atheism is an umbrella. If you are not convinced that there exist a deity or deities, then you lack the conviction that these things exist, you are therefore an atheist. If you're not sure or you think it might be possible, then ok fine maybe you are an agnostic atheist. If you are convinced there is NO god or any gods anywhere, you're a gnostic atheist. Either way...if you do not answer "yes" to the question "are you convinced of the existence of one or more deities?" then you are an atheist. Semantics aside, that is the unavoidable conclusion.
***** Tradition and respect. It's a Jewish thing. Kinda loses a bit in the digital medium, but the premise is that G-d's name is to be treated with respect, so it's improper to write it on something that would be crumpled up, thrown away, or used to line a birdcage. There's ritual methods to dispose of worn prayerbooks or torahs respectfully. For similar reasons blessings used in recordings (songs, movies, for mass entertainment rather than education) are often subtly changed to alter the name used for G-d to a common similarly sounding standin (Adoshem), so that there's no possible concern about the recordings then being tossed in the trash. For that matter many (perhaps all, not sure) of the words for G-d used in prayer books do not translate phonetically to what's said (YHWH (well, the Hebrew equivalent) is very different, for example, but probably easily recognized to many laypeople. I've also seen YY (again, the Hebrew equivalent) used. I think there's a few more, but as a Jewish athiest it's been a while since I've been in services.)
***** It depends on usage for me. Referring to belief in a god is different from referring to belief in G-d. I think it also relates to the usage of abbreviations and standin names. To use your example, it's like your dog's name isn't Dog, but you refer to him as Dog because his true name isn't appropriate outside of the Temple, and then it's used enough that referring to Dog people know what dog you mean, so then Dog takes on similar issues of respect and use.
+Myles Adams No. Do you believe in the existence of a god or gods? Yes, and it can be known and demonstrated: Gnostic theist Yes, but it's all faith and can't be proven: Agnostic theist ANYTHING BUT YES + I don't claim to know: Agnostic Atheist Anything but yes + I know for sure: Gnostic Atheist.
I am a big fan of David Mitchell, but it's disappointing to see that he has misunderstood the meanings of atheism and agnosticism. They are not competing concepts, they are orthogonal concepts and you can be both at the same time. In fact most people that call themselves "atheist" or "agnostic" are what technically would be "agnostic atheist". (Belief) - Theist = belief in the existence of a god - Atheist = lack of belief in the existence of a god (not same as believing god does not exist) (Knowledge) - Gnostic = Knowing a god exists - Agnostic = Not knowing whether a god exists (Combinations) - Agnostic atheist = Does not know if a god exists, therefore chooses not to believe due to lack of evidence. - Agnostic theist = Does not know if a god exists, but chooses to believe despite lack of evidence. - Gnostic atheist = Knows for a fact that god does not exist, does not believe in god - Gnostic theist = Knows for a fact taht god does exist, believes in a god. So technically David Mitchell is a "agnostic atheist", even if he would want a god to exist. This is also the most rational position, given no evidence and the way we approach anything (beyond the topic of religion). Most rational belivers are "agnostic theists", they would not claim they know god exists or that they can prove it, but they might feel there are signs that he exists or chooses to believe since they think it's good for their life. More extreme believers (like ISIS) are Gnostic theists. They are completely sure they know god exists, no doubt. I've never met anybody claiming to be a Gnostic atheist (claiming they know for a fact that god does not exist), which would be an extreme position. But sady "gnostic atheist" is what many non-atheists think what atheism is! Ps. it could also be that I misunderstand what he is saying.
Most people cant seem to grasp knowledge is a subset of belief so any other answer apart from a positive one yes I belive in god means you are an atheist you can be an agnostic one but whatever
As Ricky Gervais explained really nicely, the problem is that you'd have to be Agnostic to most mythical ideas. You can never be 100% certain that something doesn't exist, but the liklihood is that it doesn't exist is so overwhelming that labelling yourself as an Agnostic is just willingness to submit to ignorance.
Could someone offer some advice on the locality of the full interview, that is the video itself on a medium and not the location where the interview took place, please.
Sigh, I like Mitchell but he's got it wrong here. Atheism isn't a blanket rejection of God or religion. It's not a rejection of anything, nor does it assert anything. It's not a belief system, it's not a way of saying someone doesn't believe in a divine being. What an atheist is saying is simply that because of the stark lack of empirical evidence for a deity, it's unlikely to the point of irrelevance that such a being exists. The position of atheists is based on evidence or lack thereof. Based on our current understanding of the universe, the probability of a divine being having created it or existing at all is so low that it's as near to zero as the probability that the theory of gravity is wrong. People will say that because the odds of a deity existing aren't absolute zero then atheists must really be agnostics and say they don't know but, to go back to gravity, it's entirely possible that we might wake up tomorrow to find that actually, things don't fall down and we'll all be floating around our bedrooms, cursing Newton. But that possibility is so remote that while it's not absolutely zero, in practical terms, it may as well be. The same is true of the existence of a divine being and that's the basic atheist position. If empirical evidence were to emerge that shows that possibility of a divine being existing isn't as close to zero as it can be (it can never be zero simply because you can't disprove something that isn't there in the same way you can't disprove the existence of the tooth fairy), then atheists would be the first people to look at that evidence and if there's any weight to it, adjust their world view accordingly. In other words, if you could show that God exists, atheists would accept that because they follow the evidence, whereas I suspect that if you could show that God doesn't exist, theists would ignore it and push back the goalposts, as they have always done. It's also worth noting that wanting something to be true doesn't make it true. You can want there to be a God. You can want there to be an afterlife where you'll meet your loved ones after death. That doesn't make it true. You may well ask an atheist whether they would wish to rob someone of the comfort they feel in those beliefs. It's a tough one. You don't want to cause pain to someone, especially when they're grieving. On an individual basis, I would tend to let them believe what they want as long as it does no harm but as a matter of consensus, for example, deciding public policy, then religious belief must be removed from the equation. We must endeavour to build our lives and our societies as if this is all there is and as if each of us has only one opportunity to make the best of our existence. Assume death is the end of the story.
jedsithor It seems like the debate over God's existence is the only topic in which certain parties attempt to create these overtly complex labels that are a mish-mash of an idea (e.g. that God does not exist, or that God does exist) and a psychological state (e.g. belief, or knowledge). For instance, you'll never hear anyone say "I'm a gnostic determinist." or "He's an agnostic physicalist." I don't know why this doesn't happen elsewhere, but I do know why it doesn't happen often - because it is entirely unhelpful and unnecessarily complex. We shouldn't prioritize labeling people: "Jim is an agnostic theist, and by that I mean that Jim does believe that there is a God, but he also believes that his belief that there is a God falls short of the standards necessary for knowledge." We should prioritize labeling ideas. Theism is the idea that there is a God. Atheism is the idea that there is no God. If we then want to label someone as agnostic (which is a term used often enough to apply to holding no view in other debates) as 1 who does not believe, or is not willing to defend either idea, we can. We can then have a conversation about which of those ideas (theism and atheism) is true. That conversation will be much more fruitful than a conversation about 1) whether God exists AND 2) whether someone who believes "God exists" knows "God exists". Labels like "gnostic atheist" are created & used by particularly dogmatic individuals who are a little too concerned with "burden of proof". Overt concern with burden of proof is a red flag for overt concern with winning a debate (or being thought of as the smartest person in the room), as opposed to an overt concern with the truth.
Saying you are agnostic rather than theist or atheist is a fundamental misunderstanding of the question. It is a true dichotomy that you either believe or do not believe in a God. Agnosticism refers to your belief on the ability to know anything for certain. There are agnostic theist (believes there is a God but doesn't claim to know for certain), agnostic atheists (doesn't believe there is a God But doesn't know for certain), gnostic theists (believes in a God and claims to know for certain) and gnostic atheists(believes there is no God and claims to know for certain).
That is according to the axis definitions. In those, theist means you believe in a higher power, atheist means you do not. Gnostic means you are certain of your belief, and agnostic means you are not. So an agnostic theist doesn't claim certainty, but believes in a higher power, and a gnostic atheist is absolutely certain there is not a higher power. In the linear definition, which David is using (and what most people with a Protestant upbringing circa 1970-1990 understand), there is atheist who believes there is no god, an agnostic which is not certain if there is or not, and a believer, who is certain there is.
@@davidwuhrer6704 Given the context of the discussion at hand, that seems unlikely. Is your question attempting to do anything other than distract from my clarification to BuggaBoo?
This is the reason I've remained religious, even as many of my friends have not. I want there to be something more and I genuinely believe that no matter what is true, I will be comforted by my own belief and will be happier because of that security.
***** Eh, why not? In the words of Blaise Pascal's famous wager 1. "God is, or He is not" 2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up. 3. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions. 4. You must wager. (It's not optional.) 5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. 6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain."
Artifying Pascals Wager is nonsense, famous nonsense but nonsense nevertheless. To apply it correctly you would need to apply it to all of the 10,000 plus gods which have been worshipped by mankind throughout history then factor in which of them have a "hell" and whether you have the correct version of the religion (30,000 denominations of Christianity). Then you would need to ask, if the biblical god actually existed, why you would want to spend time with a being which impregnated a 12 year old girl and killed multiple millions of children? You believe in Yahweh because it is one of the most recent gods and, I suspect, because you were brought up that way by your parents.
***** And what is wrong with that? Is anyone harmed by it? If it's merely for comfort, the overall effect seems to be beneficial. We are wrong about a lot of things in life. It is not rational to assume there is some sort of God, but as long as we are not talking about a human authority using that belief to dictate the lives of others it does not really present a problem.
Because beliefs inform actions and religion exerts a massive, malign influence on the world. And as for human authority it gives people, including the pope, their ability to dictate the lives of others. My sister died 13 years ago and it would have been "comforting" to think she was in heaven but at least accepting the fact that she is simply dead allows me to mourn her properly and move on. A comforting delusion is still a delusion and I would rather not be delusional.
Do you believe in a God or believe in any Theism? if your answer isn't yes than you are atheist. If you "don't know" than you are atheist. Atheism is not a belief in something it is a lack of belief in something.
+Michaelreqd He isn't wrong, atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of one more more deities. And if he doesn't believe in that then he is an atheist by definition. Of course, if he doesn't know if there is a god or not then he is an agnostic too. Which is why there is the term "agnostic atheism".
And by using the definition agnostic as michaelreqd did, he is also (probably) agnostic about invisible dragons, little midgets dancing around in your garden when you're not watching, and such sort of events.
Bit surprised by Mitchell there. Interestingly he actually is an atheist in the normal sense. He doesn't believe in gods, so he is by definition an atheist. He's also an agnostic, as atheists tend to be.
I think acknowledging that religion is human behaviour and separating that from any potential higher power, along with the arrogance of many atheists, was enough for me to have an open mind.
David is an intellectual comedic hero of mine, and I agree with him except that he mischaracterizes atheists as implicitly being exclusive of agnosticism: every atheist I know (and I'm friends with Richard Dawkins) hastens to add (when asked) that they are technically agnostic inasmuch as they don't claim there are no gods, only that claims of gods have not met their burden of proof. So I get what he's saying, but although I call myself an atheist, I don't meet Mitchell's implied definition, because (like almost all the atheists I know) I am emphatically, and enthusiastically, also an agnostic. I claim the right to say "I don't know."
"except that he mischaracterizes atheists as implicitly being exclusive of agnosticism" But he didn't. It is for a fact that agnosticism is a mutually exclusive position from both theism, and atheism. "every atheist I know (and I'm friends with Richard Dawkins) hastens to add (when asked) that they are technically agnostic inasmuch as they don't claim there are no gods" Yeah, but the vast majority of atheists do reject the existence of god, and also they do try to compare the belief in god to imaginary friends, though
@@americanliberal09 not true actually. Agnosticism doesn’t exist on the spectrum between atheism and theism, so therefore it is not mutually exclusive. Atheism is about lack of belief. Agnosticism is about lack of knowledge. Most atheists are agnostic atheists. It’s not a “belief that there is no god”. They don’t know if there is a god (agnostic) but there’s is no reason to believe there is one (atheist). Atheism is the disbelief of a claim (there is a god), not a claim in and of its self (there is no god).
@@joehodrien " Agnosticism doesn’t exist on the spectrum between atheism and theism, so therefore it is not mutually exclusive." Yes, it does you, dumbass. There are academics who do acknowledge for a fact that agnosticism is a middle ground position between theism, and atheism. Hence, making it a neutral position. "Atheism is about lack of belief. Agnosticism is about lack of knowledge." Wrong. Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of god, and agnosticism is also a belief position, because belief, and knowledge are not completely separate things. In order to believe in something. You actually have to have knowledge about it first beforehand. " Most atheists are agnostic atheists." That's just your own personal opinion, dude. " It’s not a “belief that there is no god”. Atheism is the position that affirms that god(s) don't exist. Sorry, dude. But you're just being delusional here. "Atheism is the disbelief of a claim (there is a god), not a claim in and of its self (there is no god)." Dude. Are you stupid or something? It's still the exact same thing. If you disbelief in the existence of god. Then you are affirming that god doesn't exist. :-P
@@americanliberal09 Probably shouldn't get puffed up about things you aren't an expert on. There are two working definitions of agnostic, one sits on the axis which intersects theism, and one is as you describe, a middle ground position between the two. Since you understand the latter position, I will not bother to explain that one. In the axis definition, Gnosticism is a measure of one's certainty, and Theism is a measure of one's belief in a higher power. Ergo, the agnostic atheist is the one who is not certain, but leans towards 'no god' as the likely answer. The gnostic atheist is the one who is certain there is no god, the gnostic theist is certain there is a god (and likely has some strong ideas about which one there is.), and the agnostic theist thinks/believes there is some sort of higher power, but acknowledges they lack knowledge or evidence of that. It's similar to the political quizzes that put you as liberal or conservative, vs the ones that measure your social axis on authoritarian vs libertarian, and your economic axis on liberal vs conservative.
@@willchurch8376 *Probably shouldn't get puffed up about things you aren't an expert on.* Oh, really? *There are two working definitions of agnostic, one sits on the axis which intersects theism, and one is as you describe, a middle ground position between the two.* But there's only one definition of the term, dude. *In the axis definition, Gnosticism is a measure of one's certainty, and Theism is a measure of one's belief in a higher power.* Ummmm....except for a fact that agnosticism is not the exact opposite of gnosticism, because it was invented as a middle ground between theism, and atheism, not vice versa. *It's similar to the political quizzes that put you as liberal or conservative, vs the ones that measure your social axis on authoritarian vs libertarian, and your economic axis on liberal vs conservative.* Nope. Not even close, dude.
There is a lot of misunderstanding as to the exact definition of atheism and agnosticism. I see myself as atheist in the sense that I have no reason to believe there is a god, but I of course can't prove there isn't one, just like I can't prove there isn't any other supernatural entity. I also strongly agree with David that there is no sense in trying to tear religion away from people who only take comfort in it and don't use it to harm others.
"I also strongly agree with David that there is no sense in trying to tear religion away from people who only take comfort in it and don't use it to harm others." As an atheist I strongly disagree with David's characterization that religion is harmless. We have thousands of years of history showing oppression in the name of religion. Atheism on the other is not an ideology as David is framing it. David's use of communist atheists is a red herring. Communism IS an ideology. Communists tried to take away religion by force. Atheism has no canon whether left or right. The extent of atheism "tearing" away religion is saying we don't believe just like we typically don't share a belief in witches or leprechauns. Beyond that atheists. There is no underpinning ideology with atheism.
The question, "do you believe in god?" is a yes or no question. If you're not willing to answer "yes," as few agnostics are, then your answer is "no." It's that simple. The reason people think it's complicated or nuanced is that, for thousands of years, to answer that question "no" carried a death sentence, as it still does in some parts of the world. Those semantic gymnastics were necessary for self-preservation. Now, though, it's time to recognize the truth, just as we recognize that there's no good reason to believe religious claims and many good reasons to reject them. Clinging to the myth that one can lack belief in gods but not be an atheist only serves to internalize the legacy of fear. It keeps the atheist community splintered. It grants unwarranted credibility to the privileged position of religion, a position built upon and perpetuated by that same history of fear. It is that privilege that creates the need for the term "atheist" in the first place and can demand of the nonbeliever that we must explain ourselves.
Russian poet Esenin once wrote in one of his poems two lines that i could roughly translate as: "I feel shame for believing in God earlier I feel pain in not believing in him now" Coming from a religious family and later rejecting all that, nothing sums up both the experience and feelings better
I don't see why it has to be painful, I see it as rather beautiful. We aren't significant, the universe wasn't created for us and is indifferent to our existence. Yet even in spite of that, you are where you are now, alive. You weren't put here for a predetermined reason, you just are, as I just am. We are truly free to paint your own path through this madness of nature that is life. That can be terrifying, existential dread can be very intimidating at first. But since the universe can't recognise itself, that makes life easily the most important thing in it, as what function would a beautiful painting serve if nothing was around to see it? I'd reccomend the youtuber Kursgesagt's video on this brilliant philosophy, "Optimistic Nihilism". Exurb1a is also a great channel for videos like this
Poetry says something better than prose or speeches. I hope that life brings you what you seek and that your experiences help but shame into context that takes away its sting and that your pain is lessened. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
He’s quite correct about humans killing each other for any and all reasons. Whether it’s due to fighting over resources and wealth, or lust for power and conquest, or political/religious crusades, humans use all kinds of reasons for killing. It comes down to selfishness and greed and no respect for life.
I generally agree with David but its a bit disappointing that a guy like him would use the words incorrectly. An agnostic isn't a third option, an alternative to atheism. It simply means you believe the existence of a God in unknowable. The opposite is a gnostic, where you believe it is knowable. Most atheists are agnostic because while they don't believe in a God they also know its impossible to definitively know. You can he an agnostic theist that does believe in a God but still acknowledge that its impossible to know for sure. Most religious people are gnostic theists because they believe the Bible or other texts are proof and it is in fact knowable. All in all, everyone is either gnostic or agnostic, its only colloquially that agnostic is seen as a middle ground
He clearly demonstrated he doesn't even know the labels, he said he is not an atheist but an agnostic but the two do go together he is either a agnostic atheist or a agnostic theist, he doesn't believe in god so he is clearly is an atheist just an agnostic atheist, the mf got read more for sure
Comments packed with people upset that David is using correct definitions, but not the focus group tested definitions. David is using the term Agnostic here as a defining point for his religious beliefs. That is one of THREE correct definitions of Agnostic. "a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." Essentially occupying the "I don't know" rather than "Yes" or "No" position. This "No" includes the "No, because I have not been shown enough evidence". Now, this is confusing to some people because there is another definition of Agnostic, which merely considers the completeness of knowledge, which means some people call themselves agnostic atheists. This can also be considered "weak atheism", however, agnostics, using our first definition, occupy a space even weaker, than weak atheism, so there is not as much overlap as practically everyone has said so far.
I don't accept the first definition, and the third definition isn't so much a definition as it is a perspective held by militant atheists, or those who are dishonest about the knowledge they claim to have. Agnosticism is a position of knowledge, not belief. You can be agnostic about anything, which makes the term on its own completely meaningless. "I'm agnostic" "Agnostic about what? Unicorns? Russian hackers?" It's a safe term used by people who are either unwilling to commit to their own beliefs, or who fear social ostracisation for their beliefs. Agnosticism is in stark contrast to gnosticism, which is much more common among theists than atheists. Most atheists will admit to being agnostic, because that is the only honest position to take.
"I don't accept the third definition". Good for you. In a similar vein I only accept 2/3rds of the words you just used as real, and I will apply my own meaning to the other third. I will respond accordingly. 1) I don't see why you can't just buy a fish. 2) I hear you can get a cream for that nowadays. 3) Is that why a raven is like a writing desk? 4) You don't get to pick the words other people mean, so long as they are in common parlance. Less sarcastically, I find it blood boilingly irritating that people think they get to be the ones who pick which definition someone else used when they used a normal definition. When someone says they were fired yesterday, I don't get to demand they're saying they were baked in a kiln. When they say "I mean I lost my job", I politely say "Oh my mistake", not "NO, when *I* say FIRED I mean BAKED IN A KILN. So you mean BAKED IN A KILN. You can't say FIRED like that. You didn't tell me you lost your job, you lied to me about an unfortunate pottery-based experience!"
Baalthazaq I don't know who you're quoting there. It can't be me because I said "first" not "third" but I'll respond as if you are quoting me. In this case I'm uninterested in common parlance, I'm interested in correct definitions. Using agnostic to describe belief is an incorrect usage of the word. That is unless you are saying you don't know what you believe, which seems strange to me but hey. When someone says "we will be arriving momentarily" I don't smugly say "oh and we'll be leaving straight afterwards, then?" and then act as if that's what they meant. I note that they've misused a word, but I understand what they mean through context. Same here. If somebody says "I'm agnostic" I usually know what they mean, though whether they mean "god might exist" or "god might not exist" isn't always clear. In any case, misuse of a word might warrant correction, but that doesn't mean I'm picking a definition. I only accept the correct definition, but I understand through context when a word is misused. The other problem with agnostic is that it maligns atheist. If agnostic is the reasonable middle ground where you have no faith but accept a god could exist then atheism must always be the stubborn form that refuses to even entertain the idea of a supernatural entity. This is a common perspective among "agnostics."
This is where I stood in my 20s. I am now athiest. But Mitchell wanting there to be something or in his words 'not wanting there to be nothing' is not a reason to suspect that there IS something. I would also dispute what he says about athiests wanting to take away that comfort it gives to believers. I know many athiests. I know precisely none who want to force others to abandon their own beliefs.
Unlike David I am areligious - I have no religion or desire for one - but I do have compassion, and like David would not want to deny people the comfort of an imaginary friend.
The issue i think is, even though he’s perfectly right in his view, agnosticism isn’t your stance. You either do or do not believe something. It’s like a house with four rooms. You can be a gnostic theist (knows there’s a god), agnostic theist (believes there’s a god but isn’t certain), agnostic atheist (lacks a belief in a god but isn’t certain) and gnostic atheist (knows there’s no god). He isn’t bad for saying he’s just agnostic, and I don’t really have the right to DEMAND with a bloody trident to make him conform to my classified worldview, but he seems very much like an agnostic atheist. Sorry if I offend, I’m not trying to be seen as a dick, and even though I lack a belief in a god, I am happy to let you keep yours, whatever that may be.
I think all he’s saying is he doesn’t know for certain either way, but he wants there to be something as it gives him comfort. You don’t have to have a firm stance.
I presented something years ago declaring there had never been a genuine religious war. As a lifelong atheist a number of other atheists, most of them lapsed theists hated me doing this, but I like making people think. First come back was the crusades, the first of which was started because the church was losing influence and knew fighting a battle for them would get attention. Later this became a money and technoogy grab. If you need convincing of how far behind we were count to ten, if you haven't picture I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X you have pictured arabic numerals. At that time th enumber 0 and math this made possible was the equivilant of today's solid state battery. I knew the presentation had holes in it. The best thought insipring things do, they make people debate and think. But I feel religion has been used badly in the past, nowadays we have magically disappearing WMDs in countries that coincidentally have lots of oil, there will always be lies told to make people kill and die. I am an atheist who hates the definition of the word atheism, I know I can add to it to make it more to my liking and have accepted the definition was written in a very different time and the historian in me appreciates this. I think a lot of my disliking for it is how old I was before I even learned the word. I was sent to a Church of England school, as most in the UK of my age were. At that time Chrstian teaching was the standard/ We recited the lord's prayer in the same blindly obedient way as the US recite the allegance to the flag in the classrooms every day. I never thought anything about it, it was just a part of routine. The issue came when I was asked to bring over a story book, the came back with nursery rhymmes and the bible evidently seeing them as equivalent. I was too young to be doig this to cause offence, I just belived they were both made up. The response was to spend the next few years trying to make me understand god, which didn't go well. It was in secondary school I was first called an atheist, in primary school, no-one was willing to let me know there was a name for it, that would be acknowledging I wasn't the only one. Irony, it was a religious education teacher who told me this. Strong faith christian who believed in challenging all faiths, including his. The word atheist means lack of faith in belif in a god or gods, as if they must exist, I a just too dumb to acknowledge this. My reaction to this is to consider myself atheist by faith, somehting all groups seem to hate. It is because while I believe to the core of my being there are no deities, spirits etc. I cannot prove this and as my science teacher said we cannot dismiss something completely without proof so some of my opinion has to be considered faith, ie belief without proof. Agree with the wishing there was something else on occasion. I fear losing my wife, and with COVID combined with the stupidity of the UK populace my son too, so the idea of meeting them again in an afterlife and of them being rewarded for living decent lives appeals. However as an atheist I believe this is our only life and that it is all the more precious becouse of it. As such I do what I can to make life good for myself and others, which confuses a lot of theists, especially when it includes them.
The biggest argument against god is that an all powerful being doesn't make sense Quarks only exist inside of other particles made of more Quarks they have something called color charge binding them. Which means if you have a baryon (1 quark 1 anti quark) and manage to rip them apart, color charge means that the energy released is enough to create two more quarks or anti quarks to bond with the two you ripped apart I bring this up to ask a question On the smallest level we can measure the universe makes no sense, who says it makes more sense as it goes up?
What a weird position to hold. "I want there to be something." is quite irrational. A person can absolutely hold that position but it brings no value to finding out what the reality is.
@@Cyan37 I'll try. His point was that he doesn't see the reason to belittle other people's beliefs because why would you want to deprive them of something that brings them comfort. He then says what his belief was and you made a narky comment about it. Thereby ignoring the point he was making.
@@MLife1972 He can absolutely believe what he wants to and that was not my point. I'm just saying it's 'useless' (for the lack of a better term) when it comes to the topic of religion. He can hold whatever belief he wants to, I just don't have to agree with- or support it, that doesn't mean I'm belittling him or being 'narky'. I was expressing my own view which I'm also free to have.
@@Cyan37 Absolutely. Freedom of speech and all that. I'll try once more with an analogy. He's saying there are some people who like oranges and some people who like lemons. Even though he may like oranges, he won't question someone who likes lemons. You're coming in and saying. 'Oranges are weird - lemons are better', thereby missing the point.
@Maurits there is no truth claim to make with matters like this. there is either belief or there isn’t. and personal preference IS our tool for determining our beliefs
@Maurits you can’t run tests to prove the existence of god or lack thereof. there is no way for humanity to determine fact around this. and whether or not god exists has no bearing on the world, but as david said, a huge effect on morality. and every person i’ve interacted with prior to you has maintained that it is an opinion thing because there is no unobstructed views of god, no perfect truths of religion. most people would say that constitutes as reason to just leave someone alone to their beliefs, not turn into a pedantic ass and wax pseudointellectual in the youtube comments
@Maurits "And if you believe that we should leave eachother alone because we can never determine with certainty whether God exists or not, I simply disagree with you, and I'm sure hundreds of years of theological debate and the vast amounts of scholars and literary works on this question would too." That simply sounds like someone who wants to argue and dislike something. Believe in it? Dont care. Dont believe in it? Dont care. Want to cause strive because you disagree with someone on the matter of god existing? Now i care because you're making a problem. Its a toxic behavior at its core and should not be encouraged. And yes, all these centuries of theological debate are meaningless and simply in the wrong. There is no reason to cause strive over this matter. Only false pride encourages someone to do so.
@@dektarey4024 I know this is probably a mistake joining in, but i’d say it isn’t always a matter of atheists causing a problem. While it’s fine for one to chose to believe in avid because it gets them through the day, my personal problem is when a certain god is used as a justification for anything. Any decisions are likely to be influenced by this belief, however, this still isn’t a significant problem until you start using god to justify any number of things, the largest modern one being homophobia, but notable past ones include burning of witches, the crusades, all the various killings/wars caused by divide between protestant and catholics, the catholics killing those who didn’t believe in catholic god. Now in the case of Agnostics, like David speaks about in the video, there is no problem, as they don’t commit to a specific god and system, but those who follow a specific god, and a specific system have an inbuilt flaw in their reasoning, which could influence any number of decisions. So while yes, belief god is not a problem in it self, I would say that belief can be used for false conclusion, and quite often is. while i don’t personally argue with strangers over the internet about gods existence(the present excluded), as it tends to be pointless, i think those that do are understandable, and should not be seen as arguing because they specifically want to argue, but because they have seen what religion has caused. I hope that this has helped you possibly get an idea of why i personally think we shouldn’t just leave each other alone. If you have any criticisms of my argument or don’t understand one of my points, please let me know, i don’t want this to descend into the normal pointless bickering of youtube comments. Also i recognize this was more of debate between agnostics and atheists, and as a general atheist, I have no problem with agnostics Added note: I did the classic comment thing of not watching the video fully, and i realize David directly went against what i just said, but just to put down his argument. One: He make an huge assumption that people look to kill each other and will use any reason to do so, which is not backed up by him, and i find to be a leap. I don’t want to come across pretentious by quoting philosophers, but i’d say that humans aren’t good or bad, but humans are simply the culmination of all of those who exist at any time. If all humans helped each other, then we would be good, even if 100 years before, we all lived in a state of constant fighting, stealing, and killing. We went from bad to good, however we are not inherently either. So this idea that humans just want to kill each other and will find any reason is a bit silly. Two: He says that many things have been used to justify murder, such as the political ideology. I’d say that this is not relevant, as simply because people kill each other over many things, doesn’t mean that those things are acceptable. I would say that while yes, people have killed over many things, i’d say the less reasons to fight, the less fighting that happens. Simply because people have killed over communism, doesn’t make killing over religion alright. While i would say that killing over anything is not acceptable, ill be honest in ambitions that that is an assumption. With that assumption, i’d say killing over politics is not acceptable either, and we should try and prevent that. without that assumption, i’d say that while there may be an argument that killing over a certain belief is acceptable, like in the example of communism, where by killing you think you are being about a better long term world, this killing is based on a belief which may or may not be true. If the belief(communism) is true, then the killing may be justified(i’d say it isn’t, but i want to avoid assumptions about morality) and if it isn’t true, then killing is not. And this must be applied to religion, where when we can totally conclude that religion is not true(or is unprovable through the means of reason), then killing over religion is not justified, and in turn, we must work to prevent the cause of said killings, religion. Three: I think i may have already addressed this before but i’ll restate it. He says that even without religion, killing will continue, presumably at the same rate(This is my interpretation, please correct me if you see it differently). I think this implies that in the hypothetical situation that in history, if there were no religion, the killings like the crusades would be replaced by something else, however no proof is given as to why. I’d say that if people had no reasons to kill there would be no killing, and as there are less reasons to kill, less killing takes place. So, yeah. Once again, any criticism are welcome. I decided to comment hear with the hope of two, equally happy endings(not that kind). Either i convince someone of my argument rationally using facts(or at least make them understand my point), or i am critiqued rationally, and in turn, my views are changed, causing me to become a better, more rational person. I simply hope this doesn’t sputter out into pointless bickering
@@aidensexton3343 JayZus you typed too much but I got through it and agree for the most part. DM is A smart man but he's wrong about this just because he wants to believe like millions of people holding on to childhood fairy tales. There's way too much badness from religious people even apart from killing and I don't wanna type a novel but just look at the USA puritan evangelical trumpets for a start and even if there was a gahd, then it's clearly a POS that's inflicted Untold murder, pain and misery on it's own creations. The flooding of millions of innocent women and children was bad enough but it was only getting started then. Obviously it's nonsense stories used to brainwash and control people
Since there's now less danger of me being married to that unfunny, annoying woman (albeit, there was very little chance anyway..), I might be tempted to share your opinion.
@@emilybarclay8831 I'd say choosing to ignore it is worse? If you don't have something, you are not as much as fault as going out of your way to ignore something you have available. He chooses to be a dick about it, which is why he just really sucks tbf
@@steckelton717 that’s definitely true, but I don’t think actually emotionally intelligent people actually get a _choice_ in caring. I myself have a very odd level of emotional intelligence. I just really struggle to relate to and deal with others emotions despite wanting to help people and don’t tend to feel emotions particularly strongly myself, but I’m very influenced by the emotions of those I care about. Like, a while ago I was at the funeral of a relative that frankly I barely knew and I really wasn’t anywhere near crying (obviously it was a very sad occasion and I understood that, I just personally wasn’t feeling much because I’d barely interacted with this relative) but when I saw my sister crying suddenly I was blubbering as well. I didn’t have a choice in the matter, I couldn’t have not cared if I tried. I think if you’re able to turn off your ‘caring’, either you didn’t actually care in the first place or you’ve had some significant trauma/reason to stop caring for your own well-being
No it's not, he doesn't understand the terms at all, I imagine he's substituting atheism for the claim there is no god, but atheism is just a lack of a belief in gods. Furthermore one can be agnostic and atheist, I am myself, one is about knowledge, and one about belief. And who's taking away the comfort? The religious don't have to listen to atheists, just like atheists don't have to listen to the crap religious people say. Religion may be comforting but it can also be a waste of your life, and typically the truth is usually the best thing.
@@Ben-Rogue He's right on the agnostic part sure, though I think it doesn't actually matter that much since everybody understood what kind of people David meant. He is also oblivious to how both atheists and theists can be extremely overbearing for some reason and try to destroy the other person's comfort completely.
@ConManliness As much as I like him at times, and his work, he is a proper twat at times, and he's definitely in the category of comedians that mitchell is referring to
@@anokah anyone can be a twat sometimes but Gervais is right and David is talking nonsense here obviously. It's a few years ago so he might've copped himself on since
@@damienjoseph7540 not everything's about being right all the time, that's kind of the point. Religion these days is a thing people choose to believe in, not something that people myopically believe in. So yeah, organised religions are a pain, but the very faith that drives them also leads to great thing. It's not a binary matter where you can say 'religion good' or 'religion bad'. Nothing is that simple
I agree with him about "celebrity atheists" assuming that they have the right to lecture others about belief and denigrate them for holding them. I'm right you're wrong. And the argument that a lot of suffering was caused by religion shows a fundamental lack of understanding about humanity. I'm amazed that Dawkins can't see that. He's supposed to have a keen intelligence.
@@JB_inks That is a matter of personal opinion, when it comes to religion, there is a right and there are wrongs but we have no idea what those are, therefore, saying someone is wrong is disrespectful and hypocritical. We don't know if there is a god and, therefore, anyone is free to make their own opinions.
@@DerPinguim no, not at all. Why don't you ask me why he's wrong? It's not about personal opinions, he's factually wrong about the definitions of the words he's using. As a pedantic person I expected better of him.
Not being "honest" he is simply say he does not know....which is not an answer either. Of course there is no such thing as a God who seems to be able to do anything ...but does nothing. It also breaks all the law of Physics to suggest there is a magical being who does nothing all day and relies on their unfounded legendary status to be noticed.
@@snap-n-shoot ...no, it is pretty honest to admit you don't know something. I don't know how you can term that as anything other than honest, unless you suspect David of possessing actual concrete proof one way or the other about god.
@@willchurch8376 - He's not being entirely honest with himself though. Atheism and agnosticism address different things. They're not different points on the same scale and he's definitely intelligent and knowledgeable enough to know this. Theism and atheism are to do with belief, whilst agnosticism is to do with claims of knowledge. They are not mutually exclusive. Most atheists are agnostic atheists, as they don't believe in gods and goddesses but don't claim to know for certain. Most things can't be proved or disproved absolutely and this includes all gods and goddesses. Thus agnosticism is the only honest and self-aware position to take. The fact that almost anything is theoretically possible, is not proof and isn't the same as saying that everything is probable. That gods and goddesses can be neither proven nor disproven does not mean that the probability of their existence or non existence is equal and wanting something to be true has no bearing on whether it is, or not. With atheism, it's the matter of a simple question. Do you believe that any gods or goddesses exist? If you do, you're a theist. If you don't, you're an atheist. You either believe, or you don't. Claims of knowledge are completely irrelevant. It's to do with what you believe, not with what you know.
"I'm not convinced there's something." In other words, he's an atheist, because he isn't persuaded by god claims and is making the erroneous assumption that atheism is only the belief that there definitely isn't a god rather than also encompassing not believing claims that there is.
Atheism: The belief there is not a higher power Agnosticism: Lack of belief in a higher power. Often people say one and mean the other, usually it's atheist when agnostic would be more appropriate. Where's his error?
@Colin Thisaname That's not the actual modern dictionary definitions. While atheist was originally a-theist as you say through use it evolved to mean a positive claim that there is no god. And so agnostic was coined as a term to provide distinction
@@rowanbrown5541 Atheism is about belief (or the lack of it). Agnosticism is about knowledge. There's no information on the existence of a god and so I'm an agnostic atheist.
It's reasonable, but certainly not logical. He flat out says he's not an atheist because he "wants there to be something". That's very relatable, but reality doesn't care what you want, and the burden of proof is on those trying to convince people that there is some sort of god, not on those of us who dismiss the notion just as we do the existence of the Greek pantheon, leprechauns and ghosts.
@gowdsake7103 What do you find difficult to understand about someone being on the fence about something that can neither be proven nor disproved? Let me guess, you're one of these pseudo-intellectual soyboys that claims to "fucking love science", but will claim with 100% conviction that God does not exist despite being unable to prove your point.
Taking away the comfort isn't the issue Atheism deals with. Its fighting against religious zealots trying to force their beliefs on to others, especially those that dont want it. If you are religious, and take comfort in it, and don't bother anyone about their beliefs, then more power to you. The moment you use your religion to bring harm to another, be it psychical, or psychological, you are removing the tolerance for you and your beliefs. That said, im sure there are Atheist Zealots out there as well. Not saying there is not or that they are always right. But i understand why they are bringing a loud voice, as that seem to be the only way to be heard over the loud voice that is religion. And im personally, kind of tired of Laws being based on outdated religious beliefs.
David seems to be referring to the atheists who will go to anyone who says they have a religious belief (even if they aren't trying to force it upon anyone in any way) and telling them that they're wrong for it. He's talking about the atheist zealots who attack people who are not zealots. And that is just trying to strip them of the comfort given to them by their God or whatever.
I am an atheist but I agree entirely with everything David Mitchell says here, and regarding the minority of atheists who want to take away that comfort and sense of community and purpose religion offers is wrong. I am an atheist, but I do not go on about it or seek to change anyone's views just because I think religion is stupid and incorrect because it isn't my place to. I just go around not believing in god and live my life, as we all should.
Stop bickering about labels. I feel the same as David, I just don't know and i'm not really keen on ruining anyone else's day so long as they dont try to ruin mine.
That's what agnosticism is, though? Uncertainty of whether or not there is a god. That's literally what the term agnostic refers to. It's a word that describes a religious view.
Cleveland Brown Fair enough, but religious people tend to band together and push through social changes in line with their beliefs. If you don’t share their view then you might well have your day ruined by them. Evangelical Christians were instrumental in electing Donald Trump for example.
You don't know what the two terms mean. Atheism isn't a claim, atheism is the rejection of a claim. Agnostic atheism is "I don't believe there is a god, but I don't know". And since there is, as per your admission, no evidence to suggest there IS a god, the default position is "I don't believe". Mitchell said he doesn't believe there is a god but he can't know for sure, therefore he is an agnostic atheist. What he WANTS to be true is immaterial and has no bearing on his atheism/agnosticism.
@@horatioredgreenblue2130 That is not true. Atheism is the rejection of a claim. As an agnostic atheist myself I don't believe in any of the gods that people currently claim are real, yet don't claim for certainty none of them are real.
@@Arkatox Atheism is not the assertion that there is no God, it is the lack of belief in a God. If you don't believe in a God, you are by definition, an atheist.
@@Arkatox From the Oxford dictionary: "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." "A" is a negative prefix. For example, when used in asexual, it means not sexual. When used in atheist, it means not a theist. No one can know that there is or isn't a God. The fact is, most agnostics are atheists, including Mr Mitchell.
@@hatchingdraggon8073 I don't think you listened to what David Mitchell said. At the end of the day it is commonly accepted athiest means belief there are no gods while agnostic is we can not know for sure.
Excellent statement of what agnosticism is, and why it is most definitely not the same as atheism. I say that as someone who is proudly agnostic, of course. I love this take on the issue.
Come on. People are arguing because they are defining the words differently. Mitchell also gave a definition of the words he used and by those definitions he is an agnostic. Which is quite close to the, in lack of a better word, classical definition of religious standpoints i.e. theist - believe there are one or more god's or higher power; agnostic - don't know or think we are incapable of knowing if there are o aren't; atheist - believe there aren't even one God. Gnosticism is a religious movement, not a method or standpoint.
@T And Me most atheists I meet are waaaaay more zealous than most religious people I've met. Hence why it's basically seen as a religion by most folk mate. Like how smoking weed isn't a religion but when you meet those guys that have a marijuana leaf on their hat, shirt, lighter and wallet. It seems a bit religious and you realize that you just don't wanna be told "alcohol is a drug" by them anymore.
People often say Agnosticism is a cop out. I think it's the other way around in that atheists so firmly can't accept that we don't know anything. That's the real cop out to me.
I really don't like that people mistake Atheism for always being Gnostic (knowing there is no god). Most atheists I've seen and know about are Agnostic atheists. As in lacking belief in a god. Now if we're talking about a specific god that's a different topic.
@mariatanya3533 3 years is a while to update this. Mitchell is, by normative usages of the word even if he doesn't use the label because his usage of the word doesn't fit how he feels. To me it's the same as a Subway worker saying they're not a fast food worker, they're a sandwich artist. I'd call them a fast food worker and they can call themselves whatever they want
It's a common mistake in this debate that agnosticism is placed as some kind of middle position between theism and atheism, and it's a bit of a bugbear of mine. Gnosticism and Theism are two different planes/dimension entirely; an X axis and a Y axis, if you will. The former concerns claims to knowledge or knowing something, the latter concerns the worship or belief in a god or gods. Most atheists are agnostic atheists: they don't worship god yet don't claim to know there isn't a god (it's likely they arrive at atheism because they are agnostic). I'd say a lot of religious people are agnostic theists because faith, by definition, is believing in something regardless of whether you know it's true. I don't think I've ever met a gnostic atheist - rationally, they're incompatible positions. But I have certainly met gnostic theists; those claiming to know of the existence of god/gods.
I like David Mitchell, but calling himself a "rational" comedian and then saying "I don't want there to be nothing" as an argument against atheism isn't rational at all.
Why not? He's being honest with himself, that the idea of total cosmic silence is discomforting, but also is not allowing that to colour his view of the world. And he's not arguing against atheism, he's arguing against the militant anti-theists that consider theism a fundamentally broken worldview.
@@s.g.7572 I totally agree with his views on militant anti-theists. I'm just saying: rationality means adjusting your level of belief to your level knowledge. If you have very strong evidence of something, e.g., that the Earth is round, then it is rational to believe it is round. If you have little to no evidence of something, e.g., the existence of unicorns, it is not rational to believe in unicorns, even if you really really want them to exist. He did the same with god. "I don't want there to be nothing, therefore I'm uncomfortable with atheism". (Now, to be honest I just re-watched the video, and it's actually unclear if he uses it as an argument or not. Anyways... It really bugged me on the first viewing.)
The fact that he blithely dismisses the idea that religion hasn't caused a huge number of deaths and mass suffering simply because 'not all wars were started over religion', when not only does that not mean that NO wars or deaths were caused by religion, but that the meddling in law making and policy drafting that the church still has today is the far bigger threat that faith poses upon countless people in this day and age and he conveniently ignores this, is maddening. Yet he's seen as some sort of genius so no one questions this. His being is in every way detached from the effects of church meddling in the affairs of state and influencing theist opinion, his class and upbringing been just two aspects of this, so naturally he cannot see this issue in anything but the most one dimensional terms. Yet his clearly privileged influenced lack of understanding of the problem isn't addressed at all by anyone, while if he were anyone else it would have been called out at the time, and in perpetuity. Sad how much a posh voice and carefully curated image of intelligence can still give someone a pass these days.
But what use is comfort if it is _false_? And breaking it down, how and why is an afterlife actually supposed to be _comforting_? All of time, just living on and on and on and on....even utter joy would become boring after a while. One of the only things that gives life meaning is that it eventually ENDS. Most people can't handle life, yet they expect they'll just get an eternal one after this. They would start arguing with each other after ten minutes, and burn Heaven to the ground in an hour. The idea is ludicrous.
The comfort isn't "false" if it's comforting. All that matters is that people are comforted by the idea of an afterlife, which makes it comforting. Second of all, if eternal life in Heaven at some point became boring, or unbearable, then it wouldn't BE Heaven. The idea of eternity is scary, but imagine eternity without it being scary, or meaningless, or lonely, and that's the idea of Heaven.
To paraphrase Ricky Gervais: "Everybody is agnostic, it has nothing to do with belief. You either belief there is a god or you belief there isn't, nobody KNOWS if there is one. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheist and theism deal with belief, they're in a different category."
@@noelpucarua2843 It's not a matter of what i believe it deals with. "agnosticism, (from Greek agnōstos, “unknowable”), strictly speaking, the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience." That's what it means, which is very close to science and scientific truth.
I can prove that there is no greatest prime number. This is something I can know with absolute certainty beyond experience or phenomena. There are an infinity of those. The belief that one cannot know is provably false.
What he's describing as an atheist is probably a gnostic atheist, someone who believes/claims to know that God doesn't exist, and has rejected the concept outright, while what he's describing as an agnostic is an agnostic atheist, someone who doesn't personally believe in a god, but doesn't know either way. Hope that clears it up.
Atheism and theism deal with belief. Gnosticism or agnosticism deal with what you know. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, or a gnostic theist.. or...
Wrong. If you don't have faith in at least one god, you are an atheist. The label atheism is the most simple and tiny one of any label. It doesn't demand anything else than not have a blind belief in an unproven hypothesis, which is why it's the rational stance.
@@Jake007123 Who are you responding to? What OP said does not disagree with your statement, yet you begin with "wrong". So either you misunderstood them, or you're responding to someone else.
@@smhht They are not necessarily tied together. Knowledge is a subset of belief (in that anything you claim to know, will also fall into the set of things you believe... but not everything you believe would fall into the set of things you claim to know). But beyond the simple fact that knowledge is a subset of belief, they are not necessarily tied together. Knowledge is necessarily tied to belief, but not the other way around... belief is not necessarily tied to knowledge
@@brandonsatterstrom7894 Yikes, a 5 year old comment, really? Anyway, you're thinking/trying too hard, and don't need to explain this to someone who knows epistemology. The labels are tied. As in agnosticism/gnosticism and atheism/theism.
@@smhht Yes really... why would I care the age of a comment? Why would that matter? And no half-wit, as I just explained the labels are not tied.... thanks for that tho.
I don't want to sound snarky, but David doesn't really understand the proper definitions of the words 'atheist' and 'agnostic'. I think most people probably don't, but I'll explain it. It's two separate questions. You're either a theist or an atheist, then you're either gnostic or agnostic about that particular question. Gnosticism simply means being absolutely sure about something, whereas agnosticism is being uncertain about something. The first question is, 'Do you believe in god or gods?', if yes then theist, if no then atheist. Then the next question is 'How sure are you about that?' which if you're absolutely sure about it you're gnostic and if you have some doubt then you're agnostic. I personally am agnostic atheist. I don't believe there is such a thing as god, or anything supernatural at all for that point, but I'm not willing to say that I can prove it or that I absolutely know for sure that I'm right about it, and that's the agnostic part for me, but if I had to say which I think is more likely, then I don't think there is a god. For me, if you're making a claim about something then you need to show evidence. While I don't believe in god, it's simply because I haven't seen evidence that some kind of sentient, extra-dimensional being is the reason this universe exists or why we exist in it. If you could show _proper_ evidence of it then I'd change my mind. The bible isn't evidence, or any holy book from any other religion. These are just books written by human beings and are anecdotal at best. I mean, L. Ron. Hubbard wrote Dianetics, are you going to call that infallible? Feathery philosophical arguments aren't going to do it for me either - you have to be able to demonstrate repeatedly that it's true. If you set up a test where a bunch of sick people got prayed for and knew about it, some that were prayed for and didn't know, and a bunch didn't get prayed for at all, and you had different categories for different faiths and you looked to see if one group recovered faster, that would be interesting. Problem is that experiment has already been done a number of times and praying doesn't seem to do anything. But if you could come up with some type of irrefutable test that clearly showed that a god, however you'd define it, is real, then we'd have something. Until then, I'm going to be in the 'probably isn't real' category.
I have only one firm religious belief: that there is a special hell reserved for RUclips experts. For all eternity the devil stabs them with a pitchfork while they argue that that is not, in fact, a trident.
@@creativecredence850 My pastry cutlery has three prongs. Are they tridents? If yes, is a trident cutlery? Does that make Neptune someone stoked for some cake?
People need to admit that they understand what is meant by these kinds of statements instead of trying to flex on everyone with their knowledge of semantics. "Doubt is healthy and rational, but faith and hope aren't inherently wrong or harmful." That is obviously the argument being made here regardless of how the words are technically defined.
Yes faith is wrong and harmful. It's in fact harmful BECAUSE it's wrong, it's wrong because it isn't right, it isn't right because it isn't true and well meaning lies, white lies and all other forms of "good lies" are in fact not good. Being honest and truthful is simply far too important. Lies get in the way of the truth and the truth matters, it really matters and the sooner you know the actual truth, the sooner you can actually move forward. The argument for faith as a lie is an argument to live your life as a lie, it's literally "ignorance is bliss". Ignorance should never be aspired to. Religion isn't bad or good because of what it teaches to me as far as morality or ethics, it's bad, because it purports to be true and isn't. It lies every day endleslly to billions of people and the truth is too important to accept anything but the truth.
@@sparkzbarca This is the best explanation I've ever seen or heard. Lots of people don't get this, and I understand why, plenty of Atheists point out stuff they disagree with in the Bible and so it's assumed that the argument against religion is about the morality of the religious person, but it's really not, it's about truth and lie. There's simply no reason to believe in a God unless there is concrete evidence, that should be the end of it.
@@fellinuxvi3541 I think this is too much. Is it really _lying_ to say we might be living in a simulation for example, just because we have no evidence for it? Being an agnostic atheist is not giving up, but rather acknowledging we don't know for sure and should continue to ask questions, rather like science.
@@ab8jeh It isn't, but those who believe in simulations don't usually demand faith. I gotta say, in these two months I've reconsidered a lot about faith, and I'm not as against it as I used to be, but I still consider it something rather sinister to ask of people, I wouldn't dare ask to be trusted with anything I cannot prove, but I guess since most modern religions don't teach a literal interpretation of their texts, it's less harmful to follow religion now than it was during, say, the inquisition or the middle ages.
@@fellinuxvi3541 Indeed. Organised religion that indoctrinates the young at an early age is something quite different to coming up with an individual position over time after exploring the subject as fully as possible from many viewpoints. Whether the latter is truly possible is up for question, but we can strive for it I guess. Anyway, some questions cannot be answered, and definitely should not be the basis for organised religion!
Yoctopory He's just using the terms differently than you. He's using them in line with the standard definitions used in academic philosophy and religious studies.
And by different you mean incorrectly. Words need to have agreed upon definitions so we can communicate properly. Mitchel tries to weasel himself into an imaginary middle ground of a binary position by mischaracterizing the a/theist position. It's a smug attempt of avoiding to piss off either side.
@@DJ_Dopamine You might be a scientist, but you aren't very good at logic. Anyone is free to believe that there isn't a God. There is therefore nothing "illogical" about being an atheist.
You're right. For this reason, everybody is actually "agnostic" with respect to God, and I'm surprised that David Mitchell isn't honest enough with himself to realise that he is in fact an atheist.
From my understanding these two terms answers two separate questions, "what do I know" and "what do I believe". In my case I don't know whether or not a God exists, so I'm agnostic in that sense. The lack of evidence for a God leads me to believe that there is no God (or simply a lack of belief in God, whatever you prefer), making me an atheist. I'm therefor an agnostic atheist.
More precisely: "What do I (think I) know?" You can never truly know whether you know something for real, only whether you consider it "knowing" or "believing". (Except for certain extremely undeniable pure-logical truths, such as the fact that you exist.) Also, you don't have to actively believe that there is no such thing as a god in order to be an atheist. So long as you don't believe that one or more gods exist, you're an atheist. There are even atheistic religions! That is, religions with no deity.
@Time Warp For the same reason you can't truly know that unicorns or fairies don't exist: There is no proof (note the terminology, I said "proof" and not "evidence" for a reason) that they _don't_ exist. You can come up with reasons and scenarios showing that they _could_ potentially exist without us finding any evidence of them, even though there is no evidence and thus no reason to believe that they do exist. In order to prove (or even show through evidence) that something _doesn't_ exist, you'd need to know its exact properties, and show that it cannot be found in the places where it would be if it existed, or show that its properties are contradicted by our knowledge of reality, or show how its properties are logically incoherent and therefore impossible. "God" is a nebulous concept that has many different interpretations, many different entities that fit the description and are alleged to exist (or have been made up for fictional stories), and that are not fully disproved by evidence or logic. The yawning abyss (figuratively) that exists where the evidence for these entities should be is enough reason to believe they don't exist, but it may not be enough to satisfy the conditions for claiming that you _know_ they don't exist - depending on your exact definition of the term "know".
since god is impossible to disprove and, unless his face pops out of the sky and he starts presenting us evidence of his omniscience and omnipotence, so is his existence, any question of knowledge is equivalent to a question of believe. or in simpler terms: if you have no evidence, claiming "I know there is a god" and "I believe there is a god" is the same, since your claim of "knowledge" is solely based on your believe and not on evidence. therefore: atheism and agnosticism is the answer to the same question.
Half the problem is that people have different definitions of what they think "atheism" and "agnosticism" are, to the point where they become meaningless labels. The question shouldn't be "Are you an atheist or an agnostic?" It should be "Can you tell me what you believe?"
"The question shouldn't be "Are you an atheist or an agnostic?"" Right, because that is a faulty question, since it assumes that the two labels are mutually exclusive, which they are not. Hence, the problem with different definitions. "It should be "Can you tell me what you believe?"" Well, that is a bit silly and vague because you could say that about anything, i.e. words, labels, ideologies. We use words because they have meaning.
...There's nothing wrong with the terms Atheist and Agnostic. They don't mean similar, or even samey-sounding things, you're just an idiot. One is taking the philosophical stance that God is [probably] a load of shit. The other is _not_ behaving like an edgy 12 year old, and admitting there _are_ in fact limits to what one can be sure of. Take your pick.
I always say I'm an agnostic atheist because I tend to swing between the two sides. I'm not utterly convinced there's really anything but on the other hand imagining there's nothing when I die is pretty depressing so like David said I WANT there to be some sort of wish granter when I die so I can go world hopping. I suppose my beliefs are pretty agnostic but they seem really atheist to me as well in how I approach them. Not to mention I hate saying I'm agnostic purely because some people interpret it to mean i believe in some form of god and Christians and that take delight in it. But that is far from the truth. I don't believe in it but I know that I want there to be some sort of God system upstairs (I'm more inclined to wish for a multiple gods system rather than just a one for all one). Believing is faith without fact. Wanting has no faith or fact it is just impulse.
No it's because you don't realise what drives a lot of religious people. You automatically fantasise that you are more intelligent than them, but really you're weak and just want to feel superior, just like those religious people
@@Sir_Sethly I can't find the clip, but I think it was on an episode of The Daily Show. If I had to guess, I would say the context was most likely in reference to people committing violence in the name of their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, that doesn't really narrow it down much, does it?
@@adamellis6785 It’s a pretty idiotic claim, religion has caused division yes, but not nearly as much as atheists claim. 7 percent of the wars have been religious. Not to mention the violence and division caused by atheism and anti theism, which is a thing as hard as it is to believe.
@@tsarnicholasii274 I'd be very interested to see this comprehensive study of historical warfare that displays the percentage of wars that were started/based on religion...maybe the number you just pulled out of your ass is right, maybe its 7%..maybe its 90% the idea that anyone knows is laughable.
But maybe if you take away someone's belief that there's an afterlife they may be a bit less likely to risk their own lives in order to kill others? Having said that, there may well be a 'god' but reality would strongly indicate a distinct lack of benevolence.
it always amuses me that people don't study beliefs before making claims about them. It would be like me trying to make authoritative claims about quantum physics
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” ― Epicurus, 341 BC - 270 BC
Only a comedian could perfectly articulate these very thoughts I've had in my head. Some find comfort in religion. I find comfort in comedy. Having one of my favorite comedians express my feelings about religion through comedy... well peak level achieved.
For anyone who came into contact with philosophy, this is just ridiculous. Theism/atheism deals with claims to *belief* - you either *believe* there are some gods or you don't. Gnostic/agnostic deals with claims to *knowledge* - you either claim to *know* something or you don't. So one can be an agnostic atheist - holding no god beliefs and making no claims to knowledge, or a gnostic atheist - claiming to know that there are no gods. Both are atheists because they hold no god beliefs, they don't believe there are any gods.
nikolaneberemed Hooray, someone does understand. You'd think Mitchell would know this shit. The root latin isn't exactly complex, and he is definitely the type to rant about how improper the common usage of the 2 terms is.
Yes, while Radgar lists the technical definitions, David seems to be using the popular connotation of "uncertain." I think what he means is quite clear.
@@OctopusGrift the problem with those usages is that they crippled our power to offer meaning and important descriptions. The minimum requirement for someone to be an atheist doesn't include knowledge or even to make a negative claim against the god concept. Using a single label to criticize the act of the rejection of claim(Atheism) and the promotion of a knowledge claim(Antitheism) is just ignorant and dishonest. We expect from people like David to be more responsible that ordinary illiterate people.
For someone who's known for being pedantic, he sure does think "atheist" means "convinced there is NO god" rather than the dictionary definition which always includes the lack of conviction that there IS a god. IE, what he thinks agnostic means.
Clearly it may give some people comfort as they face the possibility of oblivion. But what about those who genuinely believe they are about to be tortured for all eternity? Their last days might not be so palatable.
I can't speak for other faiths, but Christianity's whole shtick is about the redemption of the sinner. If a person believes that they are going to hell, they must also believe in a forgiving God before whom they can be redeemed. And it is in the aid of the dying who fear hell that priests, pastors, and ministers of all stripes visit the dying, at home and in hospitals, to help them on the way to redemption.
I find that comparison to fascism extremely unnerving. Some ideas are inherently more dangerous than others and while I wouldn't argue that the concept of belief should be considered as such, it still puts the logic of his argument in question. Yes, people have killed each other over many things throughout history but that alone does not absolve a religion of any inherent danger to society it might possess. Again, I'm not saying it does, but IMO he's not making a good case either way.
Personally, I've never pointed to the immoral acts committed in the name of religion to claim that they're a reason for religion to not exist, but I have pointed to them to point out that religion does not occupy this superior moral high ground that so many religious people claim it does. He's exactly right, people will use any ideology to commit atrocities against one another, including religion, which means it's just like all the rest. I do consider myself an atheist, but with enough agnosticism that I'm willing to shift if someone can present sufficient evidence. Unlike David, I don't have an inherent desire for there to be a supreme being, I find enough comfort just looking at the beauty of the natural order of things to not need that desire. If other people do find comfort in that belief though, as long as they're willing to keep the belief to themselves and not force its ideas on others or cause them harm, then have at it.
I agree completely with you. Unfortunately there have been many wars in the name of religion in the past and will be more in the future I am sure; the "holy land" is still claiming innocent lives as we speak. It is a tragedy.
Not sweaty at all. He is fully entitled to his opinion no matter how ill informed and misguided it is. Very revealing when he says he was brought up that there was a God. He should probably spend some time talking to fellow comedian Stephen Fry to get a more informed understanding of religion.
He destroyed his own argument if you listen again. He says atheists aren’t rational purely because he wants to believe in a god and have a safety blanket. I’m sorry but the position presented here is irrational and he lies by pretending to have logic and misrepresents his position, which is the same as a theist. His position is based on faith maybe, hope more likely, not reasoned logic.
@@col.hertford9855 you didn't listen to him. He said he doesn't have a position. He's an agnostic. He said he would like there to be a God but there isn't enough evidence for him to believe in a God. Which sounds like a very rational thought process to me. He doesn't know. Which should be the default position. Is there a God of some sort? I don't know and neither do you. To argue that there is or isn't, is to assume you have information that no one does.
This logic could be applied to every single mythology in history. If there's a possibility of God then there's a possibility of leprechauns and fairies.
Typical Reddit atheist comment, it’s impossible to disprove a universal and eternal creator outside of our universe because he’s outside of it. God and Allah are not the same as fairies.
@@Awnos An outrageous claim like the Universe came from nothing? And that a God doesn’t exist? And that nothing outside of what we see exists?Neither side is actually provable, but one side just doesn’t pretend to be based purely on evidence. Religions are based on faith and so is atheism, you just like to pretend otherwise.
@@tsarnicholasii274 Atheism is not synonymous with a belief in science or evolution. Atheist literally means a non belief in deities. Science doesn't claim everything came from nothing it says we don't know where matter came from but we're working on finding out instead of just saying "oh god did it" I don't understand how you could believe an intelligent designer exists and have no desire to know more, like where did the creator come from? Why did he create us? You all just read from your human made books and say "yep that's good enough for me" If science ever did prove gods existence you can be damned sure we would continue trying to find out where it came from and what it's intentions are but so far there has been zero evidence of a creator. Claiming there is a god that created the entire universe, has spoken to a select few humans and continues to monitor us is the most outrageous claim somebody could ever make.
I get his point, I don't want to rip away anyone's comfort blanket if they aren't hurting anyone. But if you don't think there is a god you are an atheist by definition.
Precisely. He wants there to be an all-powerful, benevolent god, but he is not convinced that there is, but he rejects the label 'atheist.' I think David Mitchell is just conflicted between what he thinks he believes and what he 'wants' to believe. He was clearly indoctrinated and is having trouble divorcing himself from that belief system. But confusing belief with knowledge and labeling yourself an agnostic in the process is far from rational. He sounds like someone who can't decide what he believes, which is precisely what indoctrination does to a person. What is it that he thinks atheists are 'taking away' from him? That is completely irrational. No one is taking anything away from him. He is the one who is conflicted.
People fear there being nothing because all we know is the continuity of our lives and we are hard wired to not want it to end. But in the case of nothing there's no fear or pain possible. Imo there's comfort in nothing.
And calling someone a coward because they don’t share you world view is why the world is so divided at the moment. I don’t believe in god, but I don’t believe that makes me a better person than someone who is religious. Some of the nicest people I’ve met hold religion close.
@@JackSmith-kp2vs sorry, never jumped on the twitter train. Must be easyer for religious fools then, just open up the old book for some all true, just facts, straight from "god" bible feed.
@@JackSmith-kp2vs so your mad about me correctly calling a coward? How is your stance on blasphemy laws then ? Or how people treated a girl getting a kid born out of wedlock for just some decades ago, or even worse, if it was 100 years ago. Pretty sure there were some so called "witches" that had a different world view back in the day. And this is just christianity, its way worse in islam and some other religions. The reason for calling him a coward is easy. He argues that the horrors caused by religion, would have just happend becuase of something else, so no biggi. But still we get all our moral code from religion, as many has claimed and said to me. The hypocrisy are strong in theyr kind. Ofc there has been horrors that has not been done in the name of religion. But accepting things is how we learn and move on to bigger and better. Not denying it and cheerypicking some holy book And i don't belive im simply better then then a religious person. People's actions define that for me. If people don't do evil,just to avoid "gods" wrath, are they realy good people? Some of the worst people i've met, hold religion close. And a little sidenote. You say the world is so divided. Does that include jewish deathlazers, pizzagate, electionfraud and that all vaccinated will die in 2025 ?
As a wonderful song goes: "I believe there's nothing after life goes by/ I believe it's over when we die, die, die/ Others may be thankful their beliefs are strong/ but every night I'm praying that I'm wrong, wrong, wrong"
@@Wisdomdigger101 I very well may be wrong. It is just a silly song after all. While I, like so many others, find comfort in the idea of Divine Retribution for those who do wrong in the mortal world, im not sure my desire for that to be the case means it is necessarily true. Hence the "Every night I'm praying that I'm wrong, wrong, wrong" However, I am happy for your strong conviction :)
@@Wisdomdigger101 The problem with that is we have absolutely no evidence for such a thing. The real world isn't fair, a lot of shit happens to people who don't deserve it. Why is it so obvious that the afterlife, should it exist, is any different? Personally I always think our beliefs should be guided by the evidence we see. Unless we have evidence to show something exists, we should assume that it doesn't. Not exactly an extreme position I don't think. Nobody knows if there's an afterlife and there's no evidence to suggest it, much less any details of it. That's not to invalidate your beliefs of course, not at all. But just don't present them as clear as day absolute fact, when it is far, FAR from it. Just makes you come off as closed-minded.
@@paredesmarcangeloc.621 I would not expect you, or anyone, to. It is the chorus of a song called "After Life Goes By" by the Folk duo Lou & Peter Berryman. Peter Berryman is imo one of the most extrodinary lyricists in the world and everyone should witness his brilliance
This has popped up in my recommendations again and I can see 2 incredibly long comments I left 5 years ago. Jesus Christ I was boring! Arguably I still am, but I can't believe I spent so long arguing against nobody over "The most logical starting point of religious beliefs". I also used so many words to argue quite basic points.
This has also popped up in my recommendations multiple times. I'd be tempted to leave a long-winded comment, but I'm genuinely not sure if I already did so I won't.
I thought agnosticism was about knowing and, in that sense, we are all agnostic, because nobody knows anything. Among us ignorant humans there are those who claim a God exists, we call them theists, and those who are not convinced by that claim, hence a-theists. Atheists and theists are all agnostic, the difference is atheist accept that there is not sufficient evidence to make the claim "a God exists", while theists claim (to know) a God exists. The comfort he is talking about is about certainty, which is an illusion. We can all play with the thought of a having a God looking after us, but since we don't know what we are, why we are, what life or the universe is, why we are conscious, we should learn to be a bit more comfortable with not knowing, before jumping into bed with any religion.
Obviously, as an agnostic, David would see agnosticism as the most rational response to the world as we see it. If he didn't, then I would imagine he would convert to whatever he DID consider the most rational response. Not all atheists are out to destroy the beliefs of others. I'm an atheist but I would be mortified if someone abandoned their faith simply because I'm an atheist. Obviously that wouldn't happen even if I did try to change them. I know lots of religious people and I make no secret about my own atheism but I don't think anyone I know has ever ceased to take comfort from their faith simply because they know some bloke who happens to be an atheist. I will accept that many atheists seem to distain the comfort that others take from their faith and try to bring religious people around to their own way of thinking. But they don't succeed because a religious belief or lack thereof is an intangible concept that cannot be proven either way. People obviously do convert to other religions or lapse into atheism and, indeed, there are atheists who become religious. But it's always a conclusion arrived at after a degree of soul-searching rather than being convinced by someone who holds a different view.
My worry is the damage that religion does to peoples thinking and how religion takes the responsibility for their own actions and gives it to a invisible friend
@@gowdsake7103 I guess a distinction has to be made between religious people that follow the teachings morally and are rational with their beliefs, willing to apply critical thinking to what they read and use their religion for good and other religious people that will treat it like a cult, or use it as an excuse for sexism which I have a particular annoyance at because it contradicts most of the other parts of the bible which talk about loving others, but they will choose to focus on a particular sentence and use that for hatred
@@ryclemo4942 How can you even differentiate ! Religion at its heart is all about avoiding responsibility for your own actions, thats why the devil was invented As for the bible and morals hmmm It really isnt a moral book in many ways and most christians ignore the 613 commandments But the bible openly supports slavery, rape, homophobia, child abuse, misogamy and mass murder
@@gowdsake7103 I think once again the problem is not the idea that we should forgive others, but the idea that people can get away with stuff and then just repent it, which isn't at all how it should work but the problem is that people think that's how it works. I feel like there is also a split between people who take the bible too literally and others. The bible is full of contradictions and while it is written about God it's written by humans who are prone to getting stuff wrong and talking about what is accepted at the time (e.g. homophobia) which does not reflect today's beliefs or God's views, but some will say I'm speaking heresy and choose to hate on anyone who doesn't fit the Old Testaments' narrative.
Honestly watched the first minute and 20 seconds not thinking they would be sitting that close to each other.
Same 😂 Oh what has 2020 done to us?
where are their masks
Even outside of recent events, I would say they are oddly close, given that there is nothing else around them. It feels uncomfortable.
I saw your comment before I saw how close they were to each other, and I still was truly not at all prepared for just how close they are
They _could_ hold hands
'Humans just like killing each other' lmao couldn't have said it better
atheism is an umbrella. If you are not convinced that there exist a deity or deities, then you lack the conviction that these things exist, you are therefore an atheist. If you're not sure or you think it might be possible, then ok fine maybe you are an agnostic atheist. If you are convinced there is NO god or any gods anywhere, you're a gnostic atheist. Either way...if you do not answer "yes" to the question "are you convinced of the existence of one or more deities?" then you are an atheist. Semantics aside, that is the unavoidable conclusion.
+Sparrowhawk Does G-d exist?
Yes: Thiest
No: Athiest
I don't know: Agnostic
***** Tradition and respect. It's a Jewish thing. Kinda loses a bit in the digital medium, but the premise is that G-d's name is to be treated with respect, so it's improper to write it on something that would be crumpled up, thrown away, or used to line a birdcage. There's ritual methods to dispose of worn prayerbooks or torahs respectfully. For similar reasons blessings used in recordings (songs, movies, for mass entertainment rather than education) are often subtly changed to alter the name used for G-d to a common similarly sounding standin (Adoshem), so that there's no possible concern about the recordings then being tossed in the trash. For that matter many (perhaps all, not sure) of the words for G-d used in prayer books do not translate phonetically to what's said (YHWH (well, the Hebrew equivalent) is very different, for example, but probably easily recognized to many laypeople. I've also seen YY (again, the Hebrew equivalent) used. I think there's a few more, but as a Jewish athiest it's been a while since I've been in services.)
***** It depends on usage for me. Referring to belief in a god is different from referring to belief in G-d.
I think it also relates to the usage of abbreviations and standin names. To use your example, it's like your dog's name isn't Dog, but you refer to him as Dog because his true name isn't appropriate outside of the Temple, and then it's used enough that referring to Dog people know what dog you mean, so then Dog takes on similar issues of respect and use.
+Myles Adams Are you going to actually acknowledge bad1dobby's response to your comment or just go on and on about names of gods?
+Myles Adams No.
Do you believe in the existence of a god or gods?
Yes, and it can be known and demonstrated: Gnostic theist
Yes, but it's all faith and can't be proven: Agnostic theist
ANYTHING BUT YES + I don't claim to know: Agnostic Atheist
Anything but yes + I know for sure: Gnostic Atheist.
Thank you, Davi Mitchell, for that beautifully sensible explanation of your views!
I am a big fan of David Mitchell, but it's disappointing to see that he has misunderstood the meanings of atheism and agnosticism. They are not competing concepts, they are orthogonal concepts and you can be both at the same time. In fact most people that call themselves "atheist" or "agnostic" are what technically would be "agnostic atheist".
(Belief)
- Theist = belief in the existence of a god
- Atheist = lack of belief in the existence of a god (not same as believing god does not exist)
(Knowledge)
- Gnostic = Knowing a god exists
- Agnostic = Not knowing whether a god exists
(Combinations)
- Agnostic atheist = Does not know if a god exists, therefore chooses not to believe due to lack of evidence.
- Agnostic theist = Does not know if a god exists, but chooses to believe despite lack of evidence.
- Gnostic atheist = Knows for a fact that god does not exist, does not believe in god
- Gnostic theist = Knows for a fact taht god does exist, believes in a god.
So technically David Mitchell is a "agnostic atheist", even if he would want a god to exist. This is also the most rational position, given no evidence and the way we approach anything (beyond the topic of religion).
Most rational belivers are "agnostic theists", they would not claim they know god exists or that they can prove it, but they might feel there are signs that he exists or chooses to believe since they think it's good for their life.
More extreme believers (like ISIS) are Gnostic theists. They are completely sure they know god exists, no doubt.
I've never met anybody claiming to be a Gnostic atheist (claiming they know for a fact that god does not exist), which would be an extreme position. But sady "gnostic atheist" is what many non-atheists think what atheism is!
Ps. it could also be that I misunderstand what he is saying.
Most people cant seem to grasp knowledge is a subset of belief so any other answer apart from a positive one yes I belive in god means you are an atheist you can be an agnostic one but whatever
what i have learned here in this comments section is that confused people view the not confused as being confused
David is just a great person
I agree with him on so many levels
As Ricky Gervais explained really nicely, the problem is that you'd have to be Agnostic to most mythical ideas. You can never be 100% certain that something doesn't exist, but the liklihood is that it doesn't exist is so overwhelming that labelling yourself as an Agnostic is just willingness to submit to ignorance.
Could someone offer some advice on the locality of the full interview, that is the video itself on a medium and not the location where the interview took place, please.
ruclips.net/video/KGO_kwiyLw4/видео.html
Great analogy man.
Sigh, I like Mitchell but he's got it wrong here. Atheism isn't a blanket rejection of God or religion. It's not a rejection of anything, nor does it assert anything. It's not a belief system, it's not a way of saying someone doesn't believe in a divine being. What an atheist is saying is simply that because of the stark lack of empirical evidence for a deity, it's unlikely to the point of irrelevance that such a being exists.
The position of atheists is based on evidence or lack thereof. Based on our current understanding of the universe, the probability of a divine being having created it or existing at all is so low that it's as near to zero as the probability that the theory of gravity is wrong.
People will say that because the odds of a deity existing aren't absolute zero then atheists must really be agnostics and say they don't know but, to go back to gravity, it's entirely possible that we might wake up tomorrow to find that actually, things don't fall down and we'll all be floating around our bedrooms, cursing Newton. But that possibility is so remote that while it's not absolutely zero, in practical terms, it may as well be. The same is true of the existence of a divine being and that's the basic atheist position.
If empirical evidence were to emerge that shows that possibility of a divine being existing isn't as close to zero as it can be (it can never be zero simply because you can't disprove something that isn't there in the same way you can't disprove the existence of the tooth fairy), then atheists would be the first people to look at that evidence and if there's any weight to it, adjust their world view accordingly.
In other words, if you could show that God exists, atheists would accept that because they follow the evidence, whereas I suspect that if you could show that God doesn't exist, theists would ignore it and push back the goalposts, as they have always done.
It's also worth noting that wanting something to be true doesn't make it true. You can want there to be a God. You can want there to be an afterlife where you'll meet your loved ones after death. That doesn't make it true. You may well ask an atheist whether they would wish to rob someone of the comfort they feel in those beliefs. It's a tough one. You don't want to cause pain to someone, especially when they're grieving. On an individual basis, I would tend to let them believe what they want as long as it does no harm but as a matter of consensus, for example, deciding public policy, then religious belief must be removed from the equation. We must endeavour to build our lives and our societies as if this is all there is and as if each of us has only one opportunity to make the best of our existence. Assume death is the end of the story.
jedsithor It seems like the debate over God's existence is the only topic in which certain parties attempt to create these overtly complex labels that are a mish-mash of an idea (e.g. that God does not exist, or that God does exist) and a psychological state (e.g. belief, or knowledge). For instance, you'll never hear anyone say "I'm a gnostic determinist." or "He's an agnostic physicalist." I don't know why this doesn't happen elsewhere, but I do know why it doesn't happen often - because it is entirely unhelpful and unnecessarily complex. We shouldn't prioritize labeling people: "Jim is an agnostic theist, and by that I mean that Jim does believe that there is a God, but he also believes that his belief that there is a God falls short of the standards necessary for knowledge."
We should prioritize labeling ideas. Theism is the idea that there is a God. Atheism is the idea that there is no God. If we then want to label someone as agnostic (which is a term used often enough to apply to holding no view in other debates) as 1 who does not believe, or is not willing to defend either idea, we can. We can then have a conversation about which of those ideas (theism and atheism) is true. That conversation will be much more fruitful than a conversation about 1) whether God exists AND 2) whether someone who believes "God exists" knows "God exists". Labels like "gnostic atheist" are created & used by particularly dogmatic individuals who are a little too concerned with "burden of proof". Overt concern with burden of proof is a red flag for overt concern with winning a debate (or being thought of as the smartest person in the room), as opposed to an overt concern with the truth.
Cliff Hanley yes.
Cliff Hanley
Old earth. Of course evolution has happened on a grand scale. Not sure about common descent.
Cliff Hanley
Do I think Hell is real? Yes / not sure. I'm not sure what you're asking about the problem of evil.
Saying you are agnostic rather than theist or atheist is a fundamental misunderstanding of the question. It is a true dichotomy that you either believe or do not believe in a God. Agnosticism refers to your belief on the ability to know anything for certain.
There are agnostic theist (believes there is a God but doesn't claim to know for certain), agnostic atheists (doesn't believe there is a God But doesn't know for certain), gnostic theists (believes in a God and claims to know for certain) and gnostic atheists(believes there is no God and claims to know for certain).
As I have heard it explained, Ashiest and Agnostic are possible answers to two separate questions, you can be either, neither or both
That is according to the axis definitions. In those, theist means you believe in a higher power, atheist means you do not. Gnostic means you are certain of your belief, and agnostic means you are not. So an agnostic theist doesn't claim certainty, but believes in a higher power, and a gnostic atheist is absolutely certain there is not a higher power.
In the linear definition, which David is using (and what most people with a Protestant upbringing circa 1970-1990 understand), there is atheist who believes there is no god, an agnostic which is not certain if there is or not, and a believer, who is certain there is.
@@willchurch8376 A higher power, like market forces, or the government?
@@davidwuhrer6704 Given the context of the discussion at hand, that seems unlikely. Is your question attempting to do anything other than distract from my clarification to BuggaBoo?
This is the reason I've remained religious, even as many of my friends have not. I want there to be something more and I genuinely believe that no matter what is true, I will be comforted by my own belief and will be happier because of that security.
Wishful thinking? Nice.
***** Eh, why not? In the words of Blaise Pascal's famous wager
1. "God is, or He is not"
2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
4. You must wager. (It's not optional.)
5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain."
Artifying Pascals Wager is nonsense, famous nonsense but nonsense nevertheless. To apply it correctly you would need to apply it to all of the 10,000 plus gods which have been worshipped by mankind throughout history then factor in which of them have a "hell" and whether you have the correct version of the religion (30,000 denominations of Christianity).
Then you would need to ask, if the biblical god actually existed, why you would want to spend time with a being which impregnated a 12 year old girl and killed multiple millions of children?
You believe in Yahweh because it is one of the most recent gods and, I suspect, because you were brought up that way by your parents.
***** And what is wrong with that? Is anyone harmed by it? If it's merely for comfort, the overall effect seems to be beneficial. We are wrong about a lot of things in life. It is not rational to assume there is some sort of God, but as long as we are not talking about a human authority using that belief to dictate the lives of others it does not really present a problem.
Because beliefs inform actions and religion exerts a massive, malign influence on the world. And as for human authority it gives people, including the pope, their ability to dictate the lives of others.
My sister died 13 years ago and it would have been "comforting" to think she was in heaven but at least accepting the fact that she is simply dead allows me to mourn her properly and move on. A comforting delusion is still a delusion and I would rather not be delusional.
Oh god. Is there an option to just say I don't fucking know? I thought I was agnostic but apparently I'm not according to the comments
Do you believe in a God or believe in any Theism? if your answer isn't yes than you are atheist. If you "don't know" than you are atheist. Atheism is not a belief in something it is a lack of belief in something.
Earthbjorn Nahkaimurrao ok thanks
he is wrong, you are agnostic by definition of the word
+Michaelreqd
He isn't wrong, atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of one more more deities. And if he doesn't believe in that then he is an atheist by definition.
Of course, if he doesn't know if there is a god or not then he is an agnostic too. Which is why there is the term "agnostic atheism".
And by using the definition agnostic as michaelreqd did, he is also (probably) agnostic about invisible dragons, little midgets dancing around in your garden when you're not watching, and such sort of events.
Bit surprised by Mitchell there. Interestingly he actually is an atheist in the normal sense. He doesn't believe in gods, so he is by definition an atheist. He's also an agnostic, as atheists tend to be.
I think acknowledging that religion is human behaviour and separating that from any potential higher power, along with the arrogance of many atheists, was enough for me to have an open mind.
David is an intellectual comedic hero of mine, and I agree with him except that he mischaracterizes atheists as implicitly being exclusive of agnosticism: every atheist I know (and I'm friends with Richard Dawkins) hastens to add (when asked) that they are technically agnostic inasmuch as they don't claim there are no gods, only that claims of gods have not met their burden of proof. So I get what he's saying, but although I call myself an atheist, I don't meet Mitchell's implied definition, because (like almost all the atheists I know) I am emphatically, and enthusiastically, also an agnostic. I claim the right to say "I don't know."
"except that he mischaracterizes atheists as implicitly being exclusive of agnosticism"
But he didn't. It is for a fact that agnosticism is a mutually exclusive position from both theism, and atheism.
"every atheist I know (and I'm friends with Richard Dawkins) hastens to add (when asked) that they are technically agnostic inasmuch as they don't claim there are no gods"
Yeah, but the vast majority of atheists do reject the existence of god, and also they do try to compare the belief in god to imaginary friends, though
@@americanliberal09 not true actually. Agnosticism doesn’t exist on the spectrum between atheism and theism, so therefore it is not mutually exclusive. Atheism is about lack of belief. Agnosticism is about lack of knowledge. Most atheists are agnostic atheists. It’s not a “belief that there is no god”. They don’t know if there is a god (agnostic) but there’s is no reason to believe there is one (atheist). Atheism is the disbelief of a claim (there is a god), not a claim in and of its self (there is no god).
@@joehodrien " Agnosticism doesn’t exist on the spectrum between atheism and theism, so therefore it is not mutually exclusive."
Yes, it does you, dumbass. There are academics who do acknowledge for a fact that agnosticism is a middle ground position between theism, and atheism. Hence, making it a neutral position.
"Atheism is about lack of belief. Agnosticism is about lack of knowledge."
Wrong. Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of god, and agnosticism is also a belief position, because belief, and knowledge are not completely separate things. In order to believe in something. You actually have to have knowledge about it first beforehand.
" Most atheists are agnostic atheists."
That's just your own personal opinion, dude.
" It’s not a “belief that there is no god”.
Atheism is the position that affirms that god(s) don't exist. Sorry, dude. But you're just being delusional here.
"Atheism is the disbelief of a claim (there is a god), not a claim in and of its self (there is no god)."
Dude. Are you stupid or something? It's still the exact same thing. If you disbelief in the existence of god. Then you are affirming that god doesn't exist. :-P
@@americanliberal09 Probably shouldn't get puffed up about things you aren't an expert on.
There are two working definitions of agnostic, one sits on the axis which intersects theism, and one is as you describe, a middle ground position between the two. Since you understand the latter position, I will not bother to explain that one.
In the axis definition, Gnosticism is a measure of one's certainty, and Theism is a measure of one's belief in a higher power. Ergo, the agnostic atheist is the one who is not certain, but leans towards 'no god' as the likely answer. The gnostic atheist is the one who is certain there is no god, the gnostic theist is certain there is a god (and likely has some strong ideas about which one there is.), and the agnostic theist thinks/believes there is some sort of higher power, but acknowledges they lack knowledge or evidence of that.
It's similar to the political quizzes that put you as liberal or conservative, vs the ones that measure your social axis on authoritarian vs libertarian, and your economic axis on liberal vs conservative.
@@willchurch8376 *Probably shouldn't get puffed up about things you aren't an expert on.*
Oh, really?
*There are two working definitions of agnostic, one sits on the axis which intersects theism, and one is as you describe, a middle ground position between the two.*
But there's only one definition of the term, dude.
*In the axis definition, Gnosticism is a measure of one's certainty, and Theism is a measure of one's belief in a higher power.*
Ummmm....except for a fact that agnosticism is not the exact opposite of gnosticism, because it was invented as a middle ground between theism, and atheism, not vice versa.
*It's similar to the political quizzes that put you as liberal or conservative, vs the ones that measure your social axis on authoritarian vs libertarian, and your economic axis on liberal vs conservative.*
Nope. Not even close, dude.
There is a lot of misunderstanding as to the exact definition of atheism and agnosticism. I see myself as atheist in the sense that I have no reason to believe there is a god, but I of course can't prove there isn't one, just like I can't prove there isn't any other supernatural entity.
I also strongly agree with David that there is no sense in trying to tear religion away from people who only take comfort in it and don't use it to harm others.
"I also strongly agree with David that there is no sense in trying to tear religion away from people who only take comfort in it and don't use it to harm others."
As an atheist I strongly disagree with David's characterization that religion is harmless. We have thousands of years of history showing oppression in the name of religion. Atheism on the other is not an ideology as David is framing it. David's use of communist atheists is a red herring. Communism IS an ideology. Communists tried to take away religion by force. Atheism has no canon whether left or right. The extent of atheism "tearing" away religion is saying we don't believe just like we typically don't share a belief in witches or leprechauns. Beyond that atheists. There is no underpinning ideology with atheism.
The question, "do you believe in god?" is a yes or no question. If you're not willing to answer "yes," as few agnostics are, then your answer is "no." It's that simple. The reason people think it's complicated or nuanced is that, for thousands of years, to answer that question "no" carried a death sentence, as it still does in some parts of the world. Those semantic gymnastics were necessary for self-preservation. Now, though, it's time to recognize the truth, just as we recognize that there's no good reason to believe religious claims and many good reasons to reject them. Clinging to the myth that one can lack belief in gods but not be an atheist only serves to internalize the legacy of fear. It keeps the atheist community splintered. It grants unwarranted credibility to the privileged position of religion, a position built upon and perpetuated by that same history of fear. It is that privilege that creates the need for the term "atheist" in the first place and can demand of the nonbeliever that we must explain ourselves.
Russian poet Esenin once wrote in one of his poems two lines that i could roughly translate as:
"I feel shame for believing in God earlier
I feel pain in not believing in him now"
Coming from a religious family and later rejecting all that, nothing sums up both the experience and feelings better
But there follows a third stage, which involves not caring about the issue and wishing people would stop going on about it.
I don't see why it has to be painful, I see it as rather beautiful. We aren't significant, the universe wasn't created for us and is indifferent to our existence. Yet even in spite of that, you are where you are now, alive. You weren't put here for a predetermined reason, you just are, as I just am. We are truly free to paint your own path through this madness of nature that is life.
That can be terrifying, existential dread can be very intimidating at first. But since the universe can't recognise itself, that makes life easily the most important thing in it, as what function would a beautiful painting serve if nothing was around to see it?
I'd reccomend the youtuber Kursgesagt's video on this brilliant philosophy, "Optimistic Nihilism". Exurb1a is also a great channel for videos like this
good quote, shame about the coping fedoras
Poetry says something better than prose or speeches. I hope that life brings you what you seek and that your experiences help but shame into context that takes away its sting and that your pain is lessened. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
‘Everyone liked that.’
He’s quite correct about humans killing each other for any and all reasons. Whether it’s due to fighting over resources and wealth, or lust for power and conquest, or political/religious crusades, humans use all kinds of reasons for killing. It comes down to selfishness and greed and no respect for life.
Surprisingly level headed. I had presumed he was one of those new atheist types. My apologies.
WTF is a new atheist ?
I generally agree with David but its a bit disappointing that a guy like him would use the words incorrectly. An agnostic isn't a third option, an alternative to atheism. It simply means you believe the existence of a God in unknowable. The opposite is a gnostic, where you believe it is knowable. Most atheists are agnostic because while they don't believe in a God they also know its impossible to definitively know. You can he an agnostic theist that does believe in a God but still acknowledge that its impossible to know for sure. Most religious people are gnostic theists because they believe the Bible or other texts are proof and it is in fact knowable.
All in all, everyone is either gnostic or agnostic, its only colloquially that agnostic is seen as a middle ground
His logical position is "I want there to be a god, so I can't be an atheist". Oh dear. That's not logical at all.
He clearly demonstrated he doesn't even know the labels, he said he is not an atheist but an agnostic but the two do go together he is either a agnostic atheist or a agnostic theist, he doesn't believe in god so he is clearly is an atheist just an agnostic atheist, the mf got read more for sure
@@justanotherlostsoul5769 He has just said that he's an "agnostic".
Comments packed with people upset that David is using correct definitions, but not the focus group tested definitions.
David is using the term Agnostic here as a defining point for his religious beliefs. That is one of THREE correct definitions of Agnostic.
"a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." Essentially occupying the "I don't know" rather than "Yes" or "No" position. This "No" includes the "No, because I have not been shown enough evidence".
Now, this is confusing to some people because there is another definition of Agnostic, which merely considers the completeness of knowledge, which means some people call themselves agnostic atheists.
This can also be considered "weak atheism", however, agnostics, using our first definition, occupy a space even weaker, than weak atheism, so there is not as much overlap as practically everyone has said so far.
I don't accept the first definition, and the third definition isn't so much a definition as it is a perspective held by militant atheists, or those who are dishonest about the knowledge they claim to have.
Agnosticism is a position of knowledge, not belief. You can be agnostic about anything, which makes the term on its own completely meaningless. "I'm agnostic" "Agnostic about what? Unicorns? Russian hackers?" It's a safe term used by people who are either unwilling to commit to their own beliefs, or who fear social ostracisation for their beliefs.
Agnosticism is in stark contrast to gnosticism, which is much more common among theists than atheists. Most atheists will admit to being agnostic, because that is the only honest position to take.
"I don't accept the third definition".
Good for you. In a similar vein I only accept 2/3rds of the words you just used as real, and I will apply my own meaning to the other third.
I will respond accordingly.
1) I don't see why you can't just buy a fish.
2) I hear you can get a cream for that nowadays.
3) Is that why a raven is like a writing desk?
4) You don't get to pick the words other people mean, so long as they are in common parlance.
Less sarcastically, I find it blood boilingly irritating that people think they get to be the ones who pick which definition someone else used when they used a normal definition.
When someone says they were fired yesterday, I don't get to demand they're saying they were baked in a kiln. When they say "I mean I lost my job", I politely say "Oh my mistake", not "NO, when *I* say FIRED I mean BAKED IN A KILN. So you mean BAKED IN A KILN. You can't say FIRED like that. You didn't tell me you lost your job, you lied to me about an unfortunate pottery-based experience!"
Baalthazaq I don't know who you're quoting there. It can't be me because I said "first" not "third" but I'll respond as if you are quoting me.
In this case I'm uninterested in common parlance, I'm interested in correct definitions. Using agnostic to describe belief is an incorrect usage of the word. That is unless you are saying you don't know what you believe, which seems strange to me but hey.
When someone says "we will be arriving momentarily" I don't smugly say "oh and we'll be leaving straight afterwards, then?" and then act as if that's what they meant. I note that they've misused a word, but I understand what they mean through context. Same here. If somebody says "I'm agnostic" I usually know what they mean, though whether they mean "god might exist" or "god might not exist" isn't always clear. In any case, misuse of a word might warrant correction, but that doesn't mean I'm picking a definition. I only accept the correct definition, but I understand through context when a word is misused.
The other problem with agnostic is that it maligns atheist. If agnostic is the reasonable middle ground where you have no faith but accept a god could exist then atheism must always be the stubborn form that refuses to even entertain the idea of a supernatural entity. This is a common perspective among "agnostics."
This is where I stood in my 20s. I am now athiest. But Mitchell wanting there to be something or in his words 'not wanting there to be nothing' is not a reason to suspect that there IS something. I would also dispute what he says about athiests wanting to take away that comfort it gives to believers. I know many athiests. I know precisely none who want to force others to abandon their own beliefs.
TAKBIR
Unlike David I am areligious - I have no religion or desire for one - but I do have compassion, and like David would not want to deny people the comfort of an imaginary friend.
The issue i think is, even though he’s perfectly right in his view, agnosticism isn’t your stance. You either do or do not believe something.
It’s like a house with four rooms. You can be a gnostic theist (knows there’s a god), agnostic theist (believes there’s a god but isn’t certain), agnostic atheist (lacks a belief in a god but isn’t certain) and gnostic atheist (knows there’s no god).
He isn’t bad for saying he’s just agnostic, and I don’t really have the right to DEMAND with a bloody trident to make him conform to my classified worldview, but he seems very much like an agnostic atheist.
Sorry if I offend, I’m not trying to be seen as a dick, and even though I lack a belief in a god, I am happy to let you keep yours, whatever that may be.
I think all he’s saying is he doesn’t know for certain either way, but he wants there to be something as it gives him comfort. You don’t have to have a firm stance.
Agreed. I thought David was more logical/rational/aware than this.
I presented something years ago declaring there had never been a genuine religious war. As a lifelong atheist a number of other atheists, most of them lapsed theists hated me doing this, but I like making people think.
First come back was the crusades, the first of which was started because the church was losing influence and knew fighting a battle for them would get attention.
Later this became a money and technoogy grab. If you need convincing of how far behind we were count to ten, if you haven't picture I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X you have pictured arabic numerals. At that time th enumber 0 and math this made possible was the equivilant of today's solid state battery.
I knew the presentation had holes in it. The best thought insipring things do, they make people debate and think. But I feel religion has been used badly in the past, nowadays we have magically disappearing WMDs in countries that coincidentally have lots of oil, there will always be lies told to make people kill and die.
I am an atheist who hates the definition of the word atheism, I know I can add to it to make it more to my liking and have accepted the definition was written in a very different time and the historian in me appreciates this. I think a lot of my disliking for it is how old I was before I even learned the word.
I was sent to a Church of England school, as most in the UK of my age were. At that time Chrstian teaching was the standard/ We recited the lord's prayer in the same blindly obedient way as the US recite the allegance to the flag in the classrooms every day. I never thought anything about it, it was just a part of routine.
The issue came when I was asked to bring over a story book, the came back with nursery rhymmes and the bible evidently seeing them as equivalent. I was too young to be doig this to cause offence, I just belived they were both made up. The response was to spend the next few years trying to make me understand god, which didn't go well.
It was in secondary school I was first called an atheist, in primary school, no-one was willing to let me know there was a name for it, that would be acknowledging I wasn't the only one. Irony, it was a religious education teacher who told me this. Strong faith christian who believed in challenging all faiths, including his.
The word atheist means lack of faith in belif in a god or gods, as if they must exist, I a just too dumb to acknowledge this. My reaction to this is to consider myself atheist by faith, somehting all groups seem to hate. It is because while I believe to the core of my being there are no deities, spirits etc. I cannot prove this and as my science teacher said we cannot dismiss something completely without proof so some of my opinion has to be considered faith, ie belief without proof.
Agree with the wishing there was something else on occasion. I fear losing my wife, and with COVID combined with the stupidity of the UK populace my son too, so the idea of meeting them again in an afterlife and of them being rewarded for living decent lives appeals. However as an atheist I believe this is our only life and that it is all the more precious becouse of it. As such I do what I can to make life good for myself and others, which confuses a lot of theists, especially when it includes them.
The biggest argument against god is that an all powerful being doesn't make sense
Quarks only exist inside of other particles made of more Quarks they have something called color charge binding them. Which means if you have a baryon (1 quark 1 anti quark) and manage to rip them apart, color charge means that the energy released is enough to create two more quarks or anti quarks to bond with the two you ripped apart
I bring this up to ask a question
On the smallest level we can measure the universe makes no sense, who says it makes more sense as it goes up?
don't worry David, i am god, you can believe in me
What a weird position to hold. "I want there to be something." is quite irrational. A person can absolutely hold that position but it brings no value to finding out what the reality is.
I think you may have missed the point by a wide margin.
@@MLife1972 Then go ahead and explain it. It's completely irrelevant what anybody wants reality to be when it comes to finding out what reality is.
@@Cyan37 I'll try. His point was that he doesn't see the reason to belittle other people's beliefs because why would you want to deprive them of something that brings them comfort. He then says what his belief was and you made a narky comment about it. Thereby ignoring the point he was making.
@@MLife1972 He can absolutely believe what he wants to and that was not my point. I'm just saying it's 'useless' (for the lack of a better term) when it comes to the topic of religion. He can hold whatever belief he wants to, I just don't have to agree with- or support it, that doesn't mean I'm belittling him or being 'narky'. I was expressing my own view which I'm also free to have.
@@Cyan37 Absolutely. Freedom of speech and all that. I'll try once more with an analogy. He's saying there are some people who like oranges and some people who like lemons. Even though he may like oranges, he won't question someone who likes lemons. You're coming in and saying. 'Oranges are weird - lemons are better', thereby missing the point.
“i’m not convinced there’s something, but i don’t want there to be nothing” is the most relatable thing i’ve ever heard
@Maurits there is no truth claim to make with matters like this. there is either belief or there isn’t. and personal preference IS our tool for determining our beliefs
@Maurits you can’t run tests to prove the existence of god or lack thereof. there is no way for humanity to determine fact around this. and whether or not god exists has no bearing on the world, but as david said, a huge effect on morality. and every person i’ve interacted with prior to you has maintained that it is an opinion thing because there is no unobstructed views of god, no perfect truths of religion. most people would say that constitutes as reason to just leave someone alone to their beliefs, not turn into a pedantic ass and wax pseudointellectual in the youtube comments
@Maurits "And if you believe that we should leave eachother alone because we can never determine with certainty whether God exists or not, I simply disagree with you, and I'm sure hundreds of years of theological debate and the vast amounts of scholars and literary works on this question would too."
That simply sounds like someone who wants to argue and dislike something. Believe in it? Dont care. Dont believe in it? Dont care. Want to cause strive because you disagree with someone on the matter of god existing? Now i care because you're making a problem.
Its a toxic behavior at its core and should not be encouraged. And yes, all these centuries of theological debate are meaningless and simply in the wrong. There is no reason to cause strive over this matter. Only false pride encourages someone to do so.
@@dektarey4024 I know this is probably a mistake joining in, but i’d say it isn’t always a matter of atheists causing a problem. While it’s fine for one to chose to believe in avid because it gets them through the day, my personal problem is when a certain god is used as a justification for anything. Any decisions are likely to be influenced by this belief, however, this still isn’t a significant problem until you start using god to justify any number of things, the largest modern one being homophobia, but notable past ones include burning of witches, the crusades, all the various killings/wars caused by divide between protestant and catholics, the catholics killing those who didn’t believe in catholic god. Now in the case of Agnostics, like David speaks about in the video, there is no problem, as they don’t commit to a specific god and system, but those who follow a specific god, and a specific system have an inbuilt flaw in their reasoning, which could influence any number of decisions. So while yes, belief god is not a problem in it self, I would say that belief can be used for false conclusion, and quite often is. while i don’t personally argue with strangers over the internet about gods existence(the present excluded), as it tends to be pointless, i think those that do are understandable, and should not be seen as arguing because they specifically want to argue, but because they have seen what religion has caused.
I hope that this has helped you possibly get an idea of why i personally think we shouldn’t just leave each other alone. If you have any criticisms of my argument or don’t understand one of my points, please let me know, i don’t want this to descend into the normal pointless bickering of youtube comments. Also i recognize this was more of debate between agnostics and atheists, and as a general atheist, I have no problem with agnostics
Added note: I did the classic comment thing of not watching the video fully, and i realize David directly went against what i just said, but just to put down his argument.
One: He make an huge assumption that people look to kill each other and will use any reason to do so, which is not backed up by him, and i find to be a leap. I don’t want to come across pretentious by quoting philosophers, but i’d say that humans aren’t good or bad, but humans are simply the culmination of all of those who exist at any time. If all humans helped each other, then we would be good, even if 100 years before, we all lived in a state of constant fighting, stealing, and killing. We went from bad to good, however we are not inherently either. So this idea that humans just want to kill each other and will find any reason is a bit silly.
Two: He says that many things have been used to justify murder, such as the political ideology. I’d say that this is not relevant, as simply because people kill each other over many things, doesn’t mean that those things are acceptable. I would say that while yes, people have killed over many things, i’d say the less reasons to fight, the less fighting that happens. Simply because people have killed over communism, doesn’t make killing over religion alright. While i would say that killing over anything is not acceptable, ill be honest in ambitions that that is an assumption. With that assumption, i’d say killing over politics is not acceptable either, and we should try and prevent that. without that assumption, i’d say that while there may be an argument that killing over a certain belief is acceptable, like in the example of communism, where by killing you think you are being about a better long term world, this killing is based on a belief which may or may not be true. If the belief(communism) is true, then the killing may be justified(i’d say it isn’t, but i want to avoid assumptions about morality) and if it isn’t true, then killing is not. And this must be applied to religion, where when we can totally conclude that religion is not true(or is unprovable through the means of reason), then killing over religion is not justified, and in turn, we must work to prevent the cause of said killings, religion.
Three: I think i may have already addressed this before but i’ll restate it. He says that even without religion, killing will continue, presumably at the same rate(This is my interpretation, please correct me if you see it differently). I think this implies that in the hypothetical situation that in history, if there were no religion, the killings like the crusades would be replaced by something else, however no proof is given as to why. I’d say that if people had no reasons to kill there would be no killing, and as there are less reasons to kill, less killing takes place.
So, yeah. Once again, any criticism are welcome. I decided to comment hear with the hope of two, equally happy endings(not that kind). Either i convince someone of my argument rationally using facts(or at least make them understand my point), or i am critiqued rationally, and in turn, my views are changed, causing me to become a better, more rational person. I simply hope this doesn’t sputter out into pointless bickering
@@aidensexton3343 JayZus you typed too much but I got through it and agree for the most part. DM is A smart man but he's wrong about this just because he wants to believe like millions of people holding on to childhood fairy tales. There's way too much badness from religious people even apart from killing and I don't wanna type a novel but just look at the USA puritan evangelical trumpets for a start and even if there was a gahd, then it's clearly a POS that's inflicted Untold murder, pain and misery on it's own creations. The flooding of millions of innocent women and children was bad enough but it was only getting started then. Obviously it's nonsense stories used to brainwash and control people
He's married to Victoria Coren. Of course there's a god. :-)
Since there's now less danger of me being married to that unfunny, annoying woman (albeit, there was very little chance anyway..), I might be tempted to share your opinion.
@@ilikethisnamebetter Yeah well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Lmao
Oh fuck how did I not realize that's where the Mitchell in her name comes from???
@@paulallen579 ,DUDE,
David Mitchell is like Ricky Gervais with Emotional Intelligence.
I wouldn't say that Ricky has no emotional intelligence, he just chooses not to care.
@@andyd6338 which is pretty close to a lack of emotional intelligence. You can’t really choose to not to care if you actually do care
@@emilybarclay8831 I'd say choosing to ignore it is worse? If you don't have something, you are not as much as fault as going out of your way to ignore something you have available. He chooses to be a dick about it, which is why he just really sucks tbf
@@steckelton717 that’s definitely true, but I don’t think actually emotionally intelligent people actually get a _choice_ in caring. I myself have a very odd level of emotional intelligence. I just really struggle to relate to and deal with others emotions despite wanting to help people and don’t tend to feel emotions particularly strongly myself, but I’m very influenced by the emotions of those I care about. Like, a while ago I was at the funeral of a relative that frankly I barely knew and I really wasn’t anywhere near crying (obviously it was a very sad occasion and I understood that, I just personally wasn’t feeling much because I’d barely interacted with this relative) but when I saw my sister crying suddenly I was blubbering as well. I didn’t have a choice in the matter, I couldn’t have not cared if I tried. I think if you’re able to turn off your ‘caring’, either you didn’t actually care in the first place or you’ve had some significant trauma/reason to stop caring for your own well-being
And actually funny and witty
I like David Mitchell.
David Mitchell likes you.
@@eddieburrelli no he doesnt
As do we all!
This is one of the most level-headed discussions about religion I've seen anywhere on youtube. Respect.
No it's not, he doesn't understand the terms at all, I imagine he's substituting atheism for the claim there is no god, but atheism is just a lack of a belief in gods.
Furthermore one can be agnostic and atheist, I am myself, one is about knowledge, and one about belief.
And who's taking away the comfort?
The religious don't have to listen to atheists, just like atheists don't have to listen to the crap religious people say.
Religion may be comforting but it can also be a waste of your life, and typically the truth is usually the best thing.
@@colinjava8447 Astonishing how oblivious you are and that's from a non believer.
@@sagnikmondal4058 Oblivious to what
@@sagnikmondal4058 Look up a "gnostic, agnostic" chart, you'll realise Colin is correct
@@Ben-Rogue He's right on the agnostic part sure, though I think it doesn't actually matter that much since everybody understood what kind of people David meant. He is also oblivious to how both atheists and theists can be extremely overbearing for some reason and try to destroy the other person's comfort completely.
With David's appearance in this video, it's like a glimpse of an alternate universe where Ricky Gervais isn't a bell-end.
And then the waveform collapses and we once again find ourselves in the wrong universe
@ConManliness As much as I like him at times, and his work, he is a proper twat at times, and he's definitely in the category of comedians that mitchell is referring to
@@anokah anyone can be a twat sometimes but Gervais is right and David is talking nonsense here obviously. It's a few years ago so he might've copped himself on since
@@anokah how is he in that category?
@@damienjoseph7540 not everything's about being right all the time, that's kind of the point.
Religion these days is a thing people choose to believe in, not something that people myopically believe in.
So yeah, organised religions are a pain, but the very faith that drives them also leads to great thing. It's not a binary matter where you can say 'religion good' or 'religion bad'. Nothing is that simple
I totally admire and respect what he's saying - he speaks my mind! :-)
I agree with him about "celebrity atheists" assuming that they have the right to lecture others about belief and denigrate them for holding them. I'm right you're wrong. And the argument that a lot of suffering was caused by religion shows a fundamental lack of understanding about humanity. I'm amazed that Dawkins can't see that. He's supposed to have a keen intelligence.
He outlined my exact thoughts in a way 10x more eloquent than I ever could
He's wrong though
@@JB_inks That is a matter of personal opinion, when it comes to religion, there is a right and there are wrongs but we have no idea what those are, therefore, saying someone is wrong is disrespectful and hypocritical. We don't know if there is a god and, therefore, anyone is free to make their own opinions.
@@DerPinguim no, not at all. Why don't you ask me why he's wrong? It's not about personal opinions, he's factually wrong about the definitions of the words he's using. As a pedantic person I expected better of him.
@@JB_inks what's wrong about it
@@creeproot he got the definitions of atheism and agnostic completely wrong.
It's nice to see a popular celebrity being so intellectually honest for a change. Very cool!
Even if he’s not being intellectually correct?
@@myopenmind527 You might want to worry about being grammatically correct before you concern yourself with any facet of correctness in other people.
Not being "honest" he is simply say he does not know....which is not an answer either. Of course there is no such thing as a God who seems to be able to do anything ...but does nothing. It also breaks all the law of Physics to suggest there is a magical being who does nothing all day and relies on their unfounded legendary status to be noticed.
@@snap-n-shoot ...no, it is pretty honest to admit you don't know something. I don't know how you can term that as anything other than honest, unless you suspect David of possessing actual concrete proof one way or the other about god.
@@willchurch8376 - He's not being entirely honest with himself though. Atheism and agnosticism address different things. They're not different points on the same scale and he's definitely intelligent and knowledgeable enough to know this. Theism and atheism are to do with belief, whilst agnosticism is to do with claims of knowledge. They are not mutually exclusive. Most atheists are agnostic atheists, as they don't believe in gods and goddesses but don't claim to know for certain. Most things can't be proved or disproved absolutely and this includes all gods and goddesses. Thus agnosticism is the only honest and self-aware position to take. The fact that almost anything is theoretically possible, is not proof and isn't the same as saying that everything is probable. That gods and goddesses can be neither proven nor disproven does not mean that the probability of their existence or non existence is equal and wanting something to be true has no bearing on whether it is, or not. With atheism, it's the matter of a simple question. Do you believe that any gods or goddesses exist? If you do, you're a theist. If you don't, you're an atheist. You either believe, or you don't. Claims of knowledge are completely irrelevant. It's to do with what you believe, not with what you know.
I thought I couldn't love David Mitchell more than I already did
I was wrong
What a wonderful man he is
"I'm not convinced there's something." In other words, he's an atheist, because he isn't persuaded by god claims and is making the erroneous assumption that atheism is only the belief that there definitely isn't a god rather than also encompassing not believing claims that there is.
For a smart guy he seems not to know the difference between agnosticism and atheism.
couldn't agree more - he's so far off I'm actually wondering if he's trolling!
Atheism: The belief there is not a higher power Agnosticism: Lack of belief in a higher power. Often people say one and mean the other, usually it's atheist when agnostic would be more appropriate. Where's his error?
@Colin Thisaname That's not the actual modern dictionary definitions. While atheist was originally a-theist as you say through use it evolved to mean a positive claim that there is no god. And so agnostic was coined as a term to provide distinction
@@rowanbrown5541 Atheism is about belief (or the lack of it). Agnosticism is about knowledge. There's no information on the existence of a god and so I'm an agnostic atheist.
The most logical thing I've ever seen him say, and he's said a ton of logical things.
What is logical about being too wet to make a solid decision
It's reasonable, but certainly not logical. He flat out says he's not an atheist because he "wants there to be something". That's very relatable, but reality doesn't care what you want, and the burden of proof is on those trying to convince people that there is some sort of god, not on those of us who dismiss the notion just as we do the existence of the Greek pantheon, leprechauns and ghosts.
@gowdsake7103 What do you find difficult to understand about someone being on the fence about something that can neither be proven nor disproved? Let me guess, you're one of these pseudo-intellectual soyboys that claims to "fucking love science", but will claim with 100% conviction that God does not exist despite being unable to prove your point.
Taking away the comfort isn't the issue Atheism deals with. Its fighting against religious zealots trying to force their beliefs on to others, especially those that dont want it. If you are religious, and take comfort in it, and don't bother anyone about their beliefs, then more power to you. The moment you use your religion to bring harm to another, be it psychical, or psychological, you are removing the tolerance for you and your beliefs.
That said, im sure there are Atheist Zealots out there as well. Not saying there is not or that they are always right. But i understand why they are bringing a loud voice, as that seem to be the only way to be heard over the loud voice that is religion. And im personally, kind of tired of Laws being based on outdated religious beliefs.
David seems to be referring to the atheists who will go to anyone who says they have a religious belief (even if they aren't trying to force it upon anyone in any way) and telling them that they're wrong for it. He's talking about the atheist zealots who attack people who are not zealots. And that is just trying to strip them of the comfort given to them by their God or whatever.
Right, the ones that don't exist in the real world outside of the rationalist subreddits, then.
don't you realise atheists are zealots too... these days they seem more zealous than religious folk
Yes, I regularly see them handing out leaflets in the street, proselytising door to door and demonstrating loudly outside church services.
There are millions of religious people in the UK who rarely mention it or don't seek to convert you
this is exactly how i feel. he put it in words.
Your a bit soppy and inconclusive then ?
I am an atheist but I agree entirely with everything David Mitchell says here, and regarding the minority of atheists who want to take away that comfort and sense of community and purpose religion offers is wrong. I am an atheist, but I do not go on about it or seek to change anyone's views just because I think religion is stupid and incorrect because it isn't my place to. I just go around not believing in god and live my life, as we all should.
I think he is assuming atheism is saying I know there is no god and not just I don't think there is a god
Stop bickering about labels. I feel the same as David, I just don't know and i'm not really keen on ruining anyone else's day so long as they dont try to ruin mine.
Well put
That's what agnosticism is, though? Uncertainty of whether or not there is a god. That's literally what the term agnostic refers to. It's a word that describes a religious view.
Serious? You are equating the existence of God to the existence of square circles? I believe that would qualify as an Argument from analogy fallacy.
Cleveland Brown Fair enough, but religious people tend to band together and push through social changes in line with their beliefs. If you don’t share their view then you might well have your day ruined by them. Evangelical Christians were instrumental in electing Donald Trump for example.
I don't know how David feels, but he appears to be ignorant on what exactly those two letters address.
You don't know what the two terms mean. Atheism isn't a claim, atheism is the rejection of a claim. Agnostic atheism is "I don't believe there is a god, but I don't know". And since there is, as per your admission, no evidence to suggest there IS a god, the default position is "I don't believe". Mitchell said he doesn't believe there is a god but he can't know for sure, therefore he is an agnostic atheist. What he WANTS to be true is immaterial and has no bearing on his atheism/agnosticism.
Atheism is a claim. It's a claim that there is no God. Absence of proof isn't proof of absence. Therefore atheism is a leap of faith.
Do you think this is his channel or that he reads this?
@@horatioredgreenblue2130 That is not true.
Atheism is the rejection of a claim.
As an agnostic atheist myself I don't believe in any of the gods that people currently claim are real, yet don't claim for certainty none of them are real.
Sums up perfectly my stand on the matter. Also I'm glad someone as funny as Mitchell shares it!
Honestly, I wasn’t expecting to be recommended a video that so perfectly and succinctly summarizes my views on existence.
@@Arkatox
Atheism is not the assertion that there is no God, it is the lack of belief in a God. If you don't believe in a God, you are by definition, an atheist.
@@hatchingdraggon8073 I've never heard that definition of atheism before.
@@Arkatox From the Oxford dictionary: "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
"A" is a negative prefix. For example, when used in asexual, it means not sexual. When used in atheist, it means not a theist.
No one can know that there is or isn't a God. The fact is, most agnostics are atheists, including Mr Mitchell.
@@hatchingdraggon8073 I don't think you listened to what David Mitchell said.
At the end of the day it is commonly accepted athiest means belief there are no gods while agnostic is we can not know for sure.
1:19
"There was a time when I cared about politics, but it's just an excuse men use to kill one another."
Unfortunately he said "humans" not "men" when your version was correct.
Excellent statement of what agnosticism is, and why it is most definitely not the same as atheism. I say that as someone who is proudly agnostic, of course. I love this take on the issue.
Come on. People are arguing because they are defining the words differently. Mitchell also gave a definition of the words he used and by those definitions he is an agnostic. Which is quite close to the, in lack of a better word, classical definition of religious standpoints i.e. theist - believe there are one or more god's or higher power; agnostic - don't know or think we are incapable of knowing if there are o aren't; atheist - believe there aren't even one God.
Gnosticism is a religious movement, not a method or standpoint.
@T And Me most atheists I meet are waaaaay more zealous than most religious people I've met. Hence why it's basically seen as a religion by most folk mate. Like how smoking weed isn't a religion but when you meet those guys that have a marijuana leaf on their hat, shirt, lighter and wallet. It seems a bit religious and you realize that you just don't wanna be told "alcohol is a drug" by them anymore.
People often say Agnosticism is a cop out. I think it's the other way around in that atheists so firmly can't accept that we don't know anything. That's the real cop out to me.
what do you mean,most atheists are agnostic?
Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive.
I'm an agnostic atheist. Regardless of what Mitchell claims, he is as well.
I really don't like that people mistake Atheism for always being Gnostic (knowing there is no god). Most atheists I've seen and know about are Agnostic atheists. As in lacking belief in a god. Now if we're talking about a specific god that's a different topic.
@@Omagadam1 Regardless of what Mitchell claims? So you're claiming to know him better than he knows himself? Lmfaoooo
@mariatanya3533 3 years is a while to update this. Mitchell is, by normative usages of the word even if he doesn't use the label because his usage of the word doesn't fit how he feels.
To me it's the same as a Subway worker saying they're not a fast food worker, they're a sandwich artist. I'd call them a fast food worker and they can call themselves whatever they want
It's a common mistake in this debate that agnosticism is placed as some kind of middle position between theism and atheism, and it's a bit of a bugbear of mine. Gnosticism and Theism are two different planes/dimension entirely; an X axis and a Y axis, if you will. The former concerns claims to knowledge or knowing something, the latter concerns the worship or belief in a god or gods.
Most atheists are agnostic atheists: they don't worship god yet don't claim to know there isn't a god (it's likely they arrive at atheism because they are agnostic). I'd say a lot of religious people are agnostic theists because faith, by definition, is believing in something regardless of whether you know it's true.
I don't think I've ever met a gnostic atheist - rationally, they're incompatible positions. But I have certainly met gnostic theists; those claiming to know of the existence of god/gods.
You'd think that a gnostic atheist would be an impossible position to arrive at, but they somehow do exist.
@@iwonakaplon3399 you can dismiss a lot of gods as being fiction though
@@JB_inks not really. Why are you dismissing things you don't know about?
@@iwonakaplon3399 because some gods were undeniably made up. I point you towards the God of thunder, for example.
@@iwonakaplon3399 you literally just did what you falsely accused me of, by the way
I like David Mitchell, but calling himself a "rational" comedian and then saying "I don't want there to be nothing" as an argument against atheism isn't rational at all.
Why not? He's being honest with himself, that the idea of total cosmic silence is discomforting, but also is not allowing that to colour his view of the world. And he's not arguing against atheism, he's arguing against the militant anti-theists that consider theism a fundamentally broken worldview.
@@s.g.7572 I totally agree with his views on militant anti-theists. I'm just saying: rationality means adjusting your level of belief to your level knowledge. If you have very strong evidence of something, e.g., that the Earth is round, then it is rational to believe it is round. If you have little to no evidence of something, e.g., the existence of unicorns, it is not rational to believe in unicorns, even if you really really want them to exist. He did the same with god. "I don't want there to be nothing, therefore I'm uncomfortable with atheism". (Now, to be honest I just re-watched the video, and it's actually unclear if he uses it as an argument or not. Anyways... It really bugged me on the first viewing.)
The fact that he blithely dismisses the idea that religion hasn't caused a huge number of deaths and mass suffering simply because 'not all wars were started over religion', when not only does that not mean that NO wars or deaths were caused by religion, but that the meddling in law making and policy drafting that the church still has today is the far bigger threat that faith poses upon countless people in this day and age and he conveniently ignores this, is maddening. Yet he's seen as some sort of genius so no one questions this.
His being is in every way detached from the effects of church meddling in the affairs of state and influencing theist opinion, his class and upbringing been just two aspects of this, so naturally he cannot see this issue in anything but the most one dimensional terms. Yet his clearly privileged influenced lack of understanding of the problem isn't addressed at all by anyone, while if he were anyone else it would have been called out at the time, and in perpetuity.
Sad how much a posh voice and carefully curated image of intelligence can still give someone a pass these days.
But what use is comfort if it is _false_? And breaking it down, how and why is an afterlife actually supposed to be _comforting_? All of time, just living on and on and on and on....even utter joy would become boring after a while. One of the only things that gives life meaning is that it eventually ENDS. Most people can't handle life, yet they expect they'll just get an eternal one after this. They would start arguing with each other after ten minutes, and burn Heaven to the ground in an hour. The idea is ludicrous.
The comfort isn't "false" if it's comforting. All that matters is that people are comforted by the idea of an afterlife, which makes it comforting.
Second of all, if eternal life in Heaven at some point became boring, or unbearable, then it wouldn't BE Heaven. The idea of eternity is scary, but imagine eternity without it being scary, or meaningless, or lonely, and that's the idea of Heaven.
To paraphrase Ricky Gervais:
"Everybody is agnostic, it has nothing to do with belief. You either belief there is a god or you belief there isn't, nobody KNOWS if there is one. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheist and theism deal with belief, they're in a different category."
Is it your belief that agnosticism deals with knowledge? I tend to believe it deals with the question of knowledge. Also a different category.
@@noelpucarua2843 It's not a matter of what i believe it deals with. "agnosticism, (from Greek agnōstos, “unknowable”), strictly speaking, the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience."
That's what it means, which is very close to science and scientific truth.
@@taserrr Ah, so that's what you believe.
Or is it just what you want me to believe?
I can prove that there is no greatest prime number. This is something I can know with absolute certainty beyond experience or phenomena.
There are an infinity of those. The belief that one cannot know is provably false.
Yes but that would involve having to listen to that dick !
I don’t think David understands what an atheist actually is
What he's describing as an atheist is probably a gnostic atheist, someone who believes/claims to know that God doesn't exist, and has rejected the concept outright, while what he's describing as an agnostic is an agnostic atheist, someone who doesn't personally believe in a god, but doesn't know either way. Hope that clears it up.
@@iwonakaplon3399 thats what I’m saying, yeah
@@prehistoricworld_ I think he's just using them as shorthand terms.
@@iwonakaplon3399 in which case I don’t think it’s a useful way to get across how he feels, it just creates confusion
Atheism and theism deal with belief. Gnosticism or agnosticism deal with what you know.
You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, or a gnostic theist.. or...
This should be shouted at everyone in the real early morning
or...a twat
Wrong. If you don't have faith in at least one god, you are an atheist. The label atheism is the most simple and tiny one of any label. It doesn't demand anything else than not have a blind belief in an unproven hypothesis, which is why it's the rational stance.
@@potatoface6986
Talking about yourself, I see.
@@Jake007123
Who are you responding to? What OP said does not disagree with your statement, yet you begin with "wrong". So either you misunderstood them, or you're responding to someone else.
Agnosticism answers a different question to theism and atheism.
Agnosticism is about knowledge, theism and atheism are about belief.
Indeed, and as such, both are tied. And both are NECESSARY.
David is an agnostic atheist.
None belief please
@@smhht
They are not necessarily tied together. Knowledge is a subset of belief (in that anything you claim to know, will also fall into the set of things you believe... but not everything you believe would fall into the set of things you claim to know). But beyond the simple fact that knowledge is a subset of belief, they are not necessarily tied together. Knowledge is necessarily tied to belief, but not the other way around... belief is not necessarily tied to knowledge
@@brandonsatterstrom7894 Yikes, a 5 year old comment, really? Anyway, you're thinking/trying too hard, and don't need to explain this to someone who knows epistemology. The labels are tied. As in agnosticism/gnosticism and atheism/theism.
@@smhht
Yes really... why would I care the age of a comment? Why would that matter?
And no half-wit, as I just explained the labels are not tied.... thanks for that tho.
I don't want to sound snarky, but David doesn't really understand the proper definitions of the words 'atheist' and 'agnostic'. I think most people probably don't, but I'll explain it.
It's two separate questions. You're either a theist or an atheist, then you're either gnostic or agnostic about that particular question. Gnosticism simply means being absolutely sure about something, whereas agnosticism is being uncertain about something. The first question is, 'Do you believe in god or gods?', if yes then theist, if no then atheist. Then the next question is 'How sure are you about that?' which if you're absolutely sure about it you're gnostic and if you have some doubt then you're agnostic.
I personally am agnostic atheist. I don't believe there is such a thing as god, or anything supernatural at all for that point, but I'm not willing to say that I can prove it or that I absolutely know for sure that I'm right about it, and that's the agnostic part for me, but if I had to say which I think is more likely, then I don't think there is a god.
For me, if you're making a claim about something then you need to show evidence. While I don't believe in god, it's simply because I haven't seen evidence that some kind of sentient, extra-dimensional being is the reason this universe exists or why we exist in it. If you could show _proper_ evidence of it then I'd change my mind. The bible isn't evidence, or any holy book from any other religion. These are just books written by human beings and are anecdotal at best. I mean, L. Ron. Hubbard wrote Dianetics, are you going to call that infallible? Feathery philosophical arguments aren't going to do it for me either - you have to be able to demonstrate repeatedly that it's true. If you set up a test where a bunch of sick people got prayed for and knew about it, some that were prayed for and didn't know, and a bunch didn't get prayed for at all, and you had different categories for different faiths and you looked to see if one group recovered faster, that would be interesting. Problem is that experiment has already been done a number of times and praying doesn't seem to do anything. But if you could come up with some type of irrefutable test that clearly showed that a god, however you'd define it, is real, then we'd have something. Until then, I'm going to be in the 'probably isn't real' category.
What about deism? That doesn't fit into those definitions.
I have only one firm religious belief: that there is a special hell reserved for RUclips experts. For all eternity the devil stabs them with a pitchfork while they argue that that is not, in fact, a trident.
Hmm, idk. If the pitchfork has 3 prongs then it's a trident. Seems like a rather obvious and inarguable thing.
@@creativecredence850 My pastry cutlery has three prongs. Are they tridents? If yes, is a trident cutlery? Does that make Neptune someone stoked for some cake?
@@dektarey4024 as a self proclaimed expert in three pronged appliances you are correct
If it is a 3 pronged spear with each prong straight, parallel and barbed then it is a trident, seems easy enough.
You won the internet 7 years ago and somehow this comment has only become more true over time
People need to admit that they understand what is meant by these kinds of statements instead of trying to flex on everyone with their knowledge of semantics.
"Doubt is healthy and rational, but faith and hope aren't inherently wrong or harmful."
That is obviously the argument being made here regardless of how the words are technically defined.
Yes faith is wrong and harmful. It's in fact harmful BECAUSE it's wrong, it's wrong because it isn't right, it isn't right because it isn't true and well meaning lies, white lies and all other forms of "good lies" are in fact not good. Being honest and truthful is simply far too important. Lies get in the way of the truth and the truth matters, it really matters and the sooner you know the actual truth, the sooner you can actually move forward.
The argument for faith as a lie is an argument to live your life as a lie, it's literally "ignorance is bliss". Ignorance should never be aspired to.
Religion isn't bad or good because of what it teaches to me as far as morality or ethics, it's bad, because it purports to be true and isn't. It lies every day endleslly to billions of people and the truth is too important to accept anything but the truth.
@@sparkzbarca This is the best explanation I've ever seen or heard. Lots of people don't get this, and I understand why, plenty of Atheists point out stuff they disagree with in the Bible and so it's assumed that the argument against religion is about the morality of the religious person, but it's really not, it's about truth and lie. There's simply no reason to believe in a God unless there is concrete evidence, that should be the end of it.
@@fellinuxvi3541 I think this is too much. Is it really _lying_ to say we might be living in a simulation for example, just because we have no evidence for it? Being an agnostic atheist is not giving up, but rather acknowledging we don't know for sure and should continue to ask questions, rather like science.
@@ab8jeh It isn't, but those who believe in simulations don't usually demand faith. I gotta say, in these two months I've reconsidered a lot about faith, and I'm not as against it as I used to be, but I still consider it something rather sinister to ask of people, I wouldn't dare ask to be trusted with anything I cannot prove, but I guess since most modern religions don't teach a literal interpretation of their texts, it's less harmful to follow religion now than it was during, say, the inquisition or the middle ages.
@@fellinuxvi3541 Indeed. Organised religion that indoctrinates the young at an early age is something quite different to coming up with an individual position over time after exploring the subject as fully as possible from many viewpoints. Whether the latter is truly possible is up for question, but we can strive for it I guess. Anyway, some questions cannot be answered, and definitely should not be the basis for organised religion!
So apparently David Mitchell doesn't know the definition of Atheism and Agnosticism.
Yoctopory
He's just using the terms differently than you. He's using them in line with the standard definitions used in academic philosophy and religious studies.
And by different you mean incorrectly. Words need to have agreed upon definitions so we can communicate properly. Mitchel tries to weasel himself into an imaginary middle ground of a binary position by mischaracterizing the a/theist position. It's a smug attempt of avoiding to piss off either side.
Wow. My respect for David was high, but now it's gone to a new level.
*sigh*
Agnosticism is about knowledge, Atheism is about belief.
Correct. I am a scientist, therefore being Atheist is not logical to me. Being Agnostic certainly is however.
Agnosticism is a belief claim, not a knowledge one.
@@DJ_Dopamine You might be a scientist, but you aren't very good at logic. Anyone is free to believe that there isn't a God. There is therefore nothing "illogical" about being an atheist.
You're right. For this reason, everybody is actually "agnostic" with respect to God, and I'm surprised that David Mitchell isn't honest enough with himself to realise that he is in fact an atheist.
@@ilikethisnamebetter But he has just stated that he's an "agnostic", though.
From my understanding these two terms answers two separate questions, "what do I know" and "what do I believe". In my case I don't know whether or not a God exists, so I'm agnostic in that sense. The lack of evidence for a God leads me to believe that there is no God (or simply a lack of belief in God, whatever you prefer), making me an atheist. I'm therefor an agnostic atheist.
More precisely: "What do I (think I) know?" You can never truly know whether you know something for real, only whether you consider it "knowing" or "believing". (Except for certain extremely undeniable pure-logical truths, such as the fact that you exist.)
Also, you don't have to actively believe that there is no such thing as a god in order to be an atheist. So long as you don't believe that one or more gods exist, you're an atheist. There are even atheistic religions! That is, religions with no deity.
@Time Warp
That is exactly what lack of evidence means: No evidence.
@Time Warp
For the same reason you can't truly know that unicorns or fairies don't exist: There is no proof (note the terminology, I said "proof" and not "evidence" for a reason) that they _don't_ exist. You can come up with reasons and scenarios showing that they _could_ potentially exist without us finding any evidence of them, even though there is no evidence and thus no reason to believe that they do exist.
In order to prove (or even show through evidence) that something _doesn't_ exist, you'd need to know its exact properties, and show that it cannot be found in the places where it would be if it existed, or show that its properties are contradicted by our knowledge of reality, or show how its properties are logically incoherent and therefore impossible.
"God" is a nebulous concept that has many different interpretations, many different entities that fit the description and are alleged to exist (or have been made up for fictional stories), and that are not fully disproved by evidence or logic. The yawning abyss (figuratively) that exists where the evidence for these entities should be is enough reason to believe they don't exist, but it may not be enough to satisfy the conditions for claiming that you _know_ they don't exist - depending on your exact definition of the term "know".
That's how I thought of it when I was an agnostic atheist. Still seems the most useful definition.
since god is impossible to disprove and, unless his face pops out of the sky and he starts presenting us evidence of his omniscience and omnipotence, so is his existence, any question of knowledge is equivalent to a question of believe.
or in simpler terms: if you have no evidence, claiming "I know there is a god" and "I believe there is a god" is the same, since your claim of "knowledge" is solely based on your believe and not on evidence. therefore: atheism and agnosticism is the answer to the same question.
Half the problem is that people have different definitions of what they think "atheism" and "agnosticism" are, to the point where they become meaningless labels. The question shouldn't be "Are you an atheist or an agnostic?" It should be "Can you tell me what you believe?"
"The question shouldn't be "Are you an atheist or an agnostic?""
Right, because that is a faulty question, since it assumes that the two labels are mutually exclusive, which they are not. Hence, the problem with different definitions.
"It should be "Can you tell me what you believe?""
Well, that is a bit silly and vague because you could say that about anything, i.e. words, labels, ideologies. We use words because they have meaning.
...There's nothing wrong with the terms Atheist and Agnostic. They don't mean similar, or even samey-sounding things, you're just an idiot. One is taking the philosophical stance that God is [probably] a load of shit. The other is _not_ behaving like an edgy 12 year old, and admitting there _are_ in fact limits to what one can be sure of. Take your pick.
I always say I'm an agnostic atheist because I tend to swing between the two sides. I'm not utterly convinced there's really anything but on the other hand imagining there's nothing when I die is pretty depressing so like David said I WANT there to be some sort of wish granter when I die so I can go world hopping.
I suppose my beliefs are pretty agnostic but they seem really atheist to me as well in how I approach them. Not to mention I hate saying I'm agnostic purely because some people interpret it to mean i believe in some form of god and Christians and that take delight in it. But that is far from the truth. I don't believe in it but I know that I want there to be some sort of God system upstairs (I'm more inclined to wish for a multiple gods system rather than just a one for all one). Believing is faith without fact. Wanting has no faith or fact it is just impulse.
atheist should be renamed as anti religion because that's all those irritating people are. Aethiests tend to lack emotional intelligence
No it's because you don't realise what drives a lot of religious people. You automatically fantasise that you are more intelligent than them, but really you're weak and just want to feel superior, just like those religious people
“Religion. It's given people hope in a world torn apart by religion.”
― Jon Stewart
When did he say that? I’d like to know the context of that quote.
@@Sir_Sethly I can't find the clip, but I think it was on an episode of The Daily Show. If I had to guess, I would say the context was most likely in reference to people committing violence in the name of their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, that doesn't really narrow it down much, does it?
@@adamellis6785 It’s a pretty idiotic claim, religion has caused division yes, but not nearly as much as atheists claim. 7 percent of the wars have been religious. Not to mention the violence and division caused by atheism and anti theism, which is a thing as hard as it is to believe.
@@tsarnicholasii274 I'd be very interested to see this comprehensive study of historical warfare that displays the percentage of wars that were started/based on religion...maybe the number you just pulled out of your ass is right, maybe its 7%..maybe its 90% the idea that anyone knows is laughable.
@@tsarnicholasii274 7%? That is a lot of wars. How could they have been avoided?
But maybe if you take away someone's belief that there's an afterlife they may be a bit less likely to risk their own lives in order to kill others?
Having said that, there may well be a 'god' but reality would strongly indicate a distinct lack of benevolence.
it always amuses me that people don't study beliefs before making claims about them. It would be like me trying to make authoritative claims about quantum physics
Certainly the Abrahamic god is repulsive
An all-powerful benevolent God?
Chance would be a fine thing...
hmm, using that too much now
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
― Epicurus, 341 BC - 270 BC
Only a comedian could perfectly articulate these very thoughts I've had in my head. Some find comfort in religion. I find comfort in comedy. Having one of my favorite comedians express my feelings about religion through comedy... well peak level achieved.
For anyone who came into contact with philosophy, this is just ridiculous.
Theism/atheism deals with claims to *belief* - you either *believe* there are some gods or you don't.
Gnostic/agnostic deals with claims to *knowledge* - you either claim to *know* something or you don't.
So one can be an agnostic atheist - holding no god beliefs and making no claims to knowledge, or a gnostic atheist - claiming to know that there are no gods. Both are atheists because they hold no god beliefs, they don't believe there are any gods.
nikolaneberemed Hooray, someone does understand. You'd think Mitchell would know this shit. The root latin isn't exactly complex, and he is definitely the type to rant about how improper the common usage of the 2 terms is.
nikolaneberemed The core messages remain, even if the wrong words are used.
To be fair the way David Mitchell uses agnosticism and atheism is how most people use those terms.
Yes, while Radgar lists the technical definitions, David seems to be using the popular connotation of "uncertain." I think what he means is quite clear.
@@OctopusGrift the problem with those usages is that they crippled our power to offer meaning and important descriptions. The minimum requirement for someone to be an atheist doesn't include knowledge or even to make a negative claim against the god concept.
Using a single label to criticize the act of the rejection of claim(Atheism) and the promotion of a knowledge claim(Antitheism) is just ignorant and dishonest.
We expect from people like David to be more responsible that ordinary illiterate people.
For someone who's known for being pedantic, he sure does think "atheist" means "convinced there is NO god" rather than the dictionary definition which always includes the lack of conviction that there IS a god. IE, what he thinks agnostic means.
I don’t feel he has a grasp on atheism , agnosticism and the difference between the two. Specifically they are not mutually exclusive at all
There sure is a lot of pissed off atheists in the comment section
My respect for this man 📈📈📈
Clearly it may give some people comfort as they face the possibility of oblivion. But what about those who genuinely believe they are about to be tortured for all eternity? Their last days might not be so palatable.
Have they heard the good news? They're not! Sadly, that still means death is just non-existence.
I can't speak for other faiths, but Christianity's whole shtick is about the redemption of the sinner. If a person believes that they are going to hell, they must also believe in a forgiving God before whom they can be redeemed. And it is in the aid of the dying who fear hell that priests, pastors, and ministers of all stripes visit the dying, at home and in hospitals, to help them on the way to redemption.
I find that comparison to fascism extremely unnerving. Some ideas are inherently more dangerous than others and while I wouldn't argue that the concept of belief should be considered as such, it still puts the logic of his argument in question. Yes, people have killed each other over many things throughout history but that alone does not absolve a religion of any inherent danger to society it might possess. Again, I'm not saying it does, but IMO he's not making a good case either way.
Yeah, the comparison kinda implies there isn't anything inherently dangerous about fascism.
"suspicious of the disdain" ... well put.
Personally, I've never pointed to the immoral acts committed in the name of religion to claim that they're a reason for religion to not exist, but I have pointed to them to point out that religion does not occupy this superior moral high ground that so many religious people claim it does. He's exactly right, people will use any ideology to commit atrocities against one another, including religion, which means it's just like all the rest. I do consider myself an atheist, but with enough agnosticism that I'm willing to shift if someone can present sufficient evidence. Unlike David, I don't have an inherent desire for there to be a supreme being, I find enough comfort just looking at the beauty of the natural order of things to not need that desire. If other people do find comfort in that belief though, as long as they're willing to keep the belief to themselves and not force its ideas on others or cause them harm, then have at it.
I agree completely with you. Unfortunately there have been many wars in the name of religion in the past and will be more in the future I am sure; the "holy land" is still claiming innocent lives as we speak. It is a tragedy.
Loving all the sweaty Hitchens and Dawkins fans getting angry in these comments because David Mitchell doesn't sing the tune they expected him to
Sweaty? You’re a douche bag. Just make sense and no one will give you a hard time.
Not sweaty at all. He is fully entitled to his opinion no matter how ill informed and misguided it is. Very revealing when he says he was brought up that there was a God. He should probably spend some time talking to fellow comedian Stephen Fry to get a more informed understanding of religion.
Why don't you pray for them, that should help. Also keeps you busy.
He destroyed his own argument if you listen again. He says atheists aren’t rational purely because he wants to believe in a god and have a safety blanket. I’m sorry but the position presented here is irrational and he lies by pretending to have logic and misrepresents his position, which is the same as a theist. His position is based on faith maybe, hope more likely, not reasoned logic.
@@col.hertford9855 you didn't listen to him.
He said he doesn't have a position. He's an agnostic. He said he would like there to be a God but there isn't enough evidence for him to believe in a God. Which sounds like a very rational thought process to me.
He doesn't know. Which should be the default position. Is there a God of some sort? I don't know and neither do you. To argue that there is or isn't, is to assume you have information that no one does.
This logic could be applied to every single mythology in history. If there's a possibility of God then there's a possibility of leprechauns and fairies.
Hell yeah, bro.
Typical Reddit atheist comment, it’s impossible to disprove a universal and eternal creator outside of our universe because he’s outside of it. God and Allah are not the same as fairies.
@@tsarnicholasii274 That's a very convenient way to get out of having to provide any actual proof of an outrageous claim.
@@Awnos An outrageous claim like the Universe came from nothing? And that a God doesn’t exist? And that nothing outside of what we see exists?Neither side is actually provable, but one side just doesn’t pretend to be based purely on evidence. Religions are based on faith and so is atheism, you just like to pretend otherwise.
@@tsarnicholasii274 Atheism is not synonymous with a belief in science or evolution. Atheist literally means a non belief in deities. Science doesn't claim everything came from nothing it says we don't know where matter came from but we're working on finding out instead of just saying "oh god did it" I don't understand how you could believe an intelligent designer exists and have no desire to know more, like where did the creator come from? Why did he create us? You all just read from your human made books and say "yep that's good enough for me" If science ever did prove gods existence you can be damned sure we would continue trying to find out where it came from and what it's intentions are but so far there has been zero evidence of a creator. Claiming there is a god that created the entire universe, has spoken to a select few humans and continues to monitor us is the most outrageous claim somebody could ever make.
I was looking for a based substitute for Ricky Gervais, and I've now found it
Based? Based on what?
@@S4INTW4RRIOR based on you having zero bitches
@@xander1226 Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh
@@S4INTW4RRIOR based is an internet term for being politically or socially intelligent
@@thomasandrewclifford and based? based on what is a meme. Looks like the teacher has become the student
I get his point, I don't want to rip away anyone's comfort blanket if they aren't hurting anyone. But if you don't think there is a god you are an atheist by definition.
David Mitchell, I think I just fell in love with you even more.
He does seem to be a very nice man. I don’t want ‘seen’ to sound nocuous- I’ve just never met the man. It’d likely be a lovely conversation
I have two legs but I reject the label 'Biped'.
Precisely. He wants there to be an all-powerful, benevolent god, but he is not convinced that there is, but he rejects the label 'atheist.' I think David Mitchell is just conflicted between what he thinks he believes and what he 'wants' to believe. He was clearly indoctrinated and is having trouble divorcing himself from that belief system. But confusing belief with knowledge and labeling yourself an agnostic in the process is far from rational. He sounds like someone who can't decide what he believes, which is precisely what indoctrination does to a person. What is it that he thinks atheists are 'taking away' from him? That is completely irrational. No one is taking anything away from him. He is the one who is conflicted.
People fear there being nothing because all we know is the continuity of our lives and we are hard wired to not want it to end. But in the case of nothing there's no fear or pain possible. Imo there's comfort in nothing.
Yes I agree. It seems far more comforting than what most people want the something to be - an eternity of never ending experience
Funny, im pretty sure he would consider not beliving in the great spaghetti monster is more rational then beliving in it. Ergo, he is just a coward.
Ha check out the Richard Dawkins fan boy over here. Did you just copy and paste this from his Twitter feed?
And calling someone a coward because they don’t share you world view is why the world is so divided at the moment.
I don’t believe in god, but I don’t believe that makes me a better person than someone who is religious. Some of the nicest people I’ve met hold religion close.
@@JackSmith-kp2vs sorry, never jumped on the twitter train. Must be easyer for religious fools then, just open up the old book for some all true, just facts, straight from "god" bible feed.
@@JackSmith-kp2vs so your mad about me correctly calling a coward? How is your stance on blasphemy laws then ? Or how people treated a girl getting a kid born out of wedlock for just some decades ago, or even worse, if it was 100 years ago. Pretty sure there were some so called "witches" that had a different world view back in the day. And this is just christianity, its way worse in islam and some other religions.
The reason for calling him a coward is easy. He argues that the horrors caused by religion, would have just happend becuase of something else, so no biggi. But still we get all our moral code from religion, as many has claimed and said to me. The hypocrisy are strong in theyr kind.
Ofc there has been horrors that has not been done in the name of religion. But accepting things is how we learn and move on to bigger and better. Not denying it and cheerypicking some holy book
And i don't belive im simply better then then a religious person. People's actions define that for me. If people don't do evil,just to avoid "gods" wrath, are they realy good people? Some of the worst people i've met, hold religion close.
And a little sidenote. You say the world is so divided. Does that include jewish deathlazers, pizzagate, electionfraud and that all vaccinated will die in 2025 ?
As a wonderful song goes:
"I believe there's nothing after life goes by/ I believe it's over when we die, die, die/ Others may be thankful their beliefs are strong/ but every night I'm praying that I'm wrong, wrong, wrong"
OFc there is afterlife
You think people who murder, cheat , steal etc will get away without punishment?
You are wrong :)
@@Wisdomdigger101 I very well may be wrong. It is just a silly song after all. While I, like so many others, find comfort in the idea of Divine Retribution for those who do wrong in the mortal world, im not sure my desire for that to be the case means it is necessarily true. Hence the "Every night I'm praying that I'm wrong, wrong, wrong"
However, I am happy for your strong conviction :)
@@Wisdomdigger101 The problem with that is we have absolutely no evidence for such a thing. The real world isn't fair, a lot of shit happens to people who don't deserve it. Why is it so obvious that the afterlife, should it exist, is any different?
Personally I always think our beliefs should be guided by the evidence we see. Unless we have evidence to show something exists, we should assume that it doesn't. Not exactly an extreme position I don't think. Nobody knows if there's an afterlife and there's no evidence to suggest it, much less any details of it.
That's not to invalidate your beliefs of course, not at all. But just don't present them as clear as day absolute fact, when it is far, FAR from it. Just makes you come off as closed-minded.
what is the song, sorry I don't really know
@@paredesmarcangeloc.621 I would not expect you, or anyone, to. It is the chorus of a song called "After Life Goes By" by the Folk duo Lou & Peter Berryman. Peter Berryman is imo one of the most extrodinary lyricists in the world and everyone should witness his brilliance
This has popped up in my recommendations again and I can see 2 incredibly long comments I left 5 years ago. Jesus Christ I was boring! Arguably I still am, but I can't believe I spent so long arguing against nobody over "The most logical starting point of religious beliefs". I also used so many words to argue quite basic points.
This has also popped up in my recommendations multiple times. I'd be tempted to leave a long-winded comment, but I'm genuinely not sure if I already did so I won't.
I thought agnosticism was about knowing and, in that sense, we are all agnostic, because nobody knows anything. Among us ignorant humans there are those who claim a God exists, we call them theists, and those who are not convinced by that claim, hence a-theists. Atheists and theists are all agnostic, the difference is atheist accept that there is not sufficient evidence to make the claim "a God exists", while theists claim (to know) a God exists. The comfort he is talking about is about certainty, which is an illusion. We can all play with the thought of a having a God looking after us, but since we don't know what we are, why we are, what life or the universe is, why we are conscious, we should learn to be a bit more comfortable with not knowing, before jumping into bed with any religion.
I'm glad you said "not sufficient evidence" (in your opinion) rather than "no evidence" because that would be untrue indeed.
Obviously, as an agnostic, David would see agnosticism as the most rational response to the world as we see it. If he didn't, then I would imagine he would convert to whatever he DID consider the most rational response. Not all atheists are out to destroy the beliefs of others. I'm an atheist but I would be mortified if someone abandoned their faith simply because I'm an atheist. Obviously that wouldn't happen even if I did try to change them. I know lots of religious people and I make no secret about my own atheism but I don't think anyone I know has ever ceased to take comfort from their faith simply because they know some bloke who happens to be an atheist.
I will accept that many atheists seem to distain the comfort that others take from their faith and try to bring religious people around to their own way of thinking. But they don't succeed because a religious belief or lack thereof is an intangible concept that cannot be proven either way. People obviously do convert to other religions or lapse into atheism and, indeed, there are atheists who become religious. But it's always a conclusion arrived at after a degree of soul-searching rather than being convinced by someone who holds a different view.
My worry is the damage that religion does to peoples thinking and how religion takes the responsibility for their own actions and gives it to a invisible friend
If you are a theist regarding something, you're an atheist to everything else. We're all atheists, it comes with the package
@@gowdsake7103 I guess a distinction has to be made between religious people that follow the teachings morally and are rational with their beliefs, willing to apply critical thinking to what they read and use their religion for good and other religious people that will treat it like a cult, or use it as an excuse for sexism which I have a particular annoyance at because it contradicts most of the other parts of the bible which talk about loving others, but they will choose to focus on a particular sentence and use that for hatred
@@ryclemo4942 How can you even differentiate ! Religion at its heart is all about avoiding responsibility for your own actions, thats why the devil was invented
As for the bible and morals hmmm It really isnt a moral book in many ways and most christians ignore the 613 commandments
But the bible openly supports slavery, rape, homophobia, child abuse, misogamy and mass murder
@@gowdsake7103 I think once again the problem is not the idea that we should forgive others, but the idea that people can get away with stuff and then just repent it, which isn't at all how it should work but the problem is that people think that's how it works. I feel like there is also a split between people who take the bible too literally and others. The bible is full of contradictions and while it is written about God it's written by humans who are prone to getting stuff wrong and talking about what is accepted at the time (e.g. homophobia) which does not reflect today's beliefs or God's views, but some will say I'm speaking heresy and choose to hate on anyone who doesn't fit the Old Testaments' narrative.
He's being serious at the end, but I still couldn't help laughing when he talked about how we all face the possibility of oblivion.
Like Mark entering The Void
The probability of oblivion.