JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
I always liked when people refer to being an Atheist as being the "default" position. So, perhaps you simply "returned" to it and not converted to it when it actually happened. Always enjoy your videos man. You made very elegant, succinct, and powerful points here.
@Antimidation Thanks. I know some people shy away from the word 'convert' in this context — but it really just means changing from one state to another. Personally, my favourite word is 'de-programming' — which conveys an active indoctrination which was then overcome.
Whilst I wasn't brought up in a religious household I found myself attracted to Christianity in my early teens as a coping mechanism for the angst and need for acceptance young people feel at that time in their lives. However as I became more involved in a Christian group and actually read the bible, the more disquiet I felt about what I was learning, and the vast contradictions in the texts. Hence my atheism.
I'm just curious..Are you a Psychologist? Philosophy graduate???
I just want to say this: Your videos are FANTASTIC! I've seen a few youtubers who deal with creationism or religion, and several do an excellent job. None, however, have quite the same style, nor angle, that you do. I find the psychological angle very interesting, and the relaxed and calm style very appealing. Best of all, the visuals and the script support one another and make for REAL CLEAR presentation. Keep up the awesome work, and THANK YOU!
It's funny that you said that if God suddenly appears, you'll believe in him. I say it's funny because I would demand proof that he's who he says he is, dismissing any "miracles" he'd shown me as simply power beyond my capabilities, which doesn't necessarily sanctify "All powerful" super God... in the end god can't even prove he's god. And, acknowledging his inability to do something, nullifies his existence as purported in the bibablie-boo....
@TranslucentPlenum Yep, the 'if god suddenly pops up' bit was a little facetious — a very informal version of 'give us the evidence and I'll have no problem.' I uploaded a series recently called 'there are no gods' where I expanded on this idea formally and in depth, looking at the problems raised by the issue of evidence — why miracles don't qualify; the problem of distinguishing 'magic' from technology, hence 'gods' from advanced technicians, etc.
@TheraminTrees dear friend , as an atheist too, i have to disagree with one particular statement you did, you mentioned " conversion to atheism" , i think there is just de-conversion from a religious belief. the atheistic state is the "default" state of every living thing. anyways , tremendous job you did. awesome as always. :)
@rosmer00 Thank you. Yes, I have very similar reservations about the word conversion as in 'conversion to atheism'. In the video, I used it in the loosest meaning — change from one state to another — but I've grown uncomfortable with the words because of the added aspect you highlight. Nowadays I prefer the word 'deprogramming' — not only emphasising that there was a change, but that the nature of the change involved the extraction of deliberately manipulative elements.
You're an eloquent and intelligent man, sir. I appreciate your reference to Person-Centered Counseling or Rogerian Counseling, as a Rogerian Counselor myself, I was pleased to see this. However, Dr. Rogers explained Congruence as being real and "transparent" with ones clients. Not holding anything back, allowing the counselor to feel angry with their client, to feel embarrassed, to feel happy, sad, pained, etc. So I I felt your definition was off from Dr. Rogers' initial definition.
@IrishNickO Actually, congruence can refer to congruence between self and ideal self, or between self and experience. Carl Rogers wrote about both, and wrote explicitly about the very model used in this video, saying that experiences running, quote, 'contrary to conditions of worth are perceived selectively and distorted .... or are in part or whole denied by awareness'.
@TheraminTrees This is true and one of his more ambiguous models in the context of the fundamentals of Person-Centered Counseling. Good use of the model for this particular subject. Have you read "On Becoming A Person"?
@IrishNickO I have 'On Becoming a Person' next to my bed, and dip into it from time to time. Rogers really made what I consider outstanding advances in communication, relationships and environments for personal growth.
@TheraminTrees Good man! I've read it several times and I believe it to be, probably, one of the most important pieces of literature for any human being, across all cultures. Once again, I can't stress enough how much I enjoy your videos. Well done, my friend.
@TheraminTrees Which begs the question (in regards to your former response), should experiences that run contrary to conditions of socially defined worth be perceived selectively?
I agree, being skeptical is a good thing. Question everything. Have you ever considered that the Bible stories have nothing to do with the supernatural.. but instead are symbolic representation of the human psyche? Is it possible that symbols like God and the Devil just represent our often divided state of mind?.
The Bible redefines God as existing in hearts and minds, and just like Buddhism.. tears down religion and its belief in supernatural gods and miracles. Religions are the problem
Can you point out the specific passages in the Bible that "tears down religion and its belief in supernatural gods and miracles;" because as far as my 10 years in the study of theology, specifically Christianity has led me to believe the Bible is telling you to believe in a supernatural God and Miracles. For example, 4 of 10 commandments in the Bible deal solely with worshiping and obeying a supernatural God.
@vader1789 For a start.. the laws of Moses were superceded and made obsolete by Jesus.. see John 6:32 + Romans 13:8
"But their mental powers were dulled. For to this present day the same veil remains uplifted at the reading of the old covenant, because it is DONE AWAY WITH by means of Christ."
"In his saying "a new covenant" He has made the former one OBSOLETE and growing old is near to vanishing away." - 2Corinthians 3.12 + Hebrews7:18 + 8:13
The NT contains many elements of Buddha’s teachings.. for example.. in Buddhism..
Kutadan ta said:
"I am told that thou teachest the law, yet thou tearest down religion. Better than worshipping gods
is obedience to the laws of righteousness." - Identity and Non Identity - 6
However, Jesus said to him: "Do you behold these great buildings? By no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down." - Mark 13:2
What have just provided for me is rubbish. John 6:32 is clearly trying to convey the message that Moses is no more important than any other man. That is God who is at the utmost importance.
Romans 13 read in it's entirety, and not simply Romans 13:8, again clearly shows that the speaker is talking about a Supernatural God that oversees the authorities here on Earth and that is why the people should listen to their governments.
The writers were against governments, organized religion, power and authority. They redefined the God concept as existing inside hearts.. i.e. LOVE
"For we have a wrestling, not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the high places."
"Stripping governments and authorities bare. He exhibited them in open public as conquered." - Ephesians 6:12 - Colossians 12:14
I'm assuming you didn't read the passage I provided for you. John 12:44-50. Please read it, it's time to accept the fact and change your position on this.
@vader1789 My position is simple.. symbolism not supernatural tales. Myths are stories often with an ethical message.. good against evil.. to even attempt to understand them literally is verging on madness. For example.. The Matrix.. Do you believe.. or lack belief.. the Matrix existed? Is it about the supernatural? What about Dracula. Of course.. to hold either position.. belief.. or lack of belief.. is ridiculous. It’s a symbolic story. They are myths of our times.
I do not care what your position is in regards to what symbolism is or supernatural tales are; what I care about is your claim that the Bible "tears down religion and its belief in supernatural gods and miracles." Please stick to the original subject matter, or concede the point and simply move on. You have two options, admit you made a faulty claim and move on; or provide a specific passage from the Bible that supports your claim.
I noticed the opening passages of Isaiah sound a lot like Richard Dawkins.. or was Isaiah an atheist.. maybe?
“Incense_ it is something detestable to me. New moon and Sabbath, the calling of a convention_ I cannot put up with the use of uncanny power along with the solemn assembly. Your new moons and your festal seasons my soul has hated. To me they have become a burden; I have become tired of bearing them.
I“There has been a trusting in unreality, and a speaking of worthlessness."
Listen, I understand if you are currently a Christian and are trying to hold on to that belief by twisting the words around in order to fit to your particular needs so you can hold onto that belief. However, don't you think that once you start trying to twist stuff around and grab a passage from here and there (so you end up not reading it in its proper context) it's time to finally realize this shit doesn't make sense and just let go of it?
@vader1789 It doesn’t make sense if the reader confuses symbolism.. myth.. metaphor and poetry.. for supernatural tales.. No more than “My love is like a red red rose” doesn’t make sense if one is naïve enough to read it literally. The stories of Moses and Jesus are symbolic dramas.. not history. They describe what is going on in the human psyche. They invite the reader to ask.. What does this mean? It is people’s belief that these stories are supernatural that doesn’t make sense to me.
That's fine if people choosing to believe in supernatural entities doesn't make sense to you, but you are now getting off topic. The topic is if the Bible "tears down religion and its belief in supernatural gods and miracles." You have yet to provide any passages that expressly do that.
In fact, contrary to your claim, the NT, actually reaffirms in a supernatural being in a expressed manner that does not lend itself to be interpreted any other way in John 12:44-50.
So read as a whole as, I stated before, the passages you have provided do not give the option to be interpret it as poetry, metaphors etc... by picking and choosing bits and pieces out of the chapters and putting them together as you see fit is what doesn't make sense. So again, I ask of you to provide me specific examples from the Bible that renounce a supernatural God.
@vader1789 Whether people believe in supernatural entities or lack a belief in them.. it doesn’t make sense.. if we stop to think about it. Anyone who claims that they believe.. or lack a belief.. in talking serpents.. virgin births.. and geese that lay golden eggs.. is a candidate for the funny farm. See my video response.. The god-man. It puts Jesus and Nietzsche in bed together.. great minds think alike. Nietzsche really understood the Bible.. which teaches You are gods.. Theism is dead.
I am starting to think you belong in the funny farm, as I have repeated multiple times to please stick to the original subject matter. Show me a passage that supports your claim that the Bible "tears down religion and its belief in supernatural gods and miracles," or admit you were wrong. I am not concerned who is God, what a God is, if religion is good or bad or any other subject, I am only concerned with your claim. I called you out on that and that alone.
“Every church is a stone on the grave of a god-man: it does not want him to rise up again under any circumstances.” - Friedrich Nietzsche
"So in this idea, then, everybody is fundamentally the ultimate reality. Not God in a politically kingly sense, but God in the sense of being the self, the deep-down basic whatever there is. And you're all that, only you're pretending you're not." - Alan watts
@vader1789 And it came to past the spirit of Amos entered into Richard Dawkins.t. and he spoke thus..
“I have hated, I have rejected your festivals, and I shall not enjoy the smell of your solemn assemblies, even in your gift offerings I shall find no pleasure. Remove from me the turmoil of your songs.. “ etc.. etc
“You who are rejoicing in a thing that is not" – Amos 5:18 + 6:13
Conclusion: The writers of the Bible hated organized religion.. the book is a trojan.. not what it seems
Conclusion: you are a nutcase and cannot admit when you are wrong. You claimed the Bible "tears down religion and its belief in supernatural gods and miracles." I asked for a specific passage that supports your claim and you have been unable to provide even one; and instead provide random quotes and passages that are not relevant to this discussion.
Please show me one passage from the Bible which is the only thing that can validate your claim, or simply fuck off you dumbshit.
TheraminTrees- I appreciate and like your intelligent and openminded presentations
and discussions as opposed to the people that come to my door to preach. I have read about and watched other atheists go through some of their experiences. Sorry to see the self torture you went through. You talk about supernatural entities and things of that nature. Have you ever found or read anything credible of that sort outside of the bible?
@nidhidhian I would first qualify 'self torture', because that downplays the fact it was provoked and maintained by others. Regarding supernatural entities, I'm getting into that in a three part video I'm doing soon. One of the points I'll be making is about the epistemological vacuum around supernatural ideas — and the need for epistemological tools if there is to be discussion beyond personal belief.
I consider myself an atheist Jew, in that I still follow the traditions and believe in the values taught by Judaism. My doubt in god derives from my innate desire for there to be one. Whether by the death of a loved one or loneliness of depression, I have found at times a desire for greater purpose, and for that very reason I can see the formation of god and the false yet uplifting hope that goes with him. I don't hate religion and Judaism has no hell and teaches to question itself, so I oblige.
@CingerNebojsa Thanks. I try to offer a dialogue to critics, and some genuine critics can seem quite troll-like at first — maybe they've become jaded/defensive from past encounters with other folks. But if a critic can't get past that after a couple of chances, the words 'troll' and 'bigot' start springing to mind — and it's remarkable how quickly my interest evaporates. Here's to more substantial, stimulating folks ;8)
Yeah, giving them a chance is certainly the proper thing to do, but they should take care not to overstate their welcome. Hopefully you'll encounter some disscusion-ready people soon, but that isn't as likely to happen on youtube I presume. In any case, I'm looking forward to new videos from you, although I still have a lot of oldies to go through. Have a nice day!
You and QualiaSoup tend to take a patronizing tone toward theists, but I really wish you would think critically about your own metaphysical assumptions and techniques of rationalization when it comes to dealing with the fact of religious experience, rather than just advising others to think critically.
@SyKmGl "Theists do not deny the experience of atheists .... whereas atheists deny the experiences of theists"
—Let's not start with a blatant falsehood. For four years on here, I've had theist after theist doing *exactly* that. So. There are good and bad in both groups. Now, if you want a genuine discussion, I'm open to that. But to be a productive one, I'll need you to give specific criticisms. Quote me, and we can talk. Merely accuse me of unspecified 'assumptions' and we can go nowhere.
I'm not sure how theists could deny your experiences, in a way that would be relevant to atheism. I mean, there aren't exactly 'atheist experiences', are there? On the other hand, atheists routinely deny my spiritual experiences, often implying that I and other theists are insane or went through temporary insanity. There are mystics who have even been forcibly put on medication and subject to other forms of violation, because their views didn't fit the metaphysical assumptions..
... of the atheistic scientists who were judging them. There is a lot wrong with the approach of most theists, including often bigotry against atheists, but a denial of experience is one area where atheists definitely win (i.e. they engage in it much more than theists do).
As for the patronizing tone, this is something that's all over your videos. The fact that many of your sentences involve instructing other people, e.g. something like 'either keep your beliefs to yourself...
... or be prepared to have them be taken apart by me.' And other statements that involve telling people what they should do, and what is wrong with their approach to this.
There are metaphysical and epistemological assumptions underlying most people's position on the issue of the existence of God, and this includes atheists. This isn't a bad thing, but it's not quite as simple as to say it's about evidence or lack thereof.
@SyKmGl "I'm not sure how theists could deny your experiences"
—No reason why you would be — you're on the other side of the fence. I'm constantly told I know full well that gods exist really, that I'm in rebellion, etc.
"e.g. something like 'either keep your beliefs to yourself...... or be prepared to have them be taken apart by me.' "
—I asked you if you want a genuine conversation, and if so to quote me. Is that a quote? No. When you're serious about a genuine conversation, let me know.
I'm not entirely on the other side of the fence, actually. I was an atheist for basically my entire life until a couple of years ago. Anyway, granted that your experiences are denied by theists, I would like you to acknowledge that theists' experiences are denied by atheists all the time, including in academic contexts. The same kind of denial and distortion that you mentioned (not that I believe in these psychological models, but anyway) is often done by atheists when they...
... encounter the fact of religious experiences. One common tactic I've found among atheists is to come up with ad hoc ideas of mental wellness/illness, where someone is mentally ill if they have an experience that cannot be squared with materialism and naturalism.
The problem, when it comes to rationalization etc., is one of human nature. I get the impression that you (and QualiaSoup) think this is specifically a religious problem, which it isn't.
... patronizing tone, refer to what you said at 5:58 of your video. You basically told adult theists something really obvious (thus patronizing), and included the line: 'what's so fragile that it can't stand up to sustained scrutiny, and needs threats to protect it?' By asking that question in this context, you're implying that theists in particular need to be instructed on the importance of critical thinking.
@SyKmGl "There are metaphysical and epistemological assumptions underlying most people's position"
—But you suggested I needed to examine mine — so you must have something specific in mind that you feel I got wrong. Tell me what it is and we'll go through it.
Actually my point was rather that assumptions are being made that aren't acknowledged. I happen to believe the assumptions are false, but that was not my point in the first comment.
It would be great if people started realizing that materialism and naturalism are not the default positions, but themselves must be justified. They are positive positions, not negative. Can you justify naturalism and/or materialism?
@SyKmGl Neither Qualia nor I think rationalisation is the exclusive domain of the religious — this is why I ask for quotes, not inferences. I utterly reject your accusation of patronising tone at 5:58. I'm making a very necessary criticism of coercion/fear tactics, in solidarity with those who've been or are being subjected to that rubbish. If you have problems with some atheists' behaviour, take it to them. I made it clear in my opening reply that there are good and bad in both groups.
Well, there's nothing I can do if you reject my accusation of a patronizing tone. This is the impression I get from your videos, and I am definitely not the only one who gets this impression. I think we should just leave this point now.
Although you admit that there are good and bad in both groups, your don't tend to point out when atheists engage in the same tactics, or even mention that this is a human nature thing (rather than a religion thing).
This is not to say that justification is not possible, but rather that it tends to be assumed when discussing the supposed lack of evidence for God's existence. The justification ultimately rests on epistemological assumptions, which the discussion never moves toward because it's heavy philosophical territory, and if more people started discussing the issue in those terms atheism would soon be exposed as not being the default position.
@SyKmGl You said you wished I thought critically about my assumptions. I do. You've now said assumptions are being made that are false. If you don't specify what you're referring to, I don't know what you're talking about. So, please state these assumptions, using quotes — not inferences, not what other atheists have said or might say, but what I've said. I'm not wasting my precious time denying things I've never said, and other people can defend their own position.
Actually I said the assumptions are being made, but not acknowledged, when the issue is framed in terms of evidence or lack thereof. The narrative: 'atheism is just the absence of belief in gods due to lack of evidence for gods, whereas theism is the belief in gods without evidence [aka faith]' is what I am questioning. It so happens that I belief some of your assumptions are false, but that was not my original claim. Anyway, those assumptions are naturalism and materialism...
@SyKmGl "It so happens that I belief some of your assumptions are false …. Anyway, those assumptions are naturalism and materialism."
—As these are not in fact my assumptions, I don't need to answer that point.
"it's heavy philosophical territory, and if more people started discussing the issue in those terms atheism would soon be exposed as not being the default position."
—By all means explain why you think not believing in gods isn't the default — the null position.
@SyKmGl "Well, there's nothing I can do if you reject my accusation of a patronizing tone."
—Well, you could actually listen to what I've said — what with me knowing my own motivation, and giving a very clear explanation of it. But of course, if you merely want to keep your own inferences, then yes, it seems there's little to be said. But I'm happy to leave the point — it was bound to go nowhere because it was based on inference.
You don't assume naturalism? I find that hard to believe. When you encounter a phenomenon, what sort of explanations do you look for (if at all)? Not supernatural ones, presumably. If you explain everything in terms of natural causes, then you're a naturalist (at least implicitly, if not explicitly).
As for physicalism, the alternative is believing in non-physical things, such as non-physical consciousness, spirit etc. Although one may be an atheist and a non-physicalist...
You didn't answer my question. Do you believe that naturalistic science offers the best explanations for what we see around us? And do you believe in the existence of non-physical things? There, I'm not pre-empting but asking, which I did before as well, but you dodged the question.
@SyKmGl I didn't 'dodge' your question at all — I simply can't be bothered answering questions when someone's constantly predicting me and leaving pissy comments like "And TheraminTrees makes an analogy with Loch Ness Monster/FSM ... etc. in 3...2...1..." — if you've got all that out of your system now, and would like to continue with a bit less cynicism and a bit more civility, we can do so.
@SyKmGl Yup, you are waiting for an answer :8) As I said, I don't know if I can be bothered answering you. It was that pissy 'And TheraminTrees makes an analogy with ....' comment. Coming back to see that, having received so many other assumptions from you, I have to ask myself why I'm bothering with a total stranger who behaves like that to me. Not coming up with any good reasons — just seems I'm wasting my time, when I could be using it productively.
... the only people who are like that are Buddhists, Jains and maybe some animists. But I doubt you fall into any of those categories. But anyway, tell me: do you believe in the existence of supernatural causation and/or non-physical entities?
The default should be agnosticism, not atheism. And TheraminTrees makes an analogy with Loch Ness Monster/FSM/Big Foot/Fairies/Invisible Dragon etc. in 3...2...1...
This is very ironic, as I have experienced God and am told to deny my experiences by atheists all the time. Theists do not deny the experience of atheists, though they may disagree with them, whereas atheists deny the experiences of theists, sometimes going so far as to label them as insane and produce 'studies' 'showing' that in fact their brains are wonky (which is logically fallacious, but anything will go when it comes to defending dogmas).
I don't understand how you can be against this. Who cares what the bible says. We are trying to get it right not get it what my great grandfather said.
After listening to your video, I looked up a study that I had heard about where a Cardiologist in San Francisco studied a number of patients over 300. He divided them into two groups and had people pray for one group and not the other. The study was talked about on an atheist web site.
@TheBruceRoth Byrd's study was a strange business. Aside from the obvious blunder of not controlling the very thing you're testing — rendering the control group useless — it was odd to see someone going against the passages so often quoted about not testing gods.
It's interesting just how similar this is to my own transition to atheism, and experience. I too started rejecting faith only after I realized I was failing to defend it. ...Though it was my older brother that I was arguing with, not a teacher. Great video by the way.
I was led to this video by the first of yours that I had ever viewed. They are so well done that I enthusiastically subscribed and will probably quote you often.
When my worldview changed, this was an entire process. "This happened because everything happens for a reason. But I don't believe in a divine plan... so... why did it happen then?"
Awesome video! I've been on the religious skepticism track for a while now, and riding it pretty hard, and I have not heard of anybody thinking this way. Very cool stuff you've got.
@SevenRiderAirForce Thanks. I've long been interested in the development of religious psychology — having been indoctrinated with religious psychology myself as a child. So when I come across an interesting psychological model — like person-centred 'congruence' or the 'transition' model in the other video — I'm intrigued to see if it has anything to offer in explaining religious experiences/socialisation/rejection, etc.
This is great. I get so caught up in the physical sciences (damn you, Thunderf00t!) that I often neglect looking at the psychological aspects of religious belief. Great video! Thank you!
I have seen many of your videos, and all are great. I deeply agree and promote these same ideas myself. However, after watching this, I have a question for you and would be thankful if you'd answer.
It appears to me that you promote critical thinking, which is great. Hence, you show us that people, who have not experienced god (and you, as you say, are one of them) have no basis whatsoever for their belief in god. But what about the people, who claim that they have..?
I have seen many of your videos, and all are great. I deeply agree and promote these same ideas myself. However, after watching this, I have a question for you and would be thankful if you'd answer.
It appears to me that you promote critical thinking, which is great. Hence, you show us that people, who have not experienced god (and you, as you say, are one of them) have no basis whatsoever for their belief in god. But what about the people, who claim that they have..?
@XagenUnknown "...have no basis whatsoever for their belief in god. But what about the people, who claim that they have..?"
Such people have at least some justification. They are in a similar position as people with color blindness or tetrachromatic vision.(Experiencing more or less than "normal" humans of the electromagnetic spectrum) In the end, such people probably want to talk to others and try to find out why their view of reality differs from other people.
@XagenUnknown In the end, this would boil down to empirical testing mostly. Can "God" produce effects of any kind? If not, it would seem likely that "It's all in your head" in some way(Because we know all kinds of malfunctions can happen in brains). In the case of the abnormal vision types I mentioned they will be able to determine a physical cause and everyone involved, both normal vision and other kinds, would be able to agree about the state of reality.
@djkoch65 Thanks! Some psychological models give me valuable new perspective on my atheism — the congruence model did, and so did the transition model, so I thought I'd put them out there.
@mdiem Showers and Zeigler-Hill looked into compartmentalisation and integration within the self-structure — if you're interested, a reference is: Showers, C. J., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2007). Compartmentalization and integration: The evaluative organization of contextualized selves. Journal of Personality, 75, 1181-1204. Cognitive dissonance evokes a conscious tension — edge of awareness or pronounced awareness, as opposed to denial/distortion which are seen more as happening outside awareness.
I have a question about this. If the self-structure is imposed or suggested by other people where do you believe it comes from? Do you believe it comes from their experiences, distortions over time or something else? These are actual questions, not some arguments in disguise (I hate those), I'm actually curious.
@Golkarian The metaphor 'self-structure' as presented in P-C Theory deals with our pattern-searching mechanisms, building networks of associations between our experiences. Sometimes associations we make by ourselves will be dubious because we've over-generalised or attributed cause to correlation, etc.. Living alongside other pattern-seeking humans, we take on some of their associations too — again, some will be dubious, and sometimes forcibly imposed. Hopefully we unlearn a lot of it.
Very interesting lecture. In general, I agree with you, but I don't think that being critical and demanding evidence needs to lead one to become atheist. It certainly creates a great deal of scepticism about the bible, and about a lot of religious practices. I believe that God exists, just not in the form propogated by the bible and Christians. Science has not yet invented a means of discovering the nurturing spirit within that --to me anyway--is God.
@gsco82 'I don't think that being critical and demanding evidence needs to lead one to become atheist.'
—Demanding evidence doesn't have to lead you to become an atheist — not if you're sneeking evidence-free stuff in at the end. If, after all your evidence demanding, you're willing to believe entities for which there's no evidence, then 'evidence' becomes rather a moot point, doesn't it. I can entertain possibilities, for which there is not yet evidence — but 'believe' them? Nope.
@TheraminTrees Could one not argue that the feeling people claim to have of presence and understanding of a being's existence, even if not an understanding of the being itself, is evidence enough to believe in God, though not enough to believe in a certain organized religion? We see many creatures come across things they experience that don't understand, who is to say we are posessed of the most advanced intelligence achievable?
@ultraprat2000 'who is to say we are posessed of the most advanced intelligence achievable?'
—Who exactly *is* saying we're possessed of the most advanced intelligence achievable?
'Could one not argue that the feeling people claim to have of presence .... is evidence enough to believe in God'
—Why a god, not a ghost? Why not an invisible man — or a simple projection of human imagination. To conclude that it must be a god rules out a multitude of alternative fancies — how were they ruled out?
Each time I watch a vid of yours opens a door of knowledge that seems to have been dormant. It seems like I knew it long before but I'm not sure-abstract, if you may. But when you say it, brings color to my thought. Suddenly, it make sense. You are like a messiah to me(dunno if you like the term) And I love you for that! Stay humble, keep it up and good health!
or whatever you may call it and therefore "filtering" any evidence that comes your way as in the case of John? Much of atheism seems like a simple placeholder for some sort of religious belief. If you know there IS a god seems much the same to knowing there ISN'T one. Toss out the dogma, the clergy, the holy books even, but not the baby with the bathwater.
@redrubberball First this video is not talking about knowing there is no god — but having a lack of belief, which is appropriate considering the absence of any evidence. So let's be clear about that context. Second, I've had it put to me that I'm filtering out 'god' before — I addressed that in my video 'A private religious experience' and subsequently in 'Seeing isn't believing'.
First, I am not a fan of organized religion. Must be said. However. I've never been to Spain but I'm still pretty sure it exists. Likewise, scientists don't really know what's going on with Black holes but it's pretty much agreed that they exist (or don't if you wanna get technical). I do respect a persons right to believe what they will based on their own senses and what you lay down IS a solid argument but couldn't you fall through the back door again now having a belief that there is no God..
@redrubberball Science has a pretty good grasp on what a black hole is. It's a collapsed remnant of a star whose gravity is so strong that light cannot escape its event horizon.
Well done. I'm often struck by the parallels between the apologetics of theodicy and some symptoms of dependent personality disorder, codependency, and Stockholm syndrome. The metal gymnastics required to justify abuse received by a thing perceived as wholly altruistic are similar. Perhaps the perceived fear of abandonment overwhelms all objections. All evil is justified and, by definition, cannot be gratuitous. You seem interested in theories of cognition; a future video topic, pherhaps?
from 3:30 to 3:50 or so, that's exactly what was happening to me... no wonder becoming an atheist was a HUGE relief; the world finally made sense after one took the supernatural variable out or the equation.
Atheism is simply open-mindedness and common sense. That's why there's such a strong correlation between atheism and education. Everyone is born an atheist. 1000s of years, 1000s of gods, still no decent evidence or reasoning for any of them.
Demand evidence of things that you find easy to believe see how that subject relates to its surrounding reality; you will be much more able to derive how complicated functions work. The more you understand the easier it will become; reality is self-consistent. Every thing came from one place; Earth.
@singlensearching 'Read the book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, this will be of great interest as it deals with the physical facts that you need to "believe".'
—Read the chapter-by-chapter refutations of it, available on the net.
@singlensearching: I've actually read that book...and the entire series for that matter...just to put that to rest. My comment, best illustrated, is it is wonderfully written in the same genre that the Chronicles of Narnia are written. There is no proof presented. There are no facts to base ideology upon. It is simply an extension of a very poorly supported facet of Apologetics.
This is a quick reposting of a poorly formed and half baked belief system:
1) There is something in existence, within or outside the universe, that we cannot comprehend, that is more powerful than us to such a degree that it could be considered omnipotent from our currently limited view of what is and is not possible.
2) Every belief system or religion ever invented or that will be invented is an attempt to understand, comprehend, and interact with such a something, in a meaningful way.
This is by no means a perfect statement of the concept that I have formed, but I'd like to point out that theoretical sciences can be described in this way. After all, there are things in quantum physics and astronomy that absolutely cannot be witnessed directly, and must be inferred or extrapolated, and the end goal of any science could be stated as the complete understanding and comprehension of a topic.
Also, this is my first and second comments in the history of time! You've moved me.
@Anawakenedmind Thanks for transferring to an open forum. In response, I'd say 1) There are many 'things' more powerful than us — everything from elephants to electro-magnetic force — but you seem to be positing one particular thing as omnipotent. Can you substantiate this? 2) I'd say belief systems do not all attempt to interact with such posited 'somethings' — and are often, rather, systems to rationalise painful feelings like guilt, to deny death, and control other humans.
@TheraminTrees Rightly so. There are things more powerful than us, and there always will be. People once worshiped elephants, tigers, the gods that caused river flooding and the sun. As our perceptions of the world, as a race, change, religion also does. There will always be something more powerful than us that some people will worship. As for your second point, that may well be the cause of some belief systems, but that is not the stated goal of those belief systems.
@Anawakenedmind Your first point doesn't seem to follow from mine. You say 'Rightly so' — what are you affirming? Regarding your second, you suggested every belief system was invented to understand/comprehend/interact with your omnipotent something — ie that was its purpose. I disagreed, and stated other purposes — not 'causes'.
@TheraminTrees I was affirming the point that there are indeed many things more powerful than us. I was not referring to any one thing in particular nor was I calling it omnipotent. I inferred that we would describe it as such, until we understood more about it.
I actually agreed with you on the second point. I agree that some belief systems were created with the purpose of controlling people. However, that is not why someone believes in said system. That is what I was trying to convey.
@Anawakenedmind 'I was not referring to any one thing in particular nor was I calling it omnipotent.'
—You said 'something in existence .... that .... could be considered omnipotent'. That to me implies something in particular. But if not, then what are we actually talking about?
As to the second point — so if someone's invented a belief system to control others, and those others believe that bogus system, how does that support the existence of this omnipotent something?
@TheraminTrees 1) We are talking about anything that fits the description as I stated it. But, you have convinced me that I should rephrase it 'Something in existence that is more powerful than we are in ways we do not fully comprehend' as that is more in line with what I meant.
For the second point, no, it does not, whatsoever. Many such belief systems obfuscate what they are actually believing in to such a degree that they attributea multitude of things they do not understand to one being.
@TheraminTrees It is no one specific thing, otherwise I would have stated it as such. I am not using ambiguity as a shield for something specific that I personally believe in. I am not a follower of any faith, currently, nor am I trying to argue from a similar position.
To digress for a moment, in your "Betting on Infinity" video you mention a set of infinite possible gods. That set must include gods who punish their believers and reward nonbelievers, making all outcomes the same.
@Anawakenedmind 'It is no one specific thing, otherwise I would have stated it as such. I am not using ambiguity as a shield for something specific that I personally believe in. I am not a follower of any faith, currently, nor am I trying to argue from a similar position.'
—You asserted there was an 'omnipotent something'. I've been waiting for you to substantiate that, but instead of increasing clarification, all I've seen is increasing vagueness and digression.
Theramin: So you're an atheist in that you're skeptical and demanding evidence, else you live without God. What is your criterion for evidence? How about God appearing before you and introducing him/her/itself? If this, then, as the standard theist claim goes, God is a transcendent being and would have to make some adjustment so that he/she/it could manifest in your temporal reality. This adjustment would make God appear to be a temporal entity (such as a mirage) and therefore not God.
I found this guy pretty interesting. Graham Hancock's theory, about how stumbling across a certain halucinogenic plant could have been the cause of a sudden shift forward in human evolution; it seems as though humans started making cave art, showing signs of religion, higher IQ, new hunting stratogies etc. almost 'over night'.
This is part 6 or about 9 I think. Its related to what we've been talking about.
You have come up with a scenario which sounds absurd and ridiculous, but this should not matter. The idea of the Earth being round would have sounded absurd and ridiculous at one time. The Earth being flat might sound absurd and ridiculous now. If you discard the theory before you have pursued it, before you know if it will lead anywhere, then you have filtered out potentially useful information
...was staged. It might have been staged. But so might the frequency analyser. What is the difference?
The only difference I can see, is that the mainstream science view is more fashionable, at the moment. The majority might 'conform' to this view, because they've heard it repeated the most.
I am very much open to anything, like you, but am interested to discuss this
Whoa, your critical thinking. INSPIRES ME, WHOA WHOA
iSOisoleucine 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 3 weeks ago
Beautifully done! I very much appreciate your brilliant work.
RighteousRebel430 1 month ago
I am Congruence Buddhist.
humaner 1 month ago
I'm enjoying yours and your brothers videos. I'm a bit disappointed in this one though; no seaguls in the background.
leffehoegaarden 1 month ago
@leffehoegaarden Ah — the seagull connection has been spotted ....
TheraminTrees 1 month ago
I always liked when people refer to being an Atheist as being the "default" position. So, perhaps you simply "returned" to it and not converted to it when it actually happened. Always enjoy your videos man. You made very elegant, succinct, and powerful points here.
Antimidation 1 month ago 6
@Antimidation Thanks. I know some people shy away from the word 'convert' in this context — but it really just means changing from one state to another. Personally, my favourite word is 'de-programming' — which conveys an active indoctrination which was then overcome.
TheraminTrees 1 month ago
Whilst I wasn't brought up in a religious household I found myself attracted to Christianity in my early teens as a coping mechanism for the angst and need for acceptance young people feel at that time in their lives. However as I became more involved in a Christian group and actually read the bible, the more disquiet I felt about what I was learning, and the vast contradictions in the texts. Hence my atheism.
I'm just curious..Are you a Psychologist? Philosophy graduate???
Great work.
Mark.
schlutorflyer 1 month ago
@schlutorflyer I sometimes think bibles should come with a warning to read the small print. Thanks — and yes, my background is indeed in psychology.
TheraminTrees 1 month ago
@schlutorflyer
Your story closely mirrors my own and is why I often say that the biggest enemy of religion is critical thought.
chrisose 1 month ago
You should debate my uncle. he was part of the croydon national front and was an ex-mercenary.
TheMrKambara 1 month ago
I just want to say this: Your videos are FANTASTIC! I've seen a few youtubers who deal with creationism or religion, and several do an excellent job. None, however, have quite the same style, nor angle, that you do. I find the psychological angle very interesting, and the relaxed and calm style very appealing. Best of all, the visuals and the script support one another and make for REAL CLEAR presentation. Keep up the awesome work, and THANK YOU!
dojohansen123 2 months ago
It's funny that you said that if God suddenly appears, you'll believe in him. I say it's funny because I would demand proof that he's who he says he is, dismissing any "miracles" he'd shown me as simply power beyond my capabilities, which doesn't necessarily sanctify "All powerful" super God... in the end god can't even prove he's god. And, acknowledging his inability to do something, nullifies his existence as purported in the bibablie-boo....
TranslucentPlenum 2 months ago
@TranslucentPlenum Yep, the 'if god suddenly pops up' bit was a little facetious — a very informal version of 'give us the evidence and I'll have no problem.' I uploaded a series recently called 'there are no gods' where I expanded on this idea formally and in depth, looking at the problems raised by the issue of evidence — why miracles don't qualify; the problem of distinguishing 'magic' from technology, hence 'gods' from advanced technicians, etc.
TheraminTrees 2 months ago
@TheraminTrees No, I totally get the facetiousness. I was being a bit facetious myself. I'll take a look at those videos here in a minute.
TranslucentPlenum 2 months ago
@TheraminTrees dear friend , as an atheist too, i have to disagree with one particular statement you did, you mentioned " conversion to atheism" , i think there is just de-conversion from a religious belief. the atheistic state is the "default" state of every living thing. anyways , tremendous job you did. awesome as always. :)
rosmer00 4 months ago 2
@rosmer00 Thank you. Yes, I have very similar reservations about the word conversion as in 'conversion to atheism'. In the video, I used it in the loosest meaning — change from one state to another — but I've grown uncomfortable with the words because of the added aspect you highlight. Nowadays I prefer the word 'deprogramming' — not only emphasising that there was a change, but that the nature of the change involved the extraction of deliberately manipulative elements.
TheraminTrees 4 months ago 2
@TheraminTrees ah yes, atheistic is the deliberated state of nature , religiosity comes from nurture.
rosmer00 4 months ago
@TheraminTrees ah yes , absolutely , atheistic is the default stance of nature, religiosity comes from nurture. :)
rosmer00 4 months ago
@TheraminTrees how about "the return to atheism"?
eahazell 2 months ago
@eahazell That's a nice phrase.
TheraminTrees 2 months ago
@TheraminTrees I didn't even have to explain it. I love talking with intelligent people
eahazell 2 months ago
You're an eloquent and intelligent man, sir. I appreciate your reference to Person-Centered Counseling or Rogerian Counseling, as a Rogerian Counselor myself, I was pleased to see this. However, Dr. Rogers explained Congruence as being real and "transparent" with ones clients. Not holding anything back, allowing the counselor to feel angry with their client, to feel embarrassed, to feel happy, sad, pained, etc. So I I felt your definition was off from Dr. Rogers' initial definition.
IrishNickO 6 months ago 7
@IrishNickO Actually, congruence can refer to congruence between self and ideal self, or between self and experience. Carl Rogers wrote about both, and wrote explicitly about the very model used in this video, saying that experiences running, quote, 'contrary to conditions of worth are perceived selectively and distorted .... or are in part or whole denied by awareness'.
TheraminTrees 6 months ago 3
@TheraminTrees This is true and one of his more ambiguous models in the context of the fundamentals of Person-Centered Counseling. Good use of the model for this particular subject. Have you read "On Becoming A Person"?
IrishNickO 6 months ago
@IrishNickO I have 'On Becoming a Person' next to my bed, and dip into it from time to time. Rogers really made what I consider outstanding advances in communication, relationships and environments for personal growth.
TheraminTrees 6 months ago 3
@TheraminTrees Good man! I've read it several times and I believe it to be, probably, one of the most important pieces of literature for any human being, across all cultures. Once again, I can't stress enough how much I enjoy your videos. Well done, my friend.
IrishNickO 6 months ago
@TheraminTrees Which begs the question (in regards to your former response), should experiences that run contrary to conditions of socially defined worth be perceived selectively?
IrishNickO 2 months ago in playlist IrishNickO's favorites
Great video. Now you just need to do it in a redneck voice.
666arzin 7 months ago in playlist Atheism/Skepticism/Religion
I agree, being skeptical is a good thing. Question everything. Have you ever considered that the Bible stories have nothing to do with the supernatural.. but instead are symbolic representation of the human psyche? Is it possible that symbols like God and the Devil just represent our often divided state of mind?.
The Bible redefines God as existing in hearts and minds, and just like Buddhism.. tears down religion and its belief in supernatural gods and miracles. Religions are the problem
AcceleratorPlus 7 months ago
@AcceleratorPlus
Can you point out the specific passages in the Bible that "tears down religion and its belief in supernatural gods and miracles;" because as far as my 10 years in the study of theology, specifically Christianity has led me to believe the Bible is telling you to believe in a supernatural God and Miracles. For example, 4 of 10 commandments in the Bible deal solely with worshiping and obeying a supernatural God.
vader1789 7 months ago
@vader1789 For a start.. the laws of Moses were superceded and made obsolete by Jesus.. see John 6:32 + Romans 13:8
"But their mental powers were dulled. For to this present day the same veil remains uplifted at the reading of the old covenant, because it is DONE AWAY WITH by means of Christ."
"In his saying "a new covenant" He has made the former one OBSOLETE and growing old is near to vanishing away." - 2Corinthians 3.12 + Hebrews7:18 + 8:13
AcceleratorPlus 7 months ago
The NT contains many elements of Buddha’s teachings.. for example.. in Buddhism..
Kutadan ta said:
"I am told that thou teachest the law, yet thou tearest down religion. Better than worshipping gods
is obedience to the laws of righteousness." - Identity and Non Identity - 6
However, Jesus said to him: "Do you behold these great buildings? By no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down." - Mark 13:2
Also see Isaiah 66.6 (the number of the Beast)
AcceleratorPlus 7 months ago
@AcceleratorPlus
What have just provided for me is rubbish. John 6:32 is clearly trying to convey the message that Moses is no more important than any other man. That is God who is at the utmost importance.
Romans 13 read in it's entirety, and not simply Romans 13:8, again clearly shows that the speaker is talking about a Supernatural God that oversees the authorities here on Earth and that is why the people should listen to their governments.
vader1789 7 months ago
The writers were against governments, organized religion, power and authority. They redefined the God concept as existing inside hearts.. i.e. LOVE
"For we have a wrestling, not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the high places."
"Stripping governments and authorities bare. He exhibited them in open public as conquered." - Ephesians 6:12 - Colossians 12:14
AcceleratorPlus 7 months ago
@AcceleratorPlus
I'm assuming you didn't read the passage I provided for you. John 12:44-50. Please read it, it's time to accept the fact and change your position on this.
vader1789 7 months ago
@vader1789 My position is simple.. symbolism not supernatural tales. Myths are stories often with an ethical message.. good against evil.. to even attempt to understand them literally is verging on madness. For example.. The Matrix.. Do you believe.. or lack belief.. the Matrix existed? Is it about the supernatural? What about Dracula. Of course.. to hold either position.. belief.. or lack of belief.. is ridiculous. It’s a symbolic story. They are myths of our times.
AcceleratorPlus 7 months ago
@AcceleratorPlus
I do not care what your position is in regards to what symbolism is or supernatural tales are; what I care about is your claim that the Bible "tears down religion and its belief in supernatural gods and miracles." Please stick to the original subject matter, or concede the point and simply move on. You have two options, admit you made a faulty claim and move on; or provide a specific passage from the Bible that supports your claim.
vader1789 7 months ago
I noticed the opening passages of Isaiah sound a lot like Richard Dawkins.. or was Isaiah an atheist.. maybe?
“Incense_ it is something detestable to me. New moon and Sabbath, the calling of a convention_ I cannot put up with the use of uncanny power along with the solemn assembly. Your new moons and your festal seasons my soul has hated. To me they have become a burden; I have become tired of bearing them.
I“There has been a trusting in unreality, and a speaking of worthlessness."
AcceleratorPlus 7 months ago
@AcceleratorPlus
Listen, I understand if you are currently a Christian and are trying to hold on to that belief by twisting the words around in order to fit to your particular needs so you can hold onto that belief. However, don't you think that once you start trying to twist stuff around and grab a passage from here and there (so you end up not reading it in its proper context) it's time to finally realize this shit doesn't make sense and just let go of it?
vader1789 7 months ago
@vader1789 It doesn’t make sense if the reader confuses symbolism.. myth.. metaphor and poetry.. for supernatural tales.. No more than “My love is like a red red rose” doesn’t make sense if one is naïve enough to read it literally. The stories of Moses and Jesus are symbolic dramas.. not history. They describe what is going on in the human psyche. They invite the reader to ask.. What does this mean? It is people’s belief that these stories are supernatural that doesn’t make sense to me.
AcceleratorPlus 7 months ago
@AcceleratorPlus
That's fine if people choosing to believe in supernatural entities doesn't make sense to you, but you are now getting off topic. The topic is if the Bible "tears down religion and its belief in supernatural gods and miracles." You have yet to provide any passages that expressly do that.
In fact, contrary to your claim, the NT, actually reaffirms in a supernatural being in a expressed manner that does not lend itself to be interpreted any other way in John 12:44-50.
vader1789 7 months ago
@AcceleratorPlus
@AcceleratorPlus
So read as a whole as, I stated before, the passages you have provided do not give the option to be interpret it as poetry, metaphors etc... by picking and choosing bits and pieces out of the chapters and putting them together as you see fit is what doesn't make sense. So again, I ask of you to provide me specific examples from the Bible that renounce a supernatural God.
vader1789 7 months ago
@vader1789 Whether people believe in supernatural entities or lack a belief in them.. it doesn’t make sense.. if we stop to think about it. Anyone who claims that they believe.. or lack a belief.. in talking serpents.. virgin births.. and geese that lay golden eggs.. is a candidate for the funny farm. See my video response.. The god-man. It puts Jesus and Nietzsche in bed together.. great minds think alike. Nietzsche really understood the Bible.. which teaches You are gods.. Theism is dead.
AcceleratorPlus 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AcceleratorPlus
I am starting to think you belong in the funny farm, as I have repeated multiple times to please stick to the original subject matter. Show me a passage that supports your claim that the Bible "tears down religion and its belief in supernatural gods and miracles," or admit you were wrong. I am not concerned who is God, what a God is, if religion is good or bad or any other subject, I am only concerned with your claim. I called you out on that and that alone.
vader1789 7 months ago
“Every church is a stone on the grave of a god-man: it does not want him to rise up again under any circumstances.” - Friedrich Nietzsche
"So in this idea, then, everybody is fundamentally the ultimate reality. Not God in a politically kingly sense, but God in the sense of being the self, the deep-down basic whatever there is. And you're all that, only you're pretending you're not." - Alan watts
AcceleratorPlus 7 months ago
@AcceleratorPlus
Great, you show some quotes. Still not supporting your claim about the Bible. Please look up what a Straw Man Argument is.
vader1789 7 months ago
@vader1789 And it came to past the spirit of Amos entered into Richard Dawkins.t. and he spoke thus..
“I have hated, I have rejected your festivals, and I shall not enjoy the smell of your solemn assemblies, even in your gift offerings I shall find no pleasure. Remove from me the turmoil of your songs.. “ etc.. etc
“You who are rejoicing in a thing that is not" – Amos 5:18 + 6:13
Conclusion: The writers of the Bible hated organized religion.. the book is a trojan.. not what it seems
AcceleratorPlus 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AcceleratorPlus
Conclusion: you are a nutcase and cannot admit when you are wrong. You claimed the Bible "tears down religion and its belief in supernatural gods and miracles." I asked for a specific passage that supports your claim and you have been unable to provide even one; and instead provide random quotes and passages that are not relevant to this discussion.
Please show me one passage from the Bible which is the only thing that can validate your claim, or simply fuck off you dumbshit.
vader1789 7 months ago
Ohh i Just love your videos! :)))
klasop 7 months ago
TheraminTrees- I appreciate and like your intelligent and openminded presentations
and discussions as opposed to the people that come to my door to preach. I have read about and watched other atheists go through some of their experiences. Sorry to see the self torture you went through. You talk about supernatural entities and things of that nature. Have you ever found or read anything credible of that sort outside of the bible?
nidhidhian 8 months ago
@nidhidhian I would first qualify 'self torture', because that downplays the fact it was provoked and maintained by others. Regarding supernatural entities, I'm getting into that in a three part video I'm doing soon. One of the points I'll be making is about the epistemological vacuum around supernatural ideas — and the need for epistemological tools if there is to be discussion beyond personal belief.
TheraminTrees 8 months ago
I consider myself an atheist Jew, in that I still follow the traditions and believe in the values taught by Judaism. My doubt in god derives from my innate desire for there to be one. Whether by the death of a loved one or loneliness of depression, I have found at times a desire for greater purpose, and for that very reason I can see the formation of god and the false yet uplifting hope that goes with him. I don't hate religion and Judaism has no hell and teaches to question itself, so I oblige.
gremlinextreme101 8 months ago
I like how you handle people in the comments that gradually reveal their trolling nature!
Great vid as always of course.
CingerNebojsa 8 months ago
@CingerNebojsa Thanks. I try to offer a dialogue to critics, and some genuine critics can seem quite troll-like at first — maybe they've become jaded/defensive from past encounters with other folks. But if a critic can't get past that after a couple of chances, the words 'troll' and 'bigot' start springing to mind — and it's remarkable how quickly my interest evaporates. Here's to more substantial, stimulating folks ;8)
TheraminTrees 8 months ago
@TheraminTrees
Cheers to that!
Yeah, giving them a chance is certainly the proper thing to do, but they should take care not to overstate their welcome. Hopefully you'll encounter some disscusion-ready people soon, but that isn't as likely to happen on youtube I presume. In any case, I'm looking forward to new videos from you, although I still have a lot of oldies to go through. Have a nice day!
CingerNebojsa 8 months ago
@CingerNebojsa Thanks! You too ;8)
TheraminTrees 8 months ago
You and QualiaSoup tend to take a patronizing tone toward theists, but I really wish you would think critically about your own metaphysical assumptions and techniques of rationalization when it comes to dealing with the fact of religious experience, rather than just advising others to think critically.
SyKmGl 8 months ago
@SyKmGl "Theists do not deny the experience of atheists .... whereas atheists deny the experiences of theists"
—Let's not start with a blatant falsehood. For four years on here, I've had theist after theist doing *exactly* that. So. There are good and bad in both groups. Now, if you want a genuine discussion, I'm open to that. But to be a productive one, I'll need you to give specific criticisms. Quote me, and we can talk. Merely accuse me of unspecified 'assumptions' and we can go nowhere.
TheraminTrees 8 months ago
@TheraminTrees
I'm not sure how theists could deny your experiences, in a way that would be relevant to atheism. I mean, there aren't exactly 'atheist experiences', are there? On the other hand, atheists routinely deny my spiritual experiences, often implying that I and other theists are insane or went through temporary insanity. There are mystics who have even been forcibly put on medication and subject to other forms of violation, because their views didn't fit the metaphysical assumptions..
SyKmGl 8 months ago
@TheraminTrees
... of the atheistic scientists who were judging them. There is a lot wrong with the approach of most theists, including often bigotry against atheists, but a denial of experience is one area where atheists definitely win (i.e. they engage in it much more than theists do).
As for the patronizing tone, this is something that's all over your videos. The fact that many of your sentences involve instructing other people, e.g. something like 'either keep your beliefs to yourself...
SyKmGl 8 months ago
@TheraminTrees
... or be prepared to have them be taken apart by me.' And other statements that involve telling people what they should do, and what is wrong with their approach to this.
There are metaphysical and epistemological assumptions underlying most people's position on the issue of the existence of God, and this includes atheists. This isn't a bad thing, but it's not quite as simple as to say it's about evidence or lack thereof.
SyKmGl 8 months ago
@SyKmGl "I'm not sure how theists could deny your experiences"
—No reason why you would be — you're on the other side of the fence. I'm constantly told I know full well that gods exist really, that I'm in rebellion, etc.
"e.g. something like 'either keep your beliefs to yourself...... or be prepared to have them be taken apart by me.' "
—I asked you if you want a genuine conversation, and if so to quote me. Is that a quote? No. When you're serious about a genuine conversation, let me know.
TheraminTrees 8 months ago
@TheraminTrees
I'm not entirely on the other side of the fence, actually. I was an atheist for basically my entire life until a couple of years ago. Anyway, granted that your experiences are denied by theists, I would like you to acknowledge that theists' experiences are denied by atheists all the time, including in academic contexts. The same kind of denial and distortion that you mentioned (not that I believe in these psychological models, but anyway) is often done by atheists when they...
SyKmGl 8 months ago
@TheraminTrees
... encounter the fact of religious experiences. One common tactic I've found among atheists is to come up with ad hoc ideas of mental wellness/illness, where someone is mentally ill if they have an experience that cannot be squared with materialism and naturalism.
The problem, when it comes to rationalization etc., is one of human nature. I get the impression that you (and QualiaSoup) think this is specifically a religious problem, which it isn't.
As for evidence of your...
SyKmGl 8 months ago
@TheraminTrees
... patronizing tone, refer to what you said at 5:58 of your video. You basically told adult theists something really obvious (thus patronizing), and included the line: 'what's so fragile that it can't stand up to sustained scrutiny, and needs threats to protect it?' By asking that question in this context, you're implying that theists in particular need to be instructed on the importance of critical thinking.
SyKmGl 8 months ago
@SyKmGl "There are metaphysical and epistemological assumptions underlying most people's position"
—But you suggested I needed to examine mine — so you must have something specific in mind that you feel I got wrong. Tell me what it is and we'll go through it.
TheraminTrees 8 months ago
@TheraminTrees
Actually my point was rather that assumptions are being made that aren't acknowledged. I happen to believe the assumptions are false, but that was not my point in the first comment.
It would be great if people started realizing that materialism and naturalism are not the default positions, but themselves must be justified. They are positive positions, not negative. Can you justify naturalism and/or materialism?
SyKmGl 8 months ago
@SyKmGl Neither Qualia nor I think rationalisation is the exclusive domain of the religious — this is why I ask for quotes, not inferences. I utterly reject your accusation of patronising tone at 5:58. I'm making a very necessary criticism of coercion/fear tactics, in solidarity with those who've been or are being subjected to that rubbish. If you have problems with some atheists' behaviour, take it to them. I made it clear in my opening reply that there are good and bad in both groups.
TheraminTrees 8 months ago
@TheraminTrees
Well, there's nothing I can do if you reject my accusation of a patronizing tone. This is the impression I get from your videos, and I am definitely not the only one who gets this impression. I think we should just leave this point now.
Although you admit that there are good and bad in both groups, your don't tend to point out when atheists engage in the same tactics, or even mention that this is a human nature thing (rather than a religion thing).
SyKmGl 8 months ago
@TheraminTrees
This is not to say that justification is not possible, but rather that it tends to be assumed when discussing the supposed lack of evidence for God's existence. The justification ultimately rests on epistemological assumptions, which the discussion never moves toward because it's heavy philosophical territory, and if more people started discussing the issue in those terms atheism would soon be exposed as not being the default position.
SyKmGl 8 months ago
@SyKmGl You said you wished I thought critically about my assumptions. I do. You've now said assumptions are being made that are false. If you don't specify what you're referring to, I don't know what you're talking about. So, please state these assumptions, using quotes — not inferences, not what other atheists have said or might say, but what I've said. I'm not wasting my precious time denying things I've never said, and other people can defend their own position.
TheraminTrees 8 months ago
@TheraminTrees
Actually I said the assumptions are being made, but not acknowledged, when the issue is framed in terms of evidence or lack thereof. The narrative: 'atheism is just the absence of belief in gods due to lack of evidence for gods, whereas theism is the belief in gods without evidence [aka faith]' is what I am questioning. It so happens that I belief some of your assumptions are false, but that was not my original claim. Anyway, those assumptions are naturalism and materialism...
SyKmGl 8 months ago
@SyKmGl "It so happens that I belief some of your assumptions are false …. Anyway, those assumptions are naturalism and materialism."
—As these are not in fact my assumptions, I don't need to answer that point.
"it's heavy philosophical territory, and if more people started discussing the issue in those terms atheism would soon be exposed as not being the default position."
—By all means explain why you think not believing in gods isn't the default — the null position.
TheraminTrees 8 months ago
@SyKmGl "Well, there's nothing I can do if you reject my accusation of a patronizing tone."
—Well, you could actually listen to what I've said — what with me knowing my own motivation, and giving a very clear explanation of it. But of course, if you merely want to keep your own inferences, then yes, it seems there's little to be said. But I'm happy to leave the point — it was bound to go nowhere because it was based on inference.
TheraminTrees 8 months ago
@TheraminTrees
You don't assume naturalism? I find that hard to believe. When you encounter a phenomenon, what sort of explanations do you look for (if at all)? Not supernatural ones, presumably. If you explain everything in terms of natural causes, then you're a naturalist (at least implicitly, if not explicitly).
As for physicalism, the alternative is believing in non-physical things, such as non-physical consciousness, spirit etc. Although one may be an atheist and a non-physicalist...
SyKmGl 8 months ago
@SyKmGl "You don't assume naturalism? I find that hard to believe."
—I imagine you would. All you've done is predict and pre-empt me with your own assumptions. Your comment below is yet another example:
"The default should be agnosticism, not atheism. And TheraminTrees makes an analogy with Loch Ness Monster/FSM ... etc. in 3...2...1..."
—Again, you couldn't be more wrong. My reply is actually that atheism and agnosticism address separate questions — hence agnostic atheists.
TheraminTrees 8 months ago
@TheraminTrees
You didn't answer my question. Do you believe that naturalistic science offers the best explanations for what we see around us? And do you believe in the existence of non-physical things? There, I'm not pre-empting but asking, which I did before as well, but you dodged the question.
SyKmGl 8 months ago
@SyKmGl I didn't 'dodge' your question at all — I simply can't be bothered answering questions when someone's constantly predicting me and leaving pissy comments like "And TheraminTrees makes an analogy with Loch Ness Monster/FSM ... etc. in 3...2...1..." — if you've got all that out of your system now, and would like to continue with a bit less cynicism and a bit more civility, we can do so.
TheraminTrees 8 months ago
@TheraminTrees
You're the one who's halted, my friend, not me. I asked a question, twice. I'm waiting for an answer.
SyKmGl 8 months ago
@SyKmGl Yup, you are waiting for an answer :8) As I said, I don't know if I can be bothered answering you. It was that pissy 'And TheraminTrees makes an analogy with ....' comment. Coming back to see that, having received so many other assumptions from you, I have to ask myself why I'm bothering with a total stranger who behaves like that to me. Not coming up with any good reasons — just seems I'm wasting my time, when I could be using it productively.
TheraminTrees 8 months ago
@TheraminTrees
Lol. All right, whatever.
SyKmGl 8 months ago
@TheraminTrees
... the only people who are like that are Buddhists, Jains and maybe some animists. But I doubt you fall into any of those categories. But anyway, tell me: do you believe in the existence of supernatural causation and/or non-physical entities?
The default should be agnosticism, not atheism. And TheraminTrees makes an analogy with Loch Ness Monster/FSM/Big Foot/Fairies/Invisible Dragon etc. in 3...2...1...
SyKmGl 8 months ago
@TheraminTrees
... which I stated earlier as well. If you want more information on naturalism and materialism, you can view these links:
h ttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/
h ttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/
[delete the spaces in the urls]
The latter entry is on physicalism, but that's fine since I was using 'materialism' interchangeably with 'physicalism'.
These assumptions are not default positions, but require justification.
SyKmGl 8 months ago
This is very ironic, as I have experienced God and am told to deny my experiences by atheists all the time. Theists do not deny the experience of atheists, though they may disagree with them, whereas atheists deny the experiences of theists, sometimes going so far as to label them as insane and produce 'studies' 'showing' that in fact their brains are wonky (which is logically fallacious, but anything will go when it comes to defending dogmas).
SyKmGl 8 months ago
I would say don't believe just understand :))) See rael.org and read the books ok? And let me know
Boudabdou 8 months ago
I don't understand how you can be against this. Who cares what the bible says. We are trying to get it right not get it what my great grandfather said.
TheBruceRoth 9 months ago
@TheBruceRoth er .... did I say I was against something? Nope. Have another read.
TheraminTrees 9 months ago 2
After listening to your video, I looked up a study that I had heard about where a Cardiologist in San Francisco studied a number of patients over 300. He divided them into two groups and had people pray for one group and not the other. The study was talked about on an atheist web site.
TheBruceRoth 9 months ago
@TheBruceRoth Byrd's study was a strange business. Aside from the obvious blunder of not controlling the very thing you're testing — rendering the control group useless — it was odd to see someone going against the passages so often quoted about not testing gods.
TheraminTrees 9 months ago
It's interesting just how similar this is to my own transition to atheism, and experience. I too started rejecting faith only after I realized I was failing to defend it. ...Though it was my older brother that I was arguing with, not a teacher. Great video by the way.
thefrozenmercury 10 months ago
I was led to this video by the first of yours that I had ever viewed. They are so well done that I enthusiastically subscribed and will probably quote you often.
wavymavy 11 months ago
Excellent.
drumrnva 11 months ago
When my worldview changed, this was an entire process. "This happened because everything happens for a reason. But I don't believe in a divine plan... so... why did it happen then?"
2nDoppelganger 11 months ago
Reality is a cold hearted bitch. Self-delusion however, is worse, and arguably evil.
mihoda 1 year ago
Awesome video! I've been on the religious skepticism track for a while now, and riding it pretty hard, and I have not heard of anybody thinking this way. Very cool stuff you've got.
SevenRiderAirForce 1 year ago 3
@SevenRiderAirForce Thanks. I've long been interested in the development of religious psychology — having been indoctrinated with religious psychology myself as a child. So when I come across an interesting psychological model — like person-centred 'congruence' or the 'transition' model in the other video — I'm intrigued to see if it has anything to offer in explaining religious experiences/socialisation/rejection, etc.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
This guy is the best phycologist in the world. Period.
EasyGraphicDesignca 1 year ago
I hope you show up on atheist experience some time
EasyGraphicDesignca 1 year ago
INTJ here, I prefer this aspect of the emergence from religion into atheism.
inademv 1 year ago
This is great. I get so caught up in the physical sciences (damn you, Thunderf00t!) that I often neglect looking at the psychological aspects of religious belief. Great video! Thank you!
JoshwithaJ 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Author,
I have seen many of your videos, and all are great. I deeply agree and promote these same ideas myself. However, after watching this, I have a question for you and would be thankful if you'd answer.
It appears to me that you promote critical thinking, which is great. Hence, you show us that people, who have not experienced god (and you, as you say, are one of them) have no basis whatsoever for their belief in god. But what about the people, who claim that they have..?
XagenUnknown 1 year ago
@XagenUnknown An unsubstantiated claim is just that. If they can provide substantiation, I'm all ears.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
Author,
I have seen many of your videos, and all are great. I deeply agree and promote these same ideas myself. However, after watching this, I have a question for you and would be thankful if you'd answer.
It appears to me that you promote critical thinking, which is great. Hence, you show us that people, who have not experienced god (and you, as you say, are one of them) have no basis whatsoever for their belief in god. But what about the people, who claim that they have..?
XagenUnknown 1 year ago
@XagenUnknown "...have no basis whatsoever for their belief in god. But what about the people, who claim that they have..?"
Such people have at least some justification. They are in a similar position as people with color blindness or tetrachromatic vision.(Experiencing more or less than "normal" humans of the electromagnetic spectrum) In the end, such people probably want to talk to others and try to find out why their view of reality differs from other people.
Gnomefro 1 year ago
@XagenUnknown In the end, this would boil down to empirical testing mostly. Can "God" produce effects of any kind? If not, it would seem likely that "It's all in your head" in some way(Because we know all kinds of malfunctions can happen in brains). In the case of the abnormal vision types I mentioned they will be able to determine a physical cause and everyone involved, both normal vision and other kinds, would be able to agree about the state of reality.
Gnomefro 1 year ago
I like how you and QualiaSoup are outspokenly anti-anti-nudity, when practically NOBODY is.
Daruqe 1 year ago
@Daruqe We've come across a lot of anti-nude folks. But it's also been great to see some folks challenge themselves and overcome it.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
The great thing about this process is that you could stick in "Santa Claus", the "Easter Bunny", etc.
LOVE IT!
djkoch65 1 year ago
I have watched countless videos on atheism and they are all great.
This video is the absolute best I have ever seen!
AMAZING!!!!!!!
djkoch65 1 year ago 6
@djkoch65 Thanks! Some psychological models give me valuable new perspective on my atheism — the congruence model did, and so did the transition model, so I thought I'd put them out there.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago 3
@TheraminTrees
How do you think this compares or is related to 'compartmentalization' and 'cognitive dissonance?'
mdiem 1 year ago
@mdiem Showers and Zeigler-Hill looked into compartmentalisation and integration within the self-structure — if you're interested, a reference is: Showers, C. J., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2007). Compartmentalization and integration: The evaluative organization of contextualized selves. Journal of Personality, 75, 1181-1204. Cognitive dissonance evokes a conscious tension — edge of awareness or pronounced awareness, as opposed to denial/distortion which are seen more as happening outside awareness.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
I have a question about this. If the self-structure is imposed or suggested by other people where do you believe it comes from? Do you believe it comes from their experiences, distortions over time or something else? These are actual questions, not some arguments in disguise (I hate those), I'm actually curious.
Golkarian 1 year ago
@Golkarian The metaphor 'self-structure' as presented in P-C Theory deals with our pattern-searching mechanisms, building networks of associations between our experiences. Sometimes associations we make by ourselves will be dubious because we've over-generalised or attributed cause to correlation, etc.. Living alongside other pattern-seeking humans, we take on some of their associations too — again, some will be dubious, and sometimes forcibly imposed. Hopefully we unlearn a lot of it.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
What you've described so well is exactly how I feel. Thank you for sharing.
jab0805 1 year ago
there is a special word to find god but he told me not to tell anyone............its shabladoo dont tell her i told u
viperstrike0 1 year ago
Very interesting lecture. In general, I agree with you, but I don't think that being critical and demanding evidence needs to lead one to become atheist. It certainly creates a great deal of scepticism about the bible, and about a lot of religious practices. I believe that God exists, just not in the form propogated by the bible and Christians. Science has not yet invented a means of discovering the nurturing spirit within that --to me anyway--is God.
gsco82 1 year ago
@gsco82 'I don't think that being critical and demanding evidence needs to lead one to become atheist.'
—Demanding evidence doesn't have to lead you to become an atheist — not if you're sneeking evidence-free stuff in at the end. If, after all your evidence demanding, you're willing to believe entities for which there's no evidence, then 'evidence' becomes rather a moot point, doesn't it. I can entertain possibilities, for which there is not yet evidence — but 'believe' them? Nope.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees Could one not argue that the feeling people claim to have of presence and understanding of a being's existence, even if not an understanding of the being itself, is evidence enough to believe in God, though not enough to believe in a certain organized religion? We see many creatures come across things they experience that don't understand, who is to say we are posessed of the most advanced intelligence achievable?
ultraprat2000 1 year ago
@ultraprat2000 'who is to say we are posessed of the most advanced intelligence achievable?'
—Who exactly *is* saying we're possessed of the most advanced intelligence achievable?
'Could one not argue that the feeling people claim to have of presence .... is evidence enough to believe in God'
—Why a god, not a ghost? Why not an invisible man — or a simple projection of human imagination. To conclude that it must be a god rules out a multitude of alternative fancies — how were they ruled out?
TheraminTrees 1 year ago 6
Each time I watch a vid of yours opens a door of knowledge that seems to have been dormant. It seems like I knew it long before but I'm not sure-abstract, if you may. But when you say it, brings color to my thought. Suddenly, it make sense. You are like a messiah to me(dunno if you like the term) And I love you for that! Stay humble, keep it up and good health!
amayan80east 1 year ago
I've gotta say, these are easily some of the best video's on youtube, Subscribed!
Liamkeno 1 year ago
@Liamkeno Why, thank you — and welcome to the channel.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
I love these videos. They're like good poetry to me - each time I watch one of them, I understand something new about its message.
airandfingers 1 year ago
@airandfingers That's a great piece of feedback, thanks ;8)
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
I need to start making videos about my awakening from atheism to simulism.
enigmatically 1 year ago
or whatever you may call it and therefore "filtering" any evidence that comes your way as in the case of John? Much of atheism seems like a simple placeholder for some sort of religious belief. If you know there IS a god seems much the same to knowing there ISN'T one. Toss out the dogma, the clergy, the holy books even, but not the baby with the bathwater.
redrubberball 1 year ago
@redrubberball First this video is not talking about knowing there is no god — but having a lack of belief, which is appropriate considering the absence of any evidence. So let's be clear about that context. Second, I've had it put to me that I'm filtering out 'god' before — I addressed that in my video 'A private religious experience' and subsequently in 'Seeing isn't believing'.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
First, I am not a fan of organized religion. Must be said. However. I've never been to Spain but I'm still pretty sure it exists. Likewise, scientists don't really know what's going on with Black holes but it's pretty much agreed that they exist (or don't if you wanna get technical). I do respect a persons right to believe what they will based on their own senses and what you lay down IS a solid argument but couldn't you fall through the back door again now having a belief that there is no God..
redrubberball 1 year ago
@redrubberball Science has a pretty good grasp on what a black hole is. It's a collapsed remnant of a star whose gravity is so strong that light cannot escape its event horizon.
YetAnotherAtheistVid 1 year ago
Well done. I'm often struck by the parallels between the apologetics of theodicy and some symptoms of dependent personality disorder, codependency, and Stockholm syndrome. The metal gymnastics required to justify abuse received by a thing perceived as wholly altruistic are similar. Perhaps the perceived fear of abandonment overwhelms all objections. All evil is justified and, by definition, cannot be gratuitous. You seem interested in theories of cognition; a future video topic, pherhaps?
myerssa7 1 year ago
Great video. Thank you.
NicolaRedwooddforest 1 year ago
from 3:30 to 3:50 or so, that's exactly what was happening to me... no wonder becoming an atheist was a HUGE relief; the world finally made sense after one took the supernatural variable out or the equation.
SurferRosa79 1 year ago
@SurferRosa79 oops, typ, not "or" but "off"
SurferRosa79 1 year ago
Atheism is simply open-mindedness and common sense. That's why there's such a strong correlation between atheism and education. Everyone is born an atheist. 1000s of years, 1000s of gods, still no decent evidence or reasoning for any of them.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
A great explanation of how belief systems function!
uncleboring 1 year ago
Honestly, I became agnostic when I finally stopped to learn more about my Christianity. There are many double standards in the morality.
justicetrooper 1 year ago
Wow that was sooo deep
lilchris10kid 1 year ago
Another great video. Nice job.
Absurd question you must get all the time: What do you make your movies with?
miketwo345 1 year ago
Fantastic
pianodarr 1 year ago
Demand evidence of things that you find easy to believe see how that subject relates to its surrounding reality; you will be much more able to derive how complicated functions work. The more you understand the easier it will become; reality is self-consistent. Every thing came from one place; Earth.
ttopperr 1 year ago
i wonder if you have ever spoken to your R.S teacher more recently?
mooglebee 1 year ago
Read the book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, this will be of great interest as it deals with the physical facts that you need to "believe".
singlensearching 1 year ago
@singlensearching 'Read the book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, this will be of great interest as it deals with the physical facts that you need to "believe".'
—Read the chapter-by-chapter refutations of it, available on the net.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago 34
@singlensearching: I've actually read that book...and the entire series for that matter...just to put that to rest. My comment, best illustrated, is it is wonderfully written in the same genre that the Chronicles of Narnia are written. There is no proof presented. There are no facts to base ideology upon. It is simply an extension of a very poorly supported facet of Apologetics.
SmokeCho7 1 year ago
(yawn) Whatever.
DrDeist 1 year ago
This is a quick reposting of a poorly formed and half baked belief system:
1) There is something in existence, within or outside the universe, that we cannot comprehend, that is more powerful than us to such a degree that it could be considered omnipotent from our currently limited view of what is and is not possible.
2) Every belief system or religion ever invented or that will be invented is an attempt to understand, comprehend, and interact with such a something, in a meaningful way.
Anawakenedmind 1 year ago
This is by no means a perfect statement of the concept that I have formed, but I'd like to point out that theoretical sciences can be described in this way. After all, there are things in quantum physics and astronomy that absolutely cannot be witnessed directly, and must be inferred or extrapolated, and the end goal of any science could be stated as the complete understanding and comprehension of a topic.
Also, this is my first and second comments in the history of time! You've moved me.
Anawakenedmind 1 year ago
@Anawakenedmind Thanks for transferring to an open forum. In response, I'd say 1) There are many 'things' more powerful than us — everything from elephants to electro-magnetic force — but you seem to be positing one particular thing as omnipotent. Can you substantiate this? 2) I'd say belief systems do not all attempt to interact with such posited 'somethings' — and are often, rather, systems to rationalise painful feelings like guilt, to deny death, and control other humans.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees Rightly so. There are things more powerful than us, and there always will be. People once worshiped elephants, tigers, the gods that caused river flooding and the sun. As our perceptions of the world, as a race, change, religion also does. There will always be something more powerful than us that some people will worship. As for your second point, that may well be the cause of some belief systems, but that is not the stated goal of those belief systems.
Anawakenedmind 1 year ago
@Anawakenedmind Your first point doesn't seem to follow from mine. You say 'Rightly so' — what are you affirming? Regarding your second, you suggested every belief system was invented to understand/comprehend/interact with your omnipotent something — ie that was its purpose. I disagreed, and stated other purposes — not 'causes'.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees I was affirming the point that there are indeed many things more powerful than us. I was not referring to any one thing in particular nor was I calling it omnipotent. I inferred that we would describe it as such, until we understood more about it.
I actually agreed with you on the second point. I agree that some belief systems were created with the purpose of controlling people. However, that is not why someone believes in said system. That is what I was trying to convey.
Anawakenedmind 1 year ago
@Anawakenedmind 'I was not referring to any one thing in particular nor was I calling it omnipotent.'
—You said 'something in existence .... that .... could be considered omnipotent'. That to me implies something in particular. But if not, then what are we actually talking about?
As to the second point — so if someone's invented a belief system to control others, and those others believe that bogus system, how does that support the existence of this omnipotent something?
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees 1) We are talking about anything that fits the description as I stated it. But, you have convinced me that I should rephrase it 'Something in existence that is more powerful than we are in ways we do not fully comprehend' as that is more in line with what I meant.
For the second point, no, it does not, whatsoever. Many such belief systems obfuscate what they are actually believing in to such a degree that they attributea multitude of things they do not understand to one being.
Anawakenedmind 1 year ago
@Anawakenedmind 'Something in existence that is more powerful than we are in ways we do not fully comprehend'
—And that is .... ?
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees It is no one specific thing, otherwise I would have stated it as such. I am not using ambiguity as a shield for something specific that I personally believe in. I am not a follower of any faith, currently, nor am I trying to argue from a similar position.
To digress for a moment, in your "Betting on Infinity" video you mention a set of infinite possible gods. That set must include gods who punish their believers and reward nonbelievers, making all outcomes the same.
Anawakenedmind 1 year ago
@Anawakenedmind 'It is no one specific thing, otherwise I would have stated it as such. I am not using ambiguity as a shield for something specific that I personally believe in. I am not a follower of any faith, currently, nor am I trying to argue from a similar position.'
—You asserted there was an 'omnipotent something'. I've been waiting for you to substantiate that, but instead of increasing clarification, all I've seen is increasing vagueness and digression.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago 12
@TheraminTrees Sounds like anawakenedmind is talking about Cthulhu.
DeimosSaturn 1 year ago
Theramin: So you're an atheist in that you're skeptical and demanding evidence, else you live without God. What is your criterion for evidence? How about God appearing before you and introducing him/her/itself? If this, then, as the standard theist claim goes, God is a transcendent being and would have to make some adjustment so that he/she/it could manifest in your temporal reality. This adjustment would make God appear to be a temporal entity (such as a mirage) and therefore not God.
DrDeist 1 year ago
All is predetermined by God's Plan.
God has planned that He will help only those who pray.
God has planned that He will not help those who don't pray.
God has predetermined who will or will not pray.
If you pray God has chosen you to pray and may have planned that He will help you.
Only if you pray can you know that you are chosen.
So pray.
DrDeist 1 year ago
I found this guy pretty interesting. Graham Hancock's theory, about how stumbling across a certain halucinogenic plant could have been the cause of a sudden shift forward in human evolution; it seems as though humans started making cave art, showing signs of religion, higher IQ, new hunting stratogies etc. almost 'over night'.
This is part 6 or about 9 I think. Its related to what we've been talking about.
youtube.com/watch?v=QCxX9lUnOk0&feature=related
Great talking
J
jazztutorial 1 year ago
Comment removed
jazztutorial 1 year ago
@jazztutorial
You have come up with a scenario which sounds absurd and ridiculous, but this should not matter. The idea of the Earth being round would have sounded absurd and ridiculous at one time. The Earth being flat might sound absurd and ridiculous now. If you discard the theory before you have pursued it, before you know if it will lead anywhere, then you have filtered out potentially useful information
jazztutorial 1 year ago
Comment removed
jazztutorial 1 year ago
...was staged. It might have been staged. But so might the frequency analyser. What is the difference?
The only difference I can see, is that the mainstream science view is more fashionable, at the moment. The majority might 'conform' to this view, because they've heard it repeated the most.
I am very much open to anything, like you, but am interested to discuss this
jazztutorial 1 year ago