Mark Vernon - Atheism's Best Arguments?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 дек 2024
- Atheism fields two kinds of arguments denying the existence of God: arguments that refute so-called 'proofs' of God's existence and arguments that affirmatively support the truth claims of atheism. This first seeks weaknesses or fallacies in pro-God arguments; the second seeks to show why atheism alone makes sense. Different atheists offer different arguments.
Make a donation to Closer To Truth to help us continue exploring the world's deepest questions without the need for paywalls: shorturl.at/OnyRq
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on atheism: www.closertotr...
Mark Vernon is a writer, broadcaster and journalist who began his professional life as a priest in the Church of England.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
I've allways been an agnostic, dyslexic, insomniac. I spend all night wondering if their is a dog.
Well is there?
@@youcamp132 only sometimes .
Spoiler: These are NOT Atheism's best arguments.
This guy is agnostic, before that was atheist and before that a priest. Very impressionable fellow.
We need no arguments, since no proof of God has been put forth.
I am an atheist in the sense that I lack a belief in god or gods, as opposed to an atheist that makes positive claims that no god or gods exists. I think this lack of belief can easily be sufficiently justified with reference to the fact that those who claim the existence of a god have simply NOT met their burden of proof. I am yet to encounter an argument for the existence of god that hasn't had holes poked in it, to the point of raising significant doubts. Therefore, I take the default position here, which is to remain sceptical and withhold belief until sufficient evidence is provided. As for the other variety of atheist mentioned, I do think that they can have compelling arguments regarding the positive claim of non-existence of some gods, generally due to logical contradictions and other critical issues in the way the gods are described. But generally speaking, I would not be making a generalised non-existence claim about all gods because you then get into Russell's Teapot territory...
As for specific arguments, it very much depends on the god claim being discussed...
@Chris Taylor This is all the 'rational' you should need to justify atheism:
1. We're all born atheist and remain so unless we're indoctrinated.
2. There is no evidence for any god/s and also no reason to 'believe' in any.
That's it.
The “best” argument is simple:
I don’t have sufficient evidence to warrant belief.
The end.
However, that is entirely subjective. Why should anyone except your mommy care how much evidence you have -- maybe she is also an idiot and didn't give you adequate info?
@@20july1944 It's not at all subjective.
Because it's about the individual.
Not you, not your beliefs, not whatever imaginary, magical bullshit you've convinced yourself of.
Nothing I said even suggests anyone else should "care".
For all your smugness, you can't even respond without a non-sequitur.
@@lcceo22 Do you know basic physics, like how a star works?
I'd love to chat with you if you do.
@@lcceo22 You said:
lcceo22
2 hours ago
"@20july1944 It's not at all subjective.
Because it's about the individual."
What is about the individual? If it's the individual's beliefs, that's exactly "subjective".
Maybe the thought, (just a thought of course !) that you actually exist might help with your reasoning ? But don't leave it there though, - take another step further,-- if you exist, what else exists then ??
My atheism comes from the fact that no one ever told me there was a God, so I never thought about one. I heard these ridiculous stories as a child at school and accepted them as yet another Santa Clause.
If a God really exists I'm sure he would have let me know at the time of my birth, not through some book or teacher who learned about him though some book and teacher. It's not a school lesson.
Do you know any physics, Toni?
You couldn't have absorbed the info when you were born.
I can show you there's a Creator God using only science.
@@20july1944 I could absorb light, smell, feel etc. I could absorb God if he wanted me to know about him. It's that simple. He doesn't exist.
@@toni4729 What makes you think He wants to reveal Himself to you in that way?
How did our universe come into existence? If you have a good explanation without God, I'll concede to you.
@@20july1944 If Your God doesn't want to be known, he doesn't need to be praised. Full stop.
@@toni4729 That's illogical.
There is pretty certainly a Creator God and you will definitely die.
I don't care about your welfare, so I don't care what inference you reach.
My road to atheism is about 26 years long, I won't get into all that, though it was pretty funny. Ultimately as a Christian at the age of 30 I had a landlord that was an atheist. He was a really tough guy that survived lots of bad accidents from falling off of roves to getting his with natural gas explosions. Every time he told me about an incident I always say Oh Thank God! And he always blew up at me saying it wasn't God it was ME! I thought Okay okay, geez, settle down. So I decided to set out to prove God to him. Even from my youth there was unanswered questions I had about God but I figured if God wanted me to know, he'd tell me. All I wanted was the truth no matter what it was.
So one day I sat down and did what amounts to a brain or thought reset. I took everything I knew and mentally put it in a queue where each concept when processed would go back into my thought process or get kicked out. And when I say everything I mean everything, the existence of oxygen, air in general, does Australia exist, is religion real, does math work, even my very existence.
Then one by one I'd consider if a given thing was true and provable. And if it wasn't provable there had to be a damn good reason to hang on to it. Well, I accepted air back as real first, pretty obvious, friends, my home, all the obvious stuff. When it came down to processing religion as was very anxious to prove mine as real. But when I considered how many religions there are and have been and how many gods there are, that just didn't make any sense at all. Every person that followed each of those religions believed in their god just as much I believed in mine. And none of them actually revealed themselves to their follows. Sure it says in all the holy books that their god did reveal him/her self but it's never in real time, it's always in the past when the books were written. Why didn't I get a Damascus road experience? Am I not worthy? Is no one else worthy? It's certainly within the power of a god to show him/her self to everyone always so we can all be together and celebrate life! Then considering the really nasty parts of the bible I thought what kind of all loving god would do that? Then in that pensive moment it hit me. I've lived a life of a load of religious crap. Honestly I felt stupid for buying into it. But then I though no, I was indoctrinated as a child so it was just normal life. Finding the way out as I did made me feel great and happy.
That being said, no I can't prove there is not god. But I don't see any evidence of one. And if someone says to me there is a god, I just say I don't believe you, I have no reason to believe you. It's fantasy.
Sorry it's so long. It would have been twice as long if I started at the beginning. Oddly it started out with pizza.
Indeed! All the religions are invented by men with rules of behaviour in favour of men! Women and minority groups have been discriminated for centuries and still are! The religion you happen to believe in is just a geographical coincidence. If you are born in Pakistan you will probably be a Muslim, if you are born in India you will probably be a Buddhist, if you are born in a western country you will probably be a Christian. If you have the luck not to be indoctrinated from childhood on with all that supernatural nonsense you will probably be an atheist! Indoctrination from childhood on with all that supernatural bullshit, social pressure and suppression, a lack of a PROPER scientific education and often a lack of reasoning abilities are the key words here!
Also "God created everything" so he gives newborns life-long diseases or cancer, dude kills babies and children; what kind of a sick god would create such evil? I'd want to fight God if I ever met the bastard. Also there's some standup comedian maybe George Carlin who said there are all these religions/Gods but yours is the real one lol. I try not to argue with my crazy religious family but it happens, living their whole lives believing fairy tales. And "tithing" making the child molesters more wealthy. smdh. And "forgiving" pedo's. At least in America religion is fucking disgusting. I agree with your ending line, nobody knows, there is no evidence. 🍕
It seems obvious to me that life and the universe is designed very powerfull evidence to my mind
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 That's just a god of the gaps argument. If you don't understand something god did it. I on the other hand give the only honest answer of I don't know how it started. We might never know and I'm fine with that. But I'm not going to invent an invisible magic friend to explain anything at all
@@thanksyoutubefortakingmyhandle Love you saw the pizza comment, you actually read everything! I don't know if I'm quite as angry as you wanting to go to battle. But you'd win anyway.
Some of my friends have challenged me by saying can't you make a rose? Challenge accepted. Me and God will make a rose in a planter. I'll go grab a planter and set it on the table. Okay, GO! I immediately accept I can't make a rose, but I have a planter. God has nothing on his side, so I win. So two acrylic boxes with the air sucked out of them. First to fill your box with air wins. I win that one easily every time.
I would contend that the tradition that most seriously engages with the limits of what we know is science and is contrarily NOT the one that's in danger of overreaching.....but that's just me!
I know! And then he goes on to complain about others being "in danger of hubris." Complete lack of self-awareness.
Religions come up with bad explanations, fight to the death to hold onto them, and never check with reality to see if those explanations hold up. Science is self-correcting, and you get rewarded for toppling dogma. I think I'm going to go with science and progressively better understanding over the retreat from reality and regression into fairy tales.
This channel wastes too much time giving these time-wasters a pulpit to encourage clinging to bad ideas.
Scientist understand the limits of science. Popular science media does not understand the limits of science.
Anyone who understands the limits of science would not contend that science favors atheism.
@@mugsofmirth8101 I would! 🙂
Imagine all that we know depicted as an incomplete jigsaw puzzle without any edge-pieces. Long before the puzzle is completed, we have strong indications of what it will eventually look like. The biggest unknown lies in the fact that we don't have any edge-pieces. We don't know how much we are still missing, only that we do miss something. But remember that whatever we are missing still have to fit together with what we have already completed. It can't be just anything you want to see.
@@mby_dk is this a joke? 😂
Science DOES try to recognise its own limits. Vernon doesn't understand what he's talking about.
Strange isn't it. Theists runaway with their God claims and shrink them all until they are unfalsifiable, then boast that they are "beyond science". Doesn't seem to stop theists desperately searching for any evidence and grasping at anything vaguely close to evidence of God.
Within the physical world, science has no known limits. Outside of the physical world, if such a thing exists, science has no utility.
Never heard of the fallacy of scientism I see…
Science does. Scientism doesn’t . Too many atheists fall for the latter.
All the “ agnostic atheist “ nonsense has ever been really been about is one day one of the smarter “ new atheists” realized that “ hey! If I’m going to be an atheist - a thing I really really WANT to be - then I logically have to have a half-way plausible reason to be one and I not only don’t have one , I can’t even think of one ! Oh my!” Another new atheist says “ No problem “ and reaches up in his butt and pulls this out “ Just call yourself an ‘agnostic atheist’ - that way you can be what you want to be without being logical about it .”
….and the rest lives in the annals of “ The History of Illogicality .”
@@natashatomlinson4548 I see your point but what really are the adverse effects of too much faith in the scientific method?
Atheism need not present arguments. It is a POSITION!!! Get a clue.
Atheism is the position of suspending any acknowledgement as to the existence of a god until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. Period.
That’s agnosticism Sparky smh
@@natashatomlinson4548 Your ignorance is astounding. Would you care to understand _why_ you are ignorant?
@@natashatomlinson4548 Nope. Agnosticism is a knowledge position. Atheism is a believe position.
A fundamental problem is that people associate god with morality. Our concept of god is just a reflection of our human mind, and it most likely has absolutely nothing to do with a potential reality of god (or non-god).
I agree, and though simple by appearance is actually very prescient.
Origins will always be the persuader. And absolutely at present, nothing
can reconcile thermodynamics with the existence of the universe.
"Thermodynamics is the one law of universal content which will never be overthrown"-
Albert Einstein
It is funny how often the "morality" of the deity someone believes in matches the way that person _wants_ to act.
Stupid assertions. Is adultery bad? If so, why? You think christians are not tempted by sex? They lust for this and that too, yet they know it’s a sin. In this case, what they want is different from the laws of their religion. In fact, Christianity is different in everything from a nature of a man. The Bible is at war with you constantly. It is atheism that doesn’t put on you any burden, to do as you deem fit.
@@citoante Are you talking to me? Nothing of what you are writing has anything to do with my statement. Probably you answered someone else?
@@RolandHuettmann I am. At least in the first part. Is adultery bad?if so, why? Or is it moral? This is directly connected to God, because all people sometimes lust after other people. Is acting upon it good or bad? Is even having sex before wedlock moral?
I appreciate his honesty.
He has not probe into Islam.
@@LogicStandsBeforeGod When any god shows up and presents him or herself, then I'll be swayed that a god might exist. The problem is a sufficiently advance civilization would look like god to us so I'm not sure how to tell the difference between a god and an advanced society.
What is Islam?
@@JB-oo7cv You google it.
@@youcamp132 Jewish American Derrick Feinman asked God to guide him to the correct religion that is accepted by God, please watch this video how God answered this man supplication it was a miracle in the broad daylight, this video is posted by Derrick Feinman himself on his channel with video title: "Derrick Feinman How Islam Found Me: My Conversion to Islam" Channel name is Derrick Feinman.
No third person or middle man in this story between a believer and God.
I was a militant atheist for 40 years approx, I have changed views these days. The problem with ascribing to science is this, science doesn't explain what anything actually is or why anything actually is, it is a common miss conception. Science tells us how the universe "behaves", science describes the behaviors of that which we observe, none of it tells us fundamentally what or why anything is. It was this insight that ultimately changed my stance from militant atheist to an open minded explorer of the nature of reality. There is much to discover by simply performing rigorous self inquiry accompanied with meditation or mindfulness practices, you will find much to your surprise that a great deal of the questions you have can be answered in this way. I find that we are not in reality, we are of reality and not separate from it or anything else as everything is nature/the universe/reality etc. still don't think there is a sky wizard, but it does feel like there is something fundamental as I described.
I was basically the opposite of you, I was a militant Christian for 30 years and an atheist for 35 years. For me the answer as to how we got here just can't be answered. And may never be answerable. That's okay. The answer I don't know is perfectly reasonable. Irritating but reasonable. But what I can't do is pick up a holy book that says God spoke the universe into existence. That's just silly.
I've found quantum mechanics to be very intriguing in terms of explaining everything. I'm not an expert by any means but it's cool and really weird. And it does explain quite a few things.
If you trust in the predictions of the Kardashev scale, and I think I do. I mean to say I don't see anything out of the realm of possibility there considering the way technology advances. But at the same time that irritates me too. I wanna live in a type 7 civilization where we're we all have god like powers and you live as long as you want to live and anywhere in the universe you want to. How cool would that be.
You don't have to ascribe to science to be atheist, you just need to acknowledge there is no evidence to support any of the thousands of different god claims. If science isn't the answer to reality, what is? You're just retorting more 'god of the gaps', the only argument these two supposed 'experts' could come up with too.
@@youcamp132 yeah we will never truly know the unknowable as that is indeed what it is. We live in a somewhat awesome time, but I am with you on the type 7 tip, I really want to see the future, do we make it to the "star trek" utopian, space faring inter galactic civilization or do we blow it. I want to exist in a time where at a minimum interstellar travel at warp speeds exists.
@@nuviberecordings Okay, let's set this up. See ya back here in a billion years. 😂
@@nuviberecordings On the bright side our atoms will be around then so they maybe be part of a living being then. Doesn't really help the situation. So Long Live The Atom! And I think in that time you mention I would live in a black hole, just for the peace and quiet.
This interaction was nothing but building a huge strawman to misrepresent atheism.
False
@@matterasmachine hey, show me the evidence and not arguments. Arguments without evidence result in useless piles of words.
@@c.guydubois8270 where is your evidence? Oh and that comment you just made is not evidence, it's an argument. Nice hypocrisy there, champ. 😂
@@mugsofmirth8101 you made the claim so you need the evidence. You need to show the concept is relevant here in reality...
Please explain!
This person certainly speaks with a lot of authority considering they have no idea what they themselves believe. First to priest than an atheist now and agnostic who lectures atheists from a viewpoint of religiosity. Ok bro.
That's the main problem with indoctrination from birth, these victims are left vulnerable to any and all other baseless nonsense claims. I guess they can lose their way completely if they leave the original path they were being led down.
Say something a atheist does not like and he wil spend hours looking for something negative he can say. lol
A cesspool of confusion
I'm pretty sure it's altruism that motivates 'militant atheists' to help others out of the cult of religion.
@@duncanwallace7760 (Militant) Atheism is also religion since there are absolute truth claims. And all it seeks is destruction of the competition.
What do you call a person who is in between? Like for example; they believe and don’t believe in God at the same time. Like in my case, I have a lot of reasons why to believe but a lot of reasons why not to believe that I am stuck in the middle.
Undecided
@@uninspired3583 Uninspired
belief is the problem. don't believe in things, belief is problematic. Trust your experience, the answers you seek can be found within, think about it for a time. How do you experience, via your 5 senses, literally everything you experience is coming from within you, your 5 senses gather input and your mind builds a world for you in real time as the input comes in. Self inquiry is the road to knowing not believing . I don't believe in a god or god, nothing in my experience tells me it works that way, the only thing I know I know for certain is that I am conscious, I am aware, I am aware that I am aware and my awareness is experiencing. Where the fuck is this awareness coming from, what am I really, who am I really? What is a thought? Am I my thougts:? See where this is going... have fun. lol
@@elgatofelix8917 that works too. I do in fact find fanciful explanations uninspiring.
I don't know = Agnostic = A (without) gnostic (knowledge).
I don't believe = Atheist = A (without) theists (god/s).
Neither of these 'experts' even understand the basic definitions. Atheist/agnostic are not mutually exclusive, most atheists are both. 100% of all people are agnostic because, no matter what anyone claims/believes/proselytizes, no-one knows.
Atheism doesn't need arguments. Only claims need arguments.
And arguments alone are not evidence of anything.
Nonsense.
Atheism is the claim that there is no God.
Do you use your head for something other than something to put a hat on ?
@@natashatomlinson4548 That's not true Natasha, atheism is the denial of the claim that God or a god exists. So if you say god exists and atheist just says I don't belies you.
@@youcamp132 Not very intellectually sophisticated I see….
Atheism has nothing to do with denying claims. A theist can deny that Odin exists. Does that make him an Odin-atheist?
Atheism is a POSITIVE claim that no gods exist . Anytime. Ever. Odin. Jesus. Whoever. Regardless of who or where or if anyone makes any kind of theological claim. One hypothetically could be the only person Earth and , according to you, one couldn’t be an atheist unless some non-existent theist made a theistic claim. Which is nonsense. The atheist can still make the positive assertion that he doesn’t believe a god exists.
Someone could say “ The Dolphins are the best NFL team.” Just because I say “ I don’t believe you, there aren’t enough facts to support that statement “ doesn’t make me an anti-Dolphin fan. He’s just an agnostic about the subject. Likewise , someone who says “ I don’t believe your statement about God “ doesn’t necessarily mean he thinks no god exists, just that he finds what he heard unconvincing.
Why is something so simple so hard for you two to understand ?
@@natashatomlinson4548 Hmm, so you're telling me you know me more than I know me? Sure there are different types of atheism. There are those that make a positive claim there is not god. And I'd agree you can't honestly say that. I just reject the claim there is a god until such a god presents itself to me in a manner I find acceptable. I assume any god would know what it would take to cause me to acknowledge its existence.
Do you believe in Thor? Mythra? Zeus? I expect you are not so yes you are an atheist to all the other gods you don't believe in.
@@youcamp132 I hope somebody ties your shoes for you , feeds you and keeps you from playing in the road cuz that’s sone of the dumbest crap I’ve ever read .
I just did everything but use crayons to help you understand basic logic and you STILL did not get it , it went -whoosh-> right over your head .
Or Denial is one helluva a drug ….
Agnosticism is an Atheistic position, especially the Huxley version. You can leave the question of whether a god exists open while still suspending your belief in a god. Agnosticism deals with knowledge while atheism deals with belief.
Nonsense.
Agnosticism has nothing to do with atheism.
@@natashatomlinson4548
Oh but it does. It can be a qualifier to atheism. One can be an “agnostic atheist”.
Thomas Huxley who coined the term “agnostic” defined it as such:
“Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.”
If you don’t know (the “A-Gnostic” part) that a God exists, then one can also not believe a God exists (the A-Theist part).
Agnosticism deals with knowledge, Atheism deals with belief. Agnosticism isn’t some kind of “holding pattern” or halfway point between belief and non-belief.
@@bradleyconrad678 Oh but it doesn’t .
I’m agnostic and I’m just as likely one day to go theist as atheist one day . All genuine agnostics are like me.
You atheists need to stop hiding behind agnosticism. You can’t logically believe ( theist/ A-theist) or not believe in something you don’t think you have enough knowledge ( A- Gnosis) to have an educated opinion about . And if you choose to anyway, don’t hide behind agnosticism - you just have FAITH.
@@natashatomlinson4548
What you are describing is not agnosticism. Agnosticism isn’t a “halfway tipping point that could go either way”. It’s not a “middle ground” between atheism and theism. That’s not what “Agnostic” means. It doesn’t mean “undecided”.
Don’t know the answer = don’t know the answer. Has nothing to do with any gods
Not sure who he is talking about. Maybe he is making it up I have listened to many Atheist speak, I never heard one say they think it could be proven God does not exist.
The definition of atheist and agnostic is not commonly excepted. Does agnostic mean you are NOT 100% certain, beyond all doubt, willing to bet your life and your children's lives on it? If so, I would guess over 90% of people are actually agnostic
I might argue that everyone is agnostic, even if some people pretend otherwise.
Who are these atheists who claim they can disprove God? Name them. I've never known an atheist who was 100% sure. But, I met a lot of theists who claim certainty. Beware of people who speak in absolutes.
I know a few gnostic atheists. Aside from the fact there is no evidence to support any god claims, there are some very sound mathematical, some sound physical and some reasonably sound philosophical arguments for gnosticism. I think most atheists are agnostic atheists though.
agreed .. the guy just seems to ramble about this and that and yet
not really make any sense at all
I'll name one: Christopher Hitchens
@@mugsofmirth8101 “I cannot, of course, prove that there is no supervising deity who invigilates my every moment and who will pursue me even after I am dead. (I can only be happy that there is no evidence for such a ghastly idea, which would resemble a celestial North Korea in which liberty was not just impossible but inconceivable) Christopher Hitchens, Is Christianity Good for the World?
@@mugsofmirth8101 “I cannot, of course, prove that there is no supervising deity who invigilates my every moment and who will pursue me even after I am dead. (I can only be happy that there is no evidence for such a ghastly idea, which would resemble a celestial North Korea in which liberty was not just impossible but inconceivable) C. Hitchens was not a fool.
Two issues. 1)Atheism is simply a lack of belief in personal, interacting theist gods. Believers are always trying to turn it into something else, and at times atheists screw up and end up bearing the burden of proof. An atheist should not say, "there is no god." An atheist should say, "I don't believe in any gods because there isn't a shred of compelling, objective evidence for one.
2) Who would this "good" god be? Any god who would send a mere mortal, who lives but a handful of decades, to an eternity of conscious screaming torment, simply for failing to believe things for which there isn't a shred of compelling objective evidence, is clearly not a good god.
"Altruism really exists, for example!" Is an odd rebuttal to our early attempts at mapping how ethics and morality develop and how we experience them. It seems like, even in the scientific community, we have a habit of claiming science will never speak to a category of thing it isn't speaking to at the moment. In some instances that may ultimately be the case, but to think it so dogmatically is peculiar. We've a got a long history of reasons to be optimistic about what we have yet to learn about seemingly untouchable categories.
The way this is stated by this guest makes me think that while they were an atheist they were angry and incredibly immoral. Now they paint everyone with their own filthy brush. probably that background as a priest.
I don't even believe in altruism, myself.
TBH I don't like the whole morality angle when talking about the possible existence of god, be it altruism or the problem of evil. I don't see that as compelling reasons for or against god, there's no reason to believe that god should be moral or have our interests as the tiniest priority of its own.
@@medexamtoolscom
I don’t think the problem of evil is meant to disprove God totally. But most believers have goodness and moral perfection baked into their definition of God. And that is, I would argue, a big psychological factor that keeps some people holding on to the idea of God generally. If they can’t maintain a belief in an all-good God who is looking out for them and gives purpose to their suffering in life, then they are likely to stop believing in God altogether. How many people in this day and age believe in a capital G God that is evil or indifferent?
I'm definitely an atheist...I would love the idea of Pantheism in a way of Spinoza's God. But I see the world in a very naturalistic way. Methodological naturalism and falsification are very important to me....
The problem with his agnostic view is...I think it's pretty much clear that the Abrahamic gods are just cultural fables. So are you agnostic to theism, deism, pantheism or polytheism?
And militant atheism can't even be compared to the outrageous dangers of Christian Nationalism, Dominionist theology (seven Mountains Mandate Dominionist lunacy), Islamic fundamentalism, Hindu Nationalism, Russian Orthodox Christian Ultranationalism... Religious nutcases want to literally force their "dark age" morality onto everyone.
I just want to reject supernaturalism in public schools when it comes to science. I want all major religions to be studied...not just the one that holds cultural majority. I don't want politics intermingled with religious fundamentalism.
They want to ban books, abortion, Evolutionary theory, LGBTQ while trying to undermine the rights of other religions and on top of it use churches for political propaganda....tax exempt.
No comparison. I call bullshhhhh
Yeah sorry but atheism and pantheism are incompatible. And the existence of the Pantheistic God is irrefutable evidence that atheism is bullshhhhhh
Oh and your claim about militant atheism being harmless is more bullshhhhh
Communism's body count is irrefutable proof of that
Don’t need atheism’s best arguments. Spirits, ghosts , demons, angels, talking snakes, talking burning bushes, the dead walking. Sounds like a Halloween freak show. Freak shows are fun. Next up is Santa Claus.
Funny how none of the things you mentioned are deities.
@@mugsofmirth8101 don’t have to mention deities. Don’t need the stupidest argument either.
Nice straw man .
@@natashatomlinson4548 forgot about straw mans. Scarecrows also are great for Halloween.
When it comes to Atheism you are still not any closer to the truth. Instead, for a best argument you choose a professed agnostic. My claim to Atheism is that I see no evidence for the existence of any God(s). I am 99% atheist and 1% agnostic. I am willing to be surprised. Granted religion does good things, but at what price? When it comes to professed belief in a God, I just cannot deceive myself.
Having been hard-wired for theism, it's understandable that he can't let go of the coat-tails!
Of course you can prove that god doesn't exist. You simply have to prove that the specific definition of god cannot be real because of logical flaws. It doesn't mean A god doesn't exist, but no one is interested in that abstract concept. For god to be meaningful to anyone, they have to define it, and once done, it's fairly easy to disprove.
Atheists do not disprove God , they can just replace God by theoram , but where dose that theory come from ? They say it's by chance , but how did by chance life emarge in this planet ? What is definition of life ? What is conciousness ? Their answers are just like another school of thought.
I see atheism as an example of human-centralism，arrogance and narcissism.
Atheists dont need to ''disprove god''. Burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
Theists have failed to present a single shred of evidence for a supreme deity, therefore the default position is maintaines, no god exist
@@Michels1 thats irrelevant. If theism is not real then how is atheism real？ if atheism denies theism then they need to disprove god‘s existence. otherwise atheism is totally meaningless
@@skey8809 Atheism doesn't make a positive claim... Theres nothing to prove.
@@skey8809 How can atheism be meaningless? It just means we don't believe that load of rubbish you believe. You believe that thunder was a god, lightning was a god, wind was a god until someone came up the one you believe in now. People have believed in gods since the beginning of time, they made bad smells, rain, farts, all sorts of things. Atheists just don't believe in any of them. Yours or the ones before yours. You don't believe in them either.
I have often heard the "don't throw the baby out with the bath water" argument when it comes to atheistic dismissal of religion. However, they can never give a straight answer when asked what value religion offers that can't be found or attained through purely secular experience. If they try to argue that it is a foundation for morality or transcendent experience, then they must already know the fatal flaws of those arguments.
Communism was touted over 100 years ago, to be the panacea for all mankind's ills-- in fact to became the 'religion' for the masses. Well I'm sure I don't have to remind you that this 'philosophy' became nothing but the tool for enslaving millions throughout the world, starting with Russia, under the monster Stalin. But I'm sure you don't need a history lesson about this religion/philosophy which became the ideal method to enslave millions of people.
So I really don't need to hear any argument against the various religions, since secular man is incapable to coming up with plenty of "ism" which are going to 'save' mankind, mainly from its own greed, lust for power, or any other nasty philosophy which is going to save us all. ! ! (And that includes that so seducing argument called science--which has given mankind the power (atomic bombs, germ warfare etc) to destroy everything there is !
However, what religion is able to do, is to reveal that this life is merely a school, so as to speak, in which we learn, through experiences, that love for each other is the way of growth.
Of course even the various religions have their shortcomings (some more than others) as we well know. but to return your phrase, :--don't throw the baby out with the bath water" , --by and large religions (some more than others) do/can teach/reveal that this mortal life is but a physical experience to learn that the power of love and service to others is the light and way to understanding.
NDE experiences by and large, do reveal that (our) mankind's consciousness is not limited to our physical bodies,but continues (its existence) following the death of our physical vehicle (the body).
He is only speaking about "god" in context of monotheistic religion...but religions in all cultures and in different times had all kind of supernatural concepts (be it ancestor worshipping, ghosts, spirits of nature, families of gods and half gods, animal gods, elementals, witches, shamanism....reincarnating "souls" etc.) . The abrahamistic god is only one of countless spiritual ideas...and like all the others, it can of course not be disproven scientifically through the natural world because it is intentionally defined as "supernatural" and outside of it. But with this method i can create any idea and say it can`t be scientifically proven.
However... there is an easy scientific way to disprove all religions. if you just ignore the claim that those ideas are outside of our natural world. Then you can study where those ideas come from in the context of human culture and history. Where do those stories and rituals come from and where are the cultural, mystical and linguistic overlaps between different religious narratives. How different spiritual ideas were created and shaped by groups or individuals and how are they linked to their lifes and experiences. Which function had different religious and mythological belief systems for different kind of civilizations..from tribal to modern societys and how did the spiritual concepts evolved with it. (hunting magic, voodoo, shamanism, ancestor worshiping, polytheism, monotheism, religious philosophy, Scientology ..etc).
Answering all those questions can show very scientifically that religions and their supernatural entities are a sole product of culture and psychology which emerged and persist in the world of human ideas and language.
This is what so called "militant" Atheists want to make clear. It is not a question of 50/50 we dont know the answer, it is a very clear case, once you stop believing in it and apply the same criteria to it as for any other conspiracy theory or supernatural concept in human culture.
How do you think our universe came about?
@@20july1944 it came about by itself, or better by the fundamental forces which are forming it.
The universe as a spacetime structure might have a beginning and an end..but the energy in it has not, it is eternal. and so this energy is just a transformation of what it was in its initial state. what this initial state was, or what the quantum mechanical principles are which define spacetime have still to be figured out. But "nothing" does not exist, only differences in potential.
what we can say for sure is, that our world becomes more and more abstract and defined by fundamental principles, the closer we look into it. A conscious entity like a god in the image of human beeings would contradict everything. In the end he would have to be made of the same fundamental principles to even exist, to act, to decide etc. because a god which is composed of nothing is non existent ^^
For the moment gods are made of something...human ideas, a mental image, fitted with countless attributes from human language and culture.
@@JTHBS Eternal energy. What happens to energy as it ages?
Take the heat and light and other radiation from a star -- what does that energy do over time?
@@JTHBS Come on, buddy -- if you know your science, let's talk cosmogony.
We can't prove that a god of some type doesn't exist. But, we sure as hell can prove that their particular god doesn't exist.
Why not a indifferent god.
There is plenty of evidence for that one. But no, they always need a personal god. An active god, with a plan that conveniently makes them important to this realities existence. There is no evidence at all for those gods.
And if "my religion tells me so" is your only answer. Then your god ain't real.
An omnipotent, omnibenevolent God could (and should) definitively answer the question of His/Her/Its existence anytime they wanted. Just sayin’.
You exist
@@TheWayOfRespectAndKindness
But do you? How would I know for sure?
@@Diviance Because you responded to him 🙄
Atheism presents no arguments. When it comes to explaining existence, we get explanations that form a spectrum ranging from the highest possible level of conceivability (theism's God) to the lowest level of conceivability (Atheism's _"It is what it is"_ mantra). These two "existential evaluations" form a *closed spectrum* with theism and atheism serving as spectrum endpoints.
Theism shamelessly jumps straight to the absolute highest possible concept (God) while atheism cowers on the lowest rung of the existential ladder by arguing that the universe requires no explanation.
At the end of the day, ... _neither is correct!_
You can't toss out an all-powerful entity to answer all questions and you can't claim that no answers are required. As with most things, the truth lies somewhere in between.
What a load of waffle. Atheism IS the argument. You claim god/s, I don't believe you. That's it, that's all, that's everything. Your 'spectrum endpoints' is gibberish.
@@MrJKJKJK1974 *"What a load of waffle. Atheism IS the argument. You claim god/s, I don't believe you."*
... That's fine, but there are unintended consequences when holding that worldview. One of which is that atheism _requires_ that you not believe in an afterlife.
*"Your 'spectrum endpoints' is gibberish."*
... The highest possible level of conceivability is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being. If you have something you think is conceivably greater, be sure to let me know. Since this is as high as conceivability can take you, then this construct occupies one endpoint the spectrum.
Atheism offers no explanations for existence nor does it seek any. The explanation is _"it is what it is,"_ period. You can't go any lower than the status quo, so this represents the opposite endpoint on the spectrum.
The "Existence Spectrum" is theism on one end and atheism on the other ... with the truth emerging somewhere in between.
You're free to _"not like it"_ and think of it as gibberish, but that's just the way it is, my friend.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Why do you think no belief in an afterlife is an issue? I'm living my best life now, here, in reality, not wasting my life worrying about some baseless afterlife nonsense!
"Atheism offers no explanations for existence nor does it seek any. The explanation is "it is what it is," period." Read what you wrote again. Slowly. See any contradiction there?
"You can't go any lower than the status quo" - what are you talking about? You're making assertions about the impact of things that don't matter on a scale you've made up to demonstrate a meaningless claim. Utter. Gibberish. 'The Existence Spectrum'? What a load of nonsense lol
@@MrJKJKJK1974 *"Why do you think no belief in an afterlife is an issue?"*
... That's a presuppositional question. I never stated it was an "issue." All I did was categorize it within a spectrum. You simply don't like it.
*" I'm living my best life now, here, in reality, not wasting my life worrying about some => baseless afterlife nonsense!
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I hate it when people try to sound smart but clearly aren't... I couldn't care less what you 'categorize' in your dumb 'spectrums'. It's meaningless gibberish, why should I care?
"Atheism also requires you to abandon any beliefs in purpose or meaning being attached to your existence." Utter rubbish again. Life is what you make of it in my personal opinion, that's as much meaning as anyone needs, but it's certainly not the only opinion amongst all atheists. What an ignorant and ridiculous thing to say.
"Atheism requires you to think the way that you do, so you are a member of a cult just like theists are a members of of a cult." Hilarious. Now I know you're a troll, no-one could be this dumb and survive lol. Atheism literally means 'I don't believe in your god/s', you think that makes atheism a cult? Is there are cult for people who don't believe in fairies? Are you in that fairy cult, or do you believe in fairies? Can you see how dumb you're being here?
"you've had every opportunity to name something conceivably higher than an omnipotent being and something conceivably lower than "it is what it is."
You didn't because you can't." I didn't because this is all gibberish and I wouldn't even know where to start with your meaningless scale of nonsense, sorry.
I think I'll pass on researching spectrums and arrays if it means I might end up spouting inane nonsense publically on RUclips like you are now.
You're clearly a lunatic. Good luck with your pointless scale.
It can only "make you feel good" to believe in God if he provides real benefit to you. You can get wishful thinking by wishing on a star or picking a 4-leaf clover.
The God delusion is the biggest placebo going.
@@TurinTuramber Placebos have results. But the truth cannot really be known.
@@RolandHuettmann Placebo effect is absolutely real. God less so but the misbelief can certainly have positives.
@@TurinTuramber I have main problems with terms such as belief, faith, etc. Mainly they are used to find and bind followers, and yes, they often create hallucinations. Nevertheless, I am far from defining any kind of posirive or negative "truth". To me, it is just a miracle that we exist at all. With all humbleness, let life -- whatever we are from inside -- just unfold without our permanent noisy interference. We just block ourselves constantly.
What's your alternative explanation for the universe? I'm perfectly fine with one.
Hmmm...being called militant for strongly expressing views of Atheism is very interesting when religions have been doing that from antiquity and with violence.
So you're an atheist?
Are you a science-educated atheist?
@@20july1944
Are you a science-educated theist?
Because those are way less common.
What do we need a god for?
I think god needs humans more than we need it. If humans didn't keep the money making story up, then god would disappear.
We should try that experiment to see if any god comes back. LoL.
It helps conmen attain power, fleece suckers of their cash, and engage in despicably perverted activities behind the dishonest facade of a moral highground.
@@mikel5582 Yes, to instill fear to obey. Like the Yanks need a bogeyman to sell weapons.
We are forced to infer a Creator God because no other ultimate cause is possible.
@@WE_R_DNA Do you really think so?
What's your scientific explanation for our universe?
I'll definitely consider it!
Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive....
Gnostic and agnostic are a set of knowledge claims which have nothing to do with athiest or thirst which is a set of beliefs. So he can be an agnostic thiest or a gnostic athiest or vice-versa.
Nonsense.
@@natashatomlinson4548 to woman sure you can't make any sense
An instrument for a spiritual or religious experience is the heart, which is simply a pumping organ as per science. This argument will never settle and that is 'the plan'.
The more we know, the greater God appears to me. What a mind!
This is the most incorrect statement I've ever seen.
@@scottymeffz5025 Incorrect statement ??? if anything grossly understated since man's minute mind cannot conceptualize the infinite intelligence, power and complexity of all that is.
@@electricmanist If you cannot conceptualize it then how can you know how powerful & complex it is?
See how dumb you look?
@@scottymeffz5025 I wonder if you can conceptualize the theories behind quadratic progressions ? If not, does that indicate just how dumb you you look (are) ?
To throw back a piece of ancient wisdom, "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".
@@scottymeffz5025 You might care to look up (and understand)--- "On primes in quadratic progressions" (equations)-- (Google) --- then maybe you can speak with some authority.
The weak argument that “morality” is only god’s domain is why I wouldn’t bother. It isn’t difficult to be a moral just good human, and “god” isn’t required for such. Out here in reality we call that humanism.
It's pretty basic knowledge that we evolved morals, for these 'experts' to even suggest that a god is/gods are the only possible explanation is disingenuous at best. Or maybe they're both just as ignorant as they sounded?
2:38 scientism of the gaps argument
@Chris Taylor Everyone is agnostic for the reasons you mention which is why the position however reasonable, is entirely useless.
Sorry, there are gaps in human knowledge. Are you best to fill it with something invisible, or with other things already known to exist?
"Scientism of the gaps" is a childish reply.
@@uninspired3583 "every reply I don't like is a childish reply" - you
@@uninspired3583 oh and FYI science itself is invisible. Put that in your crackpipe and smoke it.
It makes me laugh when theist use atheistic language. It only proves we're on the right path to not believe their stories as theist adapt our way of thinking and lingo. Thank you for your comment.
What a cesspool of confusion!
Science totally knows what light is !! It's a wave until its observed. Then it becomes a particle . Next
That's not what light is, that is how light behaves, try again.
@@nuviberecordings All waves in the electromagnetic spectrum are light. They all evolve according to the Schodringar equation. They're allways waves until they're observed.
@@spaceinyourface So what is light? Again a wave is how light moves/behaves it's not what it fundamentally is. Is magnetism just field lines? No that's how it behaves in a field but what is it?
@@nuviberecordings lol,,,OK,,well it's time to do your own homework now.
@@nuviberecordings Such tedium. You're like a child, endlessly questioning 'but what is it' until the adult gives up trying. Why don't you tell everyone what you think it is? That should be a laugh.
The atheist position is that the claims of a deity do not meet the burden of evidence, any evidence of the claimed “gods” would help to support the claim. Whether it would be a “god” worth worshiping however is debatable.
Surely the evidence that you insist upon, is all around you-- this planet, this solar system, the universe-- yes all that is, even you.
@@electricmanist How is that evidence for a sky tyrant that watches my every move and has a pervy interest in what I do whilst naked? That could be evidence for Thor, Wotan, fairies, elves and any of the thousands of claimed deities. You’ll have to do better than that
@@jackthebassman1 Oh really !! I thought the old legends of a sky tyrant went out years ago. You are much behind the times, believe me.
Time you got up to date my friend. Try reading some (of the many) NDE (Near Death experiences) on RUclips, and learn a few things.
PS suggest you wear shorts when having a shower if you are think the Creator of the universe is a perv !
@@electricmanist There is not one shred of evidence for the supernatural, one which seems, by the way, to rather conveniently and unsurprisingly reflect the politics and personal preferences of its devotees. If your prefer to believe unsupported claims on RUclips like near death experiences and people who claim to have visited “heaven” and “hell” you might well have your medication reassessed. If there was such a thing as this supposed deity in the sky who watches our every move and as I previously stated, is perversely interested in what we do whilst naked, maybe some credible evidence would help to support the rather childish idea.
I'm sorry dear sir, but you clearly lack the experience to be able to make any worthwhile comment.
If one is to measure an actual experience against a theory (no matter how clever the theorist) the the experience wins every time.
I know since I've had the experience.
Have you I wonder, or do you still live in the 'Dark Ages' of Hell and Damnation, favored by countless amateur tub thumper frighteners.?
Atheism's best argument is the lack of evidence.
Firstly that's not an argument.
Secondly since their is a lack of evidence for atheism it's a double-edged sword.
@@mugsofmirth8101 Nonsens! Atheïsme is the lack of believe in the existence of a God or a supernatural being! Why? Because there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of ANY god. Theists believe all those supernatural nonsense inspite of the lack of evidence!
@@mugsofmirth8101 Do you make a habit of constructing an argument for every single thing you don't believe in? Do you believe in every god ever conjured up in someone's imagination? If not, what's your proof that those stories aren't real?
I’m glad you’re not my local murder detective smh. No murderer would ever get found or convicted.
Alleged absence of evidence has absolutely nothing zero zilch nada nothing in the ballpark to do with any alleged evidence of absence .
You atheists would never use that maxim in everyday life - you would never get anything don, you would never find anything, you would never hold a job or keep a spouse, people would think you are crazy . BUT when it it comes to the subject of God you think the logical fallacy “ absence of evidence is proof of absence of evidence “ is profound.
You can go back now to your little atheist echo chamber and try that on you guys who can’t critically think yourself out of a paper bag it seems …smh. That crap doesn’t fly in any intellectually sophisticated environment.
One could refute that quite easily by pointing out that, literally everything that is, absolutely everything that exists is evidence of a creator of sorts. Quantum mechanics can even be used to suggest the possibility. If space and time require an observer for anything to happen then the big bang had to be observed, as well as every single interaction following it. QM tells us reality isn't there unless you are looking at it, so why does it appear to have permanence? It must be that all material reality is being observed at all times in all places, hence the consistent collapsed wave function... heh
Very dumb reasoning. The interviewee lifts up agnosticism like it's the only true way to be neutral and knowledgeable on the topic. He mentions that Atheists shed away all the bad gods, and implies that if there were a god out there, perhaps its a good god we haven't found. The problem I have with this "searching" or "open" mindset is in its naievity. If its been this long throughout human history and the only gods we have come up with are "bad" gods, then its safe to say that these bad gods are simply just "made up" and there is no sign of good gods existing. You would think if there happened to be a good god out there, he/she/it would stop confusing humanity with this nonsensical influx in the belief in bad gods and ultimately would stop allowing death, natural disaster, pain, cancer, rape etc. The only gods there are, are bad gods. These gods are clearly made up. Therefore, to me at least, it's very clear that if there were to be a god that exists, its not worth worshipping. I'm agnostic in the sense that there's no way to prove or disprove god's existence, but I'm atheist in the fact that pretending there may be a reason/excuse to believe in supernatural buffoonery is a great step back for the advancement of our species. The fact is, we don't know. We may never know. Who knows. Who cares.
You can't be both atheist and agnostic. It's like saying "I'm a married bachelor" or "I'm a living corpse"
The two are mutually exclusive. Self-proclaimed "agnostic-atheists" can't seem to grasp the concept of mutual exclusivity.
@@mugsofmirth8101 it's a play on words. No one actually would mean they're both. I'm simply categorizingy way of thinking from the way these terms are used. Officially, I don't care what anyone calls me and I don't think most atheists care either. The bottom line is there is no reason to believe in a god, whether one exists or not.
@@dayhaysuper3639 it's funny you say that, because there is literally another atheist in these comments who asserts that they actually are both (not just some "play on words" as you suggest). Nice try though 😉
@@dayhaysuper3639 oh and there is plenty of reasons to believe in a god, otherwise religion and spirituality wouldn't exist to begin with.
what God might be consistent with atheism?
Any God that presence and efforts are utterly indistinguishable from a Godless universe. Fortunately all Gods seem to be experts in absence.
@@TurinTuramber Odin has the best evidence. He defeated the frost giants, when was the last time you saw one? Thank Odin
@@uninspired3583 Can't argue with those smarts.
The only "gods" that are compatible with so-called "atheism" (that is New Atheism, Internet Atheism or Lacktheism) is a caricature of a deity which is usually an old bearded man sitting in the clouds which internet-atheists like to call "skydaddy". Internet-atheists need this sort of caricature or something similar like a "Spaghetti Monster" in order to build their strawman arguments.
In reality however, the atheist's god is the person(s) or cause which they serve or venerate. For many "atheists" individuals such as Christopher Hitchens, Bernie Sanders, or scientism itself is their true god although they will certainly deny this is the case because any sort of god would be incompatible with the core ideology of atheism.
@@mugsofmirth8101 Problem that Theists have is that the flying spaghetti monster PBUH is equally as valid as a God as the rest are.
Mark seems confused about the definitions. Atheists don't usually say they can prove god doesnt exist - that would be silly. They say they don't believe in any gods, and that the burden of proof is on the believer to prove god exists.
Agnosticism is not about establishing whether god exists or not, but about whether he can ever be made known or understood by human beings. These terms are not mutually exclusive. You can be an agnostic atheist. Or an agnostic theist.
Please interview actual atheists if you want to hear the best arguments for atheism. Not someone who wants to believe but can't because he found out his god doesn't accept his sexuality, and then settled on some wishy/washy compromise where atheism is not about not believing in gods, but only about not believing in all the "bad" gods.
Hitchens said he could prove it and he is regarded as "the best of the best" by atheists
Yeah, they USUALLY don't say that because they KNOW deep down that they can't prove their beliefs correspond with reality. But sometimes they actually DO say that (as pointed out by your first responder) and in doing so find themselves having to defend their position: hence the tactic employed by most "atheists" of avoiding making the claim that they can prove there are no gods.
@@mugsofmirth8101
We avoid the position because it’s impossible to prove a negative .
@Chris Taylor Of course all atheists hold the view that no gods exist, but there's a difference between having been convinced that no gods exist, or not having been convinced that any gods exist. 'Strong' VS 'weak' atheism.
The latter also sometimes called agnosticism, but I think that term was intended to mean something different: That the question of god's existence is meaningless or beyond human ability to even contemplate.
@@xstatic-ow5mz I'm an atheist and I am critical of some of Hitchen's arguments. We're not all alike.
Atheism's only needed argument: Prove that your god exists.
Theism only needs one argument: why is there is something rather than nothing?
In a philosophical context atheism usually refers to the belief that there are no Gods.
@@paulbadman8509
Theism doesn't answer this question unless you postulate that God is a necessary being but then you would still need to prove his existence.
@@firstaidsack How do these atheists explain our universe?
Grattata: that's not even an argument.
Are you an atheist?
You would think that at least one of these 'experts' would know the definitions of 'atheist' and 'agnostic', yet clearly neither has a clue. Sadly, when you bring together an ex-priest/philosopher with a poorly disguised preacher, all you get is more mumbo-jumbo. Absolutely nothing of merit in this 10 minutes, the usual lies from both parties.
Do you know some basic astrophysics? That's where I think we can quickly see God exists.
@@20july1944 I know much more than basic astrophysics. Ultimately, I know there is no evidence for your indoctrinated god/s belief, even in the stars.
@@MrJKJKJK1974 oh please. You don't have a clue. 😂
@@elgatofelix8917 Brilliant argument, very convincing, please, do tell me more! Yawn
@@MrJKJKJK1974 Really? You know much more than basic astrophysics?
Are you a professional in the field?
I'm eager to learn from you if you are.
Yaaaaassss!!
Proselytization is the problem, at least in my eyes, for myself personally
I am trying to figure out what I think and how I understand this reality, as soon as someone else tries to tell me that they know what's best for me they are either wrong, dumb, or not taking enough things into consideration.
I want to listen to them, and steel Man their argument as best as I possibly can and then I will try and fully integrate whatever it is they are saying to the best of my ability, but at the end of the day what is going on in my brain is mine, not theirs, and if they can't understand that then I do not need to let them in
You're right, don't let anyone tell you what to think. It all has to make sense to you to accept whatever the outcome is. Yes there are many people that just don't know any better and some never will. Those are the ones that are told what to think and how to think. So congrats on being an independent thinker.
@@youcamp132 thanks man, it's taken a long time to get here and it still feels like the beginning of the journey you know? But I love it, everyday I get to rebuild and grow this thing and iterate the process and fix my mistakes, they're not even mistakes anymore you know? It's all just learning opportunities and I have all the time in the world now to build and iterate and help however I can to possibly try and provide other people a platform and the space for them to do the same thing too if they want 💜🥳🐱
@@VapidVulpes I'm glad you're finding your way and enjoying it. Ya honestly since I dumped all that I've been a better person overall and the paranoia is gone of wondering of someone was watching me in bed. 😅
@@youcamp132 What's your scientific explanation for our universe?
I'll definitely consider it!
@@20july1944 Ha, I don't have one. Although quantum scientists think the universe doesn't have a choice but exist. I'm fine with that though it would be cool to know more. I just don't think my invisible magic friend did it. That's not the slightest bit fulfilling. And even cooler is the idea of the multiverse. Check out Sean Carroll's book Something Deeply Hidden if you're interested. Not all physicists agree but it's an intriguing thought.
As someone who's been both believer and atheist, I agree that science claims to know things it doesn't, nor can ever prove. This is hubris and undermines science itself.
Science makes no such claims. Scientism however, does.
_science claims to know things it doesn't, nor can ever prove_
It actually doesn't.
Being open to a question doesn't entail a completely neutral position. I'm comparably skeptical of claims of deities as I am that of leprechauns, unicorns, and vampires. The question of theology isn't sufficiently qualitatively different to justify a different approach than that of any other claim that can't be disproved with certainty. While its far from universally true, most atheists acknowledge that they don't hold certainty that no gods (in the most expansive use of that term) exist - most seem to use the definition of 'atheist,' as a _lack_ of a belief in a deity, not a denial of the expansive case.
Are you sure you're going to die, Brett?
@@20july1944 100% certain? No. There are potential advancements in longevity or 'brain uploading' that could enable my consciousness to continue indefinitely. But pragmatically, yes, I'm highly confident that I will at some point in the not too distant future.
@@brettlemoine1002 Good.
Do you know any physics, such as how a star works?
@@20july1944 In detail, no. In broad strokes (fusion of lighter elements leading to heavier elements until iron is reached) yes.
@@brettlemoine1002 Good, I can only reason with people who know at least some science because God's existence is a science question (as are all questions of reality) even if it can't be definitively resolved with available science.
Are you aware that the sun consumes a few million tons of mass every second?
The man being interviewed is instantly recognizable as being philosophically far more intelligent than any atheist because he acknowledges that atheists attempt to assert more insight than they actually possess and in doing so - overstep the boundaries of their claims. He knows that atheism is merely a belief/claim that no gods of any kind exist and that agnosticism is more representative of a "lack of belief" than atheism ever has been or will be. He understands that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive.
Sure do think your "atheism is merely a belief" bit of ignorance hits others as meaningless.
@@keithrelyea7997 Is that supposed to be a coherent sentence?
@@glennmcdonnell8375 Atheism asserts that no gods exist.
Agnosticism asserts that it is not even possible to know whether or not any gods exist.
These views are incompatible. Thus they are mutually exclusive.
And no, I won't accept the historical revisionist attempt to redefine atheism as a so-called "lack of belief" so you can forget all that because it's not going to work on me.
Literally every single thing you've asserted there is completely wrong:
"The man being interviewed is instantly recognizable as being philosophically far more intelligent than any atheist because he acknowledges that atheists attempt to assert more insight than they actually possess and in doing so - overstep the boundaries of their claims." What utter rubbish. This poor victim of indoctrination has been left vulnerable to all forms of nonsense, he literally has no clue what even he thinks or believes, let anyone making baseless assertions, like yours, on behalf of a group of people whose only commonality is atheism. You really do need to try and grasp the very basics here. Atheism literaly means 'no belief in god/s' and that's it. There are no "claims" to "overstep the boundaries". Surely, you must be able to comprehend that much at least, it's a pretty simple concept?
"He knows that atheism is merely a belief/claim that no gods of any kind exist". Again, atheism, by it's very definition, is the LACK of belief, it can't be a belief, how can you not understand that? It is refutation of the claim made, that is not a claim, is it. Again, pretty simple stuff here, you need to be getting this basic stuff right.
"agnosticism is more representative of a "lack of belief" than atheism ever has been or will be." Oh boy. You really don't even know the difference between atheism and agnosticism, do you? Atheism: A = without + theism = belief. Therefore, Atheism = without belief. Agnostic: A = without + gnostic = knowledge. Therefore, Agnostic = without knowledge. So no, agnosticism really isn't "more representative of lack of belief" than the actual word used to define a lack of belief. Do you see how utterley stupid your statement is? They are completely different words with completely different meanings and they are evidently mutually exclusive. As a result, you can also have agnostic thiests and gnostic atheists. Get it?
"He understands that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive." If he does think* that then he's an idiot who clearly doesn't understand* anything. As I've already had to explain to you above, they are not mutually exclusive. You'd have to be deliberately dumb to think they are.
@@glennmcdonnell8375 you don't accept it because you're in denial. You want to bury your head in the sand and pretend everything should be as you desire it to be. You don't want to face reality - you would rather live in your own little world. But the fact remains that atheism does in fact assert that there are no gods and this is historically proven to be the case. Sorry but the evidence in this matter is not in your favor.
He completely mischaracterises and strawmans the "militant atheist" in this clip.
Not really. In fact he was quite generous in not doing so.
He could have mentioned how under atheism over a hundred million people were murdered in the past century alone.
Translation :
Waaah! He stepped on my toes mommy !!
All the “ agnostic atheist “ nonsense has ever been really been about is one day one of the smarter “ new atheists” realized that “ hey! If I’m going to be an atheist - a thing I really really WANT to be - then I logically have to have a half-way plausible reason to be one and I not only don’t have one , I can’t even think of one ! Oh my!” Another new atheist says “ No problem “ and reaches up in his butt and pulls this out “ Just call yourself an ‘agnostic atheist’ - that way you can be what you want to be without being logical about it .”
….and the rest lives in the annals of “ The History of Illogicality .”
Depends on the god in questions. Some gods such as the Christian god are logically contradictory and can in fact be proven not to exist.
Really, Mal? Do you know the Christian narrative enough to discuss it as history?
seems to me this man wants to invent a god (if it did exist) that he personally thinks would
be worthy of his worship.. wouldnt that be nice... but it doesnt take too much effort to realize
its all made up...
I agree with him regarding Huxley and love this quote..."Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not."
- Thomas Henry Huxley
It is one thing to quote Huxley (an avowed atheist), but certainly nowhere near sufficient to support an intelligent case even for Agnosticism.
Anti-theology is one thing (limited though it is), but using that term to 'wish away'
the amazing complexity of all that exists, (instead of nothing at all) amounts to little more than delusional thinking.
Science may be able to construct theories as to how things might function, but when it comes to why anything exists at all, then it flounders and remains more than a little perplexed---since science does not (cannot) admit the inclusion of a supreme creative mind--we call God.
Atheism is the state of being an atheist, and an atheist doesn't believe in a god or gods. Nothing more, nothing less. Please stop trying to couple that non-belief with some action, behavior, or thought. It's not fair to those of us who simply don't believe. Atheism says absolutely nothing about who I am or what kind of person I am. It only tells you what I'm not.
Too bad you’re talking about AGNOSTICISM.
@@natashatomlinson4548 No. I'm not agnostic. Perhaps you should look at the definition of agnosticism. Non-belief doesn't question the existence of a god because It's not a question.
@@natashatomlinson4548 By the way. I really really like your avatar.
I’m agnostic, I believe there’s a divine power that we don’t really know about and every theory and religious view on him/her/ or it may have some accuracy but a lot of inaccuracies. We know how the big bang happened but we don’t know why it happened, what reason did it occur. Why did it happen, not how it happened. I believe life has purpose and we’re here for a reason. However my views on religion and why I’m agnostic is because every religion in history has been used as an excuse to commit horrible atrocities. The holocaust, the crusades, the 9/11 attacks, I can go on and on. I don’t believe in what half the bible says because 1/2 of it is really fucked up while the other half such as the 10 commandments gives humans an ideal outline on what humanity is all about and that we should treat one another in peace and harmony. I believe good people are selfess while bad people are selfish.
Off the bat this conversation doesn’t understand the difference between the words agnostic and atheist! They describe different things! Knowledge vs belief!
@Chris Taylor You're as bad as they are at asserting subjective meanings when we already have actual dictionary definitions, thanks.
@@MrJKJKJK1974 nothing he said is "subjective" but thanks for demonstrating you don't know what these words mean. We all have access to a dictionary. The difference is you appear to lack the intellectual capacity to understand what the words in the dictionary actually mean.
@Chris Taylor Again, we already have definitions for those words, we don't need your subjective and baseless interpretations, thanks. You're as bad as they are, possibly worse. You can look up definitions for free, online, save you wasting everyone's time making up your own to suit your narrative.
@Chris Taylor My position is a gnostic atheist. You don't need to put that into any nonsense 'philosophical' anything, the words already have definitions, specifically to ensure there is no subjective 'interpretations'. Sheesh.
@Chris Taylor The trouble with your definitions is that they're incorrect. If I subscribe to your c), that doesn't make me an atheist, as you go on to align it in the next paragraph. An atheist doesn't believe in gods, it's not a question of not being able to 'justify whether or not a god exists', it's a lack of FAITH. You can JUSTIFY atheism with knowledge, your definitions are simply wrong.
I keep on saying this to you and you keep on ignoring it, you can't just make up your own definitions for words and use your own interpretation of what a combniation of those words mean.
And putting the word 'philosophical' doesn't help either, that word is meaningless in reality, that's why philosophy isn't a science and why smart people ignore it.
The question, "what if we can prove" or "no place left to hide" is not a fair question. We'll never get there. Everyone agrees that they would change their mind in the face of real proof, but no one does, no one accepts the truth.
And what is this truth of which you speak?
“Your belief in me, or lack there of, has no bearing on my existence.”
Your belief in things, based on actual or lack of relevant evidence, has complete bearing upon the type of rational person you are (or aren’t.)
“Your belief in god, or lack there of, has no bearing on god's existence, or lack there of.”
There, I fixed it for you. Don't forget those aren't the words of god, those are the words of a man claiming to represent god and what god said. We have a legal term for this. Heresay.
Robert Kuhn, I think the right approach to the question of god would be this:
We don't know God directly.
God is an abstract concept.
The way Humanity has known or interacted with God is through Religion and Religion also has "Books" of God.
The best way, in my opinion, to approach the question of God is through studying the Truths in Religion.
We know, that all human religions have serious flaws and if a Perfect Intelligent God had created the religion, there would certainly be no such contradictions. So, flaws in religion in fact build a strong case against the existence of God.
On the contrary, we have scientific explanations on how we were created and how religion was created which offers superior arguments then those of religion if we speak scientifically.
Really? What scientific explanations do we have for how we were created?
"...I want something that's real, even if it makes me feel lousy."
Why? Is there an advantage to "reality"? An evolutionary advantage? Or, if it doesn't matter that it makes you feel lousy, is there a disadvantage to "reality"?
God can't be disproved, but it can be shown to be unnecessary, unparsimonious and irrelevant!
People forget that the letter "A" means "One" (which is why Google changed it's corporate name to Alphabet) and that the meaning of the word "Theism" derived from Theos/Torah/Turiya means "Consciousness". In other words. There is only One Consciousness. We call it the Universe but it is Self really. As to the purpose for all this, the world and life? It can be found if One reads between the lines of Genesis 2: 18. It is not good to be alone. The meaning of Life is Love.
What a load of nonsense
Indeed, God is all there is, God is both the creator and sustainer of everything. We are just not able to comprehend the infinite nature of God.
@@electricmanist If you are not able to comprehend it, then how do you use it as your explanation?
Do you have anything to back up your beliefs other than your own thoughts and indoctrination?
@@scottymeffz5025 Oh 'indoctrination' ! What a harsh word indeed.
You cannot know my experiences, let alone it seems understand them, so maybe it's not so much a question of beliefs, but experiences.
Other people's experiences (not your own) are always questionable-- and this applies to all areas of life. Particularly NDE's
Any amount reading about the experiences of others, can only go so far, since these are personal accounts. However, taken as an indication, (and echoed by those of many other people,) you might do well to investigate (read) NDE experiences, and decide whether these thousands of experiences allow you to enter into a new understanding of life and its purpose. Alternatively, you can remain a lonely voice still questioning all aspects (and meaning) of life
RUclips NDE's (Near Death Experiences.
@@electricmanist You may have found it harsh but it was not meant that way. It was a simple question if you have anything beyond the average to assist your claim.
.
NDE's do not prove god but I can understand how they could make someone who experienced one believe in god. A common background story is a simple enough explanation for me that many of them are similar. Buddhists see their faith proved by NDEs. Christians see their faith & Muslims see theirs.
There appears to be no underlying truth to be discovered there so far but we should of course keep looking.
I have a question for you... What new understanding of life and its purpose did you find through your NDE that was unavailable to you prior to that experience?
One final point... are you aware of how condescending you come across? Calling me a lonely voice, you have meaning but I don't. I feel like someone who had truly discovered something deeper would not feel the need to be an asshole while discussing their experience.
I agree that we can't disprove an extremely nebulous, abstract kind of god. However, I do think it's entirely possible to disprove - or at least make a strong case against - the specific gods of various theistic traditions.
Isaiah 45:7 "I create all that is light and all that is dark, I bring forth all that is good and all that is evil; I, thy Lord, God, do all these things."
God, according to the Bible, is random chance.
I can live with that, but no religion I know of stands by this biblical view.
I am agnostic.
The existence of God is the biggest reality, both for the Theists and for the Atheists.
Positing a greater complexity to explain the lesser is logically unsound!
"We stand between the candle and the star", is a better version of what St. Augustine said, IMO. But I grew up with science fiction, as well as religion.
A very sensible thinker.
If there was a Christian God would there be any agnostics? Consider:
The punishment for not believing is infinite torture. The reward for believing is infinite pleasure.
And yet a supposedly benevolent God obfuscates his own existence, at least to those capable of critical thought.
That would imply this God is indifferent to suffering.
Which in turn implies he's not benevolent.
Moral Relativism is the answer to why do we have morals.
I feel like this is kind of silly, Athiests might be modernly kind of rude but the power religion has held and (still holds) over power, wealth, government, systems of belief, philosophy, all far outweigh athiests being kind of annoying online surely
They're always the poor, persecuted victims...
Over a hundred million people have been murdered under atheist governments.
@@mugsofmirth8101 Which is a) absolutely nothing to do with atheism and b) an insignificant fraction of the billions murdered under religious governments. Did you have a point?
@@MrJKJKJK1974 you must be a lunatic
@@xstatic-ow5mz And you an ignoramous
1:45. 'If those atheists are really talking like that, like they know FOR CERTAIN, ----they are actin just like those believers.'
Yup. But I rarely take seriously what theists say about atheists. Even when I don't _know_ it's complete bullshit, that still seems the best bet. :)
Anyone interested in arguments for atheism can check out Felipe Leon's blog. There you can find a compilation of over 100 arguments for atheism.
It's very fortunate the video has been uploaded today - in Catholic readings for today we find these verses from the Gospel:
"Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the one through whom they occur.
It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin."
Luke ch. 17
Mr Vernon worries that God could send people who struggle with their orientation to hell. God doesn't send anyone to hell for how they feel - only for what they do. Mr Vernon, a former Anglican priest, should know that very well.
You do know that sin doesn't even exist, right? If you don't believe in it, it ceases to exist - just like your god. What a disgusting god to folllow if it would send anyone to hell, you should be ashamed of yourself spouting that revolting lie.
I've been dead three times. There is nothing. It's as if you never existed. Being brought back is kind of a shock in that it appears someone just turned the clock forward for that time. Nothing to be afraid of. Honestly it was the easiest thing I've ever done or experienced.
The current conception of Hell didn’t exist until Judaism was merged with Roman-Greco mythology, producing “Christianity”.
@@TheWayOfRespectAndKindness I think Hell, came from the Norse goddess of the underworld with the same name. Probable brought by the Romans. Too coincidental for me.
So god expects people to live their entire lives without the love of another human ?
One of the best representations of agnosticism so far, or perhaps ever.
And one of the worst representations of atheism so far, or perhaps ever
My best arguments for atheism, before watching this video. I'm not even going to bother disproving an omnipotent god. Everyone knows the "rock too heavy to lift" argument anyway.
1. My argument against a powerful but not omnipotent, personal god who watches over us, offers heaven or hell, makes things fair and just in the end, and potentially interferes with human affairs.
Man is a fragile ego thing whose mental health is driven by wishful thinking. The only reason he believed in god in the first place is because the universe is unfair and so he wanted some arbiter to somehow make it fair, and because death is the end, and makes transient existences in many metrics pointless, and he wants something to make it not so. And so he chooses to believe in such a thing because he's an egotistical baby in denial, despite there never being evidence that should have led him to actually believe in such a thing to begin with. He has filled his desire for god, with belief in god. But humans are not powerful beings and are unable to make something real just by having faith in it or desire for it.
2. My argument against a conscious agent having created the universe.
The overwhelming majority of phenomena that occur in the universe are inanimate. Look into space with a space telescope. Detect any interesting signals? Yes? Is it aliens. Don't bet on it. It's probably an exploding star, or a heated gas cloud, or a spinning asteroid reflecting the sun. Sure, shuffling around on the surface of the Earth, you're likely to stumble upon a beaver dam or a spider web, or of course a manmade structure, but all the marginally conscious agents that created these things are extremely weak and pathetic and way out of the weight class of the universe. Look at phenomena off the surface of the Earth and every time there's a chance for it to have been a result of a conscious agent, it has failed. Percival Lowell thought he saw canals on Mars. He imagined Martians performing irrigation of agriculture. There could have turned out to be life on Mars. But there wasn't. Nor anywhere else. Look everywhere but Earth and it's a sterile universe where things happen just by the mindless interactions of physical laws. Because of the overwhelming majority of phenomena with inanimate causes in the universe, it is overwhelmingly likely that the beginning of the universe as well, did not have an intelligent agent supervising over it either.
3. My argument against a "perfect", or "ultimate" conscious being that cannot be matched or surpassed.
Consciousness cannot exist without change, or else there is no passage in time with which to define the consciousness. Perhaps a computer program can be conscious while running, but it is not while it is simply written into a CD or hard drive. As such, if god has the trait that anything else is inferior to it, then since in order to be conscious, it must change with time, if it were to change, it would be different from its past self and therefore god in two different moments in time would set up a contradiction as one would be different from the other and therefore they both would need to be inferior to the other. So the only thing that can be unmatchably perfect or ultimate is something that is not conscious, like a CD, hard drive, or book.
I'll bet maybe #1, but nothing in the video will be anything like 2 or 3.
How do you explain living organisms?
@@20july1944 Living organisms that are conscious exists , therefore, there must be a conscious creator.
Science doesn't have to disprove god as it doesn't have to disprove all silly claims that humans come up with.
God is Santa Claus for grown ups.
@@TurinTuramber yep, kind of an ultimate argument for why to follow exactly their group's moral rules... if you don't you're below them or just subhuman and prone to god's (aka their) wrath. How poor is that!
@@patrickfle9172 Religious people masquerade as good people but need to invent up a supernatural superpowerful alien to threaten their immortal souls with eternal torture just to do the right things in life.
The Atheists decides freely.
@@patrickfle9172 If you have a scientific alternative explanation for the universe, I'd say you win that argument.
@@20july1944 I don't need an explanation, am totally fine without everything having a meaning. I don't need to elevate myself by believing some esotheric entity made me 🤷🏻♂️
This is not accurate at all about atheism. I have points of view that I feel are the most accurate and I test them with constant success . I am on a personal endeavor to bring awareness to this. I'd like to talk about it.
Put God aside,
Let science explain, describe, control and modify TIME first.
_that affirmatively support the truth claims of atheism._
What truth claim? Atheism isnt the claim that there is no god. It is the lack of a believe in god.
Agnosticism, whether you believe in God or not, is an emotional, not rational/logical, position. The use of the word 'God' is a semantic trick used by the faithful to muddy the waters that has become so ingrained in the dialog that few stop and consider that con.
'God' is just a subjective attribution, a title and an ill defined abstract concept... it is self evident that what or who gets subjectively attributed the title is in the eye of the beholder... the category called 'god', like the category of 'beauty' is so full of subjective and contradictory contributions that an objectively real God is impossible.
Once both sides break free from the con, that is 'God', we might be able to have a logical and rational discussion about the objectively real possibility of some creator/manager being having a causal relationship with the observable Universe or with individual minds. But even if there is irrefutable objective evidence for such a being it would only be 'God' to those who would choose to attribute it that title and defer to it the subjugation such a title entails...
There could be a god that created all of this but that doesn’t mean it cares about anyone. Separate “creator” from religion and science could find a way there.
Science might try to explain how something works, but never why it exists in the first place. We have to look (consider) something (force) behind (creating) all that exists.
I think I may be an Igtheist. I'd like to see a coherent definition for what a god is before I can even think of what evidence would prove one's existence
I used to be igtheist at one point. Then I came to accept the fact that there are many different conceptions of god depending on what theology is being discussed.
@@mugsofmirth8101 That's exactly my point. There is no coherent definition for what a "god" even is. How can you prove (or disprove) something exists if you don't know what you're talking about
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y "if you don't know what you're talking about" this is usually not the case. And if it is the case then all it would take is a simple question: "which god specifically are we talking about?" So long as that question is answered then the conversation can proceed and there is no need or excuse to adhere to a position of igtheism.
@@mugsofmirth8101 you find me 3 believers in any "god" who agree on the ALL of the characteristics of that god. I don't think you can
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y that's like saying one can't have a conversation about anything at all because we all perceive the world differently and therefore because of the fine nuances in the perceptions of each and every individual and how tastes and colors may be perceived with slight difference for each person that no conversation is worth having and no issue is worth analyzing. This is a very pedantic and nihilistic position and it ultimately leads nowhere. Have fun with that. Oh and there are people who agree on ALL characteristics of a deity - just ask any theologian and at least 3 of his avid followers.
Excuses used to accept religion where there is no basis for it. The answer to religion. The universe was created last Thursday
I wish this guest understood anything about atheism. There are no entailments to atheism and no certainty. Atheism is just packing belief gods exist, not being a theist. It is an orthogonal, not mutually exclusive, position to agnosticism. Many atheists are also agnostic.
It is from this simple and basic misunderstanding about atheism that this first goes on to make so many other incorrect statements. I think this video goes to show there is a lot of educating atheists still need to do to fix misunderstanding about themselves.
The existence of God arguement is more or less based on speculation so it should be discarded. At least science is practical, and much as it's yet to conclusively disprove the believe in a god, at least it's using methods that are universally acceptable.
Very interesting! A former priest, and a former atheist, comfortable admitting that some religion may actually be good for the human condition. I'm not sure what that religion would look like, but I am open to exploring the question.
I reject basic objective evolutionary logic because it doesn’t “feel good” to my personal experience….. WHAT?! Hahahah.
Such folly, something cannot be said to exist until such time as it's disproven. Atheists are beholden to the logic and reason that others would abandon in place of imagination.
Absolutely correct.
*some atheists are beholden... Some have just never been indoctrinated.
OK -- what does logic and reason tell you about the intial conditions of reality? Has there always been something OR did some first thing come from nothing?
I guess you agree with me it is the former?
@@20july1944 My rationale tells me that I don't know the "initial conditions of reality" and neither do you.
Your trite something from nothing argument will lead to an infinite regress of creators, is entirely irrational and worse of all it solves exactly nothing. The alternative is the universe is eternal. I would add that eternity is a very human conception.
@@TurinTuramber The universe can't be eternal because it would then be in heat death because that's what happens to matter/energy.
That's pretty basic science.
the question is there a god is irrelevant.
because it's not in our universe governed by physical laws.
ppl just dont catch that all the matter including our brains moves by physical laws and there's no alternative way of the movement.
so there're no miracles and free will.
the god could be outside our universe but that doesnt make any difference for us.
we are gods here whether for good or bad whether we like that or not
Very shallow individual. Compare this little "man" with Graham Oppy (an atheist) or Peter Van Inwagen (a Christian). Who should you prefer to listen to?
PATA - Theorotical Agnostic Practical Atheist is optimal position.
It is if you don't care about your welfare, sure!
@@20july1944
...in what way would holding that position harm your welfare?
It's unfair that science is burdened with explaining religious beliefs. It wastes the time of science and never satisfies the needs of theists. Maybe it would be best if each were left to itself.
Well, what should we base our policy making on? Science? Religion A? Religion B?
I am possibly agnostic because God is SUCH a broad term. How could I deny ALL which that could mean or POSSIBLY entail? To me that is arrogance. Or at the very least, shortsightedness.
There are so many comic book characters too. Maybe some variant of Batman really exists.
@@Tom_Quixote I'll take that as a nonsensical reply right?...
@@pasquino0733 That wasn't a nonsensical reply, but you probably missed what he was getting at. Do you believe any comic hero is real? Probably not. So why are you confident in not believing in any comic book hero but not god? It is actually far more likely that a comic book hero could exist than a god. In fact I know there used to be a dude in a batman costume that was helping people out.
@@hermaeusmora424 I'll plead the ignorance of Socrates in lacking both your assertions and your certainties then... Lets go back to my first premise, "God is SUCH a broad term". Tell me how does Baruch Spinoza's undertaking of God equate with a fictional superhero? What about the Logos of Heraclitus and then the Stoics? Or Brahman in the Upanishads? Or the Medievsal Scholastic's understanding of apophatic / negative theology? Or, if it quacks and sounds like a duck... materialistic monism is the premise of science. ie Is the totality of existence: all powerful, all "knowing" and all everywhere? I am not talking here about the God of the Bible. I am talking about the full breadth of what has at times been termed the philosophers God. Is the universe / multiverse a unity? Then there IS a totality, if we could see it all. Surely it works together as a whole. Then why is that whole not God? That's not an assertion. Its a question. Both to you and myself.
Thinking about some of the ideas people have about God, such as Christians and muslims, and how they argue about which book is by God wnd is God's true word, so too seeing people walk around a square rock all day or kissing rock walls thinking God has anything to do with that makes me respect atheism more than religion.
There's a Hulusi quote i think: there is no God but Allah. The All. The moment you apply an idea or even an image to God, that is not God.
Literally, the people closes to God take no part in religion, no part in duality or debate about God, because anything applied to God is not God.
Mankind's efforts to understand/comprehend the Infinite creative power/intelligence, (we term God) is rather like an ant trying to comprehend nuclear physics.
So it is with aspects of various religions, which endeavor to restrict/limit the infinite (God) to human comprehension.