If I were to define God as pepperoni pizza, there'd be no question that this "God" exists, but the instant I make this a matter of definition, there's no reason to give the slightest shit anymore. This is what happens when you define God as the universe. Completely pointless.
The "God of Spinoza" and "pantheism" are two separate ideas that Sam conflates. Spinoza is the belief in an all-powerful God who created everything, while pantheism is the belief that the universe has a logical order and that our species is a part of it. It can be explained like this: Atheism posits that the universe came into being by some unknown force, and humanity has no purpose/objective reason for existence. Pantheism states that humanity has a purpose (bestowed by the universe), but it was not created by a god. Finally, Spinoza states that god created the universe but did not give humanity a directive/objective reason for existence. Very different ideas. Logos is a common idea in Western philosophy which touches on all of them. I recommend starting with Meditations if you want a better understanding.
I forgot to mention but just so it doesn't get confusing, Spinoza IS the universe but under an Abrahamic/Christian world view. Spinoza just states that the universe is god (being with purpose), while having no part in human affairs (the universe has a purpose but doesn't extend to humanity).
@@sadgetrollge5614by characterising it as ‘god’ he gives it intelligence that we cannot prove it has. Stupid and pointless. We need to stop projecting into the cosmos and accept it for what it is.
@@jazzman2516 The universe is not necessarily intelligent as it is purposeful. The purpose of the universe is to enforce the laws of nature, otherwise, they would not be enforced,. This is much like how an animal's purpose is to survive and procreate. Humans are fundamentally different from animals, as we have sapience. Naturally, our calling is to be sapient: fundamentally different from animals. We should be as little like animals as possible because of this fact: maximize our "uniqueness" and fulfill our purpose as best as possible, so that the next stage of life may prosper.
Those two philosophers radically disagree in their worldview and ethics. I'd agree on Machiavelli influencing contemporary pseudointellectual sigmas, but Nietzsche, quite the opposite.
I feel like it's important to you to think you know more than the proverbial "the other guy" and take great pleasure in thinking so. A little introspection on your projections might be necessary.
As an atheist who was a theist I would never make fun of your beliefs or abuse you, that would make me a bit of a hypocrite. I don't see any set of beliefs as better than another. Whether you are the Catholic that bows to a man on a torture device, or a Mormon who thinks their underpants are magical, they are both just as illogical to me. Your Pantheism is no different, if that's what you believe then you are an adult and you can believe what you like. In the defence of Alex O'Connor however, he often is targeting mainstream religions such as Christianity. The reason for this is that there are 2.2 billion Christians on Earth. Now your argument might counter his for your respective religion. I understand that Pantheism is that your God is the universe, every part of it. This means the sun, moon, planet Earth and even that annoying ingrown hair on my butt hole, is what you call "God." Well good news, as an atheist I agree your God exists. But as an atheist I do not believe in deities, and I do not see the universe itself as a deity.
@@newglof9558 In simple terms, a god or goddess. This can be Allah, God, Vishnu etc. But also your Pantheism. Now correct me if I am wrong but what you call nature is everything natural, are equal to a supreme entry. So what we experience in reality is your deity. The difference between you and let's say a Catholic is that you both believe in nature and natural laws, however they say some sort of supernatural being is making these laws happen, while you do not make such a claim. Am I on the right page here?
I'm a pantheist, more or less. Weird that atheists are attacking pantheists. Honestly it's pretty damn dumb, since most atheists (or at least scientifically inclined atheists) are pantheists-lite in all but name anyway, with their reverence for the universe and so on. But based on what you said here, are you a pantheist who believes in divine inspiration of scripture? Why? There is no reason for "god" to be all powerful etc, especially a pantheist "god." Or did you just say that for argument's sake? As for quantum gravity, my guy I can't imagine you not being laughed out of a journal without the requisite math expertise as a minimum. I won't claim you don't have that expertise without seeing your submissions, but most people who try to publish physics papers without physics degrees tend to not be aware of why they are wrong.
If you are a pantheist and haven't already, read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. He talks all about logos and what the universe considers good and evil. It is a very basic refutation of the moral argument for most Christians, which posits objective morality. Also, don't blame people for their ignorance: one of the very core messages of this book.
if the universe considers that there are things that are good and evil, then it is good and evil regardless what anyone think, therefore objective morality exists. Well unless there is nothing that the universe considers good and evil. Also you can be an atheist and posit objective morality, most christians do not know much about ethics. ATtleast professional apologists try to argue that there is a moral law giver which is actually a different argument than if objective morality exists or not.
btw i'm not sure if you said that it is the refutation that posits objective morality or the moral argument made by Christians. If it's the former then you can ignore what i have just said.
@@toonyandfriends1915 I'm arguing objective morality. The Christian argument is based on god's authority while the stoic/Aurelian argument comes from humanity's distinction from animals. Just so you know. Also, you've piqued my interest in atheistic objective morality. What's the premise for that?
@@sadgetrollge5614 i see now lol thanks for clarifying. When i'm talking about atheistic objective morality, then i am simply talking about the various arguments for moral realism and the vast literature of it, which simply holds that there exists moral facts, or when some people make moral claim, then it makes reference to moral facts. Though it may or may not make naturalism less plausible than before if it is true, but it isn't necessary to commit to it as an atheist. (i'm not an atheist though).
If I were to define God as pepperoni pizza, there'd be no question that this "God" exists, but the instant I make this a matter of definition, there's no reason to give the slightest shit anymore. This is what happens when you define God as the universe. Completely pointless.
The "God of Spinoza" and "pantheism" are two separate ideas that Sam conflates. Spinoza is the belief in an all-powerful God who created everything, while pantheism is the belief that the universe has a logical order and that our species is a part of it. It can be explained like this:
Atheism posits that the universe came into being by some unknown force, and humanity has no purpose/objective reason for existence.
Pantheism states that humanity has a purpose (bestowed by the universe), but it was not created by a god.
Finally, Spinoza states that god created the universe but did not give humanity a directive/objective reason for existence.
Very different ideas. Logos is a common idea in Western philosophy which touches on all of them. I recommend starting with Meditations if you want a better understanding.
I forgot to mention but just so it doesn't get confusing, Spinoza IS the universe but under an Abrahamic/Christian world view. Spinoza just states that the universe is god (being with purpose), while having no part in human affairs (the universe has a purpose but doesn't extend to humanity).
Exactly! Just say Universe. 😂
@@sadgetrollge5614by characterising it as ‘god’ he gives it intelligence that we cannot prove it has. Stupid and pointless. We need to stop projecting into the cosmos and accept it for what it is.
@@jazzman2516 The universe is not necessarily intelligent as it is purposeful. The purpose of the universe is to enforce the laws of nature, otherwise, they would not be enforced,.
This is much like how an animal's purpose is to survive and procreate.
Humans are fundamentally different from animals, as we have sapience. Naturally, our calling is to be sapient: fundamentally different from animals. We should be as little like animals as possible because of this fact: maximize our "uniqueness" and fulfill our purpose as best as possible, so that the next stage of life may prosper.
Nietzche and Machiavelli have a lasting impact. It’s really bad. Like scary bad.
Machiavelli, honestly, kind of made me fascist, lol - after first reading it, at least.
Those two philosophers radically disagree in their worldview and ethics.
I'd agree on Machiavelli influencing contemporary pseudointellectual sigmas, but Nietzsche, quite the opposite.
I feel like it's important to you to think you know more than the proverbial "the other guy" and take great pleasure in thinking so. A little introspection on your projections might be necessary.
❤
Why are you doing the kim k california girl voice croak thing lmao
As an atheist who was a theist I would never make fun of your beliefs or abuse you, that would make me a bit of a hypocrite. I don't see any set of beliefs as better than another. Whether you are the Catholic that bows to a man on a torture device, or a Mormon who thinks their underpants are magical, they are both just as illogical to me. Your Pantheism is no different, if that's what you believe then you are an adult and you can believe what you like.
In the defence of Alex O'Connor however, he often is targeting mainstream religions such as Christianity. The reason for this is that there are 2.2 billion Christians on Earth. Now your argument might counter his for your respective religion. I understand that Pantheism is that your God is the universe, every part of it. This means the sun, moon, planet Earth and even that annoying ingrown hair on my butt hole, is what you call "God." Well good news, as an atheist I agree your God exists. But as an atheist I do not believe in deities, and I do not see the universe itself as a deity.
what is a "deity"
@@newglof9558 In simple terms, a god or goddess. This can be Allah, God, Vishnu etc. But also your Pantheism. Now correct me if I am wrong but what you call nature is everything natural, are equal to a supreme entry. So what we experience in reality is your deity. The difference between you and let's say a Catholic is that you both believe in nature and natural laws, however they say some sort of supernatural being is making these laws happen, while you do not make such a claim. Am I on the right page here?
Cosmic Skeptic is the New New Atheist 😅. It's really just more of the same, nothing novel
you should oil up for the next video 🙏🙏🙏 pretty please
YESSSS oh my god please I NEEEEED IT
Edging tutorial would be better
dont know who cosmic skeptic is but "abuse" is pretty hilarious for describing internet hate comments
You don't seem to be in a position to call anyone a moron, mate.
You must be an atheist
You just pointed yourself out lmfaooo
What did you say in the beginning of the video? I dont understand
why would he respond to you?
I'm a pantheist, more or less. Weird that atheists are attacking pantheists. Honestly it's pretty damn dumb, since most atheists (or at least scientifically inclined atheists) are pantheists-lite in all but name anyway, with their reverence for the universe and so on. But based on what you said here, are you a pantheist who believes in divine inspiration of scripture? Why? There is no reason for "god" to be all powerful etc, especially a pantheist "god." Or did you just say that for argument's sake?
As for quantum gravity, my guy I can't imagine you not being laughed out of a journal without the requisite math expertise as a minimum. I won't claim you don't have that expertise without seeing your submissions, but most people who try to publish physics papers without physics degrees tend to not be aware of why they are wrong.
Actually it makes complete sense, because you're just an atheists who poses as a believer. Get real, stop posing and grow a spine.
If you are a pantheist and haven't already, read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. He talks all about logos and what the universe considers good and evil. It is a very basic refutation of the moral argument for most Christians, which posits objective morality.
Also, don't blame people for their ignorance: one of the very core messages of this book.
if the universe considers that there are things that are good and evil, then it is good and evil regardless what anyone think, therefore objective morality exists.
Well unless there is nothing that the universe considers good and evil.
Also you can be an atheist and posit objective morality, most christians do not know much about ethics. ATtleast professional apologists try to argue that there is a moral law giver which is actually a different argument than if objective morality exists or not.
btw i'm not sure if you said that it is the refutation that posits objective morality or the moral argument made by Christians. If it's the former then you can ignore what i have just said.
@@toonyandfriends1915 I'm arguing objective morality. The Christian argument is based on god's authority while the stoic/Aurelian argument comes from humanity's distinction from animals. Just so you know.
Also, you've piqued my interest in atheistic objective morality. What's the premise for that?
@@sadgetrollge5614 i see now lol thanks for clarifying.
When i'm talking about atheistic objective morality, then i am simply talking about the various arguments for moral realism and the vast literature of it, which simply holds that there exists moral facts, or when some people make moral claim, then it makes reference to moral facts.
Though it may or may not make naturalism less plausible than before if it is true, but it isn't necessary to commit to it as an atheist. (i'm not an atheist though).
I still think thats cool. What would you recommend to start reading for a better understanding?
🧇🧇🧇🧇🧇🧇
Religions: Things that make people happy that don't have any real outcome
except war
Religions have caused innumerable amounts of war and death, and have held back human civilization. These are things they certainly do.
@@satisfiedconsumer649 wrong.
“God is for the weak, I am not weak” -Fabius Bile