@@2wavemiiI don’t even believe that “born geniuses” even exist. I remember reading a late Medieval Jewish thinker who said society & mind are synonymous. Which I think has a lot of truth once I started thinking about it. Take any “born geniuses” and imagine what they’d have been like if they grew up in a completely different society - a society that did not value education, a society that frowned upon music, theater and the arts and embraces anti-intellectualism while despising secular learning. It’s safe to say those “born geniuses” would not even be given a chance to develop their “genius within” that they were allegedly born with. You can flip this around too. Take a semi-literate, uneducated adult that has very little critical thinking skills and go back in time and while they’re a baby put them in a household and community that values secular learning and makes that a top priority for children. It’s very likely they’d grow up and be highly literate and well educated. And being highly literate greatly impacts thinking patterns and promotes critical thinking skills.
If we had at least three teachers in every public school and college with as much enthusiasm about the world around them and the subject matter they taught, the world would be at least 56.2% better.
@@mikeappleget482 Wishful thinking. Intelligence is largely inherited and exceptions seem to prove the rule more than debunk it. People will generally perform better under better circumstances but the potential is always roughly the same.
I always get skeptical when I see the phrase "these days". When would those things have been more common? I think they're as prevalent as they always have been, probably except for vulnerability which has been more and more accepted over the years.
@@johnzackarias11 Perhaps before the effects of AI and social media that saturate information and people with pseudoscience and populism. Given the amount of information bombardment, I see at least the time before these technologies affected how people think for themselves as more honest and humble. And I'm glad I got to experience the time before as I grew up.
That's a pity because there are definitely more of the cooler, live & let live types in the skeptic community than the trolls you allowed to drive you out. People like the Genetically Modified Skeptic, for example, or Professor Plink. If all of your exposure to the skeptic crowd was Reddit-level discourse, yeah, you're gonna run into the neckbeard-y fedora types we could all do without, but seriously, there aren't as many of those sea-lioning AHs as you might think. Maybe give us another chance?
i find most of my heroes can be irritating and off-putting, they are still right though. i think mr deity and the non stamp collector are the only people who don't annoy me.
I was a member of the International Skeptics Forum until one of the non-breeder mods threw ME over the woo fence over a conversation about children and sugar. It was the final straw.
Absolutely love this! Adam, you are such an open hearted, open minded soul. Your intellectual curiosity and enthusiasm seem boundless. What a gift you are to all of us!
Love this video, Adam. My grandfather, who was an atheist in the "dark corner" of South Carolina, lived into his 90s. One day he realised that his congestive heart failure was kicking in, so he drove from the farm to the hospital. He knew he was dying as he lay in the hospital bed, with my grandmother sitting at the bedside. A hospital clergyman stopped by and asked my grandfather if he would like him to pray with him. My grandfather replied, "well, if it would make you feel better, you go right ahead". I miss him.
Reminds me of Voltaires final words; when asked to renounce Satan while on his deathbed he allegedly responded "Now is not the time to be making enemies."
I am a devout Christian and I would so much like to thank you for such a dignified and respectful response to this. You're a very smart individual and you have my unending respect! Thanks for sharing your perspective as I understand it's very personal and comes with a lot of challenge.
Let me say kiddo, when you are free of religious oppression and able to think freely and clearly, it is not difficult at all to express this sentiment. I wish you peace and freedom.
What on earth? I think there is one think thiests and athiests should agree on and accept - the Bible has been altered and warped in the past 2000 years. No wonder there are 40,000 Christian denominations now
@@johnthomas1422 - From memory (my teenage years of internet-debating on this subject lol), the typical argument that your comments reminds me of, was, "well, wind isn't visible, yet your believe in that". The response was to mention that there are other ways to detect and prove that wind exists (including using vision to notice the effects it has on other stuff). Same with gravity, regardless of being able to truly explain gravity or not, and not true of the concept of gods (in a scientific sense). Something like that!
Not sure if it originated with them but the Theosophists of the 19th & 20th century took the concept to another level. Blavatsky & Alice Bailey wrote a lot about the hierarchies in nature...from monads to atoms & cells making up complex life forms.
What an odd thought, to realize I have been watching your content since the early days, for nearly 20 of my 30 years. Thanks for existing man, I'm a current working Industrial Engineer. I was very much inspired by mythbusters and have been a fan since.
I get that. I feel like the majority of atheists out there are simply too angry at the followers of a God they don't believe in. It's one thing to remain unconvinced or even find the idea of a God silly, you can still treat people with some common decency, unless the people in question are rude.
@@Rich2M316 See there's the issue. The most outspoken and hardcore members of most belief systems are going to be annoying to the people who aren't followers. And being the most outspoken, they'll also be the ones most people know. But most people of most belief systems are normal reasonable people.
@@darklyripley6138 It is fun being a bit edgy isn't it? Let's not be too edgy though, bud. Save some for the rest of us. I'm sure you're a perfectly lovely person who knows how to share.
Thank you for being genuine and vulnerable during your human journey. I came from the "other" direction as a very zealous religious pastor. Now, I feel like I'm in a very similar state as you. Thank you.
@wfemp_4730 I think it can be fear, or a desire for community and wanting to feel loved and included. On the surface, it also seems like a good tool to share the love you have with the world. But when you start getting deeper and realize the exclusion and condemnation of others different from you, you have to make a decision. I chose to follow love.
Hi Adam, it is my understanding that the atheist position is actually that we are not convinced by the assertion that there is a god. We don’t typically assert that there absolutely is no god. Only that there is insufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that one exists.
You get gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists. Someone like Richard Dawkins could be called a gnostic atheist. Most people who refer to themselves as agnostic mean agnostic atheist, because they don't have a belief in any gods.
the weird part is that we do not go around calling ourselves aunicornists. we would have millions of such titles of things we do not believe in. we need a title for things we do believe in, rather than just being a subset in someone else's belief systems by name. i believe in determinsm. i believe in science as a way to learn through observation. as for how we got here, how the actual whole universe/multiverse/whatever you call the whole of existence got here, i have nothing. i am a nothingist, an IDKist, a waitandseeist. does anyone here have any beliefs about existence and its possible beginning?
@@itoibo4208 You could define them as people who require evidence to accept claims vs people who don't. Religion is also an excuse for trying to tell other people what they can and cannot do and how to live their lives. I also have zero evidence for any sort of determinism. Even though it is only anecdotal, I'm pretty sure everyone can see the impact decisions can have on the course of one's life.
Super glad ur not shy Adam to cover a topic such this. Most with a platform dance around it. Ur ability communicate both sides of the spectrum without off putting anyone who doesn't share ur same thoughts is amazing. Thank u for what u do sir!
Except it’s “cool” to be anti Christian/religious so people are more likely to talk about not being religious and topics like this. You’d probably get more “attacks” from coming out as Christian than if you came out as atheist.
As a former member of a religion, I have found no greater wonder than discovering and experiencing the beautiful mystery of life when I was no longer told how to experience it. I was so afraid that not having a pre-constructed surety would be unbearable, but it wasn't until I was free of a, in my opinion, severely flawed framework was I able to truly find comfort and wonder. I embrace the questioning now and I feel that I'm so much better for it.
I feel similar. Also, I still wonder at when I realized that all, at least as far as I'm aware, of the worlds human communities have some sort of religion, no matter how isolated. I wonder... why?
Indeed. Something I hear often from religious people if it comes up that i'm not is "So you believe this is all there is ?" asked with incredulity. And my equally incredulous response is, "How can _this_ not be enough for anyone ?" - you can spend a lifetime studying a leaf and still not fully understand all its mysteries, nevermind something like consciousness. (i'd upvote you BTW but, though it won't last, right now you're on 42 upvotes which seems entirely appropriate :)
@@p.t.anderson1593 Easy way to explain wondrous or frightening things you don't have the ability to explain at the time and usually a way to enforce a rule of law on a large portion of the population to keep them in check.
I sort of have the opposite experience. I used to call myself agnostic but way too often it would lead to theists thinking that means I am a believer in denial and that it makes me willing to convert. So instead I call myself an atheist to make my skepticism perfectly clear. I don't care what others' beliefs are as long as it doesn't harm people and they aren't aggressively trying to convert others. I do agree that some people are asses about their non-belief and I firmly think mutual respect and the concept of "please leave me be" should go both ways.
If it comes up I usually go with "agnostic that lives as an atheist" :) - I don't _know_ but at the same time, I personally am convinced that there's no God/god/gods. But that "if it comes up" is pretty key. In my youth I was more "militant" and would bring it up for the sake of the debate. Nowadays i'm way more "live and let live" and just leave people be if they're not hurting anyone (and of course expect the same in return but there i'm lucky because living in the UK, evangelicals etc. are pretty thin on the ground - even religious people here are overwhelmingly not _that_ kind of religious and maybe ironically given that we _do_ have an official religion, religion in schools etc. if it ever started influencing legislation that'd be treated with _extreme_ suspicion by basically everyone).
8 месяцев назад
I don't remember if it was Richard Dawkins who said that although at a philosophical/logical level we are agnostics, really in practice/on a daily basis we're atheists, because we function just as if gods simply don't exists, not constantly reminding us that we can't disprove their existence or non-existence. Yeah, I believe it was Dawkins with an example of what if there is a teapot orbiting the sun, small enough to not be detectable by any current technology, on a philosophical level we would argue that we can't disprove a teapot is orbiting the sun right now, but in practice we go on our lives as if we're just "teapot atheists" not wondering about it and not giving thought to the possibility of some natural phenomena being caused by some kind of divinity/god/providence just because we cannot disprove it
Technically agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive stances. I would more closely identify myself as an agnostic atheist. But yeah, in the face of someone trying to save my soul I would just say atheist too.
Hmm, people are asses about their non-belief...how? If you walking into a church and proclaimed that there was no god you'd merely be stating your views - the opinions of the God-Botherers have no special rights. If I can go to a Patriots Game and cheer for the Giants why shouldn't I disabuse the religious in the same way?
@@occamraiser Are you familiar with the name Madeline Murray O'Hare? She's the woman that pretty much single handedly got prayer removed from schools. Whether you believe that schools should allow prayer or not, she was such an ass about her atheism that she got laws changed across the country so that even if one wished to pray in school, they can't.
I’m also an atheist who was fairly active in the “new atheist” era debates. I think it was necessary at the time for those early debates to be pretty confrontational, but since then I’ve adopted a less abrasive approach, simply out of interest for not being a jerk. I’ve also come to see that the problem of religion is not limited only to religion itself or the scripture, it’s a groupthink phenomenon that plagues all of humanity, including people in the so called “atheist movement”. I also agree with quite a lot of what Jesus said, the anti-authoritarian and proto-socialist philosophies he espoused, and find it tragically hilarious how seemingly more atheists in America tend to fall in line with Jesus’ stated philosophies than most fundamentalist Christians, who tend to be extremely anti-poor and pro-authoritarian.
@@eathecommie thats not what he said... he said that what jesus taught is more along the lines of socialist philosophies, not that jesus's environment was socialist.
@@eathecommie You're right. Socialism was invented by John Socialism in 1824 when he thought "hey, what if we used a little bit of what we have to give some basic necessities to people who don't have them" for the first time in the history of ever.
Adam, I always love hearing both your stories and your outlook on life. I think you have one of the best perspectives on this world that I have ever come across, and you are an inspiration to so many people.
This is why I have always loved your shows and videos. If one believes in being good to others I don't think the rest matters. We will find someday either the truth or figure out the way to live our lives that works best for us.
This is also how I choose to live my life. We will all find out eventually how it ends. In the meantime just be a good person to yourself and others and enjoy the ride as much as possible.
A Moebius inspired spacesuit would be such an amazing project. He was such a great, "out of this world" artist. Anything by him would be fun to reproduce: spaceships, cars, buildings, artifacts... Looking forward to a Jean Giraud themed project!
Moebius drawings changed how I view shapes, volumes, and fashion ....at an early age(first seen in "Heavy Metal" magazine) he pushed my imagination and art work to new levels; now I didn't master Jean Giraud's forms in my own work(mostly sculpture) but there will always be a bit of inspiration from him in my stuff, or I'd like there to be
Your views with regards to the ultimate questions are bang on where I've been for as long as I can recall. I appreciate the affirmation it provides hearing these thoughts from you as someone I highly respect. I also appreciate the further reading references, I'll definitely look into these titles.
I've been a Christian for most of my life and you've been someone I've looked up to since the Mythbuster days. Here recently, I've begun working on projects after getting space for my own little shop and it's because I started watching Tested and wanted to try to build things with my hands.
Yeah, it had been a while since I had read anything in the bible after decades of it being such a central part of my southern culture I was born into. I had taken an upper division philosophy of religion class years into being an atheist and really read so much of the bible with a more objective lens. It blew me away how much preachers and Sunday school teachers, and myself to degree, cherry picked that for our own satisfaction. At that point, I was into my third degree program in anthropology and archaeology, and had read ton of history on my own and in the coursework, that it was so striking in comparison to what I read growing up. It’s so easy to see how cults can exist after having the perspectives in life I have.
@@mycosys Someone like you WOULD recommend reading the Bible "cover to cover", instead of " Read the entire bible - and also do you best to understand the actual meanings of the words as much as we can know their meaning, from the original languages used to convey the messages, and then apply those things with as much context as you can, and then come to a logical, reasonable conclusion - and then, when you've done all of that, if you still want to make the choice to believe that God is real, and inherently good, etc., then that's your choice, and is the very definition of one having faith, and thus, you'd be following the teachings as written, and good on you for being dedicated to something, because that's one of many ways to enjoy this life, and that's really all anybody should be concerned with - enjoying life while we have it, and not bumbling and fretting about what the true origin is of what is, effectively, a lifestyle we basically all agree on living" I recommend you try harder, or stop wasting your time.
it is precisely people like you, Adam, that made me feel it was ok to leave my religion about a decade ago, when I realized I no longer believed. You just being the admirable person you are reassured me that people were able to be kind, generous, and compassionate without needing a religious impetus for their behavior. At the time, I was concerned about who I’d become without a god, and I’m thankful to report I’ve become more considerate and understanding than I ever was before.
There is no such thing as right or wrong without God because who am I to say I am right and who are you to say you are right there has to be an ultimate right so if you believe you’re doing something right you believe in God
I usually clarify that I’m an Agnostic Atheist. People misconstrue both words to be mutually exclusive, but they describe different things. An Agnostic Atheist doesn’t believe there’s a god because there isn’t convincing evidence to support it, but acknowledges that that evidence could arrive later (however unlikely). As opposed to Gnostic Atheists, who “know” there isn’t a god.
Are you can be agnostic on some God's and Gnostic on other God's like me. I would not say as an agnostic atheist that I know no God's exist , but rather some God's as defined I am as close as one can be , while other God's I am completely unconvinced one way or the other. In other word's you got to approach each God claim individually. As I also see it all religious ideas of God past , present and future could be wrong but some type of God could still exist.
Exactly. I’m pretty much the same. I’m an atheist. I don’t think there are any gods. I’m just not convinced they’re a thing outside of stories. Do I KNOW this? No. I don’t think anyone can know at this point. So I live my life as though there are no gods because I don’t think there are any - it is because of this above all else why I accept the label of atheist. I match the definition. That doesn’t say anything about whether I believe in an afterlife, or ghosts, anything paranormal, or any manner of other things as each is independent from whether there are gods. It doesn’t make me hopeless either (that’s a lie from religious folk to make being an atheist sound miserable). It is merely my stance on one very specific point given the info I currently have. Were I shown evidence that at least one god existed, I would change that and I would accept that that god existed. Whether I would join its club or worship it is a whole different matter. I’m a whole person outside of that. I’m so many other things too, like an artist. And frankly I find those things so much more interesting than whether or not there are any number of gods. I would much rather be labeled by the things that I am rather than the things I’m not.
I agree with sentiment generally, but to play devil's advocate (I know, I know..) I think the gnostic atheist position may be that the idea that there could ever be "convincing evidence" of a God (or gods) is fundamentally impossible as long as that evidence is bounded by the scientific method (formulating falsifiable hypotheses and then attempting to falsify them with direct observation). The problem is that if the scientific process could show evidence of a god (an intelligence much greater than our own, that has some influence over ourselves and/or our world) then its operating mechanisms would have to governed by scientific processes, which essentially would make it no longer a god. What do I mean? Think about how a colony of ants might perceive humans. They might see us massive nearly unknowable entities that may provide places for the ants to live, sources of food, also sometimes destroying some or all of the colony through chemicals, floods, fire etc.. To the ants, we appear as old testament god or greek gods. But obviously we're not. We don't operate outside scientific understanding, just outside the ants understanding. So if humans ever discover true scientific evidence of a god or gods, then they simply become a more advanced non-human intelligence, not a true "god". To know a thing, is to demystify it. If a "true" god exists outside of rules of scientific understanding, then no "convincing evidence" for it can ever exist. That doesn't preclude faith or believe in something outside of scientific understanding but to prove it would essentially destroy it in that form.
I think the whole point of faith is that you don't have real hard proof if you did you wouldn't need faith if you could be convinced without a doubt if God was null, then you would have 0 faith. I mean no disrespect
@@riparianlife97701 100% of scientists who aren't fooling themselves agree that the big bang is a THEORY. Not a fact, and no more provable than "an imaginary sky man."
@@riparianlife97701it’s not hard to explain. Cultural inertia, and it objectively makes people happier to imagine the continuation of our conscience and to feel like we belong to a community.
@@Chris-hw4mq Yeah, the 2/3 of us who dismiss Jesus as nonsense are insane with misery our whole lives at the thought we won't end up in a magical sky castle forever with you people. Meanwhile, the population of Mississippi, the most Christian place in the world, live in a perpetual orgasm of comfort and joy, knowing they're going to be with JESUS forever! Of course it's not enough to live forever, everyone else needs to be PUNISHED!
From everything that I've heard he sounds like an interesting guy but his name sounds like Rammed Ass and it makes me chuckle because I'm 12, apparently. I'm sure he's a whole lot more generous than the lesser known Tye Tass. I'm sorry, it's just funny to me.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I would definitely watch a series about a deep dive into Moebius to design and build a spacesuit. The whole idea sounds fascinating!
It's more freaky to think that the part of your brain that is responsible for your personality and sense of identity is a small chunk that could fit in your hand. Any other part of your body or brain that you could survive without would still leave you being you, except that one part of the brain. Which means you could say that you're a chunk of brain matter about the size of an apple and you're piloting a meat suit.
As a former mentalist I like that analogy of making you misremember. I always liked it when I heard spectators recount my performance and I would often think: “I’d wish I was that good but then I would have some magical power that I strongly deny having.”
Thank you for sharing! I appreciate how you explained where you're coming from and the authors you've gleaned from. Some books that have helped me were by D. James Kennedy and Lee Strobel. Strobel was a writer for the Chicago Tribune and wrote about his journey as well in "The Case for Christ."
You know, by your definition, I think i'd also call myself a new testament atheist. In fact, one of the things i feel pushed me towards atheism was my desire to better myself as a Christian, realizing how anti-establishment Jesus was, and realizing just how much the modern church now embodies the establishment Jesus specifically spoke against. I know that I have less years of experience on this planet than you, Adam, so maybe i am less qualified to say it, but it is my point of view that, historically, everytime we inserted a supernatural entity into an explanation, it was because we didnt have a good enough understanding of the phenomenon. Then when we did understand it, that need for a god disappeared. I don't know if a god created the universe, but i feel like its just one more thing we don't understand. Its in the realm of possibility, sure, so i guess im agnostic, i wont rule it out, but i will call it very very unlikely.
@@ethanholmes5677 did you not listen to this man talk about how spongey human memory is? And you want to believe a 2000 year old story comprised of eyewitness accounts?
The New Testament has a lot of problems. Not only does Jesus claim that his followers need to abandon their families in order to follow him, like every modern day cult leader does, but the Book of Revelation elevates Jesus to this judgmental gatekeeper who decides who, or who is not, worthy of entering heaven? Honestly, there is a reason why Evangelicals love the New Testament Book of Revelation, where they can take everything that is written there and use it as a reason why they hate a certain group of people.
@@ethanholmes5677Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not finding a body can't be immediately ascribed to a resurrection. And also, the New Testament was written by unknown authors more than 70 years after the supposed existence of a man named Jesus
I just fell onto your channel while looking up Tapping explained. I see you have many subscribers and rightfully so, as you have a GREAT channel and your delivery is very good. I am now a subscriber and will tell others about your excellent content. Thank you for such great info and instruction.
Agnostic and atheist are two different labels addressing two different questions. One is about whether or not you know, gnostic/agnostic, the other is whether you believe, theist/atheist. I don't know that any gods exist, so I don't' believe any do. That makes me an agnostic atheist. Most people who use the agnostic label also fit the atheist label, as they don't actively believe any gods exist. You don't have to believe gods don't exist to be an atheist. Just as you don't have to believe someone is innocent to not believe they are guilty.
To an extent, there is also the argument to be made that those contradictions only appear as such to our mortal minds, hence why some people still believe despite such evidence I am not one such person, I am an antithiest, and if there is a god, the term Misothiest would also apply to me, but an understanding of why a belief is held is highly important if you want to have even the slightest chance to engage with that belief
Adam, you spoke of an audience as "a colony", and I can see how that might appear. I would look upon an audience as a social construct: they come together with common concepts they want to explore, and you are the focus of their desire to explore those ideas. You, as that focus, become the expression of their desire to understand; yet, you remain you -- independent of what your audience thinks of you. Social construction is such an interesting phenomenon!
Man, Adam, how much I would love to sit down with you and have a drink and talk about so many things...we share so many artistic and personality traits. I love how you get so exited about what others would look at as mundane the most. Your love for creativity is infectious and perhaps someday, God willing, we can have that conversation, lol. Keep up the great work and stay curious...
Sometimes you look back on something you liked as a kid, or learn more about someone you looked up to, just to be horrendously disappointed. I’m glad Adam Savage is neither of those.
apart from the fact that the concept of hell was introduced in the new testement...eternal torture for some infraction is a hideous concept. it's been a while, but that revelation came from Christopher Hitchens in his book God is not great. I've not combed through the Bible to fact check.
@@martinmoss317 I agree, As a believer, I don't believe in the concept of eternal torture. I'm not only one, lot's of Christians completely disagree with that concept because it doesn't match a loving merciful God. If your interested, there are lots of different viewpoints that have been shared online that are interesting to read and have a scriptural backing.
@@johnrad3442What if the presence of God is a refining fire? For those on-board for that process it is a comforting thing, for those dedicated to rebellion it is not fun. His creation, his paradigm.
@@chadparsons50 100% If you hate light to you it's torture. If you love light then it's joy. Heaven and Hell may just be ways of describing people's response to God's immediate and unmediated Presence. This jives well with what Jesus said in John 3:16-21 16 For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Anyone who believes in him is not condemned, but anyone who does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. 19 This is the judgment: The light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the light and avoids it, so that his deeds may not be exposed. 21 But anyone who lives by the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be shown to be accomplished by God.”
Atheist doesn’t mean “I know there is no God.” Atheist means “I do not believe in or worship a God.” If you can not name the God/s you don’t believe in/worship then you’re an atheist. Doesn’t mean you think it’s impossible for a God to exist just that you are not convinced one does. I’m not convinced that unicorns exist but it is possible that a horse will a horn could exist, But until I have prof I won’t believe in unicorns.
Quite well put. As I consider myself to be Atheist, it's mostly about "Do not feed me your religion" type of opinion. For me fact is. Religions, yes note that s in the end there. ReligionS have killed by people by millions and millions. Many completely innocent. Worst thing is that this continues today, right now in the world. Religion. Just why? To me it's very hippocrite to say many things, about many religions, as pretty much of all of them have shot themselves in their foot some time or have acted the exact opposite what they claim to do. To me it's all the same what you people believe in. If it makes you happy, very good for you. But I absolutely loathe the feeling if someone is approaching me in veins of turning into some religion. I despise such people.
@jothain “Religion has killed millions” Nah dude, stop using this tired excuse. People have killed millions of people. People kill for all sorts of reasons, we should blame the people. Obviously a religion like Christianity is very anti murder. Can’t say the same for Islam, but you get my point.
Appreciate your honesty on this topic. I think more people need to be open with their skepticism/atheism/agnosticism. It should not be looked down on to not believe claims that are sort of fundamentally unbelievable.
I was raised Baptist, but over the last decade or so, I've moved away from that into agnostic territory. I like the description of "new testament agnostic" for much the same reasons as you described.
There are some who say that Jesus spent many years amongst the Buddhists during the "missing" years after traveling there on the silk road as a young lad.
@@p.t.anderson1593 I doubt it personally (that's a lot of travelling for a humble carpenter's son :) but the "golden rule" certainly has roots in Buddhism so _someone_ involved in the New Testament almost certainly knew of those teachings. And I suspect all honest people are at least _weak_ agnostics (assuming "weak agnostics" believe we don't know whether God exists and "strong agnostics" believe we can _never_ know whether God exists) - all the religious people I know will, when pressed, say that they don't _know_ whether there's a God/god/gods (which for them is where faith comes in) and all of my fellow atheists (that haven't strayed from an evidence based rational scepticism into dogma) admit the same.
I knew surprisingly many baptist raised people that have moved into agnostic terroritory or downright atheist one. I've alway been curious as they're absolutely minority where I live. As agnostic or even atheist maybe, I try to remain neutral with everyone, unless they try to "convert me". But yeah, I've been curious why there are quite many of these I know. Cause of the "neutrality" I haven't ever questioned them why, but always been bit curious. To be honest I don't know if it's just random thing that I've encountered many or is the "ratio" same in other religions too. But all the same. They're all good people,
@@anonymes2884there was plenty of contact between the Buddhist and Hellenistic spheres of influence, though, so even if he never left Judea, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that he could have been exposed to some of their philosophies.
"New testament agnostic" Amen to that! You don't need to believe in the wooey to be a good person, just treat others as you would like to be treated! This video really resonated with what I've also come to believe, thank you for this Adam. We are all connected in more ways than we realize, peace be with you
But what does "good person" mean? In some societies, being a "good person" meant being victorious in battle, bringing home plunder to the tribe. We need a framework to understand what "good" is, and that doesn't answer the question about how there can be a "good" that transcends people. I can't be good alone; I can only be good in the presence of others, so that presupposes there is something intangible between multiple people and there is a hierarchy with "good" being at the top. If all there is is the material world, then this intangible cannot exist. You assume you know what good is because you live in a Christian framework. Nietzsche was very clear about this, and even atheist Dawkins agrees.
@@kurt1391 "a Christian framework" Considering the Bible instructs "good people" to do unspeakable atrocities while constantly contradicting itself, no this is absolutely not how I know what is good. And no, the society that thinks someone is "good" for murdering is not actually good, literally looking at Christianity as an example. Morality exists outside any religion, empathy is a natural trait. Zealots use the threat of imaginary wrath to shape their morality, intelligent people use material consequences to shape their morality. Learn the difference, it could save the world.
@@kurt1391 Best part about christian morality is it is objective and never changing. At the time the bible was written it was common and moral to burn witches alive. Doing that today would still be a moral act wouldn't it if Christian morality is unchanging?
@@TheVerendus You have no morality without God, also using the fallacy of hypocrites who claim to be Christian doing evil things isn't a justification for your denial of God.
@@ironmatto3 baseless assertion, i don't need a made up fairly tale threatening me with eternal torment to know not to hurt others, if its bribery(heaven) or threat(hell) that's keeping you from doing those things you are not moral
Placing a label is hard and isn't often wanted. forrest Valkai does a great job of describing these terms. Theist, gnostic, a-theist, a-gnostic. It's tough.
I always say everything that is real can be measured. Physics and math are undefeated. There are so many religions and so many creative stories people have invented and interpretations to be able to reconcile their cognitive biases, it seems like they would either all have to be true or none of them are.
Our minds and by extension our senses are flawed, so science is the process of getting as close as we can to finding reality. Our measurements are often wrong, we often need to invent new tools to get accurate measurements, but we only find that out when some other attempt to measure our world led us to realize one of them needed to be wrong, that is the process of science, classical physics has been partially defeated, by the current exploration of quantum physics, which we didn't always know was a thing, math has been a system that's developed over all of human history, and wasn't always as accurate as it is now, and we do still have values we cannot express mathematically with any accuracy. I am in agreement with the very concept of religion being incredibly flawed, but I needed to correct you a bit on the reasoning. Math has been defeated, but it came back stronger Physics has been defeated, but it came back stronger Damn near every field of science is the result of a field of science being defeated and coming back stronger, more equipped to approximate our world in a way we can track
@tomykong2915 I never stated that math and physics weren't constantly improving methods and results and making new discoveries. That is proof that they work. They always have worked, they always will work on anything that really exists. It is always an abstraction at some level.
Whatever you happen to feel or believe, your performance at "Reason Rally" back in 2012 had a lasting impression on me. I was in the third row, soaked, freezing, and grateful that you were there.
As a Christian and a scientist, I have enormous respect for people that come to the thought process that Adam has embraced. The honesty to say they can't prove there isn't a God is refreshing to hear. Granted, I take some things on faith when it comes to the unknown and so I don't agree with their conclusions, but it's always a joy to engage with who have this approach to life's mysteries. Respect.
I was raised agnostic. I'm thankful that I was, given certain influences in my hometown that were just very irrational. I went to college and fell in love with philosophy and eventually became Catholic because of it. I loved Mythbusters as an agnostic kid, and I love it even more watching it as a Catholic with my own very scientifically-minded children, and I'm really grateful to you and the team for the many hours of fun and discussion you have given us. I find the phrase "new testament" agnostic rather lovely. Thank you for sharing.
Agnostic to Catholic? That's a BIG swing! 😉 (And I say that having been raised Catholic and an now attend a non-denominational Christian church.) Catholicism IMHO required too much "religion" for me and not enough personal relationship with and faith in Christ.
@@davidsnedigar7851 Respectfully, isn't this exactly what one would want when looking for a religion? Being in a strict religion obviously requires faith and relationship to a very high degree, the only thing you don't get is freedom to do whatever you feel like. But from a Christian perspective, that's the thing you don't want, you want to follow the Laws and Rules established by the Creator? So was it too much "rules" or "structure", also when looking from a historical perspective, is this not very well established in history? The first Christians did not see the religion as modern day non-denominationalism (not saying they saw it exactly as Catholicism either).
@@kottekanin4006 being Catholic, Presbyterian, or nondenominational Christian doesn't prevent you from doing whatever you feel like... Your faith and commitment to it does. Catholicism is certainly full of structure and rules for sure... Many of them not biblically sound. And MANY established by MEN and the CULTURE of the times... And then translated from dead languages... And sometimes incorrectly as we've learned... So, you have to consider all of those things when you talk about religious practices and traditions. Following those rules is NOT a guarantee to get you into Heaven, contrary to what many believe. For me, and many family and friends, Catholicism became more about the rules and less about my relationship with God. Everything was dictated to us and we were told you just need to believe this because the priest or nun said it was true. There was no encouragement for a personal relationship with Christ because the structure of the church made you feel like that was reserved for only those that dedicated their lives to the church... Like priests and nuns. Heck... For decades they said the mass in Latin so you couldn't even understand what they were saying... Just believe. And certainly, many other Christian faiths are full of structure as well... But not like Catholicism. That structure is a guide, and NOT "the faith" nor proof that you have it. Everyone has to decide for themselves in the end whether you are going to follow ANY sort of religion based structure... And many who claim to be "good Catholics" or "good Christians"... Don't. We're still human. But non-Christians love to use as examples against us as much as possible unfortunately. Of course this is just my opinion based on my experience. And some people need more structure than others for sure. But I had all that structure from the time I was born through sixth grade Catholic school... And I didn't really know or understand and got it any better until I left the Catholic Church and sought to know more about him on my own and a personal relationship with him. I could recite prayers and beatitudes and all other kinds of dogma that I have been taught and forced to memorize with no problem... Except that it didn't mean anything to me. I had no personal connection to it because that wasn't the goal. The goal was simply memorizing for achievement to the next level with your peers. Whether it was first communion, confirmation, etc. But everybody has to choose for themselves what worked best for them. But I'm 100% certain, now that I know Christ better, that God's goal isn't for you to follow a bunch of rules or dogmatic structure And that will make you a good person and get you into heaven. There's so much more to it.
@@davidsnedigar7851 Well first of all, Religion has always been about rules. The Christian religion is not different, although maybe some wish it was? God has always given laws and regulations on what we can or can't do, look at the entirety of the Book of Leviticus, a law book full of regulations enforced to the Israelites. You can't really criticize the Catholics for not being biblically sound, when first of all non-denominational all have completely subjective interpretation of scripture, nothing grounds them in their faith. Meaning that you can ask your cousin and his interpretation will be equally as valid in the proper non-denominational view. The Catholic Church predates the Bible, the men who organized it and decided what books to include, were Catholic, or at the very least Apostolic Christians. Something being established by men is not bad? The Apostles were men of their time, and a lot of their teachings have been preserved in the Catholic and other Apostolic Churches, something the more Protestant ones have abandoned. I don't really get what you mean by "And then translated from dead languages", are we speaking about Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, none of which are dead languages and still to this day have a bunch of speakers, especially in Academia. There isn't really any other language we can include, and even then, the Catholic Church literally still speaks Latin. I have a hard time imagining they mistranslated their own language. Same with the Greek Churches and the Syriac Churches speaking Greek and Aramaic respectively. Following the rules established by Christ, does indeed not guarantee a ticket to heaven, but it's a incredibly good foundation towards one. Maybe you just want more relationship than rules, the church requires both, as it always have. The Church of the Apostles had laws, and if you broke them, you would get excommunicated (Anathema). Yes, you generally listen to the teachers and accept what they teach as true? People didn't leave the early church because it was the Apostles that preached to them, not God himself. Doesn't matter if its a nun, a priest, a bishop or a monk. If they are teaching you, then you are to assume they are teaching you correctly? The Mass in the Latin Rite was spoken in Latin, just for the reason that many spoke it? The Rite is developed in Rome and the Western Roman Empire, where the official and most common language was Latin. Compare it to the Eastern Empire, which spoke Greek, and their liturgy was in Greek as that is the Byzantine Rite. Anyone who didn't speak Latin, and still participated in the Mass every single week, would learn the language quite fast, so saying they did it so people couldn't understand, is just disingenuous. Quite the opposite, it was the most spoken language, and actually helped non-speakers learn the Language. Every single Apostolic Church (that is all the denominations created before the Protestant Reformation), has extremely similar structure and hierarchy as the Catholic Church. The only difference is the Papacy, whereas in the Eastern Churches, there's multiple Patriarchs who are all equal. Protestants really are the odd one out in this aspect. Sadly many people claim to be many things, of which they are not, this doesn't really plague Catholicism specifically. Theologically speaking, Communion is pretty much as good of a "relationship with God" you can come. You're quite literally consuming the Body and Blood of Christ, in a Liturgy developed and established by Jesus Christ himself. Done in the way he directly commanded and for the specific reason he stated. Confirmation is also an incredibly important part. You are quite literally receiving the Holy Spirit. If God's goal wasn't for us to follow a bunch of rules, then first of all he wouldn't have given us rules? You can see it time and time again that God gave the Israelites rule, and its not even something explicit to the Old Testament. Christ gave the Apostles rules all the time. He appointed Bishops and Apostles, very much dogmatic structure. Of course there are more to it than, "attend church and go to heaven", but that doesn't mean we should throw that away and hyper-focus on something else. The Hierarchical Structures and Traditions of the Apostolic Churches, were established by the Apostles. You are arguing against them, not modern day Catholics. The "Man-made rules" were done by men, sure, but those men were the Apostles, appointed by God to shepherd his people. They didn't create Non-Denominational parishes, they created Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental Churches. None of the Churches mentioned in the Book of Acts, was nor is, part of the Protestant branch. These views are incredibly recent, way more so than just the Protestant Reformation. Non-Denominationalism specifically originates in the 18th Century. That's 18th whole centuries after the Apostles and their churches. We can't find this type of reasoning nowhere before. I don't know what you think, but personally that is an issue. How can we be sure that we got it right, if no one supposedly did for the first 18th centuries, including the direct disciples of the Apostles.
@@kottekanin4006 you're stereotyping non-denominational Christian churches out of the gate. So we're not going to be able to have a reasonable and logical discussion. 🙄
Possibly, but it definitely means that you're telling yourself new lies.... You can't definitively say something doesn't exist while simultaneously knowing nothing about it... So making a statement one way or another is still telling yourself a lie.
Your video was about much more than this, but....a thought about the Agnostic vs. Atheist debate. I called myself an Agnostic for many years for the same reason you state, but stopped after a conversation with a friend where I realized saying you're an Atheist doesn't necessarily mean you think a God/designer/deity/whatever can't exist.....it just means you think it's exceedingly unlikely. I think there are people who are truly in the "can't be sure, either outcome is equally possible" camp and I think that ground should probably be reserved for them. If you're just avoiding the label....that's cool too.......but, Agnostic is also a label and, for me anyway, one I wouldn't want to have. Love your stuff Adam!
I always took the label of agnostic atheist. As in what I know "gnosis" is that I don't and at least trying to be honest. Atheist as in "without religion". I generally think this is the more prevailing terminology these days. Is there a god? None of us know or can prove it, but it is much easier to deny religions with lack of evidence. I seriously think more people need to read Ernest Becker's Denial of Death not necessarily because "it is the truth" but because it is probably closer to the actual truth. Our religions and very culture are built off knowing that we will cease to exist. It is one of the most powerful motivators in our life. I also think more need to read Hume or something like Bruce Hood's Self Illusion to understand the idea of self is not real. This compliments our own denial of death or terror management.
Modern atheism went through an evolution that I think some of today’s social issues (which shall remain nameless but I think people know what I’m referring to) will go through. When it was “the new thing”, a lot of young people (myself included) hopped onboard and became SUPER outspoken. Then with time, people got a bit older, got tired of the scene, tired of being angry all the time and tired of watching “Christians pwned” compilations. It’s not that people’s outlooks have changed…it’s just that it’s difficult to remain militant and committed for years on end as real life is happening all around you. After you hit a certain age, being angry on the internet isn’t cute anymore…it gets weird. Other priorities enter your life and your beliefs just sort of melt into the person you’ve become.
I agree with this 100%. But it wasn't me being angry it was me being a hypocrite. My biggest gripe as an atheist was Christians believing in something they couldn't prove,in something not empirical. Then I learned about agnosticism and I learned that while there might not be any proof that God exists there's no proof that he doesn't exist either. I was literally being a hypocrite my belief that God didn't exist had no factual basis. So I matured and admitted i was wrong and changed my outlook on life and became agnostic.
@@Myemnhk I just want to address some of the things you said. Atheism and agnosticism are fully compatible, because they refer to different things. Theism and atheism refer to belief, whereas gnosticism and agnosticism refer to knowledge. So you can be an agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist or a gnostic theist. What you mention there about there being no proof that a god doesn’t exist is true, but that’s only a problem if you label yourself as a gnostic atheist. As an agnostic atheist though, I’m not making a claim that I know that gods don’t exist, but I’m saying that I haven’t found any of the claims of gods existing to be convincing.
@@El3ctr0Lun4 I understand the concept of a agnostic theist and a agnostic atheist. I firmly believe there is no evidence to prove whether any god does or does not exist. You cannot prove a negative when that negative would defy all known laws of the universe. I literally don't know what to think. And i know that essentially makes me an agnostic atheist since I don't have a belief in god but i don't like the label atheist it just doesn't feel right but maybe that's just my own personal association with the word.
i was raised a lutheran and completed confirmation studies, but matured into not requiring idols to fully appreciate the grand mysteries of the universe and a general sense of good and evil. as such, i tend to refer to myself as gnostic rather than agnostic or atheist. i do believe in so many things greater than the self, i just don't need to give it a name. i have adopted faith and philosophy from across many systems of belief, and this choice has enriched my life well beyond what was shown to me in my early years.
Even Richard Dawkins says the same thing. Nobody can "prove" there isn't a god or gods. But nobody can prove there aren't microscopic pink unicorns powering our electronics either. But nobody makes me stop and explain to them why I don't believe in tiny pink unicorns. I'm an atheist like I'm an a-unicornist.
Except there is no evidence for your suggested scenario. But there is evidence for God. You have you find evidence around you to know what's true and false. Nothing in this existence is provable. You just need enough evidence that you can come to an evidence based conclusion.
@@bythegraceofadonithere isn't evidence of God. There's more "evidence" that we live in a simulation than some magical god created us and a talking snake that could trick us into short life and pain.
@@bythegraceofadoni There's evidence of invisible elephants that eat pink popcorn, as well. You have to find the evidence around you to know what's true and false.
Atheism does not mean you believe that no god exists, it simply means that you don't believe in a god. Agnosticism is arguably just a specific type of atheism.
Not just arguably. If one is agnostic, then one doesn't know. And if one doesn't know, then it's impossible to actually believe. My wife said it best: "is there a GOD? I don't know, and because I don't know I don't believe". It really isn't more complicated than this: if you're agnostic, then the number of gods you believe in is zero. If you believe in zero gods, you lack belief and that makes you a non-believer. A person that believes in a number of gods that is equal to zero is an atheist. An agnostic is simply a person who doesn't know that they're an atheist. That being said, if Adam feels more comfortable not calling himself an atheist, I don't see why that wouldn't be cool.
You are correct that atheists can be agnostic, and most people who describe themselves as agnostics are atheists. But theists can be agnostic, and a lot are. If someone says they don't know if there is a god, but they believe there is, then they are an agnostic theist.
@@Ninjamanhammer Absolutely correct. There are plenty of people who sincerely believe in the existence of a GOD and are , at the same time, honest about their lack of knowledge of whether or not there is a GOD. Those people could by all right identify as agnostic theists. At that point I could argue about epistemology and the nature of knowing and the nature of belief as mental models, and how when we deal with knowledge and belief we have to keep in mind that one is a subset of the other, and I could have several questions about doxastic voluntarism, but honesty deserves better than pedantic argumentation and exigent interrogation, so in most cases I would just accept that my curiosity and inquisitive nature won't be satisfied.
I am absolutely stealing New Testament Agnostic as a label, it really encompasses a sort of Christian American upbringing that lacks the sort of “God Is Real” that is inherent in a lot of organized religion. Love to hear your thoughts
If you're basing Christianity validity based on "Christians" then you've literally missed the point of the Gospel. WE look to Jesus as the standard of God's character, not man. Repent and believe in the God who died on the cross for you, to pardon the debt you owe him for your sin.
One thing that has always baked my noodle is the fact that at a fundamental level, we are the universe. And due to an insane amount of time and complex processess, clumps of matter formed in such a complex way it could think for itself and be conscious. We will die and decay and return back into a form where we can't think.. and more insane amount of time will pass with who knows what happening. It makes me really wonder about reincarnation sometimes since technically we are just literally the universe experiencing itself
No matter what you believe in, you seem to appreciate others for the way they are and cast little to no judgement which I believe is what makes you so endearing. Treat people with kindness and receive it back in spades, no matter what beliefs you have this is one of the most basic practices to a happy life.
Describing beliefs you have instead of beliefs you lack is much more rhetorically productive, in my experiences. I identify as a HUMANIST because it defines much more about my ideology compared to my identity as an Agnostic or Secular Skeptic.
Adam I applaud you for your ability to reason the idea of consciousness. It gladdens me to know that you have taken to continue learning of it. I’d like to pose you some questions so you test your understanding of consciousness. 1. Can consciousness originate from non consciousness? How? 2. If consciousness originates from us in a collective sense, how can we be the creators of our consciousness in our finite state? 3. Is consciousness limited to the physical self and or collective? 4. (Not related to consciousness) Being that the teachings of Jesus are attached to personal testimonies of his disciples. What claims does Jesus as a teacher make of himself? If those claims are false are his teachings also false? I pray these questions help you test your understanding of consciousness. Take care much love ❤️.
1. Yes. Chemical reactions. This is supported by the affects psychedelics and other such things have on human consciousness. 2. What do you mean "collective"? 3. It is the chemical reactions in the brain, so yes, it is limited to within oneself. 4. No, the alleged teachings come from stories written decades after the supposed events occurred. If one is known for lying, why should they be trusted? Jesus had some good things to say, but other things not so much, such as supporting slavery. Like many other figures, he is a mixed bag, as he was only human, and his "word" was passed around by a long game of telephone.
I like the term "Apathist", which holds closer to the question being irrelevant - it doesn't matter if it's true or not. (I can't Reply to those commenting below for some reason, so my Reply here - we're not talking about aliens though, where it doesn't matter if I believe in them or not up until the moment they arrive and start affecting our shared reality. In my cultural background god is an all seeing, all powerful, always existing being. God always was and always will be, so whatever effect god has on our shared reality was the same yesterday as today and tomorrow. Until the rapture occurs or alien jesus lands on the white house lawn it just doesn't matter if I believe god exists or not. Our shared reality is the same with or without an answer to the question; reality is the same whether the question is asked or not.)
Kind of implies "I don't care" too though which is different to "I wouldn't _act_ differently either way". I _do_ care how reality actually works, it's something i'm profoundly interested in.
@@anonymes2884 we're not talking about aliens though - for my cultural background I'm talking about an all seeing everywhere being omnipotent god. I can not care if aliens exist or not, but it will really matter if and when they show up and start making a difference to my shared experience of the planet. If the omniscient omnipotent always being god has always been here and always will be it has made zero difference to my shared experience of the world and it never will. So until the rapture occurs or the alien jesus lands on the whitehouse lawn, it really doesn't matter if god exists or not. It matters as much yesterday as today and tomorrow. Not much, not at all.
@@anonymes2884 we're not talking about aliens though, where it doesn't matter if I believe in them or not up until the moment they arrive and start affecting our shared reality. In my cultural backgroung god is an all seeing, all powerful, always existing being. God always was and always will be, so whatever effect god has on our shared reality was the same yesterday as today and tomorrow. Until the rapture occurs or alien jesus lands on the white house lawn it just doesn't matter if I believe god exists or not. Our shared reality is the same with or without an answer to the question; reality is the same whether the question is asked or not.
@@anonymes2884 we're not talking about aliens though, where it doesn't matter if I believe in them or not up until the moment they arrive and start affecting our shared reality. In my cultural backgroung god is an all seeing, all powerful, always existing being. God always was and always will be, so whatever effect god has on our shared reality was the same yesterday as today and tomorrow. Until the rapture occurs or alien jesus lands on the white house lawn it just doesn't matter if I believe god exists or not. Our shared reality is the same with or without an answer to the question; reality is the same whether the question is asked or not.
@@anonymes2884 we're not talking about aliens though, where it doesn't matter if I believe in them or not up until the moment they arrive and start affecting our shared reality. In my cultural backgroung god is an all seeing, all powerful, always existing being. God always was and always will be, so whatever effect god has on our shared reality was the same yesterday as today and tomorrow. Until the rapture occurs or alien jesus lands on the white house lawn it just doesn't matter if I believe god exists or not. Our shared reality is the same with or without an answer to the question; reality is the same whether the question is asked or not.
I get that people embrace the word agnostic because atheist seems much more combative but that's what you essentially are. I don't think any atheist would claim to know that there is no god. Well, any reasonable person, anyway. It's possible there is a god, I don't know. But if you were to pose the question in terms of belief to which you can only answer yes or no; Do you believe in a god? If the answer is no, you're an atheist. No mystery. To me, when someone says they're an agnostic, I think it's basically saying; "I'm an atheist but I don't want to argue or really talk about it" which is fine.
“It’s hard to argue with his (Jesus) philosophy of people”… I love that. Thanks for being open and honest in your answer. Being curious is always a good first step at being a human. I’d recommend reading some Richard Rohr.
@Adam, I'm with you. I think the skeptic movement got too negative and aggressive for me. We can't build bridges with other minds if we are looking down at them. I'm not a believer but lean towards the study of how our minds trick us thousands of times a day. And just wants us to have a simple story that helps us move on through our lives. Buddhism being non diety based has a lot of alignment with my views, attempting to see as much reality as we can and taking the moment for what it is. Not what we attach to it. You continue to impress with your insights and interests! Thank you!
A big reason I used to call myself an atheist is because I disliked the certainty that so many people seemed to have about the existence of God. I later came to view my claim of atheism with hypocrisy, noticing how the word tends to imply a similar amount of certainty concerning things humans seem highly incapable of attaining awareness of. I now use agnostic, partly to encourage open-mindedness and discourage divisiveness, but even that word can be misinterpreted. One might say I simply prefer to see a world of possibility.
I'm certain that leprechauns and pot of golds at the end of rainbows don't exist even though I've no ability to disprove them, I don't plan on meeting anyone half ways who insists that they are by changing the words that describe my beliefs about the supernatural to be less combative. The only reason that theists claims are given merit is the number of believers and their influence on society and history thats not an argument its a bullying tactic. Call yourself an agnostic if you must or if your truly uncertain but I would see it as simply taking a knee and legitimizing a group of peoples insistence that the things they have no proof of are indeed somehow real if I did the same. There is no such thing as a god, there never was. It's all mythology. No one would take anyone sacrificing bulls to Poseidon seriously and the longer we legitimatize the worshiping of sky daddies the longer it will drag sociality down. But you do you.
“It is not atheists who get stuck in my craw, but agnostics. Doubt is useful for a while. We must all pass through the garden of Gethsemane… But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation.” But in the end it is one or the other to not choose is to stick one’s head in the sand or cover their eyes out of fear of being wrong or seeing something they don’t want.
I was an atheist as a young man growing up without a father or anyone to pass anything down to me, but as I got older I chose to become a Catholic and I’ll be handing it to my children.
I think a scientific approach to Christianity provides a new appreciation for God and what He has done. It becomes all the more impressive what He has done creating the world and redeeming mankind through Jesus when you begin to understand the mechanics, engineering, precision, and even artistry He achieved in doing so. Looking at my faith from an intellectual point of view provides a new depth to praising God.
@goldengrimlock this is a good question, the most common belief around Adam and Eve, and the first two or three chapters of Genesis in general, is that they are highly metaphorical. As a practicing Christian and degree-holder in astrophysics I don't believe the universe was made in seven days for multiple reasons, and on the subject of Adam and Eve I don't firmly believe that they existed or didn't, rather than they serve as an illustration of our distant history of rebelling against God. I don't think either creation or the rebellion of humanity are things that can be explained or grasped FULLY by humans, and thus you see a metaphorical explanation as opposed to a step-by-step (i.e. "They built it this many cubits tall and this many cubits wide.) This viewpoint you'll find is very prevalent in Christian circles.
There is an interesting argument to be made regarding the literal meaning of words like Theist and Gnostic vs their "anti" parts, Atheist and Agnostic. Theist basically means someone who believes, and thus Atheist is someone who doesn't believe, whilst Gnostic means someone who knows, and thus Agnostic someone who doesn't know. So what he bascially describes is being agnostic while still being atheist.
I would imagine that a celebrity like yourself finds it hard to share what some would consider a heretical viewpoint on religion. I am glad to hear that you have not bowed to pressure from either the public or from hollywood types. We heretics need to stand tall.
Catholics kinda separated themselves from Jesus, and become a human power heirarchy with its own tax scheme. Humans who follow science without taking physics classes are also just as hypocritical though, trading faith for faith.
Ummm. No. There was no other way to be other than religious. It was dangerous and you were at risk of being killed or shunned from society if you were to admit you thought there were no gods. Plus the church had all the money, and if you needed money to build a telescope you went and saw the clergy and pretended to believe. The people who went looking for natural laws most certainly realized that holy books were garbage.
As a life long atheist I find myself becoming more anti-theist as I get older. The way that religious people are becoming more militant and authoritarian to hold on to their mythology and push it onto the rest of society makes me want to actively push back on their silly claims even more. The fact that we have members of government pushing hard on their religious beliefs while even embracing "Christian Nationlisim" openly makes me very worried... I get Adam wanting to distance himself from controversy but it makes me sad that a science communicator has to be so wafflie.
Even though i'm going in the opposite direction as I age, i'm guessing you live in the US and if I did too I suspect I might agree with you (even from 3,000+ miles away it's pretty disturbing, you guys seem closer to becoming a theocracy than I would've believed possible).
I agree with how you can't prove if something doesn't exist, but I still call myself an atheist because it's reasonable to assume that something doesn't exist if there is little evidence for its existence.
Yeah, athiesm doesn't in and of itself assert that your belief is fact, agnostic just means you acknowledge your inability to prove there is or isn't a god
I never understood what does being a scientist (like myself) have to do with not being a spiritual person? There's is natural world which we can observe and study and then there's spiritual world which we believe in. Where does the conundrum lie in?
Believing in a non testable unobservable spiritual world is entirely antithetical to the scientific world view. If you equally applied the scientific method to all beliefs you would simply go “the spiritual world is an unfalsifiable claim and thus not capable of being studied and consequently claims as to its accuracy can not be made in any direction”. As a scientist I would argue that it’s very hard to trust the conclusions made by someone that could hold beliefs that are not based on the evaluation of evidence. If you can make that error in evaluating certain topics it makes it more likely you will make errors in evidence evaluation in other domains as well.
@@tainicon4639 Well that's a nice word salad, but go study love. And explain scientifically why do you love your parents, your spouse and your kids and with what device to quantifiably measure it and reproduce. Makes no sense, does it?
@@maxnits9556 how was it word salad? I explained the concepts of falsifiable vs unfalsifiable claims and how that relates to the scientific method… simply restated unfalsifiable claims are completely untestable and can’t be engaged with in an honest intellectual capacity. And you picked the wrong field to try and trump me on… I am a neuroscientist. I would be happy to regurgitate a list of the anatomical regions responsible for processing things like love and pair bonding as well as the neuro chemicals responsible for these feelings… it’s pretty well understood. We can explain human emotions and behaviors as a consequence of evolutionarily selected for (advantageous) behaviors that tend to encourage reproduction. These behaviors are encoded in the structure of Brains as evidenced by studies of humans with brain lesions and the stereotyped deficits in different cognitive or emotional behaviors.
@@maxnits9556the problem is not about the spiritual realm, it’s that religions have claims about the natural world that are false. I’d encourage you to read Genesis, it shocked me reading it how much nonsense and falsehoods it contained. If we agree we cannot test the supernatural world, we can test the natural claims made by religions to determine their veracity.
@@MB-nx9tq You're right, Genesis should be understood through the work of Emmanuel Swedenborg called "Secrets of Heaven", vol.1 - then it all makes perfect sense! Have a look at it.
I don't think saying you are an agnostic answers whether you are an atheist or not. Gnostic vs Agnostic is about knowledge: whether it is possible to know if a god exists. Theist vs Athesit is about belief: what you believe about a god's existence. You can create a 2-axis chart (4 quadrants) to describe your knowledge and belief in a god. You can be a gnostic atheist (it is possible to know if god exists and believe that god does not exists), a gnostic theist (it is possible to know if god exists and believe that god does exists), an agnostic atheist (it is impossible to know if a god exists and believe a god does not exist or is unlikely to exist), or an agnostic theist (it is impossible to know if a god exists, but believe a god does exist or is likely to exist). I suppose if you were right in the center of the chart you could say you are unsure if it is possible to know if a god exists and believe it is equally likely that a god does exists as it is that no god exists.
Yeah I just don't understand how the center of the chart is even a position you can take it seems paradoxical to me. The only way I could think of it maybe working is applying it to a newborn who has no concept of any of it thereby having no choice but to be in the center.
Most likely doesn't exist would be more appropriate and intellectually honest. Other than that, I fully agree 😀 It is like a famous Jim Carey sentence "So you're telling me there's a chance!?"😁
As a Christan I’m amazed by your respect and thought through response to that question. I myself hold many of your veiws when it comes to science and the metaphysical. To a degree that many fellow Christan’s attempt to lead me to Jesus during a conversation due to my blending of science and religion. It’s not a simple universe, so it seems there is truth from many perspectives.
Atheists are people who aren't theists. Being a theist or atheist cannot be mutually exclusive to being agnostic or gnostic (claims about knowledge/certainty). It's silly to say that you don't want to identify yourself with a row on the chart because you dont want to define yourself, but that you are comfortable pointing to a column on the same chart to define yourself with. Nobody should have ever expected the skeptics movement to not factionize. It was always herding cats from the start.
Thank you for sharing these views. I do hope that the reactionary internet Atheists (who also usually staunchly defend Science against all criticism) will also grow and mature into a space where they feel comfortable admitting what can or can't be known, and find more compelling philosophical or moral topics with which they can engage theists and agnostics.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
I love how, as you get older, Adam, you don't become any less animated when you talk about things. That's always been something I like about you.
I once read about a study showing that born genius types have a child-like fascination with everything that never dies as they age.
@@Trashed20659 i would like to think that is true
@@2wavemiiI don’t even believe that “born geniuses” even exist. I remember reading a late Medieval Jewish thinker who said society & mind are synonymous. Which I think has a lot of truth once I started thinking about it. Take any “born geniuses” and imagine what they’d have been like if they grew up in a completely different society - a society that did not value education, a society that frowned upon music, theater and the arts and embraces anti-intellectualism while despising secular learning. It’s safe to say those “born geniuses” would not even be given a chance to develop their “genius within” that they were allegedly born with.
You can flip this around too. Take a semi-literate, uneducated adult that has very little critical thinking skills and go back in time and while they’re a baby put them in a household and community that values secular learning and makes that a top priority for children. It’s very likely they’d grow up and be highly literate and well educated. And being highly literate greatly impacts thinking patterns and promotes critical thinking skills.
If we had at least three teachers in every public school and college with as much enthusiasm about the world around them and the subject matter they taught, the world would be at least 56.2% better.
@@mikeappleget482 Wishful thinking. Intelligence is largely inherited and exceptions seem to prove the rule more than debunk it. People will generally perform better under better circumstances but the potential is always roughly the same.
Humility, honesty, and vulnerability are rare these days. Thanks for sharing with us.
I always get skeptical when I see the phrase "these days". When would those things have been more common? I think they're as prevalent as they always have been, probably except for vulnerability which has been more and more accepted over the years.
@@johnzackarias11 very good point.
@@johnzackarias11 Perhaps before the effects of AI and social media that saturate information and people with pseudoscience and populism. Given the amount of information bombardment, I see at least the time before these technologies affected how people think for themselves as more honest and humble. And I'm glad I got to experience the time before as I grew up.
I also consciously left the "Skeptics" movement because of toxicity.
That's a pity because there are definitely more of the cooler, live & let live types in the skeptic community than the trolls you allowed to drive you out. People like the Genetically Modified Skeptic, for example, or Professor Plink. If all of your exposure to the skeptic crowd was Reddit-level discourse, yeah, you're gonna run into the neckbeard-y fedora types we could all do without, but seriously, there aren't as many of those sea-lioning AHs as you might think. Maybe give us another chance?
i find most of my heroes can be irritating and off-putting, they are still right though. i think mr deity and the non stamp collector are the only people who don't annoy me.
you may have left the movement, but hopefully you are still keeping your skepticism. and also, what group isn't toxic these days?
I was a member of the International Skeptics Forum until one of the non-breeder mods threw ME over the woo fence over a conversation about children and sugar. It was the final straw.
Yeah I quit golf because of the golfers.
Absolutely love this! Adam, you are such an open hearted, open minded soul. Your intellectual curiosity and enthusiasm seem boundless. What a gift you are to all of us!
Love this video, Adam. My grandfather, who was an atheist in the "dark corner" of South Carolina, lived into his 90s. One day he realised that his congestive heart failure was kicking in, so he drove from the farm to the hospital. He knew he was dying as he lay in the hospital bed, with my grandmother sitting at the bedside. A hospital clergyman stopped by and asked my grandfather if he would like him to pray with him. My grandfather replied, "well, if it would make you feel better, you go right ahead".
I miss him.
As someone who lives in SC and a stone's throw from no less than 5 churches 🙄, I really appreciate you sharing this story. Thank you.
I don't believe in Jesus but I appreciate and like church groups. Its a good community and not just about worshipping a dead hippy.
Lol
I wouldn't have been so kind to the clergyman.
Reminds me of Voltaires final words; when asked to renounce Satan while on his deathbed he allegedly responded "Now is not the time to be making enemies."
I am a devout Christian and I would so much like to thank you for such a dignified and respectful response to this. You're a very smart individual and you have my unending respect! Thanks for sharing your perspective as I understand it's very personal and comes with a lot of challenge.
Im also a christian and I also respect Adam very much, such a creative mind. I hope he is saved before its too late.
Let me say kiddo, when you are free of religious oppression and able to think freely and clearly, it is not difficult at all to express this sentiment. I wish you peace and freedom.
@@knutolavbjrgaas1069 As an atheist. I hope you're too.
@@feloniousbutterflyI’m a Christian and I don’t feel oppressed.
@@feloniousbutterflythat kind of arrogance is honestly so gross
I remember you saying that if you had to be sworn in for something, you'd choose a McMaster-Carr catalogue as the book to swear on. I enjoyed that.
I was lucky. The only time I was asked to swear to something they allowed me to skip the Bible and just hold up my hand.
If I had to be sworn in on a text I’d choose The Silmarillion or the even heftier The Lord of the Rings.
yes...but if you remember...that same video...he made if clear...he wasn't saying it was the holy bible...but he reverend the holy bible..
@@robadams1645 that is sad...
@@theHardChargerVidsSad?
"Magicians are telling you how to remember what they did" Adam really gets magic.
What on earth?
I think there is one think thiests and athiests should agree on and accept - the Bible has been altered and warped in the past 2000 years. No wonder there are 40,000 Christian denominations now
I thought magicians used sleight of hand to make it seem real but *shrug*
3:38 if you held me over a chasm and demanded I tell you what I believed in, I'd probably say gravity
Can you even prove gravity? How does it work, explain gravity to me, you believe in it.
@@johnthomas1422 flerf 😂
@@johnthomas1422 - From memory (my teenage years of internet-debating on this subject lol), the typical argument that your comments reminds me of, was, "well, wind isn't visible, yet your believe in that". The response was to mention that there are other ways to detect and prove that wind exists (including using vision to notice the effects it has on other stuff). Same with gravity, regardless of being able to truly explain gravity or not, and not true of the concept of gods (in a scientific sense). Something like that!
@@johnthomas1422things that are true should be testable.
@@johnthomas1422
Seriously, troll? 🙄
Adam is a font of knowledge with intriguing perspective & is enjoyably articulate.
He's also a delightful, nerdy goofball.
The world would be a better place if everyone had an Adam in their life
@@balsalmalberto8086 yyyyyyyes.
Yes, it would.
Oooo, lookit all those likes! Thanks, everyone ☮❤ Have a lovely, thought-provoking day!
@@balsalmalberto8086 Super True.
I worked 20yrs backstage in theatre and "audience as colony lifeform" is a fascinating and beautiful way to put that moment, and it's absolutely true.
The comparison of the consciousness of a crowd, and the consciousness of a collection of cells gave me chills. fantastic insight.
Not sure if it originated with them but the Theosophists of the 19th & 20th century took the concept to another level. Blavatsky & Alice Bailey wrote a lot about the hierarchies in nature...from monads to atoms & cells making up complex life forms.
@@zilchnilton That sounds fascinating! Will have to look them up.
What an odd thought, to realize I have been watching your content since the early days, for nearly 20 of my 30 years. Thanks for existing man, I'm a current working Industrial Engineer. I was very much inspired by mythbusters and have been a fan since.
Whenever someone asks if I'm atheist I'm always tempted to lie and say no just because I know that what they think an atheist is - is not how I feel
I get that. I feel like the majority of atheists out there are simply too angry at the followers of a God they don't believe in.
It's one thing to remain unconvinced or even find the idea of a God silly, you can still treat people with some common decency, unless the people in question are rude.
@@Rich2M316 See there's the issue. The most outspoken and hardcore members of most belief systems are going to be annoying to the people who aren't followers. And being the most outspoken, they'll also be the ones most people know. But most people of most belief systems are normal reasonable people.
@@anthonybowman3423No one who believes in a god is “reasonable”.
@@darklyripley6138 It is fun being a bit edgy isn't it? Let's not be too edgy though, bud. Save some for the rest of us. I'm sure you're a perfectly lovely person who knows how to share.
@@darklyripley6138 this comment is exactly proving his point lmao
Thank you for being genuine and vulnerable during your human journey. I came from the "other" direction as a very zealous religious pastor. Now, I feel like I'm in a very similar state as you.
Thank you.
I'm assuming you were a Christian. What do you think is the strongest motivator for that belief? I think ultimately it is fear.
@wfemp_4730 I think it can be fear, or a desire for community and wanting to feel loved and included. On the surface, it also seems like a good tool to share the love you have with the world. But when you start getting deeper and realize the exclusion and condemnation of others different from you, you have to make a decision. I chose to follow love.
Hi Adam, it is my understanding that the atheist position is actually that we are not convinced by the assertion that there is a god. We don’t typically assert that there absolutely is no god. Only that there is insufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that one exists.
You get gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists. Someone like Richard Dawkins could be called a gnostic atheist. Most people who refer to themselves as agnostic mean agnostic atheist, because they don't have a belief in any gods.
the weird part is that we do not go around calling ourselves aunicornists. we would have millions of such titles of things we do not believe in. we need a title for things we do believe in, rather than just being a subset in someone else's belief systems by name. i believe in determinsm. i believe in science as a way to learn through observation. as for how we got here, how the actual whole universe/multiverse/whatever you call the whole of existence got here, i have nothing. i am a nothingist, an IDKist, a waitandseeist. does anyone here have any beliefs about existence and its possible beginning?
@@itoibo4208 quantum mechanics and the weak force are big evidence against a deterministic universe.
@@gingerscholar152 I disagree, but I was specifically meaning determinism vs free will, as in how our minds use logic to make decisions.
@@itoibo4208 You could define them as people who require evidence to accept claims vs people who don't. Religion is also an excuse for trying to tell other people what they can and cannot do and how to live their lives.
I also have zero evidence for any sort of determinism. Even though it is only anecdotal, I'm pretty sure everyone can see the impact decisions can have on the course of one's life.
Super glad ur not shy Adam to cover a topic such this. Most with a platform dance around it. Ur ability communicate both sides of the spectrum without off putting anyone who doesn't share ur same thoughts is amazing. Thank u for what u do sir!
You'd be surprised how the religious camp could take this mild stance and twist it to be something bad.
Except it’s “cool” to be anti Christian/religious so people are more likely to talk about not being religious and topics like this. You’d probably get more “attacks” from coming out as Christian than if you came out as atheist.
There’s no both sides of the spectrum, there’s human beings arguing about meaning. Everyone takes god for granted.
@@mikerada2773Atheism magically becomes an oppressive belief system, imagine that.
@@takumi2023You are just as bad as the religious folks
As a former member of a religion, I have found no greater wonder than discovering and experiencing the beautiful mystery of life when I was no longer told how to experience it. I was so afraid that not having a pre-constructed surety would be unbearable, but it wasn't until I was free of a, in my opinion, severely flawed framework was I able to truly find comfort and wonder. I embrace the questioning now and I feel that I'm so much better for it.
I feel similar. Also, I still wonder at when I realized that all, at least as far as I'm aware, of the worlds human communities have some sort of religion, no matter how isolated. I wonder... why?
Beautifully said.
Indeed. Something I hear often from religious people if it comes up that i'm not is "So you believe this is all there is ?" asked with incredulity. And my equally incredulous response is, "How can _this_ not be enough for anyone ?" - you can spend a lifetime studying a leaf and still not fully understand all its mysteries, nevermind something like consciousness.
(i'd upvote you BTW but, though it won't last, right now you're on 42 upvotes which seems entirely appropriate :)
@@p.t.anderson1593 Easy way to explain wondrous or frightening things you don't have the ability to explain at the time and usually a way to enforce a rule of law on a large portion of the population to keep them in check.
The real stuff is waaaay more magnificent than anything we could invent.
I sort of have the opposite experience. I used to call myself agnostic but way too often it would lead to theists thinking that means I am a believer in denial and that it makes me willing to convert. So instead I call myself an atheist to make my skepticism perfectly clear. I don't care what others' beliefs are as long as it doesn't harm people and they aren't aggressively trying to convert others. I do agree that some people are asses about their non-belief and I firmly think mutual respect and the concept of "please leave me be" should go both ways.
If it comes up I usually go with "agnostic that lives as an atheist" :) - I don't _know_ but at the same time, I personally am convinced that there's no God/god/gods.
But that "if it comes up" is pretty key. In my youth I was more "militant" and would bring it up for the sake of the debate. Nowadays i'm way more "live and let live" and just leave people be if they're not hurting anyone (and of course expect the same in return but there i'm lucky because living in the UK, evangelicals etc. are pretty thin on the ground - even religious people here are overwhelmingly not _that_ kind of religious and maybe ironically given that we _do_ have an official religion, religion in schools etc. if it ever started influencing legislation that'd be treated with _extreme_ suspicion by basically everyone).
I don't remember if it was Richard Dawkins who said that although at a philosophical/logical level we are agnostics, really in practice/on a daily basis we're atheists, because we function just as if gods simply don't exists, not constantly reminding us that we can't disprove their existence or non-existence.
Yeah, I believe it was Dawkins with an example of what if there is a teapot orbiting the sun, small enough to not be detectable by any current technology, on a philosophical level we would argue that we can't disprove a teapot is orbiting the sun right now, but in practice we go on our lives as if we're just "teapot atheists" not wondering about it and not giving thought to the possibility of some natural phenomena being caused by some kind of divinity/god/providence just because we cannot disprove it
Technically agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive stances. I would more closely identify myself as an agnostic atheist. But yeah, in the face of someone trying to save my soul I would just say atheist too.
Hmm, people are asses about their non-belief...how? If you walking into a church and proclaimed that there was no god you'd merely be stating your views - the opinions of the God-Botherers have no special rights. If I can go to a Patriots Game and cheer for the Giants why shouldn't I disabuse the religious in the same way?
@@occamraiser Are you familiar with the name Madeline Murray O'Hare? She's the woman that pretty much single handedly got prayer removed from schools. Whether you believe that schools should allow prayer or not, she was such an ass about her atheism that she got laws changed across the country so that even if one wished to pray in school, they can't.
I’m also an atheist who was fairly active in the “new atheist” era debates. I think it was necessary at the time for those early debates to be pretty confrontational, but since then I’ve adopted a less abrasive approach, simply out of interest for not being a jerk. I’ve also come to see that the problem of religion is not limited only to religion itself or the scripture, it’s a groupthink phenomenon that plagues all of humanity, including people in the so called “atheist movement”. I also agree with quite a lot of what Jesus said, the anti-authoritarian and proto-socialist philosophies he espoused, and find it tragically hilarious how seemingly more atheists in America tend to fall in line with Jesus’ stated philosophies than most fundamentalist Christians, who tend to be extremely anti-poor and pro-authoritarian.
How on earth is the culture Jesus grew up in socialist?! Do you actually know anything about the Middle East?
@@eathecommie thats not what he said... he said that what jesus taught is more along the lines of socialist philosophies, not that jesus's environment was socialist.
@@Hinotori_joj Socialism didn't exist.
@@eathecommie You're right. Socialism was invented by John Socialism in 1824 when he thought "hey, what if we used a little bit of what we have to give some basic necessities to people who don't have them" for the first time in the history of ever.
@@Hinotori_joj So Jesus had no socialists tendencies.
Adam, I always love hearing both your stories and your outlook on life. I think you have one of the best perspectives on this world that I have ever come across, and you are an inspiration to so many people.
This is why I have always loved your shows and videos. If one believes in being good to others I don't think the rest matters. We will find someday either the truth or figure out the way to live our lives that works best for us.
This is also how I choose to live my life. We will all find out eventually how it ends. In the meantime just be a good person to yourself and others and enjoy the ride as much as possible.
A Moebius inspired spacesuit would be such an amazing project. He was such a great, "out of this world" artist. Anything by him would be fun to reproduce: spaceships, cars, buildings, artifacts... Looking forward to a Jean Giraud themed project!
I immediately thought of a Moebius string spacesuit 😂 no idea how it would work, but that is where my mind went…
Gets my vote. I love that artwork and crave more of it.
+
Moebius drawings changed how I view shapes, volumes, and fashion ....at an early age(first seen in "Heavy Metal" magazine) he pushed my imagination and art work to new levels; now I didn't master Jean Giraud's forms in my own work(mostly sculpture) but there will always be a bit of inspiration from him in my stuff, or I'd like there to be
Your views with regards to the ultimate questions are bang on where I've been for as long as I can recall. I appreciate the affirmation it provides hearing these thoughts from you as someone I highly respect. I also appreciate the further reading references, I'll definitely look into these titles.
I've been a Christian for most of my life and you've been someone I've looked up to since the Mythbuster days. Here recently, I've begun working on projects after getting space for my own little shop and it's because I started watching Tested and wanted to try to build things with my hands.
I recommend reading the Bible cover to cover
@@mycosys I have, did you think that would somehow change my view on my religion?
@@Numenorean921 Only if you have cognitive abilities
Yeah, it had been a while since I had read anything in the bible after decades of it being such a central part of my southern culture I was born into. I had taken an upper division philosophy of religion class years into being an atheist and really read so much of the bible with a more objective lens. It blew me away how much preachers and Sunday school teachers, and myself to degree, cherry picked that for our own satisfaction. At that point, I was into my third degree program in anthropology and archaeology, and had read ton of history on my own and in the coursework, that it was so striking in comparison to what I read growing up. It’s so easy to see how cults can exist after having the perspectives in life I have.
@@mycosys Someone like you WOULD recommend reading the Bible "cover to cover", instead of
" Read the entire bible - and also do you best to understand the actual meanings of the words as much as we can know their meaning, from the original languages used to convey the messages, and then apply those things with as much context as you can, and then come to a logical, reasonable conclusion - and then, when you've done all of that, if you still want to make the choice to believe that God is real, and inherently good, etc., then that's your choice, and is the very definition of one having faith, and thus, you'd be following the teachings as written, and good on you for being dedicated to something, because that's one of many ways to enjoy this life, and that's really all anybody should be concerned with - enjoying life while we have it, and not bumbling and fretting about what the true origin is of what is, effectively, a lifestyle we basically all agree on living"
I recommend you try harder, or stop wasting your time.
it is precisely people like you, Adam, that made me feel it was ok to leave my religion about a decade ago, when I realized I no longer believed.
You just being the admirable person you are reassured me that people were able to be kind, generous, and compassionate without needing a religious impetus for their behavior.
At the time, I was concerned about who I’d become without a god, and I’m thankful to report I’ve become more considerate and understanding than I ever was before.
It's not about "needing" a religious impetus so much as accrediting it to it.
I’ll be praying that you come to Christ!
There is no such thing as right or wrong without God because who am I to say I am right and who are you to say you are right there has to be an ultimate right so if you believe you’re doing something right you believe in God
Congratulations on your emancipation. Remember to free someone else before you check out.
@@Mike-SS I will not declaim sectitic, self-harming autoprogramators to get you to leave your sect.
I usually clarify that I’m an Agnostic Atheist. People misconstrue both words to be mutually exclusive, but they describe different things. An Agnostic Atheist doesn’t believe there’s a god because there isn’t convincing evidence to support it, but acknowledges that that evidence could arrive later (however unlikely). As opposed to Gnostic Atheists, who “know” there isn’t a god.
Are you can be agnostic on some God's and Gnostic on other God's like me.
I would not say as an agnostic atheist that I know no God's exist , but rather some God's as defined I am as close as one can be , while other God's I am completely unconvinced one way or the other.
In other word's you got to approach each God claim individually.
As I also see it all religious ideas of God past , present and future could be wrong but some type of God could still exist.
I consider myself an agnostic Christian.
Exactly. I’m pretty much the same. I’m an atheist. I don’t think there are any gods. I’m just not convinced they’re a thing outside of stories. Do I KNOW this? No. I don’t think anyone can know at this point. So I live my life as though there are no gods because I don’t think there are any - it is because of this above all else why I accept the label of atheist. I match the definition.
That doesn’t say anything about whether I believe in an afterlife, or ghosts, anything paranormal, or any manner of other things as each is independent from whether there are gods. It doesn’t make me hopeless either (that’s a lie from religious folk to make being an atheist sound miserable). It is merely my stance on one very specific point given the info I currently have. Were I shown evidence that at least one god existed, I would change that and I would accept that that god existed. Whether I would join its club or worship it is a whole different matter. I’m a whole person outside of that. I’m so many other things too, like an artist. And frankly I find those things so much more interesting than whether or not there are any number of gods. I would much rather be labeled by the things that I am rather than the things I’m not.
I agree with sentiment generally, but to play devil's advocate (I know, I know..) I think the gnostic atheist position may be that the idea that there could ever be "convincing evidence" of a God (or gods) is fundamentally impossible as long as that evidence is bounded by the scientific method (formulating falsifiable hypotheses and then attempting to falsify them with direct observation). The problem is that if the scientific process could show evidence of a god (an intelligence much greater than our own, that has some influence over ourselves and/or our world) then its operating mechanisms would have to governed by scientific processes, which essentially would make it no longer a god.
What do I mean? Think about how a colony of ants might perceive humans. They might see us massive nearly unknowable entities that may provide places for the ants to live, sources of food, also sometimes destroying some or all of the colony through chemicals, floods, fire etc.. To the ants, we appear as old testament god or greek gods. But obviously we're not. We don't operate outside scientific understanding, just outside the ants understanding. So if humans ever discover true scientific evidence of a god or gods, then they simply become a more advanced non-human intelligence, not a true "god". To know a thing, is to demystify it. If a "true" god exists outside of rules of scientific understanding, then no "convincing evidence" for it can ever exist. That doesn't preclude faith or believe in something outside of scientific understanding but to prove it would essentially destroy it in that form.
I think the whole point of faith is that you don't have real hard proof if you did you wouldn't need faith if you could be convinced without a doubt if God was null, then you would have 0 faith.
I mean no disrespect
Adam talking about the hard problem... This is a video I never knew I needed
My main takeaway from this is that Adam considers himself a scientist, which makes me so happy
96% of scientists are unable to explain why an entire 4% believe in an imaginary sky man.
@@riparianlife97701
100% of scientists who aren't fooling themselves agree that the big bang is a THEORY. Not a fact, and no more provable than "an imaginary sky man."
@@riparianlife97701it’s not hard to explain. Cultural inertia, and it objectively makes people happier to imagine the continuation of our conscience and to feel like we belong to a community.
@@riparianlife97701 the word believe is crazy, people should say they hope there is something beyond death.
@@Chris-hw4mq Yeah, the 2/3 of us who dismiss Jesus as nonsense are insane with misery our whole lives at the thought we won't end up in a magical sky castle forever with you people. Meanwhile, the population of Mississippi, the most Christian place in the world, live in a perpetual orgasm of comfort and joy, knowing they're going to be with JESUS forever! Of course it's not enough to live forever, everyone else needs to be PUNISHED!
I couldn't help but chuckle on how quickly you pivoted from metaphysics to shop talk. 😂 Love it
He’s scared of God :)
@@orth-h0p bruhhhhhhhhhh
Fits in with the saying "Before enlightenment: chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment: chop wood, carry water."
Thank you Adam. A well-spoken and reasoned response.
That's so cool to know that Adam and Ram Dass crossed paths.
From everything that I've heard he sounds like an interesting guy but his name sounds like Rammed Ass and it makes me chuckle because I'm 12, apparently. I'm sure he's a whole lot more generous than the lesser known Tye Tass. I'm sorry, it's just funny to me.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I would definitely watch a series about a deep dive into Moebius to design and build a spacesuit. The whole idea sounds fascinating!
Alan Watts absolutely stole my understanding of being a human when I was an adolescent. What a genius.
Adam Savage is my spirit animal. He thinks like me, but like 20 years further down the track. It succeeds at guiding, and it's very good. 😌
The idea that I am a bundle of cells putting on a performance of "human" is simultaneously hilarious, intriguing, and terrifying
It's more freaky to think that the part of your brain that is responsible for your personality and sense of identity is a small chunk that could fit in your hand. Any other part of your body or brain that you could survive without would still leave you being you, except that one part of the brain.
Which means you could say that you're a chunk of brain matter about the size of an apple and you're piloting a meat suit.
I love the idea that an audience is a unique, temporary gestalt that the performer interacts with and dissipates at the end of the performance.
Sounds like an SCP
As a former mentalist I like that analogy of making you misremember.
I always liked it when I heard spectators recount my performance and I would often think: “I’d wish I was that good but then I would have some magical power that I strongly deny having.”
Thank you for sharing! I appreciate how you explained where you're coming from and the authors you've gleaned from. Some books that have helped me were by D. James Kennedy and Lee Strobel. Strobel was a writer for the Chicago Tribune and wrote about his journey as well in "The Case for Christ."
You know, by your definition, I think i'd also call myself a new testament atheist. In fact, one of the things i feel pushed me towards atheism was my desire to better myself as a Christian, realizing how anti-establishment Jesus was, and realizing just how much the modern church now embodies the establishment Jesus specifically spoke against.
I know that I have less years of experience on this planet than you, Adam, so maybe i am less qualified to say it, but it is my point of view that, historically, everytime we inserted a supernatural entity into an explanation, it was because we didnt have a good enough understanding of the phenomenon. Then when we did understand it, that need for a god disappeared.
I don't know if a god created the universe, but i feel like its just one more thing we don't understand. Its in the realm of possibility, sure, so i guess im agnostic, i wont rule it out, but i will call it very very unlikely.
The Pharisees took over a long, long time ago, about 200AD.
The problem is that we still haven’t found an explanation for the resurrection that is more probable than a straight up miracle
@@ethanholmes5677 did you not listen to this man talk about how spongey human memory is? And you want to believe a 2000 year old story comprised of eyewitness accounts?
The New Testament has a lot of problems. Not only does Jesus claim that his followers need to abandon their families in order to follow him, like every modern day cult leader does, but the Book of Revelation elevates Jesus to this judgmental gatekeeper who decides who, or who is not, worthy of entering heaven? Honestly, there is a reason why Evangelicals love the New Testament Book of Revelation, where they can take everything that is written there and use it as a reason why they hate a certain group of people.
@@ethanholmes5677Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not finding a body can't be immediately ascribed to a resurrection. And also, the New Testament was written by unknown authors more than 70 years after the supposed existence of a man named Jesus
As a Christian I have lot of respect for how you explained your views. It’s nice to hear a perspective that isn’t spiteful/ angry.
Same
I just fell onto your channel while looking up Tapping explained. I see you have many subscribers and rightfully so, as you have a GREAT channel and your delivery is very good. I am now a subscriber and will tell others about your excellent content. Thank you for such great info and instruction.
Bro, you’ve got to go back and start watching mythbusters if you’re only discovering this gem of a man now
Agnostic and atheist are two different labels addressing two different questions. One is about whether or not you know, gnostic/agnostic, the other is whether you believe, theist/atheist.
I don't know that any gods exist, so I don't' believe any do. That makes me an agnostic atheist. Most people who use the agnostic label also fit the atheist label, as they don't actively believe any gods exist. You don't have to believe gods don't exist to be an atheist. Just as you don't have to believe someone is innocent to not believe they are guilty.
You CAN know if a specific god doesn't exist if the defining characteristics of that god are contradictory.
To an extent, there is also the argument to be made that those contradictions only appear as such to our mortal minds, hence why some people still believe despite such evidence
I am not one such person, I am an antithiest, and if there is a god, the term Misothiest would also apply to me, but an understanding of why a belief is held is highly important if you want to have even the slightest chance to engage with that belief
Adam, you spoke of an audience as "a colony", and I can see how that might appear. I would look upon an audience as a social construct: they come together with common concepts they want to explore, and you are the focus of their desire to explore those ideas. You, as that focus, become the expression of their desire to understand; yet, you remain you -- independent of what your audience thinks of you.
Social construction is such an interesting phenomenon!
Man, Adam, how much I would love to sit down with you and have a drink and talk about so many things...we share so many artistic and personality traits. I love how you get so exited about what others would look at as mundane the most. Your love for creativity is infectious and perhaps someday, God willing, we can have that conversation, lol. Keep up the great work and stay curious...
Sometimes you look back on something you liked as a kid, or learn more about someone you looked up to, just to be horrendously disappointed. I’m glad Adam Savage is neither of those.
In my late teens I thought Reagan and Thatcher were great when they came to power. Once I grew up a bit I changed my mind.
New Testament Agnostic is the best description of myself. Yet another of countless effects on my life, thank you good sir
I relate to the new label of "New Testament Agnostic" incredibly well, thank you for your wisdom Mr Savage 😆
apart from the fact that the concept of hell was introduced in the new testement...eternal torture for some infraction is a hideous concept. it's been a while, but that revelation came from Christopher Hitchens in his book God is not great. I've not combed through the Bible to fact check.
@@martinmoss317 I agree, As a believer, I don't believe in the concept of eternal torture. I'm not only one, lot's of Christians completely disagree with that concept because it doesn't match a loving merciful God. If your interested, there are lots of different viewpoints that have been shared online that are interesting to read and have a scriptural backing.
@@johnrad3442What if the presence of God is a refining fire? For those on-board for that process it is a comforting thing, for those dedicated to rebellion it is not fun. His creation, his paradigm.
@@chadparsons50 100% If you hate light to you it's torture. If you love light then it's joy. Heaven and Hell may just be ways of describing people's response to God's immediate and unmediated Presence. This jives well with what Jesus said in John 3:16-21
16 For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Anyone who believes in him is not condemned, but anyone who does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. 19 This is the judgment: The light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the light and avoids it, so that his deeds may not be exposed. 21 But anyone who lives by the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be shown to be accomplished by God.”
@@Eloign Amen brother!
Atheist doesn’t mean “I know there is no God.” Atheist means “I do not believe in or worship a God.” If you can not name the God/s you don’t believe in/worship then you’re an atheist. Doesn’t mean you think it’s impossible for a God to exist just that you are not convinced one does. I’m not convinced that unicorns exist but it is possible that a horse will a horn could exist, But until I have prof I won’t believe in unicorns.
Quite well put. As I consider myself to be Atheist, it's mostly about "Do not feed me your religion" type of opinion. For me fact is. Religions, yes note that s in the end there. ReligionS have killed by people by millions and millions. Many completely innocent. Worst thing is that this continues today, right now in the world. Religion. Just why? To me it's very hippocrite to say many things, about many religions, as pretty much of all of them have shot themselves in their foot some time or have acted the exact opposite what they claim to do. To me it's all the same what you people believe in. If it makes you happy, very good for you. But I absolutely loathe the feeling if someone is approaching me in veins of turning into some religion. I despise such people.
many people are vaguely spiritual and believe in some abstract higher power. it would be silly to call them atheists.
@jothain
“Religion has killed millions”
Nah dude, stop using this tired excuse. People have killed millions of people. People kill for all sorts of reasons, we should blame the people. Obviously a religion like Christianity is very anti murder. Can’t say the same for Islam, but you get my point.
Agnostic is the correct word
@@benjoleo If someone says I believe in a higher power that puts them solidly in the theist category, no one would call them an atheist.
Daniel Dennett was one of my first introductions to "meta" thinking about self.
Appreciate your honesty on this topic. I think more people need to be open with their skepticism/atheism/agnosticism. It should not be looked down on to not believe claims that are sort of fundamentally unbelievable.
That unified crowd example colony analogy just broke my brain and I love it.
I was raised Baptist, but over the last decade or so, I've moved away from that into agnostic territory. I like the description of "new testament agnostic" for much the same reasons as you described.
There are some who say that Jesus spent many years amongst the Buddhists during the "missing" years after traveling there on the silk road as a young lad.
Mr Savage recommends the writing of Alan Watts, and if you can find his lectures and commentary on agnostics, you may find it very interesting.
@@p.t.anderson1593 I doubt it personally (that's a lot of travelling for a humble carpenter's son :) but the "golden rule" certainly has roots in Buddhism so _someone_ involved in the New Testament almost certainly knew of those teachings.
And I suspect all honest people are at least _weak_ agnostics (assuming "weak agnostics" believe we don't know whether God exists and "strong agnostics" believe we can _never_ know whether God exists) - all the religious people I know will, when pressed, say that they don't _know_ whether there's a God/god/gods (which for them is where faith comes in) and all of my fellow atheists (that haven't strayed from an evidence based rational scepticism into dogma) admit the same.
I knew surprisingly many baptist raised people that have moved into agnostic terroritory or downright atheist one. I've alway been curious as they're absolutely minority where I live. As agnostic or even atheist maybe, I try to remain neutral with everyone, unless they try to "convert me". But yeah, I've been curious why there are quite many of these I know. Cause of the "neutrality" I haven't ever questioned them why, but always been bit curious. To be honest I don't know if it's just random thing that I've encountered many or is the "ratio" same in other religions too. But all the same. They're all good people,
@@anonymes2884there was plenty of contact between the Buddhist and Hellenistic spheres of influence, though, so even if he never left Judea, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that he could have been exposed to some of their philosophies.
"New testament agnostic" Amen to that! You don't need to believe in the wooey to be a good person, just treat others as you would like to be treated! This video really resonated with what I've also come to believe, thank you for this Adam. We are all connected in more ways than we realize, peace be with you
But what does "good person" mean? In some societies, being a "good person" meant being victorious in battle, bringing home plunder to the tribe. We need a framework to understand what "good" is, and that doesn't answer the question about how there can be a "good" that transcends people. I can't be good alone; I can only be good in the presence of others, so that presupposes there is something intangible between multiple people and there is a hierarchy with "good" being at the top. If all there is is the material world, then this intangible cannot exist. You assume you know what good is because you live in a Christian framework. Nietzsche was very clear about this, and even atheist Dawkins agrees.
@@kurt1391 "a Christian framework" Considering the Bible instructs "good people" to do unspeakable atrocities while constantly contradicting itself, no this is absolutely not how I know what is good. And no, the society that thinks someone is "good" for murdering is not actually good, literally looking at Christianity as an example. Morality exists outside any religion, empathy is a natural trait. Zealots use the threat of imaginary wrath to shape their morality, intelligent people use material consequences to shape their morality. Learn the difference, it could save the world.
@@kurt1391 Best part about christian morality is it is objective and never changing. At the time the bible was written it was common and moral to burn witches alive. Doing that today would still be a moral act wouldn't it if Christian morality is unchanging?
@@TheVerendus You have no morality without God, also using the fallacy of hypocrites who claim to be Christian doing evil things isn't a justification for your denial of God.
@@ironmatto3 baseless assertion, i don't need a made up fairly tale threatening me with eternal torment to know not to hurt others, if its bribery(heaven) or threat(hell) that's keeping you from doing those things you are not moral
My brother! Thank you so much for helping validate how feel :)
Placing a label is hard and isn't often wanted. forrest Valkai does a great job of describing these terms. Theist, gnostic, a-theist, a-gnostic. It's tough.
Forrest doesn’t know what a woman is
@@Earthad23Trans-hating ain’t a personality. Go find one.
@@jonnowds What is a woman? What is a “trans person” define them both biologically or keep your social science out of biology.
@@Earthad23 Forrest is a biologist. I can absolutely assure you that he knows what the definition of a woman is, and it's not as simple as you think.
@@taurengraybeard218 It’s very simple, unless you conflate cultural stereotypes with biological facts. Forest is wrong, trans is a social construct.
I always say everything that is real can be measured. Physics and math are undefeated. There are so many religions and so many creative stories people have invented and interpretations to be able to reconcile their cognitive biases, it seems like they would either all have to be true or none of them are.
Our minds and by extension our senses are flawed, so science is the process of getting as close as we can to finding reality. Our measurements are often wrong, we often need to invent new tools to get accurate measurements, but we only find that out when some other attempt to measure our world led us to realize one of them needed to be wrong, that is the process of science, classical physics has been partially defeated, by the current exploration of quantum physics, which we didn't always know was a thing, math has been a system that's developed over all of human history, and wasn't always as accurate as it is now, and we do still have values we cannot express mathematically with any accuracy.
I am in agreement with the very concept of religion being incredibly flawed, but I needed to correct you a bit on the reasoning.
Math has been defeated, but it came back stronger
Physics has been defeated, but it came back stronger
Damn near every field of science is the result of a field of science being defeated and coming back stronger, more equipped to approximate our world in a way we can track
@tomykong2915 I never stated that math and physics weren't constantly improving methods and results and making new discoveries. That is proof that they work. They always have worked, they always will work on anything that really exists. It is always an abstraction at some level.
@@nylonstringninja they always come up short, that's why there's still more to explore even about the most basic elements of our world
Whatever you happen to feel or believe, your performance at "Reason Rally" back in 2012 had a lasting impression on me. I was in the third row, soaked, freezing, and grateful that you were there.
As a Christian and a scientist, I have enormous respect for people that come to the thought process that Adam has embraced. The honesty to say they can't prove there isn't a God is refreshing to hear. Granted, I take some things on faith when it comes to the unknown and so I don't agree with their conclusions, but it's always a joy to engage with who have this approach to life's mysteries. Respect.
He can’t but that’s more a skill/knowledge issue than it not being possible.
I was raised agnostic. I'm thankful that I was, given certain influences in my hometown that were just very irrational. I went to college and fell in love with philosophy and eventually became Catholic because of it. I loved Mythbusters as an agnostic kid, and I love it even more watching it as a Catholic with my own very scientifically-minded children, and I'm really grateful to you and the team for the many hours of fun and discussion you have given us.
I find the phrase "new testament" agnostic rather lovely. Thank you for sharing.
Agnostic to Catholic? That's a BIG swing! 😉 (And I say that having been raised Catholic and an now attend a non-denominational Christian church.) Catholicism IMHO required too much "religion" for me and not enough personal relationship with and faith in Christ.
@@davidsnedigar7851 Respectfully, isn't this exactly what one would want when looking for a religion? Being in a strict religion obviously requires faith and relationship to a very high degree, the only thing you don't get is freedom to do whatever you feel like. But from a Christian perspective, that's the thing you don't want, you want to follow the Laws and Rules established by the Creator? So was it too much "rules" or "structure", also when looking from a historical perspective, is this not very well established in history? The first Christians did not see the religion as modern day non-denominationalism (not saying they saw it exactly as Catholicism either).
@@kottekanin4006 being Catholic, Presbyterian, or nondenominational Christian doesn't prevent you from doing whatever you feel like... Your faith and commitment to it does. Catholicism is certainly full of structure and rules for sure... Many of them not biblically sound. And MANY established by MEN and the CULTURE of the times... And then translated from dead languages... And sometimes incorrectly as we've learned... So, you have to consider all of those things when you talk about religious practices and traditions.
Following those rules is NOT a guarantee to get you into Heaven, contrary to what many believe. For me, and many family and friends, Catholicism became more about the rules and less about my relationship with God. Everything was dictated to us and we were told you just need to believe this because the priest or nun said it was true. There was no encouragement for a personal relationship with Christ because the structure of the church made you feel like that was reserved for only those that dedicated their lives to the church... Like priests and nuns. Heck... For decades they said the mass in Latin so you couldn't even understand what they were saying... Just believe.
And certainly, many other Christian faiths are full of structure as well... But not like Catholicism. That structure is a guide, and NOT "the faith" nor proof that you have it. Everyone has to decide for themselves in the end whether you are going to follow ANY sort of religion based structure... And many who claim to be "good Catholics" or "good Christians"... Don't. We're still human. But non-Christians love to use as examples against us as much as possible unfortunately.
Of course this is just my opinion based on my experience. And some people need more structure than others for sure. But I had all that structure from the time I was born through sixth grade Catholic school... And I didn't really know or understand and got it any better until I left the Catholic Church and sought to know more about him on my own and a personal relationship with him. I could recite prayers and beatitudes and all other kinds of dogma that I have been taught and forced to memorize with no problem... Except that it didn't mean anything to me. I had no personal connection to it because that wasn't the goal. The goal was simply memorizing for achievement to the next level with your peers. Whether it was first communion, confirmation, etc.
But everybody has to choose for themselves what worked best for them. But I'm 100% certain, now that I know Christ better, that God's goal isn't for you to follow a bunch of rules or dogmatic structure And that will make you a good person and get you into heaven. There's so much more to it.
@@davidsnedigar7851 Well first of all, Religion has always been about rules. The Christian religion is not different, although maybe some wish it was? God has always given laws and regulations on what we can or can't do, look at the entirety of the Book of Leviticus, a law book full of regulations enforced to the Israelites. You can't really criticize the Catholics for not being biblically sound, when first of all non-denominational all have completely subjective interpretation of scripture, nothing grounds them in their faith. Meaning that you can ask your cousin and his interpretation will be equally as valid in the proper non-denominational view. The Catholic Church predates the Bible, the men who organized it and decided what books to include, were Catholic, or at the very least Apostolic Christians.
Something being established by men is not bad? The Apostles were men of their time, and a lot of their teachings have been preserved in the Catholic and other Apostolic Churches, something the more Protestant ones have abandoned. I don't really get what you mean by "And then translated from dead languages", are we speaking about Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, none of which are dead languages and still to this day have a bunch of speakers, especially in Academia. There isn't really any other language we can include, and even then, the Catholic Church literally still speaks Latin. I have a hard time imagining they mistranslated their own language. Same with the Greek Churches and the Syriac Churches speaking Greek and Aramaic respectively.
Following the rules established by Christ, does indeed not guarantee a ticket to heaven, but it's a incredibly good foundation towards one. Maybe you just want more relationship than rules, the church requires both, as it always have. The Church of the Apostles had laws, and if you broke them, you would get excommunicated (Anathema). Yes, you generally listen to the teachers and accept what they teach as true? People didn't leave the early church because it was the Apostles that preached to them, not God himself. Doesn't matter if its a nun, a priest, a bishop or a monk. If they are teaching you, then you are to assume they are teaching you correctly? The Mass in the Latin Rite was spoken in Latin, just for the reason that many spoke it? The Rite is developed in Rome and the Western Roman Empire, where the official and most common language was Latin. Compare it to the Eastern Empire, which spoke Greek, and their liturgy was in Greek as that is the Byzantine Rite. Anyone who didn't speak Latin, and still participated in the Mass every single week, would learn the language quite fast, so saying they did it so people couldn't understand, is just disingenuous. Quite the opposite, it was the most spoken language, and actually helped non-speakers learn the Language.
Every single Apostolic Church (that is all the denominations created before the Protestant Reformation), has extremely similar structure and hierarchy as the Catholic Church. The only difference is the Papacy, whereas in the Eastern Churches, there's multiple Patriarchs who are all equal. Protestants really are the odd one out in this aspect. Sadly many people claim to be many things, of which they are not, this doesn't really plague Catholicism specifically.
Theologically speaking, Communion is pretty much as good of a "relationship with God" you can come. You're quite literally consuming the Body and Blood of Christ, in a Liturgy developed and established by Jesus Christ himself. Done in the way he directly commanded and for the specific reason he stated. Confirmation is also an incredibly important part. You are quite literally receiving the Holy Spirit. If God's goal wasn't for us to follow a bunch of rules, then first of all he wouldn't have given us rules? You can see it time and time again that God gave the Israelites rule, and its not even something explicit to the Old Testament. Christ gave the Apostles rules all the time. He appointed Bishops and Apostles, very much dogmatic structure. Of course there are more to it than, "attend church and go to heaven", but that doesn't mean we should throw that away and hyper-focus on something else.
The Hierarchical Structures and Traditions of the Apostolic Churches, were established by the Apostles. You are arguing against them, not modern day Catholics. The "Man-made rules" were done by men, sure, but those men were the Apostles, appointed by God to shepherd his people. They didn't create Non-Denominational parishes, they created Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental Churches. None of the Churches mentioned in the Book of Acts, was nor is, part of the Protestant branch. These views are incredibly recent, way more so than just the Protestant Reformation. Non-Denominationalism specifically originates in the 18th Century. That's 18th whole centuries after the Apostles and their churches. We can't find this type of reasoning nowhere before. I don't know what you think, but personally that is an issue. How can we be sure that we got it right, if no one supposedly did for the first 18th centuries, including the direct disciples of the Apostles.
@@kottekanin4006 you're stereotyping non-denominational Christian churches out of the gate. So we're not going to be able to have a reasonable and logical discussion. 🙄
Being an Atheist isn't being a "skeptic", it means we dismiss religious lies.
For those that think skeptic is toxic wtf ever that political pandering means try using - not inherently gullible.
Possibly, but it definitely means that you're telling yourself new lies.... You can't definitively say something doesn't exist while simultaneously knowing nothing about it... So making a statement one way or another is still telling yourself a lie.
@@Unmannedair So you’re saying that if I say _no I can’t accept your premise without further evidence_ I’m lying to myself? How so?
This presumes knowledge that they _are_ lies. Yet, atheists tend to express a "lack" of belief instead.
@@Jcs57Symmetry. Make atheism the premise requiring evidence.
Awesome to hear someone put my thoughts into words so well.
Your video was about much more than this, but....a thought about the Agnostic vs. Atheist debate. I called myself an Agnostic for many years for the same reason you state, but stopped after a conversation with a friend where I realized saying you're an Atheist doesn't necessarily mean you think a God/designer/deity/whatever can't exist.....it just means you think it's exceedingly unlikely. I think there are people who are truly in the "can't be sure, either outcome is equally possible" camp and I think that ground should probably be reserved for them. If you're just avoiding the label....that's cool too.......but, Agnostic is also a label and, for me anyway, one I wouldn't want to have. Love your stuff Adam!
I always took the label of agnostic atheist. As in what I know "gnosis" is that I don't and at least trying to be honest. Atheist as in "without religion". I generally think this is the more prevailing terminology these days. Is there a god? None of us know or can prove it, but it is much easier to deny religions with lack of evidence.
I seriously think more people need to read Ernest Becker's Denial of Death not necessarily because "it is the truth" but because it is probably closer to the actual truth. Our religions and very culture are built off knowing that we will cease to exist. It is one of the most powerful motivators in our life. I also think more need to read Hume or something like Bruce Hood's Self Illusion to understand the idea of self is not real. This compliments our own denial of death or terror management.
I am a Christian, but I totally respect your views. I find it a little fascinating that as an agnostic you described consciousness as a “miracle”.
Modern atheism went through an evolution that I think some of today’s social issues (which shall remain nameless but I think people know what I’m referring to) will go through. When it was “the new thing”, a lot of young people (myself included) hopped onboard and became SUPER outspoken. Then with time, people got a bit older, got tired of the scene, tired of being angry all the time and tired of watching “Christians pwned” compilations. It’s not that people’s outlooks have changed…it’s just that it’s difficult to remain militant and committed for years on end as real life is happening all around you. After you hit a certain age, being angry on the internet isn’t cute anymore…it gets weird. Other priorities enter your life and your beliefs just sort of melt into the person you’ve become.
I agree with this 100%. But it wasn't me being angry it was me being a hypocrite. My biggest gripe as an atheist was Christians believing in something they couldn't prove,in something not empirical. Then I learned about agnosticism and I learned that while there might not be any proof that God exists there's no proof that he doesn't exist either. I was literally being a hypocrite my belief that God didn't exist had no factual basis. So I matured and admitted i was wrong and changed my outlook on life and became agnostic.
@@Myemnhk I just want to address some of the things you said. Atheism and agnosticism are fully compatible, because they refer to different things. Theism and atheism refer to belief, whereas gnosticism and agnosticism refer to knowledge. So you can be an agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist or a gnostic theist.
What you mention there about there being no proof that a god doesn’t exist is true, but that’s only a problem if you label yourself as a gnostic atheist. As an agnostic atheist though, I’m not making a claim that I know that gods don’t exist, but I’m saying that I haven’t found any of the claims of gods existing to be convincing.
@@El3ctr0Lun4 I understand the concept of a agnostic theist and a agnostic atheist. I firmly believe there is no evidence to prove whether any god does or does not exist. You cannot prove a negative when that negative would defy all known laws of the universe. I literally don't know what to think. And i know that essentially makes me an agnostic atheist since I don't have a belief in god but i don't like the label atheist it just doesn't feel right but maybe that's just my own personal association with the word.
@@El3ctr0Lun4 Or words have no meaning at all.
@@Myemnhk I have heard that mathematicians have proof that a creator exists.
i was raised a lutheran and completed confirmation studies, but matured into not requiring idols to fully appreciate the grand mysteries of the universe and a general sense of good and evil. as such, i tend to refer to myself as gnostic rather than agnostic or atheist. i do believe in so many things greater than the self, i just don't need to give it a name. i have adopted faith and philosophy from across many systems of belief, and this choice has enriched my life well beyond what was shown to me in my early years.
Even Richard Dawkins says the same thing. Nobody can "prove" there isn't a god or gods. But nobody can prove there aren't microscopic pink unicorns powering our electronics either. But nobody makes me stop and explain to them why I don't believe in tiny pink unicorns. I'm an atheist like I'm an a-unicornist.
I believe there are invisible elephants that eat pink popcorn on the dark side of the moon.... Christopher Dicarlo
Except there is no evidence for your suggested scenario. But there is evidence for God. You have you find evidence around you to know what's true and false. Nothing in this existence is provable. You just need enough evidence that you can come to an evidence based conclusion.
@@bythegraceofadonithere isn't evidence of God. There's more "evidence" that we live in a simulation than some magical god created us and a talking snake that could trick us into short life and pain.
There is no proof of god because there can't be. What is faith with proof? Surely not faith.
@@bythegraceofadoni There's evidence of invisible elephants that eat pink popcorn, as well. You have to find the evidence around you to know what's true and false.
Atheism does not mean you believe that no god exists, it simply means that you don't believe in a god. Agnosticism is arguably just a specific type of atheism.
Not just arguably. If one is agnostic, then one doesn't know.
And if one doesn't know, then it's impossible to actually believe. My wife said it best: "is there a GOD? I don't know, and because I don't know I don't believe".
It really isn't more complicated than this: if you're agnostic, then the number of gods you believe in is zero. If you believe in zero gods, you lack belief and that makes you a non-believer. A person that believes in a number of gods that is equal to zero is an atheist.
An agnostic is simply a person who doesn't know that they're an atheist.
That being said, if Adam feels more comfortable not calling himself an atheist, I don't see why that wouldn't be cool.
You are correct that atheists can be agnostic, and most people who describe themselves as agnostics are atheists. But theists can be agnostic, and a lot are. If someone says they don't know if there is a god, but they believe there is, then they are an agnostic theist.
@@Ninjamanhammer Absolutely correct. There are plenty of people who sincerely believe in the existence of a GOD and are , at the same time, honest about their lack of knowledge of whether or not there is a GOD. Those people could by all right identify as agnostic theists.
At that point I could argue about epistemology and the nature of knowing and the nature of belief as mental models, and how when we deal with knowledge and belief we have to keep in mind that one is a subset of the other, and I could have several questions about doxastic voluntarism, but honesty deserves better than pedantic argumentation and exigent interrogation, so in most cases I would just accept that my curiosity and inquisitive nature won't be satisfied.
I am absolutely stealing New Testament Agnostic as a label, it really encompasses a sort of Christian American upbringing that lacks the sort of “God Is Real” that is inherent in a lot of organized religion. Love to hear your thoughts
Cultural Christian is the new lingo lol.
I recommend Brandon Peterson's works. Book called Sealed By The King and RUclips called Truth is Christ
If you're basing Christianity validity based on "Christians" then you've literally missed the point of the Gospel.
WE look to Jesus as the standard of God's character, not man.
Repent and believe in the God who died on the cross for you, to pardon the debt you owe him for your sin.
@@ironmatto3 lol. lmao.
One thing that has always baked my noodle is the fact that at a fundamental level, we are the universe. And due to an insane amount of time and complex processess, clumps of matter formed in such a complex way it could think for itself and be conscious. We will die and decay and return back into a form where we can't think.. and more insane amount of time will pass with who knows what happening. It makes me really wonder about reincarnation sometimes since technically we are just literally the universe experiencing itself
No matter what you believe in, you seem to appreciate others for the way they are and cast little to no judgement which I believe is what makes you so endearing. Treat people with kindness and receive it back in spades, no matter what beliefs you have this is one of the most basic practices to a happy life.
Describing beliefs you have instead of beliefs you lack is much more rhetorically productive, in my experiences. I identify as a HUMANIST because it defines much more about my ideology compared to my identity as an Agnostic or Secular Skeptic.
Understanding you reject labels, but it sounds like you're a humanist, Adam. 😎
Adam I applaud you for your ability to reason the idea of consciousness. It gladdens me to know that you have taken to continue learning of it. I’d like to pose you some questions so you test your understanding of consciousness.
1. Can consciousness originate from non consciousness? How?
2. If consciousness originates from us in a collective sense, how can we be the creators of our consciousness in our finite state?
3. Is consciousness limited to the physical self and or collective?
4. (Not related to consciousness) Being that the teachings of Jesus are attached to personal testimonies of his disciples. What claims does Jesus as a teacher make of himself? If those claims are false are his teachings also false?
I pray these questions help you test your understanding of consciousness. Take care much love ❤️.
1. Yes. Chemical reactions. This is supported by the affects psychedelics and other such things have on human consciousness.
2. What do you mean "collective"?
3. It is the chemical reactions in the brain, so yes, it is limited to within oneself.
4. No, the alleged teachings come from stories written decades after the supposed events occurred. If one is known for lying, why should they be trusted? Jesus had some good things to say, but other things not so much, such as supporting slavery. Like many other figures, he is a mixed bag, as he was only human, and his "word" was passed around by a long game of telephone.
I like the term "Apathist", which holds closer to the question being irrelevant - it doesn't matter if it's true or not. (I can't Reply to those commenting below for some reason, so my Reply here - we're not talking about aliens though, where it doesn't matter if I believe in them or not up until the moment they arrive and start affecting our shared reality. In my cultural background god is an all seeing, all powerful, always existing being. God always was and always will be, so whatever effect god has on our shared reality was the same yesterday as today and tomorrow. Until the rapture occurs or alien jesus lands on the white house lawn it just doesn't matter if I believe god exists or not. Our shared reality is the same with or without an answer to the question; reality is the same whether the question is asked or not.)
Kind of implies "I don't care" too though which is different to "I wouldn't _act_ differently either way". I _do_ care how reality actually works, it's something i'm profoundly interested in.
@@anonymes2884 we're not talking about aliens though - for my cultural background I'm talking about an all seeing everywhere being omnipotent god. I can not care if aliens exist or not, but it will really matter if and when they show up and start making a difference to my shared experience of the planet. If the omniscient omnipotent always being god has always been here and always will be it has made zero difference to my shared experience of the world and it never will. So until the rapture occurs or the alien jesus lands on the whitehouse lawn, it really doesn't matter if god exists or not. It matters as much yesterday as today and tomorrow. Not much, not at all.
@@anonymes2884 we're not talking about aliens though, where it doesn't matter if I believe in them or not up until the moment they arrive and start affecting our shared reality. In my cultural backgroung god is an all seeing, all powerful, always existing being. God always was and always will be, so whatever effect god has on our shared reality was the same yesterday as today and tomorrow. Until the rapture occurs or alien jesus lands on the white house lawn it just doesn't matter if I believe god exists or not. Our shared reality is the same with or without an answer to the question; reality is the same whether the question is asked or not.
@@anonymes2884 we're not talking about aliens though, where it doesn't matter if I believe in them or not up until the moment they arrive and start affecting our shared reality. In my cultural backgroung god is an all seeing, all powerful, always existing being. God always was and always will be, so whatever effect god has on our shared reality was the same yesterday as today and tomorrow. Until the rapture occurs or alien jesus lands on the white house lawn it just doesn't matter if I believe god exists or not. Our shared reality is the same with or without an answer to the question; reality is the same whether the question is asked or not.
@@anonymes2884 we're not talking about aliens though, where it doesn't matter if I believe in them or not up until the moment they arrive and start affecting our shared reality. In my cultural backgroung god is an all seeing, all powerful, always existing being. God always was and always will be, so whatever effect god has on our shared reality was the same yesterday as today and tomorrow. Until the rapture occurs or alien jesus lands on the white house lawn it just doesn't matter if I believe god exists or not. Our shared reality is the same with or without an answer to the question; reality is the same whether the question is asked or not.
I get that people embrace the word agnostic because atheist seems much more combative but that's what you essentially are. I don't think any atheist would claim to know that there is no god. Well, any reasonable person, anyway. It's possible there is a god, I don't know. But if you were to pose the question in terms of belief to which you can only answer yes or no; Do you believe in a god? If the answer is no, you're an atheist. No mystery. To me, when someone says they're an agnostic, I think it's basically saying; "I'm an atheist but I don't want to argue or really talk about it" which is fine.
“It’s hard to argue with his (Jesus) philosophy of people”… I love that. Thanks for being open and honest in your answer. Being curious is always a good first step at being a human. I’d recommend reading some Richard Rohr.
@Adam, I'm with you. I think the skeptic movement got too negative and aggressive for me. We can't build bridges with other minds if we are looking down at them. I'm not a believer but lean towards the study of how our minds trick us thousands of times a day. And just wants us to have a simple story that helps us move on through our lives. Buddhism being non diety based has a lot of alignment with my views, attempting to see as much reality as we can and taking the moment for what it is. Not what we attach to it. You continue to impress with your insights and interests! Thank you!
A big reason I used to call myself an atheist is because I disliked the certainty that so many people seemed to have about the existence of God. I later came to view my claim of atheism with hypocrisy, noticing how the word tends to imply a similar amount of certainty concerning things humans seem highly incapable of attaining awareness of. I now use agnostic, partly to encourage open-mindedness and discourage divisiveness, but even that word can be misinterpreted. One might say I simply prefer to see a world of possibility.
I'm certain that leprechauns and pot of golds at the end of rainbows don't exist even though I've no ability to disprove them, I don't plan on meeting anyone half ways who insists that they are by changing the words that describe my beliefs about the supernatural to be less combative. The only reason that theists claims are given merit is the number of believers and their influence on society and history thats not an argument its a bullying tactic. Call yourself an agnostic if you must or if your truly uncertain but I would see it as simply taking a knee and legitimizing a group of peoples insistence that the things they have no proof of are indeed somehow real if I did the same. There is no such thing as a god, there never was. It's all mythology. No one would take anyone sacrificing bulls to Poseidon seriously and the longer we legitimatize the worshiping of sky daddies the longer it will drag sociality down. But you do you.
“It is not atheists who get stuck in my craw, but agnostics. Doubt is useful for a while. We must all pass through the garden of Gethsemane… But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation.” But in the end it is one or the other to not choose is to stick one’s head in the sand or cover their eyes out of fear of being wrong or seeing something they don’t want.
I was an atheist as a young man growing up without a father or anyone to pass anything down to me, but as I got older I chose to become a Catholic and I’ll be handing it to my children.
You could be honest with them and tell them you don’t know what happens when you die 😊
I think a scientific approach to Christianity provides a new appreciation for God and what He has done. It becomes all the more impressive what He has done creating the world and redeeming mankind through Jesus when you begin to understand the mechanics, engineering, precision, and even artistry He achieved in doing so. Looking at my faith from an intellectual point of view provides a new depth to praising God.
Question: How do you reconcile the fact that Adam and Eve are refuted by science?
@goldengrimlock this is a good question, the most common belief around Adam and Eve, and the first two or three chapters of Genesis in general, is that they are highly metaphorical. As a practicing Christian and degree-holder in astrophysics I don't believe the universe was made in seven days for multiple reasons, and on the subject of Adam and Eve I don't firmly believe that they existed or didn't, rather than they serve as an illustration of our distant history of rebelling against God. I don't think either creation or the rebellion of humanity are things that can be explained or grasped FULLY by humans, and thus you see a metaphorical explanation as opposed to a step-by-step (i.e. "They built it this many cubits tall and this many cubits wide.) This viewpoint you'll find is very prevalent in Christian circles.
Agreed. 'Nature is the executor of God's laws': Galileo
There is an interesting argument to be made regarding the literal meaning of words like Theist and Gnostic vs their "anti" parts, Atheist and Agnostic. Theist basically means someone who believes, and thus Atheist is someone who doesn't believe, whilst Gnostic means someone who knows, and thus Agnostic someone who doesn't know. So what he bascially describes is being agnostic while still being atheist.
Correct 👍
I would imagine that a celebrity like yourself finds it hard to share what some would consider a heretical viewpoint on religion. I am glad to hear that you have not bowed to pressure from either the public or from hollywood types. We heretics need to stand tall.
As an atheist raised Catholic I totally relate to the idea of being a "New Testament Agnostic."
Catholics kinda separated themselves from Jesus, and become a human power heirarchy with its own tax scheme. Humans who follow science without taking physics classes are also just as hypocritical though, trading faith for faith.
Thanks for sharing your insight.
The fascinating thing is that the original scientists were Christians who went looking for natural laws because they believed in a Law Giver.
Ummm. No. There was no other way to be other than religious. It was dangerous and you were at risk of being killed or shunned from society if you were to admit you thought there were no gods. Plus the church had all the money, and if you needed money to build a telescope you went and saw the clergy and pretended to believe. The people who went looking for natural laws most certainly realized that holy books were garbage.
As a life long atheist I find myself becoming more anti-theist as I get older. The way that religious people are becoming more militant and authoritarian to hold on to their mythology and push it onto the rest of society makes me want to actively push back on their silly claims even more.
The fact that we have members of government pushing hard on their religious beliefs while even embracing "Christian Nationlisim" openly makes me very worried... I get Adam wanting to distance himself from controversy but it makes me sad that a science communicator has to be so wafflie.
Even though i'm going in the opposite direction as I age, i'm guessing you live in the US and if I did too I suspect I might agree with you (even from 3,000+ miles away it's pretty disturbing, you guys seem closer to becoming a theocracy than I would've believed possible).
I agree with how you can't prove if something doesn't exist, but I still call myself an atheist because it's reasonable to assume that something doesn't exist if there is little evidence for its existence.
Yeah, athiesm doesn't in and of itself assert that your belief is fact, agnostic just means you acknowledge your inability to prove there is or isn't a god
A refreshingly reasonable outlook. 👍
I never understood what does being a scientist (like myself) have to do with not being a spiritual person? There's is natural world which we can observe and study and then there's spiritual world which we believe in. Where does the conundrum lie in?
Believing in a non testable unobservable spiritual world is entirely antithetical to the scientific world view. If you equally applied the scientific method to all beliefs you would simply go “the spiritual world is an unfalsifiable claim and thus not capable of being studied and consequently claims as to its accuracy can not be made in any direction”.
As a scientist I would argue that it’s very hard to trust the conclusions made by someone that could hold beliefs that are not based on the evaluation of evidence. If you can make that error in evaluating certain topics it makes it more likely you will make errors in evidence evaluation in other domains as well.
@@tainicon4639 Well that's a nice word salad, but go study love. And explain scientifically why do you love your parents, your spouse and your kids and with what device to quantifiably measure it and reproduce. Makes no sense, does it?
@@maxnits9556 how was it word salad? I explained the concepts of falsifiable vs unfalsifiable claims and how that relates to the scientific method… simply restated unfalsifiable claims are completely untestable and can’t be engaged with in an honest intellectual capacity.
And you picked the wrong field to try and trump me on… I am a neuroscientist. I would be happy to regurgitate a list of the anatomical regions responsible for processing things like love and pair bonding as well as the neuro chemicals responsible for these feelings… it’s pretty well understood. We can explain human emotions and behaviors as a consequence of evolutionarily selected for (advantageous) behaviors that tend to encourage reproduction. These behaviors are encoded in the structure of Brains as evidenced by studies of humans with brain lesions and the stereotyped deficits in different cognitive or emotional behaviors.
@@maxnits9556the problem is not about the spiritual realm, it’s that religions have claims about the natural world that are false. I’d encourage you to read Genesis, it shocked me reading it how much nonsense and falsehoods it contained. If we agree we cannot test the supernatural world, we can test the natural claims made by religions to determine their veracity.
@@MB-nx9tq You're right, Genesis should be understood through the work of Emmanuel Swedenborg called "Secrets of Heaven", vol.1 - then it all makes perfect sense! Have a look at it.
People who talk like that about Jesus have clearly never actually read any more than a few inspiring quotes. The book itself is a mess.
neither did you it seems
I don't think saying you are an agnostic answers whether you are an atheist or not. Gnostic vs Agnostic is about knowledge: whether it is possible to know if a god exists. Theist vs Athesit is about belief: what you believe about a god's existence. You can create a 2-axis chart (4 quadrants) to describe your knowledge and belief in a god. You can be a gnostic atheist (it is possible to know if god exists and believe that god does not exists), a gnostic theist (it is possible to know if god exists and believe that god does exists), an agnostic atheist (it is impossible to know if a god exists and believe a god does not exist or is unlikely to exist), or an agnostic theist (it is impossible to know if a god exists, but believe a god does exist or is likely to exist). I suppose if you were right in the center of the chart you could say you are unsure if it is possible to know if a god exists and believe it is equally likely that a god does exists as it is that no god exists.
Yeah I just don't understand how the center of the chart is even a position you can take it seems paradoxical to me. The only way I could think of it maybe working is applying it to a newborn who has no concept of any of it thereby having no choice but to be in the center.
Seeing so much support and love here is amazing. Blessings to you all.
It’s hilarious all of these Bible thumpers in the comments wasting their life believing in something that doesn’t exist. Sad.
Most likely doesn't exist would be more appropriate and intellectually honest.
Other than that, I fully agree 😀
It is like a famous Jim Carey sentence
"So you're telling me there's a chance!?"😁
As a Christan I’m amazed by your respect and thought through response to that question. I myself hold many of your veiws when it comes to science and the metaphysical. To a degree that many fellow Christan’s attempt to lead me to Jesus during a conversation due to my blending of science and religion.
It’s not a simple universe, so it seems there is truth from many perspectives.
Atheists are people who aren't theists. Being a theist or atheist cannot be mutually exclusive to being agnostic or gnostic (claims about knowledge/certainty). It's silly to say that you don't want to identify yourself with a row on the chart because you dont want to define yourself, but that you are comfortable pointing to a column on the same chart to define yourself with. Nobody should have ever expected the skeptics movement to not factionize. It was always herding cats from the start.
Thank you for sharing these views. I do hope that the reactionary internet Atheists (who also usually staunchly defend Science against all criticism) will also grow and mature into a space where they feel comfortable admitting what can or can't be known, and find more compelling philosophical or moral topics with which they can engage theists and agnostics.
As a pastor, I hope Adam gets to heaven. I really love this guy.