I mean helping the poor when everyone is going to die anyways? Seems pretty inconsistent. I'm sure people who happen to be atheists who spend their whole life helping the poor, they believe that they are actually truly doing something good. Maybe they haven't truly thought it over since they were probably too busy doing instead of thinking, =)
Not to disrespect the group individuals I am addressing.
Bats take care of their sick. They don't need a bible, it is an innate behavior, much like the urge most guys have when it comes to opening a door for an old lady.
If you want to reinvent the definition of religion, that is up to you, but atheists are generally "naturalists" and we don't pray to anyone and we don't take anything on faith.
Please explain to me how atheism does not imply nihilism. Nihilism being defined as : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths.
The phylogenetic tree states that a pine tree, a whale, a sponge and a human share a common ancestor. I'm sorry if you can't see how that is quite unlikely, let alone the very first life form somehow evolving with no divine imperative. A grand Darwinian story of origins through and through seems like a fantasy.
It isn't unlikely that humans and a sponge share a common ancestor. It is fact. You have a choice, and that is to brush up on what science is and what science knows, or deny it because you don't like the conclusions that you are making regarding humans.
I'll repeat myself again. A society that lacks morals can not survive. It will implode. Those morals are a product of society and not religion because society requires them to function.
Genetic science also says a pine tree, a whale, a sponge, and a human have common ancestor, and can be consistently shown to be true in labs. Also, Darwin never speculated on the origin of life in his hypothesis. The origin of life is not a valid topic in evolution.
Abiogenesis is a valid and deserving topic when discussing evolution for what it is, a worldview established upon the methodological basis that there is no God. Its called naturalism, and it is a religious view. True they may not gather in churches, but it is a religious system of thought nonetheless. Again explain to me how atheism does not imply nihilism? You skipped that.
Okay. There are moral atheists in the world. Therefore, atheism does not automatically mean immoral. Therefore, atheism does not mean nihilist. That is a perfectly logical statement.
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with Darwin, though. Science isn't a religion. It has nothing to do with spirituality, the soul, morality. Science is a tool. It doesn't care any more or less about your feelings than a hammer does when it misses the nail and hits your thumb.
Yes there are some moral atheists in the world who like to try and do the best in every situation. I really wasn't ever trying to say that atheism automatically turns someone into a nihilist in action or philosophically. That doesn't however exclude the possibility that they are being inconsistent. They would be trying to do good things in a universe where good has no basis in reality. Even altruistic behavior like helping the poor cannot even be considered truly and absolutely good.
Are chimps nihilists? Are they inconsistent when they care for their tribe members even though they have no bibles and to my knowledge, have no understanding of a God?
Much of the intolerance of atheists come from the fact that most atheists have no morality. The internet makes it even easier for such foolishness to be propagated, yet while all of this happens, I don't really see any Christians getting in too huge of a fuss about it. Modern Liberalism on the other hand is PROFOUNDLY more bigoted, it puts Christianity to shame in this regard. You can marvel in your self-loathing worldview, just know that I feel sorry that you fell prey to this Baconeater.
I don't need a moron's sympathy. Anyone who says that atheists have no morality is a moron.
You don't understand morality or evolution of the social animal.
Creationists are getting their asses handed to them on Youtube and creating more agnostics and atheists by posting the same nonsense you just posted. Keep up the good work Cretard.
"Much of the intolerance of atheists come from the fact that most atheists have no morality."
I'm sorry, but this statement is utter crap from start to finish.
In order for a society to exist past one or two generations is a certain social agreement that you don't do some things to members of your own society.
Morality doesn't come from religion, it comes from deciding we're going to move forward as a society rather than take out all the competition and taking what we want.
Haha! I scrolled down to peek at the comments and responded to that guy before the video finished and I see morality is already addressed in this video. But honestly, even then, if it's addressed in the video, why did Vanmeter even say that? Other side of the coin, why did I expect that comment to be relevant to the video? ;)
Let me clarify what I meant. I'm saying that logically there really is no reason under atheism to believe that there is any real right or wrong. Atheists know that, and that worldview is demonstrated in their behavior.
"I'm saying that logically there really is no reason under atheism to believe that there is any real right or wrong."
You're right, other than an immoral society collapses on itself. You're right, other than an immoral society lacks stability.
Show me any social animal in nature that survives by killing members of it's own social structure. Any one of them. You won't find it. Even solitary hunters like snakes will generally not consume members of it's own species.
I'm speaking more from ontology, not from the practical. Honestly I don't care whatsoever if humans or any life survive if there is no purpose behind it. Luckily that's not true. The phylogenetic tree while being a gargantuan extrapolation also strongly hints of fantasy and it only serves to handcuff naturalism. It basically blows its brains out the harder it tries to explain the world.
Let's not become nihilistic over this, please. All life has a purpose. We are here to do the best we have with what we've been given and in the limited time we are given.
As for the phylogenetic tree, I'd be interested in what you think is fantastic about it. When I majored in biology in college, I thought scientists did a marvelous job considering what a new discovery genetics is, nevermind that genetics confirms most of the tree.
Better analogy is we have the same purpose that chimps and other social animals, in fact all animals have. We innately are driven for our species to survive to the next generation and beyond. That is our purpose.
Yes humans have a nature, its called a sinful nature. You may embrace it and think its ok and you may just blame it on your evolutionary history, I don't. You call it animal nature, I call it *sin*. You can embrace it, I can't stop you but I won't partake. I honestly don't know even a Muslim who is as deeply entrenched in their religious views as seculars such as yourselves.
You are welcome to call it sin. You are welcome to call it Shirley. Your opinion does not have the ability to shape reality. And the judgmental nature of this paragraph makes me glad for this.
According to your faith, I am a sinner. Fair enough. But according to your faith, so are you. The difference is I don't lose any sleep over it.
Sorry for the judgmental attitude. You had just insulted me so I was slightly ticked. I was also trying to be firm at the same time, so. Anyways, yes of course my opinion doesn't shape reality but neither does yours if that's what you were implying.
Well if my worldview is true, losing sleep over it is not particularly a bad thing because you sin against a holy God, so. Not that I do, I sleep fine actually and I am at peace. I am not troubled as you seem to think.
Okay, but now we're getting into a three way contradiction. You say atheists are immoral (thus nihilistic), then you say not all atheists are immoral, but then you say the moral atheists are just too busy to think about what they're doing and implied that if they did, they too would be immoral.
As for doing good if good has no basis in reality, that's a load of crap. You do good because it's the right thing to do. I've said that before.
And technically, naturalism is philosophy, not religion.
Not all atheists are immoral. I do not mean this as an insult in any way, but most of the atheists I meet are not moral people. That's just my personal experience. They are selfish and hedonistic most of the time. Maybe you are not that way.
Naturalism is a philosophy, but it is adhered to with intense fervor and acts basically the same way as a religion would about trying to provide answers as to what reality is and in level of entrenchment and devotion.
I am sorry that you have not met many moral atheists. Please acknowledge that you have only met the minority and they speak for all of us about as well as Fred Phelps speaks for all Christians.
As for the second paragraph, I'm afraid your concept is incorrect. We are not entrenched, we just haven't been presented with better information than what we have. When we have more accurate information, we will shed the old information immediately and embrace the new.
I do think it is safe to say that there are atheists out there who do with all their heart want to do the correct thing in all situations. I am not so quick to form an absolute judgment about all atheists just from my experience, I think it is always a better approach to treat people as individuals not groups.
Perhaps, but many people do seem heavily entrenched. You and others probably would shed old information for the new, but I would keep in mind that science changes and be openminded.
Agreed about the fear of death being a primary motivation for belief in religion and intolerance of atheism. If the Bible and the Koran didn't promise an afterlife all the churches and mosques would be burned down tommorow.
You ask religious man give proof that his god is real. He wont be able to at least not scientifically. You ask an Atheist, prove to you there is no god. Guess what, they can't prove anything either.
So both sides believe something that they cant prove. The most logical answer is only the possibility and theory of some higher power may or may not existing. Saying that anything does or doesn't exist with out scientific evidence to back up your claim is we call dilutional."
see thats the problem, corruption. even in the Abrahamic times, when a person commands on a scale that they lose touch with their natural empathy, then they set themselves up for hardships that are all too common in the history books. with the 10Commandments, is there no need to state the obvious?
Similarly to What Martin Luther spoke out against, when a organization as powerful as the Church or even the US government becomes overly powerful or no longer mindful of materialism, then it corrupts itself and sets itself up for destruction, as any psycologist can tell you, power Does indeed corrupt. Like you said, these Ideas are ones no one wants to come to the conclusion of, and even more so, they are ideas that if the world came to the conclusion of, it would probably cease to exist.
more importantly than fearing death by any religion stating there was no afterlife is the fear of becoming over-materialistic, where once the world comes to a conclusion that its all there is then those who have power can abuse it without knowledge of reprecussions.
"I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."
Good video. Just to clarify: the American Forefathers were not Christian. Christians tried to warp that for us. Take a look at the graveyards in Boston they had non-christian markers on their tombstones for a reason. We have a statue of the God Mars on the steps of the Whitehouse, not Jesus. The obolisk for Washingtons monument was Egyptian not a Christian cross. etc etc etc.
Some forefathers were Christian, some weren't. It is tough to argue against them being theist. It was hard not to be a theist back then. No Darwin, no ancient earth, etc. They definitely leaned towards separation of church and state.
I thought god was dead, like Nietzche proclam 1 century ago during the period of Light, unfortunatly god is a myth, I m amazed and scared about how christianity is still present oversea,
Comment removed
DystopianEmpire01 9 months ago
awesome thank-you for responding to that stupid preacher, GO CHIEFS!!!!
FSrevolution 1 year ago
Proof that human by nature does good things:
Otherwise we wouldn't fucking be here /facepalm
Londron 1 year ago
Yes. I totally agree with you!!
KMNfish 2 years ago
I mean helping the poor when everyone is going to die anyways? Seems pretty inconsistent. I'm sure people who happen to be atheists who spend their whole life helping the poor, they believe that they are actually truly doing something good. Maybe they haven't truly thought it over since they were probably too busy doing instead of thinking, =)
Not to disrespect the group individuals I am addressing.
Science is not a religion, naturalism is.
Vanmeter815 2 years ago
Bats take care of their sick. They don't need a bible, it is an innate behavior, much like the urge most guys have when it comes to opening a door for an old lady.
If you want to reinvent the definition of religion, that is up to you, but atheists are generally "naturalists" and we don't pray to anyone and we don't take anything on faith.
baconeater 2 years ago
I don't think bats would be caring animals, if they found out that the bible called them birds.
DahStranger 2 years ago
I have to go, I will be back to respond more in 5 or 6 hours.
Vanmeter815 2 years ago
Nevermind.
Please explain to me how atheism does not imply nihilism. Nihilism being defined as : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths.
The phylogenetic tree states that a pine tree, a whale, a sponge and a human share a common ancestor. I'm sorry if you can't see how that is quite unlikely, let alone the very first life form somehow evolving with no divine imperative. A grand Darwinian story of origins through and through seems like a fantasy.
Vanmeter815 2 years ago
It isn't unlikely that humans and a sponge share a common ancestor. It is fact. You have a choice, and that is to brush up on what science is and what science knows, or deny it because you don't like the conclusions that you are making regarding humans.
baconeater 2 years ago
I'll repeat myself again. A society that lacks morals can not survive. It will implode. Those morals are a product of society and not religion because society requires them to function.
Genetic science also says a pine tree, a whale, a sponge, and a human have common ancestor, and can be consistently shown to be true in labs. Also, Darwin never speculated on the origin of life in his hypothesis. The origin of life is not a valid topic in evolution.
hgryphon 2 years ago
Abiogenesis is a valid and deserving topic when discussing evolution for what it is, a worldview established upon the methodological basis that there is no God. Its called naturalism, and it is a religious view. True they may not gather in churches, but it is a religious system of thought nonetheless. Again explain to me how atheism does not imply nihilism? You skipped that.
Vanmeter815 2 years ago
Okay. There are moral atheists in the world. Therefore, atheism does not automatically mean immoral. Therefore, atheism does not mean nihilist. That is a perfectly logical statement.
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with Darwin, though. Science isn't a religion. It has nothing to do with spirituality, the soul, morality. Science is a tool. It doesn't care any more or less about your feelings than a hammer does when it misses the nail and hits your thumb.
hgryphon 2 years ago
Yes there are some moral atheists in the world who like to try and do the best in every situation. I really wasn't ever trying to say that atheism automatically turns someone into a nihilist in action or philosophically. That doesn't however exclude the possibility that they are being inconsistent. They would be trying to do good things in a universe where good has no basis in reality. Even altruistic behavior like helping the poor cannot even be considered truly and absolutely good.
Vanmeter815 2 years ago
Are chimps nihilists? Are they inconsistent when they care for their tribe members even though they have no bibles and to my knowledge, have no understanding of a God?
baconeater 2 years ago
I think I'm blocked.
Vanmeter815 2 years ago
Much of the intolerance of atheists come from the fact that most atheists have no morality. The internet makes it even easier for such foolishness to be propagated, yet while all of this happens, I don't really see any Christians getting in too huge of a fuss about it. Modern Liberalism on the other hand is PROFOUNDLY more bigoted, it puts Christianity to shame in this regard. You can marvel in your self-loathing worldview, just know that I feel sorry that you fell prey to this Baconeater.
Vanmeter815 3 years ago
I don't need a moron's sympathy. Anyone who says that atheists have no morality is a moron.
You don't understand morality or evolution of the social animal.
Creationists are getting their asses handed to them on Youtube and creating more agnostics and atheists by posting the same nonsense you just posted. Keep up the good work Cretard.
baconeater 3 years ago
"Much of the intolerance of atheists come from the fact that most atheists have no morality."
I'm sorry, but this statement is utter crap from start to finish.
In order for a society to exist past one or two generations is a certain social agreement that you don't do some things to members of your own society.
Morality doesn't come from religion, it comes from deciding we're going to move forward as a society rather than take out all the competition and taking what we want.
hgryphon 2 years ago
Haha! I scrolled down to peek at the comments and responded to that guy before the video finished and I see morality is already addressed in this video. But honestly, even then, if it's addressed in the video, why did Vanmeter even say that? Other side of the coin, why did I expect that comment to be relevant to the video? ;)
hgryphon 2 years ago
Let me clarify what I meant. I'm saying that logically there really is no reason under atheism to believe that there is any real right or wrong. Atheists know that, and that worldview is demonstrated in their behavior.
Vanmeter815 2 years ago
"I'm saying that logically there really is no reason under atheism to believe that there is any real right or wrong."
You're right, other than an immoral society collapses on itself. You're right, other than an immoral society lacks stability.
Show me any social animal in nature that survives by killing members of it's own social structure. Any one of them. You won't find it. Even solitary hunters like snakes will generally not consume members of it's own species.
hgryphon 2 years ago
I'm speaking more from ontology, not from the practical. Honestly I don't care whatsoever if humans or any life survive if there is no purpose behind it. Luckily that's not true. The phylogenetic tree while being a gargantuan extrapolation also strongly hints of fantasy and it only serves to handcuff naturalism. It basically blows its brains out the harder it tries to explain the world.
Vanmeter815 2 years ago
Let's not become nihilistic over this, please. All life has a purpose. We are here to do the best we have with what we've been given and in the limited time we are given.
As for the phylogenetic tree, I'd be interested in what you think is fantastic about it. When I majored in biology in college, I thought scientists did a marvelous job considering what a new discovery genetics is, nevermind that genetics confirms most of the tree.
hgryphon 2 years ago
Better analogy is we have the same purpose that chimps and other social animals, in fact all animals have. We innately are driven for our species to survive to the next generation and beyond. That is our purpose.
baconeater 2 years ago
That's true as well, but I don't think Van is ready for that level of awareness of his animal nature.
hgryphon 2 years ago
Yes humans have a nature, its called a sinful nature. You may embrace it and think its ok and you may just blame it on your evolutionary history, I don't. You call it animal nature, I call it *sin*. You can embrace it, I can't stop you but I won't partake. I honestly don't know even a Muslim who is as deeply entrenched in their religious views as seculars such as yourselves.
Vanmeter815 2 years ago
You are welcome to call it sin. You are welcome to call it Shirley. Your opinion does not have the ability to shape reality. And the judgmental nature of this paragraph makes me glad for this.
According to your faith, I am a sinner. Fair enough. But according to your faith, so are you. The difference is I don't lose any sleep over it.
hgryphon 2 years ago
Sorry for the judgmental attitude. You had just insulted me so I was slightly ticked. I was also trying to be firm at the same time, so. Anyways, yes of course my opinion doesn't shape reality but neither does yours if that's what you were implying.
Well if my worldview is true, losing sleep over it is not particularly a bad thing because you sin against a holy God, so. Not that I do, I sleep fine actually and I am at peace. I am not troubled as you seem to think.
Vanmeter815 2 years ago
Okay, but now we're getting into a three way contradiction. You say atheists are immoral (thus nihilistic), then you say not all atheists are immoral, but then you say the moral atheists are just too busy to think about what they're doing and implied that if they did, they too would be immoral.
As for doing good if good has no basis in reality, that's a load of crap. You do good because it's the right thing to do. I've said that before.
And technically, naturalism is philosophy, not religion.
hgryphon 2 years ago
Not all atheists are immoral. I do not mean this as an insult in any way, but most of the atheists I meet are not moral people. That's just my personal experience. They are selfish and hedonistic most of the time. Maybe you are not that way.
Naturalism is a philosophy, but it is adhered to with intense fervor and acts basically the same way as a religion would about trying to provide answers as to what reality is and in level of entrenchment and devotion.
Vanmeter815 2 years ago
I am sorry that you have not met many moral atheists. Please acknowledge that you have only met the minority and they speak for all of us about as well as Fred Phelps speaks for all Christians.
As for the second paragraph, I'm afraid your concept is incorrect. We are not entrenched, we just haven't been presented with better information than what we have. When we have more accurate information, we will shed the old information immediately and embrace the new.
hgryphon 2 years ago
I do think it is safe to say that there are atheists out there who do with all their heart want to do the correct thing in all situations. I am not so quick to form an absolute judgment about all atheists just from my experience, I think it is always a better approach to treat people as individuals not groups.
Perhaps, but many people do seem heavily entrenched. You and others probably would shed old information for the new, but I would keep in mind that science changes and be openminded.
Vanmeter815 2 years ago
Agreed about the fear of death being a primary motivation for belief in religion and intolerance of atheism. If the Bible and the Koran didn't promise an afterlife all the churches and mosques would be burned down tommorow.
Skep155 3 years ago
Here is my 2 cents.
You ask religious man give proof that his god is real. He wont be able to at least not scientifically. You ask an Atheist, prove to you there is no god. Guess what, they can't prove anything either.
So both sides believe something that they cant prove. The most logical answer is only the possibility and theory of some higher power may or may not existing. Saying that anything does or doesn't exist with out scientific evidence to back up your claim is we call dilutional."
elfgod 3 years ago
An atheist says there is no evidence God exists, so he most probably does not.
Is it delusional to state that Leprechauns or the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist?
I don't have scientific evidence that Leprechauns don't exist.
If someone makes the claim that God exists, it is up to them to prove it.
baconeater 3 years ago
People aren't intolerant of atheists..........not where I live anyway....only in the good old US of A.....supposedly the home of free speech.
Aussiephil99 3 years ago 2
anyone who believes in a god is a psycho deluded piece of shit that denies science and reason. i hope you die.
God is imaginary.
fruitybud420 3 years ago
Atheists are just as empathetic as theists. Maybe more so because we don't look for God to sort out a persons problem.
Sweden has a population of over 50% atheists/agnostics, and you don't see anarchy over there. Your conclusions are wrong Gonzoo.
baconeater 4 years ago
see thats the problem, corruption. even in the Abrahamic times, when a person commands on a scale that they lose touch with their natural empathy, then they set themselves up for hardships that are all too common in the history books. with the 10Commandments, is there no need to state the obvious?
OptimusGonzoo 4 years ago
Similarly to What Martin Luther spoke out against, when a organization as powerful as the Church or even the US government becomes overly powerful or no longer mindful of materialism, then it corrupts itself and sets itself up for destruction, as any psycologist can tell you, power Does indeed corrupt. Like you said, these Ideas are ones no one wants to come to the conclusion of, and even more so, they are ideas that if the world came to the conclusion of, it would probably cease to exist.
OptimusGonzoo 4 years ago
more importantly than fearing death by any religion stating there was no afterlife is the fear of becoming over-materialistic, where once the world comes to a conclusion that its all there is then those who have power can abuse it without knowledge of reprecussions.
OptimusGonzoo 4 years ago
"I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."
-Mark Twain
baconeater 4 years ago
excellent quote
hammy606 4 years ago
Do you still exist?
yakchuck 4 years ago
After your dead im watching your video.
yakchuck 4 years ago
You dont exist.
yakchuck 4 years ago
Good video. Just to clarify: the American Forefathers were not Christian. Christians tried to warp that for us. Take a look at the graveyards in Boston they had non-christian markers on their tombstones for a reason. We have a statue of the God Mars on the steps of the Whitehouse, not Jesus. The obolisk for Washingtons monument was Egyptian not a Christian cross. etc etc etc.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
Some forefathers were Christian, some weren't. It is tough to argue against them being theist. It was hard not to be a theist back then. No Darwin, no ancient earth, etc. They definitely leaned towards separation of church and state.
baconeater 4 years ago
I thought your point about how people got along before Christianity was a great one. Christians believe that without them society is doomed.
Rhondadonda9 5 years ago
Right On.
TheDudeOfLife 5 years ago
I thought god was dead, like Nietzche proclam 1 century ago during the period of Light, unfortunatly god is a myth, I m amazed and scared about how christianity is still present oversea,
ahoovah 5 years ago