Why We Need Anti-Theism | Debate
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 янв 2024
- Thumbnail "Corn King" art done by Emperor Neuro
NewGrounds - emperorneuro.newgrounds.com/
Twitter - / emperor_neuro
Intro "Maizelbub" art by Dan Rossi
Website - danrossidraws.artstation.com/
Twitter - / danrossidraws
Catch all my streams LIVE at / actualjake
#Politics #Debate #Twitch 
Развлечения
Edgey takes in 2024: have rational beliefs
Edgy*
And no, the issue is the insisting on policing other’s beliefs when they pose no active harm only a philosophical possible harm. If anti-theists would stop conflating Christian beliefs with other religions this conversation would be a lot easier to have. Not every religion makes statements on some sort of universal truth, many personal faiths are completely internal to the believer and are intentionally separate from other aspects of one’s beliefs.
@@frey8078if you believe in a god then say it with your chest you gigantic gaping pussy.. jesus christ dude lol youre delusional
I think the problem is Jake kind of implies that when he argues people out of religion he means in one hour-long session, TJ Kirk did it to me over years.
TJ was the first person to argue to me that Hell was not just cruel but insanely stupid, then that sin was stupid, and that assigned authority is also stupid.
It was a lot of videos but all of that made me note... oh religion is stupid.
@@frey8078 hypocrite
"I'm a skeptic"
"My Christian friend is my spiritual advisor and therapist"
Don't call them stupid
Don't call them stupid
Don't call them stupid
*_Ooooooohhhhhhmm_*
@John-PaulHunt-pv6ol what?
I especially love the part where nothing even close to that was said!
The caller stated that the reason Jake is antitheist is because he didn't grow up in a religious household and that only people who grow up in non-religious households are ever antitheists. I grew up in a very Christian household and I am very antitheist. So that statement was incorrect. Many people who grow up in religious households are antitheists.
Growing up in the church is exactly why I’m at the very least anti Christianity.
Haven’t gotten to that statement yet but yeah that’s weird. I know when I was Christian I tried to discount any other Christian who left the faith as not truly ever Christian so maybe that’s it
I'm also an anti-theist ancom from Ohio. I don't give religion a f****** inch. But when I make anti-theist arguments I don't center them around religious people I just center them around religion itself. You can be an anti-theist without being rude. We should be trying to move people.
This is it. It’s an easy dunk but not productive.
I love that attitude · also rudeness invites the backfire effect & simply won't work ❤
Ayyyy fellow anti theist from Ohio! 🙋🏼♀️
It depends on who the religious person is. Like Jake once talked with someone who said they would gladly KILL THEIR OWN CHILDREN for God. I think insulting people like this is fair game. That being said the guy in the video came in with good faith and I wish Jake showed him some of that good faith as well
It depends on what youre doing.
1 - religious beliefs ARE the people, there is no seperation here, only denominations as catagory and than interpersonal differences.
2 - you can't move people over unless they agree with a point, anti-thiesm and thiesm are not compatible beliefs, so you often do need to get very personal against someones beliefs, because theres no seperation of belief and person.
Productive stuff often happens long term, especially on things like religion, it comes after LOTS of people putting forward an arguement or solution.
Jake is pretty weird about the "person" who is religious tho. Anti-thiesm is great in a federal level stuff, some ideas of pluralism is fine in civilization.
Faith is still bad tho.
If i had a dime for every time someone tried to pull the "we can't really know things", bs...
I'd probably have about 20/30 bucks in my pocket...
23:25 Jake is 100% right. I fell into right wing BS, queerphobia and racism in high school cuz of religious connections with friends. My parents have always been pretty progressive people but they couldn't set me right in high school because my shit beliefs where fueled by the same religion they believed. So even though I was wrong and they knew that they couldn't push too hard without undermining there faith or mine, and that was more important.
Proud of you that you got out!!
I fell into it in a completely atheistic field. Explain that.
"Yes religion isn't based on reality and yes it leads people to do bad and hateful things and yes humans seem to have a particular weakness to religious and mystical thinking.... AND that's why we shouldn't try to fight it too hard cuz it would be REALLY hard and unlikely that it will ever go away completely and might make some of the people that like those bad and wrong ideas mad. So instead we should just like shut up and just do what they want cuz we have to and there isn't a solution."
That's basically this guys argument
Been binging a bunch of these lately. Night shift work. Thanks for the great content!
I agree with Jake but he's gotta chill out, all that agro is going to do is make someone defensive and make the whole conversation more painful to sit through. The guest was very incorrect but you at least have to let them finish a sentence, even if it's dumb. I don't expect you to be nice but be a bit cordial especially when the guest could be convinced since they essentially agree with everything else.
I've watched 3 Jake debates today. All 3 have ended with Jake getting super aggro and being an a$$hole. I mean, I've watched 3 of these so I guess it works for him, but it isn't very facilitative of a discussion. They can't all be blood sports that devolve into hurling insults.
Religious people need to learn that facts don't care about their feelings.
he is peak reddit athiest
Yeah even tho jake is right he can come off unhinged. He was constantly interrupting them as well which makes him look like he’s in the wrong
I don't think every debater has to be civil and polite. Jake is the leftist equivalent to a fox news panelist and that's ok. Just because people don't research who they're debating doesn't mean they should get softballed. i honestly wish more people would just set parameters or request a moderator, Jake always debates like its a conversation and in conversations people get interupted. idk im sick of being polite to people just because the left wants to appear nice
“I’ll see my dead loved ones again!” Suuuuuper healthy lol
24:32 you need to structure these better, so you don’t yell at your GUESTS when they try to talk.
My only nitpick about this position, and I have no idea if Jake already holds this belief anyway, but religious beliefs are just a type of flawed belief. Flawed ideologies don't have to reflect a power game.
The religions being discussed do, obviously, and Jake's position is tenable as long as it is understood that religious belief = power focused religious belief.
Kinda the issue here is that there will always be a power dynamic when it comes to religion.
So long as people insist on procreating there will always be the most fundamental power dynamic of parent and child.
Children intrinsically look to their parental figure for guidance about what reality looks like. When the parent holds a religious belief, a flawed belief as you put it, the child will inherit that unless the parent is so passive about their religious beliefs and behaviors that they functionally do not exist. Which, I don't know about you, but I have yet to see a kind of religious belief which does not manifest itself in some form of behavior.
You keep saying "We can talk about it," to every point but every time he tries to talk you interrupt him and go on a rant. And every time he tries to illustrate his point, you talk over him and say what you think his point is. This is not a conversation.
You can BE right and he can BE wrong but if you aren't willing have a dialog, why even invite this person on?
My thoughts exactly. This conversation felt extremely unproductive and I felt for the guy, even if I don’t fully agree with his take. Idk, I just feel that leftists should try to avoid alienating religious folks if they’re otherwise decent, and Jake’s antitheism seems to want to prioritize doing just that? Like, I hate to jacket, but that seems more like ps*op behavior than this random caller. I don’t think Jake is an op, but hearing non-conversations like this make me not want to approach strident anti-theist spaces bc of its potential to alienate queer and minority religious communities here in the US just as much as apologetics for religiosity alienates the non-religious in those same communities. Idk, people can call me a shitlib or whatever but this was just sad & frustrating to watch.
Yeah, Jake’s gotten pretty insufferable in debates. I’m atheist myself and tend toward antitheism, but the constant air of scorn and condescension doesn’t accomplish much besides driving people to dig their heels in further. It gets very “le epic fedora atheist” with him lately, just smug as fuck and unlikable enough to undercut his own messaging.
@Kropothead I'm not even necessarily on the guy's side but it seems like he came into this in good faith and was very respectful, even while being interrupted.
Let him make his fucking argument. THEN you can tear it down.
He wants to caveman his way through debate. He ironically is the stereotype of the "debate bro"
16:40 a simile? What are you talking about? That's a straw man if ever I saw one.
You are arguing against an opponent who isn’t there.
I wish I could come on and debate Jake, but there's nothing I disagree with him on substantially 😂
as an athiest i think Jake makes us look incompatible with society.
@@fatshibaballs k
damn bro, let the guest finish a sentence.
Insert mlk quote about white moderates
Speaking as a formerly very religious person, I entirely agree with Jake. Even people like myself who leave religion have several other ideas that we often don’t realize we still need to drop and this guy is still suffering from a few of them
It is not very wise to isolate a large section of the proletariat (the religious proletariat) because you will never succeed in making a large enough coalition to change anything. Theism will fade over time once capitalism is replaced, so isolating them now is doomed to failure.
I think that this best sums up what the guest was trying to get at. While it may feel validating to go scorched earth with religious people, that’s going to create CONSIDERABLY less allies than trying to engage with them in good faith.
Like the guest, I grew up in a very religious area. If I were to carry myself like Jake does here, I would be considered a lunatic and an asshole. Regardless of whether I’m right or not, I just become seen as an intolerant bigot in my own right.
I’d argue that this issue is VERY different from tackling homophobia/transphobia in a militant way, because while the former doesn’t really change people’s lives if they accept queer people, asking people to completely relinquish their beliefs system is a much larger ask.
I believe that Christianity is a problem just as much as any other atheist, but I don’t think the solution is to force them to completely give up on their beliefs, but rather convince them to make amends to them.
Theism hasn't faded and probably won't fade soon if ever. Even today religious people are a vast majority vas vas vaaast majority compared to a handful of atheists. A new economic model will not solve all humanity's problems - you still have to get sick grow old and die. Hence people believe. Once you solve those 3 things maybe, otherwise a new economic model won't do anything
Superstition existed before and will after and we should always critique it
This is a very Americentric take. And also just wrong.
oh my god the trap metaphor made so much sense
Because we need someone to laugh at
31:00 your use of the word forced is not a good sign for the career you chose.
BRB. Going to grab a pillow to scream into.
you're never gonna get rid of religion until you can provide people an alternative to make them feel both part of a community and also smugly superior to quite literally everyone around them
Just coming here to say this, and I don't care what the horrific response is likely to be. If you cannot be free to believe in a god in a way that isn't impacting anyone else, you're not free. Yes, ORGANIZED religion is bad because people put blind trust in a pastor who tells them what to believe, and that's inherently harmful. But, if one wants to have faith in a way that isn't harming anyone else, and the faithful isn't a bigoted, science denying asshole, why would you care? I don't. It's a free speech issue, in my opinion. Look, I already know the replies are going to be cancerous. You're an individual anti-theist, as in no one should be allowed to practice any religion whatsoever, and I'm not. I believe that it's only the bigots and the organizations behind these churches that need to be banned or regulated.
It's one thing to just be a nice, God-loving person. It's another to be an asshole, abuser or hateful organizer about it, and only one of those groups needs to be banned.
Before anyone comes for me, no, I'm not religious and I never will be. That ship sailed a long time ago. I am still in favor of banning bigotry and the 501c3 organizations that are churches, etc. What I don't want to take away is a person's right to be wrong, so long as they're just keeping it to themselves
Your argument is just a humongous no true scottsman bud... put so many conditions on the practicing of books which in some instances blatantly allows the murdering of all non religious that then no one is actually religious. These are blatantly bigoted books the catholic church is still against gay marriage...
Yep.
I've been wrong about a lot of things, from religious beliefs, to capitalism, to patriarchy, to heteronormativity. I only changed my mind because I was allowed to recognize for myself that I was wrong and seek out new information on my own. This would never have happened under duress, the same way I'm never going to convert to a belief system under duress. The reason people change their beliefs is that something in their lives motivates them to do so, not because they were debated out of it. You cannot impose this motivation from the outside. The most you can do is set a good example and expose people to different ideas they may not have considered.
Absolutely incorrect. Belief in magic is fundamentally at odds with reality. It is the responsibility of the education system to expunge such bullshit from society.
Jake is a little aggro for his own good, but otherwise I agree
Nope. You have to be aggressive against religion and defense of religion, same goes for belief in magic. You don't kill cancer with kindness.
killing cancer with cancer ain't it either. @@Noname72105
Eh imo I agree with Jake but the aggression was a bit much sometimes.
My thing is the magical thinking/believing the God or the equivalent is actually real aspect of many religions beyond what organized religions do. I genuinely think it takes away the focus from the people of that time and what influenced them to write such text. It boils down into "believe x or y thing will happen" which is imo extremely lazy and quite sad sometimes. Why should we build a community on something that even YOU have trouble even providing evidence for? Why not something more tangible like the people around you for the sake of it? It genuinely makes people (the thing thats doing the actual creating) a footnote or second fiddle and for what? Its like we are afraid to be honest so we need a cosmic reason to care about each other.
God or whoever has to fill in the gap cause they cant sustain themselves or be confident in their own mortality. Obviously this is painted by Christianity since im not encountering a Tibetan Monk where I live everyday but, I think the core point still stands. Ik im kinda ranty but im just saying how I feel about this subject. Dont get to talk about it often lol
_"... it's a trap! ..."_ [Admiral Ackbar & Actual Jake]
I thought anti-theism was basically the idea that no one should be theists. I need to research how the term is used more, thanks!
I can say as a lifelong athiest, I have no trouble with death. I think about it almost not at all. Now, the transition into the state of death, not looking forward to that necessarily. I hope it's not painful or drawn-out or anything. But I don't spend spend any time thinking about an afterlife, because I know there isn't one. And I just don't care, because I won't exist anymore. There won't be a "me" to care about things.
RUclips instantly deleted my first and long comment for dropping some wisdom in it.
some of you never went on a christopher hitchens watch bringe in 2014 and it shows
The bottom line with antitheism is this: if someone believes things that not able to be confirmed to have a basis in reality (which is true of religiously-held beliefs by religion's inherent reliance on the supernatural), their positions, if helpful, are coincidental. Rational secularism is a more sturdy foundation for crafting ethical frameworks. In other words, a theist ally is a less reliable ally, as they cannot be relied upon to process information on a naturalistic, empirical basis.
That said, the caller is correct that, as a matter of strategy, we should engage in _gentle_ antitheism. We ought to maintain allyship with sympathetic religious people and use that proximity to dispossess them of their supernaturalistic worldviews gradually.
I think when you consider the importance of faith and spirituality to indigenous people who have already had so much taken from them anti-theism starts to take on some hardcore colonizer energy.
faith and spirituality ≠ an organised death cult in the pants of government
It's one thing to force a deletion or change of religion on people, especially marginalized people. It's another thing to just dialogue with people and say "Hey, IMO it's harmful to believe in magic. I believe that cultures evolve for the better when they ditch the traditions that are no longer helpful. I hope you'll consider that and just make your own decisions. You're free to do what you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone."
You could argue that your position is very paternalistic though and equally colonizer energy.
Ok, what if we granted this guy that irrationality is a part of human nature in a way we just can’t remove entirely. Why would that lead to a god existing?
The whole point of science and the processes that make it up is that it counters the quirks in our makeup that lead to unreliable observation. We learn things by testing and analyzing and constantly fail-checking our hypotheses and changing our answers if new understandings arise. It’s a self checking system. All you have to do is care if your beliefs line up with reality.
He’s basically decided he doesn’t care if this specific assumption doesn’t line up with reality because what? It’s easier not to argue with people? Fine. Don’t argue, but you can’t tell someone who does care to stop.
I consider myself to be an antitheist but the only time I ever even talk about it is if someone else brings up the topic. I think it’s silly that we admit that being mentally ill and disconnected from reality is a problem to be treated but somehow believing in religion is fine when the mentally ill are usually the ones who suffer from their own condition. Religion harms everyone it touches and affects politics and starts and maintains wars for centuries. Look at the Middle East and tell me religion is a benefit to humanity.
Wasnt jfk the first Catholic president?
Jake stop talking over him you're being so fucking rude
Religion is not inherently traumatic
I think it depends where you draw the line on spirituality, religion and"R"eligion.
Spirituality comes from our natural pattern seeking. No harm by nature.
Religion as a common belief is a result of culture, not harmful by default, simply has the potential.
"R"eligion = structural pressure and authority via the faith. This would literally be defined as traumatic, in the same way slavery used to be normal and accepted, the idea that you can/should indoctrinate children and than emotionally (at least) abuse them if they decide to not believe? That traumatizes everyone. It might be accepted that religion is normal to follow and be exposed to, but it wouldnt take away from the societal pressure.
Ohio sucks
Comparing religion to racism right off the bat is not something I expected in a debate. They are not at all similar. One is founded in extremely unfounded biases, that target specific groups of people. The other may be used to justify bias. Religion is usually based on the belief in the soul, racism is based in many different and provably wrong assumptions.
I am very disappointed, false equivalence is very easy to avoid if you understand the subects you are comparing.
It very much fuels racism, homophobia, sexism, pedophilia, child abuse etc
Everything you attributed to racism in this comment can also be attributed directly to religion, so not really sure what point you’re making
@Nico_Sno religions are not based on hatred of a group. Religion is used as a justification sometimes, but that is not it's purposely.
Racism is just provably wrong. Religions are often based on spirits or unproveable elements.
I hope this clarifies what I mean. I see a lot of atheist spaces make odd assumptions based on their religious trauma. So I get touchy because these are the sort of things you learn if you take one world religions course or any that examines the development of culture.
@@Beth4ny Neither is fascism. You seem to have simplistic definitions of either.
@esbenm6544 Racism is a feature of facism, particularly when a group is made a scapegoat. And religious texts are often used to justify fascist ideals. Not sure what you meant exactly, but I hope this helped.
Whenever anyone mentions religion, they usually don't mean judaism, hinduism, buddhism, or any indigenous religions, which is why I find anti-theism to be inherently flawed, it completely overrides the cultural aspect of religion and why it would be important to someone to uphold traditions in line with their culture that has nothing to do with a literal belief in god, which is usually much more personalized. I hope this makes sense, I just find anti-theism to not really have a place in leftist spaces as long as we are advocating for minority rights. It's a very christian-centric worldview, and not all religions are christianity.
People can have their culture. To hell with the tax breaks and their ability to pass legislation based on their religious beliefs. That’s simply it. Religion is just a part of culture btw, not what makes it.
You clearly don't watch enough anti theist content, there is anti theist content for every religion that is made by people from those religions. Also you CAN take the culture and leave the religious thinking behind. Look at atheist Jewish people. Religion and culture are only tied because religious institutions tell people they are.
I have no idea where you get this idea from. Ive absolutely seen anti-christian beliefs. But ive never seen "anti-thiests" reflect that religion must mean chrsitianity.
Christinanity, judism and islam are too similar to discount which is which here. But we (usually use english speakers) are focused around Christian-majoirty countries. So were exposed to the direct harm of faith and religion. Thats probably why the focus is assumed.
When i talk about religion, I talk about all religion, i hate hindism as much as buddhism, as much as islam, as much as chrsitianity.
Its hard to relate it to something like the greek pantheon or saga in first nation people, because most people didnt take it serious and there wasn't any large scale systemic assertion. You had worship in a very different idea and answers for the world, where judaism claims all existance, the greek only claim gods had attributes and most of them time, you weren't suppose to like them
the reason i became anti-thiest is because buddhism and its horrible anti-human principals. So i dont know if that applies widely, but i think the "anti-christian" focus can be easily explained
false
🤔Anti-theism?? Do you mean anti-religion? Because theism, and religion are not one, and the same.
So it does seem to me that you're only referring to religions such as "christianity", and "islam" that are dominant throughout the world. But there are plenty of "non-religious theists" who do exist. 😏
Consult a dictionary
@@esbenm6544 🤭Just because a dictionary definition has said so. That still doesn't even mean that it's 100% fact.
So you do even realize that we already have a term for somebody who opposes all religions, right?
@@americanliberal09 Now you're just coping
@@esbenm6544 😁Oh, really? So i'm actually coping, because i have presented the facts?
hell yeah we need anti-Theism!
I am very religious, but I do think we need a more strident Antitheism, but for real Jake you need to actually learn Philosophy, you are out of your depth here.
I'm an apistevist, a hard 7 on the scale of disbelief, and have been personally harmed by religious extremism. I do not agree with the approach of generalizing the harm caused by organized religion onto all religious believers, or denigrating individual religious people. It doesn't help for me to act like I'm morally or intellectually superior to someone just because they're religious and I'm not. This is not how I, or anyone else, was motivated to deconstruct my own beliefs when I was growing up. I left because of trauma, disillusionment, and seeing the moral hypocrisy firsthand. Change has to start from within. The most you can do is lead by example and show people that better things are possible.
The real problem is capitalism, at the end of the day. Organized religion is a tool used by capitalism to reinforce its hierarchies. You can't dismantle capitalism overnight. You have to build a better system, and this is not something that can be done alone.
I agree with anti theism up until the point where people start talking about banning religion. Argue with them, make their institutiions pay taxes but I disagree with authoritarianism and controlling peoples lives to that extent. Plus it has a habit of backfiring
No anti theist who isn’t 14 advocates for banning religion, you’re fighting phantom battles in your own mind.
You dont need to ban religion if you take away its integration with state apparatus organized religion and the state are apart of the same measures of control. There's a reason rome converted so fast and it wasn't because they liked Christianity.
@@lonelyone69 this is the only thing anti-theists actually advocate for. This dude has lost his mind if he thinks we’re out here advocating for the banning of religion.
I'm highly skeptical of anti-religion sentiments. If religion is just God worship, then I'm not supportive of it, but I respect the freedom to practice it. You can be rational about theism, so I'm against it like I'm against platonism.
Being an unfriendly atheist, holding all theists as irrational and harmful, like something is wrong with their brain, is more than simply being against theism, it's prejudice often based on ignorance.
But this seems like a reductive view of religion. Religion as a system for regulating moral thought and community building is good, we should as atheists try to create something similar, not reject it outright.
Also sidenote: Jake conflates religion and theism, and makes the dumb argument that religion here and now does things he disapproves of so therefore all religion is inherently bad.
I mean the caller is kinda making a God of the gaps, but that isn't about even what the caller was arguing for.
Thank you for articulating that conflation. It’d be cool if he talked to an academic (maybe an atheist so he won’t jump down their throat) on religious studies or religious history.
Agreed. Religion has persisted in society because it provides a benefit, in that it organizes cooperative behavior and fulfills the human need for community. No, religion is by no means the only source of these things, and yes, organized religion has appropriated and monopolized them. However, that's why it's all the more important to build better systems to provide for people's needs, in much the same way we need to do the same thing to deal with capitalism. Art and literature can provide the same things without the baggage of organized religion.
Religion being a system for regulating moral thought *supplants* the ability to build a set of values based on rational thought and evidence based in reality- what we could create as atheists. They are incompatible. You are either regulating moral thoughts based on reality, or you're not, in which case you're dealing with someone ultimately not interested in reality.
Conflating "rational/rationality" as a positive thing is a dangerous idea. Much of this is harmful.
Rationalizing something means to form a logical point between things. Saying "you can be rational about thiesm" is why its so harmful to people when it comes to morality. "To rationalize" can be bad, its why we need more than just having an answer for trauma like a car crash.
"Religion is a system for regulating moral thought and community"
In the negative way. Moral reasons should be obvious, we did not suddenly come to realize people are people though a structured faith. Religion has yet to provide a better universal "moral thought" because it has to make excuses for morally bad things, the rationalizing of it is actively harmful to people's ability to make a solid connection to community.
Also, community is focused on alienation of the "other" injection and preaching is a systemic thing of conversion, its the same thing as "violence" being defined as withholding food for a demographic.
Also athiesm will never offer a moral solution, because its natural by its very defintions. Athiests already have many sources of moral judgement, humanists like me, or harm reduction, materialism and so on.
Community isnt a problem tho, athiests collect very effectively just by existing as most anyone would.
I would genuinely like to hear the idea how you think "you can be rational about thiesm" if you just mean "well the trees blow, so there must be a tree god" than thats the perfect example of how faith erodes rationality. Inception of "why does the tree blow?" Is great. The answer of "cuz some big powerful force" is reductionist
Jake, you are a pathological interrupter. You might have been right on the topic generally, but you were often arguing with what you assumed their point was. Almost insufferable to get through this!
The amount of times you are just saying things with no real evidence, or giving your opponent no time to give his responses is painfull.
This whole video shows that you have an extremely ignorant view of the world, and are using this as an excuse to rant.
He's insufferable when it comes to things he thinks he's right about. Dude is impossible to talk to.
Ehhhh, sorry, Jake, but I'm really, *really*, *REALLY* gonna have to disagree with you on this one. 😅
Yeah. I’ve been losing interest in his content lately, it’s just giving Vaush vibes and I absolutely can’t stand him. I fundamentally agree with Jake, I have personally experienced how toxic religion is, im trans and only came out at 26 because of the active and passive push back I got from the religious people around me. I am atheist, and feel like as a whole we should move away from organized religion. I try whenever possible(within reason, I don’t just jump down my family’s throat) to explain how contradictory a lot of religious beliefs are. But I have _never_ personally gotten anyone to question their beliefs or deconvert by shouting them down, speaking down to them, telling them how stupid their beliefs are, etc. it just pushes them further into their beliefs more often than not, it’s human nature to defend, no one is gonna really wanna engage with you if you come at them at 100 and yell at them about how the beliefs they’ve held their entire lives are a lie used by those in charge to manipulate them.
Explain the tangible material good that religion uniquely produces that it didn’t either usurp from some other historical modes of being or institutions, or has only maintained through total and complete hegemonic domination (often violently). Saying “moral influence” or “community building” is just acknowledging that you have completely bought into the centuries-long power politics of religion that actively made it impossible for most people to imagine these basic human behaviors without religion.
@@jadetortellini6150ironic, I like Vaush but agree that this is probably the closest approximation of his arguments... When he's engaging with somebody he thinks is bad faith already. Vaush will talk to conservatives with the amount of respect they offer to him, and only gets heated when he thinks BS is afoot.
FWIW, DemonMama has had better takes on how anti-theism is going a bit far in general.
@@jadetortellini6150 Fr! Vaush is already "Well, actually" personified. We don't need Jake to be that.
@@Andysavage24Yeah, what a disappointment if that’s the direction this space is going.
38:26 Hearing a theist throw shade on and laugh at another religion, is just precious.
What the fuck is a theiet