Good questions. Sensible and meaningful to nearly everyone. After giving them some thought, I would like to post what I came up with. "Would you rather be in love, or would you rather be right?" While it's not always an either/or situation (I can be both right and in love) this is a good reminder to be generous with how we treat others, including others who do not agree with us on some topic or another. As a secular humanist, I have a desire for humans to have loving and kind relationships with one another whenever that is possible. Next, I tried to imagine an either/or situation where I would have to make a choice to be in love or to be right. I'm not sure I can think of one. If I love someone, I do not stop being in love with them even if I am convinced I am right about something. I simply let it drop, because I can only point out where I believe another has made an error, I cannot force them to see it. "Is it true, or is it useful?" Again, not a true dichotomy, and I have in many cases found true things to be more useful than comforting fictions. I find this question is good to remind me that I have beliefs in greater goals than myself, and those beliefs also give my life meaning. Such as my belief that it is logically better for my life to be kind and helpful when I am able. A world where most people are kind and helpful to a degree that they are comfortably able is one where more humans (and probably more animals of other types) will have greater peace and security. And that's the kind of world I want to share.
@@rodshop5897 thank you for the thoughtful response! As for your first answer, I perceive that as choosing love. Dropping it so you can remain in love and harmony Thanks for sharing and inhabiting that consciousness 🙏🏽🥰
@@mansal-denton Thanks for your polite replies, particularly in the face of some of what I have read in other comments to your channel. I saw in one of your comments that you said that what you meant in the first question was more about whether to build one's own pride or to build one's own relationships. That is a good way to look at it. I try to build relationships, but sometimes I fall into the trap of building my own pride.
Would you rather be in love or right, Is a non equator, being in love has nothing to with an answer to a question, again another ignoramus refusing to join reality.
i have met only half a dozen christians and they have all been really horrible human beings....maybe I was just unlucky but to be a Christian you have to be ok with your fellow human beings being tortured for eternity.....that takes a sick person to be ok with that....
🔥Athiesm doesn't exist! Athiests didn't design their own psychology, therefore, it makes sense they don't understand their own psycology! Every human MUST understand 'existence is good', by FAITH alone, on a deep deep subconscious level, otherwise extinction. In fact, all life on Earth is motivated by this fundamental concept. There is indeed a 'greater good' at work, and all life adheres to it, including human beings! Moral truth exists! Jesus is the light 🔥🔥😇😇🙏🏼🙏🏼✝✝👼🏼👼🏼
🔥Athiesm doesn't exist! Athiests didn't design their own psychology, therefore, it makes sense they don't understand their own psycology! Every human MUST understand 'existence is good', by FAITH alone, on a deep deep subconscious level, otherwise extinction. In fact, all life on Earth is motivated by this fundamental concept. There is indeed a 'greater good' at work, and all life adheres to it, including human beings! Moral truth exists! Jesus is the light 🔥🔥😇😇🙏🏼🙏🏼✝✝👼🏼👼🏼
"Would you rather be right or be in love." There are thousands of years of theists deciding that their version of god/gods require them to prove with violence that they are right.
@@mansal-dentonyeah but that theist thing is your "I'm just the guy in the middle trying to find common ground" as you repeatedly try to push your theistic veiw on to others. At no point in these questions does it even let a qualifier for atheists. Your whole arguement is geared towards a "theists are more than likely right" point. I mean you played two partial clips of atheists responding to the theist points the first of which you didn't get. Alex was measly addressing the point we have all heard at some point from theists which is "Even if you don't believe in god religion is beneficial for humanity because x,y,z excuse" which is exactly what you are doing with your stupid questions. Basically a asking "wouldn't it be better to not challenge theists because being right is not that important" while at the Sametime it is ok to allow the other person to think they are right. Then your next point is even if they aren't right let me go back to the first point Alex made and put up this claim that religion makes life better just because said study" Both your question push this "Shut up atheists" framework. While proven your points are wrong. Just because a thing is beneficial doesn't mean it is. And of course religious people are gonna claim they are happier in the sameway religious people cry for weeks after a love one dies even though they really believe that person is in heaven and is happy. Your religious belief has brought more sorrow into the world because you true a blind eye to everything else. You know how many poor people are suffering because of your religion and yet they will tell you they are happy. They are happy because they believe God is making them suffer because he intends to benefit them at some point. A lie told to them so they will continue to give money to the churches, so they will not do stuff that will better themselves. All thse mega church filled with people claiming to be happy because they delude themselves into believing they are happy yet they lash out at everyone around them and seethe in their anger. Which is why it is so easy to get them to hate LGTBQ, liberals, Muslims, and any other group of people especially other demonization of their own religion.
@@mansal-denton Then why do self-proclaimed theists like you continue to support theistic lies? You support these lies adamantly in this video, so do you consider yourself a self-proclaimed liar as well? You should, and you should start every video you make admitting it, so people will know to steer clear or your idiocy.
Using your emotions to define reality and determine truth is stupid. Lies are useful? Living in ignorance is helpful? "Religious people are happier" - Tell THAT to all the homeless people starving to death in those countries with religion being the primary cause of the social construct leading to that situation. Ahhh, the old "because it FEELS good" BS!!!
Why is it stupid? We are primarily oriented towards our emotions. Your comment is a perfect example. Indignation and anger because of the suffering of the dispossessed - that's a good thing. The question is, what does your emotions about these homeless people help you to do? Do you work with these people in any way? Why or why not?
@@philipgrobler7253 hmm. I hope that’s not your way of saying you’re a keyboard warrior for the homeless but don’t actually do anything to support them. 👀
@mansal-denton just another grifteeeeer, praying on the naive and vulneraaaableeeeee (sing it as a church choral). There isn't a single grain of evidence for a diety in the entire history of the universe, neither is there a need for it, everything works just the same once we stop imagining BS. If religion has never existed, the only consequence might be that we are more advanced, compasionate and united as a global society.
"I drive a 1981 Porsche 911!" "Oh really? Prove it to me!" "Come on outside, look over there - that's mine! Here is the key ... wanna take a ride?" "My girlfriend is absolutely gorgeous!" "Oh really? Prove it to me!" "Honey, could you please come over here? This is John ..." "My god is sooo great, and he totally exists!" "Oh really? Prove it to me!" "Err ... uhm ... would you rather be right or in love?" Funny how theists always have to evade and distract.
The irony that these questions, which are intended to provide a frame for self-reflection, are seen by you as a desire to convert or prove something to be true. I don't care what you believe and I clearly state this is as valuable for theists as atheists. But you, in addition to the majority of these comments, are refuting statements that are not present. It's more a reflection of the trauma many (maybe you?) have felt as a result of Christianity/theism than anything, which is a sad state of affairs. :(
@@GuroUlm It's not misleading, it's just directed at one group. It's like saying "Women why are you so angry at men?" and then having a ton of women in the comments complaining about how men are also angry at women. Of course they are. But you're missing the point and wasting energy thinking about unuseful/defensive things.
Both questions are false dichotomies. Being in love and being right are not mutually exclusive, nor are rationality and utility. Also, atheism is not about being right, it's simply about not believing the narrative of there being a higher power for which there is no evidence. Outsourcing responsibility for what happens to a higher power is less useful than accepting responsibility and trying to make the world a better place. You can connect and act benevolently towards other humans and the world around without the promise of an afterlife, just do it because you want to live in a better world. But I would say to anyone who only restrains themselves from doing harm because of a fear of a god, then keep believing.
Sometimes they are false dichotomies, but not always. And those times when they are not is where you have to answer it for yourself. It's an invitation, not an attack. My question would be: why do you want to make the world a better place? I genuinely don't believe it has to be God, but I'm curious.
@@mansal-denton It's about mutualism. I want to make the world a better place because I live in it and I have a son and other family members who live in it. If my community is functional, happy and healthy then I'm more likely to enjoy living in it. Theism / atheism is irrelevant in this regard.
@@xenontouchstone I’m in an argument with my wife. She claims I didn’t tell her something. If there were a video of evidence of our conversation, I might be vindicated as factually “right”. But in the process of forcing her to see that, I’m realizing that (assuming it’s not a boundary that can’t be crossed), who was right in this instance is less important than love and harmony in the context of my marriage. This becomes applicable almost exclusively to atheists (or theists) who feel the need to push their views of reality or truth on others.
Atheist here. "Would you rather be in love, or would you rather be right?" To start, you phrase this as if these two hings are mutually exclusive. They are not. It is absolutly possible to be in love and be right. Furthermore, no one chooses to be in love or to be right. You either are in love or not and you either are right or not. We can't chose our emotions. In the same vein a statement either comports with reality (and thus is right) or it doesn't (and thus is wrong). Wether or not we want/wish the statement to comport with reality is irrelevant. Reality doesn't change to comport with our wishes. But the real question you are trying to mask asking is: Would you believe (or at least act like you believe) in an untruth for the sake of maintaining a relationship? My anwser here is: I don't care what people believe. I care about how people act. If their action isn't harmful to themselve and/or others i'm happy to let them act how they please. In your hypothetical i wouldn't care if my religious loved one prays five times a day, but i'd put my foot down if she wanted to have our sons genitals mutilated. Not because her religious beliefs are wrong but because that action is harmful to our son. That is not a question of being in love or being right, it's a question of wether or not there is harm done. "is it true, or is it useful" Same thing again, these two things are not mutually exclusive why are you framing them like they are? Furthermore, the usefulness of a statement is directly proportional to how truthful it is. The more truthful, the more useful. That is not to say that a false statement cannot lead to a good outcome. Saying to people "don't drink dirty water because the dirty water demons will make you sick" is useful. But it's useful because it approximates the true reason why drinking dirty water will make you sick (the bacteria, dirt and miscellaneous disease vectors) and it's not as useful as the statement "don't drink dirty water because it contains bacteria, dirt and miscellaneous disease vectors that will make you sick".
How can something be better for your wellbeing if it is not, in some way, true? Like, Dawkins did a documentary where he asked why people were flocking to homeopathy doctors, even if homeopathy is giga-level debunked. Turns out homeopathy doctors regularly spend a lot of time with patients, in comforting surroundings, and make them feel listened to. So the people who were wrong about their central premise were nonetheless doing _something_ so right that people preferred them to evidence-based medicine. Now, what if doctors and hospitals learned from that, instead of just dismissing homeopathy 100%? Take the 5% that works better?
"Would you rather be right or in love?" That entirely depends on if I'm _actually_ right or if I _feel_ like I'm right. I honestly don't know how to answer this, because in my case, one led to the other. By exhaustively committing myself to truth, and making that my highest goal, I found a path to a constantly-delightful love. If you mean, 'If you are right, would you rather hold to that if it would make people upset', then absolutely I would. In my experience, if someone needs you to lie to them, or validate their lies, that's not a relationship I want to be in.
That 'love or right' question is the best argument AGAINST religion I have heard from a theist. We are to believe because it makes others around us happy, even if it is a lie?
@@kevinwhelan9607 It is really a very simple request , show some proof. An all knowing and doing god cannot prove that he-she-it exists. Proving is not part of the plan, so convenient it is comical.
I agree it is way more intellectually and emotionally comfortable to believe in a god than to live life without one. In the same token, it is more comfortable to live with your eyes closed and choose to believe that the world is the way you would like it to be. But you don't choose to be an atheist. You become one because this is what makes sense when you stop deluding yourself about life. Truth is always more valuable than intellectual comfort.
@@mansal-denton oohh! i love answering this as an atheist. i was raised catholic. i was an alter boy. the rituals filled me with peace and tranquility as a child. i joined the choir and felt the joyous surge of god and love as i sung in harmony with my fellows. despite amazing grace being the popular one my favorite was lord of the dance. i've also felt the transcendent beauty of a sunset. the majesty of seeing a whale. the thrill of bungee jumping. god not required
@@mansal-dentonyes i felt Krishna inside me every day of my life for 40 years, i bet you heard this before but your god is fake and bonkers, and believing in something without evidence is delusional, but Krishna is a god you can see and hear! You just need to meditate and you'll gain "god sense" and be able to! Bet the existence of stuff like this is a huge pebble in your shoe that you just try to ignore. If the evidence that convinces you whatever god is real was enough for you, you'd absolutely be convinced by hindus if they got you first, they are older, got way more quantity of the kinds of evidence you accept for your religion, got a whole library of holy books... Why not a hindu? Why not a muslin(if you are, change this for christian)? Why can you say 2 billion muslins(or like 3 billion christians) are absolutely and objectively wrong without ever listening to their side? But i supposedly can't dismiss your experience... You can dismiss the like 6 billion experiences that aren't your religion, guessing you're part of one of the big ones, specially all the billions that claim to have seen god face to face and it wasn't yours, but you'll leap in the air with excitement to tell us about a survey that said like 10k people in your country claim to have seen your god You realize the special pleading right? For your religion, a smidge of evidence will be more than enough for you to keep being a yes man, for any other, or anything you don't already believe, you demand oceans of evidence and deny the existence of most of it even after you're presented it, this is an effort to only believe what you already believe, to not change, not grow as a person.
@mansal-denton i felt it. That is how you experience transcendence. It is felt. Are you going to assert i felt nothing back then just because im an atheist now? Do you honestly think you will make any progress in an argument if you start off challenging a persons internal perceptions? But then again, you started your video with "so called atheists" as if you could read everyones mind. So maybe you are going to argue that i did not feel transcendent emotions during religious rituals.
Why is it that just by looking at some people, the word stupid just jumps to the forefront of one's mind, and as soon as they open their mouths, they confirm your suspicions?
How audacious to even think that we atheists need to ask ourselves questions...!! We're sorted, happy, in love, sometimes right, sometimes wrong but we know and accept that. He also wins the prize for the false deep voice effected way of talking which psychiatrists suggest it's a way of demonstrating authority and being right. It's endemic in the US sadly.
"How audacious to even think that we atheists need to ask ourselves questions...!!" Incredible. Yes, self-reflection is to be avoided at all costs. 🤣 Maybe in the US, male voices are just deeper than in France. 🤷🏻♂
1: I don't understand the "you just want to be right" non sense. What? People using that line just want to be WRONG?? What you maybe really mean is: "Would you rather keep your loved one around or win an argument when you are wrong?" Surely you're not suggesting letting someone hold the relationship as a gun to your head when THEY are wrong? "Pretend that I am right or I'll leave"? Imagine someone takes one of your possessions, claiming that it's really theirs, and they defend themselves with "would you rather be right or my friend"? What kind of friend is that? What kind of relationship is that? Is it religious people trying to get me into their religion by this stratagem, or is it some god who is trying it? Whatever is going on here, I expect, or even demand, more seriousness around the issue. 2: That study seems odd, since Scandinavian countries are reported as having least religiosity AND most happiness. And I'm sure I've seen other problems with such studies, but, even if it really is the case that other people benefit from religion, that doesn't mean that the same applies to me. I paid close attention to more than a thousand sermons during my formative years and the unreality and the uselessness of it all made me more and more miserable. Acquiring more and more knowledge about religion and just how unfounded the claims are (I don't think there is a single doubt I had that hasn't been resoundingly justified by scholarly work) and what reality really is like has been very helpful to me.
- right, love based on a lie is not love, it's just a lie. That's why you want to know if your girl cheated on you and you are not going to thank her for not telling you if you find out she did. - what isn't true isn't usefull for anyone but the people who keep sharing the lie to control you
@@stefanogandino9192 if it’s a lie, you have to convince me it’s a lie. But nobody can convince anyone with full confidence about higher power. But the binary perspective is common among most zealots regardless of theology.
@mansal-denton no? If it's a lie it's a lie regardless if you believe it or not. Also that's not how science works, science is "convince me something is true, not something isn't". Theists will never get this right i guess.
For instance, you are supposed to prove a unicorn exists, not to prove it doesn't exists since it's impossible to prove the non existance of something. But believing in unicorn is still believing in a lie, regardless you believe on them on not, because noone was ever able to prove unicorns exist.
My first answer is not showing, guess some weird youtube bullshit so i'll write it again "No? A lie is a lie regardless if you believe in it or not. Also you are supposed to prove that something exists, not that something doesn't. Theists will never get this right i guess".
@@stefanogandino9192 this is actually a perfect example. Would you lose a friend or push someone away because they believe in a unicorn and you don’t? What if they aligned with interests for everything else in life? I don’t really care if they believe in unicorns so long as they’re a virtuous person.
So, you know god isn't real but would rather be "in love" with a fictional character than "right" about what's real? Most of the work is done then, it'll get boring quick, specially once you fall in love (any kind of love) with a real person
@@AlexReynard 1. Inception the movie where Leonardo says we were having fun but knowing it was all not real. 2. Nelly- I was thinking bout her, thinkin' bout me Thinkin' bout us, what we gon' be Open my eyes yeah, it was only Just A Dream That's why.
Many religious apologists always start with straw manning atheism. I don't think most of them even know what atheism really is. They may get the face value definition right, but these types of questions show a deep-rooted ignorance that's prevalent and oftentimes regurgitated ad nauseam. Even 1,000 years from now, it seems like we'll be hearing the same nonsense from religious apologetics. It just never ends..
The irony is that you immediately think I have a position with my questions. They're just invitations. I don't adhere to nor do I believe religions are "good" at face value. The reactionary nature of 80%+ of comments proves how defensive many atheists are about their positions (likely due to how strongly theists have tried to push their beliefs throughout history!)
@mansal-denton i am addressing the case in general, i couldn't care less what the uploader thinks. The majority of theists r the ones i address, not some random people on UA-cam
Your questions don’t seem authentic to me. They feel just a little too ambiguous and rhetorical- especially that first one. It literally sounds like you’re carefully engineering this, so that you can intellectually trap nonbelievers. To be in love or to be right? Why does it have to be one or the other? For one, most atheists are NOT trying to be RIGHT about god. We simply don’t believe in any gods. I don’t try to shove my views down anyone’s throat. I’m so sick of theists generalizing atheists in this way, because it’s not accurate. And as far as religious people being happier- that depends. Isn’t it interesting that the most peaceful countries in the world are largely secular, and most devout religious cultures are the most violent? Being religious may bring happiness because there is much community support in religion - but it’s when one starts to question god and religion, they start to feel uneasy and which causes more anxiety and fear. So sure, religion brings happiness until it doesn’t. If you’re happy living in that bubble, great. I’m not. I’m WAY happier as an atheist.
@@patrickwoods2213 I agree it’s not all atheists. This is for the ones who are clearly trying to prove a point (and I add that religious zealots are the same). It’s zealotry I’m after. The first question is taken from intimate relationships. It has weight if you want good relationships with people of differing views. How many people who believe in a Christian / Muslim God do you have? If many, great! You’re on the right track. I just referenced a study and most studies indicate population wide, belief in higher power translates to better wellbeing. Regarding secular countries: they are also mostly western and Christian for thousands of years. It’s hard to parse what is what. Beyond that, anxiety / depression / suicide / loneliness is at an all time high so I don’t know if general wellbeing is the best it could be.
I don’t really see how question 1 is a question “for atheists” as it is just so darn general. It can apply to anyONE and anyTHING. It could be an atheist friend arguing with a Muslim friend about God, a Catholic and Methodist arguing about Christian doctrine, or a Christian spouse and atheist spouse arguing about leaving the toilet seat up. Edit: Also, the best form of love can move past these arguments. I think it’s an honest question, but the fact it’s directed at atheists seems disingenuous.
@ I agree it can be directed at anyone. In my experience, because i am in the secular west, most religious people acknowledge they cannot prove something and a certain amount of faith is required. However, atheists (some not all, obviously) can get into a pattern of feeling as though they know because scientism is often less faith-based. Hence, my directing it at (some) atheists
@ I may be able to agree with most of what you say, but it still leaves me wondering why you’re directing this at atheists. Even though the west is regarded as mostly secular, it’s still filled with people of all sorts of different religions. For example, I actually love a lot of of the aspects and themes of the Christmas story that comes around every year. But I’m left having to bite my tongue when people talk about some of these events (many of them actually not even supported by the Bible) as if they are actual historical events on the level of events of World War II. Similarly, theists (some not all, obviously) can get into a pattern of feeling as though they know because of their holy scriptures, gut instinct, revelatory experiences, etc.
@ I 1000% agree with you. The difference that I’ve found is that (today in the west - big caveats), it does seem that faith comes with an element of doubt. As in, it’s called faith because we do not know for sure. In contrast, there seems an easier time for some atheists to believe they know for sure. But I mention and do believe this can 100% be addressed to anyone who is a bit zealous.
For me it’s not even a dichotomy. It’s like asking me if I want to be dry or out of the rain if you find me in a storm. Right or in love? Not related… but if you love me and think I’m wrong… just correct me, if you don’t I will start doubting that you actually love me.
@@mansal-denton You realize that term refers to people who give themselves titles without any proof or reason that would cause others to agree? It's typically meant derisively. A "self-proclaimed" expert is implied to not be an expert at all. It's similar to saying "so-called'. Considering the standard Christian position is that atheists actually believe and are just lying to themselves, you can understand how using such a turn of phrase comes off as sarcasm to any atheist in the audience, right? You're implying their atheism is disingenuous.
@@mansal-denton You do realize the term is meant derisively right? A "self-proclaimed" expert is implied to not be an expert at all. You're implying that people's atheism is disingenuous.
1. Right. I'm sorry I can't be in love with a person I fundamentally disagree with. It is not so much that I want to be right as that I don't want to remain wrong. If you love me, correct me. If you don't try to leave me, I have people who will. 2. Correct. Sorry, I don’t believe anything can be useful and false. I also don’t think I was ever really happy as a Christian. All the unsaved going to Hell and deserving it was just devastating to my mental health, still is, never won’t be. I wish I was never Christian. I am a worse person for having been.
Two questions, huh? OK, let's hear them... _1) "Would you rather be in love or would you rather be right?"_ Huh? Wow, that's weird! But right about *what?* What are you actually asking here? Would I rather be right about being in love? Sure,... I suppose. Obviously, I'd rather be both. I've been in love before, and I've been right before - often at the same time. They're just... normal, aren't they? But I don't see a connection between those two things. And why would you ask _atheists_ a question like this? I don't see a connection between that question and gods - no connection at all. When it comes to this question, what difference would it make if you believed in a god or you didn't? _2) "Is it true or is it useful"_ To believe in a god? Neither one, as far as I can tell. In general, the most religious places on Earth are the worse places to live by almost any metric. Meanwhile, the _least_ religious places tend to be much better places to live. Just google the "most religious countries on Earth" and the "least religious countries on Earth." I'm sure that's not universal, but it certainly seems to be a general pattern, doesn't it? The most religious countries on Earth tend to be _terrible_ places to live. And here in America, at least, faith-based thinking is destroying my country and my world. So it certainly doesn't seem _useful._ And I'm an atheist, so I obviously see no reason to think that any religion is actually _true_ - at least, that no god is real. _By definition,_ an atheist doesn't believe in a god or gods. Now, personally, I think that the truth _is_ useful. So I'm going to pick the truth, anyway. But in this particular case, I don't think that faith-based thinking is useful at all. What _is_ useful is socializing with a community of like-minded people. But you don't need religion for that. And I'd rather socialize with people who care about the truth _anyway._
@@Bill_Garthright first, I appreciate you actually taking the questions seriously :) For many people, being “right” (about their being no god) usually comes at the expense of being in connection or relation with others. Not all atheists are this way, but some certainly are. All the countries you’re talking about are built on Judeo-Christian values. We can argue if secular values could come to the place they are without the religion, but the truth remains that for the majority of the history of those countries, they have been (predominantly) Christian. Beyond that, looking population-wide, belief in a higher power is universally correlated with better health/wellbeing outcomes. Not the be all for everyone, but it is good to consider.
@@mansal-denton _"For many people, being “right” (about their being no god) usually comes at the expense of being in connection or relation with others."_ Yeah? And why would that be? It would only be because religious people in their own families disown them - or even try to murder them in Muslim countries - right? After all, nothing about not believing in a god makes the slightest difference to our relations to others, _except_ when religious people freak out about people disagreeing with them. I've been surrounded by Christians all my life. My family was Christian. My friends are Christian. No problem "being in connection or relation with others." So maybe it's just _you?_ After all, I've never heard of an atheist family throwing a kid out of the house because they became religious. I've never heard of an atheist demanding a divorce - and that their spouse be prevented from any contact with their children - because that spouse became religious. It's always been the other way around. This isn't a problem with atheism. It's a problem with theism - not _all_ theists, of course, but when there's a problem, it's with theists, not atheists. _"All the countries you’re talking about are built on Judeo-Christian values."_ Don't be silly. The Dark Ages were built on "Judeo-Christian values." And try telling that to the Jews who were persecuted for _centuries._ No, modern countries with freedom of speech and freedom of religion - something not found in religious texts - were built on the values of the Enlightenment, rejecting the dogma of their blood-soaked past. _"belief in a higher power is universally correlated with better health/wellbeing outcomes."_ That's all you've got? Believing in a god makes you feel better? *Not* that a god actually exists? As far as I can tell, theists are often _desperate_ to find arguments like that, because they have nothing else. They have no good evidence that their religious beliefs are actually _true,_ so they often try some "argument from consequences" logical fallacy that it's useful. Hey, I'm not even going to question your claim. I'm not going to ask you for evidence that it's true - or what, exactly, is being measured by whatever study you're referencing (if you're even referencing a study at all). Because I don't _care_ about any of that. I care if your religious beliefs are _true,_ not if it makes you feel good to believe them. PS. BTW, note that prayer has *not* been found to affect health outcomes. Because that _has_ been rigorously studied (by the Templeton Foundation, a Christian organization which has spent a ton of money on stuff like this).
@@mansal-denton Countries based on Judeo - Christian values? So there was no morality before Christianity and Judaism? Do you even realize what you’re saying?
@@mansal-denton I mean, I would turn around and say, For some people being right (about there being a god, and specifically their god) comes at the expense of being in connection or relation with others. Not all theists are this way but some certainly are... And, I'd wager, there are more theists who do this than atheists. To give an example: One of my friends comes from a muslim family. He does not believe in Islam. When he said so to his parents, he was physically and verbally abused for being a "Kafir" and an apostate. Now, it also matters where you put the blame. You could say it was his fault for even telling his true belief, but I think that would be disingenuous. The truth is, faith is not a belief in something without the claim of truth. Faith is belief in something with the claim of truth, backed by institutions and social order that maintains it. No Muslim ever says, I believe in Islam but I don't claim the Qur'an is true. Do they? Secondly, to answer your question, say you are talking about some subject X with a person you love. Now, if you ask me would you rather be right or in love? I would say: it depends on 1. Which subject we are talking about. 2. How important the subject is to me and the other person. In our case of religion, it's been my observation that, some of my friends did not loose connection because they were forcing atheism down the throat of their loved ones, but instead that they pushed back when the other person was pushing religion down their throat. And, since religion is a very important subject to the other person, they decided they could not stay in love. But some of my friends, didn't loose connections, because the other person though religious didn't care whether they believed in god or not. And, so they just avoid that topic altogether. Which, is of course, acceptable.
Unfortunately, the replies in this thread aren't showing up unless I sort the comments by "Newest first." Well, that's UA-cam being UA-cam, huh? But it looks like we nonbelievers didn't get replies, anyway.
1) Love is linked to knowledge on many levels, these two things are not mutually exclusive by any means. For example, I love my wife, but if I knew she didn't exist, I wouldn't love her. I perhaps could love my brain imagining my potential wife if I didn't have one, but at that point I would just love myself, which I despise. On top of that I love for example also honesty, which quite strictly forbids me from being dishonest and lying to anyone or myself if I don't want to be a hypocrite. 2) Again, truthfulness and usefulness are by far not exclusive to each other, and in more instances that none, truthfulness is absolutely essential for any usefullnes to emerge (basically all science resulting in existence of planes, phones, internet, and so on.. All of this require scientific method, which is an entire process of thinking many people adapted and it resulted in this). You can't have your cake and eat it too. Instances where lies could be useful if normalized can exist, but are overwhelmingly overshadowed by the other option. Also, I'm not sure you are aware of what this (and many other studies about wellbeing connected to religiosity) suggest. Yes, religion can indeed make some people happier as individuals, because it helps people coping with misery (effectively by trying to remove or misplace their full responsibility of their wrongdoings and miseries in the world). BUT sets of people are happier the more secular is the place they live in. The more secular countries are, the higher wellbeing their populations tend to have, and there are many reasons for that. Some of the most prominent reasons for this is how tightly is religion (especially Abrahamic religions) linked to increased war fervor and hate for outgroups (xenophobia, homophobia, etc..). Also the very fact that stronger coping mechanisms (i.e. religion) besides giving some people some comfort also makes those people much less likely to fix those issues and to fix the misery in society. I give you three exaggerated examples so it's clear enough for anyone to understand: a) people living in a region with religion-driven wars can be much happier if they are religious because it helps them coping with the harsh reality and gives their suffering some purpose, however as a result of that there is much lower chance of that religious conflict to ever stop and if it does stop there is much higher chance it will happen again ===> religious individual is happier than others, but whole society is living in much more misery as a direct result of that b) when religious people believe that diseases are caused by demons/curses/god's wrath, it makes individuals dying of cancer/plague/leprosis muuuuuuuuch happier and it makes much easier for them to cope with the sad reality. But as a result of that, research of medicine doesn't progress and the whole society is suffering immensely because of that. c) when someone is taught or anyhow convinced that it's okay to believe anything that makes him comfortable regardless of what empirical evidence says, it kills critical thinking in society. It can again help the individual for a while (or certainly makes their live and thinking process easier), but it makes it incredibly easy for any populist in politics (or elsewhere) to push their lies without any retaliation whatsoever, because you are not taught to be a sceptic and to verify reality and desire some evidence for it -> again, resulting in misery in any democratic country So this is it, I'm not sure if you have time to respond, but someone might find this "useful:P". Sorry for my mediocre english.
On "Would you rather be in love or right?" Being in love and being right are not mutually exclusive. Atheists often value truth because it fosters genuine relationships built on honesty and understanding, rather than delusion or pretense. If the analogy is about relationships, choosing love often requires compromise. But in matters of reality, compromising on truth for comfort is intellectually dishonest. Would you rather believe a comforting lie or face an uncomfortable truth? On "Is it true or useful?" Just because a belief is "useful" doesn’t make it true. Placebos can be useful but are still false. By this logic, should we advocate for falsehoods just because they make people feel good? Studies on well-being often fail to account for cultural factors, such as the stigma atheists face in religious societies. In secular societies, atheists report equal or greater well-being without the need for belief in a higher power. On "Faith vs. Rationality" Faith without evidence isn’t a virtue; it’s gullibility. Rationality doesn’t make people unloving or disconnected-it simply demands that beliefs align with evidence. Atheists are not devoid of connection or love; they just don't ground those feelings in unproven supernatural claims. On "Connection to something greater" Feeling awe or connected to something bigger (e.g., nature, humanity, the universe) doesn’t require invoking "God" or a higher power. Secular experiences can be just as profound without the baggage of unsupported metaphysical claims.
Re: your connection to something greater. I agree it doesn't require invoking God or a higher power (though invoking them can be nothing more than putting a word or symbol for something that can't be explained). How would you describe the profound experiences?
Atheist and antitheist here with my answers. Re: "Would I rather be in love or would I rather be right" This question is too vague to be useful. What does it mean "want to be right"? - Do you mean "make everyone think I'm right, even if that is not the case, just so they know"? No, absolutely not. - Do you mean "prove to everyone that I'm really right, just so they know"? While it does feel good, I'm in no rush to ruin my relationships just for the sake of being right. - Do you mean "prove to everyone that I'm really right to protect them from making a mistake"? Yeah, I would like to, although I do admit people have the right to make mistakes. - Do you mean "do my best to figure out what the truth is and end up correct in my beliefs"? Oh yeah, definitely. What does it mean "rather be in love"? Being in love is *my emotional state* . Whether I'm right or not, whatever you mean by that, has zero influence on whether I'm in love. Even if I end up fighting with someone I love over who's right, that argument would not change the fact that I love them. It might damage our *relationship* or make *them* love me less, but not change that I'm in love. This question is a mess, but I can give you some specific, tangential answers, and you go ahead and deduce what they mean in the context you had in your head. - I believe that "beliefs inform actions". If someone is fundamentally wrong, their decisions will be wrong. - I believe in Epistemic Responsibility. If you allow yourself to believe bullshit and end up hurting someone as a result, your actions are immoral. - As such, I seek to correct my beliefs whenever I can. If you show me I'm wrong, I will *never* hold it against you and be happy to stand corrected. - I believe religion causes real damage. Restricting contraception and abortion access based on nonsense woowoo about a tiny patch of cells having "a soul". Greg Locke using religion to convince people to ignore a pandemic and not take a safe and well tested vaccine, causing deaths. Gay people being oppressed because your old book of fairy tales says so, even though it's their business what they do with their appendages as long as they don't harm anyone. Examples are aplenty. - With the three above, I believe I am morally obliged to do my best to prevent people from harming others by their bullshit beliefs and I do try to make them look at facts properly. - However, I am aware that I am only human and I can't physically convince everyone. There is a limit to which I can try to propagate truth while still remaining a member of society, so I pick my battles and hold back when the fight isn't worth it. I apply all of the above to my relationships, so if my wife is incorrect, I will try to let her see the facts, but if situation requires it I will let her make her mistake and suffer the consequences, all the while remaining in love. Re: "Is it true, or is it useful". That one is simpler - I am in strong opposition to Philosophical Pragmatism. I believe that any lie you buy into will eventually cause harm, to you or others. The word "belief" means "a statement one is convinced to be true" and the word "true" means "that which is in accordance with fact or reality". As such, beliefs should be in accordance to reality. If you acknowledge that a claim you hold is or may not be true but you hold on to it because it is useful, than it's not a genuine belief but self-manipulation. I detest and reject the idea of feeding myself nonsense just to feel better, *particularly* when I know that my misguided actions (because they're based on nonsense) may lead to someone's harm. I get it that you're happier if you buy into the idea that there's a loving skydaddy waiting with eternal happiness for you, just as you would be happier if you bought into the idea that your rich uncle is going to give you a million dollars next week. But as long as I don't have a reason to think it is actually true, I reject to get fooled into believing it.
@@mansal-denton Was it though? You haven't changed my mind about anything, I had already been through these considerations and they have not turned me away from atheism nor antitheism. The world, my relationships and conscience are perfectly fine, and would not suffer from religion becoming a relic of the dark ages, as it should have a long time ago.
@@mansal-dentonthats a lie, and you know it. You absolutely want to change people's mind or you wouldnt have posted this video. You definitely wouldnt have just tried to hide behind "Im just here to initiate thought" As if "thought" doesnt come before changing ones mind about something. 🤦🏻♂️
Why is it contradicting your being in Love when you are in an argument with your loved one? Do you have an On/Off Switch for your Love when in Disagreement with your Partner? That is hilarious even to ask this question that way. The Mental Gymnastice you do just to convince yourself your belief is true is astonishing. This Mindset, to go the Extra Mile, to do anything to not have to see that Religion is a waste of Human Energy, is dangerous. It leads to People flying planes in Buildings or detonate themselves in crowds of people.
The questions are wrong. The Atheist point is in this scenario: You've been happily married for ten years, only to find out that your wife married you on a bet and has been sleeping with everyone you've ever known. Your 3 kids are not yours and she just took every penny you've saved and took off. Surely, you would have to feel utterly sick to your soul that the last ten years of your life has been a complete lie. A decade of your one and only life has gone by and you can't ever get those years back. Now, imagine living your entire life in a complete lie because you followed some absurd religion that has absolutely no evidence of being true. What a waste of your one life!
First of all, Dawkins, that tie is ridiculous. Q1: Love Vs. Right? A: I'd rather be right. Love can lead you to irrational decisions that can harm yourself and others, in many cases, murder. This doesn't even need to be a theological question. If you find yourself choosing to concede arguments to your partner on a regular basis, then it's a sign that you may be in an abusive relationship (be it your religion or lover) and you should face the truth that you ought to separate. Q2: True vs. Useful? A: That's an oxymoron, only truth is useful. Putting that aside, it's a false dichotomy to ask, would you rather have a connection to a higher power or not, rather the question should be, would you rather BELIEVE that you have a connection to a higher power, than not. If you are capable of experiencing a connection to a higher power, without confirmation of such, then it would reason to suggest that your experience of connection can exist without a higher power. Thus, you trade nothing to concede the existence of a higher power, in trade for an alternate explanation of that experience. Bonus: Yes, religion makes people happy. As they say, ignorance is bliss, but so is opium. If you're late for work in the morning, you can roll over and pretend it's a Saturday, but that won't help you to keep your job. Just imagine how deeper the issue runs, when it comes to something as dire as your entire world view and ethics on the line.
Okay, there are thoughtful questions that are worth my time, so thanks for posting this: 1) Would you rather be in love, or would you rather be right? Why does this have to be either/or?? Why can't I have both? And I do have both. I think it would be rare for a conflict to arise. Let's reframe this question though. Would you be willing to live a lie in exchange for love? So if your mate wanted you to lie, and say you believe when you really don't--what kind of love is that? Is this a true love? Is this a healthy love? Is this a love likely to endure? Is it reasonable? What other forms of emotional blackmail lie ahead? My atheism isn't about "being right"--it arises out of my moral integrity. I know there are a lot of believers who are secretly atheists--they go along to get along, rightly perceiving that other believers don't want the exposure to the cognitive dissonance. 2) Is it true or is it useful? Ask yourself this same question, for other domains of discourse. Is it really useful to believe in a lie (or rather claim you believe in the lie)? Where would our society be if we went down this road? We would probably still be saying the Earth is flat, or that the sun goes around the Earth. Telescopes probably would have been banned, and humanity probably would not have progressed beyond the horse and buggy. Truth will always have more utility in the long run, and societies that cling to lies will fail. Truth is often inconvenient, but it has a way of coming back and smacking you down hard if you disregard it. And again--honesty integrity???
I appreciate your thoughtfulness! Here are a few of my thoughts on the subject. 1. It's true that you CAN be both in love and be "right", but the purpose of the question is to prompt us to reflect on all the times in which we are trying to be "right" instead of trying to be in harmony with other people. I would suggest that we find people who have differing views than us. Otherwise we live in a bubble. Assuming that is the case, there is a way we can respect each others' perspectives to lean into loving one another (even as we disagree) versus trying to convince them of our "rightness". Atheism is a perfect example and assuredly it's not all atheists (probably a small, militant minority) who argue and try to dismantle theist arguments simply for the sake of dismantling them. This is an example of trying to be "right" when it's far better IMO for a communal species like humans to try and remain in harmony - not with lies, just with how we hold our version of truth and respect others'. 2. Your insistence on "believing in a lie" is betraying your perspective. It's okay for you to believe theism is untrue or that there have been disastrous consequences of organized religion. I'd agree with you there. But to claim it is a lie is missing a bigger point: we don't know. Everyone is trying to seek closeness to truth. Believing in something transcendent or higher than ourselves is well documented to be better for our wellbeing. That can 100% be "laws of the universe" that we don't understand. Gravity is a law that is greater than us. It is transcendent. I'm not saying it has to be an existing religion!
@@mansal-denton I was a deist, before I went full blown atheist. I can tell you- I feel no difference in my leave of joy or happiness. Religion can be great until you start to question it.
I'm here for the two questions: 1, Would I rather be in love or to be right? Well, if you're in love and also not right, then not being right is bad and even dangerous. What if you're in love with a woman that doesn't exist, yet you think she does? What if she does exist, but you're wrong in your belief that she loves you back? Or what if she loves you back, but the relationship is utterly destructive to both of you but you mistakenly believe it to be otherwise, or you see how destructive it is but you mistakenly believe that it'll improve? The fewer wrong things you believe, the better. Always
2, "Is it true or is it useful"? Well, if it isn't true it cannot be useful. My previous answer illustrates this. Coming back to the example of being in love with someone that doesn't exist, well, what if that state of mind makes you happier than you would be if you knew that she's not real? You're clearly using the word "useful" when you mean "joyful". You can become very happy by drinking, you can forget all your worries by sniffing the fumes of glue. By your definition of "useful", well, those are tremendously useful activities!
"Is it true or is it useful?" My answer is that usefulness proves truth. There are so many different billions of random actions you could take every day, that you don't even consider, because they would cause mess and destruction and chaos. When we do *ANYTHING* that does not give us immediate positive results, we're taking a leap of faith. And if that action proves useful, we're onto something. So yeah, I absolutely acknowledge that religion is useful for the organization of society. *But that does not mean that the claims of religion are true.* If I worship a god of exercise by jogging every morning, this is useful to me in keeping me behaving in a healthy manner, but in no way proves that a god of exercise exists. Religious belief may get me in the state of mind for a positive outcome to happen to me, but it might also be possible to get that same positive result, in a more efficient manner, by examining what precise conditions lead to the outcome. For example, I can get the joy of Christmas by exchanging gifts with my friends, without the specific traditions of mistletoe, stockings, or going to mass. If religion is good for people because it puts them in a state of _grateful selfless connectivity_ (which I can easily see benefiting both self and community), I am able to simply put myself in that mindset consciously. And then it's not also necessary for me to follow aspects of a religion that I may know to be wrong. For instance, Mormons tend to have strong family bonds, but I'm not a fan of their homophobia.
Strange false dichotomy. What is the point of such a strange question, what does that have to do with your burden of proof? So does being in love mean that I'm not right? What does that mean in this context? That I'm wrong about being in love? Right about what? Everything? Being right about everything would enable me to know who to love best. So the clear answer is to be right since that would lead to all other knowledge about everything, changing the world around me for the better with my knowledge since I would always be right about everything, even things I know nothing about I could simply say "The answer to (X) problem is..." and whatever I said would be right. Okay. So your silly nonsense question is answered by "I'd rather be right." Yes, rationality and logic is useful. Believing without facts is incoherent. That's the problem with faith you can simply believe anything you want. Why would I want to do that? Why would anyone?! What is true vs what is useful... its not useful if it is not true. Again, I'm going to go with whatever is true. As for your study well I found one that contradicts it: "Throw BABE Out With the Bathwater? Canadian Atheists are No Less Healthy than the Religious"
"Would you rather be right or be in love?" As this directly pertains to religion, I would rather be right. Hands down. Because I've seen what it looks like when people pursue feelings of love, but give up their reasoning to do so. That's how we get cults. That's how we get good people led to believe that evil things are good. I believe that *truth will lead to love more often than love will lead to truth.* And if a God needs me to turn off my individual critical thinking in order to deserve His love, then respectfully, that's not someone who deserves my worship. Same as I'd say to any leader, lover, or friend.
Given that I see many atheists have already provided thoughtful answers, I will simply echo the basic answer: these are really bad false dichotomies, thus making your answers severely lacking and your thought experiments woefully incomplete. Please continue studying - you have a LOOONG way to go.
@@CharlesPayet The majority of people got defensive, as usual. And insulting. Like you. But if you look hard enough, you’ll see a pinned comment and a few others with thoughtful and less hateful responses.
My comment was not meant to be insulting, but statements of fact. Others have already pointed out that your statements are false dichotomies, thus your answers are woefully incomplete. You need a LOT more study to understand how weak your arguments are.
@@CharlesPayet Why is it that some people thought they were great? Obviously, it's not a "fact". It's just your frame of reality. And the fact that you think I have an argument is more a reflection of your frame of reality than the video. I don't really care what people believe, I'm simply offering an invitation for personal reflection.
@@mansal-denton I hope you have seen AronRa's thoughtful response to your video. For my part, insofar as we recognise the usefulness of belief, this is because it is comforting to believe what a lot of others believe, particularly when that belief mitigates the fear of death. We cannot (yet) know what the world would look like if most people did NOT believe in "Gods". My intuition is that we would seek to make the most of the short lives we have, with all the positive implications of that attitude.
@@Nai61a I just found it! thank you for mentioning it. I still don't understand why he or anyone thinks I'm a theist. I'm not a Christian and I don't have any kind of strong belief. I do think that when we are honest, there is a level of "I don't know" that comes with our relating to higher power. Seeing as how I don't know, but I have FELT things I consider to be divine, let's say, it makes sense for me to lean into the possibility of something greater. This isn't a Christian definition and it surely isn't a suggestion for others. I don't have a way I describe the ineffable per se. But I have a direct relationship myself. And I brought up the studies on wellbeing because some type of transcendant/spiritual connection does seem to be better for general wellbeing.
1. "Would you rather be in love, or would you rather be right?" - I'd rather be whichever most benefits ethical societal progress. Anything else is selfish. 2. "Is it true, or is it useful?" - Unsupported beliefs may be "useful" to the individual (i.e., they can make you "feel" better), but cumulatively can be massively detrimental to ethical societal progress. The higher power to which I connect is human society. It is a result of evolution, and few if any of us would be alive today without it. Society IS the higher power. If we all served it honestly and faithfully, as so many do an imagined, unprovable supreme being, we could achieve our fullest potential. Religion originated as a tool of cohesion that benefited the survival of small, isolated tribes. We are no longer small or isolated. Our only means to cohesion on a global scale is ethical societal progress. Religion is an outdated relic that impedes that. Serve society: there's your higher power. Problem solved.
"Would I rather be right or in love" is a malformed question right out of the gates. For one, I'd rather not be wrong about the person that I love. Of course I'd rather be right
You seem to forget that in strictly religious countries, being "right" is seen as being better than being in love. In fundamentalist Islamic countries, apostates can be put to death for turning from their beliefs, even when the formerly held religious beliefs weren't backed up by sufficient evidence. No one has ever proven that there is a God, but people get killed for not believing. And on the notion that it is better to be spiritual than non-spiritual, I question how the studies were done, in which countries, and what demographics. I know many people, myself included, who are happy without relying on an unjustified belief in a higher power, magic crystals, wizards, gods, etc. When it comes to happiness and religion, most of the studies I've seen deal with how community gives people peace of mind, which means people can find happiness without religion as long as they find belonging elsewhere.
Some people care about the truth, other people just want to pretend the things they like are true! I would rather know the truth than pretend otherwise.
Both of his questions are extremely dependent on context. 1. Rather be right or in love? Sure for small stuff like who left the wet wipes box open, let it go. But what if the truth you discovered was infidelity? 2. The utility of belief. This also varies from person to person. I’m personally not anti-religious and I begrudge and judge no one for having religious beliefs. But like… if the claims AND tenets of a religion seem simply untrue to me, even philosophically not true, it’s not particularly useful.
What stupid questions. Love for one’s fellow man/woman is aligned with humanism. Religion has no love UNLESS you submit to the religion’s congregants, which is no love at all.
If I am to worship a god, I want to know who, exactly, I am worshiping. As a child of abuse, I do not trust authority figures easily. So, if I call out to the void and receive an answer, that doesn't prove it's any specific character of world mythology. I can't just say, 'That voice must be Zeus' if I have grown up being taught about Zeus. Because it could just as easily be Allah, Shiva, Ra, Aska, Baron Samedi, the collective consciousness of mankind, or aliens. *If I make a connection beyond this life, that's merely the START of me experimenting to learn who I'm talking to and what they want.*
@@mansal-dentonnot many of those out there, m8. Activists (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, etc) are a response to christian evangelism. Anyone you see commenting on this material is responding to the act of you responding to atheists. I'm pretty sure that it will be very hard to find someone that goes up to random people and says "Hello, did you know that there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant a belief in a god?", but you CAN find religious folks initiating conversations with "Hello, do you have a minute to talk about our lord and savior, jesus christ?" or some other variant with the same idea.
@@mansal-dentonok so let me get this straight. By what you wrote every Christian and Muslim preacher through out history have been Hie hard self proclaimed atheists! Because they have all of them tried to convince others that gods like Zeus, Odin, Horus, Ahura Mazda, Ganesha etc does not exist. Next time I think you need to be more specific because human history contains more than just one god, and remember being an atheist only means not accepting one more god claim than you do.
@@TheDZHEX Your comment shows up here if you sort the comments by "Newest first," instead of leaving it at the default "Top comments" sorting method. That happens to me all the time. It's just UA-cam being a pain in the butt, as usual. But I thought I'd let you know. PS. I gave it a thumb's up, so maybe that will move it into the "Top comments" category? :)
@@mansal-denton No. That is simply false we can and do calculate the gravity of objects we have never visited... can never visit that are far out of our solar system. Sorry, we have one singular reality.
I’m an agnostic atheist, so idk if I’m the intended audience to answer this but 1. I’d have to choose a third option where I can agree to disagree with someone and respect other people and let them believe what they wish as long as they let me choose to disbelieve 2. I don’t care about well being of individuals in the face of scientific truth personally, because seeking truth will ultimately lead to increased wellbeing over time imo. What improved wellbeing more, praying when you’re sick, or the discovery of germ theory and taking preventative measures based on that knowledge? I would argue the latter has done more good over the former. These questions are interesting, but I feel like the way they’re phrased seems a little like they’re leading to the answer you want rather than the actual discovery of truth and what’s honestly in someone’s heart. The first question in particular seems emotionally loaded to make the atheist feel like a bad person for answering in any way other than the answer you want them to give. I think these questions would be better and more thought provoking if they weren’t front loaded with your bias before asking. I will admit tho, atheist UA-camrs tend to do the same thing, but in a different way. They load their questions in ways that make you feel like you have to answer the way that supports their conclusion rather an honest probe into the minds of believers they’re talking to. Either way, decent vid with okay questions, and I appreciate that you got right into it without a giant amount of preamble, and the editing was minimal but kept things snappy. You have no idea how many theist vids I’ve seen that felt like a meandering thought dump where they didn’t prep at all lol
Thank you. The questions were meant to be introspective, not accusatory. And apply to theists as well (plenty of them are pushy). Glad it has stimulated a lot of discussion.
@ I really do appreciate the questions tbh, I love probing into why I believe what I believe and trying to understand where my beliefs come from. It could be my own bias going into the video that made the questions feel the way they did, but I really do appreciate the lack of animosity towards nonbelievers. I’ll be on the lookout for more vids of a similar nature from you in the future. Cheers!
"Rather be in love or right?" An atheist is defined as someone who isn't convinced of the existence of a theistic god, not necessarily someone who strongly expresses their nonbelief to others. Therefore, being an atheist doesn't necessarily imply that my relationships will be damaged. "Is having a spiritual connection better?" I don't know. There are a colossal number of possibilities where having a spiritual connection could be detrimental. What if there were an afterlife where you'd be thrown into a lake of fire for having a spiritual connection in this life? What if there were a reversed god who sends you to hell for believing in him and rewards skepticism instead? In such cases, having a spiritual connection in this life would result in enormous suffering in the next. I'm not claiming these scenarios to be true; I'm simply pointing out that there are many possibilities where a spiritual connection could indeed harm our well-being.
@mansal-denton Not just "you're thinking about it" but "you've thought about it and rebutted me". I refuted the point you made about being atheist being exclusive to being in love. I said it isn't true just by providing definition of atheism. Also, your second point-having spiritual connection is better-has also been refuted.
@@The_Alchemist_007 The irony of you rebutting me is how thoroughly you do not understand the content of the video. Here's an article that may help: www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-novel-perspective/202012/would-you-rather-be-right-than-loved
The questions should be do I believe in a talking snake or a 900 year old boat builder existed. What would any normal person whether an atheist or not, reply ?
They're invitations for personal introspection. Just because I direct them at atheists doesn't mean it's an attack. The irony of how many people find it an attack and try to be right in the comments is humorous (not saying you're doing that).
First off: "Self-proclaimed" atheists? Way to poison the well. My answers: 1. If being in love means I'm wrong, then that love is wrong and is unhealthy. Being alone sucks, but to paraphrase World's Greatest Dad: The worst thing in life is to be surrounded by people who make you feel alone. Also, being right and being in love are not mutually exclusive, and if you're trying to force a point "down someone's throat," then you are a bad person making a bad relationship. And everything I just said applies to framing the question in a theism vs. atheism point, and all you're doing is advocating faith even if it's wrong. 2. "Is it true or is it useful?" Depends on what "it" is. And frankly, believing in something that isn't true is far LESS healthy than not. Ever heard of this thing called denial? Yeah, that leads people to making TERRIBLE decisions. For example: If someone engages in tithing - giving ten percent of their income to their church - but can't afford to feed their family, is that a useful practice if their god doesn't exist? Oh, and one study? Come back when you can provide multiple and can show that those carrying out the studies didn't skew the results. Also, there are more factors that are different between atheists and the religious that could contribute to health and happiness than whether or not they believe in a sky daddy. How many atheists do you know of who gather once a week to socialize based on their atheism?
I don't understand why people demand their religion be taught to children in public schools for the sake of morality. After all if teaching their religion in churches didn't work to create morality why would teaching religion in public schools work any better?
@@whiteorchid5412 I don’t think demanding religion be taught in public schools is worthwhile, but it’s silly to say zero people have ever been more moral from church ever 🙄
Loving comes first (is most important) - doesn't mean I have to believe someone's nonsense if I love them, I just accept them as they are. I cannot believe in anything merely for personal benefit - but fear drives nearly everyone so its understandable that most people grasp what feels good.
Sounds like you feel that it's necessary to sacrifice your ability to reason or your love of truth so you can believe in something that will make you report that you are very happy when someone asks.
"self proclaimed"? Red flag right there. I got as far as 9 seconds in. Atheism is a statement of fact, it is the absence of something. I can no more proclaim that I have the lost treasure of the Siera Mardres than a faith in a God.
I'm not sure what you're going on about. I merely said that to identify that I'm not considering anyone atheist, but rather am speaking to people who self-identify with that label.
@mansal-denton I think you are indeed missing the point. At its core atheism isn't an identity but merely a statement of the lack of a belief. I don't have a Porsche, that doesn't mean I identify as a non Porsche owner
@ I think you’re missing my point: there are many people who don’t have a Porsche, but they think that people who own Porches are stupid/bad/etc and, either directly or more often subconsciously, let them know about it. That’s not all atheists, for sure. But I’m offering it as a question to ask, not an attack on atheists.
I'll give you credit for that these are questions I haven't heard before. They are not minimizing anyone's point of view, just evaluating what is most important - which I appreciate! But to answer your questions: 1. "Would you rather be in love or would you rather be right?" It depends on what we are talking about. I would rather be "in love" when it comes to finding meaning in life and establishing what it is that I value. I agree that there is a "spiritual" aspect of life that is indeed emotional, where the "love" is more important than being right about things. This is why I am not against people having faith in a god (when they can acknowledge that it's just a subjective belief). However, this "love" that you're talking about is VERY different from the pursuit of trying to objectively understand how reality works. Humans are emotional, but not everything in reality is emotional. If we want to truly understand what is factually correct about our reality then we have to investigate that from a non-biased perspective. In that pursuit, "love" is irrelevant. 2. "Is it true or is it useful?" This is a good question, and I can admit that believing in a god does have some benefits. A sense of purpose, a sense of community, etc. I think one of the main reasons why religion has been so prevalent in all of history is because it's something that really appeals to the human psyche. For many people it can absolutely be useful, on an emotional level. Same thing there, this is why I'm not necessarily against people having a subjective belief in a god. But the problem is of course that this is just one side of the coin. I'm sure you are aware of all the negative consequences that comes with organized religion, so I won't go into that. To this point you mentioned that we shouldn't "throw the baby out with the bathwater", that we shouldn't abandon all faith just because of the negative consequences of organized religion. My response to that would be - we don't necessarily have to. I think you misunderstand the atheist perspective here. Atheists are primarily concerned with questioning claims that religious people say are "objectively true". I think for most atheists, it all comes down to just having a healthy dose of scepticism. This does not go against having a subjective belief in a god, it just means that we should minimize irrational thinking (which is never a good thing). TLDR - Truth and rational thinking is always useful. Subjective belief in a god can indeed be useful to many people and is not necessarily irrational. But if you take it one step further and start claiming that it's "objectively true that god exist", then this can be both irrational and harmful.
1. Can we ask this question to every person who is in an abusive or exploitative relationship simply because they want to be in love? 2. If there is no god or higher spiritual being than the reason behind this "usefulness" is because of some other cause. That cause can then be determined and used without an appeal to some spiritual authority. Would you say these famous people that you quoted have found a usefulness from their disbelief? If so usefulness can be found in disbelief.
@@PyroTheInfernal 1. Completely missed my point 2. Plenty of people find their disbelief useful. I’m not saying it’s not impossible - I’m asking if it’s serving YOU. Only you know that.
@@mansal-denton 1. I think you missed my point but I'll try to be more generous. If you are asking can people be civil and just let each other believe (or not believe) what they do and not feel like they need to correct them, then sure. However beliefs dictate actions and those actions can affect others and that is where conflicts arise. If these issues never come up then many people just go about their lives. You may know of people who are atheists but you don't realise because that isn't the defining factor of their personality. As another example you wouldn't have felt the need to make this video in the first place would you? You would have simply left it alone thinking atheists feel confort in their non belief. If you are asking is it OK to let someone believe a falsehood because it makes them feel good then it could depend on the falsehood, as it could actually be causing them harm even if they don't realise it. If you are saying the person feels love and it actually is love then that would be correct and hence clearly a false dichotomy as truth/correctness is in both sides. Unless you are still separating the two in which case I'd say you are trying to poison the well by saying love truth is better than truth devoid of feeling. Being most generous this question is really old in philosophy. It is in some ways a reworking of: "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied" Socrates. 2. Did you actually read my second point, as it had two parts. The second part was obviously tongue-in-cheek to point out that that making "disbelief" into a thing is wrong since it is the lack of something. If most of the non believers are such because of critical thinking and skepticism would you agree that those are useful traits? The first part was questioning the "usefulness" of a spiritual being if the being doesn't exist. If the being does not exist then the usefulness is caused by humans in some way.
@@PyroTheInfernal Thanks for the clarification. Yes, the first point you made is more of what I'm suggesting. I didn't make the video because I have any strong feelings about Atheists. I see militant atheism as just another form of Christianity/Islam with just as much zealotry (again, for those who are zealots, not all). The questions I posed are INTERNAL opportunities for reflection. The first comes from a intimate relationship context. I'm sure you've been in an intimate relationship or a family member and being "right" can get in the way of the harmony between individuals. Obviously there are times when boundaries are needed. That's nuance. These are heuristic questions that are meant for you to apply nuance and answer for yourself. Sorry, I have so many very long comments to respond to, I won't get to each part thoroughly!
Why would I want to be in love with someone that only exists in my own mind? There are people like that around, such as people with crushes on celebrities they've never met. They don't really seem all that happy to me when reality inevitably clashes with their preferred delusion. Also, just because one study correlates being religious with higher self-reported happiness doesn't mean that if I became more religious (which is not something I could do) I'd be more happy, just like eating more chocolate won't make me win a Nobel prize.
Of course, being in love and being right are not necessarily exclusive. My wife is a Christian and I am a fallibilist and an athiest. I can believe that I am right, but can still accept that I and others can be wrong or otherwise mistaken in my understanding of the world and our subsequent beliefs. So if I love someone, there is no difficulty in respecting any differences in our beliefs for the most part. If erroneous belief appears to be leading someone I love into danger or risk, then we need to have a discussion about it and work together to make things better. With regards to Turth versus Utility. About the studies showing that religious people are happier - I am not certain of the statistics but I suspect that individual studies are not going to adequately grasp people's lived experience on a global basis. I would also separate belief in god from willing membership of religion from following a dominant religion. I don't believe there is a god, but I do believe there are religions and that some people find membership of a religion to be beneficial - or at least find themselves avoiding penalties if they do not state that they believe. Religion is not for me - but as a social animal, I can see why belonging to a supportive group of like-minded people can have mental health benefits - albeit sometimes at the cost of relationships to people the religion does not accept.
Ummm that question has nothing to do with religion...unless you formulate it otherwise: Would you rather have blind faith or rationality? Well, since blind faith, regardless whether it is religion-based or based on political ideologies, eventually leads to chaos, I'd choose rationality. Besides love is an emotion and like all emotions it is fleeting and after it you sooner or later have to cultivate it in everyday life and then it turns into negotiations and debating anyways. But maybe if I formulate it otherwise: Would you rather be friendly or right then I would be friendly or at least try to be :)
Q1. You advocate for badgering someone into accepting you are right rather than simply settling for knowing you're right. If someone is not interested in debating what the truth is with you, you ought not try forcing your opinion on them. This applies to atheists as much as it does to believers. However, with believers, they quite often are not interested in understanding why the atheist thinks they are right but *demand* the atheist allow themselves to be preached at, whether they're interested or not, and *demand* the atheist adopt certain patterns of behaviour or practice particular rites even if the atheist has no interest in the behaviours or rites attendant to the religion in question. Q2. It's neither to me. Studies overvalue the role of religion of positive effects and downplay the social elements. Religion or its adherents also may cause detrimental effects to nonbelievers that lowers their peace of mind and wellbeing. When this is the case, it is not valid to show that believers are happier, if the reason for nonbelievers not being happy is the poor behaviour of the believers towards them. If believers ostracise, demonise, and discriminate against nonbelievers, the difference in psychological outcomes has nothing to do with God. When they are the majority, believers may also demand special rights and concessions not afforded to nonbelievers. They enjoy a level of privilege not afforded to others, and when that privilege is challenged, they scream about intolerance and persecution. So in these cases, it's not true, but it is useful, yet for all the wrong reasons.
Q1: I agree it applies to everyone. Q2: Or maybe lack of belief has deeper implications? Doesn't have to be Christian God or any specific thing, can just be higher power
1/ That's not only a false dichotomy, but it also ignores that fact that religious people are overwhelmingly the ones who reject family members who quit the religion. I've yet to hear a story about an atheist family who disowns their kid because he believes in god. To be clear, you can be a loving parent whether you believe or not in god of course, but as I said I've yet to hear about a family that rejects one of their members in the name of atheism. Also you said that faith emphasises "believing in something even without the claim of truth". That's not accurate at all, faith is believing something is true in the absence of proof. 2/ Is religion true or useful ? Well, all major religions make the claim of truth. Their books are the word of God. But I get what you're trying to ask though, and I don't think the question is relevant because you can't force yourself into believing something you don't believe in. Still by the logic you're using, it would be useful for someone to ask their girlfriend to not tell them if she cheats. I absolutely prefer knowing rather than not
In love or be right is a false dichotomy. There might be people that get nearly identical electro-chemical responses to both, but admitting to being wrong is often the first step in learning something. We like others for their strengths, we love others for their faults, for that is what makes them unique. Your love of God is really self love of your idealized self, which is very empty compared to feeling love for a real person over time. The problem with the utility of a lie is what happens when the person learns the truth. You can't realistically expect everyone else to maintain a facade so that others don't have to deal with the truth, and forcing people to participate in the charade tends to not workout well. The study is interesting, but a bit wonky as the authors admit in the limitations section and parts of the data collection notes. i.e. in 2 countries they couldn't ask about belief in god. Asking about specific gods would have been an interesting question too. Are we assuming all 77 countries were believing in the same god? How a particular country treats their theists/atheists has a large effect on a person's feeling of well being.
Just addressing the lie/learning the truth, the best example I can give of what I mean with this question is around victimhood. Does it benefit someone to live their life feeling woe is me they are the victim (even if they have good reason to feel that way), or is it more useful for them to have an empowered perspective. There's no lie here, just a change in their reference.
@@mansal-denton There are people that seem to need feeling woe. As far as I can tell, they get the same electro-chemical response I get being positive about life. Short answer: depends on the person feeling woe. One for you: If leaving people in their current state of ignorant bliss is the best option, then why was it okay for the major religions to evolve into their current state? If we go back far enough, we find they all involve renegotiation of previous cultural norms.
1. If I had to choose, I would choose to be right. Obviously, I hope I don't have to. 2. I go back and forth on this one. I guess I want to think I am interested in the truth, but I am probably actually interested in what's useful. I just don't think religion is either. And, even if you managed to somehow convince me that it is, I can't imagine myself simply believing what I don't think is true. Like, if I told you that people who believe that sky is green experience a higher level of happiness, would you be able to make yourself see sky as green? It sounds impossible.
1. False dichotomy. Love and truth are not oppositional. Is it your contention that love and truth cannot coexist? 2. Again, False Dichotomy. Things are frequently true AND useful. How about this: would you rather believe something that made you feel good or something that is true? I would rather believe things that are true. How do you determine if a thing is true? With GOOD evidence, not feelings.
1. any relationship based on a lie will eventually die. are you really in love with someone who lies to you or are you in love with the image you have in your head about the lying party? for every sensible human being with decent boundaries, being lied to should be a deal breaker. 2. while there is usefulness in accepting a lie as a fact in some cases, it's (probably) only in the context of "fake it 'till you make it". if you're just accepting lies to make yourself feel better, you're essentially using your victim mentality as a coping mechanism. people who are not well off need to cope with their powerlessness so they turn to religion. a lot of european where atheism is widespread also rank high on the happiness scale because they don't need a god project their hopes and dreams onto. and working on the underlying causes instead of offering people placebos imho is the superior course of action
@@mansal-denton Truth is what can demonstrated to comport to everyday reality and experience. Anything that can be tested, repeated, and replicated that aligns with human experience is closest to what we call “truth”
@@mansal-denton Why do you feel a need to spell the word truth with an uppercase t? The short answer to what is truth is that truth is what comports with reality.
@ I’d consider that more factual than truth. There is no science/math etc that can make a leap to not kill your neighbor (example). I’m not saying Christianity or other religions are needed to come to that realization, but it’s outside the materialist scope.
You state that Dawkins and O'Connor have made 'careers out of debunking Christianity'. For Dawkins, a resounding no. Look at his published works. He's an evolutionary biologist. However I agree with you about the other guy, he ought to get a job and do something useful.
The fin't rst question doesn't make sense in religious terms. The question is not do I love or hate god... but do I have a valid reason to believe in god. And... if I did... which one? If the Christian god... which of the THOUSANDS of denominations should I join? 2nd Question... I am an ex-Christian... and I don't feel that being a member of the faith aided my well-being. If anything, I felt guilt and shame for thinking about sex among other things, or the notion that some invisible sky being was reading my thoughts and judging me. I feel so much better having left it behind.
The first is less about religious terms/love or hate god. More about the people/relationships in your life. However, I'm glad you feel better getting out of what was a toxic dynamic for you.
Rather than "right or in love", why not "smart and emotional"? Both of those are rational experiences. And "Is it true or useful?"...Why must those two things exclude each other? Personally, if something isn't true, I don't find it useful. I like being right, while being open to being proven wrong. I love truth. It's an incredibly useful way to live.
They don't have to exclude each other, but if I orient myself towards what is useful, it's a different way of relating. And there are certain times when it is 100% not the same thing. For example: victimization. Does a victim really benefit from the truth that they have been a victim? Or do they benefit from not seeing and identifying with that label?
A preference for pragmatic justification doesn't exclude epistemic justification. So, one need not choose between them. It's possible to respect a balance of the two without sacrificing intellectual honesty. Relationships are important, but so are justified true beliefs. Sacrificing a healthy relationship for a feeling of intellectual superiority is just as irrational as sacrificing one's principles to maintain an unhealthy relationship. One's decision depends on the relationship and the importance of the ideals/principles in question. I've done both. I've restrained my drive to believe more true things than false things about our shared reality to make room for important relationships in which that drive was not shared, and I've ended unhealthy relationships that required me to choose between that person and my values. It's part of being a member of a social species.
It is perfectly possible to be in love and to be right. It is also possible to be in love and be wrong. If it is true it is useful. If it is not true it is not useful.
@@MilesDavisKDAB would you say there is no such thing as God (in Christian terms)? If so, would it still be useful to know about it given 2.4 billion people consider themselves Christian worldwide? Just an example of how your logic around true/useful may not be fully accurate.
@@mansal-denton It is true that people believe in God(s) so yes it is useful to know that people believe this. It is not true that God(s) exist & so it is not useful to "know" that God(s) exist, it is useful to know that God(s) do not exist.
Q1 Is just a silly question which has no binary answer, Q2 Is also a silly question. There two questions are irrelevant to any argument posed by someone who things they are clever. Q1 Is it better to believe in something in the absence of evidence or in something that is proven? Q2 Would you rather be deaf or blind and if someone choses differently to you are they wrong?
Question 1: This makes no sense and has no meaning but here we go. What will I be wrong about? What is the type of love with a person? Sometimes a are hard truth is better than getting a hug. Question 2: Again not a good question. You really have a knack for not making sense. So the me try to answer this question to the best of my understanding. I am happier as an atheist then I was as a believer. Can you watch this video again and make a follow up where you actually say what you mean.
Richard Dawkins did not make a career out of being an atheist: he is a biologist, widely respected in the scientific community and a distinguished academic and author. Likewise Alex O'Connor is a researcher and commentator on philosophy and theology, not some UA-cam jock making himself famous for controversial opinions. Alex has had many thougtful and well-presented dialogues with philosophers and relgious apologists and is widely respected for his penetrating insight into religious issues.
Question number one: neither of them. Being in love cost a lot of energy, I’m too old for that. Being right isn’t important. And not a good experience for the other person. Question two: this is not a rational question. When you don’t belief in a god, you can’t choose to start believing because it’s so healthy.
No, as I said in the video, this can apply to theists and it OFTEN does. Because of the inherent "faith" nature of Christianity, in the west it CAN come with a bit more humility (i.e: "I don't KNOW there is a Christian God, I have faith in it without full knowledge"), but obviously not always. And there are plenty of humble atheists too, to whom this is not directed.
With the limitations of your two options, I would rather be right. I would want to know if I were right before committing. Finding what is true and right gives the ability to aid others and feel better in oneself. Easy. Next question Your question asks if dishonesty is better than truth. If religion is the topic, I would want to know if it were true, particularly because of the amount of harm religion has caused and is causing around the world.
Did this beautiful surveys covered those who ended up very dead due to their lovely faith? Religion is a FA process. Unfortunately, dead people are often bad with FO part.
The fact that humans are happier with meaning doesn't really say anything about the reality of a wider meaning to me. People need some kind of larger project to avoid going completely neurotic, but it can be any number of things, religious or secular. You seem to be making a kind of "useful fiction" argument, which I can get onboard with. Whatever gets you thru the night I say
@@bassbird transcendent seems to be the key, but I agree it can be secular. Yoga as a practice doesn’t necessarily have a religion attached and can be a transcendent practice.
I have no problem with your statement. I only have problems with claims that certain books, Bible, Quran etc are the words of God. These books were obviously written by humans parts of which are useful and other parts being either silly or just plain bad.
I've said this before, but I'll clarify again for you: It is only fair for those who claim the label themselves. I cannot project that label onto someone as labels are often used to falsely disparage someone. For example, if someone is drinking alcohol and it is affecting their life, it would not be kind for me to call them "alcoholic". However, if they claim they are alcoholic themselves, then I can speak to those people who identify that way/with that affliction. It was a statement made for the intention of consent and respect, not condescension.
I agree that being right is overrated. Alienating someone over religion or politics is to misunderstand what things give our lives meaning and purpose. By invoking "something greater than yourself" you invite the crucial question - does the supernatural actually exist? I propose a hypothesis: if one does not believe the supernatural exists, then the supernatural can never affect you. Thoughts?
@@tarp-grommet Good thoughts! The absence of something does matter. For example, if someone doesn’t have legs, they may not know exactly how having legs feel, but one could see how having legs impacts others, right? FYI - this is all food for thought, not meant to judge anyone’s beliefs (except those judging others’) 😅
@@matswessling6600 Being right is underrated only so long as one avoids claiming their opinions are facts. A statement like "I know for a fact that the Christian god is the only true god" is a good example. Religious preaching is generally presented as factual.
Answer to question 1: Love is a sensation we experience within the reward circuit of our brain due to increases in dopamine and cortisol from extreme pleasure. We can experience the same or similar sensation when we believe we're right about something. Being in love and being right about something are not mutually exclusive. People can feel like they're in love and it feels right, because it's the same chemicals surging through their neurons. Answer to question 2: Neurobiology teaches us that circumstances we experience in our natural environment can put stresses on our neurobiological health. Our brains will fight, even believe a lie, in order to relieve those stresses. Not knowing something creates chemical stresses within our neurological state. Religion provides a vent to relieve those stresses from all of the unknown environmental circumstances that each individual experiences throughout their lives. For instance, our sun is the single source of energy within our solar system that brings forth, supports, and terminates our existence, et al species, and can set heaven and earth on fire with just a single CME. Most people are psychologically tormented at the thought of accepting that a non intelligent source moderates life and death. So, the answer to question two is, it is useful for some individuals to believe they have a spiritual connection to a higher power. Believing something however, does not provide evidence for it being true. For most people, that results in knowing less and believing more.
Would you consider a Catholic priest who gives him his life in a Nazi camp for a Jew to survive "love"? To me, it sounds like love of humanity (or selflessness). And I'm curious what you think instigates that in someone.
@@mansal-denton label it love or any value that gives you a good feeling. There is an infinite possible range of characters that come into existence. It would therefore be expected that some would give their lives for others, as we see apparent throughout our history. For a soldier, that value is honor.
@@mansal-denton The same feeling you get from love and belonging to groups. The same chemicals in variation of quantities and frequencies. There is a variation in everything and everything is an individually determined value.
Good questions. Sensible and meaningful to nearly everyone. After giving them some thought, I would like to post what I came up with.
"Would you rather be in love, or would you rather be right?" While it's not always an either/or situation (I can be both right and in love) this is a good reminder to be generous with how we treat others, including others who do not agree with us on some topic or another. As a secular humanist, I have a desire for humans to have loving and kind relationships with one another whenever that is possible. Next, I tried to imagine an either/or situation where I would have to make a choice to be in love or to be right. I'm not sure I can think of one. If I love someone, I do not stop being in love with them even if I am convinced I am right about something. I simply let it drop, because I can only point out where I believe another has made an error, I cannot force them to see it.
"Is it true, or is it useful?" Again, not a true dichotomy, and I have in many cases found true things to be more useful than comforting fictions. I find this question is good to remind me that I have beliefs in greater goals than myself, and those beliefs also give my life meaning. Such as my belief that it is logically better for my life to be kind and helpful when I am able. A world where most people are kind and helpful to a degree that they are comfortably able is one where more humans (and probably more animals of other types) will have greater peace and security. And that's the kind of world I want to share.
@@rodshop5897 thank you for the thoughtful response! As for your first answer, I perceive that as choosing love. Dropping it so you can remain in love and harmony
Thanks for sharing and inhabiting that consciousness 🙏🏽🥰
@@mansal-denton Thanks for your polite replies, particularly in the face of some of what I have read in other comments to your channel. I saw in one of your comments that you said that what you meant in the first question was more about whether to build one's own pride or to build one's own relationships. That is a good way to look at it. I try to build relationships, but sometimes I fall into the trap of building my own pride.
@ don’t we all. These are questions I have to ask MYSELF , not just invite others 👌🏽
@@mansal-denton Indeed, we don't grow without self-reflection.
Would you rather be in love or right, Is a non equator, being in love has nothing to with an answer to a question, again another ignoramus refusing to join reality.
As an atheist, I have more love for humanity than most theists I have met.
i have met only half a dozen christians and they have all been really horrible human beings....maybe I was just unlucky but to be a Christian you have to be ok with your fellow human beings being tortured for eternity.....that takes a sick person to be ok with that....
Although I'm not sure what that definition is, I don't doubt it. Keep it up
@@mansal-denton dont think i have ever heard atheists say fellow humans should be tortured for eternity for a finite crime...
Facts!!
How does that manifest in the real world exactly?
I am a "hardcore" atheist and an adult. I need evidence not faith. These questions are ridiculous.
@@prickly-x7o cool. Sounds like you’re doing great without them then 👌🏽😆
🔥Athiesm doesn't exist! Athiests didn't design their own psychology, therefore, it makes sense they don't understand their own psycology! Every human MUST understand 'existence is good', by FAITH alone, on a deep deep subconscious level, otherwise extinction. In fact, all life on Earth is motivated by this fundamental concept. There is indeed a 'greater good' at work, and all life adheres to it, including human beings! Moral truth exists! Jesus is the light 🔥🔥😇😇🙏🏼🙏🏼✝✝👼🏼👼🏼
🔥Athiesm doesn't exist! Athiests didn't design their own psychology, therefore, it makes sense they don't understand their own psycology! Every human MUST understand 'existence is good', by FAITH alone, on a deep deep subconscious level, otherwise extinction. In fact, all life on Earth is motivated by this fundamental concept. There is indeed a 'greater good' at work, and all life adheres to it, including human beings! Moral truth exists! Jesus is the light 🔥🔥😇😇🙏🏼🙏🏼✝✝👼🏼👼🏼
@@mansal-denton - Your emojis make you look somewhat insecure.
there is more chance of me kicking sh*t to the moon than there is of there being a god......
"Would you rather be right or be in love." There are thousands of years of theists deciding that their version of god/gods require them to prove with violence that they are right.
They are certainly not right, then.
I specifically say in the video that this applies also to theists.
@@mansal-dentonyeah but that theist thing is your "I'm just the guy in the middle trying to find common ground" as you repeatedly try to push your theistic veiw on to others. At no point in these questions does it even let a qualifier for atheists. Your whole arguement is geared towards a "theists are more than likely right" point. I mean you played two partial clips of atheists responding to the theist points the first of which you didn't get. Alex was measly addressing the point we have all heard at some point from theists which is "Even if you don't believe in god religion is beneficial for humanity because x,y,z excuse" which is exactly what you are doing with your stupid questions. Basically a asking "wouldn't it be better to not challenge theists because being right is not that important" while at the Sametime it is ok to allow the other person to think they are right.
Then your next point is even if they aren't right let me go back to the first point Alex made and put up this claim that religion makes life better just because said study"
Both your question push this "Shut up atheists" framework. While proven your points are wrong. Just because a thing is beneficial doesn't mean it is. And of course religious people are gonna claim they are happier in the sameway religious people cry for weeks after a love one dies even though they really believe that person is in heaven and is happy. Your religious belief has brought more sorrow into the world because you true a blind eye to everything else.
You know how many poor people are suffering because of your religion and yet they will tell you they are happy. They are happy because they believe God is making them suffer because he intends to benefit them at some point. A lie told to them so they will continue to give money to the churches, so they will not do stuff that will better themselves. All thse mega church filled with people claiming to be happy because they delude themselves into believing they are happy yet they lash out at everyone around them and seethe in their anger. Which is why it is so easy to get them to hate LGTBQ, liberals, Muslims, and any other group of people especially other demonization of their own religion.
@@mansal-denton Then why do self-proclaimed theists like you continue to support theistic lies? You support these lies adamantly in this video, so do you consider yourself a self-proclaimed liar as well? You should, and you should start every video you make admitting it, so people will know to steer clear or your idiocy.
Using your emotions to define reality and determine truth is stupid.
Lies are useful? Living in ignorance is helpful?
"Religious people are happier" - Tell THAT to all the homeless people starving to death in those countries with religion being the primary cause of the social construct leading to that situation.
Ahhh, the old "because it FEELS good" BS!!!
Why is it stupid? We are primarily oriented towards our emotions. Your comment is a perfect example. Indignation and anger because of the suffering of the dispossessed - that's a good thing. The question is, what does your emotions about these homeless people help you to do?
Do you work with these people in any way? Why or why not?
@@mansal-denton LOL!
@@philipgrobler7253 hmm. I hope that’s not your way of saying you’re a keyboard warrior for the homeless but don’t actually do anything to support them. 👀
@@mansal-denton You know nothing about the people who respond to you. So don't pretend that you do!
@mansal-denton just another grifteeeeer, praying on the naive and vulneraaaableeeeee (sing it as a church choral). There isn't a single grain of evidence for a diety in the entire history of the universe, neither is there a need for it, everything works just the same once we stop imagining BS. If religion has never existed, the only consequence might be that we are more advanced, compasionate and united as a global society.
"I drive a 1981 Porsche 911!"
"Oh really? Prove it to me!"
"Come on outside, look over there - that's mine! Here is the key ... wanna take a ride?"
"My girlfriend is absolutely gorgeous!"
"Oh really? Prove it to me!"
"Honey, could you please come over here? This is John ..."
"My god is sooo great, and he totally exists!"
"Oh really? Prove it to me!"
"Err ... uhm ... would you rather be right or in love?"
Funny how theists always have to evade and distract.
The irony that these questions, which are intended to provide a frame for self-reflection, are seen by you as a desire to convert or prove something to be true.
I don't care what you believe and I clearly state this is as valuable for theists as atheists.
But you, in addition to the majority of these comments, are refuting statements that are not present. It's more a reflection of the trauma many (maybe you?) have felt as a result of Christianity/theism than anything, which is a sad state of affairs. :(
@@mansal-denton You exclusively directed these questions to atheists. The very first word of the video title is ...?
@ correct. And I also mentioned that it’s applicable to theists as well.
@@mansal-denton You did. But then, why the misleading title?
@@GuroUlm It's not misleading, it's just directed at one group. It's like saying "Women why are you so angry at men?" and then having a ton of women in the comments complaining about how men are also angry at women.
Of course they are. But you're missing the point and wasting energy thinking about unuseful/defensive things.
Both questions are false dichotomies. Being in love and being right are not mutually exclusive, nor are rationality and utility. Also, atheism is not about being right, it's simply about not believing the narrative of there being a higher power for which there is no evidence. Outsourcing responsibility for what happens to a higher power is less useful than accepting responsibility and trying to make the world a better place. You can connect and act benevolently towards other humans and the world around without the promise of an afterlife, just do it because you want to live in a better world. But I would say to anyone who only restrains themselves from doing harm because of a fear of a god, then keep believing.
Sometimes they are false dichotomies, but not always. And those times when they are not is where you have to answer it for yourself.
It's an invitation, not an attack.
My question would be: why do you want to make the world a better place?
I genuinely don't believe it has to be God, but I'm curious.
@@mansal-denton It's about mutualism. I want to make the world a better place because I live in it and I have a son and other family members who live in it. If my community is functional, happy and healthy then I'm more likely to enjoy living in it. Theism / atheism is irrelevant in this regard.
@@mansal-denton can you give an example of when they might not be a false dichotomy?
@@xenontouchstone I’m in an argument with my wife. She claims I didn’t tell her something. If there were a video of evidence of our conversation, I might be vindicated as factually “right”. But in the process of forcing her to see that, I’m realizing that (assuming it’s not a boundary that can’t be crossed), who was right in this instance is less important than love and harmony in the context of my marriage.
This becomes applicable almost exclusively to atheists (or theists) who feel the need to push their views of reality or truth on others.
@@mansal-denton so you are saying to ;love someone you must always avoid pointing out any mistakes they make?
Atheist here.
"Would you rather be in love, or would you rather be right?"
To start, you phrase this as if these two hings are mutually exclusive. They are not. It is absolutly possible to be in love and be right. Furthermore, no one chooses to be in love or to be right. You either are in love or not and you either are right or not. We can't chose our emotions. In the same vein a statement either comports with reality (and thus is right) or it doesn't (and thus is wrong). Wether or not we want/wish the statement to comport with reality is irrelevant. Reality doesn't change to comport with our wishes.
But the real question you are trying to mask asking is: Would you believe (or at least act like you believe) in an untruth for the sake of maintaining a relationship?
My anwser here is: I don't care what people believe. I care about how people act. If their action isn't harmful to themselve and/or others i'm happy to let them act how they please. In your hypothetical i wouldn't care if my religious loved one prays five times a day, but i'd put my foot down if she wanted to have our sons genitals mutilated. Not because her religious beliefs are wrong but because that action is harmful to our son. That is not a question of being in love or being right, it's a question of wether or not there is harm done.
"is it true, or is it useful"
Same thing again, these two things are not mutually exclusive why are you framing them like they are? Furthermore, the usefulness of a statement is directly proportional to how truthful it is. The more truthful, the more useful. That is not to say that a false statement cannot lead to a good outcome. Saying to people "don't drink dirty water because the dirty water demons will make you sick" is useful. But it's useful because it approximates the true reason why drinking dirty water will make you sick (the bacteria, dirt and miscellaneous disease vectors) and it's not as useful as the statement "don't drink dirty water because it contains bacteria, dirt and miscellaneous disease vectors that will make you sick".
Q1. I'd rather be both.
Q2. It might be better for wellbeing, but that doesn't mean religion is true.
It's not better for wellbeing.
How can something be better for your wellbeing if it is not, in some way, true?
Like, Dawkins did a documentary where he asked why people were flocking to homeopathy doctors, even if homeopathy is giga-level debunked. Turns out homeopathy doctors regularly spend a lot of time with patients, in comforting surroundings, and make them feel listened to. So the people who were wrong about their central premise were nonetheless doing _something_ so right that people preferred them to evidence-based medicine. Now, what if doctors and hospitals learned from that, instead of just dismissing homeopathy 100%? Take the 5% that works better?
"Would you rather be right or in love?" That entirely depends on if I'm _actually_ right or if I _feel_ like I'm right. I honestly don't know how to answer this, because in my case, one led to the other. By exhaustively committing myself to truth, and making that my highest goal, I found a path to a constantly-delightful love.
If you mean, 'If you are right, would you rather hold to that if it would make people upset', then absolutely I would. In my experience, if someone needs you to lie to them, or validate their lies, that's not a relationship I want to be in.
That 'love or right' question is the best argument AGAINST religion I have heard from a theist. We are to believe because it makes others around us happy, even if it is a lie?
@@nickymatthews3491 the fact you think I’m a theist betrays your view of reality. 🤣
Hey God - hold a press conference, your people are confused.
Atheists: Not known for your zingers. Try harder!❤❤❤
@@kevinwhelan9607 It is really a very simple request , show some proof. An all knowing and doing god cannot prove that he-she-it exists. Proving is not part of the plan, so convenient it is comical.
Im dumber having watched this.
Or for having commented this.
@mansal-denton thanks for pointing out the proof. I didn't even realize how profoundly dumb your crap made me. I'll bet you know how that is.
@@mansal-denton Aron Ra just posted about your nonsense. Try and delete that lol.
@@mansal-denton says the coward and liar who deletes comments.
Demands to believe the impossible never lead to peaceful outcomes.
@@jacekmarczyk4436 how do you know it’s impossible?
@@mansal-denton ua-cam.com/video/gj_JydRfaEM/v-deo.htmlsi=KgqPp2sAqBK83L78
@@mansal-denton Based on our understanding of nature and the universe it appears to be impossible.
I agree it is way more intellectually and emotionally comfortable to believe in a god than to live life without one. In the same token, it is more comfortable to live with your eyes closed and choose to believe that the world is the way you would like it to be. But you don't choose to be an atheist. You become one because this is what makes sense when you stop deluding yourself about life. Truth is always more valuable than intellectual comfort.
@@pezeron24 have you ever felt transcendent at all?
@@mansal-denton oohh! i love answering this as an atheist. i was raised catholic. i was an alter boy. the rituals filled me with peace and tranquility as a child. i joined the choir and felt the joyous surge of god and love as i sung in harmony with my fellows. despite amazing grace being the popular one my favorite was lord of the dance.
i've also felt the transcendent beauty of a sunset. the majesty of seeing a whale. the thrill of bungee jumping.
god not required
@@mansal-dentonyes i felt Krishna inside me every day of my life for 40 years, i bet you heard this before but your god is fake and bonkers, and believing in something without evidence is delusional, but Krishna is a god you can see and hear! You just need to meditate and you'll gain "god sense" and be able to!
Bet the existence of stuff like this is a huge pebble in your shoe that you just try to ignore. If the evidence that convinces you whatever god is real was enough for you, you'd absolutely be convinced by hindus if they got you first, they are older, got way more quantity of the kinds of evidence you accept for your religion, got a whole library of holy books...
Why not a hindu? Why not a muslin(if you are, change this for christian)? Why can you say 2 billion muslins(or like 3 billion christians) are absolutely and objectively wrong without ever listening to their side? But i supposedly can't dismiss your experience... You can dismiss the like 6 billion experiences that aren't your religion, guessing you're part of one of the big ones, specially all the billions that claim to have seen god face to face and it wasn't yours, but you'll leap in the air with excitement to tell us about a survey that said like 10k people in your country claim to have seen your god
You realize the special pleading right? For your religion, a smidge of evidence will be more than enough for you to keep being a yes man, for any other, or anything you don't already believe, you demand oceans of evidence and deny the existence of most of it even after you're presented it, this is an effort to only believe what you already believe, to not change, not grow as a person.
@@mfsebcw where in all of those things do you feel close to the transcendent? I’m curious how you describe them without god/higher power.
@mansal-denton i felt it. That is how you experience transcendence. It is felt. Are you going to assert i felt nothing back then just because im an atheist now?
Do you honestly think you will make any progress in an argument if you start off challenging a persons internal perceptions?
But then again, you started your video with "so called atheists" as if you could read everyones mind. So maybe you are going to argue that i did not feel transcendent emotions during religious rituals.
Why is it that just by looking at some people, the word stupid just jumps to the forefront of one's mind, and as soon as they open their mouths, they confirm your suspicions?
@@philipgrobler7253 You are a great representative of kindness and compassion for the atheist community.
@@mansal-denton And you're a great example of honesty, instantly deleting my comment.
ZERO respect for you liar for Jesus!
So, basically you are afraid to be without a god. Poor baby! That is what your questions reveal.
How audacious to even think that we atheists need to ask ourselves questions...!! We're sorted, happy, in love, sometimes right, sometimes wrong but we know and accept that. He also wins the prize for the false deep voice effected way of talking which psychiatrists suggest it's a way of demonstrating authority and being right. It's endemic in the US sadly.
"How audacious to even think that we atheists need to ask ourselves questions...!!"
Incredible. Yes, self-reflection is to be avoided at all costs. 🤣
Maybe in the US, male voices are just deeper than in France. 🤷🏻♂
Who else would proclaim they are an atheist but an atheist?
I could proclaim that they are an atheist when they are not. Plenty of Christians do that lol
@@mansal-denton That's not proclaiming you are an atheist.
These questions are gonna be stoopid, aren't they? Oh, well, here goes nothing...
1: I don't understand the "you just want to be right" non sense. What? People using that line just want to be WRONG?? What you maybe really mean is: "Would you rather keep your loved one around or win an argument when you are wrong?" Surely you're not suggesting letting someone hold the relationship as a gun to your head when THEY are wrong? "Pretend that I am right or I'll leave"? Imagine someone takes one of your possessions, claiming that it's really theirs, and they defend themselves with "would you rather be right or my friend"? What kind of friend is that? What kind of relationship is that? Is it religious people trying to get me into their religion by this stratagem, or is it some god who is trying it? Whatever is going on here, I expect, or even demand, more seriousness around the issue.
2: That study seems odd, since Scandinavian countries are reported as having least religiosity AND most happiness. And I'm sure I've seen other problems with such studies, but, even if it really is the case that other people benefit from religion, that doesn't mean that the same applies to me. I paid close attention to more than a thousand sermons during my formative years and the unreality and the uselessness of it all made me more and more miserable. Acquiring more and more knowledge about religion and just how unfounded the claims are (I don't think there is a single doubt I had that hasn't been resoundingly justified by scholarly work) and what reality really is like has been very helpful to me.
@@stephannaro2113 there is a more in-depth study by pew research that concludes we can't really say who has it better off. :D
@@DeconvertedMan That actually sounds most reasonable.
- right, love based on a lie is not love, it's just a lie. That's why you want to know if your girl cheated on you and you are not going to thank her for not telling you if you find out she did.
- what isn't true isn't usefull for anyone but the people who keep sharing the lie to control you
@@stefanogandino9192 if it’s a lie, you have to convince me it’s a lie. But nobody can convince anyone with full confidence about higher power. But the binary perspective is common among most zealots regardless of theology.
@mansal-denton no? If it's a lie it's a lie regardless if you believe it or not. Also that's not how science works, science is "convince me something is true, not something isn't". Theists will never get this right i guess.
For instance, you are supposed to prove a unicorn exists, not to prove it doesn't exists since it's impossible to prove the non existance of something. But believing in unicorn is still believing in a lie, regardless you believe on them on not, because noone was ever able to prove unicorns exist.
My first answer is not showing, guess some weird youtube bullshit so i'll write it again
"No? A lie is a lie regardless if you believe in it or not. Also you are supposed to prove that something exists, not that something doesn't. Theists will never get this right i guess".
@@stefanogandino9192 this is actually a perfect example. Would you lose a friend or push someone away because they believe in a unicorn and you don’t? What if they aligned with interests for everything else in life? I don’t really care if they believe in unicorns so long as they’re a virtuous person.
So, you know god isn't real but would rather be "in love" with a fictional character than "right" about what's real?
Most of the work is done then, it'll get boring quick, specially once you fall in love (any kind of love) with a real person
I rather be right than happy any day of my life.
Why?
@@AlexReynard
1. Inception the movie where Leonardo says we were having fun but knowing it was all not real.
2. Nelly- I was thinking bout her, thinkin' bout me Thinkin' bout us, what we gon' be Open my eyes yeah, it was only Just A Dream
That's why.
Many religious apologists always start with straw manning atheism. I don't think most of them even know what atheism really is. They may get the face value definition right, but these types of questions show a deep-rooted ignorance that's prevalent and oftentimes regurgitated ad nauseam. Even 1,000 years from now, it seems like we'll be hearing the same nonsense from religious apologetics. It just never ends..
The irony is that you immediately think I have a position with my questions. They're just invitations. I don't adhere to nor do I believe religions are "good" at face value.
The reactionary nature of 80%+ of comments proves how defensive many atheists are about their positions (likely due to how strongly theists have tried to push their beliefs throughout history!)
@mansal-denton i am addressing the case in general, i couldn't care less what the uploader thinks. The majority of theists r the ones i address, not some random people on UA-cam
Your questions don’t seem authentic to me. They feel just a little too ambiguous and rhetorical- especially that first one. It literally sounds like you’re carefully engineering this, so that you can intellectually trap nonbelievers.
To be in love or to be right? Why does it have to be one or the other?
For one, most atheists are NOT trying to be RIGHT about god. We simply don’t believe in any gods. I don’t try to shove my views down anyone’s throat. I’m so sick of theists generalizing atheists in this way, because it’s not accurate.
And as far as religious people being happier- that depends. Isn’t it interesting that the most peaceful countries in the world are largely secular, and most devout religious cultures are the most violent?
Being religious may bring happiness because there is much community support in religion - but it’s when one starts to question god and religion, they start to feel uneasy and which causes more anxiety and fear.
So sure, religion brings happiness until it doesn’t. If you’re happy living in that bubble, great. I’m not.
I’m WAY happier as an atheist.
@@patrickwoods2213 I agree it’s not all atheists. This is for the ones who are clearly trying to prove a point (and I add that religious zealots are the same). It’s zealotry I’m after.
The first question is taken from intimate relationships. It has weight if you want good relationships with people of differing views. How many people who believe in a Christian / Muslim God do you have? If many, great! You’re on the right track.
I just referenced a study and most studies indicate population wide, belief in higher power translates to better wellbeing.
Regarding secular countries: they are also mostly western and Christian for thousands of years. It’s hard to parse what is what. Beyond that, anxiety / depression / suicide / loneliness is at an all time high so I don’t know if general wellbeing is the best it could be.
I don’t really see how question 1 is a question “for atheists” as it is just so darn general. It can apply to anyONE and anyTHING. It could be an atheist friend arguing with a Muslim friend about God, a Catholic and Methodist arguing about Christian doctrine, or a Christian spouse and atheist spouse arguing about leaving the toilet seat up. Edit: Also, the best form of love can move past these arguments.
I think it’s an honest question, but the fact it’s directed at atheists seems disingenuous.
@ I agree it can be directed at anyone. In my experience, because i am in the secular west, most religious people acknowledge they cannot prove something and a certain amount of faith is required. However, atheists (some not all, obviously) can get into a pattern of feeling as though they know because scientism is often less faith-based. Hence, my directing it at (some) atheists
@ I may be able to agree with most of what you say, but it still leaves me wondering why you’re directing this at atheists.
Even though the west is regarded as mostly secular, it’s still filled with people of all sorts of different religions. For example, I actually love a lot of of the aspects and themes of the Christmas story that comes around every year. But I’m left having to bite my tongue when people talk about some of these events (many of them actually not even supported by the Bible) as if they are actual historical events on the level of events of World War II.
Similarly, theists (some not all, obviously) can get into a pattern of feeling as though they know because of their holy scriptures, gut instinct, revelatory experiences, etc.
@ I 1000% agree with you. The difference that I’ve found is that (today in the west - big caveats), it does seem that faith comes with an element of doubt. As in, it’s called faith because we do not know for sure. In contrast, there seems an easier time for some atheists to believe they know for sure.
But I mention and do believe this can 100% be addressed to anyone who is a bit zealous.
These are the most ridiculous false dichotomies I've heard yet.
Ladies and gentlemen: your brain on religion.
For me it’s not even a dichotomy. It’s like asking me if I want to be dry or out of the rain if you find me in a storm.
Right or in love? Not related… but if you love me and think I’m wrong… just correct me, if you don’t I will start doubting that you actually love me.
"Self-proclaimed"? bud, everyone's position on anything is "self-proclaimed". Your theism is "self-proclaimed". What are you even talking about?
@@v0Xx60 I’m not a theist but in any case, it’s meant to denote that I’m not calling anyone this - it applies to those who claim the categorization
@@mansal-denton You realize that term refers to people who give themselves titles without any proof or reason that would cause others to agree? It's typically meant derisively. A "self-proclaimed" expert is implied to not be an expert at all. It's similar to saying "so-called'. Considering the standard Christian position is that atheists actually believe and are just lying to themselves, you can understand how using such a turn of phrase comes off as sarcasm to any atheist in the audience, right? You're implying their atheism is disingenuous.
@@mansal-denton You do realize the term is meant derisively right? A "self-proclaimed" expert is implied to not be an expert at all. You're implying that people's atheism is disingenuous.
1. Right. I'm sorry I can't be in love with a person I fundamentally disagree with. It is not so much that I want to be right as that I don't want to remain wrong. If you love me, correct me. If you don't try to leave me, I have people who will.
2. Correct. Sorry, I don’t believe anything can be useful and false. I also don’t think I was ever really happy as a Christian. All the unsaved going to Hell and deserving it was just devastating to my mental health, still is, never won’t be. I wish I was never Christian. I am a worse person for having been.
Two questions, huh? OK, let's hear them...
_1) "Would you rather be in love or would you rather be right?"_
Huh? Wow, that's weird! But right about *what?* What are you actually asking here? Would I rather be right about being in love? Sure,... I suppose.
Obviously, I'd rather be both. I've been in love before, and I've been right before - often at the same time. They're just... normal, aren't they? But I don't see a connection between those two things.
And why would you ask _atheists_ a question like this? I don't see a connection between that question and gods - no connection at all. When it comes to this question, what difference would it make if you believed in a god or you didn't?
_2) "Is it true or is it useful"_
To believe in a god? Neither one, as far as I can tell. In general, the most religious places on Earth are the worse places to live by almost any metric. Meanwhile, the _least_ religious places tend to be much better places to live. Just google the "most religious countries on Earth" and the "least religious countries on Earth."
I'm sure that's not universal, but it certainly seems to be a general pattern, doesn't it? The most religious countries on Earth tend to be _terrible_ places to live. And here in America, at least, faith-based thinking is destroying my country and my world. So it certainly doesn't seem _useful._
And I'm an atheist, so I obviously see no reason to think that any religion is actually _true_ - at least, that no god is real. _By definition,_ an atheist doesn't believe in a god or gods. Now, personally, I think that the truth _is_ useful. So I'm going to pick the truth, anyway. But in this particular case, I don't think that faith-based thinking is useful at all.
What _is_ useful is socializing with a community of like-minded people. But you don't need religion for that. And I'd rather socialize with people who care about the truth _anyway._
@@Bill_Garthright first, I appreciate you actually taking the questions seriously :)
For many people, being “right” (about their being no god) usually comes at the expense of being in connection or relation with others. Not all atheists are this way, but some certainly are.
All the countries you’re talking about are built on Judeo-Christian values. We can argue if secular values could come to the place they are without the religion, but the truth remains that for the majority of the history of those countries, they have been (predominantly) Christian. Beyond that, looking population-wide, belief in a higher power is universally correlated with better health/wellbeing outcomes. Not the be all for everyone, but it is good to consider.
@@mansal-denton
_"For many people, being “right” (about their being no god) usually comes at the expense of being in connection or relation with others."_
Yeah? And why would that be? It would only be because religious people in their own families disown them - or even try to murder them in Muslim countries - right? After all, nothing about not believing in a god makes the slightest difference to our relations to others, _except_ when religious people freak out about people disagreeing with them.
I've been surrounded by Christians all my life. My family was Christian. My friends are Christian. No problem "being in connection or relation with others." So maybe it's just _you?_
After all, I've never heard of an atheist family throwing a kid out of the house because they became religious. I've never heard of an atheist demanding a divorce - and that their spouse be prevented from any contact with their children - because that spouse became religious. It's always been the other way around.
This isn't a problem with atheism. It's a problem with theism - not _all_ theists, of course, but when there's a problem, it's with theists, not atheists.
_"All the countries you’re talking about are built on Judeo-Christian values."_
Don't be silly. The Dark Ages were built on "Judeo-Christian values." And try telling that to the Jews who were persecuted for _centuries._ No, modern countries with freedom of speech and freedom of religion - something not found in religious texts - were built on the values of the Enlightenment, rejecting the dogma of their blood-soaked past.
_"belief in a higher power is universally correlated with better health/wellbeing outcomes."_
That's all you've got? Believing in a god makes you feel better? *Not* that a god actually exists?
As far as I can tell, theists are often _desperate_ to find arguments like that, because they have nothing else. They have no good evidence that their religious beliefs are actually _true,_ so they often try some "argument from consequences" logical fallacy that it's useful.
Hey, I'm not even going to question your claim. I'm not going to ask you for evidence that it's true - or what, exactly, is being measured by whatever study you're referencing (if you're even referencing a study at all). Because I don't _care_ about any of that. I care if your religious beliefs are _true,_ not if it makes you feel good to believe them.
PS. BTW, note that prayer has *not* been found to affect health outcomes. Because that _has_ been rigorously studied (by the Templeton Foundation, a Christian organization which has spent a ton of money on stuff like this).
@@mansal-denton Countries based on Judeo - Christian values?
So there was no morality before Christianity and Judaism?
Do you even realize what you’re saying?
@@mansal-denton I mean, I would turn around and say, For some people being right (about there being a god, and specifically their god) comes at the expense of being in connection or relation with others. Not all theists are this way but some certainly are...
And, I'd wager, there are more theists who do this than atheists. To give an example: One of my friends comes from a muslim family. He does not believe in Islam. When he said so to his parents, he was physically and verbally abused for being a "Kafir" and an apostate.
Now, it also matters where you put the blame. You could say it was his fault for even telling his true belief, but I think that would be disingenuous. The truth is, faith is not a belief in something without the claim of truth. Faith is belief in something with the claim of truth, backed by institutions and social order that maintains it.
No Muslim ever says, I believe in Islam but I don't claim the Qur'an is true. Do they?
Secondly, to answer your question, say you are talking about some subject X with a person you love. Now, if you ask me would you rather be right or in love? I would say: it depends on 1. Which subject we are talking about.
2. How important the subject is to me and the other person.
In our case of religion, it's been my observation that, some of my friends did not loose connection because they were forcing atheism down the throat of their loved ones, but instead that they pushed back when the other person was pushing religion down their throat. And, since religion is a very important subject to the other person, they decided they could not stay in love.
But some of my friends, didn't loose connections, because the other person though religious didn't care whether they believed in god or not. And, so they just avoid that topic altogether. Which, is of course, acceptable.
Unfortunately, the replies in this thread aren't showing up unless I sort the comments by "Newest first." Well, that's UA-cam being UA-cam, huh? But it looks like we nonbelievers didn't get replies, anyway.
1) Love is linked to knowledge on many levels, these two things are not mutually exclusive by any means. For example, I love my wife, but if I knew she didn't exist, I wouldn't love her. I perhaps could love my brain imagining my potential wife if I didn't have one, but at that point I would just love myself, which I despise.
On top of that I love for example also honesty, which quite strictly forbids me from being dishonest and lying to anyone or myself if I don't want to be a hypocrite.
2) Again, truthfulness and usefulness are by far not exclusive to each other, and in more instances that none, truthfulness is absolutely essential for any usefullnes to emerge (basically all science resulting in existence of planes, phones, internet, and so on.. All of this require scientific method, which is an entire process of thinking many people adapted and it resulted in this).
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Instances where lies could be useful if normalized can exist, but are overwhelmingly overshadowed by the other option.
Also, I'm not sure you are aware of what this (and many other studies about wellbeing connected to religiosity) suggest.
Yes, religion can indeed make some people happier as individuals, because it helps people coping with misery (effectively by trying to remove or misplace their full responsibility of their wrongdoings and miseries in the world).
BUT sets of people are happier the more secular is the place they live in. The more secular countries are, the higher wellbeing their populations tend to have, and there are many reasons for that.
Some of the most prominent reasons for this is how tightly is religion (especially Abrahamic religions) linked to increased war fervor and hate for outgroups (xenophobia, homophobia, etc..).
Also the very fact that stronger coping mechanisms (i.e. religion) besides giving some people some comfort also makes those people much less likely to fix those issues and to fix the misery in society.
I give you three exaggerated examples so it's clear enough for anyone to understand:
a) people living in a region with religion-driven wars can be much happier if they are religious because it helps them coping with the harsh reality and gives their suffering some purpose, however as a result of that there is much lower chance of that religious conflict to ever stop and if it does stop there is much higher chance it will happen again
===> religious individual is happier than others, but whole society is living in much more misery as a direct result of that
b) when religious people believe that diseases are caused by demons/curses/god's wrath, it makes individuals dying of cancer/plague/leprosis muuuuuuuuch happier and it makes much easier for them to cope with the sad reality. But as a result of that, research of medicine doesn't progress and the whole society is suffering immensely because of that.
c) when someone is taught or anyhow convinced that it's okay to believe anything that makes him comfortable regardless of what empirical evidence says, it kills critical thinking in society. It can again help the individual for a while (or certainly makes their live and thinking process easier), but it makes it incredibly easy for any populist in politics (or elsewhere) to push their lies without any retaliation whatsoever, because you are not taught to be a sceptic and to verify reality and desire some evidence for it -> again, resulting in misery in any democratic country
So this is it, I'm not sure if you have time to respond, but someone might find this "useful:P". Sorry for my mediocre english.
On "Would you rather be in love or right?"
Being in love and being right are not mutually exclusive. Atheists often value truth because it fosters genuine relationships built on honesty and understanding, rather than delusion or pretense.
If the analogy is about relationships, choosing love often requires compromise. But in matters of reality, compromising on truth for comfort is intellectually dishonest. Would you rather believe a comforting lie or face an uncomfortable truth?
On "Is it true or useful?"
Just because a belief is "useful" doesn’t make it true. Placebos can be useful but are still false. By this logic, should we advocate for falsehoods just because they make people feel good?
Studies on well-being often fail to account for cultural factors, such as the stigma atheists face in religious societies. In secular societies, atheists report equal or greater well-being without the need for belief in a higher power.
On "Faith vs. Rationality"
Faith without evidence isn’t a virtue; it’s gullibility. Rationality doesn’t make people unloving or disconnected-it simply demands that beliefs align with evidence. Atheists are not devoid of connection or love; they just don't ground those feelings in unproven supernatural claims.
On "Connection to something greater"
Feeling awe or connected to something bigger (e.g., nature, humanity, the universe) doesn’t require invoking "God" or a higher power. Secular experiences can be just as profound without the baggage of unsupported metaphysical claims.
Re: your connection to something greater. I agree it doesn't require invoking God or a higher power (though invoking them can be nothing more than putting a word or symbol for something that can't be explained).
How would you describe the profound experiences?
Atheist and antitheist here with my answers.
Re: "Would I rather be in love or would I rather be right"
This question is too vague to be useful.
What does it mean "want to be right"?
- Do you mean "make everyone think I'm right, even if that is not the case, just so they know"? No, absolutely not.
- Do you mean "prove to everyone that I'm really right, just so they know"? While it does feel good, I'm in no rush to ruin my relationships just for the sake of being right.
- Do you mean "prove to everyone that I'm really right to protect them from making a mistake"? Yeah, I would like to, although I do admit people have the right to make mistakes.
- Do you mean "do my best to figure out what the truth is and end up correct in my beliefs"? Oh yeah, definitely.
What does it mean "rather be in love"?
Being in love is *my emotional state* . Whether I'm right or not, whatever you mean by that, has zero influence on whether I'm in love. Even if I end up fighting with someone I love over who's right, that argument would not change the fact that I love them. It might damage our *relationship* or make *them* love me less, but not change that I'm in love.
This question is a mess, but I can give you some specific, tangential answers, and you go ahead and deduce what they mean in the context you had in your head.
- I believe that "beliefs inform actions". If someone is fundamentally wrong, their decisions will be wrong.
- I believe in Epistemic Responsibility. If you allow yourself to believe bullshit and end up hurting someone as a result, your actions are immoral.
- As such, I seek to correct my beliefs whenever I can. If you show me I'm wrong, I will *never* hold it against you and be happy to stand corrected.
- I believe religion causes real damage. Restricting contraception and abortion access based on nonsense woowoo about a tiny patch of cells having "a soul". Greg Locke using religion to convince people to ignore a pandemic and not take a safe and well tested vaccine, causing deaths. Gay people being oppressed because your old book of fairy tales says so, even though it's their business what they do with their appendages as long as they don't harm anyone. Examples are aplenty.
- With the three above, I believe I am morally obliged to do my best to prevent people from harming others by their bullshit beliefs and I do try to make them look at facts properly.
- However, I am aware that I am only human and I can't physically convince everyone. There is a limit to which I can try to propagate truth while still remaining a member of society, so I pick my battles and hold back when the fight isn't worth it.
I apply all of the above to my relationships, so if my wife is incorrect, I will try to let her see the facts, but if situation requires it I will let her make her mistake and suffer the consequences, all the while remaining in love.
Re: "Is it true, or is it useful".
That one is simpler - I am in strong opposition to Philosophical Pragmatism. I believe that any lie you buy into will eventually cause harm, to you or others. The word "belief" means "a statement one is convinced to be true" and the word "true" means "that which is in accordance with fact or reality". As such, beliefs should be in accordance to reality. If you acknowledge that a claim you hold is or may not be true but you hold on to it because it is useful, than it's not a genuine belief but self-manipulation. I detest and reject the idea of feeding myself nonsense just to feel better, *particularly* when I know that my misguided actions (because they're based on nonsense) may lead to someone's harm. I get it that you're happier if you buy into the idea that there's a loving skydaddy waiting with eternal happiness for you, just as you would be happier if you bought into the idea that your rich uncle is going to give you a million dollars next week. But as long as I don't have a reason to think it is actually true, I reject to get fooled into believing it.
Dude, YHBT.
@@WhoTheLoL Sounds like it was a useful prompt 🙏🏽😊
@@mansal-denton Was it though? You haven't changed my mind about anything, I had already been through these considerations and they have not turned me away from atheism nor antitheism. The world, my relationships and conscience are perfectly fine, and would not suffer from religion becoming a relic of the dark ages, as it should have a long time ago.
@@WhoTheLoL Your fallacy is thinking I care to change your mind. I’m just here to initiate thought. Your long comment suggests I did.
@@mansal-dentonthats a lie, and you know it. You absolutely want to change people's mind or you wouldnt have posted this video. You definitely wouldnt have just tried to hide behind
"Im just here to initiate thought"
As if "thought" doesnt come before changing ones mind about something.
🤦🏻♂️
Why is it contradicting your being in Love when you are in an argument with your loved one? Do you have an On/Off Switch for your Love when in Disagreement with your Partner? That is hilarious even to ask this question that way. The Mental Gymnastice you do just to convince yourself your belief is true is astonishing. This Mindset, to go the Extra Mile, to do anything to not have to see that Religion is a waste of Human Energy, is dangerous. It leads to People flying planes in Buildings or detonate themselves in crowds of people.
The questions are wrong. The Atheist point is in this scenario: You've been happily married for ten years, only to find out that your wife married you on a bet and has been sleeping with everyone you've ever known. Your 3 kids are not yours and she just took every penny you've saved and took off. Surely, you would have to feel utterly sick to your soul that the last ten years of your life has been a complete lie. A decade of your one and only life has gone by and you can't ever get those years back. Now, imagine living your entire life in a complete lie because you followed some absurd religion that has absolutely no evidence of being true. What a waste of your one life!
@@Jiggerj01830 the irony if you saying the questions are wrong 🤣🤷🏻♂️ Use what you want, leave the rest
First of all, Dawkins, that tie is ridiculous.
Q1: Love Vs. Right? A: I'd rather be right. Love can lead you to irrational decisions that can harm yourself and others, in many cases, murder. This doesn't even need to be a theological question. If you find yourself choosing to concede arguments to your partner on a regular basis, then it's a sign that you may be in an abusive relationship (be it your religion or lover) and you should face the truth that you ought to separate.
Q2: True vs. Useful? A: That's an oxymoron, only truth is useful. Putting that aside, it's a false dichotomy to ask, would you rather have a connection to a higher power or not, rather the question should be, would you rather BELIEVE that you have a connection to a higher power, than not. If you are capable of experiencing a connection to a higher power, without confirmation of such, then it would reason to suggest that your experience of connection can exist without a higher power. Thus, you trade nothing to concede the existence of a higher power, in trade for an alternate explanation of that experience.
Bonus: Yes, religion makes people happy. As they say, ignorance is bliss, but so is opium. If you're late for work in the morning, you can roll over and pretend it's a Saturday, but that won't help you to keep your job. Just imagine how deeper the issue runs, when it comes to something as dire as your entire world view and ethics on the line.
He's a biologist, who cares about the tie? It reflects his professional field..no different than a tie with galaxies on it worn by an astronomer.
@@FactStorm That makes sense. I guess I'm just not on the genius level of fashion that the professors are on. 😆👍
Okay, there are thoughtful questions that are worth my time, so thanks for posting this:
1) Would you rather be in love, or would you rather be right?
Why does this have to be either/or?? Why can't I have both? And I do have both. I think it would be rare for a conflict to arise. Let's reframe this question though. Would you be willing to live a lie in exchange for love? So if your mate wanted you to lie, and say you believe when you really don't--what kind of love is that? Is this a true love? Is this a healthy love? Is this a love likely to endure? Is it reasonable? What other forms of emotional blackmail lie ahead? My atheism isn't about "being right"--it arises out of my moral integrity. I know there are a lot of believers who are secretly atheists--they go along to get along, rightly perceiving that other believers don't want the exposure to the cognitive dissonance.
2) Is it true or is it useful?
Ask yourself this same question, for other domains of discourse. Is it really useful to believe in a lie (or rather claim you believe in the lie)? Where would our society be if we went down this road? We would probably still be saying the Earth is flat, or that the sun goes around the Earth. Telescopes probably would have been banned, and humanity probably would not have progressed beyond the horse and buggy. Truth will always have more utility in the long run, and societies that cling to lies will fail. Truth is often inconvenient, but it has a way of coming back and smacking you down hard if you disregard it. And again--honesty integrity???
I appreciate your thoughtfulness! Here are a few of my thoughts on the subject.
1. It's true that you CAN be both in love and be "right", but the purpose of the question is to prompt us to reflect on all the times in which we are trying to be "right" instead of trying to be in harmony with other people.
I would suggest that we find people who have differing views than us. Otherwise we live in a bubble. Assuming that is the case, there is a way we can respect each others' perspectives to lean into loving one another (even as we disagree) versus trying to convince them of our "rightness".
Atheism is a perfect example and assuredly it's not all atheists (probably a small, militant minority) who argue and try to dismantle theist arguments simply for the sake of dismantling them. This is an example of trying to be "right" when it's far better IMO for a communal species like humans to try and remain in harmony - not with lies, just with how we hold our version of truth and respect others'.
2. Your insistence on "believing in a lie" is betraying your perspective. It's okay for you to believe theism is untrue or that there have been disastrous consequences of organized religion. I'd agree with you there. But to claim it is a lie is missing a bigger point: we don't know.
Everyone is trying to seek closeness to truth. Believing in something transcendent or higher than ourselves is well documented to be better for our wellbeing. That can 100% be "laws of the universe" that we don't understand. Gravity is a law that is greater than us. It is transcendent. I'm not saying it has to be an existing religion!
Just roll with Boolean OR every time TBH.
@@mansal-denton I was a deist, before I went full blown atheist. I can tell you- I feel no difference in my leave of joy or happiness.
Religion can be great until you start to question it.
@ idk what this means 🤷🏻♂️
I'm here for the two questions:
1, Would I rather be in love or to be right?
Well, if you're in love and also not right, then not being right is bad and even dangerous. What if you're in love with a woman that doesn't exist, yet you think she does?
What if she does exist, but you're wrong in your belief that she loves you back? Or what if she loves you back, but the relationship is utterly destructive to both of you but you mistakenly believe it to be otherwise, or you see how destructive it is but you mistakenly believe that it'll improve?
The fewer wrong things you believe, the better. Always
2, "Is it true or is it useful"?
Well, if it isn't true it cannot be useful. My previous answer illustrates this. Coming back to the example of being in love with someone that doesn't exist, well, what if that state of mind makes you happier than you would be if you knew that she's not real?
You're clearly using the word "useful" when you mean "joyful". You can become very happy by drinking, you can forget all your worries by sniffing the fumes of glue. By your definition of "useful", well, those are tremendously useful activities!
"Is it true or is it useful?" My answer is that usefulness proves truth. There are so many different billions of random actions you could take every day, that you don't even consider, because they would cause mess and destruction and chaos. When we do *ANYTHING* that does not give us immediate positive results, we're taking a leap of faith. And if that action proves useful, we're onto something. So yeah, I absolutely acknowledge that religion is useful for the organization of society. *But that does not mean that the claims of religion are true.* If I worship a god of exercise by jogging every morning, this is useful to me in keeping me behaving in a healthy manner, but in no way proves that a god of exercise exists. Religious belief may get me in the state of mind for a positive outcome to happen to me, but it might also be possible to get that same positive result, in a more efficient manner, by examining what precise conditions lead to the outcome. For example, I can get the joy of Christmas by exchanging gifts with my friends, without the specific traditions of mistletoe, stockings, or going to mass. If religion is good for people because it puts them in a state of _grateful selfless connectivity_ (which I can easily see benefiting both self and community), I am able to simply put myself in that mindset consciously. And then it's not also necessary for me to follow aspects of a religion that I may know to be wrong. For instance, Mormons tend to have strong family bonds, but I'm not a fan of their homophobia.
Strange false dichotomy. What is the point of such a strange question, what does that have to do with your burden of proof?
So does being in love mean that I'm not right? What does that mean in this context? That I'm wrong about being in love? Right about what? Everything? Being right about everything would enable me to know who to love best. So the clear answer is to be right since that would lead to all other knowledge about everything, changing the world around me for the better with my knowledge since I would always be right about everything, even things I know nothing about I could simply say "The answer to (X) problem is..." and whatever I said would be right. Okay. So your silly nonsense question is answered by "I'd rather be right."
Yes, rationality and logic is useful. Believing without facts is incoherent. That's the problem with faith you can simply believe anything you want. Why would I want to do that? Why would anyone?!
What is true vs what is useful... its not useful if it is not true. Again, I'm going to go with whatever is true.
As for your study well I found one that contradicts it: "Throw BABE Out With the Bathwater? Canadian Atheists are No Less Healthy than the Religious"
Bruh. You are sending up a huge red flag, and I hope you stay single. Being in love and being right are not diametrically opposite.
"Would you rather be right or be in love?" As this directly pertains to religion, I would rather be right. Hands down. Because I've seen what it looks like when people pursue feelings of love, but give up their reasoning to do so. That's how we get cults. That's how we get good people led to believe that evil things are good. I believe that *truth will lead to love more often than love will lead to truth.* And if a God needs me to turn off my individual critical thinking in order to deserve His love, then respectfully, that's not someone who deserves my worship. Same as I'd say to any leader, lover, or friend.
@@AlexReynard truth is different from being “right”. They can be the same, but are not always.
Given that I see many atheists have already provided thoughtful answers, I will simply echo the basic answer: these are really bad false dichotomies, thus making your answers severely lacking and your thought experiments woefully incomplete.
Please continue studying - you have a LOOONG way to go.
@@CharlesPayet The majority of people got defensive, as usual. And insulting. Like you. But if you look hard enough, you’ll see a pinned comment and a few others with thoughtful and less hateful responses.
My comment was not meant to be insulting, but statements of fact. Others have already pointed out that your statements are false dichotomies, thus your answers are woefully incomplete. You need a LOT more study to understand how weak your arguments are.
@@CharlesPayet Why is it that some people thought they were great? Obviously, it's not a "fact". It's just your frame of reality.
And the fact that you think I have an argument is more a reflection of your frame of reality than the video.
I don't really care what people believe, I'm simply offering an invitation for personal reflection.
@@mansal-denton I hope you have seen AronRa's thoughtful response to your video. For my part, insofar as we recognise the usefulness of belief, this is because it is comforting to believe what a lot of others believe, particularly when that belief mitigates the fear of death. We cannot (yet) know what the world would look like if most people did NOT believe in "Gods". My intuition is that we would seek to make the most of the short lives we have, with all the positive implications of that attitude.
@@Nai61a I just found it! thank you for mentioning it.
I still don't understand why he or anyone thinks I'm a theist. I'm not a Christian and I don't have any kind of strong belief.
I do think that when we are honest, there is a level of "I don't know" that comes with our relating to higher power.
Seeing as how I don't know, but I have FELT things I consider to be divine, let's say, it makes sense for me to lean into the possibility of something greater.
This isn't a Christian definition and it surely isn't a suggestion for others. I don't have a way I describe the ineffable per se. But I have a direct relationship myself.
And I brought up the studies on wellbeing because some type of transcendant/spiritual connection does seem to be better for general wellbeing.
1. "Would you rather be in love, or would you rather be right?" - I'd rather be whichever most benefits ethical societal progress. Anything else is selfish.
2. "Is it true, or is it useful?" - Unsupported beliefs may be "useful" to the individual (i.e., they can make you "feel" better), but cumulatively can be massively detrimental to ethical societal progress.
The higher power to which I connect is human society. It is a result of evolution, and few if any of us would be alive today without it. Society IS the higher power. If we all served it honestly and faithfully, as so many do an imagined, unprovable supreme being, we could achieve our fullest potential. Religion originated as a tool of cohesion that benefited the survival of small, isolated tribes. We are no longer small or isolated. Our only means to cohesion on a global scale is ethical societal progress. Religion is an outdated relic that impedes that. Serve society: there's your higher power. Problem solved.
"Would I rather be right or in love" is a malformed question right out of the gates. For one, I'd rather not be wrong about the person that I love. Of course I'd rather be right
You seem to forget that in strictly religious countries, being "right" is seen as being better than being in love. In fundamentalist Islamic countries, apostates can be put to death for turning from their beliefs, even when the formerly held religious beliefs weren't backed up by sufficient evidence. No one has ever proven that there is a God, but people get killed for not believing. And on the notion that it is better to be spiritual than non-spiritual, I question how the studies were done, in which countries, and what demographics. I know many people, myself included, who are happy without relying on an unjustified belief in a higher power, magic crystals, wizards, gods, etc. When it comes to happiness and religion, most of the studies I've seen deal with how community gives people peace of mind, which means people can find happiness without religion as long as they find belonging elsewhere.
I'm curious why you describe atheists as "self proclaimed" and why do you feel they need to ask themselves such ill formed questions?
@@danielsullivan9193 self proclaimed because I don’t want to label anyone something they are not. It’s an invitation. Not a demand. Do what you like.
Some people care about the truth, other people just want to pretend the things they like are true! I would rather know the truth than pretend otherwise.
Both of his questions are extremely dependent on context.
1. Rather be right or in love? Sure for small stuff like who left the wet wipes box open, let it go. But what if the truth you discovered was infidelity?
2. The utility of belief. This also varies from person to person. I’m personally not anti-religious and I begrudge and judge no one for having religious beliefs. But like… if the claims AND tenets of a religion seem simply untrue to me, even philosophically not true, it’s not particularly useful.
@@tjtillman good ponderings. I posed the question for just such personal pondering :)
What stupid questions. Love for one’s fellow man/woman is aligned with humanism. Religion has no love UNLESS you submit to the religion’s congregants, which is no love at all.
@@AnotherHomeChef can you define humanism?
If I am to worship a god, I want to know who, exactly, I am worshiping. As a child of abuse, I do not trust authority figures easily. So, if I call out to the void and receive an answer, that doesn't prove it's any specific character of world mythology. I can't just say, 'That voice must be Zeus' if I have grown up being taught about Zeus. Because it could just as easily be Allah, Shiva, Ra, Aska, Baron Samedi, the collective consciousness of mankind, or aliens. *If I make a connection beyond this life, that's merely the START of me experimenting to learn who I'm talking to and what they want.*
What is a “ Die hard self proclaimed Atheist“?
People who are actively trying to convince others that god doesn't exist.
@@mansal-dentonnot many of those out there, m8.
Activists (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, etc) are a response to christian evangelism. Anyone you see commenting on this material is responding to the act of you responding to atheists.
I'm pretty sure that it will be very hard to find someone that goes up to random people and says "Hello, did you know that there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant a belief in a god?", but you CAN find religious folks initiating conversations with "Hello, do you have a minute to talk about our lord and savior, jesus christ?" or some other variant with the same idea.
Ok, apparently my comment was too edgy for YT's algo, or there is... "moderation" going on here. Might have to make a video response...
@@mansal-dentonok so let me get this straight. By what you wrote every Christian and Muslim preacher through out history have been Hie hard self proclaimed atheists!
Because they have all of them tried to convince others that gods like Zeus, Odin, Horus, Ahura Mazda, Ganesha etc does not exist.
Next time I think you need to be more specific because human history contains more than just one god, and remember being an atheist only means not accepting one more god claim than you do.
@@TheDZHEX
Your comment shows up here if you sort the comments by "Newest first," instead of leaving it at the default "Top comments" sorting method. That happens to me all the time. It's just UA-cam being a pain in the butt, as usual. But I thought I'd let you know.
PS. I gave it a thumb's up, so maybe that will move it into the "Top comments" category? :)
We show our love by adhering to truth.
@@ericmishima what is truth? Do you claim to have it? Most Christians do. I don’t. But neither do I think atheists have it.
@mansal-denton the Truth is what can be demonstrated to comport with reality.
@ Many peoples’ reality is different. Even the law of gravity only applies to Earth in the specific way we know it.
@@mansal-denton No. That is simply false we can and do calculate the gravity of objects we have never visited... can never visit that are far out of our solar system. Sorry, we have one singular reality.
@@mansal-denton gravity doesn't only apply to Earth. 😲
Q: Would you rather lie to yourself or just remain stupid?
apparently this guy's answer is 'yes'
@@lonniewild9277 Lol. You betray your answer to the first question 😅
@@mansal-denton that's what heathens do - 100% betrayal always -
here's a challenge for ya: try to be more clueless (bet you can't)
I’m an agnostic atheist, so idk if I’m the intended audience to answer this but
1. I’d have to choose a third option where I can agree to disagree with someone and respect other people and let them believe what they wish as long as they let me choose to disbelieve
2. I don’t care about well being of individuals in the face of scientific truth personally, because seeking truth will ultimately lead to increased wellbeing over time imo. What improved wellbeing more, praying when you’re sick, or the discovery of germ theory and taking preventative measures based on that knowledge? I would argue the latter has done more good over the former.
These questions are interesting, but I feel like the way they’re phrased seems a little like they’re leading to the answer you want rather than the actual discovery of truth and what’s honestly in someone’s heart. The first question in particular seems emotionally loaded to make the atheist feel like a bad person for answering in any way other than the answer you want them to give.
I think these questions would be better and more thought provoking if they weren’t front loaded with your bias before asking. I will admit tho, atheist UA-camrs tend to do the same thing, but in a different way. They load their questions in ways that make you feel like you have to answer the way that supports their conclusion rather an honest probe into the minds of believers they’re talking to.
Either way, decent vid with okay questions, and I appreciate that you got right into it without a giant amount of preamble, and the editing was minimal but kept things snappy. You have no idea how many theist vids I’ve seen that felt like a meandering thought dump where they didn’t prep at all lol
Thank you. The questions were meant to be introspective, not accusatory. And apply to theists as well (plenty of them are pushy). Glad it has stimulated a lot of discussion.
@ I really do appreciate the questions tbh, I love probing into why I believe what I believe and trying to understand where my beliefs come from. It could be my own bias going into the video that made the questions feel the way they did, but I really do appreciate the lack of animosity towards nonbelievers. I’ll be on the lookout for more vids of a similar nature from you in the future. Cheers!
"Rather be in love or right?"
An atheist is defined as someone who isn't convinced of the existence of a theistic god, not necessarily someone who strongly expresses their nonbelief to others. Therefore, being an atheist doesn't necessarily imply that my relationships will be damaged.
"Is having a spiritual connection better?"
I don't know. There are a colossal number of possibilities where having a spiritual connection could be detrimental. What if there were an afterlife where you'd be thrown into a lake of fire for having a spiritual connection in this life? What if there were a reversed god who sends you to hell for believing in him and rewards skepticism instead? In such cases, having a spiritual connection in this life would result in enormous suffering in the next. I'm not claiming these scenarios to be true; I'm simply pointing out that there are many possibilities where a spiritual connection could indeed harm our well-being.
@@The_Alchemist_007 at least you’re thinking about it :) I’m glad
@mansal-denton Not just "you're thinking about it" but "you've thought about it and rebutted me". I refuted the point you made about being atheist being exclusive to being in love. I said it isn't true just by providing definition of atheism. Also, your second point-having spiritual connection is better-has also been refuted.
@@The_Alchemist_007 The irony of you rebutting me is how thoroughly you do not understand the content of the video.
Here's an article that may help:
www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-novel-perspective/202012/would-you-rather-be-right-than-loved
@@mansal-denton Then I don't know how it has anything to do with not being convinced of the existence of a god. The language's too blurry.
The questions should be do I believe in a talking snake or a 900 year old boat builder existed. What would any normal person whether an atheist or not, reply ?
1. "Right" vs "In Love"
2. "True" vs "Useful"
See how you're equating atheism with truth and fact, but choosing faith means love and happiness?
They're invitations for personal introspection. Just because I direct them at atheists doesn't mean it's an attack. The irony of how many people find it an attack and try to be right in the comments is humorous (not saying you're doing that).
First off: "Self-proclaimed" atheists? Way to poison the well.
My answers:
1. If being in love means I'm wrong, then that love is wrong and is unhealthy. Being alone sucks, but to paraphrase World's Greatest Dad: The worst thing in life is to be surrounded by people who make you feel alone. Also, being right and being in love are not mutually exclusive, and if you're trying to force a point "down someone's throat," then you are a bad person making a bad relationship. And everything I just said applies to framing the question in a theism vs. atheism point, and all you're doing is advocating faith even if it's wrong.
2. "Is it true or is it useful?" Depends on what "it" is. And frankly, believing in something that isn't true is far LESS healthy than not. Ever heard of this thing called denial? Yeah, that leads people to making TERRIBLE decisions. For example: If someone engages in tithing - giving ten percent of their income to their church - but can't afford to feed their family, is that a useful practice if their god doesn't exist? Oh, and one study? Come back when you can provide multiple and can show that those carrying out the studies didn't skew the results. Also, there are more factors that are different between atheists and the religious that could contribute to health and happiness than whether or not they believe in a sky daddy. How many atheists do you know of who gather once a week to socialize based on their atheism?
@@templar_1138 read some of my other comments that speak to this if you want. I address yours. Thanks for the response 🙏🏽
I don't understand why people demand their religion be taught to children in public schools for the sake of morality. After all if teaching their religion in churches didn't work to create morality why would teaching religion in public schools work any better?
@@whiteorchid5412 I don’t think demanding religion be taught in public schools is worthwhile, but it’s silly to say zero people have ever been more moral from church ever 🙄
Loving comes first (is most important) - doesn't mean I have to believe someone's nonsense if I love them, I just accept them as they are.
I cannot believe in anything merely for personal benefit - but fear drives nearly everyone so its understandable that most people grasp what feels good.
Sounds like you feel that it's necessary to sacrifice your ability to reason or your love of truth so you can believe in something that will make you report that you are very happy when someone asks.
"self proclaimed"? Red flag right there. I got as far as 9 seconds in. Atheism is a statement of fact, it is the absence of something. I can no more proclaim that I have the lost treasure of the Siera Mardres than a faith in a God.
I'm not sure what you're going on about. I merely said that to identify that I'm not considering anyone atheist, but rather am speaking to people who self-identify with that label.
@mansal-denton I think you are indeed missing the point. At its core atheism isn't an identity but merely a statement of the lack of a belief. I don't have a Porsche, that doesn't mean I identify as a non Porsche owner
@ I think you’re missing my point: there are many people who don’t have a Porsche, but they think that people who own Porches are stupid/bad/etc and, either directly or more often subconsciously, let them know about it.
That’s not all atheists, for sure. But I’m offering it as a question to ask, not an attack on atheists.
@@mansal-denton then I probably wouldn't describe them as self proclaimed atheists but rather anti theists
I'll give you credit for that these are questions I haven't heard before. They are not minimizing anyone's point of view, just evaluating what is most important - which I appreciate!
But to answer your questions:
1. "Would you rather be in love or would you rather be right?"
It depends on what we are talking about. I would rather be "in love" when it comes to finding meaning in life and establishing what it is that I value. I agree that there is a "spiritual" aspect of life that is indeed emotional, where the "love" is more important than being right about things. This is why I am not against people having faith in a god (when they can acknowledge that it's just a subjective belief).
However, this "love" that you're talking about is VERY different from the pursuit of trying to objectively understand how reality works. Humans are emotional, but not everything in reality is emotional. If we want to truly understand what is factually correct about our reality then we have to investigate that from a non-biased perspective. In that pursuit, "love" is irrelevant.
2. "Is it true or is it useful?"
This is a good question, and I can admit that believing in a god does have some benefits. A sense of purpose, a sense of community, etc. I think one of the main reasons why religion has been so prevalent in all of history is because it's something that really appeals to the human psyche. For many people it can absolutely be useful, on an emotional level.
Same thing there, this is why I'm not necessarily against people having a subjective belief in a god.
But the problem is of course that this is just one side of the coin. I'm sure you are aware of all the negative consequences that comes with organized religion, so I won't go into that. To this point you mentioned that we shouldn't "throw the baby out with the bathwater", that we shouldn't abandon all faith just because of the negative consequences of organized religion.
My response to that would be - we don't necessarily have to. I think you misunderstand the atheist perspective here. Atheists are primarily concerned with questioning claims that religious people say are "objectively true". I think for most atheists, it all comes down to just having a healthy dose of scepticism. This does not go against having a subjective belief in a god, it just means that we should minimize irrational thinking (which is never a good thing).
TLDR - Truth and rational thinking is always useful. Subjective belief in a god can indeed be useful to many people and is not necessarily irrational. But if you take it one step further and start claiming that it's "objectively true that god exist", then this can be both irrational and harmful.
Thank you! You see the value in the questions. It's for personal introspection NOT making anyone wrong (and can apply to theists too)
1. Can we ask this question to every person who is in an abusive or exploitative relationship simply because they want to be in love?
2. If there is no god or higher spiritual being than the reason behind this "usefulness" is because of some other cause. That cause can then be determined and used without an appeal to some spiritual authority.
Would you say these famous people that you quoted have found a usefulness from their disbelief? If so usefulness can be found in disbelief.
@@PyroTheInfernal 1. Completely missed my point 2. Plenty of people find their disbelief useful. I’m not saying it’s not impossible - I’m asking if it’s serving YOU. Only you know that.
@@mansal-denton
1. I think you missed my point but I'll try to be more generous.
If you are asking can people be civil and just let each other believe (or not believe) what they do and not feel like they need to correct them, then sure. However beliefs dictate actions and those actions can affect others and that is where conflicts arise. If these issues never come up then many people just go about their lives. You may know of people who are atheists but you don't realise because that isn't the defining factor of their personality.
As another example you wouldn't have felt the need to make this video in the first place would you? You would have simply left it alone thinking atheists feel confort in their non belief.
If you are asking is it OK to let someone believe a falsehood because it makes them feel good then it could depend on the falsehood, as it could actually be causing them harm even if they don't realise it.
If you are saying the person feels love and it actually is love then that would be correct and hence clearly a false dichotomy as truth/correctness is in both sides. Unless you are still separating the two in which case I'd say you are trying to poison the well by saying love truth is better than truth devoid of feeling.
Being most generous this question is really old in philosophy. It is in some ways a reworking of: "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied" Socrates.
2. Did you actually read my second point, as it had two parts. The second part was obviously tongue-in-cheek to point out that that making "disbelief" into a thing is wrong since it is the lack of something.
If most of the non believers are such because of critical thinking and skepticism would you agree that those are useful traits?
The first part was questioning the "usefulness" of a spiritual being if the being doesn't exist. If the being does not exist then the usefulness is caused by humans in some way.
@@PyroTheInfernal Thanks for the clarification. Yes, the first point you made is more of what I'm suggesting.
I didn't make the video because I have any strong feelings about Atheists. I see militant atheism as just another form of Christianity/Islam with just as much zealotry (again, for those who are zealots, not all).
The questions I posed are INTERNAL opportunities for reflection. The first comes from a intimate relationship context.
I'm sure you've been in an intimate relationship or a family member and being "right" can get in the way of the harmony between individuals.
Obviously there are times when boundaries are needed. That's nuance. These are heuristic questions that are meant for you to apply nuance and answer for yourself.
Sorry, I have so many very long comments to respond to, I won't get to each part thoroughly!
Why would I want to be in love with someone that only exists in my own mind? There are people like that around, such as people with crushes on celebrities they've never met. They don't really seem all that happy to me when reality inevitably clashes with their preferred delusion.
Also, just because one study correlates being religious with higher self-reported happiness doesn't mean that if I became more religious (which is not something I could do) I'd be more happy, just like eating more chocolate won't make me win a Nobel prize.
Which god was the study referring to?
@@Shoomer88 In general the literature is more about transcendence and higher power than specifics.
Of course, being in love and being right are not necessarily exclusive. My wife is a Christian and I am a fallibilist and an athiest. I can believe that I am right, but can still accept that I and others can be wrong or otherwise mistaken in my understanding of the world and our subsequent beliefs. So if I love someone, there is no difficulty in respecting any differences in our beliefs for the most part. If erroneous belief appears to be leading someone I love into danger or risk, then we need to have a discussion about it and work together to make things better.
With regards to Turth versus Utility. About the studies showing that religious people are happier - I am not certain of the statistics but I suspect that individual studies are not going to adequately grasp people's lived experience on a global basis. I would also separate belief in god from willing membership of religion from following a dominant religion. I don't believe there is a god, but I do believe there are religions and that some people find membership of a religion to be beneficial - or at least find themselves avoiding penalties if they do not state that they believe. Religion is not for me - but as a social animal, I can see why belonging to a supportive group of like-minded people can have mental health benefits - albeit sometimes at the cost of relationships to people the religion does not accept.
Ummm that question has nothing to do with religion...unless you formulate it otherwise: Would you rather have blind faith or rationality? Well, since blind faith, regardless whether it is religion-based or based on political ideologies, eventually leads to chaos, I'd choose rationality. Besides love is an emotion and like all emotions it is fleeting and after it you sooner or later have to cultivate it in everyday life and then it turns into negotiations and debating anyways. But maybe if I formulate it otherwise: Would you rather be friendly or right then I would be friendly or at least try to be :)
You got it ;)
Q1. You advocate for badgering someone into accepting you are right rather than simply settling for knowing you're right. If someone is not interested in debating what the truth is with you, you ought not try forcing your opinion on them. This applies to atheists as much as it does to believers. However, with believers, they quite often are not interested in understanding why the atheist thinks they are right but *demand* the atheist allow themselves to be preached at, whether they're interested or not, and *demand* the atheist adopt certain patterns of behaviour or practice particular rites even if the atheist has no interest in the behaviours or rites attendant to the religion in question.
Q2. It's neither to me. Studies overvalue the role of religion of positive effects and downplay the social elements. Religion or its adherents also may cause detrimental effects to nonbelievers that lowers their peace of mind and wellbeing. When this is the case, it is not valid to show that believers are happier, if the reason for nonbelievers not being happy is the poor behaviour of the believers towards them. If believers ostracise, demonise, and discriminate against nonbelievers, the difference in psychological outcomes has nothing to do with God. When they are the majority, believers may also demand special rights and concessions not afforded to nonbelievers. They enjoy a level of privilege not afforded to others, and when that privilege is challenged, they scream about intolerance and persecution.
So in these cases, it's not true, but it is useful, yet for all the wrong reasons.
Q1: I agree it applies to everyone.
Q2: Or maybe lack of belief has deeper implications? Doesn't have to be Christian God or any specific thing, can just be higher power
1/ That's not only a false dichotomy, but it also ignores that fact that religious people are overwhelmingly the ones who reject family members who quit the religion. I've yet to hear a story about an atheist family who disowns their kid because he believes in god. To be clear, you can be a loving parent whether you believe or not in god of course, but as I said I've yet to hear about a family that rejects one of their members in the name of atheism.
Also you said that faith emphasises "believing in something even without the claim of truth". That's not accurate at all, faith is believing something is true in the absence of proof.
2/ Is religion true or useful ? Well, all major religions make the claim of truth. Their books are the word of God. But I get what you're trying to ask though, and I don't think the question is relevant because you can't force yourself into believing something you don't believe in. Still by the logic you're using, it would be useful for someone to ask their girlfriend to not tell them if she cheats. I absolutely prefer knowing rather than not
In love or be right is a false dichotomy. There might be people that get nearly identical electro-chemical responses to both, but admitting to being wrong is often the first step in learning something. We like others for their strengths, we love others for their faults, for that is what makes them unique.
Your love of God is really self love of your idealized self, which is very empty compared to feeling love for a real person over time.
The problem with the utility of a lie is what happens when the person learns the truth. You can't realistically expect everyone else to maintain a facade so that others don't have to deal with the truth, and forcing people to participate in the charade tends to not workout well.
The study is interesting, but a bit wonky as the authors admit in the limitations section and parts of the data collection notes. i.e. in 2 countries they couldn't ask about belief in god. Asking about specific gods would have been an interesting question too. Are we assuming all 77 countries were believing in the same god? How a particular country treats their theists/atheists has a large effect on a person's feeling of well being.
Just addressing the lie/learning the truth, the best example I can give of what I mean with this question is around victimhood.
Does it benefit someone to live their life feeling woe is me they are the victim (even if they have good reason to feel that way), or is it more useful for them to have an empowered perspective.
There's no lie here, just a change in their reference.
@@mansal-denton There are people that seem to need feeling woe. As far as I can tell, they get the same electro-chemical response I get being positive about life. Short answer: depends on the person feeling woe.
One for you: If leaving people in their current state of ignorant bliss is the best option, then why was it okay for the major religions to evolve into their current state? If we go back far enough, we find they all involve renegotiation of previous cultural norms.
1. If I had to choose, I would choose to be right. Obviously, I hope I don't have to.
2. I go back and forth on this one. I guess I want to think I am interested in the truth, but I am probably actually interested in what's useful. I just don't think religion is either. And, even if you managed to somehow convince me that it is, I can't imagine myself simply believing what I don't think is true. Like, if I told you that people who believe that sky is green experience a higher level of happiness, would you be able to make yourself see sky as green? It sounds impossible.
@@peezieforestem5078 glad you’re thinking about it. You don’t need to come to my conclusion :)
1. False dichotomy. Love and truth are not oppositional. Is it your contention that love and truth cannot coexist? 2. Again, False Dichotomy. Things are frequently true AND useful. How about this: would you rather believe something that made you feel good or something that is true? I would rather believe things that are true. How do you determine if a thing is true? With GOOD evidence, not feelings.
1. any relationship based on a lie will eventually die. are you really in love with someone who lies to you or are you in love with the image you have in your head about the lying party? for every sensible human being with decent boundaries, being lied to should be a deal breaker.
2. while there is usefulness in accepting a lie as a fact in some cases, it's (probably) only in the context of "fake it 'till you make it". if you're just accepting lies to make yourself feel better, you're essentially using your victim mentality as a coping mechanism. people who are not well off need to cope with their powerlessness so they turn to religion. a lot of european where atheism is widespread also rank high on the happiness scale because they don't need a god project their hopes and dreams onto. and working on the underlying causes instead of offering people placebos imho is the superior course of action
1. It's circumstantial.
2. Truth is always useful.
@@damspachercomedy what is Truth?
@@mansal-denton Truth is what can demonstrated to comport to everyday reality and experience. Anything that can be tested, repeated, and replicated that aligns with human experience is closest to what we call “truth”
@@mansal-denton Why do you feel a need to spell the word truth with an uppercase t?
The short answer to what is truth is that truth is what comports with reality.
@ I’d consider that more factual than truth. There is no science/math etc that can make a leap to not kill your neighbor (example). I’m not saying Christianity or other religions are needed to come to that realization, but it’s outside the materialist scope.
@@cnault3244 the person I @ used Truth so I asked.
You state that Dawkins and O'Connor have made 'careers out of debunking Christianity'. For Dawkins, a resounding no. Look at his published works. He's an evolutionary biologist. However I agree with you about the other guy, he ought to get a job and do something useful.
The fin't rst question doesn't make sense in religious terms. The question is not do I love or hate god... but do I have a valid reason to believe in god. And... if I did... which one? If the Christian god... which of the THOUSANDS of denominations should I join?
2nd Question... I am an ex-Christian... and I don't feel that being a member of the faith aided my well-being. If anything, I felt guilt and shame for thinking about sex among other things, or the notion that some invisible sky being was reading my thoughts and judging me. I feel so much better having left it behind.
The first is less about religious terms/love or hate god. More about the people/relationships in your life. However, I'm glad you feel better getting out of what was a toxic dynamic for you.
Rather than "right or in love", why not "smart and emotional"? Both of those are rational experiences. And "Is it true or useful?"...Why must those two things exclude each other? Personally, if something isn't true, I don't find it useful. I like being right, while being open to being proven wrong. I love truth. It's an incredibly useful way to live.
They don't have to exclude each other, but if I orient myself towards what is useful, it's a different way of relating. And there are certain times when it is 100% not the same thing.
For example: victimization. Does a victim really benefit from the truth that they have been a victim? Or do they benefit from not seeing and identifying with that label?
A preference for pragmatic justification doesn't exclude epistemic justification.
So, one need not choose between them. It's possible to respect a balance of the two without sacrificing intellectual honesty.
Relationships are important, but so are justified true beliefs. Sacrificing a healthy relationship for a feeling of intellectual superiority is just as irrational as sacrificing one's principles to maintain an unhealthy relationship. One's decision depends on the relationship and the importance of the ideals/principles in question.
I've done both. I've restrained my drive to believe more true things than false things about our shared reality to make room for important relationships in which that drive was not shared, and I've ended unhealthy relationships that required me to choose between that person and my values. It's part of being a member of a social species.
It is perfectly possible to be in love and to be right. It is also possible to be in love and be wrong.
If it is true it is useful. If it is not true it is not useful.
@@MilesDavisKDAB would you say there is no such thing as God (in Christian terms)? If so, would it still be useful to know about it given 2.4 billion people consider themselves Christian worldwide? Just an example of how your logic around true/useful may not be fully accurate.
@@mansal-denton It is true that people believe in God(s) so yes it is useful to know that people believe this. It is not true that God(s) exist & so it is not useful to "know" that God(s) exist, it is useful to know that God(s) do not exist.
Q1 Is just a silly question which has no binary answer, Q2 Is also a silly question. There two questions are irrelevant to any argument posed by someone who things they are clever.
Q1 Is it better to believe in something in the absence of evidence or in something that is proven? Q2 Would you rather be deaf or blind and if someone choses differently to you are they wrong?
First screen, you spelled atheist wrong. Oh the surprise
Lol, that was my Filipino editor but I'll keep an eye out for typos :)
Question 1: This makes no sense and has no meaning but here we go. What will I be wrong about? What is the type of love with a person? Sometimes a are hard truth is better than getting a hug.
Question 2: Again not a good question. You really have a knack for not making sense. So the me try to answer this question to the best of my understanding. I am happier as an atheist then I was as a believer.
Can you watch this video again and make a follow up where you actually say what you mean.
Richard Dawkins did not make a career out of being an atheist: he is a biologist, widely respected in the scientific community and a distinguished academic and author. Likewise Alex O'Connor is a researcher and commentator on philosophy and theology, not some UA-cam jock making himself famous for controversial opinions. Alex has had many thougtful and well-presented dialogues with philosophers and relgious apologists and is widely respected for his penetrating insight into religious issues.
@@unsavedtrash666 I think Alex is great. I didn’t mean it as an insult 🤷🏻♂️
False dichotomy. You cant be serious with this silly bs.🤦🏻♂️
Question number one: neither of them. Being in love cost a lot of energy, I’m too old for that. Being right isn’t important. And not a good experience for the other person.
Question two: this is not a rational question. When you don’t belief in a god, you can’t choose to start believing because it’s so healthy.
@@jannetteberends8730 you can choose to believe in something higher / transcendent, regardless of what that is.
So Christians are in love rather than being right?
No, as I said in the video, this can apply to theists and it OFTEN does.
Because of the inherent "faith" nature of Christianity, in the west it CAN come with a bit more humility (i.e: "I don't KNOW there is a Christian God, I have faith in it without full knowledge"), but obviously not always.
And there are plenty of humble atheists too, to whom this is not directed.
With the limitations of your two options, I would rather be right. I would want to know if I were right before committing. Finding what is true and right gives the ability to aid others and feel better in oneself.
Easy.
Next question
Your question asks if dishonesty is better than truth.
If religion is the topic, I would want to know if it were true, particularly because of the amount of harm religion has caused and is causing around the world.
Is this guy for real? He gives more power to Atheists than we could ever do. As for this survey, who did you ask exactly? Religious people?? 🤣🤣🤣
It's a scientific study, peer reviewed, and with a ton of references. It's in the description so feel free to read it.
Did this beautiful surveys covered those who ended up very dead due to their lovely faith? Religion is a FA process. Unfortunately, dead people are often bad with FO part.
The fact that humans are happier with meaning doesn't really say anything about the reality of a wider meaning to me. People need some kind of larger project to avoid going completely neurotic, but it can be any number of things, religious or secular. You seem to be making a kind of "useful fiction" argument, which I can get onboard with. Whatever gets you thru the night I say
@@bassbird transcendent seems to be the key, but I agree it can be secular. Yoga as a practice doesn’t necessarily have a religion attached and can be a transcendent practice.
An argumentum ad populum is no argument at all.
I have no problem with your statement. I only have problems with claims that certain books, Bible, Quran etc are the words of God. These books were obviously written by humans parts of which are useful and other parts being either silly or just plain bad.
@@tgoodson2 I don’t think they’re words of God. They may inform wisdom of our species, but also dark parts.
7 likes and 337 comments. LOL, you got cooked!!
@@jdtown6585 just helps the algorithm. :) Plus I got a small handful of conscious responses
@@mansal-denton Clown talking about conscious people while believing in a magical sky daddy. LOL, can't make this crap up!
Why use phrase "self-proclaimed atheist", what are you trying to achieve by that, sound smart?
Also: who else coming from Aron Ra's video?
I've said this before, but I'll clarify again for you:
It is only fair for those who claim the label themselves. I cannot project that label onto someone as labels are often used to falsely disparage someone.
For example, if someone is drinking alcohol and it is affecting their life, it would not be kind for me to call them "alcoholic". However, if they claim they are alcoholic themselves, then I can speak to those people who identify that way/with that affliction.
It was a statement made for the intention of consent and respect, not condescension.
@@mansal-denton wow, you are sooo virtuous, I envy your character.
Man, try buIIshitting harder, this wasn't good enough.
Question #1 Irrelevant
Question #2 Sounds much to much like Pascal’s Gambit & a fallacy of assuming the numbers are an indicator of truth.
I agree that being right is overrated. Alienating someone over religion or politics is to misunderstand what things give our lives meaning and purpose.
By invoking "something greater than yourself" you invite the crucial question - does the supernatural actually exist? I propose a hypothesis: if one does not believe the supernatural exists, then the supernatural can never affect you. Thoughts?
@@tarp-grommet Good thoughts! The absence of something does matter. For example, if someone doesn’t have legs, they may not know exactly how having legs feel, but one could see how having legs impacts others, right?
FYI - this is all food for thought, not meant to judge anyone’s beliefs (except those judging others’) 😅
being right is seriously underrated.
@@matswessling6600 Being right is underrated only so long as one avoids claiming their opinions are facts. A statement like "I know for a fact that the Christian god is the only true god" is a good example. Religious preaching is generally presented as factual.
Answer to question 1: Love is a sensation we experience within the reward circuit of our brain due to increases in dopamine and cortisol from extreme pleasure. We can experience the same or similar sensation when we believe we're right about something. Being in love and being right about something are not mutually exclusive. People can feel like they're in love and it feels right, because it's the same chemicals surging through their neurons.
Answer to question 2: Neurobiology teaches us that circumstances we experience in our natural environment can put stresses on our neurobiological health. Our brains will fight, even believe a lie, in order to relieve those stresses. Not knowing something creates chemical stresses within our neurological state. Religion provides a vent to relieve those stresses from all of the unknown environmental circumstances that each individual experiences throughout their lives. For instance, our sun is the single source of energy within our solar system that brings forth, supports, and terminates our existence, et al species, and can set heaven and earth on fire with just a single CME. Most people are psychologically tormented at the thought of accepting that a non intelligent source moderates life and death. So, the answer to question two is, it is useful for some individuals to believe they have a spiritual connection to a higher power. Believing something however, does not provide evidence for it being true. For most people, that results in knowing less and believing more.
Would you consider a Catholic priest who gives him his life in a Nazi camp for a Jew to survive "love"? To me, it sounds like love of humanity (or selflessness). And I'm curious what you think instigates that in someone.
@@mansal-denton label it love or any value that gives you a good feeling. There is an infinite possible range of characters that come into existence. It would therefore be expected that some would give their lives for others, as we see apparent throughout our history. For a soldier, that value is honor.
@ what is honor in brain chemistry?
@@mansal-denton The same feeling you get from love and belonging to groups. The same chemicals in variation of quantities and frequencies. There is a variation in everything and everything is an individually determined value.
@ is that all there is? 😆
False dichotomies. Also, the two are not exclusive and they derive from two classes.
The "happiest" nations are the least religious.