But those absolute assertions are made by "New Atheists" as well. Listen to Hitchens for just a few seconds and you'll know what I mean. As an atheist (agnostic atheist), I find New Atheism quite dogmatic in some aspects. It's some sort of a "bishop bashing" machine. They don't go after the bad things associated with religion, they want to eradicate it all together and you sense some sort of fascism when you read through books like "The End of Faith".
@themanofearth "Religion is the root of all evil," "Everything about Christianity is contained in the pathetic image of 'the flock," "If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion," and all kind of nonsense. This version of Atheism is parasitic; it lives off religion. Appropriate use of reason and evidence is important but so is understanding their limits. Besides, Atheism has no monopoly over reason, science and evidence.
@pbehnam87 OMFg are you kidding me? Really? EVERYTHING you've pointed out here is an opinion that Christopher Hitchens it was followed up with statements of WHY his opinion stand thus. YOU are making them out to be absolute assertions by taking them out of context.
Atheism has no monopoly over ANYTHING. It is what believers call people who don't believe their claims and (in my opinion) the RESULT of evidence and reason not the cause of it.
@themanofearth Calling the believers "deluded" means only non-believers have a grasp of reason and reality, hence monopoly over them. With talks of "spells" and "delusions," you get the impression that only through stupidity and disregard for evidence could anyone be anything other than an atheist. One needs a great deal of arrogance to be in this position.
You're applying a double standard here. If "religion is the root of ALL evil" is not an absolute assertion then what is?
There was a movie played at Hoytes in Sydney in the 1980's. It features JC and the Catholics turned up in droves some with weapons, to harass movie goers. These people should be outcast. let god take care of them not science.
themanofearth, out of curiosity, do you think the belief that leprechauns do exist is as valid as the belief that leprechauns don't exist? I don't, which is why I feel as comfortable saying that gods don't exist as I do saying that leprechauns, the Bogeyman, and invisible garden faeries don't exist. Evidence would, of course, change that.
@YY4Me133 Well no I don't think the belief that leprechauns do exist is as balid as the belief that leprechauns don't exist. However I do think that the belief that magical/supernatural creatures do exist is as valid as the belief the magical/supernatural creatures don't exist. I can't prove that the deist god doesn't exist but I can come too close to proving that the god of Abraham cannot exist for belief in the Abrahamic god to be anything but laughable: Same with leprechauns.
@themanofearth It seems as though you're giving gods a special pass. I'm curious as to why. As an atheist, it fascinates me when other atheists do this.
@YY4Me133 I'm not though... There really is no way to disprove or prove the deist form of god. It's the "god" that came created and left. I don't think that belief in this god is reasonable because there's no proof for it however believing (i.e. making the positive assertion) it doesn't exist is just as philosophically unsound because we don't know that it can't exist.
@themanofearth "[W]e don't know that it can't exist" also applies to leprechauns, the Bogeyman, and anal-probing extraterrestrials, yet you don't give them a pass.
@YY4Me133 The answer is no to the concept and to not giving them a "pass". "[W]e don't know that it can't exist" does NOT apply to those mythical creatures in the same way and I don't give the god of Abraham a pass for the same reason I don't give any of those things a pass. There are too many pit falls in saying that they do exist to make believing in them anything but laughable. With the deist god, there's only one and it works just as much against as it does for belief in it.
@themanofearth Why doesn't it "apply in the same way?" Because "there's only one?" There's only one Bogeyman. It still comes off as a special pleading.
@themanofearth Forgive me for having been distracted while I was reading, however, that didn't explain anything, and what you have explained still comes across as a special pleading. If there's no evidence a thing exists (and there is no evidence for even a diest god) I, personally, see no reason to believe it *might* exist. You don't see things that way, and I still don't understand why, but we're all entitled to our opinions.
@YY4Me133 Hey it's all light hearted. It really doesn't have anything to do with whether someone believes one *might* exist. It's more about a philosophical principal: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence," is countered and balanced by "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I don't believe that a god *might* exist; I don't believe in the deist god one way or the other because I have nothing to go on either way.
Great videos!!! Three thumbs up! (That should confuse christians for a bit.)
I really like these two videos very much. Favd. Will put on Facebook.
Free thinking atheists and the way they rebuke/refute each other, are very much like scientists. Scientists are the reason humanity/this world evolved forward as will be free thinking atheists.
@shizzleman8 LOL! You really are a child aren't you. Quantifiers are all about turning sense date into numerical values which doesn't connect the study of space-time (which is scientific) with categorical atheism or atheism as a quality (which is philosophy and language). There isn't even a piece of old chewing gum connecting your thoughts together.
A quantifier, as its name implies, expresses quantity. Quantifiers can be a single word or a phrase and are used with nouns. They can be used with both a countable or an uncountable noun to express amount or quantity.
Some, much, many, few, little, a lot, half, three, etc., are common quantifiers.
What are lack of, absence of, none, and no in relation to the amount of belief? < This is as was my last comment rhetorical (I don't want your opinion)
@shizzleman8 Some, much, many, few, little, a lot, are never used in science because they are not specific enough where as half and three are. Counting something (you know what I was doing) is a form of quantification however it is not a quantifier as it is used in science where merely counting something must be coupled with QUALITATIVE data (e.g. distance, weight, area, charge, time, color, etc.) to have any meaning or be useful. Last time: Not even a piece of chewing gum.
@themanofearth You're making connections I'm not, You're apparently addressing the atheist community, and addressing the amount of BELIEF they have, that's not science. You want everything to exist in the Planck State, o.k. the rest of us use words like atheism is the lack of belief in God. It's been ruled a religion in the USA, there are atheist churches. Atheism =/= science. I stand by everything I've ever written and against your non-coherent double speak. You're trying to hard.
@shizzleman8 Sigh... I'm glad you'll stand by what you said because again, you are demonstrably wrong. I'm not addressing the AMOUNT of belief anyone has. I identified and stated 2 definitions of atheism that deal with HAVING belief or NOT HAVING belief (not the amount of belief, this isn't like counting loose change) and one defining quality that makes the "atheist community" a community by designating it "atheism".
@themanofearth You've got 2 different definitions for atheism, 1 for space that includes space, time, space-time, empty space, and the quantum mechanical model for space, and countless definitions for the words science (to know) and naturalism.
You missed your calling as an attorney.
I apologize for valuing and treating you differently based on what you believe. I've experienced the supernatural several dozen times, there's no convincing me it doesn't exist. Peace.
@themanofearth The supernatural, I've experienced the supernatural several dozen times. You think Harvard would have a Theological Seminary if your claims were true?
I know this much little brother, your sould isn't any different than mine, therefore I don't need to preach, why you do is something you'll learn between you age and mine, I'm about 60 now.
@shizzleman8 Sorry, Harvard? I don't think so. "your should isn't any different than mine," "why you do is something..." ANY college graduate let alone a Harvard graduate would be a better writer than this and these are minor mistakes in comparison to what you have done in our past corresponding.
But here's the more important observation which makes me cry bullshit even louder: Harvard DOES have a Theological Seminary and always has. It's called the Harvard Divinity School. Learn to lie better.
@shizzleman8 Having read this post again I may have mistook what you said...
"You think Harvard would have a Theological Seminary if your claims were true?" This is not a complete sentence. You'd need to substitute "You'd..." or "You would..." for "You..." for my response to be correct. However, even if you didn't do that, you'd need to substitute "...weren't true?" or "...were not true?" for the sentence to make sense. I just missed that completely.
Your 3rd definition of "atheism" is an erroneous one. To make objections to the claims made by religious people is not a function of atheism or of being atheist. As you correctly stated, atheism is a matter of belief -- but it is ONLY a matter of belief. Therefore, atheism by definition does not encompass the act of registering an objection or opposition. The term you're looking for is "anti-theism", or of being an anti-theist.
@CRUClEFICTION "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful." ~ Christopher Hitchens
@CRUClEFICTION Atheism is a term that really shouldn't even exist & I did include those two definitions of atheism in the mix. I didn't mean to state that the 3rd definition is an actual definition but rather a defining quality that makes the "atheist community" a community. I just figured that (since everyone's already heard the "belief" shpeel 1000X) people would get the idea, and most did.
Anti-theism is closer but no one (not even an anti-theist) calls it the "anti-theist community" do they.
Great vid! Perfect rebuttal to TFP's nonsense. I dont think he knows how much he looks and sounds like a gossipy old church lady when he talks about atheists the way he does.
Near as I can tell "New Atheism" is a response to atheism being perceived as newly threatening rather then merely inconvenient,and attempting to ghettoize it
@giliellthesecond I stand corrected though I did mean the phenomena of so called "New" atheism in my reference. A society is kinda limited where as this community is wold wide. That's not an argument against your point, just pointing out why I missed it.
@giliellthesecond well I don't see it that way there where a few that would make it a point to express there view point but there wasn't as many that tried to make a difference now through the mass availability to information due to many forms of media i.e. blogs youtube tv and even facebook people start to realize they are not alone theres a community and the numbers of atheist that speak out are greater than ever and more vocal it is a new atheist community
That last part is not quite true. I have Christian friends who simply say, "Those people are idiots." They don't say anything about where the religion enters into it, just that they are generally idiots.
Also I got into an argument with this guy, and when I brought up the fact that I know people who state their religious preference as Christianity who also accept evolution. To which he replied, "You don't get to decide who is Christian."
@Jonstern1983 Well the "those people aren't truly following Christ" I meant to be a general term. I would include both of those encounters as saying that same kind of thing.
@themanofearth Really. because I agree with the first people, the Youtube Evangelists are (VFX, JF777, Neffy) are idiots. Regardless of what myths they choose to believe; they ignore and dismiss reality.
@Jonstern1983 If you claimed to be Christian, they would say you're not truly following Christ by saying that and you're saying that their behavior has nothing to do with truly following Christ, yes?
@themanofearth I understand what you're saying, but I do not think they're the same thing. The "They're not truly a Christian," people are stating that members of their religion can only be this one thing, the "No true Scotsman fallacy. The "Freaking idiots," people are basically saying that, yes they are Christians, but they are also idiots, and usually come off as dicks. I'm an atheist, but I'm sure there are some idiotic atheists.
@Jonstern1983 There ARE some idiotic atheists indeed and I've fallen into that category before as I think everyone has. :-P
I do see what you're saying about the, no true Scotsman fallacy but does that really apply here? If Christian-A says that Christian-B IS a Christian but is an idiot for doing/saying/supporting "X" and Christian-B is doing "X" for religious reasons; is Christian-A not (at the very least tacitly) asserting that they are not following Christ properly?
Jack is a wishy-washy, not terribly bright - attension seeker. He may have his fans, but that's outta sympathy. Poor fellow, he really ought to get out more,
I am an atheist b/c I do not see evidence for a deity, any deity. I am vocal, b/c ppl can't get married, creationism is taught in science class, sti/std's are on the rise, ppl are driven to selfharm and suicide b/c of religion and ppl use religion as an excuse to be mean to ppl.
The thing I find that is universal among Christians is that they all agree that everyone else is "doing it wrong." YouTuber TheThinkingAtheist made a great video about the many sects:
That's right folks! It's the New and Improved Atheism. It no longer needs to cower in the shadows in fear of being killed. The New Atheism is 100% American free speech and based on solid proof, (some scientific assembly required), (for ages 7 & up).
honestly i 'm just waiting till the god belivers go bat shit crazy agian and start burning people who don't belive in god or in differnt a differnt god. Also here is my two cents if thier is a god he is most likely a blood god that sits on a skull throne ands devours our souls and feasts on the misery and emotions that derive form us, This makes more sense than a loving hippy that wants to give us his love. Look at the world and tell me wich assumtion is more realistic if there was a god.
I am not familiar with the videos of TogetherForPeace and seeing the one you responded to, I am not impressed. his entire video seemed to have two main components:
1. Ranting how atheists suck and then backpedaling from that position
2. Ranting how christians are better than atheists and then backpedaling from that position.
The greater fault-line of our time is between liberalism and conservatism, rather than between atheism and religion. Your assumption that conservative atheists will not split with open-borders one-worldism pro-diversity atheists is unfounded optimism.
Agnosticism is my natural position on everythng. I've stopped calling myself an atheist in favour of *militant agnostic' or 'agnostic fundie'.
I'm anti-theist in my way, but don't like all anti-theism. What I dislike is when I criticise a RELIGION but get called a bigot, when some religions must be challenged.
Another advantage we have is that we have no icons to attcack or deface. I don't care if someone burns a Dawkins book, for example.
Man, you should really cut down on use of power words like 'evidence', 'freethinker', 'reason', 'logic' etc... It feels like you're trying to brainwash your audience :d
I agree the "atheist community" is probably both a misnomer or even an oxymoron.
'Atheist community' attracts those looking for social affiliation & can give rise to conformist behaviour.
As a non-believer I could NOT AGREE more that the "perceived hypocrisy, schisms and bickering and drama," too often directs non-believers into arguing about minutiae
I'm not so optimistic about the future of healthy debate on YT. It too often rewards the loudest abusive talkers & not reasoned thought
The "atheist community" is almost a misnomer. It's really a group of secular humanists and skeptics. It's never good to describe a group by what it isn't but, rather, for what it is.
It is much more clear to say "I'm a humanist", "transhumanist", "PEARLIST", "skeptic", Weeaboo", "FurFag," etc.
Atheists and Theists cannot see eye to eye on most topics of religion because an atheist doesn't operate on faith with such a big claim such as a conscious entity that created life which stands outside the laws of nature as we know them unless we actually observed them. Theists operate on faith and will attribute unknowns to a god. Atheists find it arrogant to claim knowledge based on faith and theists find it arrogant to dismiss a possibility of god in their reasoning.
Your third definition of atheism could just as easily be deism. Would you consider deism as a form of atheism? It would seem that you define atheism as a rejection of religion, not necessarily a rejection of the possible maybe/maybe not existence of a God or gods, or at least beings we would consider gods by comparison to ourselves.
@FlowCell I suppose I would however I'd would consider deists (under most circumstances) to be in the free thinker category of that definition.
Deists are as close to agnostic theists as you can get. They claim not to know anything specific about a god and yet somehow they're able to believe in one... That always seemed very odd to me... But deists are cool with me.
I'm definetly 2 and 3 :> Though I'm 1 in terms of Jesus, that one I think least the general way he's portrayed is pretty impossible. Though I'm also 1 towards all evidence for god, since...I realized a way back no, there is nothing Christians could show me, or god himself show me to prove he was god.
@wolfwing1 Well, the major religions of today have had 1,000+ years to give us some decent evidence and they haven't managed it, so one is inclined to believe that after all that time they're unlikely to suddenly bring fourth anything remotely compelling. That said, all it means is that they're unable to provide evidence for their claims, not that their claims are necessarily false, just that they're very odd in that they make these claims despite having no reason to believe them themselves.
@CuriousMoth Oh I'm not saying they couldn't be true. I'm just being honest and due to the problem of Q, there is nothing that could ever be done to prove to me he was god. Short of something after death...but even that might be questionable.
But those absolute assertions are made by "New Atheists" as well. Listen to Hitchens for just a few seconds and you'll know what I mean. As an atheist (agnostic atheist), I find New Atheism quite dogmatic in some aspects. It's some sort of a "bishop bashing" machine. They don't go after the bad things associated with religion, they want to eradicate it all together and you sense some sort of fascism when you read through books like "The End of Faith".
pbehnam87 7 months ago
@pbehnam87 Uh... ok... To what absolute assertions are you referring?
themanofearth 7 months ago
@themanofearth "Religion is the root of all evil," "Everything about Christianity is contained in the pathetic image of 'the flock," "If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion," and all kind of nonsense. This version of Atheism is parasitic; it lives off religion. Appropriate use of reason and evidence is important but so is understanding their limits. Besides, Atheism has no monopoly over reason, science and evidence.
pbehnam87 7 months ago
@pbehnam87 OMFg are you kidding me? Really? EVERYTHING you've pointed out here is an opinion that Christopher Hitchens it was followed up with statements of WHY his opinion stand thus. YOU are making them out to be absolute assertions by taking them out of context.
Atheism has no monopoly over ANYTHING. It is what believers call people who don't believe their claims and (in my opinion) the RESULT of evidence and reason not the cause of it.
themanofearth 7 months ago
@themanofearth Calling the believers "deluded" means only non-believers have a grasp of reason and reality, hence monopoly over them. With talks of "spells" and "delusions," you get the impression that only through stupidity and disregard for evidence could anyone be anything other than an atheist. One needs a great deal of arrogance to be in this position.
You're applying a double standard here. If "religion is the root of ALL evil" is not an absolute assertion then what is?
pbehnam87 7 months ago
There was a movie played at Hoytes in Sydney in the 1980's. It features JC and the Catholics turned up in droves some with weapons, to harass movie goers. These people should be outcast. let god take care of them not science.
baalisgod666 7 months ago
themanofearth, out of curiosity, do you think the belief that leprechauns do exist is as valid as the belief that leprechauns don't exist? I don't, which is why I feel as comfortable saying that gods don't exist as I do saying that leprechauns, the Bogeyman, and invisible garden faeries don't exist. Evidence would, of course, change that.
YY4Me133 7 months ago
@YY4Me133 Well no I don't think the belief that leprechauns do exist is as balid as the belief that leprechauns don't exist. However I do think that the belief that magical/supernatural creatures do exist is as valid as the belief the magical/supernatural creatures don't exist. I can't prove that the deist god doesn't exist but I can come too close to proving that the god of Abraham cannot exist for belief in the Abrahamic god to be anything but laughable: Same with leprechauns.
themanofearth 7 months ago
@themanofearth It seems as though you're giving gods a special pass. I'm curious as to why. As an atheist, it fascinates me when other atheists do this.
YY4Me133 7 months ago
@YY4Me133 I'm not though... There really is no way to disprove or prove the deist form of god. It's the "god" that came created and left. I don't think that belief in this god is reasonable because there's no proof for it however believing (i.e. making the positive assertion) it doesn't exist is just as philosophically unsound because we don't know that it can't exist.
themanofearth 7 months ago
@themanofearth "[W]e don't know that it can't exist" also applies to leprechauns, the Bogeyman, and anal-probing extraterrestrials, yet you don't give them a pass.
YY4Me133 7 months ago
@YY4Me133 The answer is no to the concept and to not giving them a "pass". "[W]e don't know that it can't exist" does NOT apply to those mythical creatures in the same way and I don't give the god of Abraham a pass for the same reason I don't give any of those things a pass. There are too many pit falls in saying that they do exist to make believing in them anything but laughable. With the deist god, there's only one and it works just as much against as it does for belief in it.
themanofearth 7 months ago
@themanofearth Why doesn't it "apply in the same way?" Because "there's only one?" There's only one Bogeyman. It still comes off as a special pleading.
YY4Me133 7 months ago
@YY4Me133 WOW... ok... um... No, there's only one p-i-t-f-a-l-l. Learn to read a sentence in context.
themanofearth 7 months ago
@themanofearth Forgive me for having been distracted while I was reading, however, that didn't explain anything, and what you have explained still comes across as a special pleading. If there's no evidence a thing exists (and there is no evidence for even a diest god) I, personally, see no reason to believe it *might* exist. You don't see things that way, and I still don't understand why, but we're all entitled to our opinions.
YY4Me133 7 months ago
@YY4Me133 Hey it's all light hearted. It really doesn't have anything to do with whether someone believes one *might* exist. It's more about a philosophical principal: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence," is countered and balanced by "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I don't believe that a god *might* exist; I don't believe in the deist god one way or the other because I have nothing to go on either way.
themanofearth 7 months ago
heh sometimes you remind me of Jeff Goldbloom
Dudeamis 7 months ago
@Dudeamis I've gotten Gordon Freeman before but not Jeff Goldbloom. Is it my mannerisms or do you think I look like him?
themanofearth 7 months ago
@themanofearth
occasional speech pattern.
Dudeamis 7 months ago
@Dudeamis Okey dokey. :-)
themanofearth 7 months ago
Great videos!!! Three thumbs up! (That should confuse christians for a bit.)
I really like these two videos very much. Favd. Will put on Facebook.
Free thinking atheists and the way they rebuke/refute each other, are very much like scientists. Scientists are the reason humanity/this world evolved forward as will be free thinking atheists.
Gott Mit Uns, so said the evil atheist.
ReligiousJezta 8 months ago
@themanofearth You attempt to impart your knowledge of space to me, but explain different catagories of atheism to your own tribe? Hmm?
Ever heard of quantifiers dip sh*t?
shizzleman8 8 months ago
@shizzleman8 LOL! You really are a child aren't you. Quantifiers are all about turning sense date into numerical values which doesn't connect the study of space-time (which is scientific) with categorical atheism or atheism as a quality (which is philosophy and language). There isn't even a piece of old chewing gum connecting your thoughts together.
themanofearth 8 months ago
@themanofearth Last time:
A quantifier, as its name implies, expresses quantity. Quantifiers can be a single word or a phrase and are used with nouns. They can be used with both a countable or an uncountable noun to express amount or quantity.
Some, much, many, few, little, a lot, half, three, etc., are common quantifiers.
What are lack of, absence of, none, and no in relation to the amount of belief? < This is as was my last comment rhetorical (I don't want your opinion)
shizzleman8 8 months ago
@shizzleman8 Some, much, many, few, little, a lot, are never used in science because they are not specific enough where as half and three are. Counting something (you know what I was doing) is a form of quantification however it is not a quantifier as it is used in science where merely counting something must be coupled with QUALITATIVE data (e.g. distance, weight, area, charge, time, color, etc.) to have any meaning or be useful. Last time: Not even a piece of chewing gum.
themanofearth 8 months ago
@themanofearth You're making connections I'm not, You're apparently addressing the atheist community, and addressing the amount of BELIEF they have, that's not science. You want everything to exist in the Planck State, o.k. the rest of us use words like atheism is the lack of belief in God. It's been ruled a religion in the USA, there are atheist churches. Atheism =/= science. I stand by everything I've ever written and against your non-coherent double speak. You're trying to hard.
shizzleman8 8 months ago
@shizzleman8 Sigh... I'm glad you'll stand by what you said because again, you are demonstrably wrong. I'm not addressing the AMOUNT of belief anyone has. I identified and stated 2 definitions of atheism that deal with HAVING belief or NOT HAVING belief (not the amount of belief, this isn't like counting loose change) and one defining quality that makes the "atheist community" a community by designating it "atheism".
themanofearth 8 months ago
@themanofearth You've got 2 different definitions for atheism, 1 for space that includes space, time, space-time, empty space, and the quantum mechanical model for space, and countless definitions for the words science (to know) and naturalism.
You missed your calling as an attorney.
I apologize for valuing and treating you differently based on what you believe. I've experienced the supernatural several dozen times, there's no convincing me it doesn't exist. Peace.
shizzleman8 8 months ago
@shizzleman8 Really? What did you experience?
themanofearth 8 months ago
@themanofearth The supernatural, I've experienced the supernatural several dozen times. You think Harvard would have a Theological Seminary if your claims were true?
I know this much little brother, your sould isn't any different than mine, therefore I don't need to preach, why you do is something you'll learn between you age and mine, I'm about 60 now.
shizzleman8 8 months ago
@shizzleman8 Sorry, Harvard? I don't think so. "your should isn't any different than mine," "why you do is something..." ANY college graduate let alone a Harvard graduate would be a better writer than this and these are minor mistakes in comparison to what you have done in our past corresponding.
But here's the more important observation which makes me cry bullshit even louder: Harvard DOES have a Theological Seminary and always has. It's called the Harvard Divinity School. Learn to lie better.
themanofearth 8 months ago
@themanofearth I'll withdraw the question. What Harvard Divinity School teaches, divinity, isn't real?
shizzleman8 8 months ago
@shizzleman8 Having read this post again I may have mistook what you said...
"You think Harvard would have a Theological Seminary if your claims were true?" This is not a complete sentence. You'd need to substitute "You'd..." or "You would..." for "You..." for my response to be correct. However, even if you didn't do that, you'd need to substitute "...weren't true?" or "...were not true?" for the sentence to make sense. I just missed that completely.
themanofearth 8 months ago
Your 3rd definition of "atheism" is an erroneous one. To make objections to the claims made by religious people is not a function of atheism or of being atheist. As you correctly stated, atheism is a matter of belief -- but it is ONLY a matter of belief. Therefore, atheism by definition does not encompass the act of registering an objection or opposition. The term you're looking for is "anti-theism", or of being an anti-theist.
CRUClEFICTION 9 months ago
@CRUClEFICTION "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful." ~ Christopher Hitchens
CRUClEFICTION 9 months ago
@CRUClEFICTION Letters to a Young Contrarian is one of my favorite books.
themanofearth 9 months ago
@CRUClEFICTION Atheism is a term that really shouldn't even exist & I did include those two definitions of atheism in the mix. I didn't mean to state that the 3rd definition is an actual definition but rather a defining quality that makes the "atheist community" a community. I just figured that (since everyone's already heard the "belief" shpeel 1000X) people would get the idea, and most did.
Anti-theism is closer but no one (not even an anti-theist) calls it the "anti-theist community" do they.
themanofearth 9 months ago
Great vid! Perfect rebuttal to TFP's nonsense. I dont think he knows how much he looks and sounds like a gossipy old church lady when he talks about atheists the way he does.
MrTruthAddict 9 months ago
@MrTruthAddict Thanks :-)
themanofearth 9 months ago
So you are an atheist?
endthedisease 9 months ago
Near as I can tell "New Atheism" is a response to atheism being perceived as newly threatening rather then merely inconvenient,and attempting to ghettoize it
NemoUtopian 9 months ago
"The first time in history"
Sorry, that's BS. The first atheist and freethinker societies in Europe date back to the late 1800's
giliellthesecond 9 months ago
@giliellthesecond I stand corrected though I did mean the phenomena of so called "New" atheism in my reference. A society is kinda limited where as this community is wold wide. That's not an argument against your point, just pointing out why I missed it.
themanofearth 9 months ago
@giliellthesecond well I don't see it that way there where a few that would make it a point to express there view point but there wasn't as many that tried to make a difference now through the mass availability to information due to many forms of media i.e. blogs youtube tv and even facebook people start to realize they are not alone theres a community and the numbers of atheist that speak out are greater than ever and more vocal it is a new atheist community
TinaLamb2007 9 months ago
That last part is not quite true. I have Christian friends who simply say, "Those people are idiots." They don't say anything about where the religion enters into it, just that they are generally idiots.
Also I got into an argument with this guy, and when I brought up the fact that I know people who state their religious preference as Christianity who also accept evolution. To which he replied, "You don't get to decide who is Christian."
Jonstern1983 9 months ago
@Jonstern1983 Well the "those people aren't truly following Christ" I meant to be a general term. I would include both of those encounters as saying that same kind of thing.
themanofearth 9 months ago
@themanofearth Really. because I agree with the first people, the Youtube Evangelists are (VFX, JF777, Neffy) are idiots. Regardless of what myths they choose to believe; they ignore and dismiss reality.
Jonstern1983 9 months ago
@Jonstern1983 If you claimed to be Christian, they would say you're not truly following Christ by saying that and you're saying that their behavior has nothing to do with truly following Christ, yes?
themanofearth 9 months ago
@themanofearth I understand what you're saying, but I do not think they're the same thing. The "They're not truly a Christian," people are stating that members of their religion can only be this one thing, the "No true Scotsman fallacy. The "Freaking idiots," people are basically saying that, yes they are Christians, but they are also idiots, and usually come off as dicks. I'm an atheist, but I'm sure there are some idiotic atheists.
Jonstern1983 9 months ago
@Jonstern1983 There ARE some idiotic atheists indeed and I've fallen into that category before as I think everyone has. :-P
I do see what you're saying about the, no true Scotsman fallacy but does that really apply here? If Christian-A says that Christian-B IS a Christian but is an idiot for doing/saying/supporting "X" and Christian-B is doing "X" for religious reasons; is Christian-A not (at the very least tacitly) asserting that they are not following Christ properly?
themanofearth 9 months ago
Dhorpatan, THE ATHEIST CREATIONIST!
watch?v=a7GGZaUggwk
KevinStanton84 9 months ago
Atheism = Nondelusional
Atheism = default position
Atheism = Conclusion after knowledge occurs
Atheism = Fulfilled life (once)
Atheism = Logical position
Atheism = Fact Acceptor
Atheism = Sincerely Reasoned
Atheism = Newborn
saxmanchiro 9 months ago
Positive atheism can also refer to activist atheism, not just strong atheism.
AtheistKharm 9 months ago
Jack is a wishy-washy, not terribly bright - attension seeker. He may have his fans, but that's outta sympathy. Poor fellow, he really ought to get out more,
THEHARMONIKZ 9 months ago
I am an atheist b/c I do not see evidence for a deity, any deity. I am vocal, b/c ppl can't get married, creationism is taught in science class, sti/std's are on the rise, ppl are driven to selfharm and suicide b/c of religion and ppl use religion as an excuse to be mean to ppl.
RavenBlaze 9 months ago
A glass can be empty or not empty. But it is still a glass. Claiming otherwise is delusion. Atheism is not delusion.
Tiwaking 9 months ago
The thing I find that is universal among Christians is that they all agree that everyone else is "doing it wrong." YouTuber TheThinkingAtheist made a great video about the many sects:
A House Divided
/watch?v=MfA6mTgl7tU
Uploaded December 2, 2009
WarmWeatherGuy 9 months ago
That's right folks! It's the New and Improved Atheism. It no longer needs to cower in the shadows in fear of being killed. The New Atheism is 100% American free speech and based on solid proof, (some scientific assembly required), (for ages 7 & up).
TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE 9 months ago
@TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE LMFAO!!!
themanofearth 9 months ago
honestly i 'm just waiting till the god belivers go bat shit crazy agian and start burning people who don't belive in god or in differnt a differnt god. Also here is my two cents if thier is a god he is most likely a blood god that sits on a skull throne ands devours our souls and feasts on the misery and emotions that derive form us, This makes more sense than a loving hippy that wants to give us his love. Look at the world and tell me wich assumtion is more realistic if there was a god.
LORDNAG1 9 months ago
I am not familiar with the videos of TogetherForPeace and seeing the one you responded to, I am not impressed. his entire video seemed to have two main components:
1. Ranting how atheists suck and then backpedaling from that position
2. Ranting how christians are better than atheists and then backpedaling from that position.
I must listen to it again...
MisterDax 9 months ago
@MisterDax No need. You detected and expressed it beautifully.
themanofearth 9 months ago
I don't think atheists are a community. Apart from not believing in god(s), we haven't very little in common.
Christheatheist1 9 months ago
@Christheatheist1 Yup. That's kinda the point I was making. :-)
themanofearth 9 months ago
The greater fault-line of our time is between liberalism and conservatism, rather than between atheism and religion. Your assumption that conservative atheists will not split with open-borders one-worldism pro-diversity atheists is unfounded optimism.
xntubes 9 months ago
Agnosticism is my natural position on everythng. I've stopped calling myself an atheist in favour of *militant agnostic' or 'agnostic fundie'.
I'm anti-theist in my way, but don't like all anti-theism. What I dislike is when I criticise a RELIGION but get called a bigot, when some religions must be challenged.
Another advantage we have is that we have no icons to attcack or deface. I don't care if someone burns a Dawkins book, for example.
Al1981X 9 months ago
@Al1981X "I don't care if someone burns a Dawkins book, for example." No atheist would care if someone burned a Dawkin's book.
SDub817 9 months ago
@SDub817 I agree.
Al1981X 9 months ago
@SDub817 I don't know, I'd be pretty pissed if someone lit my copy of The Greatest Show on Earth on fire...
Sines314 9 months ago
@Sines314 Ramen. :-P
themanofearth 9 months ago
Your videos are SO QUIET
superraiden 9 months ago
@superraiden yes, I thought that.
Al1981X 9 months ago
Man, you should really cut down on use of power words like 'evidence', 'freethinker', 'reason', 'logic' etc... It feels like you're trying to brainwash your audience :d
x86freak 9 months ago
@x86freak LOL I'll be sure to try to keep a lid on my brainwashing tactics. :-P
themanofearth 9 months ago
Very clear and well spoken. Good stuff :)
RELIGIONmustDIE 9 months ago
I agree the "atheist community" is probably both a misnomer or even an oxymoron.
'Atheist community' attracts those looking for social affiliation & can give rise to conformist behaviour.
As a non-believer I could NOT AGREE more that the "perceived hypocrisy, schisms and bickering and drama," too often directs non-believers into arguing about minutiae
I'm not so optimistic about the future of healthy debate on YT. It too often rewards the loudest abusive talkers & not reasoned thought
2bsirius 9 months ago
Meant:
"too often DIRECT"
2bsirius 9 months ago
The "atheist community" is almost a misnomer. It's really a group of secular humanists and skeptics. It's never good to describe a group by what it isn't but, rather, for what it is.
It is much more clear to say "I'm a humanist", "transhumanist", "PEARLIST", "skeptic", Weeaboo", "FurFag," etc.
FlowCell 9 months ago
Atheists and Theists cannot see eye to eye on most topics of religion because an atheist doesn't operate on faith with such a big claim such as a conscious entity that created life which stands outside the laws of nature as we know them unless we actually observed them. Theists operate on faith and will attribute unknowns to a god. Atheists find it arrogant to claim knowledge based on faith and theists find it arrogant to dismiss a possibility of god in their reasoning.
Equinox68 9 months ago
Your third definition of atheism could just as easily be deism. Would you consider deism as a form of atheism? It would seem that you define atheism as a rejection of religion, not necessarily a rejection of the possible maybe/maybe not existence of a God or gods, or at least beings we would consider gods by comparison to ourselves.
FlowCell 9 months ago
@FlowCell I suppose I would however I'd would consider deists (under most circumstances) to be in the free thinker category of that definition.
Deists are as close to agnostic theists as you can get. They claim not to know anything specific about a god and yet somehow they're able to believe in one... That always seemed very odd to me... But deists are cool with me.
themanofearth 9 months ago
well put. Haven't checked out you're new posts for a while, must have a looky.
philthy122 9 months ago
Just Favorited. :D I agree! and it's about time you posted up another video.
Mindfor2012 9 months ago
Congratulations, you just got favourited :3
CuriousMoth 9 months ago
I'm definetly 2 and 3 :> Though I'm 1 in terms of Jesus, that one I think least the general way he's portrayed is pretty impossible. Though I'm also 1 towards all evidence for god, since...I realized a way back no, there is nothing Christians could show me, or god himself show me to prove he was god.
wolfwing1 9 months ago
@wolfwing1 Well, the major religions of today have had 1,000+ years to give us some decent evidence and they haven't managed it, so one is inclined to believe that after all that time they're unlikely to suddenly bring fourth anything remotely compelling. That said, all it means is that they're unable to provide evidence for their claims, not that their claims are necessarily false, just that they're very odd in that they make these claims despite having no reason to believe them themselves.
CuriousMoth 9 months ago
Also, I used 'that' five times in that last sentence. I am ashamed. Also, it's 'definitely'.
CuriousMoth 9 months ago
@CuriousMoth 7....you should be
philthy122 9 months ago
@CuriousMoth Oh I'm not saying they couldn't be true. I'm just being honest and due to the problem of Q, there is nothing that could ever be done to prove to me he was god. Short of something after death...but even that might be questionable.
wolfwing1 9 months ago