Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
Imagine a world were almost everyone collected stamps! And all of these collectors believed that the post office created the universe. In that case i can assure you that there would be a word for those that do not collect stamps. The idea that we should detach ourselves from the "label" of atheist is quite simply cowardly and dishonest. I am proud to call myself an atheist for if not saying what my principles in life are it at least stats the lack of a flaw, namely religion.
First, aren't all theists rearey just versions of Kim Jong-il without the army to back them? Second, no matter what word we use to define who we are it will be demonized and twisted by the godfucks to meet their needs.
course he was not an atheist. He deified himself. He believed in himself as god, that was not an atheist. In North Korea there, even after his death, a religion of his personality cult.
LOL! Have you READ "Origins"? Survival of the fittest refers to GROUPS, not individuals. Darwin never used this phrase, but "fit" doesn't refer to the strongest male beating up rival members and taking whatever he wants, for this would lead to chaos and the community would go extinct = NOT fit. Fit groups contain members w/in a community that cooperate, care for one another, and look out for the best interests of everyone, so that EVERYONE can be a healthy, contributing member.
@DiscoveringReligion Yes groups is what I mean. Darwin himself referred to races in this theory, and how the fitter races have "beat out the Turkish hallow" and such. The sexism of Darwin's writings are even more disturbing. Yes groups is exactly what I was referring to.
I've no idea what you're talking about. What book/page number does Darwin promote sexism? By the way, the misapplication of science by other people in order to promote racism does not discredit the validity of his theory. In fact, even if Darwin was racist, which he wasn't, it would have absolutely no barring on the validity of his theory either. Racism and murder are moral issue, not scientific ones. You cannot achieve a code of conduct through science alone, you need reason.
@DiscoveringReligion You should probably pay closer attention to the study and application of Eugenics.
The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world. - Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, p. 318.
Natural Selection is a mindless mechanism that does not favor one skin color over another. There is only one race, the human race. When Darwin spoke of "race" in this letter he was referring to different cultures. The Turkish "race"/culture tired to take over Europe but failed due to their limited technology, a.k.a. they were "less civilized". The same thing happened to the Native Americans that were killed off by white colonial Christians.
2. Natural Selection isn't the enemy. Rather, it's the ideological beliefs, often of theistic colonists, that would use their technological advantage to destroy other "races"/cultures. Christians went around the world colonizing & killing many peoples throughout the Americas. All Darwin did was make the prediction this trend would continue, unless colonization came to an end. Again, the mis-application of science to advocate racism is the fault of the advocate, not science.
@DiscoveringReligion Hey Im just pointing out dogma, as well as the negative side of eugenics. You can try to interpret what Darwin meant, however the racial applications and implications are unfavorable to many, and have been used by tyrannous dictators many of times in history. Stalin's League of Belligerent Atheists is just one example of many State atheism as well as the teachings of eugenics is Atheist dogma and the execution of this dogma has served many their death
@DiscoveringReligion Read about when Darwin's son wanted to marry "Martineau"... You can also read many of his writings on "Female brain capacity believed inferior"...
We cannot excuse Darwin's misunderstanding of certain scientific facts, but that doesn't mean evolution is not a real principle within nature. In the same regard, Isaac Newton was an avid alchemist, but that doesn't mean gravity is not a real force. Darwin wasn't perfect and he did make some mistakes. But even if Darwin was something ludicrous, like a genocidal maniac, it still would have no barring on the validity of evolution as a scientific principle. So what's your point?
Again, how people mis-applied science is not the fault of science but the people who mis-applied it. In the 19th Century many Christian slave-owners interpreted the Bible to justify having slaves, but does that make the Bible inherently evil? Modern-day Christians would disagree with such a statement. By the way, atheism is not a doctrine and it is not synonymous with communism. I am a secular humanist. Judge me for my believes, not my non-beliefs.
To be honest, 'atheist' is one of the few labels I feel comfortable giving myself. Its beauty is its simplicity - if you understand it, then it's impossible to get caught up in the 'tribalism' that tends to follow labels around.
Also, the word 'atheism' is a direct response to theism - as long as theism exists (and is powerful), atheism is always going to be useful as a way to differentiate yourself from theism. That may be its only use, but it's still a valuable one.
4m13s Your point is that the negation of any activity (in the real physical world) is simply - ANYTHING else. That is correct, when the entire "domain of discourse" is all conceivable activities. Being a "non-stamp collector" implies a person could be a rapist, a spy, or a kite-flier. I DO believe that the domain of discourse of "atheist" IS limited to belief of god or belief that no gods exist, so I don't quite see how the term is "meaningless".
This is probably a stupid question and way off subject for this video, but how could Kim Jong Il think he was a reincarnation of his father if his father died when KJI was fifty-three years old?
Yeah, I found that a little odd as well. Not sure exactly what is the reasoning behind such a claim, but that's the story according the cult of personality that surrounds KJI. It's probably just an attempt to keep power within the family and to make is seem their right to rule goes much deeper than blood.
"I find the term "atheist" to be non-informative, non-descriptive, and in a major source of confusion for many people."
Indeed! I find that defenses of the use of the word "atheist" as a meaningful label usually ignore this; we're trying to communicate, and if your label doesn't inform, or describe, and confuses (not to mention allows for all kinds of dishonest smears and bullshit), than it's a BAD label.
So i watched more of your video and you addressed that, asserting that communists are historically atheists. There are two problems: Kim Jong Il is not a legitimate communist (a communism is an economic state devoid of private property, not a nation-state ruled by a "communist party" as it is commonly believed), and there have been many religious communists (Jesus, Tolstoy, most of the disciples).
Little is known about the mind of KJI. But it's a fact North Korea was founded upon the ideology of communism. How closely NK adhered to the philosophies of "pure communism" is up for debate, but I was not discussing NK's political system. Communists historically reject religion and even outright ban it. See Russia. But it could even be argued Kim saw himself as a demi-god. Whatever the case, this video addresses the tendency of believers to lump all atheist into one group.
@DiscoveringReligion I'm just letting you know that a person well read on communism, your definition is wrong. Communism means a society without private property. As to say, ancient minoans, persians, the !Kung, the iroquois. Communism has an actual definition independent of the political ideologies of marxist-leninist communist parties that advocated for the policies of the USSR. Just a little anthropology lesson
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but Kim Jong Il was not an atheist. Consider: he believes his father is an immortal god and has elected him eternal president of Korea...
@TheTempleofNature I was actually using the term "God" to denote anything that is regarded as "absolute". Every view of reality has an "Absolute" - something which determines what reality is like. So matter would be "The Absolute" for a philosophical materialist (or nature for a naturalist). Some people may regard the evolutionary process as "Absolute", and even say nice things about it (i.e. "worship" it), like Prof. Dawkins, hence his book "The Greatest Show on Earth"!
@TheTempleofNature Certainly, if in the name of capital-A "Atheism", where people subscribe to a common book of knowledge and systematically entertain the same philosophy, values and lifestyle of a cult called "Atheism". Otherwise, no.
Concerning the beliefs of Kim Jong-Il, can I take it that if I do not believe in a supernatural being commonly known as "God" (i.e. the eternal creator and first cause of the universe) and decide to worship myself as "God", then that makes me a "theist"?!!! What a fatuous idea. If the term "God" can be generalised to this extent (to mean anything absolute or ultimate), then anyone who regards "nature" as "The Absolute" is therefore a theist! Therefore no one can possibly be an atheist.
*sigh* If the atrocities committed by professing "atheists" (people who - apparently - simply fail to believe in God) do not reflect badly on atheism, then IT FOLLOWS LOGICALLY that the same rule should apply to those who happen to profess belief in God. Such logical and moral consistency is really not a lot to ask, is it? If atheists can disown Stalin, then I, as a Christian, can happily disown the Inquisition. That's only fair, isn't it? (Or perhaps you have an Orwellian view of "fair"?)
@The1066Al Under what atheist banner, symbol or text has any genocide ever been perpetrated? Now, same question replacing "atheist" with your religion of choice. Your argument fails on two points : atheism is not dogmatic like religion, and genocidal dictators did not do what they did in the name of atheism -- as noted in the video.
@Mendokusai99 "Atheism is not dogmatic like religion". Religion is not the same as theism. I believe in God and am not religious (in the sense I think you are using the word), in that I do not subscribe to a dogmatic system that I cannot defend with logic and evidence. In fact, it could be argued that "religion" is contrary to theism, in that the system itself becomes a "god" that replaces "God". So don't attack a straw man.
@The1066Al I applaud you for your non-religious . Now go convince the other 2 billion dogmatic, religious Christians worldwide. The only straw man I attacked was the one you created about Stalin.
@Mendokusai99 Like I said, if you want to disown Stalin (or someone like, for example, Enver Hoxha), then I can disown the Inquisition and other bloodthirsty "Christians". You cannot have it both ways. You cannot apply one rule to atheism and another rule to any other view of reality. This attempt to undermine Christianity by appealing to the evils of so called professing "Christians" while refusing to acknowledge the evils of professing atheists just looks dishonest.
@The1066Al I read what you wrote, and it's still wrong to claim that what Stalin did was in the name of atheism. You can keep making the claim, and it will still be untrue, and your logic based on the claim will still be spurious. Instead of playing this silly back-and-forth with you, I invite you to re-watch the video. It's explained quite well.
Atheism is not a doctrine. Just because I happen to not believe the same thing Stain did not believe, that does not mean we share the same beliefs. Stalin BELIEVED in communism, I don't. Therefore, you cannot lump me in with his camp. Christians, on the other hand, ALL share the same beliefs. You believe in the exact same book that promotes slavery, witch hunts, infanticide, and genocide against non-believers. You're accountable because it's in your book. That's the difference.
@DiscoveringReligion Firstly, this book that I am supposed to believe in does not "promote" (note the word!) all the evils you list - in fact, quite the opposite! Secondly, you say I am "accountable". Accountable to whom? Please clarify this point. Thirdly, Christians hold a variety of political views, and they may commit evil acts under the banner of their politics - just like you claim Stalin did. Therefore"belief in God" is not the problem. Get your logic sorted out.
I'm not talking about "political" groups of Christians. I'm talking about the Bible ITSELF, which promotes slavery among many other crimes against humanity. Christians claim their Book contains truth, justice, and the path to divine salvation, but they try to hide the fact the Bible ALSO contains many evils. All Christians believe in the Bible and all Christians promote this book; therefore, all Christians are accountable for not only the lovey-dovey parts, but the atrocities as well.
Who are you accountable to? Well, for starters, how about yourself? How can you morally justify promoting a book that allows such a disgusting practice as slavery? If you are championing the beliefs contained in the Bible, then by default you're championing the atrocities the Bible contains as well. So how about being accountable for that? Take some responsibility for your Book. Or is that too much to ask?
@DiscoveringReligion Alright, then let me suppose that you are right. What are you asking me to do? Let me take responsibility for "my book", acknowledge that it "promotes" evil, listen to you, and follow your advice. So what is your advice then? And let's see what the great alternative is, and how that guarantees "morality". Of course, being a true "freethinker", I will need to assess your advice, to see whether it is actually coherent. So do let me know...
Christians claim to possess secrete knowledge about the creation of the Universe and that divine morality is superior to that of secular morality. If you accept the Bible promotes evil then the concepts you derived from the Bible are irrevocably shattered. What you do with the wreckage is up to you. I'm not in a position to tell anyone how to live -- that's up to each individual to figure out for themselves. I've written extensively on morality. I'll be happy to give you some notes.
@DiscoveringReligion That's true. And even Marxists who believe in Marx's "Das Capital" should not be lumped together with Stalin or Kim Jong Il and Un, who were/are extreme nationalists. "Das Capital" speaks only about fighting to prevent inequities of wealth created by capitalists stealing all power and control of resources from workers, not about banning pornographic video or Western art and music. In fact, Marx wrote from a completely Eurocentric perspective.
I would call myself anti-dogmatist, because all these mass murderers were dogmatists, just like the religious fundamentalists (as a matter of fact, there is no religion without dogma).
I am of course not implying, that religion automatically leads to mass murder, but every religious person should be aware, that faith and dogma are closely related, if not identical.
There are many N. Koreans that have defected to other countries -- they're the ones that tell of what's going on. That's how we know about the Kippumjo (Pleasure Squad). Wiki "North Korean defectors" for more. It's obvious Kim thought of himself as a superhuman, demi-god -- just look at his official titles for example. Plus all the signs and symbols that surround Kim's birth story. Kim's cult of personality is highly seeped in a status elevated above that of mere human beings.
There are many people fleeing from there. And some of them are being turned back.
Wouldn't you think that it's possible that many of them "get the message" and are ready to say whatever they think would save them?
And imagine some "reptilians rule the world' people going to another country/planet and telling "their story'...
After the fall of the Chaushesco, there were SO MANY - and so absurd - eyewitness stories that were selling like hot bread and turned not to be true...
We simply couldn't know what Kim thought of himself - because the cult is a fact, but the rest is us SUGGESTING what certain strange phenomenon mean in a culture that is quite strange and unknown to us, and by reading symbols the way WE understand them.
And don't forget that a Confucian culture would use religious ideas and expressions in a strictly non-theistic way...
I guess my point is that we are SUGGESTING too much from the too little that we know.
I'm not in a position to speculate about what went on in Kim's mind. All I can speak to is what little information has been released by the government. From wiki: "Official biographers claim that his birth at Baekdu Mountain was foretold by a swallow, and heralded by the appearance of a double rainbow across the sky over the mountain and a new star in the heavens." Kim was also known as the "Savior" among many other titles. See: wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/List_of_Kim_Jong-il's_titles
@DiscoveringReligion when it comes down to it we have no way of knowing whether he was completly nuts (ie he really belived all that stuff) or was he privatly laughing behind everyones back in a "i cant belive i got them to buy that shit" kind of way.
@grozde Actually, if your willing to educate yourself on the subject. There is an excellent documentary where a famous eye doctor sneaked in a documentary crew posing as his medical coordinator/staff called :Inside North Korea. Also, if you type in "List of documentary films about North Korea" in Google's search bar you will provide a Wiki link with everything you need.
@grozde In short, every person that has ever escaped/defected from N-Korea is a fraud & a liar, is that the position you are taking ? As for that video I mentioned, it is filmed in S-Korea in secret. What shocked me the most wasn't the poverty, the robotic responses, the fear or the ridiculousness of their propaganda but that the people are so ill informed that they still believe they are at war with America. They don't even know the war ever ended. You telling me that is a lie too?
I never said that. I said they might not be objective and they ARE fragmented.
And the ill-informed one is you: as for 2011, there was still no peace treaty signed between the USA and N. Korea, so both countries ARE STILL in a state of war!!
non-issue .. it's more preferable to bat the claims of atrocities "in the name of atheism" back, than fleeing from a word that perfectly describes ones stance on a philosophical question.
first order of business is correcting dictionarys.. most of them list atheism as denying god. or some shit like that... and christians triumphantly point to the "dictionary definition" and seek to define FOR US what we actually believe. that pisses me off more than the stalin thing..
For atheists to re-label themselves would be similar to LGBT dropping gay marriage and just joining themselves legally through power of attorney in their own privacy.
I think people should be educated on what atheism means so we can reach greater tolerance. But this will be hard when each religion, even denominations within religions, view their beliefs as superior to all others and the ultimate truth.
@JamesonLemonade "joining themselves legally through power of attorney" - Now, that's a great idea for heterosexual marriage. Just create a celebration after you join from power of attorney. That way, the religious can't hijack the union as their idea.
You will usually find Gnostic theists (I KNOW God is real) and agnostic atheists (I see no reason to believe in a god) but you can also have Gnostic atheists (I know there are no gods) and agnostic theists (we can never know for sure, but I still believe). It's not a choice between agnostic and atheist. It's comparing east and west with north and south.
I prefer the term non-theist. Using the word "atheist" to label those who don't believe in god can be confusing. The reason being, what would you call one who believes there is no god?
I thought you explained what atheism was really well. I think the bit on Kim Jong Il in the second half of the video should have been a video on its own. It felt like you were trying to put two subjects in one video.
All of us calling ourselves atheist is the ONLY way we could ever get a real read on just how many of us there are. And a great many of us still feel that we can never really come out of the closet and state that we are atheist because of the reasons you just mentioned and fear of family rejection or the loss of a job.
I disagree with what you state because when it all comes down to it, what you are talking about is atheism. There are Christian secular humanists aplenty, being a Christian doesn't stop you from wanting a secular society.
"Describing yourself as something you are not", is not a bad idea either.
"I'm a non-racist": that term describes me, as it takes one particular point and states my opinion on it, in this case that I'm not one of that group.
I disagree with what you state because when it all comes down to it the what you are talking about us atheism. There are Christian secular humanists aplenty, being a Christian doesn't stop you from wanting a secular society.
"Describing yourself as something you are not", is not a bad idea either.
"I'm a non-racist": that term describes me as it takes one particular point and states your opinion on it, in this case that you are not one of that group.
I disagree with what you state because when it all comes down to it the what you are talking about us atheism. There are Christian secular humanists aplenty, being a Christian doesn't stop you from wanting a secular society.
"Describing yourself as something you are not", is not a bad idea either.
"I'm a non-racist": that term describes me as it takes one particular point and states your opinion on it, in this case that you are not one of that group.
As a Finn, living in Finland, what we call ourselves is a non-issue.
From the accent I gather you are from USA, and I sadly know it's a whole another story over there... I'd call myself a humanist over that side of the pond, the secularist part is a non-issue here so probably wouldn't mention that.
You know, it's difficult to even think about what I should be labeled, because religionwise it doesn't matter here. Thanks for giving me thought for food, though!
Yes, defining yourself as a atheist basically says nothing about you. I'm a Marxist Socialist and that's a way more informative definition. But you have to agree, that if you're going to continue Hitchens' mission and confront religion, you'll have to call yourself an atheist in some point. And you know as well as I do, that theists will continue to bash non-believers, no matter how they call themselves.
Just a little correction: the fascists and the Nazis were totally religious. "God is with us" - the Nazi slogan, the Wehrmacht soldiers had it on their belts. It's just another lie cultivated by theists.
The Ancestors Of Chinese, Koreans And Japanese Evolved Their Morphological Traits (Especially Those Having To Do With Facial Structure And Features) Towards The End Of The Last Glacial Period Around 8-12 Thousand Years Ago (After All, They Were Necessary For Survival In The Cold Climate Of Siberia And Other Pockets Of Asia). Variations Of These Physical Adaptations Then Spread Into South And Southeast Asia Only After Proliferating Throughout West, Central And East Asia.
A Cold Climate In Northern Asia Created The Selection Pressure For Flat Faces, Epicanthic Folds (Extra Layer Of Fat In The Eyelids), Long Noses, Small Nostrils, Yellow Skin (Extra Layer Of Subcutaneous Fat), Fewer Sweat Glands (Less Sweating), More Slow-Twich Muscle Fibers (Regulate Body Temperature; Maintain Heat), Etc. All Traits Necessary For Survival In The Environments In Which Ancestral Asian Populations Evolved.
Whites And Blacks, Go Out Late At Nite, Walk Around And Let The Cold Air Hit Your Face. After A While You'll Soon Realize Why Asians Developed Such Unique Facial Features And Structures.
But the label "atheist" holds a lot of weight and generally is viewed as a person who does not believe in gods (although many equate atheist with those who worship Satan). In a world of powerful religions, atheists defy them to their core beliefs, no matter how objectively asinine and irrational they may be. And the label atheist certainly carries more weight than the group of people who do not collect stamps.
@sejembalm It's probably more accurate to say that historically, the term atheist carries more weight than non-stamp-collector. But in terms of actual definition, the content in the term atheist is very close to non-stamp-collector.
Kim Jong-il, mad cult of personality, the people are taught that 'all birds flew into the sky at the moment of birth' of family members, the leader does not defecate, this is like religion, Augustus & Caesar, sons of God, Jesus Christ, a son of God, Japans Emperor - 'son of heaven', his ancestor Jimmu, 'a son of God' ..read up, it's not lost in translation, JC was just a sensitive new age guy, a nice, non violent, effeminate, closeted, latent, faith healer, mullah Palestinian dude.
As Religion Evolved And Societies Developed, Governments Usurped And Co-Opted The Power And Influence Of Religion And Religious Hierarchies For Their Own Personal And Political Gain. In Effect, Government And Religion Became Intertwined To Produce The Autocracies And Theocracies That You See Littered Throughout Human History. From This Was Born The Concept Of The Divine Right Of Kings And The Belief That Monarchs Were Direct Descendants Of GOD(S), Hence The Godly Names.
To Put It Another Way, As Agriculture Developed And Societies Began To Form (Around 10,000 Years Ago), The Purpose Of Religion (To Maintain Cohesiveness, Order, And Individual Submission To Authority) Was Adopted And Incorporated By Government To Rule Over The People Unquestioningly And Unchallenged. (By The Way, This Didn't Happen Immediately Or Spontaneously With The Advent Of Civilization. It Unconsciously Evolved Over Many Generations.)
@PeeGeeBeeDee Sorry, a question mark should have been included. Regardless, a historical-mythic character who, after a 'makeover', became a god-man. The desire of cultural elites to control the masses is evident in the collection of letters and myths called the bible..
@nzobriens Yea, Well, He's Not Alone. Throughout History A Variety Of Dictators Like He From A Variety Of Cultures Have Thought Of Themselves As GOD-Like Descendants Of GOD And Extensions Of GOD On Earth (Doing What GOD Wants Them To Do; Doing GOD's Work). Which Makes Sense In Light Of The Fact That Early Government Appropriated The Power And Influence Of Religion To Establish It's Authority Among The People (Government Embodied Religion And The Two Have Been Enmeshed Ever Since).
I'll be honest. At 10:30 in the video, I was like "What do Muslims praying have to do with this video?" Then, I realized that they were North Koreans. I'm pretty sure that these people are the real deal, and they have been brainwashed. The similarities to religion are so blatant. North Korea is one of the most religious countries in the world, only the religion is based on the Kim family.
WAIT A MINUTE! somebody please tell me this, even if theres no slavery in christian countries, still doesn change the fact that it is allowed! and that really sucks!
I think that it is a non-issue, but that 'we' should continually remind the religious people we talk to that they are in fact *also* atheists with respect to any gods from other religions that they don't believe in". We are just one step further -- no gods. Keep it accurate and simple.
heh... atheist has to get the same value as theist (and if you want to include deist). Saying nothing more then your standpoint on whether or not (a) god(s) exists.
Tbf, I do see myself as an atheist, because I am. I lack the believe in a god. But as you say, it says little else about me. But I do not think we should stop using it.It needs to get that same status once again, without the association with baby-eating and devil-worshipping (how the fuck did they come to that anyway?)
I think we should do like Richard Dawkins said and use the term "Atheist" as much as we can until it is no longer viewed as controversial. To where saying "I'm an Atheist" is no different then saying "I'm Norwegian". Saying what your ethnicity or nationality is says nothing about you as a person, but it is a useful bit of information. I am an atheist because I don't believe in any gods, and I am fine using the term to help illustrate my thoughts and opinions.
I think we need to keep the term atheist. It's blunt and clear, and we need it to unite us as a minority. We can't be splitting hairs and confusing people with other terms.
I don't think people who reject theism and organized religion can really unite under a single label. It's the theists game and we should all decline to play. I instead advocate the dismantling of flawed arguments and perspectives coupled with a genuine willingness to explain ones own perspectives and reasons for holding them. This practice seems to undermine the ability of theists around me to maintain their illusions about me and others who don't accept their beliefs.
CORRECT ME ,IF IAM WRONG , but is it not summer time in the southern hemisphere ,for at 10.40 ,is that condensation ,coming from the mouths ,and look at the coats they are wearing ?
I don't like the term Atheist either but there does need to be a united front to dismantle or curtail religious indoctrination. Many religious people utterly despise atheists. This 'despise' needs to be dissolved away so that reason and prosperity can flourish in the world.
I could easily identify with a different label for my non-belief, however, when I use the term atheist I can see how uncomfortable it makes my Christian friends. The word Atheist is more unsettling to their fantasies (and can lead some to question) than any other word. Some are so disturbed they do research themselves, thus becoming more susceptible to reason by means of ignorance obliterating youtube vids.. or whatever they do to find out more on the subject.
I have had many a discussion regarding the word Atheist with the religious groups. It usually starts with 'You are an atheist, thats what you believe'. It shortly finishes with a suggestion that they check the dictionary and an explanation of the word atheist.
Are you sure that he thought he was a god? I thought for sure that everyone in North Korea knew it was a bunch of BS but had to put up with it anyway.
no this is definitely a good point. Atheist is almost a dirty word, if we are using the label that our enemies give us. I have a problem with all labels as well...I would say I dont know what I am. I am many things.
N. Koreans are quite religious to me, they are bound to worship through several 'rituals' the divine family: saturn, jupiter (kim jong il) and now young apollo..
A word about the attitude of N. Koreans toward KJI: A prof I knew obtained the rare opportunity of visiting N. Korea. While there, he attended a public event celebrating KJI's b-day, at which the "Dear Leader" himself made an appearance. The prof said that when KJI appeared on stage, with hundreds of thousands awaiting him, he heard what he at first thought were crickets. But he was hearing the sniffles of N. Koreans weeping. He thinks they were acknowledging the blessing of KJI's presence.
The psychology of what is going on over there is extremely interesting -- it's like a nation-wide cult. Thanks a lot for sharing your story and for providing greater insight in to that fascinating country.
Personally I think it's necessary to embrace the word "atheism", precisely to show clear opposition to all forms of faith based nonsense in public. There's no need to shy away from other labels while doing that though. One just have to do the short version of the speech you held in this video, that all atheists derive their beliefs and actions from their positive beliefs, just like theists do. Not from rejecting claims that faeries or gods exist as unsupported.
Your Kim Jong Ill poster frame proves why you are a troll. Just a form of combination argument ad hominem/guilt by association, the sorts of things that educated people don't take seriously.
If you look across more than one century, killings by religious people greatly outnumber those by atheist communists (who are really just following a secular religion that plagiarized many of its ideas from Christianity)
@nurbSoldier Oh please do tell me what the tennants and dogma of this atheist religion is, i love being told what i believe by morons who don't understand such a simple concept as atheism
@iseezapie atheism is not a religion in the same way that clear is not a color. it simply means you don't believe in any godlike entity. which is simply the default state for people. you see, people have to be brainwashed repeatedly as children to believe in god. just like some people have to be brainwashed to believe in some laughably insane ideology like communism.
@nurbSoldier I was responding to your comment that read "If you look across more than one century, killings by religious people greatly outnumber those by atheist communists (who are really just following a secular religion that plagiarized many of its ideas from Christianity)". Why are you now saying that atheism isn't a religion?
I take your point about defining things by what they aren't, but this is still a useful category. The only thing that can be said about atheists is that they lack theism, and that is all the word describes. You use "bald as a hair colour" for an example, but that seems misapplied. Bald as a condition of hairlessness would certainly be on point, though, so although describing hair colour as bald is inappropriate, describing hair condition as bald would not be.
The only known places on earth at the moment where slavery exists are either atheistic communist countries, or Muslim countries. It is just a fact, but I will not bother trying to back it up. I do believe that it is very easy to find that out for yourself.” I'm surprised and dismayed that you would let someone make a statement like that and not challenge it. It IS easy to find out that this statement is pure BS, and a quick search shows it to be so. Tu quoque fallacy.
Nice video, but socrates didn't start anything. I recommend you read something about the post-socratics like who very often more advanced than Socrates.
Pre- or Post-Socratics? Post-Socratics would have come after Socrates. I have read up on Greek philosophers before the time of Socrates, but no one did it quite like him. Socrates challenged everyone and questioned everything, which eventually lead to his martyrdom for the freedom of speech. I cannot think of any philosopher before the time of Socrates that made such a great impact on the world -- who valued the pursuit of reason and the seeking truth more than his own life.
@DiscoveringReligion Pre-socratics of course, I'm sorry. I like the Atomists better, in my opinion Socrates is the inventor of the religious straw man argument;-)
Very good video. Richard Dawkins always says that Stalin and Hitler didn't commit atrocities in the name of Atheism, but he was never really convincing with that argument. But you nailed it. Very nicely done.
@8:55 you could be killed in N. Korea for taking a picture like that. Watch the documentary "Kimjongilia" on netflix or where ever and see what I'm talking about. I pray that there is a change in North Korea now that Kim Jong Il is dead but don't have high hopes that it will actually happen because his son and the military are running the country now. Plus praying is about as effective as sticking my thumbs up my ass in getting anything done. N. Korea, like religion is a cult of personality.
I prefer to define myself in various ways: Naturalist when discussing my beliefs on the creation of the universe, the afterlife, and other religious elements; Secular Humanist when discussing my moral viewpoints; Democratic Socialist regarding political issues; etc.
Very few things in life are capable of being described under one sweeping term, so I don't try to use any single term to label myself.
Once could argue that because they DON'T BELIEVE that everybody around them really exists in the sense that they are all in the non believers head, they could try to justify murder saying that there are no real consequences as the murder victim never existed to begin with.
I don't know what to do about the label of atheism. It says absolutely nothing about a person and seems to only serve as a convenient term to link people together, to create an easily identifiable THEM, for whichever US it is, to create a VERSUS mentality. I think it's more representative of the problems of labels in general than it is of lacking one. I think we should as a society gravitate away from labels, but that would require people to be reasonable which is apparently too much.
I let others attempt to apply the "Atheist" label to me then remind them that what I AM is far more interesting than what I am NOT. Then...." HitchSlap" enough logic into them to make them want to change the subject.
Kim Jong-il was as much of a communist as he was an atheist. I find it offensive that you said "He was a communist", not because I'm a communist, because I'm not, but as some one that isn't completely ignorant on the subject. There are meany forms of communism just as there are many forms of atheism. If you are going to say he was a communist you also should be much more open to him being an atheist than you are.
@dookiecheez I doubt its that simple. Do you have an exact quote that implies that he thought of him self as a "god" suiting EVER needed criteria for that with context that supports it? And do you speak Korean natively and can know that meaning wasn't lost in translation? Hell you haven't even defined what a "god" is. I think you need to learn a lot about discourse in this matter before commenting on some thing I said. You're just believing the poster of the video mindlessly.
Wow are you ever proposing a ridiculous standard of evidence or what? I have to speak korean, holy crap...Also interesting assumption that I based my opinion of Kim Jong Il's deification on this video. That's been my position for years. Are you familiar with his personal creation myth? It's got double rainbows and everything. I think you need to learn how to engage in reasonable discourse on the matter before dismissing me offhand because you didn't know something.
@dookiecheez Dismiss you offhand because I don't know some thing? Please. What really seems more likely to you, the man thought of him self as a god by your definition ("all powerful?", "all knowing?", you STILL haven't giving me a definition. It was a main point of mine), or that he just said some thing to imply how powerful he is to keep control over people.
"Are you familiar with his personal creation myth?"
No, I'm not familiar with it link me to your most credible source that explains it.
@NapalmXD - I'm confused about there being many forms of atheism. Unless your are referring to what is now called "strong" and "weak" atheism, I know of no variations (and I would dispute the strong/weak dichotomy). Perhaps what you meant was there are many forms of atheists rather than atheism. It's hard to have different forms of something you lack.
@mojohound Of course you can describe things by what their aren't. Not only that, but every one does it all the time. "My computer isn't fast", "My eyes aren't 20/20" Some one that doesn't play any kind of sport is some one that doesn't play sports. There isn't a word (maybe there is, vocabulary isn't my strong suit) for it but the concept of there being a person that doesn't play sports exists, and if the concept exists the only thing needed to make it a word is the need for the concept to be
@mojohound communicated. Granted, atheists have a lot less of an organization than other religions, but I could fairly easily come up with groupings of my own standard. For example some types of atheists may be:
Those that used to be religious.
Those born into atheist house holds and didn't learn about religion until they were much older.
@NapalmXD - Two things: #1 - "atheists have a lot less of an organization than other religions". Even though we disagree over the "different forms of atheism" just what motivation do you have to label atheism a religion? Vocabulary may not be your strong suit, but surely you know atheism is not a religion. #2 - You seem to be conflating atheism with atheists. As you correctly put it, there are words to describe useful concepts, and the concept of lacking a belief in the
(cont'd) supernatural, specifically theism, is atheism. All atheists share atheism, but what they are like as atheists is quite different. To use your sports analogy, all armchair quarterbacks have different strategies they would use, but they are all practicing armchair quarterbacking. The term "armchair quarterback" (and atheism) describes one aspect common to all of them, but the way they do it varies.
I can arbitrarily put any one in any group that they have characteristics of that group if they follow a set of requirements needed to be in that group.
We tend to shy away from this kind of thinking because of negative feelings left behind from it in the past. For example I can find all the people with a skin color dark enough for my arbitrary line in the sand and then call those people "black", we have negative feelings about doing this because if you group one
@NapalmXD - I don't think we shy away from it because of the potential for injustice but because it takes meaningful communication and turns it into nonsense. If you wish to claim that any aspect shared by a group of people that you can identify and label is arbitrary then I disagree. Like characteristics are similar and useful for communication, and definitely not "arbitrary".
@mojohound person (person A) with another (person B) because of one characteristic, than if person A has another characteristic we might assume person B has it too because they were in the first group together. But this doesn't mean they don't share the first characteristic.
Sure you can say that no two skin colors are the same therefore putting person A and B in the same group is wrong, but if you do that you must pretty much say that any grouping of any kind is always wrong because nothing
@mojohound is the exact same as any thing else, or it would be that thing. (aka: having the same position, with the same physical make up, in the exact same point in time). Even though this is the most "true" answer, its not very practice. If you get rid of any grouping of any types of people how can you solve basic problems in society? There are these people we call "poor" people, none of them are exactly as poor (btw calling some one poor seems like another one of those categorizing a person
@mojohound by what they are not, a person isn't poor that are 'not-rich', same with cold, cold doesn't exist, its a lack of heat, but we have a name for what it isn't, it isn't hot. Anyway) as another person we call "poor" so then if we get rid of this grouping, there are no "poor" people, only this one person that doesn't have enough money, and this other person that also doesn't have enough money, but we can't group them because they aren't equally as poor. See how this is horribly
@mojohound inefficient? So just by finding a group of people that fit my arbitrary standard for belonging in a group I can make a group. And yes, finding people that all lack the standard can make a new standard if that new standard is a lack in having the first standard (aka this thing isn't hot, neither is that thing, now I group them as both being cold.)
When it comes to language you can't tell me I'm wrong, just me saying I'm right makes it a thing. The only thing we can talk about is
@mojohound whether of not its more practice/beneficial to communicate/think in a certain way.
And oh, sorry, in my last post I said my thinking it makes me right. After a second of thinking about it I decided it was better (^^ this is an example of what I just said) to think about it not as me being right but as neither of us every being able to be right. There is no right, all there is is what we think seems right to us.
Like he said in his video, in his video "many atheists my self
@mojohound included, go along with it." We go along with it because its fastest for communication, because its easiest. That's what the goal of words should be. Fast, easy, precise. The best way to communicate accurate information fast.
Calling our selves atheists is beneficial (describing our self's by what we aren't I mean) until we lose accuracy with what we believe.
I don't like calling my self an atheist, not because it describes me by what I'm not, but because I've put a LOT of hard
Kim Jong Il was not an atheist. He believed HE was god
supportgoodrap1003 1 week ago
I wouldn't say that Kim-Jong un was unheard of. Anyone played Homefront?
AllCanadiaReject 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
tigersforchrist 2 weeks ago
Imagine a world were almost everyone collected stamps! And all of these collectors believed that the post office created the universe. In that case i can assure you that there would be a word for those that do not collect stamps. The idea that we should detach ourselves from the "label" of atheist is quite simply cowardly and dishonest. I am proud to call myself an atheist for if not saying what my principles in life are it at least stats the lack of a flaw, namely religion.
Tzu1988 1 month ago
First, aren't all theists rearey just versions of Kim Jong-il without the army to back them? Second, no matter what word we use to define who we are it will be demonized and twisted by the godfucks to meet their needs.
EatMAndSml 1 month ago
course he was not an atheist. He deified himself. He believed in himself as god, that was not an atheist. In North Korea there, even after his death, a religion of his personality cult.
aliv031 1 month ago
watch?v=BWxrVjBxb1c
Survival of the fittest = racism / sexism / etc = tyranny
Now not all athiests identify with Darwin, but I would say many if not most do.
utahpirateradio 1 month ago
@utahpirateradio
LOL! Have you READ "Origins"? Survival of the fittest refers to GROUPS, not individuals. Darwin never used this phrase, but "fit" doesn't refer to the strongest male beating up rival members and taking whatever he wants, for this would lead to chaos and the community would go extinct = NOT fit. Fit groups contain members w/in a community that cooperate, care for one another, and look out for the best interests of everyone, so that EVERYONE can be a healthy, contributing member.
DiscoveringReligion 1 month ago
@DiscoveringReligion Yes groups is what I mean. Darwin himself referred to races in this theory, and how the fitter races have "beat out the Turkish hallow" and such. The sexism of Darwin's writings are even more disturbing. Yes groups is exactly what I was referring to.
utahpirateradio 1 month ago
@utahpirateradio
I've no idea what you're talking about. What book/page number does Darwin promote sexism? By the way, the misapplication of science by other people in order to promote racism does not discredit the validity of his theory. In fact, even if Darwin was racist, which he wasn't, it would have absolutely no barring on the validity of his theory either. Racism and murder are moral issue, not scientific ones. You cannot achieve a code of conduct through science alone, you need reason.
DiscoveringReligion 1 month ago
@DiscoveringReligion You should probably pay closer attention to the study and application of Eugenics.
The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world. - Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, p. 318.
buttedheads 1 month ago
@buttedheads
Natural Selection is a mindless mechanism that does not favor one skin color over another. There is only one race, the human race. When Darwin spoke of "race" in this letter he was referring to different cultures. The Turkish "race"/culture tired to take over Europe but failed due to their limited technology, a.k.a. they were "less civilized". The same thing happened to the Native Americans that were killed off by white colonial Christians.
DiscoveringReligion 1 month ago
@DiscoveringReligion
2. Natural Selection isn't the enemy. Rather, it's the ideological beliefs, often of theistic colonists, that would use their technological advantage to destroy other "races"/cultures. Christians went around the world colonizing & killing many peoples throughout the Americas. All Darwin did was make the prediction this trend would continue, unless colonization came to an end. Again, the mis-application of science to advocate racism is the fault of the advocate, not science.
DiscoveringReligion 1 month ago
@DiscoveringReligion Hey Im just pointing out dogma, as well as the negative side of eugenics. You can try to interpret what Darwin meant, however the racial applications and implications are unfavorable to many, and have been used by tyrannous dictators many of times in history. Stalin's League of Belligerent Atheists is just one example of many State atheism as well as the teachings of eugenics is Atheist dogma and the execution of this dogma has served many their death
buttedheads 1 month ago
@DiscoveringReligion Read about when Darwin's son wanted to marry "Martineau"... You can also read many of his writings on "Female brain capacity believed inferior"...
Lots of this is obvious in his writings,.
buttedheads 1 month ago
@buttedheads
We cannot excuse Darwin's misunderstanding of certain scientific facts, but that doesn't mean evolution is not a real principle within nature. In the same regard, Isaac Newton was an avid alchemist, but that doesn't mean gravity is not a real force. Darwin wasn't perfect and he did make some mistakes. But even if Darwin was something ludicrous, like a genocidal maniac, it still would have no barring on the validity of evolution as a scientific principle. So what's your point?
DiscoveringReligion 1 month ago
@DiscoveringReligion
Again, how people mis-applied science is not the fault of science but the people who mis-applied it. In the 19th Century many Christian slave-owners interpreted the Bible to justify having slaves, but does that make the Bible inherently evil? Modern-day Christians would disagree with such a statement. By the way, atheism is not a doctrine and it is not synonymous with communism. I am a secular humanist. Judge me for my believes, not my non-beliefs.
DiscoveringReligion 1 month ago
To be honest, 'atheist' is one of the few labels I feel comfortable giving myself. Its beauty is its simplicity - if you understand it, then it's impossible to get caught up in the 'tribalism' that tends to follow labels around.
Also, the word 'atheism' is a direct response to theism - as long as theism exists (and is powerful), atheism is always going to be useful as a way to differentiate yourself from theism. That may be its only use, but it's still a valuable one.
Afterthoughtbtw 1 month ago
4m13s Your point is that the negation of any activity (in the real physical world) is simply - ANYTHING else. That is correct, when the entire "domain of discourse" is all conceivable activities. Being a "non-stamp collector" implies a person could be a rapist, a spy, or a kite-flier. I DO believe that the domain of discourse of "atheist" IS limited to belief of god or belief that no gods exist, so I don't quite see how the term is "meaningless".
nahaymath 1 month ago
This is probably a stupid question and way off subject for this video, but how could Kim Jong Il think he was a reincarnation of his father if his father died when KJI was fifty-three years old?
The0Keter 1 month ago
@The0Keter
Yeah, I found that a little odd as well. Not sure exactly what is the reasoning behind such a claim, but that's the story according the cult of personality that surrounds KJI. It's probably just an attempt to keep power within the family and to make is seem their right to rule goes much deeper than blood.
DiscoveringReligion 1 month ago
"I find the term "atheist" to be non-informative, non-descriptive, and in a major source of confusion for many people."
Indeed! I find that defenses of the use of the word "atheist" as a meaningful label usually ignore this; we're trying to communicate, and if your label doesn't inform, or describe, and confuses (not to mention allows for all kinds of dishonest smears and bullshit), than it's a BAD label.
I'm subscribed to many skeptical freethinkers..
..who happen to be atheists.
Flyborg 1 month ago
So i watched more of your video and you addressed that, asserting that communists are historically atheists. There are two problems: Kim Jong Il is not a legitimate communist (a communism is an economic state devoid of private property, not a nation-state ruled by a "communist party" as it is commonly believed), and there have been many religious communists (Jesus, Tolstoy, most of the disciples).
DeflocculatedDentist 1 month ago
@DeflocculatedDentist
Little is known about the mind of KJI. But it's a fact North Korea was founded upon the ideology of communism. How closely NK adhered to the philosophies of "pure communism" is up for debate, but I was not discussing NK's political system. Communists historically reject religion and even outright ban it. See Russia. But it could even be argued Kim saw himself as a demi-god. Whatever the case, this video addresses the tendency of believers to lump all atheist into one group.
DiscoveringReligion 1 month ago
@DiscoveringReligion I'm just letting you know that a person well read on communism, your definition is wrong. Communism means a society without private property. As to say, ancient minoans, persians, the !Kung, the iroquois. Communism has an actual definition independent of the political ideologies of marxist-leninist communist parties that advocated for the policies of the USSR. Just a little anthropology lesson
DeflocculatedDentist 1 month ago
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but Kim Jong Il was not an atheist. Consider: he believes his father is an immortal god and has elected him eternal president of Korea...
DeflocculatedDentist 1 month ago
@TheTempleofNature I was actually using the term "God" to denote anything that is regarded as "absolute". Every view of reality has an "Absolute" - something which determines what reality is like. So matter would be "The Absolute" for a philosophical materialist (or nature for a naturalist). Some people may regard the evolutionary process as "Absolute", and even say nice things about it (i.e. "worship" it), like Prof. Dawkins, hence his book "The Greatest Show on Earth"!
The1066Al 1 month ago
@TheTempleofNature Certainly, if in the name of capital-A "Atheism", where people subscribe to a common book of knowledge and systematically entertain the same philosophy, values and lifestyle of a cult called "Atheism". Otherwise, no.
Mendokusai99 1 month ago
Concerning the beliefs of Kim Jong-Il, can I take it that if I do not believe in a supernatural being commonly known as "God" (i.e. the eternal creator and first cause of the universe) and decide to worship myself as "God", then that makes me a "theist"?!!! What a fatuous idea. If the term "God" can be generalised to this extent (to mean anything absolute or ultimate), then anyone who regards "nature" as "The Absolute" is therefore a theist! Therefore no one can possibly be an atheist.
The1066Al 1 month ago
*sigh* If the atrocities committed by professing "atheists" (people who - apparently - simply fail to believe in God) do not reflect badly on atheism, then IT FOLLOWS LOGICALLY that the same rule should apply to those who happen to profess belief in God. Such logical and moral consistency is really not a lot to ask, is it? If atheists can disown Stalin, then I, as a Christian, can happily disown the Inquisition. That's only fair, isn't it? (Or perhaps you have an Orwellian view of "fair"?)
The1066Al 1 month ago
@The1066Al Under what atheist banner, symbol or text has any genocide ever been perpetrated? Now, same question replacing "atheist" with your religion of choice. Your argument fails on two points : atheism is not dogmatic like religion, and genocidal dictators did not do what they did in the name of atheism -- as noted in the video.
Mendokusai99 1 month ago in playlist More videos from DiscoveringReligion
@Mendokusai99 "Atheism is not dogmatic like religion". Religion is not the same as theism. I believe in God and am not religious (in the sense I think you are using the word), in that I do not subscribe to a dogmatic system that I cannot defend with logic and evidence. In fact, it could be argued that "religion" is contrary to theism, in that the system itself becomes a "god" that replaces "God". So don't attack a straw man.
The1066Al 1 month ago
@The1066Al I applaud you for your non-religious . Now go convince the other 2 billion dogmatic, religious Christians worldwide. The only straw man I attacked was the one you created about Stalin.
Mendokusai99 1 month ago
@Mendokusai99 "I applaud you for your non-religious beliefs", that should read.
Mendokusai99 1 month ago
@Mendokusai99 Like I said, if you want to disown Stalin (or someone like, for example, Enver Hoxha), then I can disown the Inquisition and other bloodthirsty "Christians". You cannot have it both ways. You cannot apply one rule to atheism and another rule to any other view of reality. This attempt to undermine Christianity by appealing to the evils of so called professing "Christians" while refusing to acknowledge the evils of professing atheists just looks dishonest.
The1066Al 1 month ago
@The1066Al I read what you wrote, and it's still wrong to claim that what Stalin did was in the name of atheism. You can keep making the claim, and it will still be untrue, and your logic based on the claim will still be spurious. Instead of playing this silly back-and-forth with you, I invite you to re-watch the video. It's explained quite well.
Mendokusai99 1 month ago
@The1066Al
Atheism is not a doctrine. Just because I happen to not believe the same thing Stain did not believe, that does not mean we share the same beliefs. Stalin BELIEVED in communism, I don't. Therefore, you cannot lump me in with his camp. Christians, on the other hand, ALL share the same beliefs. You believe in the exact same book that promotes slavery, witch hunts, infanticide, and genocide against non-believers. You're accountable because it's in your book. That's the difference.
DiscoveringReligion 1 month ago 2
@DiscoveringReligion Firstly, this book that I am supposed to believe in does not "promote" (note the word!) all the evils you list - in fact, quite the opposite! Secondly, you say I am "accountable". Accountable to whom? Please clarify this point. Thirdly, Christians hold a variety of political views, and they may commit evil acts under the banner of their politics - just like you claim Stalin did. Therefore"belief in God" is not the problem. Get your logic sorted out.
The1066Al 1 month ago
@The1066Al
I'm not talking about "political" groups of Christians. I'm talking about the Bible ITSELF, which promotes slavery among many other crimes against humanity. Christians claim their Book contains truth, justice, and the path to divine salvation, but they try to hide the fact the Bible ALSO contains many evils. All Christians believe in the Bible and all Christians promote this book; therefore, all Christians are accountable for not only the lovey-dovey parts, but the atrocities as well.
DiscoveringReligion 1 month ago
@The1066Al
Who are you accountable to? Well, for starters, how about yourself? How can you morally justify promoting a book that allows such a disgusting practice as slavery? If you are championing the beliefs contained in the Bible, then by default you're championing the atrocities the Bible contains as well. So how about being accountable for that? Take some responsibility for your Book. Or is that too much to ask?
DiscoveringReligion 1 month ago
@DiscoveringReligion Alright, then let me suppose that you are right. What are you asking me to do? Let me take responsibility for "my book", acknowledge that it "promotes" evil, listen to you, and follow your advice. So what is your advice then? And let's see what the great alternative is, and how that guarantees "morality". Of course, being a true "freethinker", I will need to assess your advice, to see whether it is actually coherent. So do let me know...
The1066Al 1 month ago
@The1066Al
Christians claim to possess secrete knowledge about the creation of the Universe and that divine morality is superior to that of secular morality. If you accept the Bible promotes evil then the concepts you derived from the Bible are irrevocably shattered. What you do with the wreckage is up to you. I'm not in a position to tell anyone how to live -- that's up to each individual to figure out for themselves. I've written extensively on morality. I'll be happy to give you some notes.
DiscoveringReligion 1 month ago
@DiscoveringReligion That's true. And even Marxists who believe in Marx's "Das Capital" should not be lumped together with Stalin or Kim Jong Il and Un, who were/are extreme nationalists. "Das Capital" speaks only about fighting to prevent inequities of wealth created by capitalists stealing all power and control of resources from workers, not about banning pornographic video or Western art and music. In fact, Marx wrote from a completely Eurocentric perspective.
nahaymath 1 month ago
I would call myself anti-dogmatist, because all these mass murderers were dogmatists, just like the religious fundamentalists (as a matter of fact, there is no religion without dogma).
I am of course not implying, that religion automatically leads to mass murder, but every religious person should be aware, that faith and dogma are closely related, if not identical.
weberbeat 2 months ago in playlist Best of YouTube Atheism (No.2)
N. Korea is a country which hardly allows the penetration of any information from AND TO the outside world.
So I always wonder: how do people come up with their claims about what is life there like, and what does some of the Kims consider himself to be...
"He thought of himself as of a demigod" Really?? And how do you know that??
grozde 2 months ago
@grozde We know from the information that did get through.
truvelocity 2 months ago
@truvelocity
So in other words: We DON'T really.
How do we verify it? How do we know it's true? Ho do we make a broad picture from extremely fragmented info?
And how the hell could one know if the late Kim considered himself a demigod??
grozde 2 months ago
@grozde
There are many N. Koreans that have defected to other countries -- they're the ones that tell of what's going on. That's how we know about the Kippumjo (Pleasure Squad). Wiki "North Korean defectors" for more. It's obvious Kim thought of himself as a superhuman, demi-god -- just look at his official titles for example. Plus all the signs and symbols that surround Kim's birth story. Kim's cult of personality is highly seeped in a status elevated above that of mere human beings.
DiscoveringReligion 2 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion
There are many people fleeing from there. And some of them are being turned back.
Wouldn't you think that it's possible that many of them "get the message" and are ready to say whatever they think would save them?
And imagine some "reptilians rule the world' people going to another country/planet and telling "their story'...
After the fall of the Chaushesco, there were SO MANY - and so absurd - eyewitness stories that were selling like hot bread and turned not to be true...
grozde 2 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion
We simply couldn't know what Kim thought of himself - because the cult is a fact, but the rest is us SUGGESTING what certain strange phenomenon mean in a culture that is quite strange and unknown to us, and by reading symbols the way WE understand them.
And don't forget that a Confucian culture would use religious ideas and expressions in a strictly non-theistic way...
I guess my point is that we are SUGGESTING too much from the too little that we know.
grozde 2 months ago
@grozde
I'm not in a position to speculate about what went on in Kim's mind. All I can speak to is what little information has been released by the government. From wiki: "Official biographers claim that his birth at Baekdu Mountain was foretold by a swallow, and heralded by the appearance of a double rainbow across the sky over the mountain and a new star in the heavens." Kim was also known as the "Savior" among many other titles. See: wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/List_of_Kim_Jong-il's_titles
DiscoveringReligion 2 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion when it comes down to it we have no way of knowing whether he was completly nuts (ie he really belived all that stuff) or was he privatly laughing behind everyones back in a "i cant belive i got them to buy that shit" kind of way.
alienraven 2 months ago
@grozde Actually, if your willing to educate yourself on the subject. There is an excellent documentary where a famous eye doctor sneaked in a documentary crew posing as his medical coordinator/staff called :Inside North Korea. Also, if you type in "List of documentary films about North Korea" in Google's search bar you will provide a Wiki link with everything you need.
Strictlypointless 2 months ago
@Strictlypointless
I'm aware of that. but these are still fragmented and often not reliable sources.
FACT: S. Korean INTELLIGENCE Service heard about the DEATH of the late Kim by the media!!!
Do we need to say more?
grozde 2 months ago
@grozde In short, every person that has ever escaped/defected from N-Korea is a fraud & a liar, is that the position you are taking ? As for that video I mentioned, it is filmed in S-Korea in secret. What shocked me the most wasn't the poverty, the robotic responses, the fear or the ridiculousness of their propaganda but that the people are so ill informed that they still believe they are at war with America. They don't even know the war ever ended. You telling me that is a lie too?
Strictlypointless 2 months ago
@Strictlypointless
I never said that. I said they might not be objective and they ARE fragmented.
And the ill-informed one is you: as for 2011, there was still no peace treaty signed between the USA and N. Korea, so both countries ARE STILL in a state of war!!
So YES, it IS a lie!!
grozde 2 months ago
non-issue .. it's more preferable to bat the claims of atrocities "in the name of atheism" back, than fleeing from a word that perfectly describes ones stance on a philosophical question.
first order of business is correcting dictionarys.. most of them list atheism as denying god. or some shit like that... and christians triumphantly point to the "dictionary definition" and seek to define FOR US what we actually believe. that pisses me off more than the stalin thing..
Djsouthpaw1987 2 months ago
@Djsouthpaw1987 I think atheists should adopt the term quasi-unbullshitable.
stratocaster539 2 months ago
same shit different saddam .., This is exactly what Saddam done
Intens1tyify 2 months ago
For atheists to re-label themselves would be similar to LGBT dropping gay marriage and just joining themselves legally through power of attorney in their own privacy.
I think people should be educated on what atheism means so we can reach greater tolerance. But this will be hard when each religion, even denominations within religions, view their beliefs as superior to all others and the ultimate truth.
JamesonLemonade 2 months ago
@JamesonLemonade "joining themselves legally through power of attorney" - Now, that's a great idea for heterosexual marriage. Just create a celebration after you join from power of attorney. That way, the religious can't hijack the union as their idea.
truvelocity 2 months ago
Of course they were crying real tears,tears of joy.
TheTomtuffy 2 months ago
@TheNubbler AronRa says it best:
Theism=belief in a god
Atheism=without theism
Gnostic=knowledge of God
Agnostic=without knowledge of God.
You will usually find Gnostic theists (I KNOW God is real) and agnostic atheists (I see no reason to believe in a god) but you can also have Gnostic atheists (I know there are no gods) and agnostic theists (we can never know for sure, but I still believe). It's not a choice between agnostic and atheist. It's comparing east and west with north and south.
luckybeaver27 2 months ago
I prefer the term non-theist. Using the word "atheist" to label those who don't believe in god can be confusing. The reason being, what would you call one who believes there is no god?
theism - non-theism (agnosticism, atheism)
vs
theism - atheism (agnosticism, atheism)
TheNubbbler 2 months ago
I thought you explained what atheism was really well. I think the bit on Kim Jong Il in the second half of the video should have been a video on its own. It felt like you were trying to put two subjects in one video.
pwalterhouse 2 months ago
All of us calling ourselves atheist is the ONLY way we could ever get a real read on just how many of us there are. And a great many of us still feel that we can never really come out of the closet and state that we are atheist because of the reasons you just mentioned and fear of family rejection or the loss of a job.
accent77 2 months ago
I am not an atheist, it's just that i'm not gullible.
nononsenseinrational 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I disagree with what you state because when it all comes down to it, what you are talking about is atheism. There are Christian secular humanists aplenty, being a Christian doesn't stop you from wanting a secular society.
"Describing yourself as something you are not", is not a bad idea either.
"I'm a non-racist": that term describes me, as it takes one particular point and states my opinion on it, in this case that I'm not one of that group.
Draugh39 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I disagree with what you state because when it all comes down to it the what you are talking about us atheism. There are Christian secular humanists aplenty, being a Christian doesn't stop you from wanting a secular society.
"Describing yourself as something you are not", is not a bad idea either.
"I'm a non-racist": that term describes me as it takes one particular point and states your opinion on it, in this case that you are not one of that group.
Draugh39 2 months ago
I disagree with what you state because when it all comes down to it the what you are talking about us atheism. There are Christian secular humanists aplenty, being a Christian doesn't stop you from wanting a secular society.
"Describing yourself as something you are not", is not a bad idea either.
"I'm a non-racist": that term describes me as it takes one particular point and states your opinion on it, in this case that you are not one of that group.
Draugh39 2 months ago
As a Finn, living in Finland, what we call ourselves is a non-issue.
From the accent I gather you are from USA, and I sadly know it's a whole another story over there... I'd call myself a humanist over that side of the pond, the secularist part is a non-issue here so probably wouldn't mention that.
You know, it's difficult to even think about what I should be labeled, because religionwise it doesn't matter here. Thanks for giving me thought for food, though!
pundewhee 2 months ago
@pundewhee FiNiSH!
PeeGeeBeeDee 2 months ago
Yes, defining yourself as a atheist basically says nothing about you. I'm a Marxist Socialist and that's a way more informative definition. But you have to agree, that if you're going to continue Hitchens' mission and confront religion, you'll have to call yourself an atheist in some point. And you know as well as I do, that theists will continue to bash non-believers, no matter how they call themselves.
JanDivone 2 months ago
Just a little correction: the fascists and the Nazis were totally religious. "God is with us" - the Nazi slogan, the Wehrmacht soldiers had it on their belts. It's just another lie cultivated by theists.
JanDivone 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Ancestors Of Chinese, Koreans And Japanese Evolved Their Morphological Traits (Especially Those Having To Do With Facial Structure And Features) Towards The End Of The Last Glacial Period Around 8-12 Thousand Years Ago (After All, They Were Necessary For Survival In The Cold Climate Of Siberia And Other Pockets Of Asia). Variations Of These Physical Adaptations Then Spread Into South And Southeast Asia Only After Proliferating Throughout West, Central And East Asia.
PeeGeeBeeDee 2 months ago
A Cold Climate In Northern Asia Created The Selection Pressure For Flat Faces, Epicanthic Folds (Extra Layer Of Fat In The Eyelids), Long Noses, Small Nostrils, Yellow Skin (Extra Layer Of Subcutaneous Fat), Fewer Sweat Glands (Less Sweating), More Slow-Twich Muscle Fibers (Regulate Body Temperature; Maintain Heat), Etc. All Traits Necessary For Survival In The Environments In Which Ancestral Asian Populations Evolved.
PeeGeeBeeDee 2 months ago
Whites And Blacks, Go Out Late At Nite, Walk Around And Let The Cold Air Hit Your Face. After A While You'll Soon Realize Why Asians Developed Such Unique Facial Features And Structures.
I Don't Think He's Asian Tho
PeeGeeBeeDee 2 months ago
I'm an extreme righto-leftist.
But the label "atheist" holds a lot of weight and generally is viewed as a person who does not believe in gods (although many equate atheist with those who worship Satan). In a world of powerful religions, atheists defy them to their core beliefs, no matter how objectively asinine and irrational they may be. And the label atheist certainly carries more weight than the group of people who do not collect stamps.
sejembalm 2 months ago
@sejembalm It's probably more accurate to say that historically, the term atheist carries more weight than non-stamp-collector. But in terms of actual definition, the content in the term atheist is very close to non-stamp-collector.
AR333 2 months ago
Kim Jong-il, mad cult of personality, the people are taught that 'all birds flew into the sky at the moment of birth' of family members, the leader does not defecate, this is like religion, Augustus & Caesar, sons of God, Jesus Christ, a son of God, Japans Emperor - 'son of heaven', his ancestor Jimmu, 'a son of God' ..read up, it's not lost in translation, JC was just a sensitive new age guy, a nice, non violent, effeminate, closeted, latent, faith healer, mullah Palestinian dude.
nzobriens 2 months ago
@nzobriens Closeted?
As Religion Evolved And Societies Developed, Governments Usurped And Co-Opted The Power And Influence Of Religion And Religious Hierarchies For Their Own Personal And Political Gain. In Effect, Government And Religion Became Intertwined To Produce The Autocracies And Theocracies That You See Littered Throughout Human History. From This Was Born The Concept Of The Divine Right Of Kings And The Belief That Monarchs Were Direct Descendants Of GOD(S), Hence The Godly Names.
PeeGeeBeeDee 2 months ago
To Put It Another Way, As Agriculture Developed And Societies Began To Form (Around 10,000 Years Ago), The Purpose Of Religion (To Maintain Cohesiveness, Order, And Individual Submission To Authority) Was Adopted And Incorporated By Government To Rule Over The People Unquestioningly And Unchallenged. (By The Way, This Didn't Happen Immediately Or Spontaneously With The Advent Of Civilization. It Unconsciously Evolved Over Many Generations.)
PeeGeeBeeDee 2 months ago
@PeeGeeBeeDee Sorry, a question mark should have been included. Regardless, a historical-mythic character who, after a 'makeover', became a god-man. The desire of cultural elites to control the masses is evident in the collection of letters and myths called the bible..
nzobriens 2 months ago
@nzobriens Yea, Well, He's Not Alone. Throughout History A Variety Of Dictators Like He From A Variety Of Cultures Have Thought Of Themselves As GOD-Like Descendants Of GOD And Extensions Of GOD On Earth (Doing What GOD Wants Them To Do; Doing GOD's Work). Which Makes Sense In Light Of The Fact That Early Government Appropriated The Power And Influence Of Religion To Establish It's Authority Among The People (Government Embodied Religion And The Two Have Been Enmeshed Ever Since).
PeeGeeBeeDee 2 months ago
The one term i can think of that "atheists of this current movement" can agree to is "evidentialists".
kujo78 2 months ago
I'll be honest. At 10:30 in the video, I was like "What do Muslims praying have to do with this video?" Then, I realized that they were North Koreans. I'm pretty sure that these people are the real deal, and they have been brainwashed. The similarities to religion are so blatant. North Korea is one of the most religious countries in the world, only the religion is based on the Kim family.
Rationalific 2 months ago
WAIT A MINUTE! somebody please tell me this, even if theres no slavery in christian countries, still doesn change the fact that it is allowed! and that really sucks!
x0x0x0x0x0ful 2 months ago
We should be called independent(indie) thinkers
awesomeguyrocks1 2 months ago
very eloquent video!
raymanscape 2 months ago
I think that it is a non-issue, but that 'we' should continually remind the religious people we talk to that they are in fact *also* atheists with respect to any gods from other religions that they don't believe in". We are just one step further -- no gods. Keep it accurate and simple.
extropian314 2 months ago
really great vid .. i hate it when people say that atheism is the reason why starlin / hitler caused so much terror !!!
dkinetik 2 months ago
heh... atheist has to get the same value as theist (and if you want to include deist). Saying nothing more then your standpoint on whether or not (a) god(s) exists.
Tbf, I do see myself as an atheist, because I am. I lack the believe in a god. But as you say, it says little else about me. But I do not think we should stop using it.It needs to get that same status once again, without the association with baby-eating and devil-worshipping (how the fuck did they come to that anyway?)
Shangori 2 months ago
I think we should do like Richard Dawkins said and use the term "Atheist" as much as we can until it is no longer viewed as controversial. To where saying "I'm an Atheist" is no different then saying "I'm Norwegian". Saying what your ethnicity or nationality is says nothing about you as a person, but it is a useful bit of information. I am an atheist because I don't believe in any gods, and I am fine using the term to help illustrate my thoughts and opinions.
BakaSeinen 2 months ago 3
Comment removed
Mozzarab 2 months ago
Kim Jong il was, in every sense of the word, a true Cult of Personality.
CaptainCrules4life 2 months ago
isn't Hitler Catholic?
dieudiabo 2 months ago
@dieudiabo Yes he was, but Christians vehemently deny it.
CaptainCrules4life 2 months ago 2
What is the name of the video capture software that you use?
FreddysHouse1 2 months ago
This is a GREAT video. Very informative and honest. You have another subscriber.
yashaouchan 2 months ago
I think we need to keep the term atheist. It's blunt and clear, and we need it to unite us as a minority. We can't be splitting hairs and confusing people with other terms.
MrStillmans 2 months ago
I don't even rate him as an atheist to be fair If he believed he was a demi-god.
Hellsconsort 2 months ago
Heeeeeeeeeeemanism I got the Liight Poooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
almanzaf13 2 months ago
good video
UjioSatashi 2 months ago
I don't think people who reject theism and organized religion can really unite under a single label. It's the theists game and we should all decline to play. I instead advocate the dismantling of flawed arguments and perspectives coupled with a genuine willingness to explain ones own perspectives and reasons for holding them. This practice seems to undermine the ability of theists around me to maintain their illusions about me and others who don't accept their beliefs.
t3tsuyaguy1 2 months ago
CORRECT ME ,IF IAM WRONG , but is it not summer time in the southern hemisphere ,for at 10.40 ,is that condensation ,coming from the mouths ,and look at the coats they are wearing ?
kevrs2 2 months ago
@kevrs2
North Korea is next to China, which is well above the equator. Therefore, it would be very cold this time of year.
DiscoveringReligion 2 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion oh ok fair enough :)
kevrs2 2 months ago
@kevrs2 You're correct about the opposite seasons in northern and southern hemispheres.
But Korea is in the northern hemisphere, not the southern.
logsdonj 2 months ago in playlist Supplemental Videos
NON-STAMP COLLECTOR!!! I *finally* just understood what his username meant lol Thanks DiscoveringReligion! XD
horrorvictim 2 months ago
I don't like the term Atheist either but there does need to be a united front to dismantle or curtail religious indoctrination. Many religious people utterly despise atheists. This 'despise' needs to be dissolved away so that reason and prosperity can flourish in the world.
MarkLucasTube 2 months ago
I could easily identify with a different label for my non-belief, however, when I use the term atheist I can see how uncomfortable it makes my Christian friends. The word Atheist is more unsettling to their fantasies (and can lead some to question) than any other word. Some are so disturbed they do research themselves, thus becoming more susceptible to reason by means of ignorance obliterating youtube vids.. or whatever they do to find out more on the subject.
spli10wiggz1 2 months ago
I have had many a discussion regarding the word Atheist with the religious groups. It usually starts with 'You are an atheist, thats what you believe'. It shortly finishes with a suggestion that they check the dictionary and an explanation of the word atheist.
Haizum74 2 months ago
Are you sure that he thought he was a god? I thought for sure that everyone in North Korea knew it was a bunch of BS but had to put up with it anyway.
AllOtherNamesTaken2 2 months ago
no this is definitely a good point. Atheist is almost a dirty word, if we are using the label that our enemies give us. I have a problem with all labels as well...I would say I dont know what I am. I am many things.
isisdron 2 months ago
N. Koreans are quite religious to me, they are bound to worship through several 'rituals' the divine family: saturn, jupiter (kim jong il) and now young apollo..
17secret 2 months ago
A word about the attitude of N. Koreans toward KJI: A prof I knew obtained the rare opportunity of visiting N. Korea. While there, he attended a public event celebrating KJI's b-day, at which the "Dear Leader" himself made an appearance. The prof said that when KJI appeared on stage, with hundreds of thousands awaiting him, he heard what he at first thought were crickets. But he was hearing the sniffles of N. Koreans weeping. He thinks they were acknowledging the blessing of KJI's presence.
PA1RofRaggedClause 2 months ago in playlist Supplemental Videos
@PA1RofRaggedClause
The psychology of what is going on over there is extremely interesting -- it's like a nation-wide cult. Thanks a lot for sharing your story and for providing greater insight in to that fascinating country.
DiscoveringReligion 2 months ago
Personally I think it's necessary to embrace the word "atheism", precisely to show clear opposition to all forms of faith based nonsense in public. There's no need to shy away from other labels while doing that though. One just have to do the short version of the speech you held in this video, that all atheists derive their beliefs and actions from their positive beliefs, just like theists do. Not from rejecting claims that faeries or gods exist as unsupported.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
Kim Jong was an atheist.
BigBangNeverHappend 2 months ago
8 religious people watched this video.
puckman 2 months ago
Your Kim Jong Ill poster frame proves why you are a troll. Just a form of combination argument ad hominem/guilt by association, the sorts of things that educated people don't take seriously.
If you look across more than one century, killings by religious people greatly outnumber those by atheist communists (who are really just following a secular religion that plagiarized many of its ideas from Christianity)
nurbSoldier 2 months ago in playlist Supplemental Videos
@nurbSoldier Oh please do tell me what the tennants and dogma of this atheist religion is, i love being told what i believe by morons who don't understand such a simple concept as atheism
iseezapie 2 months ago
@iseezapie atheism is not a religion in the same way that clear is not a color. it simply means you don't believe in any godlike entity. which is simply the default state for people. you see, people have to be brainwashed repeatedly as children to believe in god. just like some people have to be brainwashed to believe in some laughably insane ideology like communism.
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nurbSoldier I was responding to your comment that read "If you look across more than one century, killings by religious people greatly outnumber those by atheist communists (who are really just following a secular religion that plagiarized many of its ideas from Christianity)". Why are you now saying that atheism isn't a religion?
iseezapie 2 months ago
I take your point about defining things by what they aren't, but this is still a useful category. The only thing that can be said about atheists is that they lack theism, and that is all the word describes. You use "bald as a hair colour" for an example, but that seems misapplied. Bald as a condition of hairlessness would certainly be on point, though, so although describing hair colour as bald is inappropriate, describing hair condition as bald would not be.
mojohound 2 months ago in playlist Supplemental Videos
@mojohound
Yes, I believe you are correct about that misapplied analogy. Perhaps I should have said, "Bald is not a hair style."
DiscoveringReligion 2 months ago
The only known places on earth at the moment where slavery exists are either atheistic communist countries, or Muslim countries. It is just a fact, but I will not bother trying to back it up. I do believe that it is very easy to find that out for yourself.” I'm surprised and dismayed that you would let someone make a statement like that and not challenge it. It IS easy to find out that this statement is pure BS, and a quick search shows it to be so. Tu quoque fallacy.
mojohound 2 months ago in playlist Supplemental Videos
The 27 year old son leader can fire the nuclear war and end the whole world... oh dear :o
MrBoomSonic 2 months ago
Nice video, but socrates didn't start anything. I recommend you read something about the post-socratics like who very often more advanced than Socrates.
grebrim 2 months ago
@grebrim
Pre- or Post-Socratics? Post-Socratics would have come after Socrates. I have read up on Greek philosophers before the time of Socrates, but no one did it quite like him. Socrates challenged everyone and questioned everything, which eventually lead to his martyrdom for the freedom of speech. I cannot think of any philosopher before the time of Socrates that made such a great impact on the world -- who valued the pursuit of reason and the seeking truth more than his own life.
DiscoveringReligion 2 months ago
Comment removed
grebrim 2 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion Pre-socratics of course, I'm sorry. I like the Atomists better, in my opinion Socrates is the inventor of the religious straw man argument;-)
grebrim 2 months ago
Very good video. Richard Dawkins always says that Stalin and Hitler didn't commit atrocities in the name of Atheism, but he was never really convincing with that argument. But you nailed it. Very nicely done.
TheFaithCheck 2 months ago
@8:55 you could be killed in N. Korea for taking a picture like that. Watch the documentary "Kimjongilia" on netflix or where ever and see what I'm talking about. I pray that there is a change in North Korea now that Kim Jong Il is dead but don't have high hopes that it will actually happen because his son and the military are running the country now. Plus praying is about as effective as sticking my thumbs up my ass in getting anything done. N. Korea, like religion is a cult of personality.
aaronrocs 2 months ago
I prefer to define myself in various ways: Naturalist when discussing my beliefs on the creation of the universe, the afterlife, and other religious elements; Secular Humanist when discussing my moral viewpoints; Democratic Socialist regarding political issues; etc.
Very few things in life are capable of being described under one sweeping term, so I don't try to use any single term to label myself.
zac203 2 months ago
匚卄尺工ち匕口ㄗ卄モ尺 ..卄工匕匚卄モれち 1949 - ∞
ChristopherHitchslap 2 months ago
RIP hitch
takfarinas1 2 months ago
Once could argue that because they DON'T BELIEVE that everybody around them really exists in the sense that they are all in the non believers head, they could try to justify murder saying that there are no real consequences as the murder victim never existed to begin with.
TehOwnerer999 2 months ago
@TehOwnerer999 that's called solipsism. It's like the radical position of the Cogito Ergo Sum argument taken to it's logical extreme.
DigitalityKnight 2 months ago
always love your vids!
uewVumopVapIsVdn 2 months ago
I don't know what to do about the label of atheism. It says absolutely nothing about a person and seems to only serve as a convenient term to link people together, to create an easily identifiable THEM, for whichever US it is, to create a VERSUS mentality. I think it's more representative of the problems of labels in general than it is of lacking one. I think we should as a society gravitate away from labels, but that would require people to be reasonable which is apparently too much.
dookiecheez 2 months ago
I let others attempt to apply the "Atheist" label to me then remind them that what I AM is far more interesting than what I am NOT. Then...." HitchSlap" enough logic into them to make them want to change the subject.
ChristopherHitchslap 2 months ago
Kim Jong-il was as much of a communist as he was an atheist. I find it offensive that you said "He was a communist", not because I'm a communist, because I'm not, but as some one that isn't completely ignorant on the subject. There are meany forms of communism just as there are many forms of atheism. If you are going to say he was a communist you also should be much more open to him being an atheist than you are.
NapalmXD 2 months ago
@NapalmXD
How can he be someone without any belief in god if he deifies his father and himself?
dookiecheez 2 months ago
@dookiecheez I doubt its that simple. Do you have an exact quote that implies that he thought of him self as a "god" suiting EVER needed criteria for that with context that supports it? And do you speak Korean natively and can know that meaning wasn't lost in translation? Hell you haven't even defined what a "god" is. I think you need to learn a lot about discourse in this matter before commenting on some thing I said. You're just believing the poster of the video mindlessly.
NapalmXD 2 months ago
@NapalmXD
Wow are you ever proposing a ridiculous standard of evidence or what? I have to speak korean, holy crap...Also interesting assumption that I based my opinion of Kim Jong Il's deification on this video. That's been my position for years. Are you familiar with his personal creation myth? It's got double rainbows and everything. I think you need to learn how to engage in reasonable discourse on the matter before dismissing me offhand because you didn't know something.
dookiecheez 2 months ago
@dookiecheez Dismiss you offhand because I don't know some thing? Please. What really seems more likely to you, the man thought of him self as a god by your definition ("all powerful?", "all knowing?", you STILL haven't giving me a definition. It was a main point of mine), or that he just said some thing to imply how powerful he is to keep control over people.
"Are you familiar with his personal creation myth?"
No, I'm not familiar with it link me to your most credible source that explains it.
NapalmXD 2 months ago
@NapalmXD - I'm confused about there being many forms of atheism. Unless your are referring to what is now called "strong" and "weak" atheism, I know of no variations (and I would dispute the strong/weak dichotomy). Perhaps what you meant was there are many forms of atheists rather than atheism. It's hard to have different forms of something you lack.
mojohound 2 months ago
@mojohound Of course you can describe things by what their aren't. Not only that, but every one does it all the time. "My computer isn't fast", "My eyes aren't 20/20" Some one that doesn't play any kind of sport is some one that doesn't play sports. There isn't a word (maybe there is, vocabulary isn't my strong suit) for it but the concept of there being a person that doesn't play sports exists, and if the concept exists the only thing needed to make it a word is the need for the concept to be
NapalmXD 2 months ago
@mojohound communicated. Granted, atheists have a lot less of an organization than other religions, but I could fairly easily come up with groupings of my own standard. For example some types of atheists may be:
Those that used to be religious.
Those born into atheist house holds and didn't learn about religion until they were much older.
Those that don't care about religion either way.
Those that want religions to end.
Those that want to learn about other religions.
Those that wish they could
NapalmXD 2 months ago
@NapalmXD - Two things: #1 - "atheists have a lot less of an organization than other religions". Even though we disagree over the "different forms of atheism" just what motivation do you have to label atheism a religion? Vocabulary may not be your strong suit, but surely you know atheism is not a religion. #2 - You seem to be conflating atheism with atheists. As you correctly put it, there are words to describe useful concepts, and the concept of lacking a belief in the
mojohound 2 months ago
(cont'd) supernatural, specifically theism, is atheism. All atheists share atheism, but what they are like as atheists is quite different. To use your sports analogy, all armchair quarterbacks have different strategies they would use, but they are all practicing armchair quarterbacking. The term "armchair quarterback" (and atheism) describes one aspect common to all of them, but the way they do it varies.
mojohound 2 months ago
@mojohound be religions.
I can arbitrarily put any one in any group that they have characteristics of that group if they follow a set of requirements needed to be in that group.
We tend to shy away from this kind of thinking because of negative feelings left behind from it in the past. For example I can find all the people with a skin color dark enough for my arbitrary line in the sand and then call those people "black", we have negative feelings about doing this because if you group one
NapalmXD 2 months ago
@NapalmXD - I don't think we shy away from it because of the potential for injustice but because it takes meaningful communication and turns it into nonsense. If you wish to claim that any aspect shared by a group of people that you can identify and label is arbitrary then I disagree. Like characteristics are similar and useful for communication, and definitely not "arbitrary".
mojohound 2 months ago
@mojohound person (person A) with another (person B) because of one characteristic, than if person A has another characteristic we might assume person B has it too because they were in the first group together. But this doesn't mean they don't share the first characteristic.
Sure you can say that no two skin colors are the same therefore putting person A and B in the same group is wrong, but if you do that you must pretty much say that any grouping of any kind is always wrong because nothing
NapalmXD 2 months ago
@mojohound is the exact same as any thing else, or it would be that thing. (aka: having the same position, with the same physical make up, in the exact same point in time). Even though this is the most "true" answer, its not very practice. If you get rid of any grouping of any types of people how can you solve basic problems in society? There are these people we call "poor" people, none of them are exactly as poor (btw calling some one poor seems like another one of those categorizing a person
NapalmXD 2 months ago
@mojohound by what they are not, a person isn't poor that are 'not-rich', same with cold, cold doesn't exist, its a lack of heat, but we have a name for what it isn't, it isn't hot. Anyway) as another person we call "poor" so then if we get rid of this grouping, there are no "poor" people, only this one person that doesn't have enough money, and this other person that also doesn't have enough money, but we can't group them because they aren't equally as poor. See how this is horribly
NapalmXD 2 months ago
@mojohound inefficient? So just by finding a group of people that fit my arbitrary standard for belonging in a group I can make a group. And yes, finding people that all lack the standard can make a new standard if that new standard is a lack in having the first standard (aka this thing isn't hot, neither is that thing, now I group them as both being cold.)
When it comes to language you can't tell me I'm wrong, just me saying I'm right makes it a thing. The only thing we can talk about is
NapalmXD 2 months ago
@NapalmXD - "When it comes to language you can't tell me I'm wrong". Strangely enough, you're wrong.
mojohound 2 months ago
@mojohound whether of not its more practice/beneficial to communicate/think in a certain way.
And oh, sorry, in my last post I said my thinking it makes me right. After a second of thinking about it I decided it was better (^^ this is an example of what I just said) to think about it not as me being right but as neither of us every being able to be right. There is no right, all there is is what we think seems right to us.
Like he said in his video, in his video "many atheists my self
NapalmXD 2 months ago
@mojohound included, go along with it." We go along with it because its fastest for communication, because its easiest. That's what the goal of words should be. Fast, easy, precise. The best way to communicate accurate information fast.
Calling our selves atheists is beneficial (describing our self's by what we aren't I mean) until we lose accuracy with what we believe.
I don't like calling my self an atheist, not because it describes me by what I'm not, but because I've put a LOT of hard
NapalmXD 2 months ago