atheist simply claims a disbelief in the constructs of theology. It is not an opposition by definition, but a lack of theism. I usually tell people that I am not superstitious.
Is there a better method for searching for truth than testing assertions, ideas, constructs, etc? If you are searching for truth without critical evaluation of your 'findings', can you claim to be searching for truth at all?
I don't specifically see how atheists can be mentally challenged, on the other hand. Because they are free of believing in the supernatural and don't need religion to live their lives, nor conforming to others beliefs.
The religious people, on the other hand worry about their beliefs because they believe they're real, and would be punished if the perform blastphemy. Such as finding forgiveness from God for wrong doings.
Telling people what you don't believe is much more concrete than what you do believe. This trait of reasoning is known as Apophatic. Complicated issues may not be completely understood, however we are able to reason away some possibilities.
I agree that atheists shouldn't just define themselves by the things they believe or disbelieve. Truth should be the most important thing in life and whether people believe in something, it doesn't necessarily make it any more true than if people were not to believe in something, whether the belief be in God or some other supernatural force. Peace. :)
Well you see, atheists deny their own imagination. They look for answers else where because they're very analytical. And they also focus on tragic things to combat religion. Shit in the four humors is a representation for melancholy, the most analytical of the humors.
I don't see what's wrong with being analytical and focus on tragic events. At least they are finding answers to question something that doesn't seem true to them, even though there can be repungnant atheists who talk of bigotry and dogma just like some religious people. (continued)
I don't find anything wrong with tragic events as a justification to prove religion wrong. Because it can sometimes point out the contradictions and flaws of some religious sytems.
By humors, are you saying that atheists don't have or lack any belief in a supernatural entity are suffering from a imbalanced chemical in the brain? Or in other words mentally challenged because of their lack of beliefs; therefore their beliefs are irrational or not true?
I somewhat agree with you; since we all can't simply subjugate our subjective opinions to define life, even if someone finds these opinions logical to the mind. Atheists capable of being bigoted and speak dogma be just like some religious people in a certain situation.
However, atheists usually attempt to prove their claims and seek out the contradictions (as I am aware of) and they don't need to be repungnant, sad, or angry in doing so. In comparison to some religious groups, the atheists usually turn out to be more rational than that of a religious person because religious people usually don't have proof to support their beliefs and continue to believe these beliefs despite the possiblility that they are likely false according to logic.
I don't see how atheists can be mentally challenged because they fundamentally have nothing to worry about, due to their own logical thinking. For example, since they don't believe in a God, or some other supernatural entity that would punish them for blastphemy then they don't have to worry about that (Presuming that God is totally non-existant). Or as another example, dying because it's real to them since they can experiance it. (Continued).
Since religious people are capable of worrying about their beliefs, they would waste their entire life or on a belief that may likely be false or can be refuted with evidence/logic since some religious beliefs are faith-based. Since some religious people worry about their beliefs, they can be very zealous about them - whether to force it on others or constantly preach about it. Having said that, I don't find it healthy for people who worry about stuff they may likely be false.
Well said - you saved me making this video :-) And I'm definitely subscribing. I hope you get more subscribers soon because you talk sense. Please keep making videos.
Fair enough, but my question is: Do atheists make god even more important by defining themselves by what we DON'T believe in? The world "atheists" means without god. Is it then just as valid to be asmallgreenelf...I don't believe in small green elves either...Still, if I began to call myself an asmallgreenelf, people would naturally begin to wonder what was so great about small green elves BECAUSE I felt the need to define myself in relation to them.
Since theism is important, I think there has to be a label that points out our disagreement with it. And that disagreement has strong implications. I think even calling oneself an "agnostic" presupposes the importance of those labels because why would it be important to point to a middleground? Although I am an atheist, I don't think my position is obviously true. So your talk of moving past God, ironically sounds more atheistic than my position.
And why exactly do you think theism is important? Agnostic isn't a good label either...I do think we need to move past god, ED...Not because god wasn't important, but because if any entity exists that in the universe which we might label "god", that entity would want us move beyond it to explore life and the universe....It would not have some ego bound obsession with recognition. Most gods are just human fear which had been given a name...Nothing more than that.
Theism is important because it implies that there is some sort of teleological purpose to the world, and it would be important to figure out what this is if there is a God. Theism is important because the rejection of theism means that we can't base our morality (if any) in God. Theism is important because it means that there can be an ultimate destiny in store for us that has eternal implications(whether or not it's simply hell or heaven). cont.
Rejecting theism means rejecting all of that. Such a rejection is serious. It's not merely rejecting some fantasy creature. Since such a rejection doesn't have the same implications. You say, "if any entity exists that in the universe which we might label "god",that entity would want us move beyond it to explore life and the universe" There may be some creator that just doesn't care, but this doesn't negate the importance of dealing with a creator that may care.
Trust me, ED...people who say they base their morality in god DON'T...If you do base your sense of right and wrong there, you don't need to talk about it. I love the fact that you are a rigorous thinker...Keep doing that!
By "grounding" I don't mean doing good because you are a theist. I mean that doing good is only justified given the existence of God(although not necessarily the belief). This means that denying theism would be denying the possibility that morality is metaphysically grounded in God. Now I am inclined to agree that a God doesn't have to exist in order for morality in a sufficiently relevant sense to be meaningful. But I think this is an important step away from theism. Thanks for the discussion.
I like the way you think about this issue...However, I guess that my only point of difference is what I think is the artificial dichotomy between god and no god...I think that is to a large extent outdated thinking. I just wish we could think about what we could do that would be the best we could do in a given situation without reference to god or no god. If I have time, I'll try to do a response vid to flesh this out. Thanks for thinking about this you are obviously a deep thinker.
I see two ways to interpret what you just said. Either "God" can be defined in such a way that both atheists and theists will agree on that definition, or the question of God shouldn't be important to anyone and we should just concentrate on living our lives. I think the first option is impossible. The second I think downplays how the answer affects people's lives on many levels. I think one's answer can be taken seriously without it inordinately interfering with living with others.
My thinking is closer to the second, "God shouldn't be important...just concentrate on living our lives." In the past, some cultures believed in demons and evil spirits...Such beliefs seem absurd to most people now. Why e would we ask ourselves if we are "ademonic" thinkers? It wouldn't make any sense to us now. In fact, defining ourselves as "ademonic" would seem slighly balmy to most of us today...Someday the same thing will be true of theist vs atheist.
atheist simply claims a disbelief in the constructs of theology. It is not an opposition by definition, but a lack of theism. I usually tell people that I am not superstitious.
Is there a better method for searching for truth than testing assertions, ideas, constructs, etc? If you are searching for truth without critical evaluation of your 'findings', can you claim to be searching for truth at all?
0lord0kinbote0 3 years ago
Problem is is....I've seen miraculous shit!!!
TheCodySpirit 4 years ago
I think the question is are Atheist's beliefs FOR morons, not are atheist beliefs oxymorons.
TheCodySpirit 4 years ago
I don't specifically see how atheists can be mentally challenged, on the other hand. Because they are free of believing in the supernatural and don't need religion to live their lives, nor conforming to others beliefs.
(Continued).
Tetzukai 4 years ago
The religious people, on the other hand worry about their beliefs because they believe they're real, and would be punished if the perform blastphemy. Such as finding forgiveness from God for wrong doings.
Tetzukai 4 years ago
Telling people what you don't believe is much more concrete than what you do believe. This trait of reasoning is known as Apophatic. Complicated issues may not be completely understood, however we are able to reason away some possibilities.
Thanks for the video.
fdzwes 4 years ago
I agree that atheists shouldn't just define themselves by the things they believe or disbelieve. Truth should be the most important thing in life and whether people believe in something, it doesn't necessarily make it any more true than if people were not to believe in something, whether the belief be in God or some other supernatural force. Peace. :)
HaleyMary 4 years ago
Atheists should define themselves as the worst piece of human crap in the world.
TheCodySpirit 4 years ago
How so? Please articulate.
Tetzukai 4 years ago
Well you see, atheists deny their own imagination. They look for answers else where because they're very analytical. And they also focus on tragic things to combat religion. Shit in the four humors is a representation for melancholy, the most analytical of the humors.
TheCodySpirit 4 years ago
I don't see what's wrong with being analytical and focus on tragic events. At least they are finding answers to question something that doesn't seem true to them, even though there can be repungnant atheists who talk of bigotry and dogma just like some religious people. (continued)
Tetzukai 4 years ago
I don't find anything wrong with tragic events as a justification to prove religion wrong. Because it can sometimes point out the contradictions and flaws of some religious sytems.
Tetzukai 4 years ago
By humors, are you saying that atheists don't have or lack any belief in a supernatural entity are suffering from a imbalanced chemical in the brain? Or in other words mentally challenged because of their lack of beliefs; therefore their beliefs are irrational or not true?
Tetzukai 4 years ago
Yes, challenged and imbalanced.
TheCodySpirit 4 years ago
I somewhat agree with you; since we all can't simply subjugate our subjective opinions to define life, even if someone finds these opinions logical to the mind. Atheists capable of being bigoted and speak dogma be just like some religious people in a certain situation.
Tetzukai 4 years ago
However, atheists usually attempt to prove their claims and seek out the contradictions (as I am aware of) and they don't need to be repungnant, sad, or angry in doing so. In comparison to some religious groups, the atheists usually turn out to be more rational than that of a religious person because religious people usually don't have proof to support their beliefs and continue to believe these beliefs despite the possiblility that they are likely false according to logic.
Tetzukai 4 years ago
I don't see how atheists can be mentally challenged because they fundamentally have nothing to worry about, due to their own logical thinking. For example, since they don't believe in a God, or some other supernatural entity that would punish them for blastphemy then they don't have to worry about that (Presuming that God is totally non-existant). Or as another example, dying because it's real to them since they can experiance it. (Continued).
Tetzukai 4 years ago
Since religious people are capable of worrying about their beliefs, they would waste their entire life or on a belief that may likely be false or can be refuted with evidence/logic since some religious beliefs are faith-based. Since some religious people worry about their beliefs, they can be very zealous about them - whether to force it on others or constantly preach about it. Having said that, I don't find it healthy for people who worry about stuff they may likely be false.
Tetzukai 4 years ago
Well said - you saved me making this video :-) And I'm definitely subscribing. I hope you get more subscribers soon because you talk sense. Please keep making videos.
WannabeKiwiBoy 4 years ago
Thanks, I appreciate it. :)
EpistemicDuty 4 years ago
Fair enough, but my question is: Do atheists make god even more important by defining themselves by what we DON'T believe in? The world "atheists" means without god. Is it then just as valid to be asmallgreenelf...I don't believe in small green elves either...Still, if I began to call myself an asmallgreenelf, people would naturally begin to wonder what was so great about small green elves BECAUSE I felt the need to define myself in relation to them.
cosmicpilgrim 4 years ago
Since theism is important, I think there has to be a label that points out our disagreement with it. And that disagreement has strong implications. I think even calling oneself an "agnostic" presupposes the importance of those labels because why would it be important to point to a middleground? Although I am an atheist, I don't think my position is obviously true. So your talk of moving past God, ironically sounds more atheistic than my position.
EpistemicDuty 4 years ago
And why exactly do you think theism is important? Agnostic isn't a good label either...I do think we need to move past god, ED...Not because god wasn't important, but because if any entity exists that in the universe which we might label "god", that entity would want us move beyond it to explore life and the universe....It would not have some ego bound obsession with recognition. Most gods are just human fear which had been given a name...Nothing more than that.
cosmicpilgrim 4 years ago
Theism is important because it implies that there is some sort of teleological purpose to the world, and it would be important to figure out what this is if there is a God. Theism is important because the rejection of theism means that we can't base our morality (if any) in God. Theism is important because it means that there can be an ultimate destiny in store for us that has eternal implications(whether or not it's simply hell or heaven). cont.
EpistemicDuty 4 years ago
Rejecting theism means rejecting all of that. Such a rejection is serious. It's not merely rejecting some fantasy creature. Since such a rejection doesn't have the same implications. You say, "if any entity exists that in the universe which we might label "god",that entity would want us move beyond it to explore life and the universe" There may be some creator that just doesn't care, but this doesn't negate the importance of dealing with a creator that may care.
EpistemicDuty 4 years ago
Trust me, ED...people who say they base their morality in god DON'T...If you do base your sense of right and wrong there, you don't need to talk about it. I love the fact that you are a rigorous thinker...Keep doing that!
cosmicpilgrim 4 years ago
By "grounding" I don't mean doing good because you are a theist. I mean that doing good is only justified given the existence of God(although not necessarily the belief). This means that denying theism would be denying the possibility that morality is metaphysically grounded in God. Now I am inclined to agree that a God doesn't have to exist in order for morality in a sufficiently relevant sense to be meaningful. But I think this is an important step away from theism. Thanks for the discussion.
EpistemicDuty 4 years ago
I like the way you think about this issue...However, I guess that my only point of difference is what I think is the artificial dichotomy between god and no god...I think that is to a large extent outdated thinking. I just wish we could think about what we could do that would be the best we could do in a given situation without reference to god or no god. If I have time, I'll try to do a response vid to flesh this out. Thanks for thinking about this you are obviously a deep thinker.
cosmicpilgrim 4 years ago
I see two ways to interpret what you just said. Either "God" can be defined in such a way that both atheists and theists will agree on that definition, or the question of God shouldn't be important to anyone and we should just concentrate on living our lives. I think the first option is impossible. The second I think downplays how the answer affects people's lives on many levels. I think one's answer can be taken seriously without it inordinately interfering with living with others.
EpistemicDuty 4 years ago
Thanks for your comment
EpistemicDuty 4 years ago
My thinking is closer to the second, "God shouldn't be important...just concentrate on living our lives." In the past, some cultures believed in demons and evil spirits...Such beliefs seem absurd to most people now. Why e would we ask ourselves if we are "ademonic" thinkers? It wouldn't make any sense to us now. In fact, defining ourselves as "ademonic" would seem slighly balmy to most of us today...Someday the same thing will be true of theist vs atheist.
cosmicpilgrim 4 years ago
I'm not in favor of keeping the labels at all costs. I just think they are important as long as the question of God is important.
EpistemicDuty 4 years ago