Several years ago I read the God Delusion 3-4 times and compared it to Alma 30 and other BoM chapters that outline the strategies of the Devil against the work of the Lord. That was a useful exercise for me. I found many examples of those strategies throughout the book.
I left the Catholic Church as a teenager after getting into the New Atheist movement and remained an atheist for about six years. When I'd done some growing up and found myself as a young man lost and desperate for meaning beyond hedonistic pleasures, I found the side of the internet that was built up in response to atheist critique and discovered not only how deep and beautiful the religion I abandoned so casually truly was, but also how incredibly juvenile my understanding of it had been (and that as a kid who went to church every Sunday, went to Sunday school for years, and was hugely part of the faith community) as well as how juvenile and ignorant the atheist arguments against it really were.
So you were raised in this particular belief system, fell away from it in your youth, then went back to the belief system that you were raised with. Do you think that your decision to go back to Catholicism in particular was heavily influenced by the fact that you were raised to give special consideration to it?
@@ollieollyoli5805 Not really. I avoided coming back for a long time. I actually went to Paganism first, and then Islam. To be honest, I'm not even sure about Catholicism now. I am convinced of Christianity though.
@@ollieollyoli5805 That falls right back in to the same old trap of I can do it on my own, and make my own values, or interpret scriptures my own way. The best thing to do is acknowledge where you are at, hold on to truth as you find it / it's reveled to you. and keep going forward, praying, asking God for guidance, and studying the good word, and be willing to go wherever God directs you.
@@jaredgardner5275after spending decades in prayer, researching and study I come to the conclusion that gods do not exist. Since then my life has become more meaningful, more joyous, precious and better in many ways. I would only wish that for you. You might give it a serious thought.
After listening to the ocean of ideas discussed in this engaging interview, it felt that I had swum between two great shores of thought. But examining closer, I realized there was only one shore all along. Thank you.
@@jeffreyphillips9121 I am watching the discussion between Peterson and Dawkins that posted a couple of days ago and it's fascinating. It's like watching the left brain and right brain talking. It is apparent to me that Dawkins is an atheist because he is incapable of understanding that Truth is a larger category than facts.
The Baha'i Faith and Islam are also included in the belief in a rationale and law-giving God. This is not exclusively a "Judaeo-Christian" concept. Very much enjoying your discussion. Thanks.
@@jameshopkins7507 Islam came to be in the 7th century and explicitly claims the Old and New testaments as precursors to the Quran. Baha'i was founded in the 19th century and claims all previous religions as sources. These are not independent expressions of the idea.
About the value of religion, and the ineffectiveness of idols is that I have become increasingly convinced that problem with our culture is a a hyper-fixation on discourse, with an almost evangelical flair: the things you *say* you believe will save or damn you. Atheist AND many Christians and other faithful are making idols of words, and we have forgotten the importance of the embodied Word. As long as we are fighting a war of words, the physical realities of our lived, daily lives will not change. Keeping people chained to living in a disembodied war of words (i.e. the internet), with constant strife and no winners... whose work does that sound like? Peace is not found in words, but in actions. I have to come to grips with the fact that my life could stand to be embodied more, in reflection and worship of the Word made flesh.
I mean, look: if you can "be a Christian" without faith in the Nativity, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Divinity or even Existence of Jesus of Nazareth, then that's a major development in modern Christian Theology.
The more science discovers about creation, the more we learn of Gods miraculous order. COL 1:17 And He is before all things, and in Him, all things hold together. He keeps everything in motion as He first designed. It is His orderly hand that holds everything in place,
Francis Bacon was religious, yes, but he wasn't particularly orthodox in his views. He didn't like using superstition to explain things but preferred to find a natural explanation. Most of this discussion is really about the utility of religion rather than the eternal truthfulness of it. Purpose is something that an individual chooses, whether it's through religion or not. There's no way to assign purpose to an individual, like as a child, without convincing them intellectually of something greater than themselves. It's not something that can be proven but is a belief. So I don't see how purpose comes directly from God. It comes from an individual deciding, and potentially being culturally influenced to decide, that the idea of God, and the myths associated with God, are a good basis for providing purpose in their life. There's nothing concrete about God other than the beliefs associated with him and the results of that belief. One could argue that the results are worthwhile, regardless of the truthfulness of it. I feel like that's what this discussion was really doing. The same could be argued for things like going to therapy, practicing daily meditation, eating a balanced diet, and giving your time and money to charitable causes.
54:43 People are willing to give their life for what they love and value, typically family. The only reason I can imagine people are willing to die for a belief, institution or cause, is fear, or perceived duty. This proves only the power of belief and not the reality or “truthfulness” of that belief. The religious belief emboldens members to act in pragmatic ways, willing to protect/ fight to maintain a way of life.
@sdfotodude I know what you called the happiness letter, I just hadn't heard it called that. I don't see the self centeredness in It that I think you do. And while Joseph was jailed in charges of treason, that was patiently in order to keep him where the mob could shoot him. At no time did he advocate the overthrow of the government or desert his post in time of war or provide aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. So what do you think he did that was treasonous?
55:59 I think that Jordan Peterson is such a gateway to Christianity is because he invites us to embrace curiosity and recognize beauty. He offers the magic and wonder thats often left behind when leaving religion. I do think that people who’ve been through a faith crisis and do the work necessary can ultimately come to recognize the benefits religion offers; gathering , serving and sacrifice and could could chose to reenter the religious world but it’s likely without literal belief in God. They return to offer and partake in serving humanity and enriches the lives of those around them. I have a hard time believing that anyone could truly return to religion as a literal believer after a faith crisis. There’s no putting the toothpaste back in the tube.
Can you have religious practice without religion? A religion that is not a religion. Many people have asserted and tried to create such a thing but none have been successful. People simply will not sacrifice if they are not driven by a larger story and purpose. They will turn to self-fulfillment or other quasi-religious ideologies. You can definitely return to a belief in God after a faith crisis, as I have, but it maybe that the form and character of this belief will be informed by the faith crisis.
I would love to hear Justins view of Jacobs Mormonism. Jacob has a whole layer of mormon beliefs, doctrine and narratives that also need to hold true if Christianity is the God instituted world religion and font of truth according to Jacobs position. I doubt Justin would apply any of his views that he applies to Christianlity to the confusion that is the greatly added to Mormon Christianlity that Jacob claims its the resotration of the Gosple.
The Latter-day Saint view is that it's all about and only about Jesus the Christ and His Atonement for us. If you're thinking that there are irrelevant additions, then you don't understand Latter-day Saint beliefs.
@@phav1832 Do we need to believe JS was a prophet to be saved? Do we need to attend LDS temples to be saved? Do we need to do ministering to be saved? Do we need to wear LDS garments to be saved? Do we need to believe Russell M Nelson is a modern Prophet to be saved? Do we need to pay 10% tithing to be saved? Do we need to pass JS after we die to be saved? Do we need to know secret handshakes in order to be saved? Do we need multiple wives to be saved? Do we need blood atonement in order to be saved from certain sins? Do we need to be white to be saved? Or at least not Black? Do we need to believ in the BOM and other modern scripture to be saved?
@ericredd4544 Firstly you’re using the Gish Gallop Fallacy, not presenting actual arguments but instead using a long list to overwhelm people. In regards to Salvation the LDS position is that we must have Faith in Jesus Christ, Repent, and be baptized in his name. You ask “Do we need this or that to be saved?” No, those actions do not save us, we do those actions because we have agreed to take upon ourselves the name of Christ and follow his commandments, to be sanctified through his atonement, this is a process and not a one time event. Another thing I would like to mention is you slanderously assumed we believe that “polygamy” is necessary for salvation, and that we need to be “blood atoned” for certain sins, completely ignoring their historical contexts and how we define doctrine. “Blood atonement”(which is condemned by the Church) was basically a theological way of supporting capital punishment. Plural Marriage was a commandment given to us. Also, salvation is open to all people, even during the Priesthood ban era, black people could still be baptized and be members of the Church, and our congregations didn’t segregate by race like many Protestant congregations did. In regards to believing certain scriptures are true for salvation, I must ask you, does one have to read the Bible or even believe all of it to be saved? Is the Bible even necessary at all for salvation? Can one be saved if one doesn’t view the Bible as inerrant?
How can my rationally justified position of atheism - to suspend any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented - be "failing"?
That's not what is being said. You seem to hold the "I don't know" position. Traditionally called agnosticism. Atheism is the positive claim that "there definitely is NO god."
@Steelblaidd You're simply WRONG. I actually hold both positions as they are not mutually exclusive. And here is why: There is _but one_ claim that the position of atheism addresses. And that is the claim asserted by _certain_ theists that some particular god exists in reality. Like all claims to truth, this claim breaks down on three dichotomous axes: *_truth_* of the claim (true, false); *_acknowledgement_* as to the truth of the claim (acknowledge, fail to acknowledge); and *_sufficiency of knowledge_* as to ascertain the truth of such claim (sufficient, insufficient). It is the position we take on these dichotomies that establishes our identity in regard to atheism and agnosticism. The first dichotomous axis addresses the truth _position._ Like any claim to truth, the 'theistic' claim is either true or _not_ true (false). There is no other possible option as is dictated by the laws of logic (Identity, Non Contradiction, and Excluded Middle). The second dichotomous axis addresses the acknowledgment _position._ The recipient evaluating the claim either acknowledges the claim as to be true (theism) or fails to acknowledge the claim to be true (atheism). Again, there is no other available option. The third dichotomous axis addresses the _sufficiency of knowledge_ as to the claim _position._ Either the recipient evaluating the claim has sufficient knowledge or information as to ascertain the truth of such claim (gnostism), or does _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information concerning the claim (agnosticism). The default 'acknowledgement' position on the claim that "a particular god(s) exists" is _atheism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the theistic claim for the first time. It would be impractical to acknowledge the truth of a claim _before_ one hears it for the first time. The default position addressing 'sufficiency of knowledge or information' is _agnosticism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim. One can not claim to have sufficient knowledge or information concerning any given claim _until_ he or she hears the claim for the first time. This presents four populations of recipients evaluating the claim that "a particular god(s) exists." The 'gnostic theist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) to theism by acknowledging the truth of the claim. Often, this population claims to acquire "sufficient knowledge" from revelation from (or personal relationship with) the deity mentioned in the claim. The 'gnostic atheist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify remaining in the position of atheism (default) by _rejecting to acknowledge_ the claim. This population is sometimes referred to as 'strong atheists'. This population may or may not make the additional claim "god(s) don't exist." If so, like the theists in the original claim, those that make such a claim now encumber a burden of proof to substantiate such claim with evidence. The 'agnostic theist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) by does so _anyways_ by acknowledging the truth of the claim _through_ 'faith'. Lastly, the 'agnostic atheist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their initial position of atheism, so they _continue to suspend acknowledging the truth of the claim until sufficent evidence is presented._ Of the four populations, only the 'gnostic theists' and the 'agnostic atheists' are *_justified_* in their final positions. The former is justified in changing their position to theism by 'revelation'. The latter is justified in suspending such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced, and therefore remain atheist. This is how I can demonstrate that I am indeed an atheist - an _agnostic_ atheist.
Fair enough, I don't think I have ever seen anyone lay out the full spectrum of options so susictly an completely. Most people in typical usage are not so precise. Certainly not in headlines and Podcast episode titles which tend towards clikbaitiness of necessity and away from nuance. Context matters when evaluating the connotation of words with broad definition. You were asking in the context of this video, and its title, which is discussing Brierly's book and specifically the decline in satisfaction with the theories propounded by the famous Gnostic Atheists (Dawkins et.al. thank you for the term). In this context I would say your agnosticism is more salient than your atheism. To rephrase my original answer, by the definition of atheist they are using in this title and discussion they don't mean you.
@@Theo_Skeptomai Virtually all non-believers today in the West -- Joe and Sally on the street -- are cultural agnostics. Just as most Christians are cultural Christians, not real or informed believers.
this is funny. because the facts are that people are leaving the churches and religions in droves worldwide. and it's thanks for information and the getting behind magical thinking. i was once devout, i went to seminary, i was a youth pastor who wanted to go into missions. and then i began learning the truth. there's no return to religion. we are free. and you can be too. knowledge is freedom. i'm an anti-theist atheist. and our numbers are growing by the minute.
I am an atheist. I don't believe in the existence of God. There is insufficient evidence or rational justification to support the belief in any gods or supernatural entities. I rely on science, reason, logic, and empirical evidence to form my worldview and do not find compelling evidence or arguments to support the existence of god. The universe is governed by natural laws and forces, rather than moral, spiritual, or supernatural ones. As an atheist, I reject the idea of God. I emphasize the social and empirical nature of inquiry and prioritize scientific solutions to intellectual problems. I reject religious dogma, supernaturalism, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making. I am capable of being ethical and moral without religion or belief in a deity. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently good or evil, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. Rather,I emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. The strongly held viewpoint that ideology be it religious or political must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy.
OK. and? Other people have examined their experience and the evidence available to them and come to different conclusions. I don't think there is any doubt that individual persons can maintain high ethics and morality with or without belief in a god. But can most people? Or will they descend to the lowest moral energy level without some ideal to aspire too? Can a civilization sustain itself without deliberately working to instil virtue in its children? What story do you tell your children about why they should be ethical and moral? And what do you even mean by ethical and moral? What are the principals by which you judge which action is which? Where did they come from? David Foster Wallace, in his great speech This is Water, pointed out that everyone worships something. What do you worship?
@Steelblaidd What _exactly_ is this "evidence available to them"? State one _evidentiary fact_ that goes toward demonstrating that any particular god exists in reality.
Good luck with meaning. Religious people are much happier than secular people. Life is about much more than reason and Science alone, though religious people don't need to reject reasons and Science. Love, beauty, art, and principles associated with religion -- in addition to reason -- contain truth and meaning.
I don't understand this hate for the atheist movement. You don't tell evangelical Christians what they need to believe, and you don't tell them what they believe is wrong, so why attack the atheists? Sure there are some that are fat headed and attack religion in general, but being fat headed back and attacking atheism and making it seem like a stupid way to live your life? Where is this animosity coming from?
@@bambie1830 So a theocracy created by an illegal marriage cult that was sex trafficking women from England? Unique yes, but not sure how that benefits society? The murder of 120 innocent people in Mountain Meadows? Swig Soda?
The compilation of biblical texts. Quite an achievement. The most widely read book in the world is the Bible. Please find something to build. I worry about your mental health. Constantly clawing at religious people. Justin is reporting on secular people -- like you -- who are returning to faith. This is a real phenomenon.
I am so stoked that Justin is on the podcast 🎉
Justin has been a force for bringing a rational argument for Christianity. Great to have him engage with LDS thinkers.
Several years ago I read the God Delusion 3-4 times and compared it to Alma 30 and other BoM chapters that outline the strategies of the Devil against the work of the Lord. That was a useful exercise for me. I found many examples of those strategies throughout the book.
I left the Catholic Church as a teenager after getting into the New Atheist movement and remained an atheist for about six years. When I'd done some growing up and found myself as a young man lost and desperate for meaning beyond hedonistic pleasures, I found the side of the internet that was built up in response to atheist critique and discovered not only how deep and beautiful the religion I abandoned so casually truly was, but also how incredibly juvenile my understanding of it had been (and that as a kid who went to church every Sunday, went to Sunday school for years, and was hugely part of the faith community) as well as how juvenile and ignorant the atheist arguments against it really were.
So you were raised in this particular belief system, fell away from it in your youth, then went back to the belief system that you were raised with.
Do you think that your decision to go back to Catholicism in particular was heavily influenced by the fact that you were raised to give special consideration to it?
@@ollieollyoli5805 Not really. I avoided coming back for a long time. I actually went to Paganism first, and then Islam. To be honest, I'm not even sure about Catholicism now. I am convinced of Christianity though.
@@James_Wisniewski Sounds like you were struggling to find something to belong to. Did you consider not bothering with a religion at all?
@@ollieollyoli5805 That falls right back in to the same old trap of I can do it on my own, and make my own values, or interpret scriptures my own way. The best thing to do is acknowledge where you are at, hold on to truth as you find it / it's reveled to you. and keep going forward, praying, asking God for guidance, and studying the good word, and be willing to go wherever God directs you.
@@jaredgardner5275after spending decades in prayer, researching and study I come to the conclusion that gods do not exist. Since then my life has become more meaningful, more joyous, precious and better in many ways. I would only wish that for you. You might give it a serious thought.
Such a marvellous interview. God is certainly able to do His work and clearly He is. Cant wait to see how it pans out in “the next decade”.
After listening to the ocean of ideas discussed in this engaging interview, it felt that I had swum between two great shores of thought. But examining closer, I realized there was only one shore all along. Thank you.
@@jeffreyphillips9121 I am watching the discussion between Peterson and Dawkins that posted a couple of days ago and it's fascinating. It's like watching the left brain and right brain talking. It is apparent to me that Dawkins is an atheist because he is incapable of understanding that Truth is a larger category than facts.
A great interview, Jacob. Well done.
The Baha'i Faith and Islam are also included in the belief in a rationale and law-giving God. This is not exclusively a "Judaeo-Christian" concept. Very much enjoying your discussion. Thanks.
@@jameshopkins7507 Islam came to be in the 7th century and explicitly claims the Old and New testaments as precursors to the Quran. Baha'i was founded in the 19th century and claims all previous religions as sources. These are not independent expressions of the idea.
@@Steelblaidd Well said
So cool you got him on!
Love Brierley!!! Thank you for coming on with Jacob!
Phenomenal conversation.
Great conversation.
About the value of religion, and the ineffectiveness of idols is that I have become increasingly convinced that problem with our culture is a a hyper-fixation on discourse, with an almost evangelical flair: the things you *say* you believe will save or damn you. Atheist AND many Christians and other faithful are making idols of words, and we have forgotten the importance of the embodied Word.
As long as we are fighting a war of words, the physical realities of our lived, daily lives will not change. Keeping people chained to living in a disembodied war of words (i.e. the internet), with constant strife and no winners... whose work does that sound like?
Peace is not found in words, but in actions. I have to come to grips with the fact that my life could stand to be embodied more, in reflection and worship of the Word made flesh.
I mean, look: if you can "be a Christian" without faith in the Nativity, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Divinity or even Existence of Jesus of Nazareth, then that's a major development in modern Christian Theology.
I’m pretty sure the most important aspect of being a Christian is the the belief in the resurrection as it’s the most significant event for our faith
Richard Dawkins has used the term "Cultural Christian" since the publication of The Selfish Gene.
The more science discovers about creation, the more we learn of Gods miraculous order. COL 1:17 And He is before all things, and in Him, all things hold together. He keeps everything in motion as He first designed. It is His orderly hand that holds everything in place,
Francis Bacon was religious, yes, but he wasn't particularly orthodox in his views. He didn't like using superstition to explain things but preferred to find a natural explanation. Most of this discussion is really about the utility of religion rather than the eternal truthfulness of it. Purpose is something that an individual chooses, whether it's through religion or not. There's no way to assign purpose to an individual, like as a child, without convincing them intellectually of something greater than themselves. It's not something that can be proven but is a belief. So I don't see how purpose comes directly from God. It comes from an individual deciding, and potentially being culturally influenced to decide, that the idea of God, and the myths associated with God, are a good basis for providing purpose in their life. There's nothing concrete about God other than the beliefs associated with him and the results of that belief. One could argue that the results are worthwhile, regardless of the truthfulness of it. I feel like that's what this discussion was really doing. The same could be argued for things like going to therapy, practicing daily meditation, eating a balanced diet, and giving your time and money to charitable causes.
As LDS, we need to make sure we stay out of the Atheist and Creedal Christian paradigm that Christianity was first introduced to the world in 30 AD.
YEEES! I love Justin and Jacob!
54:43 People are willing to give their life for what they love and value, typically family. The only reason I can imagine people are willing to die for a belief, institution or cause, is fear, or perceived duty. This proves only the power of belief and not the reality or “truthfulness” of that belief. The religious belief emboldens members to act in pragmatic ways, willing to protect/ fight to maintain a way of life.
@sdfotodude I know what you called the happiness letter, I just hadn't heard it called that. I don't see the self centeredness in It that I think you do.
And while Joseph was jailed in charges of treason, that was patiently in order to keep him where the mob could shoot him. At no time did he advocate the overthrow of the government or desert his post in time of war or provide aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. So what do you think he did that was treasonous?
Look into the council of fifty. Also, raising the militia after destroying the press was one of the charges, that amounts to treason.
In 8 hours :( I'll be working
Atheism has doubled in the last eleven years. These guys seem misinformed.
55:59 I think that Jordan Peterson is such a gateway to Christianity is because he invites us to embrace curiosity and recognize beauty. He offers the magic and wonder thats often left behind when leaving religion.
I do think that people who’ve been through a faith crisis and do the work necessary can ultimately come to recognize the benefits religion offers; gathering , serving and sacrifice and could could chose to reenter the religious world but it’s likely without literal belief in God. They return to offer and partake in serving humanity and enriches the lives of those around them.
I have a hard time believing that anyone could truly return to religion as a literal believer after a faith crisis. There’s no putting the toothpaste back in the tube.
Can you have religious practice without religion? A religion that is not a religion. Many people have asserted and tried to create such a thing but none have been successful. People simply will not sacrifice if they are not driven by a larger story and purpose. They will turn to self-fulfillment or other quasi-religious ideologies. You can definitely return to a belief in God after a faith crisis, as I have, but it maybe that the form and character of this belief will be informed by the faith crisis.
I would love to hear Justins view of Jacobs Mormonism. Jacob has a whole layer of mormon beliefs, doctrine and narratives that also need to hold true if Christianity is the God instituted world religion and font of truth according to Jacobs position. I doubt Justin would apply any of his views that he applies to Christianlity to the confusion that is the greatly added to Mormon Christianlity that Jacob claims its the resotration of the Gosple.
The Latter-day Saint view is that it's all about and only about Jesus the Christ and His Atonement for us. If you're thinking that there are irrelevant additions, then you don't understand Latter-day Saint beliefs.
@@phav1832 Do we need to believe JS was a prophet to be saved?
Do we need to attend LDS temples to be saved?
Do we need to do ministering to be saved?
Do we need to wear LDS garments to be saved?
Do we need to believe Russell M Nelson is a modern Prophet to be saved?
Do we need to pay 10% tithing to be saved?
Do we need to pass JS after we die to be saved?
Do we need to know secret handshakes in order to be saved?
Do we need multiple wives to be saved?
Do we need blood atonement in order to be saved from certain sins?
Do we need to be white to be saved? Or at least not Black?
Do we need to believ in the BOM and other modern scripture to be saved?
@ericredd4544 Firstly you’re using the Gish Gallop Fallacy, not presenting actual arguments but instead using a long list to overwhelm people. In regards to Salvation the LDS position is that we must have Faith in Jesus Christ, Repent, and be baptized in his name. You ask “Do we need this or that to be saved?” No, those actions do not save us, we do those actions because we have agreed to take upon ourselves the name of Christ and follow his commandments, to be sanctified through his atonement, this is a process and not a one time event. Another thing I would like to mention is you slanderously assumed we believe that “polygamy” is necessary for salvation, and that we need to be “blood atoned” for certain sins, completely ignoring their historical contexts and how we define doctrine. “Blood atonement”(which is condemned by the Church) was basically a theological way of supporting capital punishment. Plural Marriage was a commandment given to us. Also, salvation is open to all people, even during the Priesthood ban era, black people could still be baptized and be members of the Church, and our congregations didn’t segregate by race like many Protestant congregations did. In regards to believing certain scriptures are true for salvation, I must ask you, does one have to read the Bible or even believe all of it to be saved? Is the Bible even necessary at all for salvation? Can one be saved if one doesn’t view the Bible as inerrant?
How can my rationally justified position of atheism - to suspend any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented - be "failing"?
That's not what is being said.
You seem to hold the "I don't know" position. Traditionally called agnosticism. Atheism is the positive claim that "there definitely is NO god."
@Steelblaidd You're simply WRONG.
I actually hold both positions as they are not mutually exclusive. And here is why:
There is _but one_ claim that the position of atheism addresses. And that is the claim asserted by _certain_ theists that some particular god exists in reality.
Like all claims to truth, this claim breaks down on three dichotomous axes: *_truth_* of the claim (true, false); *_acknowledgement_* as to the truth of the claim (acknowledge, fail to acknowledge); and *_sufficiency of knowledge_* as to ascertain the truth of such claim (sufficient, insufficient).
It is the position we take on these dichotomies that establishes our identity in regard to atheism and agnosticism.
The first dichotomous axis addresses the truth _position._ Like any claim to truth, the 'theistic' claim is either true or _not_ true (false). There is no other possible option as is dictated by the laws of logic (Identity, Non Contradiction, and Excluded Middle).
The second dichotomous axis addresses the acknowledgment _position._ The recipient evaluating the claim either acknowledges the claim as to be true (theism) or fails to acknowledge the claim to be true (atheism). Again, there is no other available option.
The third dichotomous axis addresses the _sufficiency of knowledge_ as to the claim _position._ Either the recipient evaluating the claim has sufficient knowledge or information as to ascertain the truth of such claim (gnostism), or does _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information concerning the claim (agnosticism).
The default 'acknowledgement' position on the claim that "a particular god(s) exists" is _atheism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the theistic claim for the first time. It would be impractical to acknowledge the truth of a claim _before_ one hears it for the first time.
The default position addressing 'sufficiency of knowledge or information' is _agnosticism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim. One can not claim to have sufficient knowledge or information concerning any given claim _until_ he or she hears the claim for the first time.
This presents four populations of recipients evaluating the claim that "a particular god(s) exists."
The 'gnostic theist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) to theism by acknowledging the truth of the claim. Often, this population claims to acquire "sufficient knowledge" from revelation from (or personal relationship with) the deity mentioned in the claim.
The 'gnostic atheist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify remaining in the position of atheism (default) by _rejecting to acknowledge_ the claim. This population is sometimes referred to as 'strong atheists'. This population may or may not make the additional claim "god(s) don't exist." If so, like the theists in the original claim, those that make such a claim now encumber a burden of proof to substantiate such claim with evidence.
The 'agnostic theist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) by does so _anyways_ by acknowledging the truth of the claim _through_ 'faith'.
Lastly, the 'agnostic atheist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their initial position of atheism, so they _continue to suspend acknowledging the truth of the claim until sufficent evidence is presented._
Of the four populations, only the 'gnostic theists' and the 'agnostic atheists' are *_justified_* in their final positions. The former is justified in changing their position to theism by 'revelation'. The latter is justified in suspending such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced, and therefore remain atheist.
This is how I can demonstrate that I am indeed an atheist - an _agnostic_ atheist.
Fair enough, I don't think I have ever seen anyone lay out the full spectrum of options so susictly an completely. Most people in typical usage are not so precise. Certainly not in headlines and Podcast episode titles which tend towards clikbaitiness of necessity and away from nuance.
Context matters when evaluating the connotation of words with broad definition.
You were asking in the context of this video, and its title, which is discussing Brierly's book and specifically the decline in satisfaction with the theories propounded by the famous Gnostic Atheists (Dawkins et.al. thank you for the term). In this context I would say your agnosticism is more salient than your atheism.
To rephrase my original answer, by the definition of atheist they are using in this title and discussion they don't mean you.
@@Steelblaidd Fair enough.
@@Theo_Skeptomai Virtually all non-believers today in the West -- Joe and Sally on the street -- are cultural agnostics. Just as most Christians are cultural Christians, not real or informed believers.
this is funny. because the facts are that people are leaving the churches and religions in droves worldwide. and it's thanks for information and the getting behind magical thinking.
i was once devout, i went to seminary, i was a youth pastor who wanted to go into missions. and then i began learning the truth. there's no return to religion. we are free. and you can be too. knowledge is freedom.
i'm an anti-theist atheist. and our numbers are growing by the minute.
I am an atheist. I don't believe in the existence of God. There is insufficient evidence or rational justification to support the belief in any gods or supernatural entities. I rely on science, reason, logic, and empirical evidence to form my worldview and do not find compelling evidence or arguments to support the existence of god. The universe is governed by natural laws and forces, rather than moral, spiritual, or supernatural ones. As an atheist, I reject the idea of God. I emphasize the social and empirical nature of inquiry and prioritize scientific solutions to intellectual problems. I reject religious dogma, supernaturalism, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making.
I am capable of being ethical and moral without religion or belief in a deity. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently good or evil, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. Rather,I emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. The strongly held viewpoint that ideology be it religious or political must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy.
you should watch the video
Is your world view superior to other world views based off your ethical and moral choices?
OK. and?
Other people have examined their experience and the evidence available to them and come to different conclusions.
I don't think there is any doubt that individual persons can maintain high ethics and morality with or without belief in a god.
But can most people? Or will they descend to the lowest moral energy level without some ideal to aspire too? Can a civilization sustain itself without deliberately working to instil virtue in its children?
What story do you tell your children about why they should be ethical and moral? And what do you even mean by ethical and moral? What are the principals by which you judge which action is which? Where did they come from?
David Foster Wallace, in his great speech This is Water, pointed out that everyone worships something.
What do you worship?
@Steelblaidd What _exactly_ is this "evidence available to them"? State one _evidentiary fact_ that goes toward demonstrating that any particular god exists in reality.
Good luck with meaning. Religious people are much happier than secular people. Life is about much more than reason and Science alone, though religious people don't need to reject reasons and Science. Love, beauty, art, and principles associated with religion -- in addition to reason -- contain truth and meaning.
Yes, the tide is changing. But toward atheism! 😄
I don't understand this hate for the atheist movement. You don't tell evangelical Christians what they need to believe, and you don't tell them what they believe is wrong, so why attack the atheists? Sure there are some that are fat headed and attack religion in general, but being fat headed back and attacking atheism and making it seem like a stupid way to live your life? Where is this animosity coming from?
Name one achievement that has benefitted mankind, that is uniquely religious.
Utah
Individualism, the Ten Commandments, modern scientific method
All the religious people and religious charities and work.
@@bambie1830 So a theocracy created by an illegal marriage cult that was sex trafficking women from England? Unique yes, but not sure how that benefits society? The murder of 120 innocent people in Mountain Meadows? Swig Soda?
The compilation of biblical texts. Quite an achievement. The most widely read book in the world is the Bible.
Please find something to build. I worry about your mental health. Constantly clawing at religious people. Justin is reporting on secular people -- like you -- who are returning to faith. This is a real phenomenon.