Is Atheism a Religion?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 гру 2023
- From the American Atheist:
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”
Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.
While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. To put it in a more humorous way: If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Some groups will use words like Agnostic, Humanist, Secular, Bright, Freethinker, or any number of other terms to self identify. Those words are perfectly fine as a self-identifier, but we strongly advocate using the word that people understand: Atheist. Don’t use those other terms to disguise your atheism or to shy away from a word that some think has a negative connotation. We should be using the terminology that is most accurate and that answers the question that is actually being asked. We should use the term that binds all of us together.
If you call yourself a humanist, a freethinker, a bright, or even a “cultural Catholic” and lack belief in a god, you are an atheist. Don’t shy away from the term. Embrace it.
Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know.
Not all non-religious people are atheists, but…
In recent surveys, the Pew Research Center has grouped atheists, agnostics, and the “unaffiliated” into one category. The so-called “Nones” are the fastest growing “religious” demographic in the United States. Pew separates out atheists from agnostics and the non-religious, but that is primarily a function of self-identification. Only about 5% of people call themselves atheists, but if you ask about belief in gods, 11% say they do not believe in gods. Those people are atheists, whether they choose to use the word or not.
A recent survey from University of Kentucky psychologists Will Gervais and Maxine Najle found that as many as 26% of Americans may be atheists. This study was designed to overcome the stigma associated with atheism and the potential for closeted atheists to abstain from “outing” themselves even when speaking anonymously to pollsters. The full study is awaiting publication in Social Psychological and Personality Science journal but a pre-print version is available here.
Even more people say that their definition of “god” is simply a unifying force between all people. Or that they aren’t sure what they believe. If you lack an active belief in gods, you are an atheist.
Being an atheist doesn’t mean you’re sure about every theological question, have answers to the way the world was created, or how evolution works. It just means that the assertion that gods exist has left you unconvinced.
Wishing that there was an afterlife, or a creator god, or a specific god doesn’t mean you’re not an atheist. Being an atheist is about what you believe and don’t believe, not about what you wish to be true or would find comforting.
Socials:
TikTok: / polishdaneyt
Instagram: / polishdaneyt
Reddit: / polishdane
Facebook: / polishdane
UA-cam: / @polishdane
Sources:
• [No Copyright] Chill L...
• Atheism Is A Religion
• Atheism Is A Religion
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implici...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra....
www.atheists.org/activism/res....
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Ath.... - Розваги
150 likes for part 2. Part 2 will include *your comments* and my response to them.
like the comments you want me to respond to. There's too much
A person named "Alexhexagon" has a video with almost the same title where he discusses this topic much more indept@@PolishDane
omg reply to me😢
Did you even bother to define what you mean by "religion"? Not every belief is a religion, I would think that is trivially true. I "believe" that my daughter will come home from school this afternoon. That belief is not a religion. If you want to say that there are things which atheists believe, that seems reasonable, but it's equivocation to assert that this is necessarily a belief. You need to explain how believing there is no god/failing to believe that there is a god fits the definition of a "religion".
It's not a religion until I stop paying taxes!!!
Christians always claim atheism is a religion until we ask for the same tax exemptions they have, smh.
I agree atheist should be tax exempt.
As someone once said, atheism is a religion the way not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Or bald is hair colour. Or off is a TV channel.
When I hear that atheism is a religion, I think of it more as atheists are as close minded as religious people. Many people on both sides are unable to consider that they might be wrong.
@@teebear3036 I don't think calling atheists closed-minded is fair. All the atheists I know would say, "Show me convincing evidence that God exists and I'll change my position." That's the opposite of religion, which relies on faith: belief in the absence of convincing evidence. Religionists say, "You can show me all the facts you want--it doesn't matter. I will never stop believing." To me, THAT is closed-minded.
@@cufflink44 I agree. Faith does not lead people to truth. It's not a methodology. It's the excuse people give when they don't have a good reason. If someone asked you "Why do you believe X?" and you have good reasons for believing X, you would tell them the reasons. You'd never say "I just have a feeling that X is true" or "I have faith that X is true". Faith does not give you the answers, it just makes you stop asking the questions. Faith means not wanting to know what is true. What is strange to me is that if you substitute "God" for X, no one has a problem with your answer. But if you substitute X for anything else, they would think you weren't very bright.
@@toshikotanaka3249 Well said.
You added a bunch of stuff into atheism that doesn't belong. And then you read the definition of atheism and flipped it with the Christian thing. No clue where you were going with that one. Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god. That's it. Everything else that people add on is their own thing.
Atheist religion has lgbtqwertyP (p stands for pdfilia) at its core and then it is wrapped in communism. This is why any atheist believes that men can menstruate and give birth, that there's nothing wrong about incest, necrophilia or cannibalism, and, that it is not evil when homosexuals bone kids.
I look forward to your video on why baldness is a hair color.
or "abstinence is a sexual activity"
So not collecting stamps is a hobby according to this genius, got it.
The atheists are collecting non-stamps. 😉
I question how basing your knowledge of the world on the current scientific understanding means that atheism is a religion. Religions tend to include ideas that you need to have faith to believe in, rituals, and often codes of conduct. While our current scientific understanding isn't perfect, it doesn't assert claims that something is 100% fact, everything in science can change. There are some people that take scientific studies and facts as unchangeable doctrine that can't be questioned, but that's more a problem with "scientism" than atheism, because any atheist that doesn't follow "scientism" would be willing to say that they don't know the answer to something scientific that science doesn't have a definitive answer for yet, therefore not make any sort of religious claim. Atheism also doesn't provide rituals or a code of conduct, it only seems that way because atheists supplement the lack of these in atheism from their culture, groups, or philosophies.
Not all religions provide those things, and not all beliefs in a higher power are technically religions. However, it's better to call atheism a religion in this context to keep it simple, and it mostly fits.
As for codes of conduct, saying there are inherently no codes of conduct due to nihilism is simply religions in reverse. You make your own codes or you die inside.
It's also important to note that everything in science is based on faith in things operating consistently, as we don't actually know if anything we experience is truly internally consistent, plus our science is always lacking in information to truly know anything. Not to mention, we know next to nothing about the foundations of existence, where consciousness comes from, or how/why the universe began, all things that would connect to the existence of a creator
Regardless, he wasn't talking about those things at all. You're arguing over the semantics of what it means to be a religion, rather than contesting the meat and potatoes of what he said in the video
@MrGrim-ml2un But we can't even get to the meat and potatoes if we're still trying to come to a consensus on what words mean.
Most people agree that "religion" necessitates belief in a higher power at the very least. Atheists don't believe in a higher power, therefore atheism as a theological stance is not a religion.
@@JacobGrim Are you replying to me or to the comment that's hidden?
@@JacobGrim "As for codes of conduct, saying there are inherently no codes of conduct *due to nihilism* is simply religions in reverse."
Not who you were replying to but I don't think they in any way affirmed nihilism as true or as connected to atheism in any way. Which is good because nihilism is not a logical consequence of atheism. The majority of academic philosophers, at least in the west, are atheists, but they are not nihilists. Rather they (most of them) believe objective value/morality does exist, it just has nothing to do with God.
That is the view I lean towards myself as an atheist, although I also find existentialism (nihilism at the bottom of the universe + self-created meanings at the level of human life) plausible.
Atheists do not think for themselves. No atheist has ever been thinking one single individual thought, no atheist brain neurons differ in any way from his neighbours brain neurons. And this is because atheists by default do not believe anything, but they know that they are atheists, so in order to find out what they believe, they do a google search on what atheists believe, and then they find atheist dawah channels which then tell them what to believe. It's just communism with a fancier name.
You can remove the religion, but you cannot remove the religious impulse.
When you fire any scientist who does not subscribe to Darwinism, that's a religion. Science is what is demonstratable, repeatable, testable, not 'imagine billions of years, then anything can happen'.
it's not a religious impulse, it's an impulse for meaning and purpose. Organized religions have taken it upon themselves to fill that void and it works because it's the easiest and requires less actual work from the individual. Determining meaning for oneself is hard. It takes effort, focus and dedication through constant failure. Religion eschews all that for "just believe and you'll have a purpose". It's literally the laziest, least challenging, and least scary route to take because the faith does all the heavy lifting for you.
@@JLWarren You do not sound too friendly toward anything that is the laziest, least challenging, and least scary.
@@christopherzhou5361 Why would I be? Why should anyone?
I beg to differ. I have absolutely no religious impulses, urges, whatever you want to call it. This is one of the lamest arguments I’ve seen in a long time.
I have better question. What is religion? When philosophy becomes religion? How much religion can be changed to still be the same religion? What about change in believes thru time?
My thesis is, any belief system is a religion.
This is actually a good idea for a video. At what point do we draw the line between philosophy and religion? Is there really even a difference? I guess you could say that religion is more structured and meant to give meaning whereas philosophy is meant to ask questions about the human experience.
What is funny about atheism is that it denies the existence of a god, without even attempting to define what a god is. Which is unfortunate, because I have found a lot of really profound ideas, that I was only able to entertain after having exited my radical atheist phase, and those are lost to those who will not open their minds to it.
Atheism isn’t a religion. Literally the lack of religion
agnosticism
@@PolishDane atheism
/ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
agnostic
/aɡˈnɒstɪk/
noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
not the same thing.
An atheist does not belive any god exists, an agnostic thinks there may be a god, but there is no way for us to understand it.
@@Goldenhawk5839:10
Not belief is now a belief, big brain over here
Ikr but what do you expect from stupid people? 😂
Because of reasons.
Atheism is not a absence of belief, It is a belief that God doesn't exist
@filopon7116 I can be but absolutely not exclusively. The claims that God or a controlling power exists are stupid and bs, so you might have a reason to believe but I do not. Not believing a thing is a fact because there is no good reason to believe something is a fact is called the null hypothesis.
@@claytonhenrickson9326 and that is non theism, not atheism
Historically, religion did not mean what it means today. Originally, "religio" referred simply to "scrupulousness, conscientiousness, devotedness, or a sense of obligation". During western antiquity, thanks to Augustinian influence, the term was expanded. As an adjective it described those who were devout and in noun form to refer to worship. It was from the writings of Herbert in the wake of the Reformation that "religion" changed into a defined social genus (demarcating monotheists from polytheists, etc) but with five elements in common that he called the Common Notions:
1) There is a supreme deity.
2) This deity should be worshipped.
3) The most important part of religious practice is the cultivation of virtue.
4) One should seek repentance for wrong-doing.
5) One is rewarded or punished in this life and the next.
Herbert was trying to bridge the gap and ease the in-fighting between the competing factions of the faith by establishing what they all had in common. It was this social genus concept that perpetuated the European idea of an "us vs them" mentality, because those that didn't prescribe to the Common Notions were not religious and therefore could be judged accordingly i.e. anything labeled Pagan.
If you go by the classic Latin, then being religious just refers to being what we now identify as a moral person and in that sense, an atheist would be religious. But if you go by the Augustinian interpretation through western antiquity, then the Common Notions become applicable and atheism is excluded from that as a general rejection of the First Notion.
Many theists will try to reinforce their own belief by claiming the atheist is merely "replacing" the god that exists with another god for the variety of reasons that appear in the Book of Romans (which of course is just begging the question).
But the reality is, humans do have an innate psychological need for purpose or meaning for their lives. Religions are the easiest and safest choice to fill that void because they do all the heavy lifting for you. Determining one's own purpose is a herculean effort, requiring one to navigate constant failure, self-doubt, and admissions of ignorance. It requires perseverance, discipline, determination, focus, self-reflection and humility. Religion eschews all of that hard work (which often can take a lifetime and is not always successful) and simply bestows a purpose an the only effort one makes is simply to believe.
This is why atheism is not a religion. Because it cannot be a religion. They are contradictory terms. There are core precepts that don't exist under its auspices. Atheism is a conclusion reached when critical examination of the god proposition reaches what I would call "the Zenith of Occam's Razor" or the break point between critical examination and when all that is left is to start multiplying your entities unnecessarily.
Deserves to be pinned
"I believe no gods exist." 5 words do not a religion make.
Cult of Dionysus is Atheistic.
@@kathy888 Who believes that? Not atheists.. are you incapable of thinking of a world without a god being?
according to atheist talking points they do.
The first sentence of the gospel according to John also make one;
"En arche ain ho logos"
Atheism is a religion just like bald is a hair color and silence is a music genre.
It is a religion the way anarchism is a political position
@@Grant-gq7in Only Anarchists of the thought "the world is in Anarchy already."
"Atheism is based on science." No it's not. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's it. You literally just got done quoting the definition. To be charitable, maybe you mean that we can use science to try to test god claims, but if god were true, science should back them up, right? A person looking for truth should follow that evidence where it leads. Trying to force science to fit into a pre-conceived philosophy is doing science wrong.
Yup I hate when people link it to science like that as if it's required. You can technically be an atheist and still believe in ghosts, heaven, hell, you can *reject* all of science so long as none of that includes belief in a god you're still an atheist. To me it's being a single position on a single issue which separates it from religion, if you called atheism a religion that would have to mean every other single position on a single issue also qualified as a religion. Which means the belief that red is prettier than blue is a religion, the belief that dogs are better than cats is a religion, and the belief that atheism is a religion...is a religion. Gets silly very fast.
Why does any god need to be true?
Are you even aware that god is a metaphysical concept?
@@dinuffin The majority of people I've met who believe in said god(s) say they believe it needs to be true whether it's a metaphysical concept or not. If the people who actually believe it view it that way why shouldn't we?
This is a pretty good video that echoes a lot of my own perspective on this topic. I am not altogether surprised to see in the comments that many other atheists have commented on this video without first actually watching your video. This also happens with my content, too. The brand of atheism you are referring to in your video is New Atheism, which is a very specific form of it. I can argue that New Atheism has become a quasi-religion with dogmas that are contradictory to the arguments used to disprove Christianity, and this will be the subject of one of my upcoming videos. Aside from that I think that while agnosticism and atheism are frequently depicted as being contrary, they actually are not at all. Agnosticism is not necessarily an expression of belief, but is instead a position on the limits of knowledge. In fact, New Atheism's core argument is agnosticism (that there is lack of sufficient evidence to believe in gods) and which then concludes there are no gods (atheism). Ironically, when atheists use the argument that there is lack of evidence for gods to mean there must not be any gods they commit a false dichotomy fallacy called appeal to ignorance. The proper way to use the argument that there is lack of evidence for gods is expressly when refuting the specific claims made by specific people for evidence of their god, and specifically as a reason to not believe in those specific individuals claims for their gods existing. It becomes a logical fallacy to broadly apply this to the entire concept of any god somewhere possibly existing. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people who identify themselves as atheists do not actually understand philosophy and logic, and just parrot the parts of other's arguments they can recall. This is what popular atheism has become, the parroting of dogmas without fully understanding the idea behind these dogmas. And it is why New Atheism has become a religion.
You phrased it better than I ever could.
Well reading that absolute hogwash is a minute ill never get back. Just because you don't understand something, doesn't make it incorrect. Your ignorance is not a very good argument.
You both can cope all you want though.
I watched the entire thing twice, that's not the issue. The issue is a failure to define religion at all, much less define it in a way that a) maps onto how people use it in everyday life and b) applies to the definition of atheism in the video. When people think of "religion" as an idea, they think of a framework of some if not all of the following: doctrines, dogmas, practices, religious hierarchy, and maybe more that I'm forgetting. Atheism, as defined in your video, has none of this.
@@tjaysteno he is defining New Atheism, which is a specific atheist movement. And I would argue there are New Atheist adherents who do organize and express these traits. If you spend any amount of time on online atheist forums you will very quickly see that dogmas have formed which are not permitted to be questioned and will result in you getting banned, even if you are an atheist. There are hierarchies, as there are atheist organizations. And there are practices if you look at the anti-theistic virtue signaling behaviors that are advocated for and championed in these communities, such as shunning and banning people who question the dogmas of New Atheism. So it has become a religion.
“Since athiesm doesn’t describe our meaning here, it’s a religion!” 5:00
Words are tools for representing thoughtforms. Semantics are the most underrated branch of metaphysical philosophy. None of the humanities have a leg to stand on without rigorous semantics. Thank you for diving into semantics in this video.
Not just the humanities ... but NO field of study can exist in its plenitude without good old fashioned semantics. Take note that semantics are essentially being destroyed and replaced by the common woke ideology and accompanying vocabulary - or lack thereof - the purpose of which is to very deliberately dumb everything down to the most base level. This is why our written communications have been reduced to the equivalent of mere grunts. Accomplished by WHOM?
By those woke idiots.
Semantics is related to the study of languages, not a branch of metaphysical philosophy.
Words are tools used for representing thoughts. I question yours.
Just thoughts - not thoughtforms. No such thing as "thoughtforms."
@@scotthullinger4684 Semantics: the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.
Thoughtform: (especially in Christian Theology) a combination of presuppositions, imagery, and vocabulary current at a particular time or place and forming the context for thinking on a subject.
@@StainlessSteelPolish - I'm so glad you're capable of quoting a dictionary. Must be one hell of a mighty grand skill -
Claiming athiesm(not accepting the god claim) is a religion is hilarious. If not accepting the god claim is a religion then not believing that the earth is flat or that unicorns exist is also a religion. It’s honestly so baffling how people don’t understand that simply not accepting a claim can not be a religion. It’s like me saying “I don’t accept red is the best color” and then someone going “oh you people who don’t accept the claim red is the best color are a religion” religions definition is “a particular system of faith and worship” but we don’t need to have faith in or worship anything…. That’s part of the entire point.
God failed you? I feel like this is said very often as a reason to be an atheist, but I find it to be a very lackluster and kind of bad excuse. Oftentimes when someone says this it comes down to the person wanted something and prayed but they didn't get an answer to their prayer or things turned out differently than how they would anticipated, to which at that point they begin looking two people that are opposed to their beliefs and become extremely receptive because they feel scorned by God. Here's the thing though, the Bible describes God and his character and his will pretty clearly. There are certain things that are just not in the cards and not set in stone, it in accordance with God's will as we read in the Bible. This would be like not being able to figure out a math problem and then saying that math failed you because the answer didn't pan out the way you wanted it to. I'm not trying to be mean and yes somebody could make the argument against me right now about how it's a matter of Faith or it's not real, but I'm talking about if we go based on what the Bible actually says which is what we follow, so suspend your disbelief for a moment and bring it down to the very Bare Basics of what we read about God in the bible. He doesn't fail us, sometimes we ask for something that just isn't in the plan and that's okay. That shouldn't be a reason to go searching for confirmation bias at the opposite end. If that was simply your reason for a completely uprooting all your belief prior, then that's kind of immature. If your argument is to say that you never had belief in the first place, then the statement of saying that God failed you would be incorrect. They're definitely should be some more introspection as to why you had belief in the first place versus why you decided to leave it over one instance that you feel like you were failed. Oftentimes it's just a matter of perspective
When you did the flip with the definition of atheism, I notice you changed "is not an affirmative belief" to "is an affirmative *exclamation*", to avoid putting the word belief in that sentence. Also this does not work as theism, generally speaking, is making a claim, atheism is not, we don't believe a god exists but we also don't believe that no god exists, we just don't know. Atheism is essentially "I don't know, but I see no evidence supporting the hypothesis that there is one". Nobody was ever thinking to say "there are no gods" until someone said "there are gods" , so it sounds stupid because it is
the sentence otherwise would not make logical sense
@@PolishDane the sentence doesn't make sense as you've written it; it's just a shifting of the burden of proof.
@@PolishDaneobviously, because it can't make sense if you write it that way. You need to change the meaning of the words. Being unable to write it correctly should have told you something.
Nihilism is not a part of atheism and it is not very honest in my opinion to conflate the two.
Atheism as a definition is just not believing in a God or gods that is it and a disbelief is not the same as a belief.
I'm also an atheist towards Santa Claus, does that make me religious against Santa?
To claim atheism is a philosophy or anything other than a disbelief is disingenuous
This whole video just seems like it was made in bad faith. Pandering to the lowest common denominator.
Atheist Philosophers Do exist, do you only live in a bubble or echo chamber? Never hear of New Atheist Games Industry?
@@magnuscritikaleak5045 yes but atheism itself isn't a philosophy. It can be incorporated into a philosophy but those can change drastically from person to person.
All atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods. That's it.
@@magnuscritikaleak5045 also why did you feel the need to insult me by implying I live in an echo chamber? That seems a bit out of nowhere.
So, not believing a god exists is a form of believing a God exists, got it.
Not all religions have a God so Atheism can be a religion
@@thebenzaga Even religions with "no god" like Buddhism still require a certain level of faith in abstract concepts like karma and reincarnation, which directly contradicts the atheistic belief that there are no such mechanisms underlying the universe (none that we have concrete evidence for, hence the lack of belief in such concepts). So no, atheism still is not a religion.
@thebenzaga Well, if that was what this UA-cam video was about then you'd have made a relevant point but he's not making that point. Thank you for giving an answer to a different discussion.
@@thebenzaga Do you know what a religion is? Clearly not. Go learn and come back when you have a clue.
@@cliveadams7629
There are sects of Buddhism that are atheistic. Take your own advice.
This is utterly ridiculous.
It is like saying 'NORTH' or the 'CONCEPT OF COLOUR' is a religion.
Atheism is a word invented by theists to attempt to describe those who do not share their belief system. It implies that a theistic view is the default and adding a prefix represents a deviation from that default.
It is precisely NOT THAT. It is not considering the premise that a deity can exist. Atheism cannot be described thus, because the term describes, nothing.
No one would be described as 'A'tooth fairyist; or 'A'elfish and the same applies if the word is Theist.
The theistic view is the default tho.
you are offended on a word bro?
@@scuffedryangosling4264 No it's not. You think if you left a bunch of kids who had never been exposed to society out in the wilderness to fend for themselves, they'd end up replicating Christianity (or Islam, or Judaism, or any other religion) with no external knowledge of it? Who's to say they wouldn't end up being polytheists instead? Or maybe deists, or pantheists?
I agree with this sentiment. Atheism is not an ideology, but a position on the existence of God/Metaphysical worlds. Atheism can be the result of other ideologies or ways of thinking, such as rationalism or skepticism, but it itself is not an ideology.
@@scuffedryangosling4264 It's not considering there are thousands of religions that all claim to be true and are all incompatible with each other. You're 99% an atheist, you just believe 1 more God than all other atheists.
I also don't believe in Santa. Is that a religion?
I've been Atheist for 7 decades & my Polish Dane sorry to disappoint you: NO Atheism is not a religion just a freedom of religion which I love.
I worship my non belief it's my religion😂
Atheism is a religion the same way not riding motorcycles is a type of motorcycle riding.
A direct correlation between radical ideology rising and religion dying out? Two things. Correlation is not causality. They could be totally unrelated. Two. What is “radical” is subjective. I consider Christianity to be radical. Very few people agree with me on this point
I fully agree with you. The remaining religious will become radical as they see their shared view points shrink, the US cristian nationalists are a good example of this. he does conflate cause.
Just as long as you understand that I do not believe that a god exist, do not expect me to operate under the assumption that one exists ,and keep your religion yours, I do not care what you call it. Cope however you will.
3:50 this definition of nihilism is misleading. It's not a belief that live is meaningless but a belief that we create meaning for our lives on our own, instead of being given meaning by external being of phenomena. I guess you're aware of youtuber Nihilistyczny Ateista? While I don't agree with him on many topics, I think he does a decent job in bringing good name back to nihilism.
6:30 stoicism is rad. At least most of people should try it!
Christianity and Islam, both also leads to Nietzsche' Nihilism.
Probilities.
Atheism is a disbelief in god(s).
Theism is a belief in god(s).
A religion is an organisation that standardises a belief system that may or may not include theism.
There's many religions that don't theism so a region can be atheistic.
Rastafarianism doesn't have a centralised organisation standardising it so it is counted more as a spirituality than a religion.
Religions in East Asia like Confusionism and Taoism are atheistic. Also forms of modern Hinduism are atheistic with their gods being seen as just stories to soom Hindus.
What you're describing is Scientism. Scientism is when an atheist believes so strongly in science that dismisses any other belief system. Scientism in a way is a religion as academia is kindoff an organisation with a standardised belief system.
Also atheism ≠ nihilism nor it causes radical political believes. They might be correlated but correlation ≠ causation.
There is nothing in the scientific 🧪 method that precludes it from proving the supernatural. Any restriction to stop it from doing so would be completely arbitrary.
There is no reason to require a competing belief system
I've been preached to more by Atheist then preachers of typical religions.. Most of my interaction with Atheist has me worried as most Atheism more and more comes off as a hate group.
He had me at " atheism is not enough to fullfill the human spirit" (as if thats a thing). I understand you are having trouble with atheism but goodluck proving the religious claim.
he is himself atheist bruh. You did not even watched this video.
why is an atheist retention time lower than this video?
You understand the whole point of religion is faith right?
@@generalwillwelsh7926 yeah its like basically saying believe in my imagination
He wasn't trying to prove anything. Just provide some thought-provoking ideas. Unfortunately, while I agree with what he is saying, his argument falls flat a bit.
Basically, it's not really the human spirit he's referring to. it's just really the human need to find meaning and how atheism and/or nihilism can't do that. Positive nihilism exists yes in its many forms (absurdism, humanism, etc), but it's not for everyone
He is saying there's other belief systems like philosophy to help provide meaning in life
@@generalwillwelsh7926yeah and faith is what people use when they don’t have enough evidence to back up their belief. Is there any idea or belief that COULDNT try to be justified using faith? If I have faith in Superman does that make it any more true? Faith really just means “hope” and it does nothing for the people who actually want to know if something is true or not
I’m not an atheist (i used to) . I’m just an irreligious person who has his own definition of god. Even tho, i’m still a nihilist. Especially the normal one. And this video hit me so much.
You cant be a nihilist and believe in god
@@kyriacostheofanous1445 Can one be a nihilist and be god? Can one know the nature of reality and understand that meaning is only given (by the observer) and never a property of any...thing. Is meaning created by man? Does god need this meaning? What if this is a dream? Where is the meaning in a dream to the non-dreamer? What if the meaning is the expression itself?
Please do a video on blank slateism. My understanding is the science has not backed it up.
I'm an atheist and i can confirm that every morning i prostrate before a statue of Darwin, DNA be upon him, and a statue of Nietzsche of blessed memory !
What do you mean "science has been constantly proven wrong"? What does that even mean. Science is science. Our perception of what is scientific fact can change but science itself can't just be "wrong".
7:15 it's not that science in the past was wrong. But it's the case that science is incomplete. Issue starts when people forget about incompleteness of science, extrapolate knowledge beyond it's tested boundaries and start to push people to be subjected by such extrapolation. Which, sadly, happens often.
Saying atheism is a religion is like saying nudity is a form of clothing.
This is a really good video. I myself thought for a long time that Atheism is a religion based on the claims and actions of atheists, despite their assertions and definition they provide as proof. I see that you are a curious guy, so I recommend you read Hume and learn about TAG. There are inherent problems with what atheism is and how atheists act. The philosophy and logic stuff can get a little hard, but understanding the problems deep inside an ideology/religion is not easy. Good luck on your journey and I hope you find meaning and God by seeking the truth in your adult years, just like I did.
There is so many baseless claims and assumptions in this video that i don't even know where to start.
1. there is no argument in this video - just 10 minutes of rambling:
Stereotypical views of ateists are justified because "I was such an ateist". Seriously? This is an argument?
2. Nihilism is most logical belief system for an ateist? Why? What is the argument here?
You are putting so many assumptions in your reasoning :
- "people are born as blank slate" - do they?
-" people are seeking group identity because of nihilism" - really? Maybe they are not born as blank slate but with very strong herd instinct. And so on...
I don't want to write elaborate - so I'll end here.
So you are a "softer atheist" and you made a video AGAINST atheism? I dont get it.
Anyway, about things that you said: 1) MEANING OF LIFE can be found it various things - science, philosophy, chess, art, music, social interactions, etc. I would say that each of us can give his life literaly any meaning that he want. 2) As far as i know, RELIGION is defined as a belief that some god or gods are real, atheism is the opposite... so why calling it a religion? Am i missing something?
jestem Polakiem i widziałem kiedyś jak minister edukacji mówił że religia to wiara w Boga co nie istnieje więc wierzą w Boga itp itd
I think the definition of an atheist as someone who rejects the idea of a god while not asserting that it doesn't exist isn't radical at all, it's just intellectual honesty. If I were to ask you what is your position on whether you believe the nature of randomness in quantum mechanics is deterministic or not your instant answer would likely be "I don't know" if you haven't properly researched about it yet because you're unable to answer either "I believe it is" nor "I don't believe it is," that makes you not having a position about it. That's what atheism is.
I dont need a word to describe the fact I dont believe in made up fantasies and mythology, I don't want to meet up with like minded sane people every week or try to tell anyone eles what to do or how to live their lives. I dont want to force children into believing untruths or try to push my opinions on others, I don't want to change laws for sane people, I'm not constantly offended and I dont read fairy tales and take them literally as truth. Not believing in fairy tales is not ideology, religion or anything but reality. I'm not an atheist, I have such distrust and pity for religious believers that I can't even consider there being a word that is the opposite.
So off is a TV channel and bald is a hair color? Got it.
The definition that you are mistaken about is just saying that there is no assertion that there is no god. Just an assertion that atheists lack belief in God
That’s why I’m an agnostic.
Everyone is agnostic on the question of god because there's no way to know.
@@cliveadams7629 it is simply not within the purview of science to conclude that the cause of anything is supernatural. I’m an agnostic because I personally do not “know” (to me knowing is meaning I’m directly conscious of this knowledge at this moment) if there is a “god.” I’m not claiming other people don’t, or there isn’t one.
@stephenlupoli If there was a supernatural, science would at least find a gap in the natural world where nothing else would do. It hasn't because there's no such thing.
As I said, everyone is agnostic because there's no way to falsify god so you can't know one way or the other.
@@stephenlupoli The easy way to look at it is to ask this simple question. Do you have any active belief in any gods? Whether or not you can know if one exists has no relevance to that question it's a yes or no. If it's a no then that is the exact same position as an agnostic atheist, if it's a yes that is the exact same position of an agnostic believer. Human beliefs are binary they're either on or off, admitting you can't know for sure doesn't change that.
@@InMaTeofDeath human beliefs are binary? Maybe beliefs are, but reality isn’t. Look into Taoism. Also, Iain McGilchrist. Reality is a little more messy than either/or logic. Understanding that the world is not reducible to the “maps” and other templates we overlay, seems like a good start to any journey. Sure, the problem with language is its seeming tendency to reduce realty to either/ or.
Seeing the world as processes instead of “things” is more accurate. You seem to pride yourself in “logic.” Logic is like a tree that can’t bend in the wind. In a strong storm it’s the first tree that snaps. STAY SKEPTICAL ☮️ ❤️ 🌎
If you have a sense of conviction about whether or not God exists, then you are religious. The only people who can say they lack belief are agnostics, but agnostics by definition have no conviction either way, which means they don’t get to have conviction either way, and an atheist needs to flex their conviction in everyone’s faces.
Is not having any evidence that Santa Claus exists also a religion?
Idk why every atheist is mad in the comments. Why do atheists feel the need to attack religions? Do they gain anything from disagreeing about religion? All I have to say is that humans are prone to worship and if it’s not God, there is always something else… like your example of politics.
Read some of the religious books and ponder what is really said in them, then study history and see what religious groups have done to other people of other beliefs.. It is so clearly a tactic used to gain power over people and what they think, to the point that religious people far too often are unable to think about certain topics.
Example, the real view on women and marriage in the bible. Women are born slaves, they are then sold to be married, or to maybe be just a concubine. They have no say in the matter, and are not seen as peoople in their own right, bot only as the property of a man.
A woman must at all time be true to her master, but a man can have multiple wives, concubines and mistresses , as many as he can afford.
You dont think that is worth feeling alittle angry about?
I agree with you.
Why did the Catholic Church attack and kill those it saw as heretics? Why does the Quran say that unbelievers must be attacked and killed? Why are American evangelicals changing American law to attack the rights of women and gay people? Why oh why can't atheists shut up and let the religious attack whoever they want?
New Athiests = Holier than thou? Ironic
0:45 while I agree that words are created by us and the meanings change based on how we use them - the specific usage of words can be a linguistic weapon. Different words will change the way we perceive, interpret and react to things.
Calling Atheism a "religion" in some way discredits it from being an enlightened, only reasonable, way of thinking, separate from every other oldschool way of thinking. It puts it into the same category as the thing that some people that call themselves atheists try to eradicate. They are no longer a 3rd person in this conflict with a neutral view. They become 2nd or even 1st person.
The same with calling LGBT a "group of people" or "ideology". It completely changes the way people perceive a problem. It can be sometimes manipulative or dishonest.
I'm not sure thou that it is productive to argue about that meaning. Maybe sometimes it is, sometimes not. But for sure we need to be aware of it to not let the other fool us, by essentially hacking our brain with keywords.
I don't agree atheism is a religion. Religion is a believe system that you are taught. When i was young i didn't even know what an atheist was or if there was anyone that didn't believe there was a god. In my personal experience i was told there was a god by everyone. But i always felt skeptical, because all the stories didn't add up or reflect my experience of the world. So when i became a little older child i didn't believe in god or the supernatural for that matter. At that time i still did not know what atheism was and would not for many years. I just wasn't convinced by the people around me. Then eventually i discovered other people on the internet with similar experience as me and then i heard about atheism. When i think of Religion i think of a system with certain rules and believes.
I would not consider myself an atheist today nor religious.
We are far from being a blank slate as we come structured with the specific capacities to be human. You mentioned language which is only possible because we have the very specific structure that allows us to learn language which is why we have languages and rabbits don't. We can't do or think anything without the highly specific capacity to do so.
I don't believe elves exist, does it mean I am religious?
This video is cringe. "I don't like arguing about semantics." *Makes video arguing semantics*. That's literally all this video is; "atheists, you should recognize you're using the word religion wrong". Well, I guess technically you talk about your life and how "nihilism bad" or whatever, but once you start arguing the actual point two thirds of the way through the video, it's just an argument that atheists should change their definition of religion.... for some reason. Yet you don't even bother defining what "religion" means. You define "atheism", but then try to pass off a false equivalency at **8:30** which is essentially just a poorly copied version of "You can't prove god *doesn't* exist!". If I tell you the Loch Ness Monster exists, you're not part of a "religion" just for doubting my claim. The burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim. All of this is beside the point though, every definition of "religion" I find refers to "god", "gods", "supernatural", etc. Methodological naturalists (like the New Atheists) don't fit that bill. There are no traditions, no sacraments, no religious leaders, no dogmas, no doctrines, .... absolutely nothing beyond "I find your god claims unconvincing".
If atheism is a religion not collecting rocks is a hobby.
You're definition for Christianity is not really an appropriate definition for Theistic belief which Christianity is.
First you say "Christianity is an *affirmative exclamation* that *there is* a god and it is simply the *assertion that God exists*".
This first part implies that Christianity asserts that the claim "God does not exist" is false. You cannot both say there is a god and god does not exist (contradiction). This first part is a position I would describe as affirmative belief in God.
Then the last part says "Christianity is *not* a belief in gods; it is a *lack of belief* that god doesn't exist".
This last part is not the same as the first part. Saying you have a lack of belief in the claim that "god doesn't exist" includes both simple agnosticism and also affirmative belief. Simple agnosticism would say "I don't know if God exists, therefore I neither believe God does exist nor do I believe God does not exist."
Is that really what Christians believe? I don't think so. Christianity is a form of of Theism and Theism is affirmative belief in some type of Metaphysical God. Not at all comparable to the definition of Atheism given in the video, which I would describe as technically a form of Agnosticism (the position of neither believing or believing in God.)
That's Deism not Christianity ✝. 🙄
Christianity is the belief in the Bible and historically related beliefs, which are not closer to anything else.
I don't understand how anybody can believe that atheism is a religion. we have no tenants, no dogma, we worship no entity,say no prayers.
Atheism is a simple response to a claim, claim made by Theists.. its just that simple.
A theist claims: my god is real,all powerful & created everything.
Atheist response: I don't see any evidence for your claim, can you provide some?
Atheism can either be reborn or die from the response that you give to that simple statement.
If you provide sufficient credible evidence, atheism dies right there on the spot.
if you cannot provide evidence for your claim atheism continues to live on...
Its that simple
That's only half the battle. proving the existence of a God to an atheist is one thing. getting that atheist to follow or worship that God is an entirely different subject altogether
Do you not believe in that the world was created by nothing? Do you not base off all your beliefs from science? I base all mine on God who created science. I see no difference. I see a right and a wrong, so do you. Don’t tell me you’re not a religious. Humans are prone to worship, if you devote yourself to something it’s worship. There is a reason why every culture has religion, it’s an expression of what they seem is important, even if they are wrong.
@@chandlerwheeler7605 Devotion and worship are not the same thing leave it up to a religious person to skew the 2. I will never worship any unproven deity. Even in proving that deity's validity, does not mean that I will ever worship.
Don't presume to speak for me or know what any other human is thinking other than yourself.
Keep moving that goal Post eventually you'll move it so far back we just won't want to bother anymore
@@chandlerwheeler7605 god created the world from nothing.. so thats a christian belief, not a scientific claim, as " nothing" was never a precursor to the universe.
@@Goldenhawk583 First prove to me the existence of your God then we will talk about your God creating the world from nothing.
@@Goldenhawk583 Do you hear yourself? So there was something before this universe. I wonder what created that. Did it start from nothing or did it have a universe before it? There is a beginning in both views. Mine just has an explanation of how the universe was created from Nothing.
Religions are tribal group identities as part of bonding with the group. Gods/spirits are central identities of tribes/religions. Atheism is nihilistic only from the perspective of someone who bases their reality on a god. Rejection of another person's worldview doesn't mean that atheists don't have their own worldview that is as meaningful as any theists.
I certainly think you could have done with a better title/stance. Maybe it would have been closer to the mark to say that atheism can resemble religion at times.
You certainly haven't made a particularly good case for atheism being a religion. I feel like the comments offer very easy rebuttals to your point, such as one person dropping the quote "atheism is a religion in the sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby."
The problem is something you mentioned early on, actually: semantics. And i know you aren't going for a serious debate here, more just a thought experiment but the issue is that the stance you provided is absolute enough, and so overdone that even when provided from a fellow atheist, to most other atheists they see the claim, and barely provide enough thought to the topic to provide a quote from someone else who had discussed whether atheism is a religion. In your thought experiment, it helps to provide a more unusual thought.
"Many atheists treat their atheism like a religion" fits much better with the themes you laid down throughout the video and (possibly) would have provided more room for thought. Might have made people question their behavior a bit more.
It was honestly a really good video otherwise, i just want to say, and i type this comment as constrictive criticism, not as an attack.
If religion equals belief then I think most people believe something, but then it becomes rather meaningless as a definition. New Atheism is one kind of atheism. I find a lot of people from strict religious backgrounds, when they become atheist, pursue atheism with a zeal not unlike a believer following their faith. However, there are other kinds, and you can't lump them all with new atheism. As for nihilism, I think you're arguments is putting too much weight on that. Science doesn't lead to a lack of meaning. The meaning for atheists isn't connected to a god is all.
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, I think you need to take a step back and reevaluate your position. Be prepared to make a much longer video
I see that most of the people in the comments section have fallen into the same trap, though I can understand as the video meandered quite a bit.
Lacking belief doesn't make one religious, but you are devoting yourself to opposing a belief (that being the belief in god) does make someone religious or a zealot in some sense.
If you dedicated your life to opposing people who collected stamps, playing cricket, or whatever, that would be as religious as those dedicating their lives to those things.
Devoting your personality to opposing something, your case most likely being against Christians, makes you as dogmatic as those Christians you claim to oppose
in other words you have a religious conviction to opposing them. Why not go back to living your life instead of worrying about whatever the Evangelicals or Neo-Orthodox are doing?
Atheism is ONE thing. The lack of belief in any god. Period. It does not include anything else in its description. The only ones who think atheism is something more than just not believing in any gods, are religious people who can not wrap their heads around people not having any religion.
I will try to give some constructive criticism for this.
First, i think you need to be clear on what you mean by religion and how you define it before you try to group Atheism in with it. Is religion a simple belief, or is it more complex than that? Many religions have moral codes, as far as I'm aware Atheism does not have any organized moral systems OR they live by certain simple dogmas ie "Don't do onto others which you wouldn't want done to yourself". So you need to be clear on this.
Second, I don't think Nihilism is actually a real thing which people "fall into" no human being can bear living without any sort of meaning. Rather I see Nihilism as a "blank slate" for the Existentialist. Therefore I view it as preferable to traditional "religion" because it gives the individual the opportunity to live a truly meaningful life which they create for themselves rather than being assigned a meaning at birth based on what religion they are born into.
Finally, I think you are 100% correct about ideological extremism and the "death of god". I think what you are referring to is what Nietzsche calls the "shadow of god" even though god is dead it still lives on in the form of our human projections onto nature, and the deification of the state to take the place of god i.e. the emergence of Totalitarianism.
To the believers... their divine 'father figure' has chosen to play a game.
With the hordes of little ones in 'the human herd' that supposedly look 'a bit like him'.
That game is life ...and 'life' is purely a test to show your devotion to him.
Get through the test ( three score and ten years ) and you can spend eternity,
squatting in his awe-inspiring glow. That's it, there is no more to it.
The whole of life is an illusion... there's no real pain or suffering. It was only a game.
( Similar to how a lot of people now theorise 'play' with the idea of the world,
being a only computer simulation )
This is how the Abrahamic religions see the underlying nature of reality.
As a God given test. Everything else is semantics. You either chose to accept this,
or you won't. Generally, only a very small minority of the herd think this is all nonsense.
The vast majority of the herd need it, they desperately need the conclusion it offers.
*The ability to be absolutely right about the true nature of reality and that life is eternal.
Both of these dispel, or at least subdue… the curse of human anxiety.
This is what all humans instinctively and unanimously require.
A complete release from 'mortal' anxiety. Atheists should understand this. They should comply.
But like children they fight it, as if they would fight a parent for trying to overly protect them.
Yet they have to realise they are the outlier. They're out of touch with the 'majority',
herd mentality.
*Whether they're devoid of normal herd-like levels of emphatic empathy,
or just righteously belligerent iconoclasts.They must realise they're the noisy minority.
And in many ways... both of these atheist subgroups should consider themselves,
psychologically abnormal. For it is normal to believe in fanciful myths,
and stories of ever lasting life.
It is and always will be the default setting. It's what the herd implicitly need to function.
Many elements of human society persist because they are 'tried and tested'.
Because they're absolutely essential tools for the mental well-being of the herd.
This is why there're religious apologists... they are atheists, just much smarter than you.
Much more in tune with the actual needs of the herd - which they wish to protect, not belittle.
1:40 here's something interesting, at least from a Christian belief system, it says the law is written on our hearts. Now, I know that's just faith belief, but how can people believe this if it is true that we are blank slates as children?
I dont think that is necessarily true, there is a lot of things that you instinctually know, go with evolution for explaining that or not. Put a bit of lemon juice in a baby's mouth, they instinctually know it tastes bad. Far from something moral and obviously explainable by evolution, but something to note. Its not a purely blank slate.
2:08 im not a big fan of Catholics either. Non-denom can get touchy so I tend to prefer people believe in Jesus, but like, holding to the core values. Obviously I have a bias towards baptism, but even then I dont think its important that everyone should be a baptist. Just you know, without bias, read the bible, try to understand it objectively.
4:50 or trans...
5:10 now why is that? Did we evolve to require meaning? If so... why? What meaning did a hunter gatherer have other then... well you know "sex with woman make child, protect child." I mean I guess you could say that's the only purpose we feel even today, if pornography consumption is anything to go by. But I feel like that would mean once you have and raise kids that feels like your life is complete, and that isnt the reality.
5:55 and marx called religion the opioid of the people. In general that holds true, and for marxists that's actually the tactic.
7:17 very much true.
Atheism is not a religion just like saying that theism is not a religion. This is litterely not a debate and is not up to personal opinion. Theism means believing in god and it is the basis of religion basically. A-theism just means that you dont believe in any of that bollox. . Also, what is he on about with saying that atheism correlates with radical ideologies, religion often contains radical ideologies and theyre just switching from one to another. Also also, the graph at 6:08 is a dumpsterfire with no numbers and only a tiny little thing in the corner saying it was made by the creator to make people feel like it is a more promonent problem than it actually is. Also also also, radicalism is not even bad, it just aims to change the society fundamentaly. Capitalism could even be named "radical" if you wanted.
This is just assuming the Tabula Rasa and begging the question against the semantic externalist.
if atheism is a religion it's the one religion that every other classic religion (Christianity, Shinto, Islam, and etc) are frequently at odds with and despise even more than every other of their religions while "those who follow the religion of science" really couldn't give a damn what magical superstitious nonsense fairy tale the other guys choose to believe in. Which is the very core definition of irony.
Humans are not born as blank slates. The primary proposition is wrong.
7:40 "higher plane of truth" sounds like you're making error akin to Platonic forms. Maybe you're not, or maybe it's just to push video forward. But Platonic forms are kinda the mind parasite of religion. The belief that there is a higher truth and everything factual is just an instance of this truth is basically lying to yourself in probably one of the worst ways possible. We know that it is the other way around: there is what is factual and we know that things that differ a lot in micro-scale can form "similarly shaped" systems on macro-scale. Therefore the similarities on macro-scale allow us to use more abstract descriptions to predict behaviour of those two fundamentally different things. That's the first thing.
Second is the definition of truth itself. Because truth can mean:
1. what's factual
2. sentence that properly predicts something.
In case of 1. the truth is simply the objective reality. In case of 2. the truth is a tool for communication. Which is why the science is the pinnacle of the truth. But because such truth is fundamentally communication, which success depends also on the listener, this is why we sometimes say "you need to find your own truth". Such sentence means basically that you need to find a way of describing things that will lead to towards success.
So "higher plane of truth" is actually a very primitive notion because it's about finding metaphor that somehow works, no matter how stupid you are.
If you don't like talking about semantics, then why did you make a video about a semantic topic?
Atheism is not a religion.
Though Humanism is often one. Or at least annoyingly close.
Being viewer nr. 666 is the only reason I chose this video
The idea that atheism leads to nihilism and religion doesn't is wrong. religion just requires more thinking to see its just as meaningless as anything else
100000% agree
I hear this a lot from the religiously minded. The idea that a particular idea shouldn’t be true (nihilism in this case) because it is distasteful.
The truth of a particular philosophical claim is not based on your likes and dislikes. For example i don’t like the idea the most holy sky ghost raped a teenager 2000 years ago, but my feelings have no bearing on the truth or falseness of Christianity
I never said that. Straw Man.
@@PolishDane you did. You argued that nihilism is bad because you don’t personally like it.
No it's not.
OP: Your entire video is a strawman claim. You either don't understand what atheism is or you are lying about it. Atheism is not nihilism. Period. So please stop lying or go to the library and read some books on atheism.
@@nrowned5975 The afterlife? First, you have to demonstrate that an afterlife exists. Can you? Please provide verifiable evidence that an afterlife exists. Bet you can't.
This is pretty bad. Imagine this argument, if there wasn’t a word for not believing in religion.
Just like there’s not a word for people who don’t play baseball or there’s not a word for people who don’t like emo music.
Also, you are in fact, using the order correctly at is, and just means without fizz literally. Which brings me to the third point anything can mean anything if you change the words mean.
And most importantly, as he stated, in the very beginning, you think people are a blank canvas at birth. Imagine those people growing up in the world where the idea of religion was never experienced. Would they still be religious they would be atheist.
Provide absolutely no sources evidence references even anecdotes for most of your claims like atheism leads to nihilism, even though it seems that you’re not sure what nihilism means so and so .
So can you name one place where communism succeeded. And furthermore Frederick, each is quote about God is dead, and we killed him isn’t meant to be taking literal a continental philosopher, and they write things very vaguely, and it’s awful.
What he saying is, we’ve reached an enlightenment. Where we can use reason to decide, morality, ethics, and things related..
Caath-oh-lick lol
Modern atheism is presented as strict materialism. When you realize this, it becomes just as silly as believing the universe is 6,000 years old.
what it is presented as, is not what the definition is. The definition still holds.
@@Goldenhawk583But it is not presented as what the definition is. 😉
This was not great. Try a little harder.
I am not convinced that a God or Gods exist... so... I'm religious? Because of peoples' natural disposition towards sociability, and group-identity? Oh, and so Atheism is actually an ideology....
Bruh, you're so far off base that it is actually painful. I'll forgive it if this discussion-starter is an off-the-cuff thing that you didn't actively try to shore up, but... oh, boy.
I can't tell if you're trying to say that Science has been **PROVEN** wrong, or **PROVING** wrong... Because the latter is what Science does--it proves when ideas and hypothesis are incorrect, and therefor do no comport with reality. Proven wrong? The former? No. Science is never *correct* or final. Science is basically "reality as we know it right now," and it's constantly being updated as new information comes to light. Science also only deals in the realm of the material, things that we can actually observe and influence--to make any bridge from Science to Metaphysics is... well, kind of a non sequitur, because those two things have pretty much no crossover. Metaphysics is Philosophy more than Science--something that we can think really, really hard about, to pretty much no end.
Not to mention that Atheism has the potential to be completely unrelated to one's leaning on Science; Atheism has no core belief requirements or tenets to follow. How can you call Atheism a religion, when it literally does not guide or demand anyone to think or behave any particular way? The only link in this chain of thought: The more educated someone is, the more likely they are to be Atheist. Correlation does not equal causation! A significant percentage of Christians-Atheist deconstructions are simply a side-effect of actually reading the Holy Book, and seeing it for what it is--Science not required. I'm of the opinion that anyone with a solid grasp of basic epistemology (concept, not formal study) will come away with a similar result.
What's really "foolishly arrogant" is pretty much your whole video ramble here. You claim to be an Atheist, and that you're just trying to set up little "thought experiments," but you talk like a Christian apologist trying to pull a 'gotcha'. You read several definitions of what 'Atheism' is, yet you seem wholly determined to substitute that for your own interpretation. You even get "Agnostic" wrong. Agnosticism (Gnosis- Greek, 'Knowledge' ; A- prefix for 'without') is not a belief claim, but a statement of one's knowledge... or rather, their lack thereof. When someone calls themselves Agnostic, they're saying "I don't know if a God or Gods do or do not exist." THAT is a pointless exercise of semantics, because if you don't know, you are not convinced of the truth of the matter. It's "Extremely Tentative Atheism."
In my opinion, you took a lot of time to say pretty much nothing, and didn't substantiate your claim in any way beyond attempting a rhetorical Uno Reverse on the conditional aspect of Atheism. You might not believe in a God, but you definitely still think like a Believer. Ditch the irrelevant stuff, and try again. What is "Religion," how does this apply to Atheism? What actual evidence do you have to support your claim, beyond some gut feeling of 'it should be'?
Honestly, the science proving itself wrong was so weird. Like he was implying you can't trust science because it modifies???
Honestly the best thing about science is that it is just a methodology. It's simple observing, hypnotizing, experimenting, ect.
That's where I think religious people get confused. They see science as trying to have all the answers like religious belief when it is in fact just a method for studying the natural world.
great video. you explained very clearly your point. and this part 8:39 was actually thought provoking.
i dont have any problem with atheist, i agree with their right to follow their beliefs. i jusr hate atheist claiming themselves to be some sort of ultra genius species and everyone around them as stupid.
also another criticism of atheist is that them being anti theist. i respect your right to follow your belief so shouldn't they respect mine?
anyways great video.
When you replace "in god we trust" on dollar bills with "god is a superstition" we can start to have a reasonable talk about respecting each others beliefs. Or how about no religious statements on money?
@@primafacie9721 the day you become majority of the population of the country, Do as you wish.
Replies as incoherent and illogical as yours are why atheists think that they are superior to you. Your gullible belief in the superstitious stories of bronze age drunken goat herders is just the cherry on top. @@Walkie-Talkie-zz9ck
You agree to our right to follow our beliefs.. what are " our beliefs" Atheism is ONE thing, the lack of belief in any god or gods.. period, if we share other beliefs, that is pure chance. And I have to laugh, you " respect" lasted not even a day." the day you become majority of the population of the country, Do as you wish." In other words, "Do as you are told and shut up" That is not respect:P Thank you for showing your true colors:P
@@Goldenhawk583
yeah so i respect your right to not have a belief.
first read the comment i replied he said
: " When you replace "in god we trust" on dollar bills with "god is a superstition" we can start to have a reasonable talk about respecting each others beliefs "
he himself dont want to have a resonable talk. so why shld i?
"I hate discussing semantics" well maybe you shouldn't read the Bible 🤷🤣
Religion is a belief in God.
Atheism is a belief that there is no God.
This video is pretty stupid when the guy says atheism is not based on any beliefs.
In this case:
-Smoking is an addiction to tobacco
-Not smoking is an addiction to the absence of tobacco
-Drinking alcohol every single day is an addiction to alcoholism
-Not drinking alcohol at all is an addiction to the absence of alcoholism
@@jackpot1359 - Not thinking is the absence of the addiction to thinking. And etc.
@@scotthullinger4684 Atheism is the knowledge that God exists only in people's imagination, like Santa Claus exists only in children's imagination
@@jackpot1359 - Let's dumb it down for you: Atheism for atheists is the belief the people cannot prove the existence of God. And Atheism for believers is the belief that atheists cannot prove the nonexistence of God. Faith is not a concrete thing which can be examined with instruments of science. Like trying to use science to prove or disprove the existence of love or hatred.
@@scotthullinger4684 "Atheists cannot prove the non-existence of God" because that's not how it works! You don't prove something does not exist, you prove something DOES exist!
This video is silly.
Religions usualy dictate thoughts or actions. Atheism does neither. Usually, people who want to define atheism as a religion have an agenda (often something along the lines of "now you're as bad as the thing you're criticising, watcha gonna do now?", glossing over the fact that such a position paints religion as a bad thing...although, such apologists often couple it with "I'm not religious, I have a personal relationship with Jesus," which I find even more hilarious...how do you have a relationship with someone you can't even demonstrate?)
If anything, religions seem more nihilistic to me. Why bother doing anything in this meaningless, finite life when paradise awaits upon your death? Why would you not do everything in your power to get to that paradise ASAP? The Catholic Church even had to explicitly outlaw suicide because people realised this line of reasoning, but even then, one need not kill oneself. The modern world is pretty dangerous, and humans have developed many safety features to prevent us from dying early. If you truly believed paradise awaited and all you need do is die, surely you would abstain from such safety features? I, for one, am immensley glad I do not believe as, if I believed, I would be trying to kill myself ASAP.
How many atheists have you seen praying in a mosque? 😆
''Being an atheist is about what you believe and don’t believe, not about what you wish to be true or would find comforting.'' sigh The American atheists always have to be the most smug ones. Anyway true, arguing over semantics is of little use. Liberal means different things in continentinal Europe than it does in the US but the meanings are similar enough that I don't find either type of liberalism appealing. Ah, stoicism; something atheists and rleigious people can both get behind. I saw a good talk by Massimo Pigliucci about it. Eh the number of worldviews isn't the issue but I guess it is osmething to bear in mind.
God is the Supreme Being. Which part of this definition does the atheist reject?
We find that there is no reason to think a god exist, we believe that no god or gods exist. What you define your god as, does not matter when it doesnt exist.
@@Goldenhawk583Hitchens's razor much? 😆
At lest you are honest…
I’m a follower of Christ, not a believer, difference is I do know for myself He does exist and He always was… believers that still looking for answers so they still pray like if you there please answer my prayers…
But science is, this is where I 100% agreeing with you, is a belief in assumption for most of the time and assumptions come from observation of facts and many times for lack of understanding conclusions are wrong…
This is why science was wrong so many times and still changing its point of view
You need to get on your hands and knees and pray for the Holy Spirit to fill you up.
So you don't need faith? You KNOW... How did you attain this knowledge? I assume you have evidence.
@@v0id616 If you pray hard enough then when you look back you'll see Jesus penetrate you from behind and come inside you.
I would posit that, pending your ability to produce objective evidence capable of being reviewed by others in any verifiable capacity, you don't *know* what you claim. You might feel it, you may be inclined to accept it as fact for yourself--but that does not make it knowledge. You are a believer, friend. Knowledge is a subset of belief, based on things that you can demonstrate and show to be true. To quote Aron Ra: "If you can't show it, you don't know it."
This is also where you are actually wrong, as is the creator of the video.
Science is not a 'belief'. Science is not a world view. Science itself makes no positive claims, and doesn't have any kind of required beliefs or prohibited thought. The whole point of Science is to take an idea, and repeatedly test it. If it is determined to be false, you check your variables and try something else. The only time something is 'true' or 'factual' is when you absolutely fail to find evidence or information that would compel you to reject the idea for being false or incorrect. Science is a tool, a methodology for **determining** what we do or do not (tentatively) know; we use Science to catalog information, and form an explanative model of reality, to the best of our current understanding. As we uncover more, using Science--because remember, it's still only a tool, a method of examining things---then our understanding, and therefor the model, will change. Science has the primary purpose of eliminating as much human bias as possible, when applied correctly; Science itself is never 'wrong', just the same as it isn't 'right'. People, however, will always be right, wrong, somewhere in-between...
The claim of knowledge, without sufficient evidence to back it up, is nothing more than an unsubstantiated belief. A hope, wishful thinking... a prayer, if you will. Call yourself whatever you like, but you're the textbook definition of a 'believer' in a religious concept. Are you also going to claim that Christianity isn't actually a religion, but a relationship?
You lost me in your first statement, dude you're all over the place