Strawmans used in this video: 1) Definition of atheism 2) Stating that Philosophical naturalism is the basis of atheism. (There is no single -ism that can pointed as the basis of philosophy of atheism).
A couple of points: 1. Atheism can be irrational. We are all born atheists. Children are irrational until they are educated in some fashion, it doesn't have to be formal education. A person can ignore all interactions with religious education and live and die irrational regarding religion, or any other topic for that matter. There are lots of unbelievers who have zero interest in religion and call themselves atheists. 2. The Atheist community owns the definition of atheism, not academics and not the religious. The atheist community has overwhelming redefined the original definition of atheism. Atheism to any atheists means lack of belief . A baby is an atheist. Anyone that lacks belief in god is an atheist. Here my words: the religious will never, ever be able to lay dominion over that definition. The community gets to define the word and they have spoken. The moral dilemma with the religious trying to force the atheist community into a definition the atheist community does not agree with is the relationship is by definition antagonistic. This is no different than if an atheist tried to tell a self-identifying Muslim they are not a Muslim because of some definitional inadequacy. Nope. The religious expect to self-identify their religion with impunity. The non-religious are only asking for the same impunity to identify as non-religious as they see fit. But no, the start of this video does not allow an atheist this but tries to tell an atheist who they are. That's antagonistic and will never be accepted.
Definitions were off an atheist hasn’t looked every way and decided there isn’t a creator but based off the information we know there isn’t a personal god that’s how most think and agnostic doesn’t mean undecided but that they accept that we just don’t know
I am not convinced in the existence of any god for I have never encountered _any_ credible evidence, including _any_ sound argument, that suggests such an existence. Therefore, I will suspend any acknowledgement as to the existence of a god _until_ such evidence or argument is introduced. Am I not rationally justified in my position?
@@Mafzsal Certainly. I will begin by defining evidence. I consider 'evidence' to be ANY presentation that substantiates the truth of a claim. I consider 'credible evidence' as that which is verifiable for validity, accuracy, and authenticity. I consider 'sufficient credible evidence' to be that which convinces me as to the truth of a claim.
@@tsananeomeno7963 1. Because your position is wrong 2. Because your position is based on your subjective thinking. 3. If God exists, then it proves that what you perceive as rational thinking, is in fact irrational.
"...atheism is a claim that no creator exists..." Not necessarily. Theism is the belief that there is at least one god. A-theism is... not that, hence the a- in front. So not-theism. Agnosticism is similar. The 'gnostics' (a term that's largely died out) were those who thought it possible to know for certain that there is a god (specifically their Christian god). A-gnostic is, again, not that, either not claiming to know _or_ perhaps even claiming that such knowledge is impossible. So being an agnostic _may not_ (as you later suggest) be a 'neutral' position, it may be making a claim _itself,_ namely that it is _impossible_ to know if a god exists or doesn't. Depends on how one is using the word. As an "explicit agnostic atheist" (the way I would describe myself) I have _considered_ the idea (explicit), don't claim to _know_ for sure (agnostic), but don't _believe_ there are gods (atheist). "...most atheists are philosophical naturalists..." I've never met a philosophical naturalist. _I'm_ certainly not one. Most of the atheists I'm _aware_ of are _methodological_ naturalists, which is _very_ different. The natural is all we can _investigate._ This makes anything _beyond_ the natural _outside of_ our ability to investigate, and thus becomes irrational to accept (proportion your belief of external reality to the evidence, evidence can only be natural, so the supernatural has no evidence). If there _are_ supernatural activities going on in reality, then we _will_ never and _can_ never have evidence of that. _But_ the lack of evidence for some natural phenomenon _does not_ mean that what you are looking at is supernatural _because_ it's always possible there _is_ a natural explanation and you just don't, yet, know what it is. Before we knew how lightning worked, people thought Zeus threw lightning bolts. Now that we _understand_ the _natural_ process by which it happens, no one who studies lightning thinks it's a process directed by a mind. It's... natural. "...these processes, according to naturalists, have characteristics, like they are... random..." Yes/no. Be aware that 'random' in this case simply means 'unpredictable on some scale', _not_ that they can do anything at any moment. For instance, hydrogen and oxygen mixed and exposed to a spark will _always_ produce water, that's not 'random' in some senses. And yet predicting when and where water will form is beyond our capability because there's just _so much_ going on that tracking it all is impossible for us currently (and likely forever, _especially_ due to the Uncertainty Principle). "...how can we claim that our brains, our minds can achieve mental insights, meaning how can rationality come from non-rationality..." Rationality is a process based largely on logic, and even in _philosophical_ naturalism logic is unavoidable, at the _very_ least in the Laws of Identity (which are _descriptive_ laws, not _prescriptive_ laws). Moreover, coming to _correct_ conclusions _about_ reality is going to be _more_ functional than coming to _false_ conclusions about reality _in the long run._ False conclusions _can_ be useful in the short term, but on longer timescales those who _actually_ understand how reality works will do better than those that have false beliefs because those who understand _actual_ reality can _build_ things that _work_ based on principles they've discovered. If your principles are _wrong,_ things you _build_ will not work. As such, there is an _evolutionary_ pressure towards a mode of thinking that is based in rationality rather than reaction, _but_ such a system of thinking wouldn't be the _first_ sort of thinking that keeps most creatures _alive,_ and would have to be added _onto_ the irrational, purely 'in the moment' survival-based thinking that precedes it... which is _exactly_ what we see. Humans have a _lot_ of ways of reacting that are not, at all, _rational,_ but they _are_ good for _survival_ value because they react _fast,_ and _in the moment,_ to keep us safe (mostly, I mean... part of the _problem_ with such a system is that, being irrational, they sometimes are the _wrong_ response). Meanwhile _rational_ thought is something we aren't very good at, because it hasn't been around _nearly_ as long as survival thought, and so isn't as developed. Rational thought is _also_ not _exclusive_ to humans, as far as we can tell, we're just _better at it_ than other animals. Watch a raven display understanding of water displacement to get food, and you'll see it grasps the concept just fine, even working out that larger objects displace more water and so using larger objects preferentially. That's a _rational_ process, just not much of one. "...how can anything give rise to something that does not contain it..." This is called the Fallacy of Composition/Division, asserting that what is true of the parts must also be true of the whole or vice versa. How can humans give airplanes flight when we don't contain flight? How can an airplane fly when the parts that make it up don't fly? "...the existence of reason does not have any scientific explanation..." Well, there's the above proposal, but that's a _hypothesis,_ not a _theory_ (you know, like the Germ Theory of Disease is a theory in science). But _beyond_ that, there wouldn't _have_ to be. 'Reasoning' is not 'external reality', it's _internal_ to us, it's about the way we think. Science isn't the right field to discuss the way we think, that's what _philosophy_ is for, because it's _purely_ internal. Science has a _basis in_ philosophy, of course, but it isn't, itself, ultimately based on just our opinions of things. If anything, the _whole point_ of science is to _get around_ our opinions on things and _rely_ on a naturalistic paradigm to explore reality around us. ruclips.net/video/lLqmrYUIPCo/видео.html "...we should not rely solely on scientific explanations to arrive at truths or knowledge..." We should if what is being examined is external to ourselves, to minds, to the ways we think. "...such a complex and sophisticated thing such as mind..." So... you think a mind is too complex to just exist, and thus propose that a mind... just exists? Of course, this is _another_ fallacy: The Argument from Incredulity.
No one with the right mind will deny a Creator. Everything in the universe points to the existence of superior intelligence mind .. you need to have a level of faith to believe that everything can come out of nothing lol.
@@Mafzsal *No one with the right mind will deny a Creator.* Poisoning the Well fallacy. *Everything in the universe points to the existence of superior intelligence mind* Nope. Every time we investigate how things _really_ work in nature, there's _never been_ a mind discovered behind it. The role of a god has been steadily shrinking for _centuries_ now. It _used to be_ thought you needed a god to explain rain, lightning, snow, hail, the rising and setting sun, the phases of the moon, the diversity of life on Earth, the existence of planets, and their orbits around the sun. And yet anyone paying attention will now know that _not one_ of those things seems to be driven by a mind, they all happen _automatically_ and _inevitably._ This leaves just a couple places left for a god to hide, and given the trend over the last several centuries why should we believe the _same trend_ won't just continue? *...you need to have a level of faith to believe that everything can come out of nothing...* What do you mean by 'nothing'? There's lots of definitions for 'nothing'. I think the one _you_ are using is 'nothing is what rocks dream about', in which case you are presenting a straw man of the position of myself and most other atheists of which I'm aware. _No one_ thinks _anything_ came out of _that_ sort of 'nothing'. As for it coming from a _lower_ level of 'nothing', I don't hold _that_ position, either, as it hasn't been demonstrated with evidence. So _perhaps_ instead of _arrogantly_ assuming what _I_ believe, you might want to _ask_ about it. To save time, I don't know where the universe 'came from', or even if 'came from' is a proper way to _discuss_ the universe. Perhaps we live in a four-dimensional block, as is _very much_ implied by the Theory of Relativity, in which case the _whole universe_ (past, present, _and_ future) is eternal and static, unchanging, it's only our _limited perspective_ that suggests anything else. That's just _one_ scenario. Maybe we live in some sort of multiverse, either simultaneous or sequential. Maybe a god did it, but this god neither knows nor cares about our existence (using the universe as a candle, all those stars, and the rest hold no interest to this being). Maybe we're the result of universe-farting pixies. There simply isn't enough evidence to decide right now, so the _only_ rational position is "I don't know, but let's try to find out".
@@KindNine theists make claim that everything come from nothing ? atheists are the one making that claim that universe began from nothing?..an Atheist dude wrote a book Universe from Nothing.. his 'nothing' actually refers to something..it is a semantics gymnastics lol
@@Mafzsal First, for some reason your comments weren't responding to me. Somehow you got it sending to "kind9"... weird. Probably a mess-up with RUclips. *theists make claim that everything come from nothing ?* I never said any such thing. Maybe it was from Kind9 (whose comment I can't see for some reason). *atheists are the one making that claim that universe began from nothing?* Not in the way you mean it, no, no one is claiming that. *his 'nothing' actually refers to something..it is a semantics gymnastics* There are _lots_ of definitions for the word 'nothing': ruclips.net/video/PhfqdBk8qxk/видео.html *can you explain how the universe began from nothing?* What sort of 'nothing' are we talking about here? I can explain (in a _vastly_ oversimplified way, so oversimplified it's probably _wrong_ somehow, not that I would know _exactly_ how it's wrong) how it might be possible for the universe to begin from "Level 4 nothing" as defined by the video, if that would help.
Hmmm no no and no :( I liked it better when the channel showed inaccurate representations of crusader and Islamic conquests. There are too many flawed points in this video, but most of them have been addressed below by "Robin Dude".
Nice video bro you need to be mindful though your average atheist wouldn't understand any of this their sole motivation for becoming atheist is their contempt for religion every atheist will give you a long winded lecture of how religion is the root of all evil or how they distrust organized religion. Great narration though so moving forward are you going to be narrating your own videos?
Well, I don't think _I_ did that above, and I'm not sure where you're getting your data on the 'average atheist'. Most of those I'm aware of either were never brought up to believe, and so _don't,_ or else realized that the underpinnings of it came down to believing a few people whose only evidence for their position was 'trust me', which is _not_ a good way to go about exploring external reality. I don't think religion is the root of all evil, but it _is_ another divisive aspect and it isn't _needed._ We _already_ have bigotry (race, gender, sexuality, etc), countries, and politics separating us from being a harmonized whole, religion just adds fuel to that fire.
I'm an atheist. I had no contempt for religion until people like you gave it to me. I've read the Bible, the Quran, Several Taoist Books, and several other that ALL say they are the one and only truth. You believe ALL other gods are. As Bible says I should learn what Gods like from how Christians act. What I've learned is religion makes people like YOU and Donald Trump. Because people like you Christian churches are losing members as a whole, the ones that are growing seem to be the ones that fully embrace MAGA cultism, QAnon conspiracy theories, and effectively serve as a propaganda arm of the Republican Party. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- When you belong to a religion that tells you to dismiss logic and reason in favor of faith and obedience, it’s not that big of a leap for worshipers to accept a difference kind of mythology. When you’re taught from a young age to avoid challenging authority and told to keep critical questions to yourself (or to “just have faith”), why would anyone be surprised when you fall for the flimsiest of conspiracies? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Let me guess all you'll do is threaten me. argumentum ad baculum, which literally translated means "argument to the stick" and which is commonly translated to mean "appeal to force." With this fallacy, an argument is accompanied by the threat of violence if the conclusions are not accepted. Many religions are based upon just such an tactic: if you don't accept this religion, you will be punished either by adherents now or in some afterlife. If this is how a religion treats its own adherents, it's not a surprise that arguments employing this tactic or fallacy are offered to nonbelievers as a reason to convert.
@@overlycaffeinatedsquirrel779 I hear your frustrations about people becoming extreme in whatever ideology they chose to believe , same can be said about the extremism of atheism. What you are doing here is projecting your personal negative experience with Christianity to all religions.
Strawmans used in this video:
1) Definition of atheism
2) Stating that Philosophical naturalism is the basis of atheism. (There is no single -ism that can pointed as the basis of philosophy of atheism).
A couple of points:
1. Atheism can be irrational. We are all born atheists. Children are irrational until they are educated in some fashion, it doesn't have to be formal education. A person can ignore all interactions with religious education and live and die irrational regarding religion, or any other topic for that matter. There are lots of unbelievers who have zero interest in religion and call themselves atheists.
2. The Atheist community owns the definition of atheism, not academics and not the religious. The atheist community has overwhelming redefined the original definition of atheism. Atheism to any atheists means lack of belief . A baby is an atheist. Anyone that lacks belief in god is an atheist. Here my words: the religious will never, ever be able to lay dominion over that definition. The community gets to define the word and they have spoken. The moral dilemma with the religious trying to force the atheist community into a definition the atheist community does not agree with is the relationship is by definition antagonistic. This is no different than if an atheist tried to tell a self-identifying Muslim they are not a Muslim because of some definitional inadequacy. Nope. The religious expect to self-identify their religion with impunity. The non-religious are only asking for the same impunity to identify as non-religious as they see fit. But no, the start of this video does not allow an atheist this but tries to tell an atheist who they are. That's antagonistic and will never be accepted.
Definitions were off an atheist hasn’t looked every way and decided there isn’t a creator but based off the information we know there isn’t a personal god that’s how most think and agnostic doesn’t mean undecided but that they accept that we just don’t know
Mashallah great 👍 work brother.
I am not convinced in the existence of any god for I have never encountered _any_ credible evidence, including _any_ sound argument, that suggests such an existence. Therefore, I will suspend any acknowledgement as to the existence of a god _until_ such evidence or argument is introduced.
Am I not rationally justified in my position?
No you aren't
Please elaborate what you mean by credible evidence
@@think-islam-channel Why am I not justified in my position?
@@Mafzsal Certainly. I will begin by defining evidence.
I consider 'evidence' to be ANY presentation that substantiates the truth of a claim.
I consider 'credible evidence' as that which is verifiable for validity, accuracy, and authenticity.
I consider 'sufficient credible evidence' to be that which convinces me as to the truth of a claim.
@@tsananeomeno7963
1. Because your position is wrong
2. Because your position is based on your subjective thinking.
3. If God exists, then it proves that what you perceive as rational thinking, is in fact irrational.
"...atheism is a claim that no creator exists..."
Not necessarily. Theism is the belief that there is at least one god. A-theism is... not that, hence the a- in front. So not-theism.
Agnosticism is similar. The 'gnostics' (a term that's largely died out) were those who thought it possible to know for certain that there is a god (specifically their Christian god). A-gnostic is, again, not that, either not claiming to know _or_ perhaps even claiming that such knowledge is impossible. So being an agnostic _may not_ (as you later suggest) be a 'neutral' position, it may be making a claim _itself,_ namely that it is _impossible_ to know if a god exists or doesn't. Depends on how one is using the word.
As an "explicit agnostic atheist" (the way I would describe myself) I have _considered_ the idea (explicit), don't claim to _know_ for sure (agnostic), but don't _believe_ there are gods (atheist).
"...most atheists are philosophical naturalists..."
I've never met a philosophical naturalist. _I'm_ certainly not one. Most of the atheists I'm _aware_ of are _methodological_ naturalists, which is _very_ different. The natural is all we can _investigate._ This makes anything _beyond_ the natural _outside of_ our ability to investigate, and thus becomes irrational to accept (proportion your belief of external reality to the evidence, evidence can only be natural, so the supernatural has no evidence).
If there _are_ supernatural activities going on in reality, then we _will_ never and _can_ never have evidence of that. _But_ the lack of evidence for some natural phenomenon _does not_ mean that what you are looking at is supernatural _because_ it's always possible there _is_ a natural explanation and you just don't, yet, know what it is. Before we knew how lightning worked, people thought Zeus threw lightning bolts. Now that we _understand_ the _natural_ process by which it happens, no one who studies lightning thinks it's a process directed by a mind. It's... natural.
"...these processes, according to naturalists, have characteristics, like they are... random..."
Yes/no. Be aware that 'random' in this case simply means 'unpredictable on some scale', _not_ that they can do anything at any moment. For instance, hydrogen and oxygen mixed and exposed to a spark will _always_ produce water, that's not 'random' in some senses. And yet predicting when and where water will form is beyond our capability because there's just _so much_ going on that tracking it all is impossible for us currently (and likely forever, _especially_ due to the Uncertainty Principle).
"...how can we claim that our brains, our minds can achieve mental insights, meaning how can rationality come from non-rationality..."
Rationality is a process based largely on logic, and even in _philosophical_ naturalism logic is unavoidable, at the _very_ least in the Laws of Identity (which are _descriptive_ laws, not _prescriptive_ laws). Moreover, coming to _correct_ conclusions _about_ reality is going to be _more_ functional than coming to _false_ conclusions about reality _in the long run._ False conclusions _can_ be useful in the short term, but on longer timescales those who _actually_ understand how reality works will do better than those that have false beliefs because those who understand _actual_ reality can _build_ things that _work_ based on principles they've discovered. If your principles are _wrong,_ things you _build_ will not work. As such, there is an _evolutionary_ pressure towards a mode of thinking that is based in rationality rather than reaction, _but_ such a system of thinking wouldn't be the _first_ sort of thinking that keeps most creatures _alive,_ and would have to be added _onto_ the irrational, purely 'in the moment' survival-based thinking that precedes it... which is _exactly_ what we see. Humans have a _lot_ of ways of reacting that are not, at all, _rational,_ but they _are_ good for _survival_ value because they react _fast,_ and _in the moment,_ to keep us safe (mostly, I mean... part of the _problem_ with such a system is that, being irrational, they sometimes are the _wrong_ response). Meanwhile _rational_ thought is something we aren't very good at, because it hasn't been around _nearly_ as long as survival thought, and so isn't as developed. Rational thought is _also_ not _exclusive_ to humans, as far as we can tell, we're just _better at it_ than other animals. Watch a raven display understanding of water displacement to get food, and you'll see it grasps the concept just fine, even working out that larger objects displace more water and so using larger objects preferentially. That's a _rational_ process, just not much of one.
"...how can anything give rise to something that does not contain it..."
This is called the Fallacy of Composition/Division, asserting that what is true of the parts must also be true of the whole or vice versa. How can humans give airplanes flight when we don't contain flight? How can an airplane fly when the parts that make it up don't fly?
"...the existence of reason does not have any scientific explanation..."
Well, there's the above proposal, but that's a _hypothesis,_ not a _theory_ (you know, like the Germ Theory of Disease is a theory in science). But _beyond_ that, there wouldn't _have_ to be. 'Reasoning' is not 'external reality', it's _internal_ to us, it's about the way we think. Science isn't the right field to discuss the way we think, that's what _philosophy_ is for, because it's _purely_ internal. Science has a _basis in_ philosophy, of course, but it isn't, itself, ultimately based on just our opinions of things. If anything, the _whole point_ of science is to _get around_ our opinions on things and _rely_ on a naturalistic paradigm to explore reality around us.
ruclips.net/video/lLqmrYUIPCo/видео.html
"...we should not rely solely on scientific explanations to arrive at truths or knowledge..."
We should if what is being examined is external to ourselves, to minds, to the ways we think.
"...such a complex and sophisticated thing such as mind..."
So... you think a mind is too complex to just exist, and thus propose that a mind... just exists?
Of course, this is _another_ fallacy: The Argument from Incredulity.
No one with the right mind will deny a Creator. Everything in the universe points to the existence of superior intelligence mind .. you need to have a level of faith to believe that everything can come out of nothing lol.
@@Mafzsal
*No one with the right mind will deny a Creator.*
Poisoning the Well fallacy.
*Everything in the universe points to the existence of superior intelligence mind*
Nope. Every time we investigate how things _really_ work in nature, there's _never been_ a mind discovered behind it. The role of a god has been steadily shrinking for _centuries_ now. It _used to be_ thought you needed a god to explain rain, lightning, snow, hail, the rising and setting sun, the phases of the moon, the diversity of life on Earth, the existence of planets, and their orbits around the sun. And yet anyone paying attention will now know that _not one_ of those things seems to be driven by a mind, they all happen _automatically_ and _inevitably._ This leaves just a couple places left for a god to hide, and given the trend over the last several centuries why should we believe the _same trend_ won't just continue?
*...you need to have a level of faith to believe that everything can come out of nothing...*
What do you mean by 'nothing'? There's lots of definitions for 'nothing'. I think the one _you_ are using is 'nothing is what rocks dream about', in which case you are presenting a straw man of the position of myself and most other atheists of which I'm aware. _No one_ thinks _anything_ came out of _that_ sort of 'nothing'.
As for it coming from a _lower_ level of 'nothing', I don't hold _that_ position, either, as it hasn't been demonstrated with evidence. So _perhaps_ instead of _arrogantly_ assuming what _I_ believe, you might want to _ask_ about it.
To save time, I don't know where the universe 'came from', or even if 'came from' is a proper way to _discuss_ the universe. Perhaps we live in a four-dimensional block, as is _very much_ implied by the Theory of Relativity, in which case the _whole universe_ (past, present, _and_ future) is eternal and static, unchanging, it's only our _limited perspective_ that suggests anything else. That's just _one_ scenario. Maybe we live in some sort of multiverse, either simultaneous or sequential. Maybe a god did it, but this god neither knows nor cares about our existence (using the universe as a candle, all those stars, and the rest hold no interest to this being). Maybe we're the result of universe-farting pixies. There simply isn't enough evidence to decide right now, so the _only_ rational position is "I don't know, but let's try to find out".
@@KindNine theists make claim that everything come from nothing ? atheists are the one making that claim that universe began from nothing?..an Atheist dude wrote a book Universe from Nothing.. his 'nothing' actually refers to something..it is a semantics gymnastics lol
@@KindNine can you explain how the universe began from nothing?
@@Mafzsal
First, for some reason your comments weren't responding to me. Somehow you got it sending to "kind9"... weird. Probably a mess-up with RUclips.
*theists make claim that everything come from nothing ?*
I never said any such thing. Maybe it was from Kind9 (whose comment I can't see for some reason).
*atheists are the one making that claim that universe began from nothing?*
Not in the way you mean it, no, no one is claiming that.
*his 'nothing' actually refers to something..it is a semantics gymnastics*
There are _lots_ of definitions for the word 'nothing':
ruclips.net/video/PhfqdBk8qxk/видео.html
*can you explain how the universe began from nothing?*
What sort of 'nothing' are we talking about here? I can explain (in a _vastly_ oversimplified way, so oversimplified it's probably _wrong_ somehow, not that I would know _exactly_ how it's wrong) how it might be possible for the universe to begin from "Level 4 nothing" as defined by the video, if that would help.
Thanks for the book recommendation. Thought provoking questions raised in the video
Hmmm no no and no :(
I liked it better when the channel showed inaccurate representations of crusader and Islamic conquests.
There are too many flawed points in this video, but most of them have been addressed below by "Robin Dude".
No. Atheism is not the position that there is no creator.
Atheism is the position that theists have NEVER met their burden of claim.
And that is a proof that the atheist can't prove.
It's just their argument from incredulity
Atheism is a claim that Creator doesn't exist .. it's implied that existence of the universe sprang out of nothing..
Well he lost me when he defined atheism and agnostic with just connected to creation
Very good summary. Thank you for keeping it short and to the point.
It isn't?
Nice video bro you need to be mindful though your average atheist wouldn't understand any of this their sole motivation for becoming atheist is their contempt for religion every atheist will give you a long winded lecture of how religion is the root of all evil or how they distrust organized religion. Great narration though so moving forward are you going to be narrating your own videos?
Well, I don't think _I_ did that above, and I'm not sure where you're getting your data on the 'average atheist'. Most of those I'm aware of either were never brought up to believe, and so _don't,_ or else realized that the underpinnings of it came down to believing a few people whose only evidence for their position was 'trust me', which is _not_ a good way to go about exploring external reality.
I don't think religion is the root of all evil, but it _is_ another divisive aspect and it isn't _needed._ We _already_ have bigotry (race, gender, sexuality, etc), countries, and politics separating us from being a harmonized whole, religion just adds fuel to that fire.
Atheists are never consistent on anything. Just check out the debate with Daniel Haqiqatou and Tjump ...
I'm an atheist. I had no contempt for religion until people like you gave it to me. I've read the Bible, the Quran, Several Taoist Books, and several other that ALL say they are the one and only truth. You believe ALL other gods are. As Bible says I should learn what Gods like from how Christians act. What I've learned is religion makes people like YOU and Donald Trump. Because people like you Christian churches are losing members as a whole, the ones that are growing seem to be the ones that fully embrace MAGA cultism, QAnon conspiracy theories, and effectively serve as a propaganda arm of the Republican Party. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- When you belong to a religion that tells you to dismiss logic and reason in favor of faith and obedience, it’s not that big of a leap for worshipers to accept a difference kind of mythology. When you’re taught from a young age to avoid challenging authority and told to keep critical questions to yourself (or to “just have faith”), why would anyone be surprised when you fall for the flimsiest of conspiracies? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Let me guess all you'll do is threaten me. argumentum ad baculum, which literally translated means "argument to the stick" and which is commonly translated to mean "appeal to force." With this fallacy, an argument is accompanied by the threat of violence if the conclusions are not accepted. Many religions are based upon just such an tactic: if you don't accept this religion, you will be punished either by adherents now or in some afterlife. If this is how a religion treats its own adherents, it's not a surprise that arguments employing this tactic or fallacy are offered to nonbelievers as a reason to convert.
@@overlycaffeinatedsquirrel779 I hear your frustrations about people becoming extreme in whatever ideology they chose to believe , same can be said about the extremism of atheism. What you are doing here is projecting your personal negative experience with Christianity to all religions.
The average atheist you speak of is something called an antitheist.