What's the New Atheism? | Episode 1204 | Closer To Truth
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 июн 2020
- What are the arguments for atheism? If one hopes that God exists, they must listen to atheists and follow their arguments. If hope trumps reason one may be entombed in false belief. Featuring interviews with Michael Shermer, Alister McGrath, Keith Ward, Anthony A.C. Grayling, and Lawrence M. Krauss.
Season 12, Episode 4 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth 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.
#Atheism #Religion
I did not know this until a few years ago: in the first few centuries of the Roman empire, Christians who believed in Jesus the Christ ( and not the Roman deities ) were called "atheists."
John Brzykcy Simply semantics, it has little to no practical value. They were considered to be practicing heresy because they rejected established theology of the land. But we know they were stone cold theist. Emperor Constantine allowed Christianity to be recognized (& no longer be demonized; in large part because his mother {who he was extremely close to} was a devout Catholic; it’s good to have connections, such as a king for a son).
Later in the 4th century, Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the state’s official religion. “Astronomy” started off by the name “Astrology”.
As a Christian I actually find the new atheist slogan of "we just believe in one less god than you" pretty funny. It makes me think back to Justin Martyrs apologies where he explained a similar thing to the Romans. The only thing is I think it's quite a big jump to go from 1 to none.
@@readynowforever3676 Hey Ready... what do you mean by "stone cold theist?"
@@jakobbogale2350 Hey Jacob... What do you know about Justin Martyr? What did he believe?
@Stefano Portoghesi Your statements are interesting
I don't know if I'm old or new atheist.
When I was 11 years old in the 1960s I was a deeply religious boy. Like over the top, really. How can your creator not be the focus of your life?
I started catechism and was told to bring all my questions and they would be answered. I was excited.
I brought questions. They couldn't answer them. I spoke to adults and found out the bible is full of contradictions and worse. I asked about them and was told I was too young and couldn't understand. I should come back when I'm older.
It was obvious to me that my maturity wasn't the issue. I began to question everything and study other beliefs. Then the light came on and I was frightened... I had lost my faith. Suddenly, completely gone. I was sure it was ALL fake.
Now, after studying comparative religions and philosophy in college I'm completely convinced that religion is a tool of control.
Nothing more.
Religion is something to be resisted. Something to be opposed.
And I do. I respect your right to believe whatever you want but keep Religion Out of America's Politics, Laws and Schools!
Amen brother!
You are right on every point sir, except that America is based on religious control...the freedom of having a religion is as dangerous as the religion itself...
Religion is a control tool, okay, but what about spirituality? Have you ever experienced an alternate state of consciousness?
Ask yourself are you really 100% sure about your denial of there being a higher power? Ask yourself if you have searched everywhere and experienced many different altered states of conspicuousness? If your answer to any of these questions is no, then you sir need to keep looking. You might be far closer to what it is you are looking for than you think.
@@User-xw5mk If someone takes drugs and sees the wallpaper patterns shifting, are they actually moving?
* Our brains create an imperfect mental model of reality. (ie we don't perceive everything perfectly.)
* Drugs can improve or worsen this model.
* We can test it.
* With caffeine we've seen reaction time tests prove that the mental model is more precise in its fast reaction to stimuli.
* With alcohol we've seen controlled driving tests prove that it significantly worsen the mental model's ability to precisely navigate traffic cones.
So then what tests prove that the drugs you're talking about have improved the mental model? Personally I wouldn't be surprised if there were some objective improvements you could record (given the long history of drugs' role in some of our favorite artists/musicians), but I think you'll probably realize that we don't have any evidence indicating the brain is right about those spiritual experiences. (Personally I think "spirituality" is largely just people colorfully describing an emotional/euphoric experience. There's nothing supernatural about emotions/euphoria though, so this doesn't exactly prove the supernatural exists.)
Maj Magister You ask a very good question... and objectively, there is no way to tell if peoples transcendental ‘spiritual’ experiences (spontaneous, or as a result of meditation or psychedelics) are “real” or not. However, these experiences dramatically change people’s lives, through new perspectives and new awarenesses. In that sense they are very real. Psychedelics were used successfully for treating depression, alcoholism, fear of death in terminal patients and a range of other ills, and are being researched again (see www.scientificamerican.com/article/psychedelic-healing/ or maps.org/resources/psychedelic-bibliography ). Meditation brings about not only beneficial psychological changes, but measurable long term physical changes in the brain. These are real effects in real peoples lives.
I fully understand why atheism is so aggressive in the U.S. It is indeed a socio-political counter-movement caused by the "typical american religiosity", as it were. It's a kind of rebellion. Perfectly understandable from a European point of view.
Hey Jane.... I agree with you. But I think Jesus the Christ was also considered "a kind of rebellion" when he walked this earth.
Yes, American religiosity (e.g. the Christian evangelical movement) is so insane that many people throw the baby out with the bathwater. But Truth is perfectly rational and makes perfect sense. And I've got It - along with the cure for cancer and the answer to the coronavirus, just a "click" away on my RUclips channel - for that tiny minority of people who truly seek Truth.....
Christianity is no longer the default position in Europe. Europe has been essentially post-Christian since the end of WWII. The shameful behavior of churches collaborating with the fascists (Nazis and Franco) sealed the fate of Christianity there.
www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/21/christianity-non-christian-europe-young-people-survey-religion
@@publiusovidius7386 I agree with you. All I can say is try to not look at the "shameful behavior of churches..." and look instead to the life of Jesus the Christ. I think the victims of the Nazis have been welcomed by the open arms of Jesus.
Why do you think new atheism is strictly a American thing?
I live in Australia we had an open Atheist Prime Minister (Bob Hawke). If I remember correctly, nobody really put up a fuss about it. Actually, I think he was just one of many in Australian politics up to present day.
America is not so advanced
@@hillcresthiker INDEED not. sigh.
America had Puritans at the outset of their beginnings. They burned and enslaved native people. They occasional hung single women and single men, especially if they were property owners. For the two centuries +, they waged war on people they didn’t like. McCarthyism was a mainly Catholic backed movement. There are other eras in which they hunted down and persecuted people. The Prohibition, which has no European counterpart despite Temperance movements, was a Protestant led movement that was specifically aimed at Catholic masses and Catholic immigrants. The Irish as hopeless drunks was one of its stereotypes. These periodic attempts to control, make other people unhappy, to punish are seriously periodic problems. Unaffiliated may have to become an actual political party with a banner that extends to Atheists, Agnostics, & Former Attendees. Not just Margaret Atwood saw a problem. Heinlein did in the 1960s. He just never wrote stories about it but his Second Civil War was of a religious nature and concluded with people finding a new appreciation for separation of church and state. He did write descriptions and stated he wasn’t going to cover this era. As the 1960s was a great era for human freedom, I do think people would have thought he was nuts for writing dismal tales about what was never going to happen. Now, if he was still alive, he would be trendy.
@@hillcresthiker Oh, for crying out loud! You had America-hating Christian-and-whitey-baiting atheist Obama for eight years as well as fake-Christian serial rapist Bill Clinton before that. Now you've got demented fake-Catholic grifter Joe Biden. What more do you degenerate Christophobic freaks want?
I'm an unabashed atheist and find the idea of god(s) existing outside of the imaginations of their believers to be a complete non-starter in my world. That being said, I disagree with the shrillness on all sides and see _many_ common values across believers and non. I also find many (not all, but many) of the various origin stories humanity has used to provide meaning, as well as many of the cultural rituals used to phenomenologically connect these stories to our lives, to be quite beautiful and moving. I quite respect the more modern theologians who have had the intellectual integrity to honestly subject their beliefs to the crucible of science and skeptical thought (i.e. Ricouer, Tillich), even if I don't necessary agree with their conclusions.
I still _quite_ enjoy CTT (though I prefer the "Cosmos. Consciousness. Meaning." tagline, personally). Aside from ESP (which doesn't fit in any of those categories), I often enjoy and deeply appreciate the obvious thought that went into many of these discussions.
Hey John... your viewpoints are interesting. John in Florida
AllSeeingEye ofGod
Give it up it doesn’t work. You’re trying to sell a scam . There’s no evidence for your imaginary friend.
What does "non-starter in your world" even mean? lol I've wondered my entire life why some people view the imagination or a thought as something that is not real. To me, a thought is as real as a cup on my desk.
@AllSeeingEye ofGod I can tell you for 100% sure that no youtube video is ever going to "help you find, The Supreme Being, a.k.a. God-on-High". LOL The things you say and the way you act remind me of myself a decade ago. Careful what you believe in when no belief is the truly enlightened.
@AllSeeingEye ofGod evolution is not really " random " their are still a lot of underlying effects that we still don't understand.
Lawrence's take on this is so relevant!
m.ruclips.net/video/4RGizqsLumo/видео.html
There is a Lawrence Krauss shows a very clear example of the shrillness factor talked about. At first I really liked his talk about symbiotic tension between theologians and astrophysicists when exploring deep questions. Then he did what I call "drag in the mud" tactic, he gets to the "Stories" thing. I'll just say that, in Buddhism we didn't have editorial centralization like there is today. It's well known that lots of "stories" made their way in and just there's only the articulate of realized lamas that can comment on certain things. But overall, very quality, respectful disagreement here.
Yes, this is what I like most about Buddhism ☸️ the many different versions, the many tales that express it. Not crazy about Theravada or some small stufff Tibet puts out, still love the Dali Lama, but none of it matters in Buddhism ☸️. Different approaches are accept. One can shop around for what is needed or wanted. For me, Zen works best and I enjoy the koans. For someone it will be a Tibet custom. It makes no difference what they do. Invariably we have stories in common and quotes. Going in a different direction has no wrongness. Most people say keep to the Eightfold Path and that’s about it and it’s not even a rule. It’s just worth reading and thinking about.
Kuhn (at the end): "Hope is emotional. Reason is rational. Must the rational squeeze out the emotional?"
Apparently not in our species, as most people seem driven by emotion. But to get 'closer to truth', reason is hugely beneficial. ;)
It's why creation -- and not The Creator -- endows us with a frontal lobe *and* a limbic system: keeps the two of them with useful company, exchanging thoughts of desire with thoughts of responsibility on a regular basis.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say humans are in a pretty unique position to confirm or disconfirm that prediction.
Audio level is too low on the voice-over track.
It's surprising how bad the audio is sometimes on these videos for such a relatively (by RUclips standards) big production. I'd be expecting far superior audio over some guy recording in his spare room. But maybe having such a large scope for one video creates problems like these that smaller channels don't have to worry about so much.
Are you listening on a mobile device?
Try downloading an audio amplifier.
You are not missing anything of value mate ...
m.ruclips.net/video/4RGizqsLumo/видео.html
The video ends with a false dichotomy: should the rational squeeze out the emotional?
He seems to not see that he is emotional about rationality itself.
Suppose he wasn't emotional about rationality. This is like saying he doesn't care about rationality. He doesn't respect rationality. And yet he is alive, humans can only survive if they know how to use reason, and humans can only reason if they choose to and people can only choose to if they are aware of the consequences of using reason and of not using reason. But that's respect for reason. That's caring for reason.
What he is really putting up against each other is the emotion of respect for reason with his emotion of hope for god.
you don't need to be emotional about rationality. Rationality is proven as the best path available to understand the world. ITs a must.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Clearly you didn't care to read my words. Here I will sum up my words with a question to your response:
But why do we CARE that it has proven to be the best path forward?
You may respond with because we care about what works but again that's emotion.
You may respond with because we care about moving forward but that's an emotion.
You may respond but we don't care we choose at which point I would just argue your swapping out care for choose without any justification for why you chose. It's circular.
@@gabrielduran291 and within those answers lies mystery which is unreasonable yet sparks emotions in me. Which for me is good, I personally embrace mystery and enjoy meditating on it. It makes me a more patient person which is good for humanity in a microscopic way. (I also love science).
So true towards the bottom line, believe within itself is like a catch-22 understanding. Channeling is the gear that moves life
Alister: "my magical story can explain everything." 🤦🏽♂️
And your story explains literally nothing.
@@lysanderofsparta3708 What "story" would that be?
@@charlescheeseborough298 Your story of nothingness.
Though not a religious person myself, I find it somewhat ironic that the "new" Atheists have become sufficiently organized as to constitute a "religion" in and of themselves, which is absolutely okay. I know many people who get comfort from their religious beliefs and I am very tolerant of those folks. If you get comfort from not believing you will get the same level of tolerance. I guess I fall into that agnostic realm as I really don't know one way or the other. What I do know is that "religious/spiritual" beliefs seem to be a common thread that runs through humankind. We seem to have an inherent proclivity for religion of some form or other in our lives. Just let others live their lives even if you don't agree with it. Lastly, what's wrong with being a non-stamp collector? I don't fish so I must be a non-fisherman. The non-stamp collector analogy has never made sense to me.
(I just wanted to put my name here in the hopes that whoever watches and reads this might use their control-f button for further reading. Be well.)
Belief is defined by what you deem as true. A lack of belief is not a belief system.
@@aaron2709 So, a belief, which you deem to be true, that there is no god is not a belief system? A "belief system" is a set of beliefs which guide and govern a person's attitude. If your set of beliefs includes the belief that there is no god, I suspect your attitudes and actions will be consistent with that belief. It works both ways. Not sure why atheists refuse to acknowledge that.
@@wade5941 Not sure why you think believing in something (a positive assertion) is the same as not believing in something (a denial). I can't speak for others but I do not believe in extraordinary claims without compelling evidence. This includes werewolves, UFOs, gods, the Avengers, bigfoot or reincarnation. They're not impossible but that's a trivial assertion. What matters is if they're probable and the level of probability I assign depends on the quantity and quality of evidence.
@@aaron2709 I don't think that at all. So, if one "believes" that the earth is flat (positive assertion), is that the same as not believing the earth is flat (a denial). No, it isn't. I think we agree more than we disagree, just coming at it from a different perspective.
'I believe there's very likely no god'' a simpler way of putting it then atheist,agnostic atheist, and all the rest.
Thats agnostic
@@gowdsake7103 no Agnostic/ Gnostic is a knowledge claim.
Atheism/Theism is a believe claim.
So there can be an Agnostic Theist:
_"I know there is a God/s therefore I believe in it/them."_
Yes. lable it anyway you want and place it in the new urban dictionary. But understand this.
We simply choose not to believe. A-theist, but also, A-deist. A- BS
@@username82765 wrong! It's not a belief claim. We simply choose not to believe (the BS). So how is that a belief?
@@Ascendlocal my main point was Agnostism was a knowledge claim NOT a different believe.
Also the "A" in Atheist literally means _"without"_ so I was always saying Atheism is being without/lacking believe. The problem is it's clunky language. That's why I usually Atheism is NOT being convinced by Theist claims.
You are a great personality
who me?
m.ruclips.net/video/4RGizqsLumo/видео.html
You can tell he knows how to dress for the camera.
Talking about “New Atheism“ as distinct from “Atheism” is an attempt to give a label to a movement that challenges unjustifiable claims against atheists made by religious believers. Atheism is merely not believing in the existence of God. A movement for change needs a matrix of activity, so it is good that there are those who go out to challenge the status quo, as well as those who provide defence against attack from the status quo. It is interesting that the existence or not of God is not the issue. It is the consequences of believing (= religion), or not, in the existence which influences us. It will be good when discussion develops more into the question of the content of the values we want to live by, rather than discussing the legitimacy of the supposed source.
@Slim Shady Whether one is or describes oneself as agnostic or atheist or a combination is for me uninteresting. What is interesting is what one does as a consequence of holding particular beliefs - or not. If you believe that belief in God is justified without the need for arguments or evidence, then that’s your choice but if you choose to make what atheists see as unjustifiable claims against them, then you can expect a response, including that from New Atheists.
@Slim Shady I can justify my deep agnosticism, verging on the atheistic (I don't know if God exists, but I would bet against it) very easily and rationally. At least as much as any believer can, since all believers can point out on a rational basis is "but God exists because I experience it" (no offense meant by the use of the neuter). All other arguments about the existence of God are ultimately depending on faith, not on evidence.
I am also perfectly comfortable with final irrelevance, being an accidental rearrangement of energy and living in an an "imaginary" moral environment (and how can the theistic moral environments not be imaginary, since they all contradict each other in some respect, yet they are the "revealed will of (a) God"?). Look up humanism - religion (in the sense of a set of theistic beliefs and rites/rituals) is not required to develop a moral code.
@Slim ShadyIt is opinions like the ones you express here which have somewhat prompted the growth of New Atheism. The idea that atheists live in an imaginary moral environment, implying that Believers do not is simply absurd. What could be more imaginary than a God, let alone claiming to be the custodian of the supposed edicts of such a being? As I say, my interest is how beliefs influence behaviour. The actual existence or not of God is for me, irrelevant.
@Slim Shady If you believe God-built morality exists, then it exists - for you. My interest is in the content i.e. what is that morality and how does it affect your behaviour. Saying that someone who wants to marry a dog is an atheist and therefore atheism is bad is an absurd form of logic, as well as the notion that an atheist moral code is based on human whims. All you are doing is giving strength to the need for New Atheists to counter the ridiculous things you are saying about them. I wish you well and I hope your moral code is built on love, respect and building peace. That’s enough from me.
@Slim Shady You are basing your "morals" on the blind, low evidence standard re;eiance and assumption that what some guys wrote in an ancient book MUST be 100% true have 100% been the word of a God. That is NOT objective morality. Its is about as subjective as you can possibly get.
Finally, a question that RLK can definitely answer
m.ruclips.net/video/4RGizqsLumo/видео.html
Listening to Krauss talk about theology and butcher it is really cringe -- reminds me that scientists need to stick to science (and yes, theologians need to stick to theology).
Well said ....a bit like Plato!
I usually find these episodes unfulfilling since they tends to leave with more questions than answers, but I found this episode good by placing some perspective and thought into the arena without leaving with more questions.
More questions is natural, and if more questions on existential or profound universal matters lead to unfulfilling feeling, Rather than actually being fulfilling in a sense that is “how amazing how incredible”, I think you might be in the wrong game, no offense (seriously).
@@kylebushnell2601 I disagree. This series often seeks out scientific answers to big questions, which I admire and appreciate. Then he often turns around and gives a platform to superstition and magical gods. I find those tangents unscientific and unnecessary.
Maybe because there aren’t answers. There is just science and then opinions. The answers are just, here is what some people think.
@@ihatespam2 Right, but then this series conflates scientific understanding with circling back to superstitions and magical thinking. Just because some people think in terms of superstition and magical Gods does not give any more validity to the hypothesis. In other words, he often resorts back to the classic "God of the gaps" argument. "God perpetually hides in the shadows of the unknown, but whenever the bright light of scientific discovery illuminates the darkness, God is never there to be found."
@@blaster-zy7xx well, I agree with your point here. But the show is designed to approach from a scientific, philosophical and spiritual perspective. I also, get annoyed at giving time to religious folks as if they have equal authority in areas where it is really just speculation on their part. Unfortunately, that is the state of the world.
However, a lot of these big questions and still unanswerable by science or philosophy. Over time, I have gradually moved to science and further from religion myself, but even the host here still says, although very skeptical and science minded, he hopes something spiritual is true and wants to live forever. I don’t agree with either of those thoughts.
I love this channel👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
So many interesting Interviews, thank you!
Btw whats the intro music?
m.ruclips.net/video/4RGizqsLumo/видео.html
500 Channels by Leftover Crack.
*That's a lie.
I've been an atheist for many years but I became ( I think) what others would call a NEW ATHEIST due to my need to actively fight back against the religious ideology that allowed Trump to become a leader. I am researching and studying, and I'm more outspoken. I am very anxious to lend my voice and energy to aid in the removal of theism from our government, schools and social expectations. Folks can call atheists "militant" but I suspect that just a way of expressing their dislike of atheists who actually say what they think even though it's not pleasant. This video was fun and thought provoking. Thank you so much for this.
As a long time atheist that believes extremes are a societal issue, I mostly disagree. I don’t believe in fighting extremes with extremities, as it truly only evolves us collectively. I think being militant or as I would put it, extreme, it’s sort of like being a atheist zealot, per se. like the bad ones give all of us a bad name type thing. Just how I feel on the matter. Humility is key for a harmony.
I don’t like the word “atheist”... there isn’t a word for people who don’t believe in Santa clause , we’re simply called “adults”
kinda sound a dismissive brat thou lol..must be nice to have all the answers
Problem is, adults can be quite insane. Whether you believe in a man in the sky or you believe that intelligence came from non-intelligence, you are guilty of irrational thinking and BLIND FAITH in the irrational. (Insanity.) I followed the path of Reason it to its ultimate destination. And I wrote a book about what I found: the deepest of truths that science, philosophy and religion all claim to seek. Give me a 'click" and visit my You/tube channel if you want a good introduction to this information. And you'll get the side benefit of the simple cure for cancer and the simple answer to the coronavirus. Yes, I really hit the "jackpot" - and all because I simply desired Truth without prejudice. FOR THAT'S WHAT SANITY TRULY IS. (I don't receive RUclips comment notifications, but can be reached through the contact pages of my websites.)
@@littlebird3495 lmao funny since it's the religious who claims to have or know who has all the answers. While not a singular atheist that isn't insane hasn't said they hold all answers. Wow you're dumb.
Excellent this session!👍
m.ruclips.net/video/4RGizqsLumo/видео.html
Interesting question. Answering a "What is..." question is best done as a response to an inquiry about knowledge (Facts, information or skills [OED]). An atheist is "A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." Also [OED]
. Ironically this has changed, too, as it used to be "one who disbelieves" with the "or lacks belief" a recent addition.
There is another view which could be labeled non-theism, meaning the question of deity is inconsequential. That the deity idea is transcendent, why does it matter?
Saying that there were philosophers in the past that believed in God so therefore a philosophical position rooted in belief in God(s) is perfectly reasonable today is a blatant fallacy.
Shame on your House, Keith Ward.
You sound butthurt. Alas, your vicious anti-intellectualism proves Keith Ward's point in spades. Shame on YOU!
Many gods have come before.
All of them so good at hiding.
Most have died to rise no more.
We've outgrown their muddled guiding.
Max Doubt bruhhh cringe
Nice octosyllabic verses!
m.ruclips.net/video/4RGizqsLumo/видео.html
Well this starts of really well: basically don’t let your hope blind you to reality... now I wonder how well you keep to that but the intro deserve praise, refreshing to hear that sort of reasoning from the religious side.
m.ruclips.net/video/4RGizqsLumo/видео.html
12:17 "And my take on this is, that new atheism really struggles to make sense of this deep human intuition, that there is more to life than what we see, and if there were a God this fits into things rather well."
If you start with the conclusion abductive reasoning is naturally better than inductive reasoning. But better for what? To confirm what you want to confirm. Inductive reasoning is not going to say to you, what you want to hear. I find this to be a feature, rather than a bug.
Also, feeling the need to explain intuition, is feeling the need to make a potential falsehood right. Appeals to intuition are fallacious reasoning to begin with. But it's very common for theists and apologists to appeal to intuition anyway. It's the most convincing fallacy, right up there with appeals to common sense and what is natural and normal. I consider this a bug, not a feature.
The emotional and the rational are two sides of the same coin. The universe, sentient or not, is both the artist and the engineer 😉
Universe is created, it is not the Origin. God warns us not to focus on creation to worship it but rather seek the Creator and get into relationship with Him.
Niko Kapanen you might be right, you might not be. I believe and respect that your beliefs make sense and are meaningful to you. No one truly has all the answers, but I can appreciate your opinion. Please grant me the same curtesy.
@@littlebird3495
I grant you my sincere wish and pray that you would always seek for what is true and what is right and would eventually find it and get right with your heavenly Father.
I wouldn't say new atheism is remarkably militant, they've spoken about some issues with religion but you don't even have to be an atheist to understand those issues
What's the church means by militant is 'you didn't shut up when we told you to'.
@carnap2 : And when Calling it '' militant atheist/m'' they're usually conflating that with socialism/communism and proposing that'll lead to the end of the World, if we're allowing the atheists to speak their mind eventually the whole World will disintegrate.
@carnap2 : That's at least the impression i've got quite often both online and in irl.
@@fredriksundberg4624 I've never seen any conflating with socialism, share please
The conflation comes from the communistic regimes of Russia and China that were governmentally atheistic. You don’t have to be communist to be atheist, but a communist government must be atheistic.
@@carnap355 Sorry I should have clarified I was referring to the Stalin and Mao era- (Marxism and Maoism) and how they were necessarily anti-Biblical and anti-God.
“God offers an explanatory framework” Right up until you ask to see how so then like wisp of smoke it is gone.
I'm a militant atheist. But I love listening to theologians.
Militant? That's an absurd adjective.
It's like saying "I militantly lack belief in vampires".
@@b.g.5869 If somebody uses a smartphone (which is a gift of physics and technology)and says that our Earth is some thousand years old bcz the Bible tells him so,HE IS A REAL HYPOCRITE
@@soubhikmukherjee6871 I don't claim the earth is just a few thousand years old. Most theists don't either.
But I'm not a theist anyway. You're just making a hasty assumption because you don't think rationally. That was evident before you even responded to my comment by virtue of your saying "I'm militant!"
That's just immature. When someone says they're a 'militant atheist' they're probably an atheist for the wrong reasons. It sounds like you're just trying to be an edgelord.
Atheists like that, for whom athesim is akin to a concert t-shirt of some edgy band they want all of the other kids to know they listen to, often become religious later in life, just like the teenage edgelord that no longer listens to that edgy band anymore.
@@soubhikmukherjee6871 oh, so by militant you actually mean "pretty obnoxious and aggressive"
Every New Year's I become an eggnogstic.
Daniel Paulson
Can you prove he doesn’t?
Daniel Paulson
Yo ho ho I’ve got it now.
Daniel Paulson
Cheers . Stay safe 👍
@Daniel Paulson Anyone can, but it tends to spoil the flavour.
@Daniel Paulson It still tastes better than gunpowder...
Start after 2 minutes
Could someone please identify the theme music of this series?
Would of been great if you spoke with Matt Dillahunty
A video on Entropy dr. Kuhn please 😁😁😁😁😁
Hisham Gornass Entropy is the measure of disorder.
@@ahmadfarrag6088 And therefore not worthy of a video?
dlevi67 lol..
I love Robert Kuhn. The man is a mystic.
m.ruclips.net/video/4RGizqsLumo/видео.html
Yeah, I'd agree with that.
"Must the rational squeeze out the emotional?" -- If the answer is no, then is there anything that you can't believe?
I would say the answer is a resounding yes. I certainly think deep beliefs should come from some sort of rationality. As I am a big fan of unknown phenomena, and very much the UFO one, it is evident reality when one researches the topic. Therefore there is a rationality to believing extraterrestrials have something to do with the UFO phenomenon. Can we really say the same thing about believing a human being is a deity and or comes from a deity. As for an opened minded idea about God, something more conceivable such as there’s an intelligent design to the universe, I think their is rationality in that. But not the traditional monotheism god. Sorry I’m just blabbering here at this point
Thanks
When cogent arguments don't work you're left with two alternatives: violence or ridicule.
How about disengagement?
@@zac3392 only if those arguments dont affect your society...
m.ruclips.net/video/4RGizqsLumo/видео.html
I’m glad schermer said he is not millitantly opposed to the reality of god. That is entirely plausible, and acceptable to anyone like me that believes he doesn’t know everything. It would be ridiculous for anyone to say everything i don’t know anything about nor can prove, could not exist.
Nothing seems to be making sense. What are we missing? Hey, let's a plug a variable into this problem and define it as the variable that leads to all problems being solved. Even if the problem itself becomes obsolete or changes we can just transfer this variable to the new problem, and, by definition, it will solve that problem too. Hell, there is no conceivable question that it won't answer. Simply genius.
I get goosebumps listening to you and your show.. high-class .. Thanks
really?
To me, the sad thing is that with the rejection of God, there is a rejection of all the good things that have come about through religion.
The sad thing to me is you and people like you actually believe that
@@brandongarland8811 Oh, really? And why is that? Do tell.
When I was six and attending Baptist Sunday school, my class was given a lecture on heaven and hell, death and the afterlife. When the lecture was over, I asked, *Is there free will in the afterlife?* Apparently no one else had ever asked this question. I was told that, _No, there is no free will in the afterlife because then good deeds could be done in hell, while bad deeds could be done in heaven. But all that is already sorted out before anyone dies, so there is no room for moral agency after one is dead._ So then I asked, *If I don’t take my body with me, and I don’t take my free will with me, why am I supposed to care about having an afterlife at all?* The reaction I got was very surprising at the time, and at 65 it is still surprising. In response, I was told, _Don’t ask such silly questions, and stop being a smartass._ That was the end of the discussion.
It was not long before I made myself a prayer, which I have always kept in my heart and in my mind. *_Dear Lord, let it be your will that will direct my life. Not as I would choose, nor as any person would choose, nor as any religious text would choose, but as you, dear Lord, would choose for me. This being done, I am content._*
@FACE GALLON While I don't disagree,.. consider, for a moment, how utterly outlandish your statement would be in the time these scriptures were written? Only a modern person could ever imagine your thought, much less agree with it. Consider four of the ten Commandments...
Thou shalt have no other gods before me
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
Through out most of human history the thought you just expressed could get you burned alive as a heretic,... literally.
@Cerberus *_I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it._*
~ Mark Twain
*_Only dead men can tell the truth in this world._*
~ Mark Twain
@Cerberus I have to ask,... whats so bad about #TraitorTrump exactly? If you could handpick the next President of the United States, who would you pick? Personally, I am a great deal more frighten by the prospect of Biden winning,.. but I am voting for Joj2020.com
When I was a kid, I asked a moron to teach me calculus. He vomited on the ground, then quacked like a duck, so now I think calculus doesn't exist.
@Cerberus wacko CNN talking point liberal warning activated
Good one !!!!!!!!!!
Debate? There is a different position?
No matter what anyone does you won’t get closer to the truth. It’s the same for everyone: a hopeless journey. For hundreds of thousands of years human have asked the same fundamental questions. And we’re exactly 0% closer to the truth.
That's pretty bleak. We know a lot now.
The disappearance of truth!
What is this like 10 years old at least? Old news
m.ruclips.net/video/4RGizqsLumo/видео.html
@@ultrainstinctgoku2509 Why are you spamming this channel? Please stop.
@@tonk82 No. Also I do this because I want to.
Yes. Time has also been a while.
As long as the fight between rational and emotional sides exist, I still a human being.
I'm waiting for Lawrence to invite Dawkins, Sam Harris and Steven Meyers to share their opinions.
"God's existence does not depend upon our arguments." - Carl Gustav Jung
My rebuttal to mr Jung would be, if God is indeed a human construct than human arguments is all there is regarding gods existence.
Then
when someone can demonstrate god we can forget about arguments.
@@HarryNicNicholas You've obviously never read, let alone comprehended, Aristotle, Anselm, Aquinas or Leibniz.
He should have gone to Sam Harris for the straight dope.
Well, Sam isn’t all that bright, but I wouldn’t call him a dope... 😝
Shirley, you jest.
Phil Pedro I don't joust... and don’t call me Shirley
@@zac3392 do you grasp the irony of your critique.....A magical thinker saying things about Sam's mental skills on religious critique...do you?
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Sam Harris is brilliant. My comment was a play on the word "dope..."
Ironic, isn't it..?
You may be just as moral as a believer! Maybe even more so. But, your belief system does not require you to be so. And that, my friend, is the point.
I don't really get whether is supposed to be an argument for or against atheism, but... just because people don't have an old, all powerful guy getting angry because they do something immoral, doesn't mean they don't have other incentives. E.g. they might act altruistically because... they actually care about others, not because an old book told them to.
@@paulchapin967Why care?
If you're a Christian, neither does yours.
neither does christianity, plenty of christians do pretty immoral acts, god has NEVER made a difference to human nature.
in order to keep to a law you have to care about the consequences, if you can show me ANYONE who has broken a law, gods or mans, i'll show you someone who didn't care about the consequences, god or man it makes no difference if you are going to break a law. i don't care about going to hell, what can you do to make me behave? nothing. god is useless.
I would love an analysis of the political social economic nature of religion.do all religions talk of a god?what exactly is religion?is there a,cultural hegemonistic aspect to religion ad belief in God?when u disprove yahweh or christ another crops up just like the days of zeus ad apollo et al
shinto is my favourite, if i had to be religious. no gods, no rewards but no punishments, based on your ancestors and spirits of nature, all about purity and respect. it has some strange rituals and guys who dress up like most religions, but no one minds if you ignore them, japan is a great place.
Rationality and the believe in the Abrahamic god stories. Hmmm...
m.ruclips.net/video/4RGizqsLumo/видео.html
@@ultrainstinctgoku2509 What's that got to do with my comment?
@@3rdrock Just a recommended link. Watch and learn or just ignore, up to you.
@@ultrainstinctgoku2509 I watched it and ?
@@ultrainstinctgoku2509 Try this if you have an open mind. ruclips.net/video/U6-zi25GgVE/видео.html
If they need yet another new atheism platform, that points to a problem in their theory.
Atheism has no theories.
that was an interesting sentence, any idea what you meant by it?
WHY ARE THE SUBS IN CAPITALS?
m.ruclips.net/video/4RGizqsLumo/видео.html
Atheism is, admittedly, an "ism", but as Grayling says, the "A" in atheism takes away the identification, sense of belonging-ness or militancy part of the "ism". Most "isms" wear a particular T-shirt. Atheism, like any "A---ism" is "taking a T-shirt off" and not replacing it with any other. Atheism is not based on belief. Religion is. The most believers can aspire to is to hope that their god really exists. Since that would indicate the demise of all other gods it is obvious that belief can only remain a belief. Knowledge, on the other hand, gives you the peace of mind you seek, especially when you seriously investigate the nature of belief. Absolute certainty comes to a believer when the delusion is complete. Robert should investigate The Nature Of Belief.
No it isn't. Its a Single position on an existential claim. There is no common dogma shared by atheists. i.e. the Piraha , tribes, Buddhists, Raelians, new age Naturalists and Scientific Educated atheists might share this position but they do not share any dogmas.
m.ruclips.net/video/4RGizqsLumo/видео.html
Ahhhh Alister McGrath! He loves his own voice so much, I think if he was blind, you could slip out the room and he wouldn't notice until 5 hours later
I listened to a speech by Lawrence Krauss stating we are nothing going back to nothing. It gave the same feeling I would have watching a murder scene, cold, empty and horrified. Thank goodness I don't believe he's correct as my own life is enriched believing life has meaning and purpose.
mitchyz101
it does have a purpose, otherwise you wouldn’t exist. Science is just as clueless about existence like everyone else in the grand scheme of things.
“Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals will believe them.” George Orwell
Nice and lovely but very naive!
@@gilbertengler9064 Explain why. I'm interested
Do plants have a purpose?
First,
Disbelief is not a choice, the only choice is not to lie and claim to believe what we don't.
Second,
Believers freely and aggressively attack us for being honest (first point above), so we should respond with like for like, we are not doormats. So I freely ridicule the irrationality, stupidity and violence of religion, religion is an affront to intellect.
You don't even know what you're ranting and raving about. You just like to play the innocent victim despite the fact that you hypocritically and parasitically enjoy the benefits of a Christian civilization that you claim to so vehemently despise.
Michael Schmidt-Salomon puts it like that: „if you have Science, PHILOSOPHY AND ART, then you don’t need religion.“ Science alone doesn’t quite cut it.
Religion encompasses all three and then some.
@@lysanderofsparta3708 yeah, it encompasses a lot of bs and lies to make it more appealing to idiots
I am just an Atheist, i Believe in science and facts rather than "imaginary Friends". To me its freedom. To me most religions that say "peaceful" have too much to answer for in history and too many lives have been lost in "imaginary Friends" ., "You dont follow our way of thinking you are wrog and need to be saved by extermination" ... Too many contradictions make it all fake to me.
Childish and stupid.
There would be no foundational debate between theism and atheism if the theist' stance was one of faith alone. Of course this is putting aside any ad hominem attack against the person of faith. It is not a belief of ignorance or naivete. Putting the sciences aside, it's a belief based on sound historical evidence, and more importantly, an inner faith. I've said this before and I'll say it again. I believe the issue arises when the theist' attempts to step on the toes of the scientific naturalist/atheist. Yes, theist' have a historical foundation for their beliefs that even most non-believers, including scholars of many disciplines, would agree with. In Christianity, believers went to their deaths proclaiming the risen Lord. It's hard to imagine a person going to that extreme if their conviction was not real for them. However, having said that, it does not prove with one hundred percent certainty, the dieity of Christ. This can not be argued. Either you believe with both the history we have and with faith, or you do not believe at all. It's really that simply. One could debate this issue until the end of time. You are simply chasing your tail. You are not going to conclude with an answer of pure unchallenged certainty. It's simply not going to happen. I would also like to add that I belief God himself could appear to some staunch non-believers. Their defensive would be that there is a natural explanation not yet known. I always like to end with the words of Thomas Aquinas. "To one with faith, no explanation is necessary, to one without faith, no explanation is possible."
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:27 🤔 *The speaker expresses hope that God exists because it would bring meaning to life and other benefits but listens to atheists' arguments to balance this hope with reason.*
01:42 🆕 *The video explores the concept of "New Atheism" and its differences from traditional atheism, focusing on its social and political nature.*
02:16 🌐 *New Atheism emphasizes the idea that atheists should stand up for their rights, combat stereotypes, and challenge prejudices against them.*
03:12 🗣️ *New Atheism presents refined and succinct counterarguments to religious beliefs, making it more organized and effective in discussions.*
05:12 👥 *New Atheists engage in social activities, similar to religious groups, fostering a sense of community among atheists.*
08:10 🧐 *Critics argue that New Atheism is too aggressive, attacking religious people rather than just critiquing their beliefs.*
11:03 🤔 *New Atheism faces criticism for using slogans and rhetoric rather than evidence-based arguments.*
14:10 🌌 *Science is seen as addressing questions about the universe and meaning, blurring the distinction between science and theology.*
16:37 🤔 *Lawrence discusses the role of science in raising the human spirit and the remarkable facets of the universe.*
17:08 🔥 *The debate between atheists and theists about the origin of the laws of physics heats up.*
17:35 🧐 *Keith Ward criticizes the New Atheism for not taking philosophy seriously and assuming materialistic views.*
18:02 🤨 *Philosophers have debated the existence of God throughout history, and belief in God is not necessarily incompatible with philosophy.*
19:27 🧐 *Anthony Grayling explains that atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods and should not be confused with other philosophical or ethical positions.*
22:02 🤷♂️ *Atheism is a negative view, and it places the burden of proof on theists who assert the existence of God.*
23:00 🕊️ *Anthony Grayling discusses his atheism and how religious conviction can be all-encompassing, much like belief in other ideologies.*
24:26 🧐 *A psychological explanation is offered for why people adopt belief systems, including religious ones, that provide total and satisfying explanations in a complex world.*
Made with HARPA AI
The worst is people who claim to be religious but go against those beliefs daily. Do those people have a name?
Atheists contradict their atheism whenever they invoke an objective standard of morality.
Skeptics rules 🍺
Atheism, why a word for not believe in nonsense, do we also have names for people that do not believe in Santa Claus
Aclausism
Atheism is nonsense. That's why no great intellectual in human history has been an atheist.
@@dazedmaestro1223 For most of human history being a proclaimed atheist was rather dangerous.
@@dlevi67, sure, and this is why Newton devoted 2/3 of his work to theology.
DazedMaestro
Unbelief could be easily eradicated if god just shows up. Unbelievably he either can’t nor apparently has the will to, why?
The debate may go good or bad about how you define "God".
m.ruclips.net/video/4RGizqsLumo/видео.html
"the imaginary man in the sky"
At the end Kuhn showed his true colours. (?)
He spurred the militant religious standpoint that rationalism feeds coldheartiness.
(less emotion)
Other people further below have noticed it too.
I liked this video, so I can come back & laugh at Sherman the clown.
If your an atheist, you should try deep meditation or a heavy dose of psychedelics, experience ego death and see if they don't realize there exists a greater consciousness than humans.
@Contemplate Eternity : If your an theist, you should try deep meditation or a heavy dose of psychedelics, experience ego death and see if they don't realize there exists a greater consciousness than humans.
Dangerous, childish self-delusion.
@@fredriksundberg4624 I was a religious theist in my youth, turned atheist due to clear conflicts with science, learned enough philosophy to realize atheism doesn't work (the argument from reason being a powerful example), became agnostic, experienced ego death in a very strong trip many years later, learned of the smallness of mind and inherent cognitive dissonance we hold as humans- became clear that the true self is not the body or our mind but pure consciousness that pervades all existence. I don't like the word 'god' because of the historical baggage, but its clear from that experience that lowly apes on a rock floating in space are not the ultimate intelligence, but are connected to it.
@@user-tf2wd1eh3g So do you believe humans are the ultimate intelligence in existence?
@@patrickfitzgerald2861 Can you elaborate? I think you may be triggered from some previous self-bias that may not apply here and I would love to clarify if so.
"...there's meet-up groups, there's Facebook groups..."
This is the kind of rigorous thinking we've come to admire about Shermer! 🤣
…”god” is just santa claus for theist. its silly no matter how one philosophize or intellectualize it.
It’s the old atheism just less in the closet because if religious oppression.
Smh 🤦🏿♂️ that’s ridiculous. There is no “NEW ATHEISM”.
'New' sells.
M.T. Steyn de Wet you maybe right. Something labeled NEW, “human beings” in their greediness WANT it. 🤷🏿♂️
WHY? WHY? WHY? Do you ask theists about atheism? That's like asking a lunatic about sanity.
Ad hominem attacks are used when emotion overtakes reason.
Would you agree?
According to a lunatic, everybody is a lunatic anyway
No one mentioned that in the USA, religion has become a business. One hundred per cent about MONEY, and nothing else.
..supreme doubt and supreme believe are very close..✌️
These are the words of Omar Khayyam
@@karz12 But I have learned it from Dostojewski..
Hey Neffets... but are they very close friends?
@@johnbrzykcy3076 I would not say "friends", but they are connected.
I found the "great mystery" through all the great atheists, like Nietzsche. Criticism of religion is like purification or catharsis. Nietzsche for example was not about to destroy "god", it's about that "god" should be something else than "life". That was an important improve of the gosple, the long awaited „purification of the sanctuary“! That was the reason, Nietzsche had a problem with the word „god“. He was not against „god“, he was against, that god should be something else than life, he wanted to clean "god" from human instrumentalization, he wanted to smash „thin gods“ not „god“ („Götzen“, not „Gott“). His whole work he dedicated to the „hidden god“. All philosophy is „service to god“, like Sokrates and others explained; but only if you know what "god" is, then philosophers are "servants of God".
And also believe and nihilism are connected. For Kierkegaard, the grandfather of all modern psychology and psychotherapy and existential philosophy, there is only one healthy condition, and it's the most difficult to unite: Human being needs both for growing (and that means health), he explained, it needs the dark soil (abyss, nihilism, absurdity, loss of meaning etc.) and the "light" (from god, the life, means our real "sun" in thinking etc.) for growing and transformation. 🌱☀️
I think Ratzinger would go some way with you there...and he is a believer.
Alister: "...New atheism really struggles to makes sense of this deep human intuition that there is more to life than what we see...". Hmm. I think that "deep human intuition" is likely a fancy way of saying "hope". Unfortunately, hope is not reality.
@Cerberus are you atheist
lol, what is reality? how are u sure that u didnt come to existence 5 minutes ago, and everything was simply downloaded to your brain to seem u have memories of a past.
Well, I'd argue hope is real. But before that, your reduction of human intuition misses the point.
Your answer is unironically exactly what philosophers consider question dodging.
Why not?
no.. don't make fun of people, respect all people even if you don't respect their beliefs. I still find this argument a bit strange though... the evidence suggests belief is a compulsion, not a choice. It is a state of being that stems from the convergence of everything you've been exposed to, and how you makes sense of those experiences. If you are a theist, this is what makes sense to you. If you are an atheist, that is what makes sense to you. I don't think it's right to dictate policy, or limit the pursuit of truth by any means due to a belief structure, only hard provable facts. There either is or isn't a god, we should want to learn the truth regardless so that we can be more certain that our beliefs are based on reality. All voices should be welcome to the table. My only fear is that society may force a belief structure, or base policy on beliefs rather than facts due to certain belief structures that hold the view point that that is the "right" thing to do.
actually.. in a moment of brief retrospection, I think the real difference between an "atheist" such as myself, and a theist is the degree of need for certainty in the formation of belief.
That thing called faith i guess. maybe there should be more than one word for that, because i can have faith in humanity, even if i'm uncertain of the future. Anyway.. It seems I am wired to question everything, especially my beliefs, so it is hard for me to have enough confidence in the existence of a deity to assert that one exists, and on the body of evidence available to me, I have to admit it is far more probable that there is no "higher power" than the laws of nature, and probability. literally, that's as far as my beliefs can go, because that's all i can be certain of. I can not speak to "before the big bang", or how those laws came to be, as there is no specific evidence that makes one explanation more likely than another, the only thing i can say is that it seems reasonable that there is some reason for them, whatever it may be, but maybe not.
I can only take my gut feeling about something as an indication that i may need to look deeper, but it is not enough for me to base a belief on, as i "believe" my gut feeling could be wrong. (due to seeing, and experiencing, the effect of bias. i.e.. the dunning Kruger effect). This is in direct contrast to others who are able to take their gut feeling to be an indication of truth. Not saying one approach is "better" but acknowledging a difference in perspective that may lead some down the path to atheism, and others to theism.
I'm not sure that "belief" is a compulsion not a choice - or at least not any more than any other choice (the vexed problem of free will in another guise). Historically societies have dealt with "non conforming beliefs" quite harshly, so your "only fear is that society may force a belief structure" is not so much a fear as a statement of historical fact (and just look at the "discussion" on abortion to see how that history is continuing in the present). That aside, much to agree with in your post!
dlevi67 you know, i was thinking about the post after i wrote it.. and I was wondering about the word belief and wondering about how that word and it's meaning are perceived by different people.This is obviously one of the difficulties of language. I think a distinction needs to be made between belief as understanding, and belief as conviction. I was pondering on the fact that i do in fact "believe" many things without certainty. In fact, when presented with any new piece of information i will automatically and subconsciously form a series of beliefs about how that piece of information fits into my narrative of the world. However, my CONVICTION about those "beliefs" is a matter of choice, and my openness to accepting that they may be wrong influences my ability to change those beliefs. So indirectly, at least following this logic, there is an element of choice in belief. There are of course all kinds of implicit assumptions in this statement, and of course there's the obvious question, what makes one person more inclined to strong convictions than another. Definitely a rabbit hole of a topic, but a discussion that should be had none-the-less. But as we've both touched on now, it is reasonable to see why belief and politics don't mix and need to stay secular.
I respect your sincere considerations, Michael. Too many people are simply interested in propping-up their limited belief system, not realizing how irrational their thinking is. If you are indeed seeking Truth, I can help you. Because I followed the path of Reason it to its ultimate destination. And I wrote a book about what I found: the deepest of truths that science, philosophy and religion all claim to seek. Give me a 'click" and visit my You/tube channel if you want a good introduction to this information. And you'll get the side benefit of the simple cure for cancer and the simple answer to the coronavirus. Yes, I really hit the "jackpot" - and all because I simply desired Truth without prejudice. (I don't receive RUclips comment notifications, but can be reached through the contact pages of my websites.)
@@michaelransom5841 Hey Michael... I wonder what Jesus the Christ meant when He talked about "belief" ( faith).
It's cuz there's nothing to debate witha book of stories.
My dog is an atheist of the old school type.
Any sensible atheism has to more moral because they “know” that there is no god to ensure justice.
It doesn't matter if we are atheist, religious or agnostic.
What's more important is to respect everyone's believes.
There is only 1 true religion - Humanity.
sreekanth chintala : Is that a fact or a belief?
So should I respect someone's beliefs when they suppress the rights of people? Should I respect their beliefs when they're beheading people for apostasy? Should I respect those people when they throw people off a building for being gay?
Get real.
Religion is for children like sports, fun to do and think about but we all have to grow up. Yet some make careers of both and we all say wow he is so good at the children's game.
To debate the existence of a god we would have to define god and noone seems has a definitive interpretation of their belief.Theres infinite interpretations.
Lawrence Krauss, doesn't describe himself as an atheist. He describes himself as anti-theist.
Belief in otherworldly beings is puerile.
You don’t think aliens exist? Lol you left yourself open for that with how you worded it.
I like this keith guy, even though i hate religion. He seems kinda cool.
m.ruclips.net/video/4RGizqsLumo/видео.html
Atheists may not personally think the bible story and god story is true fact but can still enjoy and appreciate the cultural colour that religion gives. And the commeradery of a club :-)
Such is the parasitic nature of atheism.
Today we talk about those things inside a virtual sphere nobody could imagine 100 years ago, except maybe Tesla who come up with idea of storing thoughts in ether. Technology is a proof of intelligence, manipulation of nature made possible by evolution of scientific model. But purpose of this technology remain organic, looking at content on social media, people are still confused as ever. It might be because of language barrier, we don't understand subject, others or inner workings of technology, every module use special or unique kind of symbolism, that makes convergence to a single substance almost impossible. Answers might already exist, except nobody knows how to connect all dots.
Worst that can happen is if it turns out nature can't be understood by science and technological civilization can't sustain itself for much longer. Sure technology look impressive, but it's not perfect and doesn't last long. Almost everything runs on electricity, nobody knows what this form of energy actually is, something might happen and system could brake, like if powerful solar storm hit us or even more weird physical phenomena could be possible. What happens with technology than, what if we would not be able to use electricity for some reason, very few people can imagine what changes total catastrophe as that would cause. How could you prove atoms exist without electronic microscope and computers, or how stars actually look like if we could t observe universe only by a visible light suddenly, science would became indistinguishable from religion over night.
Further more, it might turn out technology is just an illusion, there can be physical reasons why machines will never work as visualized by science fiction writers and all artificial materials will fail us from ever reaching further than our planet, or only food we can survive on is what we take from biological food chain. What if all are just electric dreams?
So many word to end with no real purpose.
@@LoraxChannel Exactly, people might wake up in a world without electricity one day and never be able to bring back that power. Technical designs will became concepts, they will became myths and legends, those will became meaningless words nobody alive could experience what they actually meant in our present times or what were the problems we couldn't solve.
I find it very interesting. The atheist ideology. I am not a atheist. I do believe in a creator of our universe. Not a some person in the sky. But and eternal energy that has. Intelligence. Its been a long road fur me but I studied. Classic physics. And some Quantum physics. I also delved into DNA. And theology. It lead me to believe. In a deity or god. Ah but. I hold no grudges against those who differ. I love a good discussion. And always try to be respectful of others. And There belief or lack of it when discussing any thing not just religion and such like. Lots if other things like are there many dimension. Theretical physics. String theory. Or the theory of everything. Even quantum mechanics is some what controversial. And our own existence Is nothing that we can absolute. proved. With out a degree of belief, ,, it fascinating to say the least
Where does the Medical or Healthcare Atheist fit?
m.ruclips.net/video/4RGizqsLumo/видео.html
Why is it important to you atheists that we acknowledge your existence?
I believe in God , father almighty etc..
Agnosticism IMO is the only intellectually honest belief system. I don’t know and you don’t know. Now, religious dogma and beliefs are silly in my view, but that does not mean there is not a prime mover.
Many atheists are non-theists because of agnostic reasons.
They don't proclaim "there is definitely no God", but they see no sufficient evidence to believe in such a supernatural being. Same for Santa Claus, unicorns or Gods of other religions.
Yes, you are right but there is no such thing as pure, perfect agnostic. I'm sure every single agnostic leans more towards one side, or another but they are just smart enough to not claim "I know for sure" or "that's a fact".
The only intellectually honest belief system is one wherein you hold to what you think is true, are open about why you believe what you believe, and make an effort to represent that fairly in conversation.
Be nice doing it but stand your ground. 🤸
Everyone who has ever lived will see GOD in the end, and be sorry if they never sought a close loving relationship with Him , when they had the time. The idea of GOD is just so simple, yes there is a living almighty GOD, who is supernatural and almighty, who created us because he wanted to share everything with us, who is watching all of us all the time and hoping that we will eventually love Him of our own free will, He will not force Himself on us. He wants us to get away from false man made religions , and seek the only truth that there is, which only comes from Him, because He is the Creator of all that is known and exists! He does not want any of us to be duped, and lost by man made religious and ignorant ideas! We have a real God, why do we try to create false ones , or deny that He exists all together? This is sad and meaningless to the detriment of our eternal souls. God created us to love, lets love Him back. He loves us so much that He came down from His eternal kingdom, was born one of us, the Man Jesus Christ, and died to save us from our lost sinful ways, has anyone else done that for you?!
calm down