*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, March 6th, 2014 12:25pm PST - promote requested by evil_disco_man.

For those of us that have examined many if not most rationalizations FOR the existence of one god or another and found them all illogical fallacies at best, the rational hypothesis is that it is far more likely that there is no god than it is that there may be a (or some) god(s). When the score is 1000000-0, you can call the game. At least that's how I see it.
Then there's antitheism, which everyone is guilty of to some extent as I see it. If there's a god or belief system (a theism) you don't believe or agree with, you must be anti-that particular theism, hence an antitheist.

There's looking at something rationally and logically, and there's sticking your nose in other peoples business and being a dick. Richard Dawkins is a dick if you're wondering.

Even sweet Neil degrasse Tyson says so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

I would say Richard D can be a dick, but is not always being one (except by name). I can understand why he's so 'outspoken' (disrespectful) with the ridiculous arguments he has to contradict and the obtuseness and intentional misunderstanding coupled with rude angry vitriol and certitude in things impossible to know.
I'm not excusing his lack of decorum at times, I'm just saying I understand it.
EDIT: As always, Tyson is dead on....as even Dawkins admits. I love him.

Well ok, but I've always admired Chomsky and how he addresses vitriol and stupidity. Regardless if you agree with the stuff he says, when he's just stating facts or establishing a context he's very calm and collected. You can tell when he's getting mad about something or upset when he's a bit short, but he's very respectful always.

I agree. It would be awesome if there were a spiffy after party at the end of all. Not that I believe that but it's still a compelling party. But, then again, I am all about the after party.

I agree, that's a much better road to take. You get much farther with mutual understanding if you don't go off on a tangent of insulting and name calling, that tends to close ears and minds.

But theism and gnosticism are two separate dimensions relating to belief and knowledge about gods. Theists/atheists believe in the existence or non-existence of gods. Gnostics/agnostics claim to possess knowledge that gods do or do not exist. Thus it is possible to be theist-gnostic, believing and knowing gods exist; theist-agnostic, believing but not knowing gods exist; atheist-gnostic, not believing in gods and knowing gods don't exist or atheist-agnostic, not believing in gods and not knowing gods don't exist.

Since there has never been any evidence of gods, indeed the notion of gods is not provable nor disprovable, I don't see being gnostic as an honest position either way, only agnosticism seems right to me. However on balance of probability atheism seems more rational. Atheist-agnostic me.

Personally I do believe there's something else, I just overwhelmingly feel it. I do not believe in the bibles, or any organised faith or even necessarily a God or Gods. I think it's silly to say you know anything for definite. Science progresses and maybe in time there will be the ultimate proof. Maybe we're not supposed to have proof? I don't know, but what I do know is, it suits me to think there's life after death, however I'm perfectly willing to accept there might not be

While I agree with what NDT said in the linked video and the points made here (by Mitchell especially), I must also point out that it's quite understandable that some atheists turn out to be obnoxious douchebags. While people like Hitchens might be prime examples of that we shouldn't forget how the other end of the religious spectrum looks like when it comes to extremety and obnoxiousness. Let's not forget, nobody straps on an explosive vest to prove there is no god.
I take douchebags over murderers any time.

Agnosticism is ridiculous bullshit.

Atheist: "I don't believe in (any) god."
Theist: "I believe in (a) god."

Agnostic: "I... don't know if I believe? I'll make up my mind when the evidence is in... on whether I believe.. or not."

Seriously, we all know there's no evidence against God's existence and no evidence for God's existence. It's not 'likely' that God exists or doesn't because God is by definition outside the rational bounds of likelihood, so the word 'likely' is absurdly irrelevant. You can't make a case for or against God, if you're being honest. You can just believe, or not believe, or be a dumbfuck bumbling agnostic.

I respect smart atheists and smart theists. I get annoyed by dumb atheists and dumb atheists and all agnostics.

His is such a terrible argument. People should be willfully ignorant because it makes them feel good? How about instead of deluding themselves and wasting time and resources on gods who may or may not exist and may or may not be benevolent people instead make rational, objective analyses of their worlds and take concrete steps toward improvement.

And I wholly reject his notion there would be no less violence in a world with no gods. Nothing breeds fanaticism on a scale remotely comparative to religion.

Firm agnostic here too. The most sane ideology to have today. Tomorrow it might be something else but i feel agnostics are the only ones to use diplomacy between godders and no-godders. Both groups can never understand each other, agnostics understand them both.

To anyone saying that agnosticism is simply just indecisiveness, and that is both sides: it is not. We simply don't think it's an issue you need to be on one side or the other. That's what you do. We accept both views and navigate between them trying to find what is real and what is not, since both sides try to manipulate true facts all the time according to your needs. We don't do that. If something, agnosticism is the true scientific approach; trying to find out what is true without any predisposition or beliefs...

It's ONLY that both sides are now so far apart that anything that contradicts them, is totally blasphemous/unscientific. There is no such thing as true agnosticism. There are people who are closer to believing in god and further away and no one cares how you think. People who belong to either of the marginal camps seems like idiots to me who are never going to be coaxed in either way; the more evidence you put on the table for one argument, you will oppose it even more. Its a futile discussion. We got much bigger problems to solve than if there's a god.

At the moment, there are more evidence pointing that there is no god. Nothing has been proven as a fact in either way. There would be same amount of violence with or without religion, the reasons would change superficially but nothing would change or will change if you abolish or religion. It takes about 10 years that new batch of believers arrive even if you eradicated all religion and all history: if you wipe people minds now, tomorrow someone believes in angels or goblins.. Or dragons.. It's inbuilt survival mechanism: you don't get it all, there must be a bigger plan etc.. it's human nature, not a part of our society. The feeling the presence of God is scientifically proven to be just a short circuit in our brain.. That alone makes it certain that belief in supernatural will go on.

Have to double post: both sides greatest fear is "i don't know". Both sides attack that different but result to the same. Science revels on "i don't know" and willing to change their minds on new evidence. Except when it comes to God. Religion solves that with "god knows all". Result is the same: problem seemingly solved. Agnosticism just accepts "i don't know" and move on to more important issues. I'll never know so why think about it at all.

OH OH, may I chime in??!!

I can't stand the arrogant asshole atheists most of all....Especially the ones who feel every three or four days l compelled to embed some tired spiel about atheism on a video aggregate as a platform for yet another thread on the subject of god/no-god, in order to pontificate and otherwise, show their ASS!

fucking assholes if ya really wanna know what their atheism has done for them....You simply shouldn't give children loaded guns when all they're gonna do is shove 'em up their own asses.

Assholes.
You Know Who You Are, and You Love Yourselves For It.

here's the thing that convinced me that I wasn't an agnostic anymore.

I am not opposed to the idea of a creator.

I *am* opposed to every single depiction of a creator that humanity has come up with so far. petty, fear-based, eternal punishment for finite crimes, constant inconsistencies in their rules, ok with slavery, and absolutely shitty morals.

Sure..individual people have a personal vision of a much more...humane and moral creator that represents a much better view of a creator. But those ideas don't get any real traction in the public scene. It's always the hateful creator, the vengeful creator, The creator that somehow plays favorites and cures cancer and other diseases but only for certain people, but has never once given an amputee their limb back. the creator that picks the winners of football teams, the creator that somehow hates how you think and behave even though he created you that way. The creator that somehow sides with one political party and not the other.

I don't know if there is a creator, and when it comes right down to it, no one does either. But what I do know is that there is absolutely no evidence of ANY religions' creator(s) And even if there were, many, if not all of these creators have created rules systems that are just demonstrably...bad or so full of holes.

So you could say I am agnostic, but that, at least to me, implies that both views have an equal footing...that somehow there is evidence for both, but you just haven't decided which is stronger.

Theists have made claims but have not provided any good evidence to support those claims. Atheism is not declaring that there is no creator, just that the theists haven't made their case. So it's pretty clear that even if you don't know if there is a creator, if you call bullshit on religion, you're an atheist, not an agnostic. Religion and whether or not a creator exists are TWO SEPARATE THINGS.

It just comes down to burden of proof and the common misconception that atheism is the declaration that there is no creator. You can't prove a negative on this scale Believing that there is absolutely no creator is anti-theism, not atheism.

I think you are incorrect in your assumption about "science". True scientists admit that they KNOW nothing, but have overwhelming evidence for one hypothesis or another. The claim that there "is no god" is not scientific. The claim that all evidence points towards the conclusion that there is no god is scientific. The claim that there is no need for god in order to explain the universe is also scientific.
Science does not "attack" the unknown, it investigates hypotheses and attempts to verify or prove them wrong. (investigation of the veracity of a religion is considered an attack by believers, but it isn't one) So far every hypothesis arguing for the existence of god(s) has proven false, and many hypotheses for alternative explanations that don't require god(s) have proven correct. Again, when the score is 1000000-0, you can call the game in my opinion...but to be 100% honest you have to leave open the tiny .00000000000000.......000001% possibility that the other team scores 1000001 points after you leave (but that kind of incredible claim requires credible incontrovertible proof, not just the teams claim it happened).
As pointed out above, atheism and agnosticism are answers to two different questions. If you believe in god(s) you are a theist, if you don't you are atheist. If you don't KNOW there is/are god(s) you are agnostic, if you do KNOW there is/are god(s) you are gnostic (the only one I think is outright wrong, because it's impossible to KNOW the unknowable, so all gnostics are dishonest, at least with themselves and more often with all others). It's about a distinction between beliefs and knowledge.

It reminds me of a great quote from my dad..."Truth is an idea in the mind of a crazy person....but you don't need to know the 'truth' in order to not lie."

I think 'agnostic' does not imply that both camps have equal footing, it only implies that you are honest enough to not state you have knowledge of the unknowable.
Are you open to the idea that there may not be a creator too, even a little? If so, you're agnostic...sorry. If there's any doubt (meaning you leave open the possibility there's no god) that's agnostic. Gnostic is certitude in your position that god exists.

EDIT: To me, anti-theism is believing that (X) god doesn't exist, so almost everyone is an anti-theist to some extent (unless they believe in every god ever conceived). I'm not sure there is a proper term for those that 'believe' there absolutely is no god at all...or for those that think they 'know' there's no god. perhaps pan-anti-theism and anti-gnostic?

Ahhh yes. I did say I understand Dawkins' lack of respect (love him too), and I even mirror it at times. That said, I still think starting from a point mutual respect and civility (for each other if not the ideas being discussed) can go a long way towards fostering mutual understanding, and vice versa.
You don't need to tell people they're idiots if they believe "x", it's better to explain rationally and have them understand why the idea is idiotic and they simply shouldn't believe it....when that's possible.
I'll also take douchebags over murderers, but I don't think those are the only options.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

His line of reasoning is pretty shallow. Yes, there are some social & psychological arguments in favor of religion, but If killing is done in the name of religion, wouldn't we want to look a bit deeper into that, and discover why/how/when etc to try to correct for past (and current) mistakes. Simply saying that it would happen with or without religion is missing a good opportunity for learning more about ourselves and for growth as human beings.

So voodoovoovoo, may I offer-up an armchair analysis of why you feel the need to justify anything regarding your take on the subject?

In particular, this statement:

"I *am* opposed to every single depiction of a creator that humanity has come up with so far. petty, fear-based, eternal punishment for finite crimes, constant inconsistencies in their rules, ok with slavery, and absolutely shitty morals."

I would surmise from this opener, that you may resemble a victim of the fallacy contained in this statement considering your penchant for using this website as a platform to recruit similar folks of your ilk to validate your current position within this chaotic world, any individual's perception of the same resembling a constant flux and ever-changing.

Might I know where to attend services and pay tithes to afford myself of the bounty of wisdom to be derived form your observations disguised as a statement of purpose?

Church of the Videosift perhaps??

Already a member having paid my dues thank you. I'm sure you have a bar down the street from your flat and a certainty exists there that they would appreciate you drinking alone less often and perhaps helping with the gas bill.

My advice?? Become a hack writer and create your own weekly gathering of like-minded patrons who might afford you the luxury of the proselytizing quest you're compelled to pursue here.

Jesus the Nazarene spoke of a disease regarding a similar affliction quite simply and eloquently, in a similar sentiment...

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."-Matthew 6:5

I'm sorry if I'm a dick about your current take on why you're here feeling you have to explain yourself, but from what you've described you simply are at this point in your experience, not able to conjure a god or system that does not fit into the models you have created for yourself. Kinna like my stance that anything created by men for other men is doomed to fail and already sucks.

Morality? Often relative to your dealings with those of opinions other than your own...

Make your own way, and you become the absurd creator-god perhaps?? Stranger shit has happened after all, over, and over, and over until the cessation of observation.

I think it's a hard distinction to make. Religion does improve people's lives. Religion is not the only rallying call for violence.

The problem as I see it, is that while moderate theists, who selectively pick and choose the socially acceptable parts of, say the Bible, may be comforted by their beliefs, their public espousal of their religion gives legitimacy to the fundamentalists who interpret it more literally and don't pick and choose the reasonable passages.

It's a tenuous link, but I don't think you can discount it. The reasonable middle ground here would be for moderate organisations to refute certain religious scripture, say the infamous Leviticus passages, The problem is, they don't because it then allows any section of the text to be called into question, instead choose to passively ignore them. This is where I start to have a problem.

@newtboy

On definitions, I recall a clip from The Atheist Experience where they made the distinction that while a/theism relates to what you believe, a/gnosticism relates to what you know. Colloquially it's all a bit of a wash but I think it's a good framework for outlining a specific belief.

You could be gnostic atheist, professing certain knowledge of no gods. Alternatively you could be an agnostic atheist, profession to not be able to know but choosing to believe in the lack of a god. Or you could be a gnostic theist, presuming to know by certainty that there is a god, although of course you would also be an atheist unless you believed religions coexisted simultaneously.

EDIT - D'oh, someone already said it.

Meh, everyone is either agnostic, lying or mad. As @newtboy said, gnosticism means "knowing". No-one knows for certain that there is or isn't a god. Therefore, everyone is agnostic.

Which makes it a fucking boring position to take.

Gnosticism at least has the virtue of being interesting. You know there's a god? ok, why? Ahh, you've heard voices.... right. Just slip on this comfy jacket... yeah, the arms are kinda long, but don't worry.

The question is almost never "do you know there is or isn't a god", it's "do you believe". And in that sense, almost everyone has an answer one way or the other. You may choose to believe in a god because you feel that things like compassion, rainbows and the majesty of the universe are evidence of his/her existence. Or you choose not to believe because you feel that these things are evidence of group altruism, refraction and some really amazingly weird ass physics.

Yeah, be humble and admit you could be wrong, but FFS, make a choice.

Oh and @Yogi, I wonder how kindly you'd feel toward religion if you had a well funded organisation who had dedicated themselves to discrediting your life's work (and with the most trivial nonsense as well).

And that is why we have "atheist evangelists". Because experience has shown that if you don't push back, certain theist elements will gradually start to encroach on things that are important.

I dispute that last part. Just tally up those killed in the 20th century alone in WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, China's Cultural Revolution, etc. and I think it becomes readily apparent that nationalism by far breeds violent fanaticism on a scale that positively dwarfs religion.

Here in America we seem to have more people 'certain' of/in their beliefs than we do people who admit some things are unknowable. (OK, I guess you could say they fall under 'lying or mad', but most don't think they are).

About being 'interesting' being a virtue, remember the Chinese curse..."May you live in interesting times." ;-)

Can I be an anti-gnostic? I find that certitude in the unknowable or the incorrect causes problems.

I guess my point is that agnosticism is the default. Even the most devout people I know would admit that while they 100% believe in god, they can't know for certain.

And I'm with you on the anti-gnostic thing... I'd much rather not know (and maybe one day find out) than have some bullshit certainty.

I would wonder where in the hell you get the idea that anyone cares what really religious people think. Also why the hell you would think that an "atheist evangelist" would help in anyway shape or form. It just plays right into peoples hands "See he's a psychopath, look at how much of a dismissive dick he is towards differing opinions."

Address criticism and answer to it, I used the example of Chomsky, maybe you should watch something where someone is confronting him in a vigorous manner. He handles himself correctly in my view, my opinion is that Dawkins does not. That he sounds like a dick and he turns people off and it turns out others in the field of science feel the same way. He is not the white knight we're looking for, we want him to grab some pine and shut the fuck up.

Again I don't know where you get the idea where anyone listens to religious people. They're useful to drum up and get votes for but everyone including republicans know they're crazy and do their best to control them rather than do their stupid bidding.

You're kidding, right?

We've had Arizona almost pass a law that legalises discrimination, and Uganda actually pass a law that where homosexuality is punishable by death.

Meanwhile 60% of Americans don't accept the reality of evolution.

I wonder where you get the idea that people DON'T listen to really religious people.

And I have watched Chomsky, and I agree that he's a good debater. That said, I've never seen Dawkins be anything other than polite even when dealing with unbelievable idiocy.

Which of those things were religious people stifling science or research? Also the one you cite in our country didn't actually happen. The gaining of gay rights in this country has been actually amazingly painless to watch because of the civil rights fights we've had in the past.

I'm not kidding you, religious people have very little power in this country, the reason why scientific research into say global climate change is because of oil companies. The corporations have WAY more say into our democracy so let's pick the important battles.

I'm not saying religion is the only (or even the most pressing) issue facing us, but yes, it does have a real and significant effect on the world.

If you want an example of stifled scientific research, stem cells.

I don't think it's really religious people stifling stem cell research. I think it's more corporations like the pharmaceuticals. Also the fact that it's government research that might actually help people so immediately it's on the chopping block.

I've seen some religious arguments against stem cells and they sure are stupid, but nothing has convinced me that's what's pulling the strings. Like the attacks on Planned Parenthood and it's funding isn't about religion to me, it's about Fuck the Poor.

The late, great, Christopher Hitchen's said that; "All religious people are atheists in relation to other gods, because they believe only in their god. I just happen to have gone one god further."
He also used the term anti-theist to describe himself as one who is against the very idea of there being a god, which was anathema to him. An atheist, on the other hand, simply sees no evidence for one.

You say; "I don't think it's really religious people stifling stem cell research. I think it's more corporations like the pharmaceuticals."
Wrong. It is the religious lobbyists who blocked it - the same ones who, in some states, block the freedom of a woman to choose an abortion.If you seriously think that religion plays no part, try running for president as an atheist. No, science finds a way. It has now bypassed the need for stem cells, by using ordinary cells to the same end. Science for the win.
And btw, pharmaceutical companies exist to have the best product on the market and, therefore, make money to invest in future/better products. It's called capitalism, which you appear to be against.
Your argument is simply ill-informed, reactionary, and frivolous.

There is only one rational answer: Flugelping.

I'm firmly in the Ignostic camp.

This study is worth introducing to the discussion. Governments easily win the world death tally.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

I wasn't raised in a religious home so I never had that aspect in my life of seeking comfort from the idea of God. I believed that we were products of random chance, although the real love and connection I felt to people and this reality did not feel that way. Essentially, though, I had resigned myself to the fact of my future death, and that eventually no one would ever remember or care that I even existed.

I was an agnostic towards the idea of God at that point. Atheism to me was the other extreme from theism, and I believed that the rational standpoint was agnosticism. If you did not have equal skepticism towards either side, I felt you were being intellectually dishonest. You could sum it up in a simple statement, that everything, including the fact that anything exists at all, is equally unlikely. To try to get that fact to point towards or away from a God in my opinion just showed bias.

I changed my mind when I began to have supernatural experiences. This didn't make me a theist, but it did open my eyes to the idea that there was a spiritual reality. It was in pursuing that spirituality that I received revelation that an all powerful, benevolent God does exist. After this, I became a Christian and was born again, and transformed into a new person.

So, what I would say is, there is no evidence of God beyond personal revelation by God. This is by design because God requires us to seek Him by faith. He is seeking those who will worship Him in Spirit and in truth. If you want to know whether there is a God or not, you must seek Him with all of your heart. Seek Him while it is still called today, because today is the day of salvation.

Jeremiah 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

I must also chime in with 'you're kidding, right?!?' In the US, it often seems that ONLY religious voices gain traction, and if you dare to publicly admit you aren't religious you are instantly ignored by most and attacked personally.
'Atheist evangelists' (anti-proselytizers) can be unpleasant (as is any evangelist) but are a necessary response to zealous religious evangelists.

Atheism is not the reverse of theism....it is the lack of theism. It's not a belief in no god, it's a lack of belief in a god. I understand that's a difficult concept for some.
Agnosticism is lack of certainty (or admission that certitude is impossible) in what you believe, Gnosticism is absolute certitude in your (unknowable)belief.
Personal 'revelation' by god is not real evidence and is far from proof, even for the one receiving the 'personal revelation'.
Why does the 'all powerful, benevolent god' hate amputees? Not once in history has anyone ever had an arm re-grow thanks to their belief in/worship of god (or any other reason). I've never heard a serious answer to that question.

Thank you @shinyblurry for the contribution. Even if I disagree on the basic message, it was interesting input that this discussion was IMO lacking so far. Now somebody's might post something dismissive now (I have to admit, asshole that I am, my fingers are actually itching in way trolls know too well) but I found that worth reading. Which brings me back to the point Mitchell made.
The issue is dialogue and how disruptive the selfrighteousness of those who found their definitive answer can be. We can argue semantics even further than already done here but it doesn't matter how gnostic or theistic one is. There is a silent majority consisting of various levels of belief and disbelief and at the fringes of both sides people tend to get loud, sometimes unbearably so.
What the screaming people at the edge like to do is to get bogged down into dogmas and discussions of detail but in the end both kind of extremists would like to force their worldviews on everyone else. I think it is certainly not acceptable to insist that people seeking solace in religion must be idiots who don't know how the world works. If a woman who just lost her child wants to tell herself that this is part of gods plan then I have no right to walk up to her and tell her she's full of shit. Even though I know this to be true. We all live in a world we're poorly equipped to understand and have to make sense of it somehow.
The problem starts once you force yourself onto somebody. The point I made before is that one side's extremists is assholes who walk up to grieving women and tell them their full of shit, the other side is people executing that woman for praying to the wrong god. It's easy for me to pick a side here.
However, most people aren't that extreme. Most people are more civil than that and I believe/know that a more civil and understanding approach is better. It necessary to push back against those who are harmful in executing their beliefs, be it Osama Bin Laden or Rick Santorum (Santorum he he) but everyone else is better dealt with in a respectful manner. Antagonism doesn't feed dialogue well.
That is why I resisted my urge to make fun of the deeply religious guy posting here. I really wanted to because I disagree with his worldview so strongly but all he did was stating his journey to where he now in his life and on top of that, he did it without telling anybody else here off. I would be the asshole if I would react like a Hitchens. I'd rather behave like a Tyson (not the rapey one). LIke most humans, I want to be one of the good guys. It's just not that easy to figure out how to be one.
In the end it all boils down to this (and several posts in this thread truly showed it): Why can't we be friends? Why can't we get along?
Because we're humans. That's how we roll.