This is a good guy I'm an atheist and was not an "anti religious guy" & after listening to him I think what I was I would love to be continuing what I am ! :)
very good points. good talk. unlike some aspects of other videos about atheism this one does not knock down religion and call it "fake" and "childish" it shows us the non religious part of religion if that makes any sense
Eric, that is one of the most refreshingly reasonable comments I've read in some time. As an atheist/humanist/skeptic, I'm sometimes asked how I can be a non-believer. I say that I'm very much a believer -- in the things you mentioned, Eric, and others such as kindness, curiosity, imagination, duty, responsibility, wit. I agree, too, that it's fascinating to delve into ideas concerning the transcendental, the supernatural, the mystical. Thank you for your rational voice in this chaotic din.
This entire Talk is based off a misunderstanding of "Atheism 1.0" as he might call it. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins similarly believe that atheism is a "starting point" and that Christmas is fun (it's a pagan ritual after all). If you look into Hitchens at all, he absolutely loves the countless pieces of art and architecture inspired by religion. The whole video simplifies the views of the more well-known modern atheists in order for the speaker's views to seem more new than they are
Yess... Dawkins Hitchens and Dennett are big appreciator of such a kind of art. Secondly he(the speaker) says he loves to rely on Bible to get doses of morality. He must have not read Dawkins who says morality evolves over generation and changes from time to time. For an instance, 500 yrs ago, for a Christian, to be anti Semitic was part of his morality... Today it is eradicated and seen as immoral.... He needs some serious reads of books of these authors....
This might be a good talk on 'How religion can improve the way we teach people'. Use the methods of religious indoctrination but to propagate knowledge and guidance, instead of superstition and prejudice.
have you ever tried shooting a fish in a barrel? its hard as fuck! u got light distortion and those fuckers dont wanna b shot! they r swimmin around like madmen ^^
Most believers do not "fly plane into building" in the name of this entity. but many non-radicals would use the same "entity" to argue against the use of condoms in Africa, against stem cell research, against gay marriage, promote creation pseudoscience,apply new legislature to promote a specific theological view...so yes, i my opinion it does matter when one's belief is used to promote a specific agenda
wow he articulated a need that I've been trying to understand for months. we have this communal need but many of us demand truth that religion just isn't giving us.
Religion is efficient in spreading its message because religion has ONE truth. In the modern world without religion we know there isn't one truth, we will never get to this truth. Without religion can we really say what is "good"? What's more the science will never get to give us the whole truth. That's why using religious methods for education is not good. In our modern world we need to know that nothing is really stable.
Actually, if you were going to do game updates. Believers as they are currently would be more around the alpha. So something like 0.0002? Or maybe Humanity 1.3.4.
You have a misunderstanding regarding quantum theory. It is not an assumption. Quantum theory in no way demonstrates universal consciousness. That's just a thing people who don't know what it is to be scientifically literate say. Like Deepak. It's a fun little thought experiment but only as scientifically valid as bermuda triangle theories. That's the truth. It is not an insult.
No, quantum theory does show that the universe has some sort of consciousness. The best example is the electron gun experiment and how electrons behave differently when observed or not observed.
Ok... what other explanations can you think of, to explain this observation? It is always worth searching further, rather than stopping at the first possibility.
So he is saying that we don't need religion, yet we need it? It seems like he is trying to diss religion while saying that religion is right. Atheism and Atheism 2.0 are both religions then. You have a specific belife about God and you obtain knowledge from people who are smarter than you or who whe influenced by God. So it goes to show that we all need someone to guide us.
I see things different than you, I understand the implications of beliefs, or to believe, which is essentially a type of "not knowing", so, building my life on ignorance doesn't make sense to me. For me to make contact with Reality implies me being alive, I feel happy when I get to know something Real, this is life being dedicated to what is true and meaningful. I can see awesome implications that only are possible in a Reality of no sentient origin, the one that so far we seem to have.
If you think your ability to problem solve led you to your conclusions regarding quantum theory then I have no where near the "ability for problem solving" that you do. That is certain. I make no assumptions. It is you who assumes to know when, in fact, we are ignorant.
In fact, no, quantum theory doesn't prove the universe thinks. But! It is a fun thought experiment and is ripe for some compelling sci-fi, that's it for now though. I mean on some levels if you understand WE are the universe, which we very much are, at least partially. Then the universe does think in a way but that's just us thinking. Not really the fabric of space time thinking in and of itself though. Just saying. Got to remain intellectually honest with ourselves :) Good day :D
I guess you have no ability for problem solving. There are these things called specific references that can fit well within a character limit. Again, nice assumptions of me that are totally incorrect.
I'm sorry to break this to you but no, it doesn't. That experiment in no way demonstrates any form of universal consciousness. It's a fun thought but that's all it is. I don't have room to go into detail. I will part with this advice... Don't listen to people like Deepak Chopra and don't believe everything you hear on a science documentary, especially a speculation piece. Focus more on the scientific journals themselves and you'll fare better with your understanding. Keep learning. Best of luck.
Your just saying how good religion is. You want to adopt religion but not call it religion and remove its fundamental part it. So contradictory. Research religion but reject it and adopt it. There is a reason why secularism is inferior to religion you can't just get the best of both worlds. Go follow a religion if you want everything from it.
Saying you're agnostic isn't a middle ground. It doesnt address what you believe. "Gnosticism" addresses what you know. For example: an agnostic atheist says they don't know, but they don't believe either. One can identify as an agnostic theist. Someone who says they don't know, but they believe.
That being said..... if you don't have an active belief.... you're an atheist ----- atheism = "without belief" Being an atheist doesn't mean you know god doesn't exist. It just means you don't believe the claims of a god based on the available evidence.
Question, why learn about how something/someone does not exist? Seems like a waste of time to me. Does it bother you that people believe in an entity that, at it's root, desires good actions and deeds from it's followers? Yes there are radicals that do ridiculous and wrong things "in the name of that entity", but one individual does not represent an entire enterprise.
Nope. Religion is a thing of the past. Atheists are highly intelligent and self-reflective. That's our Achilles heel. We are very independent. He's saying we need to be cultural and communal. Believers are sheep, thus communal.
There's a character limit. You know they have MIT and Stanford physics and math lectures for free on the internet now... You can go learn this stuff for yourself, instead of just parading around your ignorance and demand that people explain a PHD level subject in 350 characters.
that's self contradicting,, basically he claims to be atheist while he is trying to create a religion. He asks atheists to replicate all aspects of worship. So, if you admit the need to worship why you are atheist in the first place. that's funny.
Take to Eastern thoughts like Daosim, Zen, Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism & you'll stop being an atheist or a theist. You can then be as modern and scientific as you want to be, yet live a deeper life. This incessant talk of theism and atheism is too archaic.
Doubt is one of the most important aspects of science and education. How could you propose to sermon these??? We should help people to think for themselves! You are proposing to be atheist but keep acting like sheep. Terrible presentation...
My thought on the comments to this video: Never before has so much stupidity been expressed by to many for so little. Why do none of you understand there is a middle ground between misinformed and "bullshit" "dimwit". You don't need to jump to extremes just because you feel strongly about something, that is how terrorism happens. I am not saying you are terrorists but you overreaction is akin to that of revolutionaries and terrorists alike around the world.
thats a bit of an overstatement, doncha think? theres only 95 comments on this video, and only 6913 views. either you dont youtube like at all or your trying to overexadurate your statement. and even your statement is unfounded, as there are many comments agreeing with this video or at least have an intellectual response. unless of course you scrolled through ALL the comments and decided to vent because some people couldnt form an intellectual statement based on how they feel, which still doesnt illegitimate their statements as its how they feel and its their opinion.
Over exaggeration has always seemed like an odd term to me. The point of exaggeration is to portray something differently from how it actually is. Surely therefore over exaggeration is a contradiction because exaggeration by definition is not accurate or limited. You can not under exaggerate so it would make sense that over exaggeration could not exist. Nevertheless you are correct that my statement was exaggerated and my comparison of the comments to terrorism was indeed unfounded and vulgar. My "never before" point was an allusion to Churchill's speak commemorating the great bravery and sacrifice of the pilots in the battle of Britain. I am aware that relative to normal comment standards on youtube this video is abnormally intelligent and logical I just wanted to be loyal to the actual quote. I never said any comments were illegitimate, I just thought the way they expressed "how they feel" was unstructured and often unfounded. I admit this point may verge on hypocrisy when surrounded by my candid hyperbole but at least I expressed my point logically and said why I thought the comment were unfavourable. I hope this reply clears up some of your queries because a lot of what you said about my comment was entirely correct. Finally I would like to thank you for expressing your feeling about my post in a legible and logical manner and to wish you an enjoyable day.
"attracted to the moralistic-side ....." That makes one think that there are those whom are attracted to the opposite side of this. You can deject the existence of a God all you want.. Hell, I do. But denying their moralistic views will destroy civilized society. Good luck, fools.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Is it just me or the sound is only on tle left channel?
oh, i also thought it was just me....!
I got a momentary heartbreak, I thought my new earphones were gone
I got a momentary heartbreak, I thought my new earphones were gone
Same XD
This is a good guy
I'm an atheist and was not an "anti religious guy" & after listening to him I think what I was I would love to be continuing what I am ! :)
Wouldn't the non-religious parts of religion just be human and not part of religion?
very good points. good talk. unlike some aspects of other videos about atheism this one does not knock down religion and call it "fake" and "childish" it shows us the non religious part of religion if that makes any sense
Eric, that is one of the most refreshingly reasonable comments I've read in some time. As an atheist/humanist/skeptic, I'm sometimes asked how I can be a non-believer. I say that I'm very much a believer -- in the things you mentioned, Eric, and others such as kindness, curiosity, imagination, duty, responsibility, wit. I agree, too, that it's fascinating to delve into ideas concerning the transcendental, the supernatural, the mystical. Thank you for your rational voice in this chaotic din.
I doubt this was intended since the sound on the beginning is also only on the left speaker...
This entire Talk is based off a misunderstanding of "Atheism 1.0" as he might call it. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins similarly believe that atheism is a "starting point" and that Christmas is fun (it's a pagan ritual after all). If you look into Hitchens at all, he absolutely loves the countless pieces of art and architecture inspired by religion.
The whole video simplifies the views of the more well-known modern atheists in order for the speaker's views to seem more new than they are
Yess...
Dawkins Hitchens and Dennett are big appreciator of such a kind of art.
Secondly he(the speaker) says he loves to rely on Bible to get doses of morality. He must have not read Dawkins who says morality evolves over generation and changes from time to time.
For an instance, 500 yrs ago, for a Christian, to be anti Semitic was part of his morality...
Today it is eradicated and seen as immoral....
He needs some serious reads of books of these authors....
The Audio is only on the left speaker... please fix this...
This might be a good talk on 'How religion can improve the way we teach people'. Use the methods of religious indoctrination but to propagate knowledge and guidance, instead of superstition and prejudice.
have you ever tried shooting a fish in a barrel? its hard as fuck! u got light distortion and those fuckers dont wanna b shot! they r swimmin around like madmen ^^
We just need philosophy thats all. Take out the deistic nonsense of religion and you get philosophy. The world needs philosophy, not religion.
It creates the affect that he is talking to you directly and not from multiple external speaks coming from different angles.
Most believers do not "fly plane into building" in the name of this entity. but many non-radicals would use the same "entity" to argue against the use of condoms in Africa, against stem cell research, against gay marriage, promote creation pseudoscience,apply new legislature to promote a specific theological view...so yes, i my opinion it does matter when one's belief is used to promote a specific agenda
Agreed very good talk :) Love someone who can see both sides without trying to convince that one is right over the other.
wow he articulated a need that I've been trying to understand for months. we have this communal need but many of us demand truth that religion just isn't giving us.
Classic, the world needs this.
If I didn't know better, I would say this guy is an enlightened Wiccan.
Religion is efficient in spreading its message because religion has ONE truth. In the modern world without religion we know there isn't one truth, we will never get to this truth. Without religion can we really say what is "good"?
What's more the science will never get to give us the whole truth.
That's why using religious methods for education is not good. In our modern world we need to know that nothing is really stable.
I think that this person is unique in his views.
I don't think humanity could survive another round of religious madness.
because, apparently, my comments are of low quality of deduction and socio-internatically unaccepted
Agnosticism is just not a popular word, is it?
He's a gem.
Actually, if you were going to do game updates. Believers as they are currently would be more around the alpha. So something like 0.0002? Or maybe Humanity 1.3.4.
On the subject of art, I think Marina Abramovic is actually is going in the direction he proposes. Check out Marina Abramovic institute.
The people in the comments are totally missing the point..
You have a misunderstanding regarding quantum theory. It is not an assumption. Quantum theory in no way demonstrates universal consciousness. That's just a thing people who don't know what it is to be scientifically literate say. Like Deepak. It's a fun little thought experiment but only as scientifically valid as bermuda triangle theories. That's the truth. It is not an insult.
No, quantum theory does show that the universe has some sort of consciousness. The best example is the electron gun experiment and how electrons behave differently when observed or not observed.
Ok... what other explanations can you think of, to explain this observation? It is always worth searching further, rather than stopping at the first possibility.
what bottom...?
So he is saying that we don't need religion, yet we need it? It seems like he is trying to diss religion while saying that religion is right. Atheism and Atheism 2.0 are both religions then. You have a specific belife about God and you obtain knowledge from people who are smarter than you or who whe influenced by God. So it goes to show that we all need someone to guide us.
I see things different than you, I understand the implications of beliefs, or to believe, which is essentially a type of "not knowing", so, building my life on ignorance doesn't make sense to me.
For me to make contact with Reality implies me being alive, I feel happy when I get to know something Real, this is life being dedicated to what is true and meaningful.
I can see awesome implications that only are possible in a Reality of no sentient origin, the one that so far we seem to have.
This guy is really cool and has excellent ideas. I actually kind of think he's handsome though he's bald lol
Atheism 2.0 is basically let me learn the principles (just incase)
If you think your ability to problem solve led you to your conclusions regarding quantum theory then I have no where near the "ability for problem solving" that you do. That is certain.
I make no assumptions. It is you who assumes to know when, in fact, we are ignorant.
you're right, i don't. can you explain?
In fact, no, quantum theory doesn't prove the universe thinks. But! It is a fun thought experiment and is ripe for some compelling sci-fi, that's it for now though. I mean on some levels if you understand WE are the universe, which we very much are, at least partially. Then the universe does think in a way but that's just us thinking. Not really the fabric of space time thinking in and of itself though. Just saying. Got to remain intellectually honest with ourselves :) Good day :D
I guess you have no ability for problem solving. There are these things called specific references that can fit well within a character limit. Again, nice assumptions of me that are totally incorrect.
welcome to the internet
I'm sorry to break this to you but no, it doesn't. That experiment in no way demonstrates any form of universal consciousness. It's a fun thought but that's all it is. I don't have room to go into detail. I will part with this advice... Don't listen to people like Deepak Chopra and don't believe everything you hear on a science documentary, especially a speculation piece. Focus more on the scientific journals themselves and you'll fare better with your understanding. Keep learning. Best of luck.
Your just saying how good religion is. You want to adopt religion but not call it religion and remove its fundamental part it. So contradictory. Research religion but reject it and adopt it. There is a reason why secularism is inferior to religion you can't just get the best of both worlds. Go follow a religion if you want everything from it.
So you have proven yourself ignorant by assuming I am ignorant.
I'm an agnostic...
Saying you're agnostic isn't a middle ground. It doesnt address what you believe. "Gnosticism" addresses what you know.
For example: an agnostic atheist says they don't know, but they don't believe either.
One can identify as an agnostic theist. Someone who says they don't know, but they believe.
That being said..... if you don't have an active belief.... you're an atheist ----- atheism = "without belief"
Being an atheist doesn't mean you know god doesn't exist. It just means you don't believe the claims of a god based on the available evidence.
Question, why learn about how something/someone does not exist? Seems like a waste of time to me. Does it bother you that people believe in an entity that, at it's root, desires good actions and deeds from it's followers? Yes there are radicals that do ridiculous and wrong things "in the name of that entity", but one individual does not represent an entire enterprise.
Nope. Religion is a thing of the past. Atheists are highly intelligent and self-reflective. That's our Achilles heel. We are very independent. He's saying we need to be cultural and communal. Believers are sheep, thus communal.
No. You explain why you would compare Atheism 2.0 with Scientology when you don't know what Scientology is. Use Google.
Why would you?
There's a character limit.
You know they have MIT and Stanford physics and math lectures for free on the internet now... You can go learn this stuff for yourself, instead of just parading around your ignorance and demand that people explain a PHD level subject in 350 characters.
Nice assumptions and total lack of an actual argument.
that's self contradicting,, basically he claims to be atheist while he is trying to create a religion. He asks atheists to replicate all aspects of worship. So, if you admit the need to worship why you are atheist in the first place. that's funny.
wait, how come i'm not getting dislikes?
but all i get from google is porn...
What quality
So in order to be an atheist 2.0 I need to be more like believers... That's may be because we believers are the next update, 3.0.
Take to Eastern thoughts like Daosim, Zen, Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism & you'll stop being an atheist or a theist. You can then be as modern and scientific as you want to be, yet live a deeper life. This incessant talk of theism and atheism is too archaic.
Prepare to be amazed! sent! lol
you must be a wizard then
Reply to this comment for scientific evidence for God.
Religion is a childish game tantamount to believing in fairies.
Doubt is one of the most important aspects of science and education. How could you propose to sermon these??? We should help people to think for themselves! You are proposing to be atheist but keep acting like sheep. Terrible presentation...
I know. Sounds convincing if you don't know what you are talking about though. :)
atheist 2.0: scientologist without a god
Nope. You don't know what Scientology is.
I will take the bait also
history channel
So, atheist need to be more like us (believers). Interesting.
←
Reply to this comment for a pm giving good scientific evidence for God.
Amaze me. :)
I guess this is the worst Ted speech I ever seen and very contracditory
My thought on the comments to this video: Never before has so much stupidity been expressed by to many for so little. Why do none of you understand there is a middle ground between misinformed and "bullshit" "dimwit". You don't need to jump to extremes just because you feel strongly about something, that is how terrorism happens. I am not saying you are terrorists but you overreaction is akin to that of revolutionaries and terrorists alike around the world.
thats a bit of an overstatement, doncha think? theres only 95 comments on this video, and only 6913 views. either you dont youtube like at all or your trying to overexadurate your statement. and even your statement is unfounded, as there are many comments agreeing with this video or at least have an intellectual response. unless of course you scrolled through ALL the comments and decided to vent because some people couldnt form an intellectual statement based on how they feel, which still doesnt illegitimate their statements as its how they feel and its their opinion.
Over exaggeration has always seemed like an odd term to me. The point of exaggeration is to portray something differently from how it actually is. Surely therefore over exaggeration is a contradiction because exaggeration by definition is not accurate or limited. You can not under exaggerate so it would make sense that over exaggeration could not exist. Nevertheless you are correct that my statement was exaggerated and my comparison of the comments to terrorism was indeed unfounded and vulgar. My "never before" point was an allusion to Churchill's speak commemorating the great bravery and sacrifice of the pilots in the battle of Britain. I am aware that relative to normal comment standards on youtube this video is abnormally intelligent and logical I just wanted to be loyal to the actual quote. I never said any comments were illegitimate, I just thought the way they expressed "how they feel" was unstructured and often unfounded. I admit this point may verge on hypocrisy when surrounded by my candid hyperbole but at least I expressed my point logically and said why I thought the comment were unfavourable.
I hope this reply clears up some of your queries because a lot of what you said about my comment was entirely correct.
Finally I would like to thank you for expressing your feeling about my post in a legible and logical manner and to wish you an enjoyable day.
damn! haha what a level headed response, i respect that
"attracted to the moralistic-side ....."
That makes one think that there are those whom are attracted to the opposite side of this.
You can deject the existence of a God all you want.. Hell, I do. But denying their moralistic views will destroy civilized society.
Good luck, fools.