Tags for this video have been changed from 'sixty symbols scientects faith religion atheist agnostic' to 'sixty symbols, scientects, faith, religion, atheist, agnostic' - edited by Tymbrwulf

*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by gwiz665.

I like the last guy's answer. I've had that thought myself, that when you look at the stars, you're actually witnessing the very distant past.

I love Sixty Symbols. I also like Meghan Gray's answer to favorite Astronomical feature... then again I also dig her so that may slant me some. The lens effect is excessively cool. But I agree with the last guy, the Hubble Deep Field and Ultra Deep Field images are some of the most amazing images in the world and tend to be my favorite.

>> ^RFlagg:

I love Sixty Symbols. I also like Meghan Gray's answer to favorite Astronomical feature... then again I also dig her so that may slant me some. The lens effect is excessively cool. But I agree with the last guy, the Hubble Deep Field and Ultra Deep Field images are some of the most amazing images in the world and tend to be my favorite.

So would you say that you'd shove your white dwarf into her black hole?

I like these videos. I'm doing an astrophysics degree right now, and i'd love to have these guys on hand for the next few years.

What I learned from all these questions and discussion (not only this one) after 20 years is that atheists tend to be far more fanatic and totalitarian about their view than agnostics.

>> ^coolhund:

What I learned from all these questions and discussion (not only this one) after 20 years is that atheists tend to be far more fanatic and totalitarian about their view than agnostics.


What about the agnostic atheists?

I've heard so many people say this and I still have no idea what a fanatic atheist would look like.

>> ^crotchflame:

>> ^coolhund:
What I learned from all these questions and discussion (not only this one) after 20 years is that atheists tend to be far more fanatic and totalitarian about their view than agnostics.

What about the agnostic atheists?
I've heard so many people say this and I still have no idea what a fanatic atheist would look like.


There are many different forms of agnosticism and atheism. But as long as someone calls himself atheist, its far more drastic than someone who calls himself an agnostic.
Also agnostics tend to be far more tolerable of religion, because they acknowledge that religion is a part of the human race and you simply cant imagine what would happen (or would have happened) if people wouldnt believe in anything bigger.
But a lot of atheists are pretty totalitarian. Religion is bad, needs to be exterminated, caused billions of deaths, you name it.

>> ^coolhund:

>> ^crotchflame:
>> ^coolhund:
What I learned from all these questions and discussion (not only this one) after 20 years is that atheists tend to be far more fanatic and totalitarian about their view than agnostics.

What about the agnostic atheists?
I've heard so many people say this and I still have no idea what a fanatic atheist would look like.

There are many different forms of agnosticism and atheism. But as long as someone calls himself atheist, its far more drastic than someone who calls himself an agnostic.
Also agnostics tend to be far more tolerable of religion, because they acknowledge that religion is a part of the human race and you simply cant imagine what would happen (or would have happened) if people wouldnt believe in anything bigger.
But a lot of atheists are pretty totalitarian. Religion is bad, needs to be exterminated, caused billions of deaths, you name it.


Agnosticism is a statement on the nature of knowledge while atheism is a statement of belief (or non-belief); the two don't seem like different points on some scale of religiosity to me. You can be an agnostic Christian as well as an agnostic atheist. Saying you're not sure doesn't say anything about what you believe since any sensible person would say that they're not sure.

I simply object to labelling a non-believer as a fanatic because it implies that they're holding to some belief without critical analysis and no such prescription can be attributed to atheism. An atheist that is completely intolerant of other people's beliefs isn't a fanatic he's an asshole. Anyone who claims that the pope is infallible on the other hand is a fanatic. I've never personally met an atheist that fits your description, though.

Atheism doesn't reject a belief in 'something higher.' It's a non-belief in Jehovah, Zeus, Thor, etc. I can experience the numinous while still insisting that the theistic description of a personal God is incorrect.

>> ^coolhund:

>> ^crotchflame:
>> ^coolhund:
What I learned from all these questions and discussion (not only this one) after 20 years is that atheists tend to be far more fanatic and totalitarian about their view than agnostics.

What about the agnostic atheists?
I've heard so many people say this and I still have no idea what a fanatic atheist would look like.

There are many different forms of agnosticism and atheism. But as long as someone calls himself atheist, its far more drastic than someone who calls himself an agnostic.
Also agnostics tend to be far more tolerable of religion, because they acknowledge that religion is a part of the human race and you simply cant imagine what would happen (or would have happened) if people wouldnt believe in anything bigger.
But a lot of atheists are pretty totalitarian. Religion is bad, needs to be exterminated, caused billions of deaths, you name it.


Uh no. Atheism is the lack of belief in God, not necessarily a belief in no God. Like crotchflame already mentioned, Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutally exclusive and most of the people you're referring to as agnostic are also atheist.

>> ^coolhund:

What I learned from all these questions and discussion (not only this one) after 20 years is that atheists tend to be far more fanatic and totalitarian about their view than agnostics.


Or is that your theistic fanaticism leaking through?

Interesting. I guessed it would piss off some of you, especially the ones I mentioned, but ignoring and bending facts... well, thats new.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Getting back to the topic at hand my favourite (damn you videosift your spell checker is too damned American) astronomical image is Hoag's object. A beautiful example of a rare ring galaxy made all the more interesting by the fact that within the ring of Hoag's object is another much more distant ring galaxy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hoag's_object.jpg

edit: Can't get link to work properly. If you highlight it, right click and select "go to" it works

>> ^coolhund:

Interesting. I guessed it would piss off some of you, especially the ones I mentioned, but ignoring and bending facts... well, thats new.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism


Did you actually read the wiki article you posted? Try making it past the first two sentences next time. Ignorance and laziness, now that's not new.

Unless of course, you're trolling on purpose, in which case you're doing quite a fine job.

>> ^coolhund:

Interesting. I guessed it would piss off some of you, especially the ones I mentioned, but ignoring and bending facts... well, thats new.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism


Who is bending facts? Be specific, rather than throwing out vague accusations.

Crotchflame already explained the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism, but since you like wikipedia so much, from your own link to Atheism

"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." (emphasis mine)

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable" (again emphasis mine)

Do you understand the difference?

Debating protip: for a start, highlight who you are accusing and what you're accusing them of. Then, instead of just adding a link, use supporting arguments from that link to, you know, make a point?

Otherwise it reads like this: Wow, Jesus was gay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

Doesn't make much sense, does it?

The dude at 1:00 is gonna get a noodly apendage up his sphincter for blaspheming FSM.

The Eye of God. B!tches!

Maybe this should say "astrophysicists" or "astronomers" instead of just physicists. I am not sure I don't believe in God.

>> ^Quantumwormtongue:

The Eye of God. B!tches!


Where's Mr. Frodo when you need someone to distract the eye of Sauron... err, the eye of God, sorry. I get the two mixed up -- they're both fictional villains with armies of fanatics that can't wait to usher in the destruction of the world.

^perfect comment, wish I could upvote it more!

I've been fed the 'if you don't believe in god that's a belief system' comment myself. It is typical circular logic amongst those that try so very hard to make everyone believe in the irrational. I personally consider myself agnostic. I am quite sure there is no such thing as a god or that the universe was created by his/her/it's hands. But I also believe there is a lot more about this universe that we cannot fathom as of yet.

When confronted by the 'not believing in god is a belief system' comment my usual reply is that, no I don't 'believe' that god doesn't exist. I simply look at the evidence (or rather, the lack there of) and determine there is no such thing. A lot of these people simply don't understand what that means. The ones that do, never say something that stupid in the first place.

Once upon a time, I learned that the name of the Biblical God, "Yahweh", means "I am". That struck me as a very succinct description of the universe, and got me thinking that if you think about the existence or non-existence of a divine being on a large enough scale, the question of "is there a god" becomes irrelevant. In many ways the universe fits the description of a divine being, an entity that creates everything within itself. The question of whether it has consciousness or not, or if it has intent, seems like a red herring to me. We haven't even yet been able to really prove humans have consciousness in the rigid sense we tend to think of it, and some kind of intuition tells me that's because we're looking for the wrong things and asking the wrong questions.

Things exist, they change, and it's all really fascinating. Trying to find meaning in it seems to me to just miss the point entirely.

Maybe this oughtta be called "Do these physicists believe in God?"

This post has been removed from the Brain channel by channel owner jonny. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Anyone else notice that the agnostic has a copy of the ridiculous "Atlas of Creation" behind him, among his folders? What the H is that all about?