Nothing new, really. But I quite enjoyed the way it was presented. *promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, October 19th, 2010 4:44am PDT - promote requested by radx.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, October 19th, 2010 5:28am PDT - promote requested by lavoll.

And to complete the trifecta *quality *doublepromote

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, October 19th, 2010 9:42am PDT - doublepromote requested by gwiz665.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'atheism, theism, agnostic, indefensible, fervency, jury' to 'atheism, theism, agnostic, indefensible, fervency, jury, qualiasoup' - edited by gwiz665

Meh.

If you're going to hold the argument that there's grey area on the existence of God you might as well throw everything out the window.

Unicorns, ghosts, alien cattle mutilation, flying spaghetti monster, all are equally unprovable, therefore equally likely as any deity.

Likewise there are an infinity of permutations on what a "God" might be. Then the odds of a god existing are Infinity:1 or, to put it another way, the mathematical chance is 0.

Ergo God does not exist. Anyone arguing that he DOES exist, or that it's indeterminate is wrong. Period.

One thing for certain is, that you have a belief that you lack belief in gods. You can't escape having beliefs, everyone has and needs beliefs to survive day to day. Lack of belief in X is the same as not believing in X. Trying to circumvent the argument that atheism is a belief by saying you have no belief is ridiculous. Atheism is not the same as theism precisely because it is a non-belief. The "lack of belief" presented here is a form of noncommittal and could be construed to mean that while you have no belief concerning things generally labelled "gods", you might have beliefs concerning other supernatural entities having certain, but not all characteristics of "gods". Atheism on the other hand clearly rejects anything associated with anything ending in "-theism". It explicitly does not say anything about supernatural entities that are not theistic (for example, ghosts).

Anyway, it is impossible to simply lack belief in something (or, conversely, to simply believe in something). You can lack belief in something's existence, but then it's the same thing as saying you believe it doesn't exist. You can also be of the opinion that it doesn't matter if you believe something exists or not, but then you're only hiding under logic's skirt (i.e. you still believe one way or the other but you won't tell). If that's the argument the video wants to make then it's dumber and more juvenile than a theist.

Of course, you could take the path of saying that "belief" is a useless psychological concept that should be reduced to neurological patterns, but then you're not going to convince anyone except neuroscientists. And we'd still don't know whether you believe theistic entities exist or not. There may be multiple forms of atheism and theism, but you're still going to have to choose where your own belief stands sooner or later because they're fundamentally incompatible sets of worldviews (it's like the axiom of choice: use it or not, or use a stronger or weaker version of it but you can't be in the middle between using it and not using it).

Thanks for posting this. I thought about posting this when I saw this come up on my YouTube subscriptions, but my que was full and didn't have time to watch it to make sure I wanted to sift it in the first place. Then I forgot about it, so thanks for the reminder. While I am an atheist, I generally find people to be more accepting if I just call myself agnostic simply for the confusion of what the terms mean. I think this video may help explain it better than I could.

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

>> ^Bidouleroux:

One thing for certain is, that you have a belief that you lack belief in gods. You can't escape having beliefs, everyone has and needs beliefs to survive day to day. Lack of belief in X is the same as not believing in X. Trying to circumvent the argument that atheism is a belief by saying you have no belief is ridiculous. Atheism is not the same as theism precisely because it is a non-belief. The "lack of belief" presented here is a form of noncommittal and could be construed to mean that while you have no belief concerning things generally labelled "gods", you might have beliefs concerning other supernatural entities having certain, but not all characteristics of "gods". Atheism on the other hand clearly rejects anything associated with anything ending in "-theism". It explicitly does not say anything about supernatural entities that are not theistic (for example, ghosts).
Anyway, it is impossible to simply lack belief in something (or, conversely, to simply believe in something). You can lack belief in something's existence, but then it's the same thing as saying you believe it doesn't exist. You can also be of the opinion that it doesn't matter if you believe something exists or not, but then you're only hiding under logic's skirt (i.e. you still believe one way or the other but you won't tell). If that's the argument the video wants to make then it's dumber and more juvenile than a theist.
Of course, you could take the path of saying that "belief" is a useless psychological concept that should be reduced to neurological patterns, but then you're not going to convince anyone except neuroscientists. And we'd still don't know whether you believe theistic entities exist or not. There may be multiple forms of atheism and theism, but you're still going to have to choose where your own belief stands sooner or later because they're fundamentally incompatible sets of worldviews (it's like the axiom of choice: use it or not, or use a stronger or weaker version of it but you can't be in the middle between using it and not using it).


I quite enjoy hiding under the skirt of logic -- she doesn't wear panties.

Isn't this the old argument about the differences between agnosticism and atheism?

Agnosticism = don't know (about something)
Atheism = don't believe (in something, usually a God or gods)

So, you could be an agnostic atheist (I don't know for certain whether gods exist, but I don't believe they do), a gnostic atheist (I feel I "know" that gods don't exist and I don't believe in them), an agnostic theist (I don't know for certain if gods exist, but I believe they do), or a gnostic theist (I feel I "know" or have evidence for the existence of gods and believe they exist).

It sounds to me like this guy is defining himself as an agnostic atheist (with which I identify myself).

Found it interesting and agreed with him up until the very end. I don't agree we need to get rid of religion. I would say rather that religion needs to be reformed so that the clearly bad stuff he listed is minimized or done away with entirely and the good stuff (community building, personal inspiration and reformation, organized social contributions such as charity, etc.) get maximized.

"Although a self-proclaimed atheist, Sam Harris has expressed frustration with being labeled an atheist and often employs igtheistic arguments criticizing the ambiguous and inconsistent definitions of "god". Harris finds the label and concept of atheism as extraneous as needing to label oneself a non-racist or a non-believer in Zeus. In this sense, Harris finds debating about the existence of god to be both absurd and ascientific yet still an inconvenient necessity when speaking in defense for reason and science."

I agree with this from @xxovercastxx's link.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
Meh.
If you're going to hold the argument that there's grey area on the existence of God you might as well throw everything out the window.
Unicorns, ghosts, alien cattle mutilation, flying spaghetti monster, all are equally unprovable, therefore equally likely as any deity.
Likewise there are an infinity of permutations on what a "God" might be. Then the odds of a god existing are Infinity:1 or, to put it another way, the mathematical chance is 0.
Ergo God does not exist. Anyone arguing that he DOES exist, or that it's indeterminate is wrong. Period.


Too bad evolution made us predisposed to belief and faith. It is sad it is a natural instinct with as much gravity as sex, almost...

I believe religionists are lazy thinkers who simply believe because it's the easy way out, and they're afraid to face the ugliness of what may well be the truth about life. It's a lot easier to say "oh that sounds like a good idea, I'll just believe in that," because it means that you don't have to put any effort into seeking answers for yourself. Instead, you blindly follow out of fear, ignorance, and laziness.


- Edit -
>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
Meh.
If you're going to hold the argument that there's grey area on the existence of God you might as well throw everything out the window.
Unicorns, ghosts, alien cattle mutilation, flying spaghetti monster, all are equally unprovable, therefore equally likely as any deity.
Likewise there are an infinity of permutations on what a "God" might be. Then the odds of a god existing are Infinity:1 or, to put it another way, the mathematical chance is 0.
Ergo God does not exist. Anyone arguing that he DOES exist, or that it's indeterminate is wrong. Period.

Too bad evolution made us predisposed to belief and faith. It is sad it is a natural instinct with as much gravity as sex, almost...


So, wait, you're being serious? O.o You really think religion is a result of natural instinct?

I really liked the ending. Very true.

Ok... just so blood doesn't come shooting out my ears... i have to know. Your kidding with this right?

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>>

Too bad evolution made us predisposed to belief and faith. It is sad it is a natural instinct with as much gravity as sex, almost...

QualiaSoup's videos are always so refreshingly logical.

@Januari @ForgedReality

Humans (and probably some animals in a more simplistic way) can perceive "minds". You can imagine what someone or something will think even when it's not in the room with you. Children often have imaginary friends, etc. This helps massively in planning and reasoning. Humans perceive minds as having will, intention, etc separate from the requirement of a physical body. It's not much of a stretch from this to some sort of god.

Assuming you subscribe to the fact that evolution shaped the way our brains work, why are you surprised at the concept that evolution created a predisposition towards belief in some sort of supernatural mind that has will and intent?

I'm convinced that my upbringing/education gave me the critical thinking skills I needed to debunk religious thought in my own mind. Sure, I'm probably less predisposed to it than others for some reason, because I can't ever remember truly believing in all the stuff they tried to teach me in friggin' Sunday School, but really, IMO it seems likely that evolution created a predisposition to faith-based reasoning in most humans.

I agree with most of the logic in the video, except possibly the "default position" for the human mind. That's an assumption, really.

Check this article out:
http://www.mindpowernews.com/BrainGod.htm

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, October 19th, 2010 12:38pm PDT - promote requested by gwiz665.

"A great deal of fervency is a response to the hostility directed at us simply for not believing in [gods]. To being condemned, criticized, marginalized and dehumanized by people who are unwilling to allow us to live our lives. Who impune our morality, who tell us we don't belong in the country in which we were born, who distort our education, who attempt to monopolize government, and ostracize us for not participating in their rituals."

Replace [gods] with [statism].

Wow. I was really happy to see this video, because I have gotten into a lot of debates about exactly what it addresses. Then I read the comments. Now I am depressed. Watch the video again, people. Several of you missed it.


@Drachen_Jager "Likewise there are an infinity of permutations on what a 'God' might be. Then the odds of a god existing are Infinity:1 or, to put it another way, the mathematical chance is 0."

There is also an infinite number of permutations on what 'soup' might be. Therefor soup doesn't exist? Sorry, you cannot mathematically disprove the existence of anything. You can only look at specific claims and either accept them, dismiss them, or hold them as unresolvable. For instance, the claim that "the God of Abraham exists as defined in the Bible" can be disproven with logic. However, the claim that "a Supreme Being created the universe" cannot be proven or disproven.


@Bidouleroux "Anyway, it is impossible to simply lack belief in something (or, conversely, to simply believe in something). You can lack belief in something's existence, but then it's the same thing as saying you believe it doesn't exist."

Nonsense. Though I have rejected every religion I've heard about, there is no reason not to believe that a consciousness may exist outside of our normal understanding of what constitutes the universe. But until it affects my life directly in one way or another, I have no reason to believe it either. I am neutral on the subject.


@SDGundamX "Isn't this the old argument about the differences between agnosticism and atheism?"

Yes. But Agnosticism isn't just "I don't know". It is the view that "nothing CAN be known". It is a much more extreme viewpoint than anybody gives credit.

One of the points of this video is that anybody who says "I don't know what to believe" is an atheist. It is a very broad category that theists have successfully narrowed, pigeon-holed, and marginalized. I urge you to re-watch the video with this in mind.


@mgittle "Assuming you subscribe to the fact that evolution shaped the way our brains work, why are you surprised at the concept that evolution created a predisposition towards belief in some sort of supernatural mind that has will and intent?"

It isn't that we have a predisposition towards supernatural belief, but that we have a predisposition toward recognizing "other". We can see that separate people have separate minds, and we assign things that we don't understand to be the working of "other". And if we can't find a logical reason for some occurrence in the world, we might assume that "other" has power over the world and was the cause. However, science has progressed to the point where it simply isn't necessary to do that anymore, and anyone brought up in a household that respects science may very well never find themselves jumping to supernatural beliefs. We can simply hold that "other" as temporarily unknown, and either seek the answer or be perfectly content leaving it unknown.

MaxWilder: If you cannot tell the existential difference between God and soup then there is no point debating you.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

MaxWilder: If you cannot tell the existential difference between God and soup then there is no point debating you.
Jeez, threw in the towel rather fast, didn't you? Yeah, that's a shame.

>> ^Januari:

Ok... just so blood doesn't come shooting out my ears... i have to know. Your You're kidding with this right?
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>>

Too bad evolution made us predisposed to belief and faith. It is sad it is a natural instinct with as much gravity as sex, almost...


Fixed. But don't worry. I'm not going to shoot anyone because they use poor grammar. What, too soon?

One thing I've learned from the Internet is never to argue with a moron. It is a waste of time.

^ On this, we all agree!

@MaxWilder "But until it affects my life directly in one way or another, I have no reason to believe it either. I am neutral on the subject."

But what if I ask you directly : Does something like a Universe-level consciousness exists? Even if you answer that you don't have an opinion about it, you must believe in something: that the chances for its existence are 50-50, etc. And then, if you are an astronomer and must construct a theory on the workings of the Universe, then you MUST be believing either that the Universe forms a consciousness or that it doesn't since either theory imply many things as to the functioning of the Universe. Of course, it all depends on the definitions of "consciousness" and "Universe",etc. but if you don't like the definitions, tell us yours and whether you thus believe that the "Universe" is "conscious" or not. You may cry foul and go to quantum physics, but the brain is not a quantum computer. Your brain has a belief about a Universe-level consciousness, in one form or another, you simply just don't admit it.

Anyway, what I was trying to say is that there is nothing wrong in believing that God doesn't exist. Believing that the act of believing itself is wrong is already conceding to the theists' argument that belief is somehow strictly part of the religious phenomenon. "Beliefs" are a mental shortcut we humans have and need to function efficiently. Belief in something does not imply blindness to the shortcomings of beliefs. Thinking there are shortcomings to beliefs is a belief in itself. What I am saying is that there is no problem with beliefs, only problems with certain kinds of beliefs.

Beliefs are more general than you think, and this may be why you believe you can have a "no belief" about something. What you must understand is that a belief is not an opinion, nor is it a logical or statistical argument.

@Bidouleroux, I think you might be projecting your own personal need to pick a side onto others. I really don't have a belief about Universe-level consciousness. It might exist, it might not. I won't pick odds, because that is absurd to do for something that has no evidence pro or con. I am comfortable not knowing.

I will say, however, that if it does exist, it is probably something so different from what we experience in normal life that it is incompressible to our little minds. I will also say that I do hope something like that exists, and that it is tied to our own consciousness somehow so that we don't just "disappear" when we die.

But hoping does not make something so. I understand that, and so I do not count it as evidence pro or con.

I'm not really into quantum physics or neuroscience, but if you have any interesting articles that apply, I'll be happy to read them and maybe they'll influence my "belief". So far I've seen nothing but unsupported theory and conjecture.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

MaxWilder: If you cannot tell the existential difference between God and soup then there is no point debating you.


If you can't tell the difference between mathematics and philosophy, then we are agreed.

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
MaxWilder: If you cannot tell the existential difference between God and soup then there is no point debating you.

If you can't tell the difference between mathematics and philosophy, then we are agreed.


Your logic is truly breathtaking. Jared Lee Laughner has nothing on you.

@MaxWilder

I'm not trying to make you pick a side, I'm trying to show your brain already picked one for you the instant you form an idea about anything.

I'm also trying to show that by using the concept of "belief" in too broad a sense, you run counter to centuries of philosophical debate and risk falling into a religious rhetorical trap.

Finally, if you don't like "belief", you should check out neuroscience as they postulate no such thing. It doesn't mean though that there are no mechanisms in the brain that play the role of belief as we understand it in "psychological" or "mental" level (as opposed to a "neurological" or "brain" lelve).

I think the problem may be with the question rather than with the answer.

Do I believe in the existence of a Universal Consciousness? I have no evidence for or against, so I can't say.

Do I believe such a Consciousness has an impact on my life? No. Since I have no evidence that something like that is influencing my life, I tend to believe that it does not.

I think I may agree with your standpoint on belief formation when it is in the context of one's actual day-to-day life. Otherwise, if it is too hypothetical, I don't see why the mind would need to leap to one side or the other.

Other than that point, I think we may be talking about different concepts that overlap the same words. As I said, I'm not deeply into neuroscience or anything of the sort. If you want to discuss the concept of "belief" in a context other than "what do you believe is true" then you will have to explain further.