people's eyes, not accepting the far-fetched tells of religion does make someone "retarded." The most amusing thing is that these people are often the same ones calling others "close-minded."
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Very interesting sermon.
skaggmo 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lol you just pointed out all the reasons why atheism is retarded
MisadventureFilms 4 years ago
And what would those reasons be?
Laic27 4 years ago
Misadventure, you are a classic example of an uneducated extreme theist; you consistently uses arguments from incredulity and ignorance.
[For any interested, (s)he has also commented on my transitional fossils - non-human apes... video].
BTW - Laic27, I doubt that Misad. will actually be able to give any reasons.
It sounds like (s)he is using a proof by assertion fallacy here.
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
how do you have a lack of belief with "zeal"?
unclexbob 4 years ago
Zeal would mean that there is passion of some variation.
One can belief something without really putting much passion or self into it.
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
"One can belief something without really putting much passion or self into it."
....which is why I thought the phrase was funny. Are you "passionate" about not believing in the easter bunny? "Passionate disbelief" is an oxymoron
unclexbob 4 years ago
Just clarifying for those who honestly didn't get it.
;)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Very good vid. everyday is a school day. I get frustrated when I hear accusations of satan worship thrown at atheists. which is clearly absurd.
aiyic 4 years ago
Thanks. ;)
Yea.
Many fundies are taught to associate all non-christian (or non-whatever-their-religion-is) people and ideas with satan. It is a fascinating phenomenon, abusrd, but fascinating.
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Music makes this unwatchable. This combined with the fact that this, at least in the first 30 secs seems to be just text, wrong medium. That should be on a blog.
NIckSouthAfrica 4 years ago
To each his own.
The music is entirely a matter of taste.
As far as the visual presentation. It is merely text with some graphics because I wanted to put the message out there in a way that relied on subtanse over style. Too many lay people these days overly focus on style at the exclusion of substance.
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
I would make the argument that atheism sprouts from doubt in a particular theistic system, which is felt in that intangible part of a body called whatever (be it the heart, the soul or whatever it is that drives our emotions). The entirety of this debate that bugs me every keeps saying it relies on logic. Emotional beliefs inspire logic. The proof is in how this video was crafted, as how the response was.
opinionhead444 4 years ago
First off, atheism is not a 'doubt' in a theistic system - it is a conclusion that all beliefs in the supernatural are illogical by examining the facts that logical counterarguments can be made against all supernatural forces AND by seeing that there is ZERO evidence for ANY supernatural force.
Hence, as you should be able to see, strong atheism is a logical conclusion; not an emotion driven assumption (such as religion).
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Also, I would like to note that the brain is actually where emotions come from. A complex process of electrochemical reactions in the following structures (as well as some others) are what generate emtoiosn: amygdala, prefrontal cortex, insula, Ventral striatum, adn the anterior cingulate cortex.
:)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Okay, I agree with you on your sentiments. While I still believe in God, I have much heartburn toward religion itself. You make consider this idea a bold-faced deception, but some Christians have said that they have faith in God and Jesus, that's not religion. Religion is man-made, God and Jesus come from above. And, like you I'm sure, I have found to edify both sides of the argument and the citations are numerous.
opinionhead444 4 years ago
For me, logically, fighting over the existence of God is a moot point. Believe or not, neither answer is wrong. You said so in a prior post that there is no core atheist dogma. There are shared tenets, but beyond that, it's like every other flavor Christian church. We may be united in belief in Christ, but that's likely where it stops. This idea burns me all over, but that's why mankind is fallen.
For me, this battle needs more moderate voices.
opinionhead444 4 years ago
I agree that there are too many people who are radical on both sides, but my point still stands - all of the evidence suggests that god is indeed a human construct.
Not one single human culture has been able of make up a god that withstands logical scrutiny; not one culture has created a god that remains unchanging from time to time and place to place (this indicates that god, like religion, is merely of human construction).
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
BTW - There are no shared tenents among atheists - it is a lack of tenents and beliefs that unites, which is odd in a way, and quite different than religious denominations.
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Great points. I think the key word is 'set' or 'system' of beliefs (plural). There is a lack of belief in a deity. Some may even believe there absolutely is no deity. In either case that could be a shared BELIEF, but it is not a shared SET of beliefs (which is what a religion entails).
EmeraldView 4 years ago