My dad was a classic atheist. Never went to church, never thought about theism or philosophy. He lived his life, being generally kind & helpful to others because he could. His father was an atheist so there was no family conflict about it. When Xians talk about rejecting, hating or needing to disprove god, I think of my dad’s good nature and think it’s all rubbish.
This is why I suspect there are rarely theists from Religion A vs theists Religion B debate on god claims, because it will just be a circus. Religious debates are often more than not Atheism vs Christianity or Atheism vs Islam, not Christianity vs Islam. Also another thing that I think is pretty weasel is when Christians ride on the coattails of Atheists of Atheists vs Islam debates, completely ignorant that many of the moral and supernatural claim arguments against another Religion also apply to Christianity. Some incredible level of cognitive dissonance. Example seeing Apostate Prophet who is an ex-Muslim turned Atheist criticizing Islam on moral and its supernatural claims, all the while many Christian fans cheer it on and some even wishing he believed in the god of the Bible, completely oblivious to the irony of his well thought out criticisms. One occasion, I post on the comments section reminding Christians of this.
This assumes god(s) literally exist in the same way that rocks, dogs, or humans literally exist, or they don’t, and are just made-up imaginary friends. I think that’s a misunderstanding, and it leads to this theist/atheist binary that causes crises of faith for so many. There is a third option, outside of this binary ….
That doesn’t mean god doesn’t exist. Maybe you didn’t grovel enough. Maybe god is like the Great Pumpkin and you have to convince him you’re sincere enough to be worthy of his help.😂
I have been watching your channel for the last 2 weeks and have learnt so much, I'm going to go to college at 39 years old. Your channel has given me the kick up the ass I needed. Thank you.
@Wyrd Aron has a playlist called The Systematic Classification of Life. It sounds dry, but it's not. It's an epic, fascinating journey through evolution from microbes to the present day. Can't recommend it enough.
Why? The universe exists. It is possible that the universe did not always exist. If the universe has not always existed a creation event occurred. If a creation event occurred it is not preposterous to believe that a conscious being was responsible. We must choose to believe or not believe. It serves me to believe. It serves you to not believe. When and how have I lied exactly?
@rexoconnell7787 Your argument is fallacious. It is possible that the universe didnt exist (Fallacy - demonstrate that it IS possible that the universe didn't exist). You assert that if a universe has not always existed that something (fallacy - demonstrate that a "something" that creates universes exists) must have created it (fallacy - demonstrate that universes must be created and in fact ARE "creations.") That's just for starters. Notice there is no mention of gods or the supernatural in my reply... these questions are about epistemology and definition. If you can answer the above without any fallacies, THEN we get to the HARD part.
@@the-trustees i do not assert that something “must” have created the universe. If the universe is not eternal. I assert that something may have. I cannot demonstrate that it did. You cannot demonstrate that it occurred spontaneously.
@rexoconnell7787 I am not making any assertions about the universe. You are, and they are fallacious even if you don't think they are. Reread your prior post and mine CAREFULLY, and if you are honest, you will see. Also, it seems like you are trying to shift the burden of proof... another fallacy. I do not need to demonstrate anything in responding to fallacious premises.
If you believe hard enough and lots of people also believe what you believe then it becomes true. Well, Darth Vader, Voldemort, and Dracula are going to mess us all the $hit up. We would all be screwed if Buffy wasn't real.
I don’t get when theists do this, either. It is just about having faith, and realizing that what you “believe” / have hope in is probably counterfactual (not necessarily “false”). Recognize your own epistemic limits and don’t claim things like “the Bible is the Word Of God and MY God absolutely exists!” Because that’s simply wrong, no evidence behind it.
@@KianaWolf Everything is thawed + some in Ky/Tn right now 🥵 I’ll be chasing salmon in two weeks on the Kenai~ save the chill for me! Also please excuse my old UA-cam handle which has reappeared unwelcome. I’m a boomer and can’t figure out how to restore my updated one.
Aron Ra, thank you so much for all your work and for how much time and effort you put in to educating people out of magical thinking. It sometimes bothers me to hear atheists hedge their positions by saying things like "maybe YHWH exists but I just haven't seen any convincing evidence". Well I personally have seen plenty of convincing evidence to the contrary and I'm confident in saying that if any gods exist it's obviously not the god of abraham and I appreciate your refreshing honesty in sharing the same sentiment. There's no evidence for any magic or monsters or cosmic sky beings that care when we masturbate and it's disturbing to live in a nation where people think otherwise
its important that atheists dont go down the road of attempting to "prove god(s) doesnt (dont), or cant exist". its also enticing and comforting to believers to entertain the idea that its possible for dieties to exist. the key to correcting this dilemma of confidence is sticking to the facts and avoiding faith. the core of the atheist directive ought to be only acting objectively evidentially with empiricism. this will go the longest way toward establishing the separation of church from state, law, medicine and science in general. once the fact is established that a.) the claim of theism is not falsifiable, and b.) the claim is not supported by any evidence, then can begin the proccess of completely grounding the ontology of modern philosophy in the epistemology of physics with real terms.
@@scambammer6102 think about it like this: if we accept that things exist without absence to the contrary then we have to ask ourselves what DOESNT exist...
“Once beliefs are formed, the brain begins to look for and find confirmatory evidence in support of those beliefs, which adds an emotional boost of further confidence in the beliefs and thereby accelerates the process of reinforcing them, and round and round the process goes in a positive feedback loop of belief ''... Michael Shermer (Author of Why People Believe )
Bob on Aron, like usual!!! You are so respected chap, for what you do. I feel sorry for all in the US, because in Europe, no-one gives a toss, if you are an atheist.
Yup, Heinlein wrote "If this goes on..." in the 40's about America & it's theocratic direction. From over here in the UK it looks stifling & not a little scary! If someone over here, on first meeting, asked which church I go to they'd be considered a religious nutter of some type!
Yep. The only thing I can think of that it causes an exception for is the medical use of the word delusional. If billions of people hold delusional beliefs, the people cannot therefor be diagnosed as having delusions because it's not a useful diagnosis and it would get in the way of treating and researching who suffer from delusions. So having delusional beliefs does not mean that one suffers from delusions. The beliefs are still delusional and irrational because they don't fit the actual evidence in actual reality and the evidence that we do have show that a loving god can't exist. For one, a loving entity can't encourage faith because that encourages and relies on rationalizing. Methodically doing so, which faith require believers to do to themselves and others, is, according to the consensus in all of psychology, abusive and it makes people vulnerable and blind to abuse, encourages to excuse and rationalize abusive behaviour, making it harder to recognize abuse and to get out of abusive relationships/environments. It's typically an abusive tactic that abusers use to muddy the water and gaslight the victim. Knowing that and still believing that this abusive behaviour is loving is delusional, regardless if they would be diagnosed with having delusions.
Ad Populum? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 1 million flies eat feces therefore you shall also eat feces because 1 million flies can't be wrong but you can? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@ziploc2000 yea...chimneys...that's what I've been using them for...certainly not creating an army of 8 year olds to send me half their christmas presents for liquor money, that would be ridiculous!!
I just wanted to take a moment to thank you Aron for introducing me to a community that up until a couple weeks ago I didn’t know existed. My entire life I have been Atheist, even as a young child, despite being raised in a religious family. Until recently I felt outcast and alone in beliefs that I upheld but didn’t know how to defend. You have helped me too understand the arguments and how to express myself. I now have a community I belong so sincerely thank you.
I'm always so envious of those, like you, who describe being raised in a religious family but had the rare clarity, confidence and reasoning ability, seemingly beyond their young age, to see through the bs. Admittedly, my religious family may have been vastly different from yours, with my father being a strict fundamentalist minister of some prominence. I'm just embarrassed that it took me decades to reason my way out. I look forward to a day, probably after I'm long gone, where there is no need for a community of unbelievers to fend off the aggressive transgressions of believers in their attempts to control the lives of others and our common society. I wish you simply the best humanity has to offer!
@@xmillion1704 You mentioned the foundation of religion which is the tribalistic instinct to belong to a tribe and follow its' mythology and rules of behavior.
Why would I need forgiveness from a mere mortal? It's obvious that there's a magic man in the sky who can forgive me as long as I don't masturbate. It's just logical
@@ConontheBinarian Because if you didn't ask mortals for forgiveness for your self-arousal then how could a sky-wizard ever forgive you? Checkmate atheists!
@@TheScotsalan the christy-boys do the forgiving, the magic sky being does the eternal torment. That's because the hoomans are imperfect and able to forgive without shedding innocent blood but the perfect magic sky being can't forgive unless you murder his kid. It's perfectly rational
Excellent. We do not yet live in a time when knowledge can be extended along a pathway smooth and free of obstacles. But with Sages and Wise Ones such as yourself doing what you do, the world is watching, and either learning or becoming defensive. But your rational is solid and people are listening to you, because you make it interesting while delivering intel about reality. And non-reality. People are listening to you. And people are listening to you.
I sure hope this video comes to her attention and she gives it her full attention from start to finish. This is the voice of millions of people talking to her, telling her why she will remain completely irrelevant if she ignores this.
After stumbling across the most modern Atheists. I am finally sorting out this stuff in a logical way. There are some lovely ideas and concepts in the realm of spirituality, religion, metaphysics, and even paranormal ideas. But guys like Aron Ra have taken it to another level. Thank you Mr Ra. You are a blessing (for lack of a better word) to the world.
I think its actually a rule that you're not even allowed to examine anything you have faith in. Apparently believing something for no reason is what has the power. Not sure how that works.
They can’t/won’t admit that they are irrational. Faith is irrational by definition, even according to their Bible “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11.1
There is still enough space for faith. Although miracles like that in Fatima 1917 saw thousands of eyewitness including atheists other religion people or scientists. Good luck on judgement day!
You would think the christians at least would understand this, considering a lot of them probably went through the Santa Claus phase. It's like a test run for "people who want to control your behavior will lie to you with promises of gifts and threats(coal)".
What? You mean god isn't omniscient and doesn't know whether you are sleeping or awake? He does not know if you have been bad or good, so be good for goodness' sake? I thought he had a list and was checking it twice!
Even _if_ the christian god were to be proven true (never gonna happen), I would contend that it still wouldn’t be half as impressive as many *_actual_* *_facts_* of our observable universe. The universe is awesome and its a shame we will never know exactly how *_amazing_* it really is.
If a god exists then everything else (aside from god) is irrelevant because of god's omniscience. Hey god how many stars and habitable planets are there next door in the Andromeda Galaxy? And god gives you the answer (if god does not answer then that has it's own paradoxes). So then why build and make the effort to construct space ships and space telescopes? If you know exactly what the story book is about from end to finish why read it?? I mean there may be some slight excitement left such as the experience of travelling to places (even though you have complete knowledge about them) or reading the same book in different environments it's just that the novelty aspect (that stems from not knowing, not being omniscient)would be extremely diminished! This is sort of like how (or so I think) god cannot play the children's game of hide and seek or that god cannot experience death the same way as humans do because humans do not know what happens after death (all evidence point to nothing).
And most certainly would not be worth worshiping. Unless somehow the Marcians (sic, and not Sir SIC) got god correct and that the god of the old testament and new testament are not one and the same.
Right, knowledge is power whereas ignorance causes problems. Knowing how to perform meaningful actions is far more productive than wishful thinking and imaginary thinking.
The professor doesn’t seem to realize her deity was once a regional deity too, without power outside of that region. In one of the stories a biblical character goes on a journey, during which he has to pray to a different deity. I seem to recall it was the fairytale of the man who couldn’t see the angel in his path but his donkey could.
This woman should be fired and banned from academia. No, that's wrong. I think she should be forced to have an atheist in each of her classes that get just as much lecture time as she does and co-grading papers. Censorship is never the cure for bad info (no matter how bad it is), truth is the cure for ignorance and stupidity.
@@littlebitofhope1489 When it seeks validation. For example the philosophy of science (predictive power, experimentation, all that) is validated by empirical result. More abstract philosophies follow similar rules from art to mathematics.
Was there even a mentioning wherefrom her PhD came from? Nowadays anyone can go around claiming they have a paper diploma and even keep it visible on the wall behind them in some UT feed but that still doesn't prove they got it from a dependable institution of science or faculty of humanistics.
Apparently she got her PhD for philosphy from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. She also claims she has a PhD in archaeology and art sciences at the Free University of Brussels from 2007... Wiki says the university split in 1969, but both split universities kept the name, so I don`t know which one she attended. She has published numerous articles about evolution and religion. I am guessing she is like Jordan Peterson, and actually holds legitimate degrees, but chooses to try and shove god into it, to hold onto her beliefs. But I am just speculating.
I absolutely love your candor in explaining religious experience. I have a similar past and you got every nail on the head. Another very well done video.
One thing you learn about deductive logic in college (non-religious institutions) is that the rules of logic can be used to prove a written statement known to be inherently true to be false. Atheists often try to dismiss the importance of the Christian faith by using the rules of logic. But if one takes time to distinguish between the rules of logic and the inherent logic of the human mind [true logic] one will discover the rules of logic are not sufficient to deny faith -- even if God exists or not. Here's why: 1. Inherent logic, true logic, is governed by our minds, not by a set of rules. 2.) The rules of logic contain no content, no data, and no information. 3.) The rules of logic limit the free expression of thought by confining language to a narrow construct of prescriptive logical fallacies. 4.) There is no controlling authority that compels anyone to follow the rules of logic.
@stryker1195 Logic works. Otherwise trains would run into one another, and math could not be proven. My observation of diagnostic logic is that there is a finite number or rules, and an infinite number of exceptions when defining a system. Any system. When you claim inherent logic, that is an exception. Exceptions are necessary to resolve contradictions. Religion is used to instill faith in other people. By providing a belief set, and rules for people to have in common. The problem of religion and hence God is that it comes from humans.
@@stryker1195 No one denies faith exists, what is rejected is the truth of the CLAIM that a god exists. But the BEST philosophy can do is say a god could exist. Unfortunately the same could apply to fairy's, pixies or Urgle space beasts
De Cruz received her BA in archaeology and art studies and an MA in anthropology of art from Ghent University. In 2007 she completed a PhD in archaeology and art studies at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, and in 2011 she completed a PhD in philosophy at Groningen University, entitled Through a Mind Darkly: An Empirically-informed philosophical perspective on systematic knowledge acquisition and cognitive limitations, under the supervision of Igor Douven. After post-doctoral research positions at University of Leuven and Somerville College, Oxford, she joined VU Amsterdam as an assistant professor of philosophy in 2015, before moving to Oxford Brookes University in 2016.[1] She has held the Danforth Chair of Philosophy at Saint Louis University since September 2019.[2] She is currently an Executive Editor of the Journal of Analytic Theology,[3] and a member of the editorial boards of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Journal of Mind & Behavior,[4] and Religious Studies. In 2014 De Cruz published a series of interviews with philosophers working outside of academia for the NewAPPS blog.[5] She was a signatory on a 2018 open letter from academic philosophers to Amber Rudd, which urged the then home secretary to reconsider a request for asylum. The letter described a request which had been denied on the grounds that the applicant had not mentioned Plato or Aristotle when asked about humanism. The letter's signatories argued that the applicant should not have been expected to mention them.[6] De Cruz regularly engages in public philosophy and has been featured on several public philosophy podcasts discussing the public sphere, religious disagreement, science fiction, philosophy of science, and experimental philosophy of religion. Wikipedia.
@@kellydalstok8900 It certainly undermines one's confidence in the checks and balances at Groningen University. I might see if I can write a PhD proposal on the psychological benefits of snake-oil and see if I can get it accepted ...
23:54 I left the LDS church hard after hearing something much like this reasoning. "Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith" I was really into learning about the dark triad traits and sociopathy and psychopathy. That is a sociopathic thing to say.
Since what we pretend to know has consequences, it might be a good time to ask ourselves what we aspire to. 1. Should I aspire to pretend to know that an undetectable supernatural realm exists that is inhabited by undetectable, all-powerful, immortal beings, some good and some evil, all of them privileged to know the veracity of all things knowable and unknowable? 2. Should I aspire to pretend to know I am intimately familiar with a reality that is undetectable and unknowable, and have an intimate personal relationship with an undetectable good supernatural being that allows me to telepathically communicate with the undetectable supernatural realm? 3. Should I aspire to pretend to know that I personally experience and witness supernatural interventions every day of my life? 4. Should I aspire to pretend to know that friends, family, teachers, and preachers who lecture me concerning the supernatural are not pretending to know things they cannot possibly know? 5. Should I aspire to pretend to know that when our superstitious ancient ancestors went about creating holy books, they did not include anything they were pretending to know, things that they could not possibly know? 6. Should I aspire to pretend to know that an undetectable good supernatural being has bestowed upon me knowledge of unknowable truths, including the mind of a god, what it thinks and wants? 7. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings are continuously monitoring and passing righteous judgment upon every human thought and deed? 8. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have ordained me with the exclusive ethical moral authority, knowledge, and duty to advise others as to the truth of all unknowable knowledge that good supernatural beings supposedly want everyone to pretend to know? 9. Should I aspire to pretend to know that we are all immortal supernatural beings temporarily trapped in a mortal flesh body? 10. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable evil supernatural beings are trying to manipulate my thinking to prevent me from pretending to know the unknowable knowledge that good supernatural beings want me to pretend to know? 11. Should I aspire to pretend to know that being tortured in a lake of fire for eternity is just retribution for failing to pretend to know the same unknowable things that other pretenders pretend to know? 12. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have endowed me with the exclusive ethical moral authority, knowledge, and duty to recognize, challenge and condemn anyone who dares to spread a different version of unknowable knowledge? 13. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to restrict the questions, facts, narratives, and realities, I and others may entertain? 14. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings are responsible and deserve credit for every good thing that I experience in life? 15. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have informed me that you are responsible for, and deserve blame for, every hardship you suffer in life? 16. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have informed me that if you fail to dedicate yourself to a life of servitude to undetectable good supernatural beings, it is only because you have willfully chosen a life of servitude to undetectable evil supernatural beings? 17. Should I aspire to pretend to know that it is my righteous duty to visit hate, discrimination, misfortune, hardship, oppression, suffering, and destruction upon those whom my undetectable good supernatural mentors disapprove of? 18. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have delegated to me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to outlaw sex acts, preferences, and practices that do not conform to the undetectable supernatural realm’s sexual standards? 19. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have delegated to me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to condemn your sexual thoughts, desires, and fantasies? 20. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have delegated to me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to condemn masturbation? 21. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have granted me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to do everything in my power to restrict your access to birth control? 22. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have delegated to me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to do everything in my power to regulate which adults you may or may not associate with, cohabitate with, have sex with, love, and/or marry? 23. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have decreed that men are entitled to subjugate women and treat them as though they are chattel property? 24. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have delegated to me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to limit a woman's reproductive choices? 25. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have decreed that, without exception, a fertilized egg, zygote, fetus, or unborn baby is endowed with exclusive ownership of and sovereignty over a woman's body? 26. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have delegated to me the exclusive authority and duty to do everything in my power to restrict the teaching of certain scientific theories in public schools? 27. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have delegated to me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to do everything in my power to ban comprehensive sex education in public schools? 28. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have delegated to them the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to do everything in my power to restrict access to certain genres of books, videos, and other educational materials from public schools, public libraries, bookstores, and the internet? 29. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have delegated to me the exclusive authority and duty to do everything in my power to ban public school discussion of social justice issues and the oppression faced by oppressed groups? 30. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have delegated to me the exclusive authority and duty to do everything in my power to ban the teaching of certain aspects of human history in public schools?
Hi Aron!🥰 The "Medical News Today" has a great article on, "What religion does to your brain. (July 20, 2018)." It was refreshing to read that, "religion activates the same reward-processing brain circuits as sex, drugs, and other addictive activities." No god(s) EVER existed outside of a human mind! Aron, you truly are my Inspiration!!! Always Love Your Great Work!!! Big Hugs!!! 🥰❤🥰🤘😎
Our evolved mental social attributes result in us being amenable to belief in spirits/gods. Gods are tribal group identities IOW god is the idealization of our need to bond to a group. Ones innate need to bond to a group identity can easily override our rational mind making reasoning with a religious person mostly futile.
The PhD philosopher reminds me of something a physician friend once said: Q: What do you call the person who graduates last in their class in medical school? A: Doctor.
The universal presence of the commandment "thou shalt not kill" in almost every religious tradition raises intriguing questions about the efficacy of this widely embraced ethical precept. Astonishingly, the overwhelming majority of individuals across the globe-regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof-adhere to this fundamental moral tenet in their daily lives. Paradoxically, recent research suggests that individuals identifying themselves as "people of faith" exhibit a higher propensity for engaging in acts of violence, surpassing the incidence among atheists. This study aims to explore the extent to which religion shapes the lives of serial killers and murderers, delving into the religious affiliations of notorious criminals to shed light on this phenomenon. Methods: This investigation relies on an extensive analysis of the religious backgrounds and affiliations of well-known individuals involved in serial killings and acts of murder. While it is important to acknowledge that this compilation is not exhaustive, it represents a comprehensive effort to collect available information. The study welcomes the contribution of accurate data, supported by reputable sources, to expand and refine our understanding of the relationship between religion and criminality. Results and Discussion: Aileen Wuornos, though initially atheistic, embraced Christianity following her conviction, undergoing a transformation as a "born-again" Christian under the influence of an evangelical Christian couple who adopted her. Albert Fish, raised in a family marked by religious psychosis, developed a macabre fascination with the biblical story of Abraham and Isaac, perceiving the sacrifice of a boy as an act of penance. While claims of satanic practices surround Anthony Hardy, insufficient evidence exists to substantiate his affiliation with Satanism. David Berkowitz, of Jewish upbringing, later converted to Catholicism and adopted an ardent commitment to evangelical Christianity, rebranding himself as the "Son of Hope." David Copeland, while not adhering to traditional Christianity, was known to engage with extremist right-wing Christian literature espousing anti-Semitism. The case of David Ray Parker exemplifies a profound religious transformation, as he embraced Christianity and sought redemption during a lengthy period of solitary confinement. Dean Arnold Corll's religious inclinations remain elusive, with scant evidence of strong religious beliefs. Dennis Nilsen, raised in a devout Catholic household, later became agnostic. Dennis Rader, raised in a strict Lutheran family, actively participated in his church community and held a leadership role. Donald Henry Gaskins, forced to attend church as a child, did not exhibit a religious inclination in his adulthood. Ed Gein's upbringing under the oppressive rule of a strict Lutheran mother influenced his deviant sexual proclivities. Edmund Kemper, although not raised in a religious environment, claimed to experience a "religious conversion" while incarcerated. Gary Ridgway, a Baptist convert and zealous proselytizer, embraced an intense devotion to his faith, often weeping while reading the Bible. H.H. Holmes, raised within a devoutly religious family, experienced severe punishments for perceived transgressions from his mother. Dr. Harold Shipman and his wife Primrose were both devout Methodists, navigating the challenges of their unmarried pregnancy within the confines of their religious communities. Herbert Mullin's fascination with Eastern religions and reincarnation emerged following the death of a close friend, although he intermittently exhibited fanatical Catholic tendencies. Janie Lou Gibbs, a devout Christian, tragically murdered her own family members while subsequently donating a portion of her ill-gotten inheritance to her church. Jeffrey Dahmer, originating from a staunchly religious family, renounced his faith but was re-baptized during his time in prison. Joel Rifkin, raised in an adopted Jewish household, expressed minimal adherence to his religious heritage. John Allen Muhammad's conversion to the Nation of Islam and subsequent name change underscored his active engagement with religious organizations, despite later facing denouncement from the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. John Wayne Gacy's upbringing within a devout Catholic family and his consideration of becoming a priest revealed his immersion in religious institutions. John Bodkin Adams, born into a devout Protestant family, witnessed his father's preaching in the local congregation. John George Haigh's parents, adherents of the Plymouth Brethren, imposed strict religious constraints on his upbringing. John Reginald Christie, an Anglican, maintained regular attendance at All Souls’ Church in Halifax. Judy Buenoano identified as a devout Roman Catholic. Lee Boyd Malvo, initially baptized as a Seventh-Day Adventist, converted to Islam under the influence of his accomplice, John Allen Muhammad. Levi Bellfield's conversion to Islam occurred during his imprisonment, assuming the name Yusuf Rahim. Myra Hindley, raised in a semi-religious Catholic family, fluctuated between renouncing and reclaiming her Catholic faith. Peter Manuel's devout Catholic upbringing and education in Roman Catholic schools exemplify his religious background, while Peter Sutcliffe's religious journey involved claiming a divine mission and subsequent baptism as a Jehovah's Witness. Peter Tobin's Irish Catholic heritage and involvement with the Jesus Fellowship highlight his religious connections, with speculations linking him to the unidentified serial killer known as Bible John. Richard Ramirez, often associated with Satanism, professed devotion to Satan and sought the counsel of renowned Satanist Anton LaVey. Robert "Willie" Pickton, while lacking evidence of a specific religious upbringing, referenced biblical passages in his correspondence. Rodney Alcala, raised in a Catholic family, adopted agnosticism during his early adolescence. Ted Bundy's Mormon baptism and ongoing inclusion on the Mormon roll attest to his religious ties. Timothy McVeigh's Catholic upbringing, followed by his agnostic stance later in life, was characterized by complex religious reflections that culminated in his reception of Last Rites before his execution. Velma Barfield experienced a religious conversion in prison after encountering a program by evangelist J. K. Kinkle, leading her to seek forgiveness and find solace in her newfound faith.
No mention of China, and its 1.4 billion ppl who are officially athiest.Many are not of course, but how do ppl in Chinese jails manage without finding faith ?
Apropos of nothing, it occurs to me that our friend Aron Ra enjoys the most fiery hot sauces not because he enjoys the burn or even the flavor, but rather to accustom himself to its effects in case the Christian Nationalists suddenly seize power in Texas via a coup, he can then hit streets in protest and be able to shrug off the effects of pepper spray. Just a thought.
@@Maximex123 you're both wrong. God sent me a dream and she showed me that the only food in the underworld is dry white toast and vanilla ice cream that's room temperature so it's all gross and runny. Repent for the vanilla and wonder bread are upon us!!!
@@Maximex123 yes first the room temperature vanilla goo followed by the sandpaper dry toast. And the underworld chefs make sure to let the toast sit out for a day so it's not even fresh. After all we're talking about a perfect and loving magic sky being so of course it's that convoluted
@@Maximex123 god herself showed me the ultimate truth of her existence and all you have to do is look in the sky for a cloud that kinda looks like a salamander and worship it. Then you just need to pay attention to what it says about masturbation, that's really important for some reason.
Why do christians and muslims often avoid the questions and points that show the errors and fallacies in what they believe? Why do politicians avoid questions that would make them look bad and often respond with whataboutisms and personal attacks? This is a comment I made recently trying to explain why I think this often happens. Its a long comment but I tried to keep it short but with enough information to understand it hopefully. That is what I am testing now and asking people if they are willing to give it a read. If you have 12 minutes the first basic part I will go over is about fast/slow thinking. If you want there is a 12 minute video by veritasium called "the science of thinking" that will explain it very well. I think this is knowledge that can really benefit people if they do not know about it. The next part though I dont know any videos for and I dont know if anyone really had the idea I have before. The knowledge of the fast/slow mind is what is relevant from that video and I think a good starting point for the discussion. The video also gives examples of people doing it live, but it most likely will work on you as well so that is how I will show you. I am going to ask you a question, and I am going to predict the answer you will have pop in your mind at first, and predict that will be a wrong answer. This works on most people and you can try if for yourself on others to see too, its an interesting conversation starter. A bat and a ball together cost 1.10, the bat costs 1.00 more then the ball, how much did the ball cost? You might have an answer flash in your head right away with fast inaccurate fast mind but if you check that answer with your slow but more accurate conscious awareness, you can see that answer is wrong but it takes effort to do. The answer of ten cents is not the right answer but most people have that pop in their head because of the fast thinking mind that we rely on most of the time. The fast unconscious mind is taking everything in and trying to make sense of it really fast. Its 11 million bits a second. But sometimes it makes mistakes. The slow conscious mind is 40-50 bits and lazy but it can check things and bringing the unconscious mistake to conscious awareness it can correct it. The next thing to understand is about carl jung and the 4 ways the unconscious complex he called shadow deals with reality. The shadow is an unconscious complex that is defined as the repressed and suppressed aspects of the conscious self. there are constructive and destructive types of shadow. Carl jung emphasized the importance of being aware of shadow material and incorporating it into conscious awareness lest one project these attributes onto others. The human being deals with the reality of shadow in 4 ways. Denial, projection, integration and/or transmutation. Now I believe what is happening when a question that exposes a conflict in a belief, idea, something that someone said, or even about someone they idolize and the question gets avoided, that is the fast unconscious mind going into denial and the response is often a projection. This also can trigger and emotional response activating the amygdala more and the pre frontal cortex less where rational conscious thought is said to happen and the amygdala starts to get the body to flood itself with chemicals/hormones. Its like the fast mind knows conscious awareness will say its wrong. so it blocks it off to defend itself from admitting its wrong. in cases of denial and because it blocked off the rational mind, the responses are often irrational. Like personal attacks do not address the issue or answer the question. I think we can agree people have a very hard time now days admitting when they are wrong, I am not except from this myself I do realize. And we can see how badly questions avoidance effects us if you watch political meetings and watch them avoid questions all day long. Ok, so the first thing to go over is denial as that is the main one I expose with questions. A disowning or refusal to acknowledge something I think is a good definition for it here. There is a really good 2 minute video I use as an example of this. A streamer named vegan gains claiming lobsters have brains after some one said he can eat lobsters because they do not have brains. He googles it and starts to read what it says. When he gets to the part where is says neither insects nor lobsters have brains, he skips it and says they literally are insects then skips over that line and continues to read the rest. Just like in the fast thinking video, his fast mind already read that line and refused to acknowledge it in unconscious denial, and just skipped it. The person then tells him he skipped it and he reads it again and sees the line this time. Still being defensive of his claim and refusing to accept he was wrong, he tried to discredit the source and its the lobster institute of maine. If you would like to see the video for yourself its 2 minutes by destiny clips and the video is called " Destiny Reacts To Vegan Gains Ignoring Search Result That Contradicts Him". Justin turdo avoiding the question of how much his family was paid by the we charity 6 times in a row I think is denial as well. I think jordan peterson not being able to answer his own question of does he believe god exists and asking what do and you mean then saying no one knows what any of those words mean while being seemingly angry is think is another really good example of denial... and projection. And while JP find those words difficult, other people understand them easy. Even he does pretty much any other time they are used. So projection is next up. Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings. Many times a mind in denial will use projections for responses. Someone getting mad and telling the other person to not interrupt when they have been doing that a lot themselves would be an example. I have done this myself. The people who tell me I dont understand my own questions and my point is wrong when they do not even know what the point is are all examples as well. I ask them to steel man my position to show then understand my point and they just avoid that question as well clearly showing they do not understand my point. Now we have integration and/or transmutation. Integration is when you bring an unconscious behavior into conscious awareness and accept it. I know that I interrupt people talking sometimes even though I think that is wrong to do. I have a conscious awareness of it, but I have not been able to completely change the behavior.... yet. That is where transmutation comes in. Transmutation is to completely change that unconscious behavior. From being impatient to being patient, of from distrust to trust, hate into understanding and love even. So was this understandable or confusing? if you understand it, do you think its possibly true? Do you have any questions? If you have any tips I am would gladly listen.
Sorry, I dont see what that has to do with the vid. This seems to be a variation of the old arguement you need to be open to god to know him ? Is that close to the mark ? 👍
@@TheScotsalan >>Sorry, I dont see what that has to do with the vid."" Nothing to do with the video, I made it before watching it. >>This seems to be a variation of the old arguement you need to be open to god to know him ? "" WOA, ok, this is not at all understandable then. You think I am a theist when I asked why do they avoid questions and points that show the errors and fallacies in what they believe? I dont know how that question could be asked and the person think a theist asked it. You sure you really read it? >>Is that close to the mark ? "" Its almost the complete opposite. Had about 6 people now all say they understand it and 2 of them are christian. 1 person said it was nonsense, and now this. Can I ask what I said that gave you the impression I was a theist?
@@macmac1022 No prob 👍. I sped read it thro, and it was struck me it was a beating around the bush theist arguement, precisely cos it did not seem to have much to do with the vid. Yup, I did not see the usual “faith” thing at the end, but the “any questions” part is a usual theist tactic is it not. Dont take offence, I always treat YT discussions in a light hearted way. 👍
@@TheScotsalan >>>No prob 👍. I sped read it thro, and it was struck me it was a beating around the bush theist arguement, precisely cos it did not seem to have much to do with the vid."" AHHHHH. OK, well I dont think I can really blame that on the comment itself then. The comment speaks towards that behavior of avoiding the point and just projecting some irrelevant point. >>Yup, I did not see the usual “faith” thing at the end, but the “any questions” part is a usual theist tactic is it not."" What faith thing at the end? I am trying to find what you are talking about. And do you mean avoiding questions? If someone avoids a question it does not matter if they are a theist or not, they can and I think should point it out. I dont know what you mean by the any questions part if its not avoiding questions you mean.
Keep in mind that Acadamia isnt an actual website for a university or anything, and that it DOESN`T peer-review before publishing papers. It relies on a "alongside distribution of peer-review". Not to mention they often ask for a fee from authors to help "display" their papers to an audience. There is literally a paper called "The Purpose of Dinosaurs: Extinction and the Goodness of God" on their website, just to give you an idea of how much they really care about scientific rigor. This is why I stick to the NCBI. 😁
Technically the mustard wasn't broccoli yet. God did not create broccoli, we did. But you're definitely defiant and purposefully relying on science and people and having gay (which would be bi and the bible was probably referring to little boys, but whatever) sex to disrespect god and you deserve death because of it. That's in Romans 1. It's all the evidence we need for the death penalty apparently. If you deny it that's evidence that you're a liar and you can't be trusted and that the bible is right. Or in other words: heads, theism wins, tails, you lose. Or in historical terms: you either float and are executed because of witchcraft, or you sink and die.
My peer review of this paper: But, it's just your opinion, Professor Helen De Cruz! PS. Maybe by "evidential" she meant "testimonial"? Quote: Helen De Cruz (born 1978) is a Belgian philosopher and Danforth Chair of Philosophy at Saint Louis University who specialises in philosophy of religion, experimental philosophy, and philosophy of cognitive science.
The irony for people who attempt to prove the existence of God is that, by definition, there can be no proof of God - Faith is based on trust and feeling. Theists ask Athiests to disprove God as if religion is the default.
You realize religion is in fact the default because it's existed as long as humans have, and atheism is a relatively new and radical position by comparison.
@@nathanwhite704 While I understand the point you're poorly attempting to make, I absolutely disagree with you on that and that's objectively not true. It is true that religion has been around for thousands of years, but we are all born atheists and have to be taught religion or conceive the idea of it later in life. Thus, theism is not the default.
@@nathanwhite704 The statement that religion is the default is a topic of debate and can vary depending on how one defines "default." It is important to note that there is no universally accepted definition of default in the context of belief systems. Historically, religious beliefs and practices have been deeply ingrained in human societies across cultures and time. Many argue that this historical prevalence suggests that religion has been the default position for most people throughout history. However, it is also worth considering that atheism or the absence of belief in deities is not necessarily a recent phenomenon. In ancient times, there were philosophical schools and individuals who held atheistic or non-theistic views. Additionally, some argue that atheism is a default position in the sense that individuals are born without inherent belief in any specific religion or deity and must later adopt religious beliefs through exposure and cultural influence. Ultimately, whether religion is considered the default or not depends on how one defines and interprets the concept of default in the context of belief systems, and perspectives on this can vary.
StefanSochinsky: "Faith is based on trust and feeling." And belief is the turning of an infinite god into a finite god using religion. In secular terms this would be the brotherhood of mankind and at this too humans seem to fail. Cain was rebellious and loved Satan more than God. Out of selfishness and in a fit of jealousy, Cain rose up and slew his brother, Abel. When the Lord inquired of Cain, “Where is Abel, thy brother?” Cain arrogantly replied with the question, “Am I my brother's keeper?” (Moses 5 : 34.)
Did she get a bonus pack of x-ray specs with that PhD? I got a sticky wall octopus with mine. I really wanted the specs to look through women's dresses. Wowzers!!!
I define Atheism as the following: A lack of belief/conviction, in or of, an alleged god/deity or alleged gods/deities, due to lack of empirical, demonstrative, and testable evidence and/or logical reason.
The Christian God started out as a local Canaanite god. He even has a location that he is associated with that we call "The Temple Mount". He didn't become a big 'G' God until later. This is pretty noticeable in the early parts of the Bible. He is actually the blend of two Canaanite gods. Yahweh and El who was Yahweh's father. (Baal was actually one of Yahweh's brothers)
Not strictly true. El was the head of the Canaanite pantheon and he had 70 sons. We don't know all 70 of their names and those we do "Yahweh" isn't one of them. The Canaanites were the first to confuse things by calling all gods of all religion "el" just like in Christian English where we have "big G God" and all other religions deities are "small g gods". But yes, the Hebrews/Israelites which first begin to appear in the historical record a couple hundred years after the Late Bronze Age Collapse as an offshoot of Canaanites, conflated their war god with El, even to the point of Yahweh having 70 sons with his consort Asherah. From Deuteronomy 32 “When the El-yo-wn (El the most high, notice singular) gave the nations their inheritance, when He (singular) divided the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But the Lord’s (Yahweh’s) portion is His people, Jacob His allotted inheritance.” Genesis 10 lists the 70 names that founded nations to go with Yahweh’s 70 sons.
You know what I've found hilariously curious? Referring to a religious person as a "god-worshipper." Most of them do NOT like being called that, often for reasons they can't even express, it just makes them VERY uncomfortable, even angry.
We still discover new stuff about "our" reality, but the religious closed the book on new discoveries: "If what we believe now is perfect, it must also be all we need." No wonder they have no new arguments :D
It's easy to see why this paper was posted on a non-peer-reviewed site. My wife, who is a philosophy professor, laughed when I showed it to her. She pointed out that a colleague of hers, who is a philosopher specializing in medieval philosophy, theology and logic who also a Christian, would never resort to such obviously fallacious reasoning. Trying to have it both ways and pretend that faith--unsupported belief--can be supported on the grounds of critical thinking (i.e. evidence and reasoning) is intellectually dishonest. The theists are commonly trying to pretend that the bulk of the evidence is consistent with, if not indicative of, their god so that they can paint the irrationality of faith as just the last small and rational step across the unsupported crack they want it to be rather than the impossible Evel Knievel attempt to leap the grand canyon, more likely the Valles Marineris, that it actually is.
Aronra is an amazing man and teacher I have learned so much from him about evolution and religion to he is one of the best teachers out there love you buddy keep up the good work❤❤
I try to rein in my biases, and give philosophers the benefit of the doubt just like any other profession, but DAMN do philosophers like this one make that difficult.
Would you be willing to sometime do a video about your experiences as a pagan? As its not as wide spread as christianity, it could be a very interesting video.
when it comes to prayer, i appreciate it as a "there is nothing i can do to help but i will pass it onto the highest power i believe in". i got chronically ill two years ago (still ill) and my family, who live far from me, all prayed for me. i absolutely appreciated it. when my old boss, who was pushy and upset i'd stopped attending church, told me "i'll pray for you" when my nanna died on the other hand she got a flat "please don't", because her prayers were absolutely weapons. prayer is, to me, the same as sending good vibes when not weaponised: a way to express that one cares, and best paired with either check ins or help in other ways
Aron, the problem of theists is that they use a secondary definition for "evidence", look it up, the dictionary features it. In their world any person witnessing something is "evidence" (just like in the legal context). Therefore I recommend that we specify "non-personal, objective evidence", then they cannot weasel their way out of it.
Somehow dogs make every type of content more interesting. Boop that snoot for me, please. Thank you for your insightful video. It really helps a lot to have our position defined and explained in such a detailed manner. Occasionally I even see other sceptics misunderstand or mis-define atheism. Big, strong and fluffy dragon hug for all of you.
In detailed manner as well as reading Bob and Jane books and I only mean that -- it's elementary. And that's where a good share of USA's mentality is, I guess.
9:00 Also, that's not what the words "local" and "global" mean. Jahve was a local god of the Jews and the Roman pantheon was the closest to being globally accepted in the ancient world.
I wonder if the Indian / Buddhist or Chinese thoughts on Ancestors or nature would also count as those various religions/philosophies encompassed similar swaths of the planet.
I have experienced death more than 6 times. I know it's the brain shutting down. The first two times I experienced the light tunnel, but then concurrent experiences didn't... BUT the memory of them was instantly there, making or prolonging the feeling of time spent. I believe that if a person would experience death enough times, they could start to learn to think during that low level of brain activity... there is no there there like Aron says. It's like learning to read a book while on psychedelics... seems impossible at first, but then the entire "mystical" out of reality feeling starts to fade away, and increased speed of thought starting to take place. If we clinically study this enough, time will give us practical answers instead of "magic " and "godly afterlife" goofy explanations. ☮
I like the term, 'un-believer', rather than 'atheist', since I don't consider myself anti-theist. I would be more than happy to become a theist, IF undeniable evidence to the existence of what we would comprehend to be a God, was proven. Of course, it would still need to be a benevolent being worthy of being worshipped, and not a fear mongering hateful creature like Christians and Muslims idolize.
Anti-theism and a-theism are completely different terms. The first (anti-) means "against", the second (a-) means "without". So ''un-believier'' is the 'same' as ''a-theist''.
What''s wrong with just saying "godless"? Being an atheist does not stop one from believing things not related to gods, no matter how unreasonable, paranormal and supernatural those things may be.
I'm glad to see Tunisia topping a list that doesn't make it look bad. Although, the lack of religious people in my country is not being reflected enough. It's still taboo to be an atheist outside of your 20s here. And even then, it depends on which state and what kind of friends you have.
How often do atheists socialize compared to religions people, how often do they gather and talk, Atheists could be failing in the socializing compartment. Used to be lack of entertainment before the rise of the TV. , radio ,mass production, of books, People had less choices of entertainment that also help boost socialization. Do atheists socialize less then religious people? The lack of cheap entertainment is one of the many reasons deism failed in France. Deism needs no church. Socializing even has a strong impact on politics and the exchange of rumors and information. Woman seem to socialize more then men. I have noticed that most men cellphones barely, beep, while woman do so constantly.
This is exactly why I never engage christians or any religious person for that matter on the existence of god(s). I live in Texas and you can't spit without hitting a church. If I am ever asked about attending or anything, I usually just say I'm not religious. That tends to confuse them. If I were to say I'm an atheist, I think that might tend to get some of their hackles up. I tend to just tell people I'm not religious anyway no matter what. I watch videos like this from time to time for entertainment and Aron Ra is especially good. He's super intelligent and very informed on the topic. Otherwise, I'm just trying to live my life. Even though I grew up as a preacher's kid, I learned at a very early age that there wasn't a god. I did spend some of my teenage years trying to reconcile my unbelief with my up bringing, but finally gave up around the time I headed to college. I don't really spend any time thinking on the subject. Theists must think that atheists do nothing but think about whether god exists or not when we are having all our atheistic rituals or enjoying sinning or whatever they think we are doing. [edited for spelling]
I’m trying to avoid being around Christian’s for any amount of time. They cannot keep their BS to themselves and always have to pray in public, make stupid religious comments, etc. I don’t like being around such liars. My life is better without them in my life, that includes in-laws!
@@Ex_christian I completely agree. I just avoid christians in the first place. If I can't avoid them, I try to change the subject or leave. The only exception right now is my mother. She's 89 and has dementia. I can't not talk to her. However, she's consumed right now with me going to hell. Like most atheists I know quite a bit about the bible so I can talk enough about it assuage her fears. It often lets me change the subject successfully.
@@Ex_christianthat has to be a very American thing, because the christians I work and have worked with never mention religion. The only way you can tell is because they get married in church and have their children baptized. And sometimes the children have weird OT names.
@@Slim_Chiply ya, I have issues with the in-laws constantly wanting to go out for dinner or something like that. Of course they are right wing Christian’s. I’ve said I can’t be around him because of his right wing nuttiness and she isn’t far behind. They aren’t my parents and don’t see the need to be around them or see them more than Thanksgiving or Christmas. But my husband can’t tell her no because she is also bipolar. She cannot handle the truth in anything because she has issues with it. He has dementia and should be in a nursing home. Of course I can’t say anything without getting in trouble.
@@Slim_Chiply Luckily for my family relationships I didn't really realize I no longer believed until after those relatives had died. The one or two that are possibly still very religious, I see so seldomly that we have far more important things to discuss than religion when we do see each other. I suspect one of my relatives is having doubts about the whole christianity thing and thanks to Aron Ra, Bart Erhman, Paulogia, and a few mythogists I raise an objection or two and then we change the subject or someone drags me off to look at something.
What do theists actually think or what are they told in Church evidence is? I don't ever remember any discussions about "evidence" when I was a Catholic/Christian in church, maybe there was talk about "proof" but it was always about anecdotes and testimonies.
When having to go to Lutheran church at the end of 5th grade constantly and then into confirmation, there was ZERO evidence given. The pastor at that time even used the 4.5 billion year timeline and shoved the creation BS in it. It really makes me think of Republicans today. We’ve heard since Obama implemented the ACA that they had a “plan” and yet to this day we’ve seen nothing of evidence of a better plan for healthcare. Just like Christian’s, we continually hear about this “evidence” and yet they provide none!
Helen De Cruz. Based on her Wikipedia article I suspect that the paper passed peer review just on the back of her being a humanitarian, human rights advocate, and a lute player.
I went to christian schools in UK but didn’t have a christian family. I never thought it was anything but stories as a kid, fables with some moral lessons, etc. like a lot of other childish stories i heard at the time, i never considered that people actually believed there was a man in the sky. I once asked a priest ‘who made god’, i think just repeating something my brother said to me without really understanding, i was prob about 7 at the time, i remember he told me that ‘he just came about’ waved his hands and walked away from me. Like a Jedi mind trick or something.
I know it's fun to shit on philosophy, and a lot of "philosophers" deserve it, especially the ones who think you can logic things into existence - the ontolongical argument is especially embarrassing - but anybody who has taken an undergrad Philosophy of Religion class would know better than the post an article like this. If we handed a poorly-reasoned paper like this in, we'd have been told to rewrite it. How she got a PhD, I don't know, but her teacher(s) should be embarrassed.
My dad was a classic atheist. Never went to church, never thought about theism or philosophy. He lived his life, being generally kind & helpful to others because he could. His father was an atheist so there was no family conflict about it. When Xians talk about rejecting, hating or needing to disprove god, I think of my dad’s good nature and think it’s all rubbish.
In evolution from ape to modern man the Homo habilis and the ape man of Utah had penis and how many penises did they have
@@DanielLandolph-h1i WTF are you talking about, and why?
@@DanielLandolph-h1i64 penises.
@@DanielLandolph-h1i?🤷♂️
@@DanielLandolph-h1iI like water too
Creationism - the absurd belief that Kirk Cameron knows more than Stephen Hawking.
Appeal to authority fallacy. I’m not a creationist but this isn’t a good argument against it, and kind of plays into creationists’ hands.
It isn't a serious argument. Come on, you never heard of a joke before?
@@thekwjiboo Sorry! I’m usually the last to get jokes.
No worries. Especially with the written word it's hard to tell sometimes.
He does now.😂
Why should it be up to us Atheists to disprove god, put 10 people from 10 different religions in a room together and they will do all our work for us
This is why I suspect there are rarely theists from Religion A vs theists Religion B debate on god claims, because it will just be a circus.
Religious debates are often more than not Atheism vs Christianity or Atheism vs Islam, not Christianity vs Islam.
Also another thing that I think is pretty weasel is when Christians ride on the coattails of Atheists of Atheists vs Islam debates, completely ignorant that many of the moral and supernatural claim arguments against another Religion also apply to Christianity.
Some incredible level of cognitive dissonance.
Example seeing Apostate Prophet who is an ex-Muslim turned Atheist criticizing Islam on moral and its supernatural claims, all the while many Christian fans cheer it on and some even wishing he believed in the god of the Bible, completely oblivious to the irony of his well thought out criticisms.
One occasion, I post on the comments section reminding Christians of this.
This assumes god(s) literally exist in the same way that rocks, dogs, or humans literally exist, or they don’t, and are just made-up imaginary friends. I think that’s a misunderstanding, and it leads to this theist/atheist binary that causes crises of faith for so many.
There is a third option, outside of this binary ….
10 people from the same religion would likely have the same result once they realise how little they actually agree on
Haha so true
which is part of the evidence against god. It's odd that so many atheists are reluctant to disprove god, when it is so easy to do.
Positive claims require positive evidence. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Preach Aron Ra.
Why do only positive claims require evidence but negative claims can be accepted without it?
A quote from Christopher Hitchins razor.
Exodus 5:7🌠🧡✋️
Thank you for not editing out Falkor!
So, materialism/physicalism can be dismissed without evidence? 😉
I have a personal experience with the absence of god. I asked and did not receive. I sought and did not find. I knocked and nothing was opened.
Try the RING doorbell
That doesn’t mean god doesn’t exist. Maybe you didn’t grovel enough. Maybe god is like the Great Pumpkin and you have to convince him you’re sincere enough to be worthy of his help.😂
I am the one who knocks.
Is better that way. It means that you didn’t deceived yourself, that you didn’t forced yourself to see things that were not there.
I have been watching your channel for the last 2 weeks and have learnt so much, I'm going to go to college at 39 years old. Your channel has given me the kick up the ass I needed. Thank you.
@Wyrd Aron has a playlist called The Systematic Classification of Life. It sounds dry, but it's not. It's an epic, fascinating journey through evolution from microbes to the present day. Can't recommend it enough.
@@latheofheaven1017 Thank you for the recommendation, I am currently working my way through the Playlists.
@@Wyrd9 His David C Pac series from a while ago is his best and arguably most well rounded
I'm envious! A whole universe of learning lays before you.
Have fun my friend!
Good on you. Hope you do /did well🍀🍀🍀
So, what have we learned, children? Religion requires WILLFUL dishonesty.
Why? The universe exists. It is possible that the universe did not always exist. If the universe has not always existed a creation event occurred. If a creation event occurred it is not preposterous to believe that a conscious being was responsible. We must choose to believe or not believe. It serves me to believe. It serves you to not believe. When and how have I lied exactly?
@rexoconnell7787 Your argument is fallacious. It is possible that the universe didnt exist (Fallacy - demonstrate that it IS possible that the universe didn't exist). You assert that if a universe has not always existed that something (fallacy - demonstrate that a "something" that creates universes exists) must have created it (fallacy - demonstrate that universes must be created and in fact ARE "creations.")
That's just for starters. Notice there is no mention of gods or the supernatural in my reply... these questions are about epistemology and definition. If you can answer the above without any fallacies, THEN we get to the HARD part.
@@the-trustees i do not assert that something “must” have created the universe. If the universe is not eternal. I assert that something may have. I cannot demonstrate that it did. You cannot demonstrate that it occurred spontaneously.
@rexoconnell7787 I am not making any assertions about the universe. You are, and they are fallacious even if you don't think they are. Reread your prior post and mine CAREFULLY, and if you are honest, you will see. Also, it seems like you are trying to shift the burden of proof... another fallacy. I do not need to demonstrate anything in responding to fallacious premises.
@@the-trustees you do not assert that the creation of the universe was spontaneous (presuming it is not eternal)?
If you believe hard enough and lots of people also believe what you believe then it becomes true.
Well, Darth Vader, Voldemort, and Dracula are going to mess us all the $hit up.
We would all be screwed if Buffy wasn't real.
You may well enjoy Robert Heinleins The Cat Who Walks Through Walls.
Seriously grown up Sci fi.
Obi-Wan Kenobi died for our sins.
@@steveharrison3007I can grok that.
If you can't show it, you don't know it. You're just talkin' out of your ass. 😂 That line always makes me laugh. Another great video, Aron!
I like how theists think they have evidence for their God or against evolution or atheism but it always falls flat.
ITS Flater than the pankcake flat earth irony taste likey honey when it validates your opinion
@@ConontheBinarian😆
@@ConontheBinarian Evidently 🤣👍
But what about the kinesin Motor proteine?
I don’t get when theists do this, either. It is just about having faith, and realizing that what you “believe” / have hope in is probably counterfactual (not necessarily “false”). Recognize your own epistemic limits and don’t claim things like “the Bible is the Word Of God and MY God absolutely exists!” Because that’s simply wrong, no evidence behind it.
💖💗💓 Truly excellent, Aron. As a former-Christian, then later former-hard-polytheist Neopagan myself, I found your discussion to be perfectly on point!
No offense but how could you switch from one unbelievable god to many arguably-less believable gods?
I ask because it's interesting 🤔
There's nothing like a fresh cup of coffee and Aron Ra in the morning!
Also nice in the wee hours here in the frozen north, where I may be the only person awake.
Yep😂
Yeah! Doing the same before work!
You have coffee and Aron Ra in a cup?
@@KianaWolf Everything is thawed + some in Ky/Tn right now 🥵 I’ll be chasing salmon in two weeks on the Kenai~ save the chill for me! Also please excuse my old UA-cam handle which has reappeared unwelcome. I’m a boomer and can’t figure out how to restore my updated one.
Aron Ra, thank you so much for all your work and for how much time and effort you put in to educating people out of magical thinking. It sometimes bothers me to hear atheists hedge their positions by saying things like "maybe YHWH exists but I just haven't seen any convincing evidence". Well I personally have seen plenty of convincing evidence to the contrary and I'm confident in saying that if any gods exist it's obviously not the god of abraham and I appreciate your refreshing honesty in sharing the same sentiment. There's no evidence for any magic or monsters or cosmic sky beings that care when we masturbate and it's disturbing to live in a nation where people think otherwise
its important that atheists dont go down the road of attempting to "prove god(s) doesnt (dont), or cant exist". its also enticing and comforting to believers to entertain the idea that its possible for dieties to exist. the key to correcting this dilemma of confidence is sticking to the facts and avoiding faith. the core of the atheist directive ought to be only acting objectively evidentially with empiricism. this will go the longest way toward establishing the separation of church from state, law, medicine and science in general. once the fact is established that a.) the claim of theism is not falsifiable, and b.) the claim is not supported by any evidence, then can begin the proccess of completely grounding the ontology of modern philosophy in the epistemology of physics with real terms.
@@cerealpeer nah it's easy to prove gods don't exist. It just requires some confidence in your reasoning skills.
@@scambammer6102 yeah my resoning skills demand i dont attempt to affirm a negative in absence of a valid claim yo the contrary.
@@scambammer6102 think about it like this: if we accept that things exist without absence to the contrary then we have to ask ourselves what DOESNT exist...
@@cerealpeer you don't have to accept something to prove it doesn't exist
“Once beliefs are formed, the brain begins to look for and find confirmatory evidence in support of those beliefs, which adds an emotional boost of further confidence in the beliefs and thereby accelerates the process of reinforcing them, and round and round the process goes in a positive feedback loop of belief ''... Michael Shermer (Author of Why People Believe )
Bob on Aron, like usual!!! You are so respected chap, for what you do. I feel sorry for all in the US, because in Europe, no-one gives a toss, if you are an atheist.
Bob on? Autocorrect?
@@alexmcd378 It's a UK saying. ;)
@@ksturmer5388 cool, thanks for letting me know.
Bob’s your uncle.😜
Yup, Heinlein wrote "If this goes on..." in the 40's about America & it's theocratic direction. From over here in the UK it looks stifling & not a little scary!
If someone over here, on first meeting, asked which church I go to they'd be considered a religious nutter of some type!
If a billion people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
Yep. The only thing I can think of that it causes an exception for is the medical use of the word delusional. If billions of people hold delusional beliefs, the people cannot therefor be diagnosed as having delusions because it's not a useful diagnosis and it would get in the way of treating and researching who suffer from delusions.
So having delusional beliefs does not mean that one suffers from delusions. The beliefs are still delusional and irrational because they don't fit the actual evidence in actual reality and the evidence that we do have show that a loving god can't exist.
For one, a loving entity can't encourage faith because that encourages and relies on rationalizing. Methodically doing so, which faith require believers to do to themselves and others, is, according to the consensus in all of psychology, abusive and it makes people vulnerable and blind to abuse, encourages to excuse and rationalize abusive behaviour, making it harder to recognize abuse and to get out of abusive relationships/environments. It's typically an abusive tactic that abusers use to muddy the water and gaslight the victim.
Knowing that and still believing that this abusive behaviour is loving is delusional, regardless if they would be diagnosed with having delusions.
Ad Populum?
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
1 million flies eat feces therefore you shall also eat feces because 1 million flies can't be wrong but you can?
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
A few months ago someone phrased the ad populum fallacy as follows:
Trillions of flies can’t be wrong; eat sh!t.
It's astounding how many philosophers use philosophy the same way Catholic priests use young boys.
In the worst, wrongest possible way.
Is there a right way to use young boys??? I fear I've been doing it wrong all these years 🤣
@@markfrankenberry2440 They're great for sweeping chimneys, shame about the scrotal cancer.
@@ziploc2000 yea...chimneys...that's what I've been using them for...certainly not creating an army of 8 year olds to send me half their christmas presents for liquor money, that would be ridiculous!!
The Vatican is the devil's playground.
@@markfrankenberry2440 they used to deliver newspapers but I think that job has disappeared and they can work at a lemonade stand.
I just wanted to take a moment to thank you Aron for introducing me to a community that up until a couple weeks ago I didn’t know existed. My entire life I have been Atheist, even as a young child, despite being raised in a religious family. Until recently I felt outcast and alone in beliefs that I upheld but didn’t know how to defend. You have helped me too understand the arguments and how to express myself. I now have a community I belong so sincerely thank you.
Good luck and I hope you find your community growing from strength to strength.
I'm always so envious of those, like you, who describe being raised in a religious family but had the rare clarity, confidence and reasoning ability, seemingly beyond their young age, to see through the bs.
Admittedly, my religious family may have been vastly different from yours, with my father being a strict fundamentalist minister of some prominence. I'm just embarrassed that it took me decades to reason my way out.
I look forward to a day, probably after I'm long gone, where there is no need for a community of unbelievers to fend off the aggressive transgressions of believers in their attempts to control the lives of others and our common society. I wish you simply the best humanity has to offer!
We are all here for you. You are seen and cared about, never forget that.
It's brilliant, isn't it? Best wishes from the UK.
@@xmillion1704 You mentioned the foundation of religion which is the tribalistic instinct to belong to a tribe and follow its' mythology and rules of behavior.
Yep all you have to do is ask for forgiveness from an invisible sky wizard.You don't even have to ask forgiveness from the people you did wrong.
Why would I need forgiveness from a mere mortal? It's obvious that there's a magic man in the sky who can forgive me as long as I don't masturbate. It's just logical
@@ConontheBinarian Because if you didn't ask mortals for forgiveness for your self-arousal then how could a sky-wizard ever forgive you? Checkmate atheists!
@@rembrandt972ify Wait a moment. In Christianity, the onus is on the Christian to do the forgiving. Its in the lords prayer even. 👍
Oh no… not the “magic sky wizard” term. It is quite inaccurate.
@@TheScotsalan the christy-boys do the forgiving, the magic sky being does the eternal torment. That's because the hoomans are imperfect and able to forgive without shedding innocent blood but the perfect magic sky being can't forgive unless you murder his kid. It's perfectly rational
Excellent. We do not yet live in a time when knowledge can be extended along a pathway smooth and free of obstacles. But with Sages and Wise Ones such as yourself doing what you do, the world is watching, and either learning or becoming defensive. But your rational is solid and people are listening to you, because you make it interesting while delivering intel about reality. And non-reality. People are listening to you. And people are listening to you.
I sure hope this video comes to her attention and she gives it her full attention from start to finish. This is the voice of millions of people talking to her, telling her why she will remain completely irrelevant if she ignores this.
After stumbling across the most modern Atheists. I am finally sorting out this stuff in a logical way. There are some lovely ideas and concepts in the realm of spirituality, religion, metaphysics, and even paranormal ideas. But guys like Aron Ra have taken it to another level. Thank you Mr Ra. You are a blessing (for lack of a better word) to the world.
I’m always surprised how hard they try to kill their faith. Because if it’s proven it’s no longer faith…
I think its actually a rule that you're not even allowed to examine anything you have faith in. Apparently believing something for no reason is what has the power. Not sure how that works.
They can’t/won’t admit that they are irrational. Faith is irrational by definition, even according to their Bible “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11.1
@@pansepot1490What’s ironic is that theists often use that exact quote as if it makes it more rational to have faith by quoting it.
There is still enough space for faith. Although miracles like that in Fatima 1917 saw thousands of eyewitness including atheists other religion people or scientists. Good luck on judgement day!
@@camotobe thank you for wishing us luck! 🫰🏻
The Fairytales that were presented to us as children, will be dismissed by rational minded adults.
You would think the christians at least would understand this, considering a lot of them probably went through the Santa Claus phase. It's like a test run for "people who want to control your behavior will lie to you with promises of gifts and threats(coal)".
Prays Godand his mighty staff
... or while we're still children.
What? You mean god isn't omniscient and doesn't know whether you are sleeping or awake? He does not know if you have been bad or good, so be good for goodness' sake? I thought he had a list and was checking it twice!
Probably a good thing that Santa isn’t fairytale then, because I could really use a new football.
Her guiding concept seem to be "Facts don't matter when you have fath."
That about sums it up
Theists are special pleaders on steroids.
Excellent middle-glass Brit accent there Aron, impressive.
Even _if_ the christian god were to be proven true (never gonna happen), I would contend that it still wouldn’t be half as impressive as many *_actual_* *_facts_* of our observable universe. The universe is awesome and its a shame we will never know exactly how *_amazing_* it really is.
If a god exists then everything else (aside from god) is irrelevant because of god's omniscience.
Hey god how many stars and habitable planets are there next door in the Andromeda Galaxy? And god gives you the answer (if god does not answer then that has it's own paradoxes). So then why build and make the effort to construct space ships and space telescopes?
If you know exactly what the story book is about from end to finish why read it?? I mean there may be some slight excitement left such as the experience of travelling to places (even though you have complete knowledge about them) or reading the same book in different environments it's just that the novelty aspect (that stems from not knowing, not being omniscient)would be extremely diminished! This is sort of like how (or so I think) god cannot play the children's game of hide and seek or that god cannot experience death the same way as humans do because humans do not know what happens after death (all evidence point to nothing).
And most certainly would not be worth worshiping. Unless somehow the Marcians (sic, and not Sir SIC) got god correct and that the god of the old testament and new testament are not one and the same.
@@PeteOttonOoh, I like your writing style! Chapeau.
Right, knowledge is power whereas ignorance causes problems. Knowing how to perform meaningful actions is far more productive than wishful thinking and imaginary thinking.
The professor doesn’t seem to realize her deity was once a regional deity too, without power outside of that region. In one of the stories a biblical character goes on a journey, during which he has to pray to a different deity. I seem to recall it was the fairytale of the man who couldn’t see the angel in his path but his donkey could.
This woman should be fired and banned from academia.
No, that's wrong. I think she should be forced to have an atheist in each of her classes that get just as much lecture time as she does and co-grading papers. Censorship is never the cure for bad info (no matter how bad it is), truth is the cure for ignorance and stupidity.
She needs someone to point out those fallacies and nonsensical assertions in real time.
I can't remember who said it, but I always liked 'Scientists are explorers, philosophers are just tourists'.
Mostly verbose and boring tourists
Richard P. Feynman
Thanks.
Maybe I could get a PhD - I'm more than capable of writing about what I misunderstand & misrepresent 🙂
When philosophy is divorced from the empirical it becomes largely pointless.
See also: "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin", or "can the Millenium Falcon beat the Enterprise in a fight".
@@patnewbie2177 Oddly we could make a rational argument, with layers of evidence on the falcon vs the enterprise.
@@valroniclehre193The Falcon is no match for the Enterprise.
Fight me.
When is philosophy ever married to the empirical?
@@littlebitofhope1489 When it seeks validation. For example the philosophy of science (predictive power, experimentation, all that) is validated by empirical result.
More abstract philosophies follow similar rules from art to mathematics.
Another winner, Aron! Keep up the good fight.
The voice of reason. Good job, AronRa.
i always tell theists "you wouldnt accept my claims without evidence, why should i accept yours?"
listening to anil emre daldal - m
im nontheist the same way as im nonlactosetolerant... its not that dairy is bad for me we just disagree on it being *good* for me... 😐... yeah.
This article was written by a PhD? That is a disgrace to higher education. I hope she doesn't keep her tenure.
Was there even a mentioning wherefrom her PhD came from? Nowadays anyone can go around claiming they have a paper diploma and even keep it visible on the wall behind them in some UT feed but that still doesn't prove they got it from a dependable institution of science or faculty of humanistics.
Apparently she got her PhD for philosphy from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands.
She also claims she has a PhD in archaeology and art sciences at the Free University of Brussels from 2007... Wiki says the university split in 1969, but both split universities kept the name, so I don`t know which one she attended.
She has published numerous articles about evolution and religion. I am guessing she is like Jordan Peterson, and actually holds legitimate degrees, but chooses to try and shove god into it, to hold onto her beliefs. But I am just speculating.
And to answer your question about her tenure, she left Oxford and works at Saint Louis University now.
My eyes were getting dry, so I’m glad this video did my blinking for me. 🤔
I absolutely love your candor in explaining religious experience. I have a similar past and you got every nail on the head. Another very well done video.
The question that arises in my mind is how does one get a philosophy PhD without passing a course in deductive logic?
Getting it from a religious school.
One thing you learn about deductive logic in college (non-religious institutions) is that the rules of logic can be used to prove a written statement known to be inherently true to be false. Atheists often try to dismiss the importance of the Christian faith by using the rules of logic. But if one takes time to distinguish between the rules of logic and the inherent logic of the human mind [true logic] one will discover the rules of logic are not sufficient to deny faith -- even if God exists or not. Here's why: 1. Inherent logic, true logic, is governed by our minds, not by a set of rules. 2.) The rules of logic contain no content, no data, and no information. 3.) The rules of logic limit the free expression of thought by confining language to a narrow construct of prescriptive logical fallacies. 4.) There is no controlling authority that compels anyone to follow the rules of logic.
The're clever enouph to pass that exam, they can go on igniring its relevance
@stryker1195 Logic works. Otherwise trains would run into one another, and math could not be proven.
My observation of diagnostic logic is that there is a finite number or rules, and an infinite number of exceptions when defining a system. Any system. When you claim inherent logic, that is an exception. Exceptions are necessary to resolve contradictions.
Religion is used to instill faith in other people. By providing a belief set, and rules for people to have in common. The problem of religion and hence God is that it comes from humans.
@@stryker1195 No one denies faith exists, what is rejected is the truth of the CLAIM that a god exists.
But the BEST philosophy can do is say a god could exist. Unfortunately the same could apply to fairy's, pixies or Urgle space beasts
Evidential objections to non-belief in something no one has ever proven to exist in any capacity.
Excellent video, Aron. Please, the flickering is a problem! Camera malfunctioning?
De Cruz received her BA in archaeology and art studies and an MA in anthropology of art from Ghent University. In 2007 she completed a PhD in archaeology and art studies at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, and in 2011 she completed a PhD in philosophy at Groningen University, entitled Through a Mind Darkly: An Empirically-informed philosophical perspective on systematic knowledge acquisition and cognitive limitations, under the supervision of Igor Douven. After post-doctoral research positions at University of Leuven and Somerville College, Oxford, she joined VU Amsterdam as an assistant professor of philosophy in 2015, before moving to Oxford Brookes University in 2016.[1] She has held the Danforth Chair of Philosophy at Saint Louis University since September 2019.[2]
She is currently an Executive Editor of the Journal of Analytic Theology,[3] and a member of the editorial boards of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Journal of Mind & Behavior,[4] and Religious Studies.
In 2014 De Cruz published a series of interviews with philosophers working outside of academia for the NewAPPS blog.[5] She was a signatory on a 2018 open letter from academic philosophers to Amber Rudd, which urged the then home secretary to reconsider a request for asylum. The letter described a request which had been denied on the grounds that the applicant had not mentioned Plato or Aristotle when asked about humanism. The letter's signatories argued that the applicant should not have been expected to mention them.[6]
De Cruz regularly engages in public philosophy and has been featured on several public philosophy podcasts discussing the public sphere, religious disagreement, science fiction, philosophy of science, and experimental philosophy of religion. Wikipedia.
Those universities should be ashamed of giving such an idiot a degree. It tells me that degrees from those universities are possibly worthless.
@@kellydalstok8900 It certainly undermines one's confidence in the checks and balances at Groningen University. I might see if I can write a PhD proposal on the psychological benefits of snake-oil and see if I can get it accepted ...
23:54 I left the LDS church hard after hearing something much like this reasoning. "Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith" I was really into learning about the dark triad traits and sociopathy and psychopathy. That is a sociopathic thing to say.
Gaslighting
The KJV Bible is mathematically encoded.
23:05 - And the *real* star of the show makes his appearance! 😄 Another excellent presentation, Aron.
Since what we pretend to know has consequences, it might be a good time to ask ourselves what we aspire to.
1. Should I aspire to pretend to know that an undetectable supernatural realm exists that is inhabited by undetectable, all-powerful, immortal beings, some good and some evil, all of them privileged to know the veracity of all things knowable and unknowable?
2. Should I aspire to pretend to know I am intimately familiar with a reality that is undetectable and unknowable, and have an intimate personal relationship with an undetectable good supernatural being that allows me to telepathically communicate with the undetectable supernatural realm?
3. Should I aspire to pretend to know that I personally experience and witness supernatural interventions every day of my life?
4. Should I aspire to pretend to know that friends, family, teachers, and preachers who lecture me concerning the supernatural are not pretending to know things they cannot possibly know?
5. Should I aspire to pretend to know that when our superstitious ancient ancestors went about creating holy books, they did not include anything they were pretending to know, things that they could not possibly know?
6. Should I aspire to pretend to know that an undetectable good supernatural being has bestowed upon me knowledge of unknowable truths, including the mind of a god, what it thinks and wants?
7. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings are continuously monitoring and passing righteous judgment upon every human thought and deed?
8. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have ordained me with the exclusive ethical moral authority, knowledge, and duty to advise others as to the truth of all unknowable knowledge that good supernatural beings supposedly want everyone to pretend to know?
9. Should I aspire to pretend to know that we are all immortal supernatural beings temporarily trapped in a mortal flesh body?
10. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable evil supernatural beings are trying to manipulate my thinking to prevent me from pretending to know the unknowable knowledge that good supernatural beings want me to pretend to know?
11. Should I aspire to pretend to know that being tortured in a lake of fire for eternity is just retribution for failing to pretend to know the same unknowable things that other pretenders pretend to know?
12. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have endowed me with the exclusive ethical moral authority, knowledge, and duty to recognize, challenge and condemn anyone who dares to spread a different version of unknowable knowledge?
13. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to restrict the questions, facts, narratives, and realities, I and others may entertain?
14. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings are responsible and deserve credit for every good thing that I experience in life?
15. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have informed me that you are responsible for, and deserve blame for, every hardship you suffer in life?
16. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have informed me that if you fail to dedicate yourself to a life of servitude to undetectable good supernatural beings, it is only because you have willfully chosen a life of servitude to undetectable evil supernatural beings?
17. Should I aspire to pretend to know that it is my righteous duty to visit hate, discrimination, misfortune, hardship, oppression, suffering, and destruction upon those whom my undetectable good supernatural mentors disapprove of?
18. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have delegated to me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to outlaw sex acts, preferences, and practices that do not conform to the undetectable supernatural realm’s sexual standards?
19. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have delegated to me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to condemn your sexual thoughts, desires, and fantasies?
20. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have delegated to me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to condemn masturbation?
21. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have granted me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to do everything in my power to restrict your access to birth control?
22. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have delegated to me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to do everything in my power to regulate which adults you may or may not associate with, cohabitate with, have sex with, love, and/or marry?
23. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have decreed that men are entitled to subjugate women and treat them as though they are chattel property?
24. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have delegated to me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to limit a woman's reproductive choices?
25. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have decreed that, without exception, a fertilized egg, zygote, fetus, or unborn baby is endowed with exclusive ownership of and sovereignty over a woman's body?
26. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have delegated to me the exclusive authority and duty to do everything in my power to restrict the teaching of certain scientific theories in public schools?
27. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have delegated to me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to do everything in my power to ban comprehensive sex education in public schools?
28. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have delegated to them the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to do everything in my power to restrict access to certain genres of books, videos, and other educational materials from public schools, public libraries, bookstores, and the internet?
29. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have delegated to me the exclusive authority and duty to do everything in my power to ban public school discussion of social justice issues and the oppression faced by oppressed groups?
30. Should I aspire to pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have delegated to me the exclusive authority and duty to do everything in my power to ban the teaching of certain aspects of human history in public schools?
This is such an excellent comment
thank you Aron ra
Hi Aron!🥰
The "Medical News Today" has a great article on, "What religion does to your brain. (July 20, 2018)."
It was refreshing to read that, "religion activates the same reward-processing brain circuits as sex, drugs, and other addictive activities."
No god(s) EVER existed outside of a human mind!
Aron, you truly are my Inspiration!!! Always Love Your Great Work!!! Big Hugs!!!
🥰❤🥰🤘😎
Our evolved mental social attributes result in us being amenable to belief in spirits/gods. Gods are tribal group identities IOW god is the idealization of our need to bond to a group. Ones innate need to bond to a group identity can easily override our rational mind making reasoning with a religious person mostly futile.
Than you, Aron.
Min. 7:48 😂😂😂 ... Aron always find a way to make us laugh.
I watched this when it was uploaded but wasn't really concentrating.
I've only just been able to get back to it
Truth all the way!
"Science is what you know, philosophy is what you don't know." - Bertrand Russell
Thanks for amazing video Aron.
Stewie told me not to trust people named Bertrand.
The PhD philosopher reminds me of something a physician friend once said:
Q: What do you call the person who graduates last in their class in medical school?
A: Doctor.
The universal presence of the commandment "thou shalt not kill" in almost every religious tradition raises intriguing questions about the efficacy of this widely embraced ethical precept. Astonishingly, the overwhelming majority of individuals across the globe-regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof-adhere to this fundamental moral tenet in their daily lives. Paradoxically, recent research suggests that individuals identifying themselves as "people of faith" exhibit a higher propensity for engaging in acts of violence, surpassing the incidence among atheists. This study aims to explore the extent to which religion shapes the lives of serial killers and murderers, delving into the religious affiliations of notorious criminals to shed light on this phenomenon.
Methods:
This investigation relies on an extensive analysis of the religious backgrounds and affiliations of well-known individuals involved in serial killings and acts of murder. While it is important to acknowledge that this compilation is not exhaustive, it represents a comprehensive effort to collect available information. The study welcomes the contribution of accurate data, supported by reputable sources, to expand and refine our understanding of the relationship between religion and criminality.
Results and Discussion:
Aileen Wuornos, though initially atheistic, embraced Christianity following her conviction, undergoing a transformation as a "born-again" Christian under the influence of an evangelical Christian couple who adopted her. Albert Fish, raised in a family marked by religious psychosis, developed a macabre fascination with the biblical story of Abraham and Isaac, perceiving the sacrifice of a boy as an act of penance. While claims of satanic practices surround Anthony Hardy, insufficient evidence exists to substantiate his affiliation with Satanism. David Berkowitz, of Jewish upbringing, later converted to Catholicism and adopted an ardent commitment to evangelical Christianity, rebranding himself as the "Son of Hope." David Copeland, while not adhering to traditional Christianity, was known to engage with extremist right-wing Christian literature espousing anti-Semitism.
The case of David Ray Parker exemplifies a profound religious transformation, as he embraced Christianity and sought redemption during a lengthy period of solitary confinement. Dean Arnold Corll's religious inclinations remain elusive, with scant evidence of strong religious beliefs. Dennis Nilsen, raised in a devout Catholic household, later became agnostic. Dennis Rader, raised in a strict Lutheran family, actively participated in his church community and held a leadership role. Donald Henry Gaskins, forced to attend church as a child, did not exhibit a religious inclination in his adulthood. Ed Gein's upbringing under the oppressive rule of a strict Lutheran mother influenced his deviant sexual proclivities.
Edmund Kemper, although not raised in a religious environment, claimed to experience a "religious conversion" while incarcerated. Gary Ridgway, a Baptist convert and zealous proselytizer, embraced an intense devotion to his faith, often weeping while reading the Bible. H.H. Holmes, raised within a devoutly religious family, experienced severe punishments for perceived transgressions from his mother. Dr. Harold Shipman and his wife Primrose were both devout Methodists, navigating the challenges of their unmarried pregnancy within the confines of their religious communities.
Herbert Mullin's fascination with Eastern religions and reincarnation emerged following the death of a close friend, although he intermittently exhibited fanatical Catholic tendencies. Janie Lou Gibbs, a devout Christian, tragically murdered her own family members while subsequently donating a portion of her ill-gotten inheritance to her church. Jeffrey Dahmer, originating from a staunchly religious family, renounced his faith but was re-baptized during his time in prison. Joel Rifkin, raised in an adopted Jewish household, expressed minimal adherence to his religious heritage. John Allen Muhammad's conversion to the Nation of Islam and subsequent name change underscored his active engagement with religious organizations, despite later facing denouncement from the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.
John Wayne Gacy's upbringing within a devout Catholic family and his consideration of becoming a priest revealed his immersion in religious institutions. John Bodkin Adams, born into a devout Protestant family, witnessed his father's preaching in the local congregation. John George Haigh's parents, adherents of the Plymouth Brethren, imposed strict religious constraints on his upbringing. John Reginald Christie, an Anglican, maintained regular attendance at All Souls’ Church in Halifax. Judy Buenoano identified as a devout Roman Catholic. Lee Boyd Malvo, initially baptized as a Seventh-Day Adventist, converted to Islam under the influence of his accomplice, John Allen Muhammad. Levi Bellfield's conversion to Islam occurred during his imprisonment, assuming the name Yusuf Rahim. Myra Hindley, raised in a semi-religious Catholic family, fluctuated between renouncing and reclaiming her Catholic faith.
Peter Manuel's devout Catholic upbringing and education in Roman Catholic schools exemplify his religious background, while Peter Sutcliffe's religious journey involved claiming a divine mission and subsequent baptism as a Jehovah's Witness. Peter Tobin's Irish Catholic heritage and involvement with the Jesus Fellowship highlight his religious connections, with speculations linking him to the unidentified serial killer known as Bible John. Richard Ramirez, often associated with Satanism, professed devotion to Satan and sought the counsel of renowned Satanist Anton LaVey. Robert "Willie" Pickton, while lacking evidence of a specific religious upbringing, referenced biblical passages in his correspondence. Rodney Alcala, raised in a Catholic family, adopted agnosticism during his early adolescence. Ted Bundy's Mormon baptism and ongoing inclusion on the Mormon roll attest to his religious ties.
Timothy McVeigh's Catholic upbringing, followed by his agnostic stance later in life, was characterized by complex religious reflections that culminated in his reception of Last Rites before his execution. Velma Barfield experienced a religious conversion in prison after encountering a program by evangelist J. K. Kinkle, leading her to seek forgiveness and find solace in her newfound faith.
No mention of China, and its 1.4 billion ppl who are officially athiest.Many are not of course, but how do ppl in Chinese jails manage without finding faith ?
Apropos of nothing, it occurs to me that our friend Aron Ra enjoys the most fiery hot sauces not because he enjoys the burn or even the flavor, but rather to accustom himself to its effects in case the Christian Nationalists suddenly seize power in Texas via a coup, he can then hit streets in protest and be able to shrug off the effects of pepper spray. Just a thought.
😂
@@Maximex123 you're both wrong. God sent me a dream and she showed me that the only food in the underworld is dry white toast and vanilla ice cream that's room temperature so it's all gross and runny. Repent for the vanilla and wonder bread are upon us!!!
@ConontheBinarian I'd be surprised - hasn't he heard of Yomotsuhegui?
@@Maximex123 yes first the room temperature vanilla goo followed by the sandpaper dry toast. And the underworld chefs make sure to let the toast sit out for a day so it's not even fresh. After all we're talking about a perfect and loving magic sky being so of course it's that convoluted
@@Maximex123 god herself showed me the ultimate truth of her existence and all you have to do is look in the sky for a cloud that kinda looks like a salamander and worship it. Then you just need to pay attention to what it says about masturbation, that's really important for some reason.
Why do christians and muslims often avoid the questions and points that show the errors and fallacies in what they believe?
Why do politicians avoid questions that would make them look bad and often respond with whataboutisms and personal attacks?
This is a comment I made recently trying to explain why I think this often happens. Its a long comment but I tried to keep it short but with enough information to understand it hopefully. That is what I am testing now and asking people if they are willing to give it a read.
If you have 12 minutes the first basic part I will go over is about fast/slow thinking. If you want there is a 12 minute video by veritasium called "the science of thinking" that will explain it very well. I think this is knowledge that can really benefit people if they do not know about it. The next part though I dont know any videos for and I dont know if anyone really had the idea I have before.
The knowledge of the fast/slow mind is what is relevant from that video and I think a good starting point for the discussion. The video also gives examples of people doing it live, but it most likely will work on you as well so that is how I will show you. I am going to ask you a question, and I am going to predict the answer you will have pop in your mind at first, and predict that will be a wrong answer. This works on most people and you can try if for yourself on others to see too, its an interesting conversation starter.
A bat and a ball together cost 1.10, the bat costs 1.00 more then the ball, how much did the ball cost?
You might have an answer flash in your head right away with fast inaccurate fast mind but if you check that answer with your slow but more accurate conscious awareness, you can see that answer is wrong but it takes effort to do. The answer of ten cents is not the right answer but most people have that pop in their head because of the fast thinking mind that we rely on most of the time.
The fast unconscious mind is taking everything in and trying to make sense of it really fast. Its 11 million bits a second. But sometimes it makes mistakes. The slow conscious mind is 40-50 bits and lazy but it can check things and bringing the unconscious mistake to conscious awareness it can correct it.
The next thing to understand is about carl jung and the 4 ways the unconscious complex he called shadow deals with reality. The shadow is an unconscious complex that is defined as the repressed and suppressed aspects of the conscious self. there are constructive and destructive types of shadow. Carl jung emphasized the importance of being aware of shadow material and incorporating it into conscious awareness lest one project these attributes onto others. The human being deals with the reality of shadow in 4 ways. Denial, projection, integration and/or transmutation.
Now I believe what is happening when a question that exposes a conflict in a belief, idea, something that someone said, or even about someone they idolize and the question gets avoided, that is the fast unconscious mind going into denial and the response is often a projection. This also can trigger and emotional response activating the amygdala more and the pre frontal cortex less where rational conscious thought is said to happen and the amygdala starts to get the body to flood itself with chemicals/hormones.
Its like the fast mind knows conscious awareness will say its wrong. so it blocks it off to defend itself from admitting its wrong. in cases of denial and because it blocked off the rational mind, the responses are often irrational. Like personal attacks do not address the issue or answer the question. I think we can agree people have a very hard time now days admitting when they are wrong, I am not except from this myself I do realize. And we can see how badly questions avoidance effects us if you watch political meetings and watch them avoid questions all day long.
Ok, so the first thing to go over is denial as that is the main one I expose with questions. A disowning or refusal to acknowledge something I think is a good definition for it here. There is a really good 2 minute video I use as an example of this. A streamer named vegan gains claiming lobsters have brains after some one said he can eat lobsters because they do not have brains. He googles it and starts to read what it says. When he gets to the part where is says neither insects nor lobsters have brains, he skips it and says they literally are insects then skips over that line and continues to read the rest. Just like in the fast thinking video, his fast mind already read that line and refused to acknowledge it in unconscious denial, and just skipped it.
The person then tells him he skipped it and he reads it again and sees the line this time. Still being defensive of his claim and refusing to accept he was wrong, he tried to discredit the source and its the lobster institute of maine. If you would like to see the video for yourself its 2 minutes by destiny clips and the video is called " Destiny Reacts To Vegan Gains Ignoring Search Result That Contradicts Him". Justin turdo avoiding the question of how much his family was paid by the we charity 6 times in a row I think is denial as well. I think jordan peterson not being able to answer his own question of does he believe god exists and asking what do and you mean then saying no one knows what any of those words mean while being seemingly angry is think is another really good example of denial... and projection. And while JP find those words difficult, other people understand them easy. Even he does pretty much any other time they are used.
So projection is next up. Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings. Many times a mind in denial will use projections for responses. Someone getting mad and telling the other person to not interrupt when they have been doing that a lot themselves would be an example. I have done this myself. The people who tell me I dont understand my own questions and my point is wrong when they do not even know what the point is are all examples as well. I ask them to steel man my position to show then understand my point and they just avoid that question as well clearly showing they do not understand my point.
Now we have integration and/or transmutation. Integration is when you bring an unconscious behavior into conscious awareness and accept it. I know that I interrupt people talking sometimes even though I think that is wrong to do. I have a conscious awareness of it, but I have not been able to completely change the behavior.... yet. That is where transmutation comes in. Transmutation is to completely change that unconscious behavior. From being impatient to being patient, of from distrust to trust, hate into understanding and love even.
So was this understandable or confusing?
if you understand it, do you think its possibly true?
Do you have any questions? If you have any tips I am would gladly listen.
Sorry, I dont see what that has to do with the vid.
This seems to be a variation of the old arguement you need to be open to god to know him ?
Is that close to the mark ? 👍
@@TheScotsalan >>Sorry, I dont see what that has to do with the vid.""
Nothing to do with the video, I made it before watching it.
>>This seems to be a variation of the old arguement you need to be open to god to know him ? ""
WOA, ok, this is not at all understandable then. You think I am a theist when I asked why do they avoid questions and points that show the errors and fallacies in what they believe? I dont know how that question could be asked and the person think a theist asked it. You sure you really read it?
>>Is that close to the mark ? ""
Its almost the complete opposite. Had about 6 people now all say they understand it and 2 of them are christian. 1 person said it was nonsense, and now this. Can I ask what I said that gave you the impression I was a theist?
@@macmac1022 No prob 👍. I sped read it thro, and it was struck me it was a beating around the bush theist arguement, precisely cos it did not seem to have much to do with the vid. Yup, I did not see the usual “faith” thing at the end, but the “any questions” part is a usual theist tactic is it not. Dont take offence, I always treat YT discussions in a light hearted way. 👍
@@TheScotsalan >>>No prob 👍. I sped read it thro, and it was struck me it was a beating around the bush theist arguement, precisely cos it did not seem to have much to do with the vid.""
AHHHHH. OK, well I dont think I can really blame that on the comment itself then. The comment speaks towards that behavior of avoiding the point and just projecting some irrelevant point.
>>Yup, I did not see the usual “faith” thing at the end, but the “any questions” part is a usual theist tactic is it not.""
What faith thing at the end? I am trying to find what you are talking about. And do you mean avoiding questions? If someone avoids a question it does not matter if they are a theist or not, they can and I think should point it out. I dont know what you mean by the any questions part if its not avoiding questions you mean.
@@macmac1022 Ahh well. It seems both of us dont know what the other is on about, so I bid you a good night sir 👍🤝
I so often get lost in these arguments, but "faith is auto-deceptive" hit so hard.
I wonder if her philosophy colleagues have shown her how poor her position is.
She did a "All knowledge is evidence," and I felt stupid for even giving that paper my attention.
@@Vhlathanosh Well, she is correct, just not in the way she means. Knowledge is evidence that your neurons are firing.
Unless philosophers snigger behind someone’s back …
What makes you think most of her colleagues have better positions for what they state?
@@oscargordon Anybody with a working brain has better positions than she does.🤡
Keep in mind that Acadamia isnt an actual website for a university or anything, and that it DOESN`T peer-review before publishing papers. It relies on a "alongside distribution of peer-review".
Not to mention they often ask for a fee from authors to help "display" their papers to an audience.
There is literally a paper called "The Purpose of Dinosaurs: Extinction and the Goodness of God" on their website, just to give you an idea of how much they really care about scientific rigor.
This is why I stick to the NCBI. 😁
Me: i dont like broccoli. Theist: yes you do, and i can prove it. See? Its here in the Bible.
Technically the mustard wasn't broccoli yet. God did not create broccoli, we did. But you're definitely defiant and purposefully relying on science and people and having gay (which would be bi and the bible was probably referring to little boys, but whatever) sex to disrespect god and you deserve death because of it. That's in Romans 1. It's all the evidence we need for the death penalty apparently. If you deny it that's evidence that you're a liar and you can't be trusted and that the bible is right.
Or in other words: heads, theism wins, tails, you lose. Or in historical terms: you either float and are executed because of witchcraft, or you sink and die.
The dog melded into the wall, the supernatural is real, praise him! 😂
My peer review of this paper:
But, it's just your opinion, Professor Helen De Cruz!
PS. Maybe by "evidential" she meant "testimonial"?
Quote:
Helen De Cruz (born 1978) is a Belgian philosopher and Danforth Chair of Philosophy at Saint Louis University who specialises in philosophy of religion, experimental philosophy, and philosophy of cognitive science.
The irony for people who attempt to prove the existence of God is that, by definition, there can be no proof of God - Faith is based on trust and feeling. Theists ask Athiests to disprove God as if religion is the default.
You realize religion is in fact the default because it's existed as long as humans have, and atheism is a relatively new and radical position by comparison.
@@nathanwhite704 While I understand the point you're poorly attempting to make, I absolutely disagree with you on that and that's objectively not true. It is true that religion has been around for thousands of years, but we are all born atheists and have to be taught religion or conceive the idea of it later in life. Thus, theism is not the default.
@@nathanwhite704ummm,, no.
Religion has not been around as long as humans.
@@nathanwhite704 The statement that religion is the default is a topic of debate and can vary depending on how one defines "default." It is important to note that there is no universally accepted definition of default in the context of belief systems.
Historically, religious beliefs and practices have been deeply ingrained in human societies across cultures and time. Many argue that this historical prevalence suggests that religion has been the default position for most people throughout history.
However, it is also worth considering that atheism or the absence of belief in deities is not necessarily a recent phenomenon. In ancient times, there were philosophical schools and individuals who held atheistic or non-theistic views. Additionally, some argue that atheism is a default position in the sense that individuals are born without inherent belief in any specific religion or deity and must later adopt religious beliefs through exposure and cultural influence.
Ultimately, whether religion is considered the default or not depends on how one defines and interprets the concept of default in the context of belief systems, and perspectives on this can vary.
StefanSochinsky: "Faith is based on trust and feeling."
And belief is the turning of an infinite god into a finite god using religion.
In secular terms this would be the brotherhood of mankind and at this too humans seem to fail.
Cain was rebellious and loved Satan more than God. Out of selfishness and in a fit of jealousy, Cain rose up and slew his brother, Abel. When the Lord inquired of Cain, “Where is Abel, thy brother?” Cain arrogantly replied with the question, “Am I my brother's keeper?” (Moses 5 : 34.)
That's weird. I wrote a similar paper too. It was called "Fantasy Confirmations of Religion".
"When you believe in things that you don't understand
Then you suffer
Superstition ain't the way, no, no, no"
- Stevie Wonder
Did she get a bonus pack of x-ray specs with that PhD? I got a sticky wall octopus with mine. I really wanted the specs to look through women's dresses. Wowzers!!!
I define Atheism as the following: A lack of belief/conviction, in or of, an alleged god/deity or alleged gods/deities, due to lack of empirical, demonstrative, and testable evidence and/or logical reason.
The Christian God started out as a local Canaanite god. He even has a location that he is associated with that we call "The Temple Mount". He didn't become a big 'G' God until later. This is pretty noticeable in the early parts of the Bible. He is actually the blend of two Canaanite gods. Yahweh and El who was Yahweh's father. (Baal was actually one of Yahweh's brothers)
Not strictly true. El was the head of the Canaanite pantheon and he had 70 sons. We don't know all 70 of their names and those we do "Yahweh" isn't one of them. The Canaanites were the first to confuse things by calling all gods of all religion "el" just like in Christian English where we have "big G God" and all other religions deities are "small g gods". But yes, the Hebrews/Israelites which first begin to appear in the historical record a couple hundred years after the Late Bronze Age Collapse as an offshoot of Canaanites, conflated their war god with El, even to the point of Yahweh having 70 sons with his consort Asherah.
From Deuteronomy 32
“When the El-yo-wn (El the most high, notice singular) gave the nations their inheritance, when He (singular) divided the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But the Lord’s (Yahweh’s) portion is His people, Jacob His allotted inheritance.”
Genesis 10 lists the 70 names that founded nations to go with Yahweh’s 70 sons.
You know what I've found hilariously curious? Referring to a religious person as a "god-worshipper." Most of them do NOT like being called that, often for reasons they can't even express, it just makes them VERY uncomfortable, even angry.
that is even more hilarious in German. Gonna use that from now on. "Gottesanbeterin" hehe
@@SaURoN-lh1dlI like "god botherer" better. Would that be "gott stört" auf Deutsch?
@@Aengus42 It would be "Gottstörer" aka "someone that bothers god"
@@SaURoN-lh1dl Thank you! 😀
@@SaURoN-lh1dlAlthough you could say that, especially through intermediatories, Gott stört everyone quite a lot!
We still discover new stuff about "our" reality, but the religious closed the book on new discoveries: "If what we believe now is perfect, it must also be all we need."
No wonder they have no new arguments :D
It's easy to see why this paper was posted on a non-peer-reviewed site. My wife, who is a philosophy professor, laughed when I showed it to her. She pointed out that a colleague of hers, who is a philosopher specializing in medieval philosophy, theology and logic who also a Christian, would never resort to such obviously fallacious reasoning. Trying to have it both ways and pretend that faith--unsupported belief--can be supported on the grounds of critical thinking (i.e. evidence and reasoning) is intellectually dishonest. The theists are commonly trying to pretend that the bulk of the evidence is consistent with, if not indicative of, their god so that they can paint the irrationality of faith as just the last small and rational step across the unsupported crack they want it to be rather than the impossible Evel Knievel attempt to leap the grand canyon, more likely the Valles Marineris, that it actually is.
It's listed as a draft, comments welcome, and provided her e-mail address....
Aronra is an amazing man and teacher I have learned so much from him about evolution and religion to he is one of the best teachers out there love you buddy keep up the good work❤❤
@CODA834Douche.
@CODA834You're waaaayyyy behind on your trolling, shit-for-brains. His last name is legally Ra. Keep up with the rest of the class or fuck off.
@CODA834 He changed his name. You're just a douche who's stuck in the past.
@CODA834 no, his legal name is Aron. And since I know who you're referencing, I can comfortably say, get your facts straight.
I try to rein in my biases, and give philosophers the benefit of the doubt just like any other profession, but DAMN do philosophers like this one make that difficult.
There are good philosophers and bad philosophers.
Bad philosophers don’t make philosophy look bad. They just make themselves look bad.🤡
Would you be willing to sometime do a video about your experiences as a pagan? As its not as wide spread as christianity, it could be a very interesting video.
when it comes to prayer, i appreciate it as a "there is nothing i can do to help but i will pass it onto the highest power i believe in". i got chronically ill two years ago (still ill) and my family, who live far from me, all prayed for me. i absolutely appreciated it.
when my old boss, who was pushy and upset i'd stopped attending church, told me "i'll pray for you" when my nanna died on the other hand she got a flat "please don't", because her prayers were absolutely weapons.
prayer is, to me, the same as sending good vibes when not weaponised: a way to express that one cares, and best paired with either check ins or help in other ways
So ready for jeebus to rapture these people.
For the algorithm. Great video Mr Ra!
Aron, the problem of theists is that they use a secondary definition for "evidence", look it up, the dictionary features it.
In their world any person witnessing something is "evidence" (just like in the legal context). Therefore I recommend that we specify "non-personal, objective evidence", then they cannot weasel their way out of it.
Somehow dogs make every type of content more interesting. Boop that snoot for me, please.
Thank you for your insightful video. It really helps a lot to have our position defined and explained in such a detailed manner. Occasionally I even see other sceptics misunderstand or mis-define atheism.
Big, strong and fluffy dragon hug for all of you.
In detailed manner as well as reading Bob and Jane books and I only mean that -- it's elementary. And that's where a good share of USA's mentality is, I guess.
9:00
Also, that's not what the words "local" and "global" mean. Jahve was a local god of the Jews and the Roman pantheon was the closest to being globally accepted in the ancient world.
I wonder if the Indian / Buddhist or Chinese thoughts on Ancestors or nature would also count as those various religions/philosophies encompassed similar swaths of the planet.
I have experienced death more than 6 times. I know it's the brain shutting down. The first two times I experienced the light tunnel, but then concurrent experiences didn't... BUT the memory of them was instantly there, making or prolonging the feeling of time spent. I believe that if a person would experience death enough times, they could start to learn to think during that low level of brain activity... there is no there there like Aron says. It's like learning to read a book while on psychedelics... seems impossible at first, but then the entire "mystical" out of reality feeling starts to fade away, and increased speed of thought starting to take place. If we clinically study this enough, time will give us practical answers instead of "magic " and "godly afterlife" goofy explanations. ☮
How did you die six times
@@deathgrinder06 to keep this short: the movie Flatliners is generally what I was doing when young and crazy. It's a story too long for a YT reply. ☮
I like the term, 'un-believer', rather than 'atheist', since I don't consider myself anti-theist. I would be more than happy to become a theist, IF undeniable evidence to the existence of what we would comprehend to be a God, was proven.
Of course, it would still need to be a benevolent being worthy of being worshipped, and not a fear mongering hateful creature like Christians and Muslims idolize.
I think atheist and anti-theist is a bit different
Anti-theism and a-theism are completely different terms. The first (anti-) means "against", the second (a-) means "without". So ''un-believier'' is the 'same' as ''a-theist''.
What''s wrong with just saying "godless"? Being an atheist does not stop one from believing things not related to gods, no matter how unreasonable, paranormal and supernatural those things may be.
“Everything that happens is because of something you did or didn’t do.”
Wow! That hit home. That's food for thought.
Philosophy is just like, your opinion man.
I'm glad to see Tunisia topping a list that doesn't make it look bad. Although, the lack of religious people in my country is not being reflected enough. It's still taboo to be an atheist outside of your 20s here. And even then, it depends on which state and what kind of friends you have.
How often do atheists socialize compared to religions people, how often do they gather and talk, Atheists could be failing in the socializing compartment. Used to be lack of entertainment before the rise of the TV. , radio ,mass production, of books, People had less choices of entertainment that also help boost socialization. Do atheists socialize less then religious people? The lack of cheap entertainment is one of the many reasons deism failed in France. Deism needs no church. Socializing even has a strong impact on politics and the exchange of rumors and information. Woman seem to socialize more then men. I have noticed that most men cellphones barely, beep, while woman do so constantly.
This is exactly why I never engage christians or any religious person for that matter on the existence of god(s). I live in Texas and you can't spit without hitting a church. If I am ever asked about attending or anything, I usually just say I'm not religious. That tends to confuse them. If I were to say I'm an atheist, I think that might tend to get some of their hackles up.
I tend to just tell people I'm not religious anyway no matter what. I watch videos like this from time to time for entertainment and Aron Ra is especially good. He's super intelligent and very informed on the topic. Otherwise, I'm just trying to live my life. Even though I grew up as a preacher's kid, I learned at a very early age that there wasn't a god. I did spend some of my teenage years trying to reconcile my unbelief with my up bringing, but finally gave up around the time I headed to college. I don't really spend any time thinking on the subject. Theists must think that atheists do nothing but think about whether god exists or not when we are having all our atheistic rituals or enjoying sinning or whatever they think we are doing. [edited for spelling]
I’m trying to avoid being around Christian’s for any amount of time. They cannot keep their BS to themselves and always have to pray in public, make stupid religious comments, etc. I don’t like being around such liars. My life is better without them in my life, that includes in-laws!
@@Ex_christian I completely agree. I just avoid christians in the first place. If I can't avoid them, I try to change the subject or leave. The only exception right now is my mother. She's 89 and has dementia. I can't not talk to her. However, she's consumed right now with me going to hell. Like most atheists I know quite a bit about the bible so I can talk enough about it assuage her fears. It often lets me change the subject successfully.
@@Ex_christianthat has to be a very American thing, because the christians I work and have worked with never mention religion. The only way you can tell is because they get married in church and have their children baptized. And sometimes the children have weird OT names.
@@Slim_Chiply ya, I have issues with the in-laws constantly wanting to go out for dinner or something like that. Of course they are right wing Christian’s. I’ve said I can’t be around him because of his right wing nuttiness and she isn’t far behind. They aren’t my parents and don’t see the need to be around them or see them more than Thanksgiving or Christmas. But my husband can’t tell her no because she is also bipolar. She cannot handle the truth in anything because she has issues with it. He has dementia and should be in a nursing home. Of course I can’t say anything without getting in trouble.
@@Slim_Chiply Luckily for my family relationships I didn't really realize I no longer believed until after those relatives had died. The one or two that are possibly still very religious, I see so seldomly that we have far more important things to discuss than religion when we do see each other. I suspect one of my relatives is having doubts about the whole christianity thing and thanks to Aron Ra, Bart Erhman, Paulogia, and a few mythogists I raise an objection or two and then we change the subject or someone drags me off to look at something.
As a metal head the breakdown leading into each section made me think my youtube was skipping this video for some music
What was you hoping to hear?
@@campfireaddict6417 Personally I'd go with either 'Weak Fantasy' or 'Greatest Story' by Nightwish.
Kublai Khan TX 🤘
@@StewWayDrive I've been listening to Theory of Mind damn near on repeat recently so you should see where my confusion came from
@@undeadf indeed. I recognised it straight away. I’d pick that beefy guitar tone anywhere haha
It's always either fallacious or just scientifically wrong 🤷♂️
Atheism is just a descriptive noun.
Saying 'Atheism isn't true' is on par with saying 'Car isn't true'.
It's just a nonsense thing to say.
Theists - "Why do I hear boss music?"
Always packed with amazing info
What do theists actually think or what are they told in Church evidence is?
I don't ever remember any discussions about "evidence" when I was a Catholic/Christian in church,
maybe there was talk about "proof" but it was always about anecdotes and testimonies.
When having to go to Lutheran church at the end of 5th grade constantly and then into confirmation, there was ZERO evidence given. The pastor at that time even used the 4.5 billion year timeline and shoved the creation BS in it.
It really makes me think of Republicans today. We’ve heard since Obama implemented the ACA that they had a “plan” and yet to this day we’ve seen nothing of evidence of a better plan for healthcare. Just like Christian’s, we continually hear about this “evidence” and yet they provide none!
Helen De Cruz. Based on her Wikipedia article I suspect that the paper passed peer review just on the back of her being a humanitarian, human rights advocate, and a lute player.
I went to christian schools in UK but didn’t have a christian family. I never thought it was anything but stories as a kid, fables with some moral lessons, etc. like a lot of other childish stories i heard at the time, i never considered that people actually believed there was a man in the sky.
I once asked a priest ‘who made god’, i think just repeating something my brother said to me without really understanding, i was prob about 7 at the time, i remember he told me that ‘he just came about’ waved his hands and walked away from me. Like a Jedi mind trick or something.
There are moral tales in the Bible? There are moral tales in Aesop and Grimm. the Bible? No.
I am One of The Christians That Watch Your Channel.
I have Gained in wisdom hearing Your Challenges to Thesim and Christianity.
If you gain enough wisdom, you’ll stop being a theist.😜
We DO have evidence of souls...at the bottoms of shoes.
Don't get up...I'll let myself out.
Why in the world does someone feel they need to object to atheism....
"What! You lack belief in god!? I object to this claim!"
What????
They seem to have a savior complex where they must try to save souls for their god.
I know it's fun to shit on philosophy, and a lot of "philosophers" deserve it, especially the ones who think you can logic things into existence - the ontolongical argument is especially embarrassing - but anybody who has taken an undergrad Philosophy of Religion class would know better than the post an article like this. If we handed a poorly-reasoned paper like this in, we'd have been told to rewrite it. How she got a PhD, I don't know, but her teacher(s) should be embarrassed.
"It's not that i don't understand you, it's that i don't believe you" - Rose Lalonde, MS Paint Adventures.
Thanks for helping me strengthen my atheistic faith