There's always a possibility you're wrong... unless your a Christian in which case there is no possibility you can be wrong. That's the usual argument.
yawn yeah, sure, maybe god does exist. but so you could also say, maybe unicorns exists maybe pink elephants can fly maybe the Martians live beneath their surface maybe the flying spaghetti monster exists maybe the lochness monster exists maybe ... This list is infinite, sure don't count out those other 'myths' but is is really worth spending/wasting your life worrying (or even thinking about) such unlikely events.
The video makes it SEEM like agnosticism is some middle position between theism and atheism. But that's completely not true (and I'm sure Clutchology agrees). Theism and atheism deal with beliefs. Agnosticism/Gnosticism deal with knowledge, which is why one can be an agnostic atheist (one who believes it is not possible to know if god exists AND who does not believe in god, or conversely, an agnostic christian.
You're implying that you have to either believe in a deity or disbelieve in a deity.
That means I don't exist apparently, because I don't agree with either view. There IS a mid point connecting the two extremes. Saying you only have two options is like saying you have to be black or white, or you have to be gay or straight.
This is completely wrong. There are more colours than black or white on the colour spectrum, as there are more options for one's sexuality than being straight or gay (there are bisexuals, asexuals, and more).
But there are only two options for whether one actively believes God exists or not. God can not "be" and not "be" at the same time, so therefore there are really only two positions we can take in terms of our beliefs about God. (Our knowledge of that is another matter).
Comparing sexuality and colours with this was an analogy.
I'm not implying that a god can be and not exist at the same time. Plain and simple, ruling out knowledge and just focusing on belief, I don't deny the existence of a god, yet I don't believe there is one necessarily. But I'm not undecided, I just don't find any reason currently to believe either way. Don't confuse true agnostics with agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.
Right, and my feeling was that they were bad analogies. That said, it's certainly possible to be unsure of one's own feelings towards the existence of God. There've been times in the past where I simply wasn't sure what to call myself, as I didn't believe, but wasn't sure if unbelief made any sense either.
Obviously you can be of another sexuality and race - the point was to show from my perspective how ridiculous it seemed. 'Saying you have two options is like..' blah blah. Again and again people have misunderstood people who call themselves agnostic and it can be quite frustrating, especially if it's the same argument.
As I've already stated, I'm not undecided. I'm sure in my position of my thoughts on the existence of a god. I'm an agnostic along with many other people.
@ThinkerNinja Holy cow. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge: "I either believe or disbelieve that it is possible to know whether god exists or not" whereas theism v. atheism is "I believe / do not believe that god exists."
I'm simply confused by what you're saying: how about you just make it clear by avoiding labels and simply stating: what you think about the possibility of knowing whether or not god exists, AND whether or not you actually believe that one DOES exist?
I don't believe you can prove a deitys existence. (But this isn't the point)
I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of a deity. Therefore I choose to call myself an agnostic, and again I'm far from the only one. Others are probably more proficient at explaining.
That's all it is, and if you disagree that there isn't a third position besides atheism or theism then let's agree to disagree.
ay man very true, I see all this negativity and hatred floating around youtube all because no one can except they may be wrong, The key to a happy and free life is to keep an open mind.
Interesting. You hit the nail right on the head. You know, one of the problems that occur when dealing with a theist or a religious extremist for that matter is a constant one-sided approach to everything and no chance for the opposition. Just a chronic allergy towards criticism and opposition. A direct sign of cowardice. Great video.
Almost all theist I've meet think that atheists thinks there is 100% possibility that god doesn't exist. Otherwise, they'd just think you're just an agnostic.
It's tough even explaining it to the atheists sometimes. They're so used to having to combat that argument that when they see a video such as this they immediately jump to the conclusion that I'm putting that argument forth.
In reality, I'm putting forth the "With everything I know I can say that there is no god, but I could be wrong and am willing to accept that with the presentation of new information." It's a position a lot of atheists (if not most) actually take with me.
I am also an atheist, but I am also aware that I do not know everything regarding this debate. While with the knowledge I have the possibility of a god existing is minimal at best, I am also aware that with new information new possibilities are presented. Most comparisons such as "the sun will rise" are shallow at best.
I believe there are no gods, but I'm also open to new information and willing to accept that there is a reasonable chance that I could be wrong.
I too am an agnostic. I just feel it's the only rational school of thought. Thanks for the video. I hope you subscribe to my channel just as I have subscribed to yours! Good job fellow agnostic!
Well spoken cluthology. Expect the unexpected. With a mind like yours, I'm quite sure that you will make many new discoveries, each one unique in that you and you alone have perceived them. Reality is in the eye of the beholder.
Awesome video ! Great insight and so true ! I find it sad that "holier-than-thou" conservatives have sold their common sense in exchange for the unfounded dogma of their bible. Most seem so obsessed with their claim to have factual knowledge of something that cannot be proven. Of course we don't "know" what happens after we die. I can't believe that anyone will be subjected to divine punishment simply for not believing the man-made BS that evangelicals try to spoon feed us. Thanks for posting !
your videos are amazing, u have obviously put a lot of though into them. they make me think thats for sure so... mission accopmlished clutch, keep releasing that knowledge!
My point = I think you are a weak atheist. Still open to new info, but have no reason to believe in an unfounded claim. For example, assume I came to work and said "an angel flew me to work today". Agnostic = "I don't know, I wasn't there and can't make a decision either way". Weak atheist: "if they cannot prove this with the current info provided, I do not believe this happened". Strong atheist = "you can't prove it, it didn't occur". I would bet you chose weak atheism. Am I right?
You are, and I call myself an atheist. I wasn't trying to argue that I was an agnostic. Those who define themselves as agnostics are people who feel they do not or cannot have enough information to make a decision, and atheism and theism are the respective decisions one can make.
But I think we are all 'agnostics' in the colloquial sense. At least, we should have that approach to knowledge, namely, that there is always more information out there that could change how we see the issue.
My bad, I must have interpreted your video incorrectly. Sorry about that.
With regards to your response, I completely agree. Weak atheism allows for a rational conclusion that still permits a change of mind in the case that new information is brought forth. It is both rational and humble.
Agnosticism = "I don't know so I can't choose either". Weak atheism = "there is no evidence to your claim, so I currently don't believe". Strong atheism = "there is no evidence, thus there is no God". Strong atheism is just as irrational as strong theism (knowing the unknown). Agnosticism is difficult when asked to give evidence, but for what? (theist struggle w/ this). Weak atheism, I think, is the most rational becuase it argues that a claim w/o evidence is no more than a unfounded statement
I'm simply pointing out that we should be open to the possibility that we might be wrong when presented with new information, regardless of how sure we previously were.
Well sorienor, as you might be aware, we are not ALL to your superior level of intellect. Maybe you give people too much credit. I think Clutch is doing some fantastic videos, this one included. Because he is getting back to the basics, getting to the roots of religion. To what it is REALLY about, which is rationality and logic. These are the sorts of (sincere and non-condescending) videos that have an effect. Religious dicussion is spending much too time in specifics that need not take place.
great video! I am an ex-christian who ended up an agnostic. I think religion comes from the "place" or picture in our minds of where god is, and what he/she expects from us. All this is "knowledge" about the supernatural or ultimate cause. Another "place" god is thought to be is behind everything or "the ground of our being" as in pantheism. However, whether it be supernatural, pantheistic, trancendence,or emminence, it is immpossible to know god exists because god's place is nowhere.
I stopped giving out five stars automatically to subscriptions I like just because occasionally there are videos - like this one - that truly deserve those five stars. No wonder you have so many subs now. Fantastic.
p.s. Did you know that, logically, to make the statement 'God does not exist' actually requires God to exist to make any sense?
I vaguely remember something like that. Someone told me about a year ago. I thought it was quite amusing when I heard it, but I've forgotten most of why it is now, lol.
Because you can only make positive claims (including claims of existence or non-existence) about things that actually exist. I can only say that my cigarette lighter is stainless steel because it exists. If it did not exist then I could make no claim about it whatsoever. Because it exists I can say that it is not brass, for example. If it did not exist I could not say anything about what material it was made from.
Strange example but I'm fairly new to the logic and fairly drunk too.
To look at it another way you might say "God is not green". In order for this to work God would have to exist and be some other state than green. God is either green or not green, one or the other, but God must exist in order for one of those statements to be true. It's tricky to work out in your head when in comes to existence but the same logic applies.
Ask me again when I've done some more research (and sobered up).
The ontological argument. I think Kant's criticism is most well known, in that existence is not a predicate.
"According to Kant, to say that a thing exists is not to attribute existence to that thing, but to say that the concept of that thing is exemplified in the world."
I believe the way out of the conundrum is accusing the argument of equivocation. There being two types of existence - conceptual and objective (whatever you want to call it). With the statement "God does not exist" is saying that God, the concept that exists in people's heads, does not exist objectively like many theists believe. No violation, because you admit and claim that the conceptual form of God exists (who wouldn't?).
Ironically enough, my favourite argument for theism stems from something like that, taking an anti-realist approach to language. The conclusion is seemingly unavoidable if you are an anti-realist. The irony is, the existence of God seems to refute anti-realism, so by proving God with the argument you disprove the premise which your argument is based on.
It's one of those esoteric feats of logic I can't help but be amused by.
Clutch, this is one of the most relevant and clearly-stated videos I have ever watched.
The ideas you state — agnosticism and rationality — underly everything that I am, and yet even I tend to lean toward closing off new ideas that make me uncomfortable. I think it's human nature to do so.
But we must be aware of that nature and vigilantly seek more information, willing to change our position if new knowledge demands it.
This sounds somewhat like a question of semantics. Of the breed of new (or even old) atheists I've read I've not found any of them to make the claim to certainty that no god exists. Similarly I've met very few others that claim this either. Barring Axiomatic Mathematical proofs it seems that very little ever deserves the title of absolute truth. But I think we have enough to go on to be practical athiests on this. I have no proof to say the sun will rise tommorow but I live as if it will.
Well, I'm not debating labels and who is what or anything like that. I'm not arguing semantics. I'm simply stating that no matter what your position you should be open to new information and the possibility of being wrong. Many people are, indeed, but many also aren't.
Great points made. Especially the part of the belief and fact being independent of each other. It doesn't matter what someone believes, the world won't necessarily change to fit a person's view of what they wish reality to be.
shaybshay, "without the bible what do base your beliefs on." Answer, the Person of Jesus Christ. I called upon Him and He came to me, proved himself to me. There is no salvation in the Bible, the Bible points to Jesus Christ. I've heard His voice one time in my life. It was audible and a direct answer to prayer. It was the most amazing thing that ever happened to me.
You know you will get a lot of grief for an answer like that but I admire your brevity, and the courage in answering in such a fashion something I don't see much from believers without resorting to some bible passage.
Kudos for the honesty. I agree that God must be a personal experience because it is impossible to arrive at logically or through some other truth discipline, despite what apologists might argue. Therefore, I would say you have proved God for yourself. But I don't know if that can be proof to anyone else. I would, obviously, say no.
If you admit to be 'without knowledge', then yeah. But that doesn't necessarily group you in with the militant agnostics, and you can still be a theist or an atheist and maintain agnosticism.
I admit there's always more to learn, and you can never know everything. I don't believe in the bible what so ever, I find it to be a load of horse shit. I do however believe that there may be something. Something has to keep me waking up everyday in the same place. Whether it be like the matrix or some random mathematical equation, or some dude in the sky. I really cant say for sure. I do know that alot of Christians piss me off and fail in the logic department. You rock Keep making vids dude.
Sorry clutchology but I don't agree, the problem is believers brough God, and there are proofs of each religion being wrong on some points. There are also the fact only one religion can be true if not 0. That means 99% of religions are wrong. Then the God that is the most plausible is the demiurge (creator of the universe) but who created such a God, and why should we worship it ? IT makes more sense to worship daddy and mom.
A counter argument for retaining some agnosticism with respect to "god's" existence is made through analogy. Might Bigfoot and Nardoo (the space alien) have any chance at all--any--of being up there right now sipping tea from Russell's teapot? Agnosticism is only useful if there is reason for uncertainty. For some things, such as most people's concept of a caring god, absolute honesty provides certainty that it, Bigfoot and Nardoo are made up. Zero uncertainty. (But teapots are quite real).
Friend, there is a knowledge of God, that is beyond doubt. You can know Him, personally. God can speak to you. And if this has happened then you cannot go into a debate open to the possibility that your wrong. It would be dishonest. Remember what Jesus said about the Father,"if I should say I know him not, I would be a liar.." John 8. The closest thing to heaven on earth is a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. This is something you to fight for spiritually, but it's worth it, believe me.
You know that 2 + 2 = 4 right? Could you go into a debate open to the possibility that this is not true? Maybe you could, but my knowledge of the existence of God is even more certain than that. If there is one thing in this life that I'm sure of, it is the existence of God. Furthermore, there nothing more rewarding than studying the attributes of God. "From everlasting to everlasting,Thou art God." In the book of psalms David wrote, "The fool said in his heart, there is no God."
There is more proof for the existence of aliens then there is for god however I am still not convinced of the existence of either. I don't know anyone that believes 2+2=anything else but four. Without the bible what do you found your beliefs on?
It can be proven moron its math, thats what math is...proving things. The fool says "Im not open for debate. I also don't ask questions, because a 2000 year old book says its right and if I do ill be punished.
You missed the whole point of his video. Math can be proven and god cannot so it's important to retain a healthy amount of skepticism, something you obviously haven't done.
You missed the point. I asked could you (honestly) go into a debate open to the possibility that your wrong about it.
Probably not, because you know for a fact that 2=2=4. For some of us Christians we know for a fact God exists so we cannot go into a debate open to the possibility that we could be wrong.
The problem with the 2+2 argument that your putting forth is that everyone knows without any doubt that it equals 4, the same can not be said for god. Just like at one time everyone thought the world was flat but now everyone know it's not again the same can not be said for god. Some people believed in Apollo, now not. So it's a pretty safe bet I would say to believe 2+2=4. Your argument falls apart because 2+2=4 is an absolute where as god is not.
I don't get how Christians can be sure they're doing the right thing. God's lied in the past (kill ur son amirite?), he could just be testing us to see if we deny ourselves the primal urges we gave us (To not be attracted to our neighbor's hot wife).
...So all the Christians that didn't do what was natural to them could ultimately end up in Hell for being naive. Meh.
I think a lot of it is to do with the social reassurance they get. It provides them with a false sense of security/certainty.
Another would be because it's such a severe belief (the ultimate truth of the universe determining your eternal soul) it requires a lot of commitment. It's basic psychology that the more openly committed you are to an idea, you're less likely to change it. I'm sure it only follows that you're more likely to convince yourself of it and close yourself from other views too.
Great video man - and I totally agree with ArtypNk. We as atheists (free thinkers) ARE open to the possibilities that there may be more but as of right now there is no proof of that. I would love to see the evidence to prove me wrong (it would be much easier!)
Its the religious people that close off at any thought they might be wrong. They need to question them self. Atheists already have questioned religion and thus here we are.
Regardless - yes there is always a possibility however unlikely.
True, but there is still a danger I've seen many times that you can slip back into that closed-mentality of being too sure, but not be aware of it because you constantly speak about theists being more open minded. Not only do we need to talk to them, but we need to keep a constant eye on ourselves as well.
I have always thought that everyone should been an agnostic first, and then decide wether they want to be a theist or an atheist. With Agnosticism, I think they are in the 'right place', they do not know anything at all, and they are about to learn and gain that rationality you are talking about. Then, with that knowledge they gain (which allows them to become rational in that reality), they become something else than an agnostic or just stay an agnostic.
Yes, but the case is different. It is a different stage. I think every person should be an agnostic at FIRST because they do not know anything.
If you remain an agnostic after gaining knowledge, that is a different story. That enters the domain of proof. There is no proof that God exists, nor is there proof that God does not exist, so you just stay an agnostic: a person who does not have the knowledge/proof to know in total.
True. By definition, those who start off are 'without knowledge', so making a judgement is nothing more than speculative or faith-based. But once you start gaining the knowledge, you can still remain aware that there is more left to learn and that there are strong chances of never finding a definitive answer.
I am constantly amazed by atheists who are trying to turn non-belief into a dogma. It isn't. Nor can it be. It's a position on one issue. Now, you may think that theism is dangerous or regressive. That's up to you. But it does not disqualify one from being agnostic or atheist.
I sometimes wonder if we haven't completely missed the point by describing ourselves with an "ism". Fact is non-believers by definition don't have an "ism". On said topic we are without belief.
I feel a need to add a thought here. Agnostic and Atheist are not mutually exclusive terms. Irregardless of the position of knowledge one claims, that person is still ultimately making a decision about what to believe and how to answer the question, Is there a god?" Any answer other than "yes," including "I don't know" makes you an atheist. After that, being open to (and I would argue, actively seeking) additional knowledge is just the only reasonable and honest thing a thinker can do.
This is what happened to me. I questioned religion, claimed Agnostic and then after many years and much research, realized my views were aligned with Atheism.
On something like religion, we must stand strong, because as soon as atheists start checking possibilities, theists install bible classes, or build creation museum. We are right, 99.99% sure. When we find new and strong evidence(stronger than jesus on toast) then we can open ourself to possibilities. After all, how often can you hear our enemy say "Well, maybe evolution did happen" not very often. How often can you hear atheist say "Maybe there is god", quite often. We are already to open.
Kind of. The whole "trust me, just be sceptical" thing has always made me raise an eyebrow. It's sort of an oxymoronic win-win. I figured I should at least try it once.
Doubt is one of the virtues of my belief system. I think you cover that an the idea of integrity (or in this case as you specify intellectual honesty) rather well with this video thank you for giving me a good explanation for others to view on these subjects
There's always a possibility you're wrong... unless your a Christian in which case there is no possibility you can be wrong. That's the usual argument.
TheMogulmonster 3 months ago
Nice video... probably too much for most atheists to swallow, but the best medicine usually is.
skoockum 8 months ago
GorgeGeorg 1 year ago
I enjoyed this video, but I have ONE objection:
The video makes it SEEM like agnosticism is some middle position between theism and atheism. But that's completely not true (and I'm sure Clutchology agrees). Theism and atheism deal with beliefs. Agnosticism/Gnosticism deal with knowledge, which is why one can be an agnostic atheist (one who believes it is not possible to know if god exists AND who does not believe in god, or conversely, an agnostic christian.
Politicimo 2 years ago
@Politicimo
I've seen this a lot on youtube..
You're implying that you have to either believe in a deity or disbelieve in a deity.
That means I don't exist apparently, because I don't agree with either view. There IS a mid point connecting the two extremes. Saying you only have two options is like saying you have to be black or white, or you have to be gay or straight.
ThinkerNinja 1 year ago
@ThinkerNinja
This is completely wrong. There are more colours than black or white on the colour spectrum, as there are more options for one's sexuality than being straight or gay (there are bisexuals, asexuals, and more).
But there are only two options for whether one actively believes God exists or not. God can not "be" and not "be" at the same time, so therefore there are really only two positions we can take in terms of our beliefs about God. (Our knowledge of that is another matter).
Politicimo 1 year ago
@Politicimo
Comparing sexuality and colours with this was an analogy.
I'm not implying that a god can be and not exist at the same time. Plain and simple, ruling out knowledge and just focusing on belief, I don't deny the existence of a god, yet I don't believe there is one necessarily. But I'm not undecided, I just don't find any reason currently to believe either way. Don't confuse true agnostics with agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.
ThinkerNinja 1 year ago
@ThinkerNinja
Right, and my feeling was that they were bad analogies. That said, it's certainly possible to be unsure of one's own feelings towards the existence of God. There've been times in the past where I simply wasn't sure what to call myself, as I didn't believe, but wasn't sure if unbelief made any sense either.
Politicimo 1 year ago
@Politicimo
Obviously you can be of another sexuality and race - the point was to show from my perspective how ridiculous it seemed. 'Saying you have two options is like..' blah blah. Again and again people have misunderstood people who call themselves agnostic and it can be quite frustrating, especially if it's the same argument.
As I've already stated, I'm not undecided. I'm sure in my position of my thoughts on the existence of a god. I'm an agnostic along with many other people.
ThinkerNinja 1 year ago
@ThinkerNinja Holy cow. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge: "I either believe or disbelieve that it is possible to know whether god exists or not" whereas theism v. atheism is "I believe / do not believe that god exists."
I'm simply confused by what you're saying: how about you just make it clear by avoiding labels and simply stating: what you think about the possibility of knowing whether or not god exists, AND whether or not you actually believe that one DOES exist?
Politicimo 1 year ago
Very close to my first comment:
I don't believe you can prove a deitys existence. (But this isn't the point)
I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of a deity. Therefore I choose to call myself an agnostic, and again I'm far from the only one. Others are probably more proficient at explaining.
That's all it is, and if you disagree that there isn't a third position besides atheism or theism then let's agree to disagree.
ThinkerNinja 1 year ago
ay man very true, I see all this negativity and hatred floating around youtube all because no one can except they may be wrong, The key to a happy and free life is to keep an open mind.
sonomakoma 2 years ago
Clutchology
another thought provoking video. glad I subbed.
my study of philosophy has lead me to believe nothing has intrinsic value.
I even question ideas most people take for granted like the belief human life has value.
From an emotional stand point, I don't like were this has lead me.
If there is anyone who has an intellectually honest response to nihilism, I'm all ears.
Steve2323ZX 2 years ago
ABSOLUTELY well said.
soulstrumxxx 2 years ago
I love that quote u put up in the more info!
sapientswim09 2 years ago
Interesting. You hit the nail right on the head. You know, one of the problems that occur when dealing with a theist or a religious extremist for that matter is a constant one-sided approach to everything and no chance for the opposition. Just a chronic allergy towards criticism and opposition. A direct sign of cowardice. Great video.
Chuloloc 3 years ago
If I can say the sun will rise and there are no dragons in Asia, then I can claim there is no god.
I am an Atheist.
I will live my life as if there is no god. I ascribe a possibility of god existing as <1%
willowtreephoto 3 years ago
the sun won't always rise.
angerbunny 3 years ago
Almost all theist I've meet think that atheists thinks there is 100% possibility that god doesn't exist. Otherwise, they'd just think you're just an agnostic.
onotheo 3 years ago
It's tough even explaining it to the atheists sometimes. They're so used to having to combat that argument that when they see a video such as this they immediately jump to the conclusion that I'm putting that argument forth.
In reality, I'm putting forth the "With everything I know I can say that there is no god, but I could be wrong and am willing to accept that with the presentation of new information." It's a position a lot of atheists (if not most) actually take with me.
Clutchology 3 years ago
I am also an atheist, but I am also aware that I do not know everything regarding this debate. While with the knowledge I have the possibility of a god existing is minimal at best, I am also aware that with new information new possibilities are presented. Most comparisons such as "the sun will rise" are shallow at best.
I believe there are no gods, but I'm also open to new information and willing to accept that there is a reasonable chance that I could be wrong.
Clutchology 3 years ago
I too am an agnostic. I just feel it's the only rational school of thought. Thanks for the video. I hope you subscribe to my channel just as I have subscribed to yours! Good job fellow agnostic!
philip0460 3 years ago
Well spoken cluthology. Expect the unexpected. With a mind like yours, I'm quite sure that you will make many new discoveries, each one unique in that you and you alone have perceived them. Reality is in the eye of the beholder.
kingj655 3 years ago
Awesome video ! Great insight and so true ! I find it sad that "holier-than-thou" conservatives have sold their common sense in exchange for the unfounded dogma of their bible. Most seem so obsessed with their claim to have factual knowledge of something that cannot be proven. Of course we don't "know" what happens after we die. I can't believe that anyone will be subjected to divine punishment simply for not believing the man-made BS that evangelicals try to spoon feed us. Thanks for posting !
OB5er 3 years ago
Your intelligence is absolutely the sexiest thing on youtube, followed closely to your physical hotness
notfadeaway05 3 years ago 3
100% agree
amanda13val 3 years ago
good stuff clutch
clutch0423 3 years ago
your videos are amazing, u have obviously put a lot of though into them. they make me think thats for sure so... mission accopmlished clutch, keep releasing that knowledge!
SeanBorrows7 3 years ago
My point = I think you are a weak atheist. Still open to new info, but have no reason to believe in an unfounded claim. For example, assume I came to work and said "an angel flew me to work today". Agnostic = "I don't know, I wasn't there and can't make a decision either way". Weak atheist: "if they cannot prove this with the current info provided, I do not believe this happened". Strong atheist = "you can't prove it, it didn't occur". I would bet you chose weak atheism. Am I right?
mikepeare 3 years ago
You are, and I call myself an atheist. I wasn't trying to argue that I was an agnostic. Those who define themselves as agnostics are people who feel they do not or cannot have enough information to make a decision, and atheism and theism are the respective decisions one can make.
But I think we are all 'agnostics' in the colloquial sense. At least, we should have that approach to knowledge, namely, that there is always more information out there that could change how we see the issue.
Clutchology 3 years ago
My bad, I must have interpreted your video incorrectly. Sorry about that.
With regards to your response, I completely agree. Weak atheism allows for a rational conclusion that still permits a change of mind in the case that new information is brought forth. It is both rational and humble.
Thanks for the response.
mikepeare 3 years ago
Agnosticism = "I don't know so I can't choose either". Weak atheism = "there is no evidence to your claim, so I currently don't believe". Strong atheism = "there is no evidence, thus there is no God". Strong atheism is just as irrational as strong theism (knowing the unknown). Agnosticism is difficult when asked to give evidence, but for what? (theist struggle w/ this). Weak atheism, I think, is the most rational becuase it argues that a claim w/o evidence is no more than a unfounded statement
mikepeare 3 years ago
Another great video :)
Madfoot713 3 years ago
Here, here. Excellent video.
vanmartinmpg 3 years ago
Sorry Clutch, but my reaction to this video is another big "no duh".
I don't think I or anyone else has to qualify a statement of believe every single time it's stated with some sort of disclaimer.
sorienor 3 years ago
I'm not saying you should =S
I'm simply pointing out that we should be open to the possibility that we might be wrong when presented with new information, regardless of how sure we previously were.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Well sorienor, as you might be aware, we are not ALL to your superior level of intellect. Maybe you give people too much credit. I think Clutch is doing some fantastic videos, this one included. Because he is getting back to the basics, getting to the roots of religion. To what it is REALLY about, which is rationality and logic. These are the sorts of (sincere and non-condescending) videos that have an effect. Religious dicussion is spending much too time in specifics that need not take place.
Jaikkanen 3 years ago
Some people are so ignorant!
TroyboysWorld 3 years ago
And who would "some people" be?
Clutchology 3 years ago
I know I don't know.
That is why I am Agnostic.
Agnostic1 3 years ago
I don't know, and you don't either.
I love that epigram.
Clutchology 3 years ago
great video! I am an ex-christian who ended up an agnostic. I think religion comes from the "place" or picture in our minds of where god is, and what he/she expects from us. All this is "knowledge" about the supernatural or ultimate cause. Another "place" god is thought to be is behind everything or "the ground of our being" as in pantheism. However, whether it be supernatural, pantheistic, trancendence,or emminence, it is immpossible to know god exists because god's place is nowhere.
rbrt509 3 years ago
What then do you mean by default position? From the statement you make it cannot be a position you are born into as babies cannot make assumptions.
mungbeanman 3 years ago
Clutchology is so cute, smart, and organized. Gots to love his logic.
Illuxx777 3 years ago
bro!!! with complete admiration, I say... great vid!
Cristofer7 3 years ago
Thanks, Brando! Much appreciated.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Hiya Clutch I enjoyed hearing your perspective and just because it is so similar to mine. Okay maybe some of that :-) Cheers!
NLPNVC 3 years ago
Don't we all ;)
Clutchology 3 years ago
How so, nerdbombs?
mungbeanman 3 years ago
I stopped giving out five stars automatically to subscriptions I like just because occasionally there are videos - like this one - that truly deserve those five stars. No wonder you have so many subs now. Fantastic.
p.s. Did you know that, logically, to make the statement 'God does not exist' actually requires God to exist to make any sense?
mungbeanman 3 years ago
I vaguely remember something like that. Someone told me about a year ago. I thought it was quite amusing when I heard it, but I've forgotten most of why it is now, lol.
Care to remind me? =P
Clutchology 3 years ago
Because you can only make positive claims (including claims of existence or non-existence) about things that actually exist. I can only say that my cigarette lighter is stainless steel because it exists. If it did not exist then I could make no claim about it whatsoever. Because it exists I can say that it is not brass, for example. If it did not exist I could not say anything about what material it was made from.
Strange example but I'm fairly new to the logic and fairly drunk too.
mungbeanman 3 years ago
To look at it another way you might say "God is not green". In order for this to work God would have to exist and be some other state than green. God is either green or not green, one or the other, but God must exist in order for one of those statements to be true. It's tricky to work out in your head when in comes to existence but the same logic applies.
Ask me again when I've done some more research (and sobered up).
mungbeanman 3 years ago
The ontological argument. I think Kant's criticism is most well known, in that existence is not a predicate.
"According to Kant, to say that a thing exists is not to attribute existence to that thing, but to say that the concept of that thing is exemplified in the world."
zerohoax 3 years ago
Ah yes, now I remember!
I believe the way out of the conundrum is accusing the argument of equivocation. There being two types of existence - conceptual and objective (whatever you want to call it). With the statement "God does not exist" is saying that God, the concept that exists in people's heads, does not exist objectively like many theists believe. No violation, because you admit and claim that the conceptual form of God exists (who wouldn't?).
Clutchology 3 years ago
Ironically enough, my favourite argument for theism stems from something like that, taking an anti-realist approach to language. The conclusion is seemingly unavoidable if you are an anti-realist. The irony is, the existence of God seems to refute anti-realism, so by proving God with the argument you disprove the premise which your argument is based on.
It's one of those esoteric feats of logic I can't help but be amused by.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Great video, I totally agree. Everyone should be more self questioning. Being close minded helps no one.
slagathor23 3 years ago
Great video man, well articulated and delivered. You are going to like my new video when I get it up. =)
CelphaFiael 3 years ago
Well, I think that's a given even before I uploaded this. =P I look forward to it.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Clutch, this is one of the most relevant and clearly-stated videos I have ever watched.
The ideas you state — agnosticism and rationality — underly everything that I am, and yet even I tend to lean toward closing off new ideas that make me uncomfortable. I think it's human nature to do so.
But we must be aware of that nature and vigilantly seek more information, willing to change our position if new knowledge demands it.
zebruh 3 years ago
That mirrors my thoughts exactly.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Great video here, I see myself in you. your thoughts mirror mine.
RjwBrandNew 3 years ago
Interesting. Great words.
Chuloloc 3 years ago
God is real to the person who believes in god.
God is not real to the person who doesn't believe in god.
Either way, we're still just chimps with less hair that drive cars on some little planet we call "Earth."
MagnusIan 3 years ago
I really like this video!!! Having a open mind is the thing that has helped me in my spititual Journey !!!!Knowledge is power !!!
firefly515 3 years ago
Indeed it is. Thanks, Firefly.
Clutchology 3 years ago
awsome video, will you sign my penis?
u can use a small pencil
sharbtur 3 years ago
This might be your best video yet Clutch, I really love the variability in your videos and your new style. Keep it up.
JaktheAtheist 3 years ago
Thanks. I'll make sure to keep them coming!
Clutchology 3 years ago
This sounds somewhat like a question of semantics. Of the breed of new (or even old) atheists I've read I've not found any of them to make the claim to certainty that no god exists. Similarly I've met very few others that claim this either. Barring Axiomatic Mathematical proofs it seems that very little ever deserves the title of absolute truth. But I think we have enough to go on to be practical athiests on this. I have no proof to say the sun will rise tommorow but I live as if it will.
thorungal 3 years ago
Well, I'm not debating labels and who is what or anything like that. I'm not arguing semantics. I'm simply stating that no matter what your position you should be open to new information and the possibility of being wrong. Many people are, indeed, but many also aren't.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Great points made. Especially the part of the belief and fact being independent of each other. It doesn't matter what someone believes, the world won't necessarily change to fit a person's view of what they wish reality to be.
HaleyMary 3 years ago
I remain an atheist - but that's by the definition of agnostic set in this video.
For me they're pretty much the same "until extra knowledge comes along I won't believe in X"
Rationalism is "seeing is believing" writ large. Call that atheism or agnosticism - it makes no difference.
jazzx251 3 years ago
shaybshay, "without the bible what do base your beliefs on." Answer, the Person of Jesus Christ. I called upon Him and He came to me, proved himself to me. There is no salvation in the Bible, the Bible points to Jesus Christ. I've heard His voice one time in my life. It was audible and a direct answer to prayer. It was the most amazing thing that ever happened to me.
biblethink 3 years ago
You know you will get a lot of grief for an answer like that but I admire your brevity, and the courage in answering in such a fashion something I don't see much from believers without resorting to some bible passage.
shaybshay 3 years ago
Kudos for the honesty. I agree that God must be a personal experience because it is impossible to arrive at logically or through some other truth discipline, despite what apologists might argue. Therefore, I would say you have proved God for yourself. But I don't know if that can be proof to anyone else. I would, obviously, say no.
vanmartinmpg 3 years ago
well sead 5* great video
outcastwarlord 3 years ago
great video
tooltime9901 3 years ago
anti-dogmatism is the way...
TheReasonWhyGuy 3 years ago 3
Commentary like that should not be marginalized. Cheers. Salud. Peace.
jericomovie 3 years ago
I think you just made this whole video redundant by summing it up in one short sentence. I rarely thumb comments, but this one deserves a thumbs up.
Clutchology 3 years ago
We all have our opinions on top of the reasonable doubt, atheists just express them.
Of course keep an open mind, who would ignore god or miracles if spotted.
But we haven't even met the aliens yet...or have we.
If this video applies to the atheists as well I have to say don't worry, we are not the ones rejecting the evidence or there lack of.
Skeptics are agnostics by default (?) so atheist is an agnostic with the attitude which in my opinion is not written in stone (pun intended).
dnoohi 3 years ago
100% agree, this is the way I think, does that mean someone could label me agnostic?
teamhex 3 years ago
If you admit to be 'without knowledge', then yeah. But that doesn't necessarily group you in with the militant agnostics, and you can still be a theist or an atheist and maintain agnosticism.
Clutchology 3 years ago
I admit there's always more to learn, and you can never know everything. I don't believe in the bible what so ever, I find it to be a load of horse shit. I do however believe that there may be something. Something has to keep me waking up everyday in the same place. Whether it be like the matrix or some random mathematical equation, or some dude in the sky. I really cant say for sure. I do know that alot of Christians piss me off and fail in the logic department. You rock Keep making vids dude.
teamhex 3 years ago
Sorry clutchology but I don't agree, the problem is believers brough God, and there are proofs of each religion being wrong on some points. There are also the fact only one religion can be true if not 0. That means 99% of religions are wrong. Then the God that is the most plausible is the demiurge (creator of the universe) but who created such a God, and why should we worship it ? IT makes more sense to worship daddy and mom.
itsbizbuz 3 years ago
A counter argument for retaining some agnosticism with respect to "god's" existence is made through analogy. Might Bigfoot and Nardoo (the space alien) have any chance at all--any--of being up there right now sipping tea from Russell's teapot? Agnosticism is only useful if there is reason for uncertainty. For some things, such as most people's concept of a caring god, absolute honesty provides certainty that it, Bigfoot and Nardoo are made up. Zero uncertainty. (But teapots are quite real).
InReasonWeTrust 3 years ago
Friend, there is a knowledge of God, that is beyond doubt. You can know Him, personally. God can speak to you. And if this has happened then you cannot go into a debate open to the possibility that your wrong. It would be dishonest. Remember what Jesus said about the Father,"if I should say I know him not, I would be a liar.." John 8. The closest thing to heaven on earth is a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. This is something you to fight for spiritually, but it's worth it, believe me.
biblethink 3 years ago
God spoke to George Bush Jr. We know the result.
itsbizbuz 3 years ago
"you cannot go into a debate open to the possibility that your wrong. It would be dishonest."
Actually, you can. There are always other possibilities, you just choose not to acknowledge them, which is what I think is truly dishonest.
Clutchology 3 years ago
You know that 2 + 2 = 4 right? Could you go into a debate open to the possibility that this is not true? Maybe you could, but my knowledge of the existence of God is even more certain than that. If there is one thing in this life that I'm sure of, it is the existence of God. Furthermore, there nothing more rewarding than studying the attributes of God. "From everlasting to everlasting,Thou art God." In the book of psalms David wrote, "The fool said in his heart, there is no God."
biblethink 3 years ago
There is more proof for the existence of aliens then there is for god however I am still not convinced of the existence of either. I don't know anyone that believes 2+2=anything else but four. Without the bible what do you found your beliefs on?
shaybshay 3 years ago
It can be proven moron its math, thats what math is...proving things. The fool says "Im not open for debate. I also don't ask questions, because a 2000 year old book says its right and if I do ill be punished.
teamhex 3 years ago
You missed the whole point of his video. Math can be proven and god cannot so it's important to retain a healthy amount of skepticism, something you obviously haven't done.
AdolescentAntiTheist 3 years ago
"Math can be proven and god cannot so it's important to retain a healthy amount of skepticism"
Exactly. Well said.
Clutchology 3 years ago
You missed the point. I asked could you (honestly) go into a debate open to the possibility that your wrong about it.
Probably not, because you know for a fact that 2=2=4. For some of us Christians we know for a fact God exists so we cannot go into a debate open to the possibility that we could be wrong.
biblethink 3 years ago
Typo, I meant 2+2=4
biblethink 3 years ago
The problem with the 2+2 argument that your putting forth is that everyone knows without any doubt that it equals 4, the same can not be said for god. Just like at one time everyone thought the world was flat but now everyone know it's not again the same can not be said for god. Some people believed in Apollo, now not. So it's a pretty safe bet I would say to believe 2+2=4. Your argument falls apart because 2+2=4 is an absolute where as god is not.
shaybshay 3 years ago
I like this video. Gives a good message and is kinda expressive. 5*
ginkiba3 3 years ago
sorry- this comment was in reference to
Braindiscovering's comment an hour ago...
eperkins21 3 years ago
I don't get how Christians can be sure they're doing the right thing. God's lied in the past (kill ur son amirite?), he could just be testing us to see if we deny ourselves the primal urges we gave us (To not be attracted to our neighbor's hot wife).
...So all the Christians that didn't do what was natural to them could ultimately end up in Hell for being naive. Meh.
Rossicspwn 3 years ago
I think a lot of it is to do with the social reassurance they get. It provides them with a false sense of security/certainty.
Another would be because it's such a severe belief (the ultimate truth of the universe determining your eternal soul) it requires a lot of commitment. It's basic psychology that the more openly committed you are to an idea, you're less likely to change it. I'm sure it only follows that you're more likely to convince yourself of it and close yourself from other views too.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Indeed. The Pascal's wager paradox applies here, but its validity is questionable apparently.
Can't remember why...Either way. It's nice to see a video from you again. Keep 'em comin' :D
Rossicspwn 3 years ago
Thanks for the advice. I will think about it the next time I deal with creationists.
johuth 3 years ago
Agnostic Atheism seems a rather good position to take imho.
Agila1 3 years ago
Diversity is key =). Thinking and believing in different things is actually a good thing.
xXVoiceOfThePeopleXx 3 years ago
Sound advice.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Oh and that 'quote' from VFX was the cherry on top of the cake :D
Braindiscovering 3 years ago
That's my subtle tongue-in-cheek comment for the video =P
Clutchology 3 years ago
Great video man - and I totally agree with ArtypNk. We as atheists (free thinkers) ARE open to the possibilities that there may be more but as of right now there is no proof of that. I would love to see the evidence to prove me wrong (it would be much easier!)
Its the religious people that close off at any thought they might be wrong. They need to question them self. Atheists already have questioned religion and thus here we are.
Regardless - yes there is always a possibility however unlikely.
eperkins21 3 years ago
True, but there is still a danger I've seen many times that you can slip back into that closed-mentality of being too sure, but not be aware of it because you constantly speak about theists being more open minded. Not only do we need to talk to them, but we need to keep a constant eye on ourselves as well.
Clutchology 3 years ago
I agree. Good points.
eperkins21 3 years ago
Great video R.J. , well put ;)
I have always thought that everyone should been an agnostic first, and then decide wether they want to be a theist or an atheist. With Agnosticism, I think they are in the 'right place', they do not know anything at all, and they are about to learn and gain that rationality you are talking about. Then, with that knowledge they gain (which allows them to become rational in that reality), they become something else than an agnostic or just stay an agnostic.
Braindiscovering 3 years ago
Or they can become something else AND stay an agnostic, like me.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Yes, but the case is different. It is a different stage. I think every person should be an agnostic at FIRST because they do not know anything.
If you remain an agnostic after gaining knowledge, that is a different story. That enters the domain of proof. There is no proof that God exists, nor is there proof that God does not exist, so you just stay an agnostic: a person who does not have the knowledge/proof to know in total.
Braindiscovering 3 years ago
True. By definition, those who start off are 'without knowledge', so making a judgement is nothing more than speculative or faith-based. But once you start gaining the knowledge, you can still remain aware that there is more left to learn and that there are strong chances of never finding a definitive answer.
Clutchology 3 years ago
True. But, where do agnostics stay on the consequences of religion? Do they think Religion harms progress, education, science?
Braindiscovering 3 years ago
Surely that's personal, because agnosticism isn't a doctrine or, arguably, even a belief, but a simple state of awareness?
Clutchology 3 years ago
I am constantly amazed by atheists who are trying to turn non-belief into a dogma. It isn't. Nor can it be. It's a position on one issue. Now, you may think that theism is dangerous or regressive. That's up to you. But it does not disqualify one from being agnostic or atheist.
I sometimes wonder if we haven't completely missed the point by describing ourselves with an "ism". Fact is non-believers by definition don't have an "ism". On said topic we are without belief.
vanmartinmpg 3 years ago
I feel a need to add a thought here. Agnostic and Atheist are not mutually exclusive terms. Irregardless of the position of knowledge one claims, that person is still ultimately making a decision about what to believe and how to answer the question, Is there a god?" Any answer other than "yes," including "I don't know" makes you an atheist. After that, being open to (and I would argue, actively seeking) additional knowledge is just the only reasonable and honest thing a thinker can do.
knightxd4 3 years ago
This is what happened to me. I questioned religion, claimed Agnostic and then after many years and much research, realized my views were aligned with Atheism.
eperkins21 3 years ago
On something like religion, we must stand strong, because as soon as atheists start checking possibilities, theists install bible classes, or build creation museum. We are right, 99.99% sure. When we find new and strong evidence(stronger than jesus on toast) then we can open ourself to possibilities. After all, how often can you hear our enemy say "Well, maybe evolution did happen" not very often. How often can you hear atheist say "Maybe there is god", quite often. We are already to open.
ArtypNk 3 years ago
Hmmm... was that last line a clever way of challenging everyone to be skeptical?
BadYahweh 3 years ago
Kind of. The whole "trust me, just be sceptical" thing has always made me raise an eyebrow. It's sort of an oxymoronic win-win. I figured I should at least try it once.
Clutchology 3 years ago
eh, you give the theists too much credit. give them ammo why don't ya? lol, great vid man.
Sean2046 3 years ago
Lol
Clutchology 3 years ago
Doubt is one of the virtues of my belief system. I think you cover that an the idea of integrity (or in this case as you specify intellectual honesty) rather well with this video thank you for giving me a good explanation for others to view on these subjects
AxiomofDiscord 3 years ago
bout time bud!
schultzee101 3 years ago
Haha!
I've been busier than I anticipated. I'm too used to being a low-life with nothing to do but YouTube.
Clutchology 3 years ago