Many people practice the religion that they’re born into. When something as arbitrary as geography decides your relationship with the divine, it can turn an individual toward atheism
That's another big one. I always wonder what kicks off that skepticism for people in that position as I'm assuming that growing up with a religion would make that commitment pretty strong.
That is just one of the many aspects of religion that would bring people back to atheism. Lack of evidence, as was mentioned at the beginning of the video, logical failures, inconsistencies, ambiguity, errors in the manuscripts all contribute to enlightenment. On the hand, the proven usefulness of the scientific method demonstrates that a deity is unnecessary.
@@PhilosophyToons indoctrination is the foundation of nearly all religions and of many philosophies. Lessons taught prior to the development of rational thought are stored as fact. You can see this in a comparison between brain development and the interactions between child and parent. When young, a child takes the words of a parent as fact. As rationality develops, but before it is controlled, the child is skeptical of the parent's every word, particularly if they have discovered flaws in previous lessons. When the brain's capability for rational thought matures, the child is able to analyze the words of the parent and decipher accurate and inaccurate information. Unfortunately though, it is difficult to rationally and objectively reassess or "unlearn" the early childhood lessons.
Geography in and of itself doesn't decide the religion you're "born into", if anything it's your parents (if you accept what they teach you) and for many youths, that religion is atheism (especially if their parents are leftists)
@@mugsofmirth8101 today geography doesn't guarantee which religion, but it is a major factor. A couple hundred years ago it was a nearly 100% accurate predictor. Now, let's talk about your indoctrination. If you believe that atheism is a religion, then you need to reference a dictionary. Once you do, feel free to correct your misconception here.
From the earliest time I can remember, I played with dinosaur toys as a child. I wanted to know everything about them. When Sunday school didn't match what my dinosaur books said, I knew that something was amiss. Ultimately that seed of doubt took me to my teenage years when I became more focused and assertive, and renounced religion for all the fallacies and inconsistencies. Scientific processes explained the world far better, I had no need to coddle myself with a divinity and found it an intellectual impediment.
The idea of god is a natural disposition we are born with God doesn’t defy science You can simply say “Christianity” is a false fairytale and move on It’s not atheism
Hinduism is henotheistic, meaning it doesn't claim exclusivity in a "one true god" (Hinduism encompasses literally thousands of deities) but rather allows for devotion to a single deity while maintaining that the deities of other religious traditions may be divine in their own right. It should also be noted that some forms of Hinduism are pantheistic as well, which is another topic entirely but equally deserving acknowledgement.
Correct me if I'm wrong but hinduism has the Brahman concept which is described as the ultimate truth of the universe, unchanging and inaccesible to the human mind in it's entirety. Isn't this concept kinda similar to the God of Abrahamic religions? Or the Tao of Taoism? I'm a christian myself so I don't have more than surface level understanding of eastern religions so feel free to tell me how wrong I am lol
The supernatural always eluded me. It's not like I ever chose to be an atheist. Once I realized I had always been an atheist I found that there just isn't any coherent explanation of what "God" is supposed to be and no way for me to give "God" any positive ontological status.
The simple thing is that logically nature cannot exist without a supernatural being How can such a complex and ordered universe be created by nothing from nothing for nothing?
@@cyberWarrior7519 Why can't it? Why can't the universe be uncaused? I'm certain that you hold the opinion that God is uncaused/caused itself. Why can't that be true for the universe?
I was raised under no religion. But over the years of trying out many different methods of thought. The only conclusion that I came to is that believing in any entity other than yourself is cowardice, heretical. Crying to a god to fix your issues wont. Living your life to avoid punishment wont make your now better. And your future is built on a string of nows. So that wont do either.
You are only saying that in the comfort of your couch, you haven’t seen the real world to realize how weak a human is, believing in yourself alone is even more ridiculous than believing putting a cape will make you fly
I'm an atheist because I wasn't raised religiously and was free to choose what to believe, and the worship of something that in my mind is so blatantly not real doesn't make sense to me (figuring out Santa didn't exist was a rough awakening lol). I also knew a few religious people that happened to be of the really weird, nutjob kind of variety, that pushed me even further away from religion.
As an agnostic, I think Francis isn't wrong. Many people left their parents' religion for exactly these reasons; it may be emotional or not. But it is still valid to rationalize initial impacts of emotional state. Personally, I think first 2 causes are the most common because they are on the surface level. The confusion within sects of religions, unintentionally inflict ironies infused by differences between denominations. Whoever sees it, wouldn't able to immediately ignore it. With great difficulty, they could try to rationalize their religious beliefs. Others might singlehandedly reject the whole religion (including sects). Practices of religious figures, do reflect on the image of religion. I know interpretations are completely contingent upon the humane nature of reasoning but it is always interpretations we rely on and they attach themselves to a price tag of religions.
My atheism is based on two factors: the problem of evil and the lack of compelling evidence. First, as per many philosophers, the fact that there is physical evil in the world is in contradiction to the existence of a god that is omnipresent, omnipotent, and onmibenevolent. All excuses (…I mean, *arguments*) to this problem involve contradicting or weakening one of these claims. Also, as it currently stands, the world doesn’t need a god to explain anything. The existence of a god doesn’t provide a more elegant explanation of any evidence than atheism does. If we start with the idea that we should only believe things that have the best explanatory strength of all the hypotheses, we should not believe in big G God.
As for "evidence" I've noticed that when most atheists I've encountered use this term, it's completely arbitrary and changes meaning depending on the evidence presented. Convenient, yes. Consistent, no.
What interesting how some people do not understand who was Francis Bacon. He was a Christian. In his own words: “To conclude, therefore, let no man upon a weak conceit of sobriety or an ill-applied moderation think or maintain that a man can search too far, or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or the book of God's works, divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavor an endless progress or proficience in both; only let men beware that they apply both to charity, and not to swelling; to use, and not to ostentation; and again, that they do not unwisely mingle or confound these learnings together.” ― Francis Bacon, The Oxford Francis Bacon IV: The Advancement of Learning
@@murilomurilo288 evidence such as being able to communicate or see a God. At the moment you could pray to a stone and seemingly get the same effect (no offence)
I used to be an atheist when I was a teenager. My reason for doing that was because of the "problem of evil." Why would a God that is supposed to have unconditional love for His creations give some people horrible lives purposely?
@@ourdivinemouseoverlord3308 There are literally millions of different gods. The chance that you worship the right one is very small. Also, let me guess, your experience was coincidentally with a god that someone already told you about in your past, not with a god you never heard of before, right?
@@TanteEmmaaa Oneness is the only truth and to realize that you don't need religions, just a few mystical experiences. Not saying that religions wouldn't be beneficial to some people as it gives them meaning surely.
Yeah look up Francis Bacon's Ghost Chicken. Legend is that there's a ghost of a demon chicken that haunts England. The same chicken Francis Bacon stuffed with snow that inadvertently led to Francis Bacon's death.
Lack of evidence not being on of those reasons certainly outs him as biased. I can also think of a couple more reasons: 1. Historical religious development. We can quite clearly trace the development of every world religion to see how they changed over time. Often specifically to appeal to new conditions and new people. This makes religion seem less monolithic and more like every other tradition, institution, or worldview. 2. Specific flaws in scripture. There are many specific flaws in scripture, such as the behavior of supposedly perfect supernatural creators being much closer to that of petty children, or clear flaws in the plans of omniscient beings who should know better, etc. Many "righteous" people in scripture, such as prophets of specific ethnic groups, commit horrific acts of evil that are then justified, giving off the feeling that these are more like propaganda texts. Many things are just factually wrong and often the only thing a believer can do to defend this factual errors is to double down or pretend it's metaphor. And doing the latter leads us into the third reason. 3. Most believers clearly just believe whatever is selectively convenient for them. Parts of scripture that you don't like can be labeled as metaphor. If you can't label it as metaphor then just ignore it. This isn't just a recent thing, but has also been historically done (see point 1). A good modern day example is homosexuality. Pretty much every religion says it's sinful and that it should be punished by death now and horrific endless torture in the afterlife. But clearly many believers don't actually believe this because it's too uncomfortable and obviously horrifying even for them. A devoted Christian mother would rather live with the peace of mind that her gay son isn't going to hell than be tormented with the horrible things her supposedly "good" God will do to her beloved darling boy when he dies. An historical example is evolution. After it became basically irrefutable many western Christians just labeled the creation myth as metaphor and moved on. This gives off the feeling that even believers don't TRULY believe that everything in their faith is correct. How can an atheist be convinced if even the theists seemingly aren't? 4. Somebody else in the comments already said this. But what faith you believe is mostly decided by where you're born. Kinda seems weird that your access to the "Truth" and Salvation is limited by the circumstances of your birth. Some kid born on a Chinese rice farm will never in his entire life think about religion once. And a Christian born in Italy will never stop to consider if Islam is actually correct.
I knew Christianity was wrong when they said "If you don't believe you'll go to hell". I can't help if I don't believe, I don't think that'd deserve the worst punishment possible.
It's important to consider the time and environment of this essay. There is no part therein which is without bias. It begins with an assumption of god and ends with a declaration of god. There is no value in analysing a work if that work lacks any objectivity or accuracy.
A human cannot write, speak or think without bias. Biases are what minds are made with. We have to engage with biased media if we want to engage with any media at all. Plus, not engaging with any media at all would just be a new kind of bias. An over-reliance on your own concepts of logic and experience.
@@oscargarciapenas5488 agreed, however, you can minimize bias through discussion and review with people of differing and conflicting views. If possible, repeatable measurement and varied analysis methods can also reduce bias. So, although you cannot eliminate bias, you can bring it to levels where it is insignificant. This is the goal of the scientific method, though not always successfully achieved.
@@CRuM770 so because Bacon's scientific work was written in the same environment and during the same time period then by your logic there is no value in that as well.
@@mugsofmirth8101 you do very well at misinterpreting information and selectively using quotes to misrepresent what was actually said. You should consider becoming a christian; you'd fit right. I specifically discussed the scientific method and how this essay did not meet the basic principals. If he tried to minimize bias in his scientific work by seeking input from those outside his circle and conducting research and tests that aim to disprove his hypotheses, then his work would be valid. If you had any understanding of the work of Bacon, you would be able to recognize that the time period (15th century) and environment (christian) made it nearly impossible for him to apply his scientific philosophy to his religious bias. He never tested or challenged his belief system with his newfound scientific method which relied on scepticism. Mr. Bacon's essay on atheism is an embarrassment beside his contribution to science.
I do think that most people are Atheist is because the supposed "loving father God" never draw people to him. If a loving God do exist in reality, I do think way more people would acknowledge his existence and believe in Him. Also even if their common theist arguments are strong, it still doesn't imply that one of the three monotheistic religions must be true. This is a common mistake made by almost all Christian Apologists.
you have to love God to get his love in return. every believer knows that. anyone in a relationship understands it as well. by the way there are more than 3 monotheistic religions. may the best one win!
@@reddykilowattdoesn't that defeat the entire point of an all-loving god you have to love him for you to "know his love" like even amongst theist they don't know if god loves especially when they behave towards those who of certain sexual orientation and that just makes his love limited aswell there ex-theist atheists
@@miguelatkinson why would someone who does not embrace God be concerned about why he loves them or not? to expect it anyway regardless of one’s own stance is an immature and narcissistic take.
@@reddykilowatt well because it would be in the nature of god he is said to be all-loving if he does not love those who don't embrace his love then he is not all-loving by definition and also their is one fatal problem with your comment above if where talking about people who don't believe in God then they won't believe in his love the only way for these people to affirm his love is if this all-loving god makes his love appearnt to those and also the problem of evil is also another reason why people don't embrace this God's supposed love
@@PhilosophyToons I enjoyed the video also, however I don't recall you mentioning whether you yourself are atheist. I too BTW would like to see Taco Bell bring back that sangria drink.
MessAge...belief structures believe it or not are Conceptualized Concepts pontificated and predicated upon profaning Precious Treasures Sacred Dimensions within the evolutionary human sojourn substituting senses of belonging, community and connectedness to things...such as reLegion, reAlliance, sustainable peer pressure, covert social eschew hostilities and that mysterious ditty: Love. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ .
@@reddykilowatt What would I need evidence for i am not claliming a zombie goat herder exists and getting pissed at others that have enough commens sense to not believe it
@@reddykilowatt I've always thought about God being discussed in a court room. I think the God case would be thrown out due to lack of evidence. I see it like me accuse you of shooting a Bald Eagle with the statement "Prove you never killed an Eagle or you're guilty".
Some people find atheism appealing due to their desire for a more pleasure-oriented lifestyle. It's important to note, however, that atheists are actually a minority. Also, some individuals may use atheism as a means to showcase their trust in scientific values, which could help them secure funding.
I don't think it matters if they find it appealing or not. I think atheists just want to know the truth. The whole logic beind religion makes no sense to me.
@@dannysmith37 if that was the case Then atheists would say “i believe in a creator because there is no way this complex and ordered universe with harmony between everything was a random caused by mindless force, but i don’t believe religions are real” But instead you guys simply deny god because you don’t want morality When there is no god, there is no good and right? You can challenge any moral standard right?
@@cyberWarrior7519 I know you're wrong because I don't think there is a god yet I think there is morally a right and wrong and it's wrong of you to think atheists don't want morality, is that lies taught in Sunday School?. Questioning moral standards is healthy, infact religions have to deny their own scriptures to keep up with "free thinking" people not following the Bible/Quran i.e homosexuality shouldn't be a death sentence. You can't explain where this creator came from anymore than I can explain the big bang. I think you're making far broader claims than a typical atheist. If there is a God it isn't the Christian God and there is no chance he asked to be worshiped or sends anyone to hell for simply not believing.
Many people practice the religion that they’re born into. When something as arbitrary as geography decides your relationship with the divine, it can turn an individual toward atheism
That's another big one. I always wonder what kicks off that skepticism for people in that position as I'm assuming that growing up with a religion would make that commitment pretty strong.
That is just one of the many aspects of religion that would bring people back to atheism. Lack of evidence, as was mentioned at the beginning of the video, logical failures, inconsistencies, ambiguity, errors in the manuscripts all contribute to enlightenment. On the hand, the proven usefulness of the scientific method demonstrates that a deity is unnecessary.
@@PhilosophyToons indoctrination is the foundation of nearly all religions and of many philosophies. Lessons taught prior to the development of rational thought are stored as fact. You can see this in a comparison between brain development and the interactions between child and parent. When young, a child takes the words of a parent as fact. As rationality develops, but before it is controlled, the child is skeptical of the parent's every word, particularly if they have discovered flaws in previous lessons. When the brain's capability for rational thought matures, the child is able to analyze the words of the parent and decipher accurate and inaccurate information. Unfortunately though, it is difficult to rationally and objectively reassess or "unlearn" the early childhood lessons.
Geography in and of itself doesn't decide the religion you're "born into", if anything it's your parents (if you accept what they teach you) and for many youths, that religion is atheism (especially if their parents are leftists)
@@mugsofmirth8101 today geography doesn't guarantee which religion, but it is a major factor. A couple hundred years ago it was a nearly 100% accurate predictor.
Now, let's talk about your indoctrination. If you believe that atheism is a religion, then you need to reference a dictionary. Once you do, feel free to correct your misconception here.
From the earliest time I can remember, I played with dinosaur toys as a child. I wanted to know everything about them. When Sunday school didn't match what my dinosaur books said, I knew that something was amiss. Ultimately that seed of doubt took me to my teenage years when I became more focused and assertive, and renounced religion for all the fallacies and inconsistencies. Scientific processes explained the world far better, I had no need to coddle myself with a divinity and found it an intellectual impediment.
The idea of god is a natural disposition we are born with
God doesn’t defy science
You can simply say “Christianity” is a false fairytale and move on
It’s not atheism
Hinduism is henotheistic, meaning it doesn't claim exclusivity in a "one true god" (Hinduism encompasses literally thousands of deities) but rather allows for devotion to a single deity while maintaining that the deities of other religious traditions may be divine in their own right. It should also be noted that some forms of Hinduism are pantheistic as well, which is another topic entirely but equally deserving acknowledgement.
Correct me if I'm wrong but hinduism has the Brahman concept which is described as the ultimate truth of the universe, unchanging and inaccesible to the human mind in it's entirety. Isn't this concept kinda similar to the God of Abrahamic religions? Or the Tao of Taoism?
I'm a christian myself so I don't have more than surface level understanding of eastern religions so feel free to tell me how wrong I am lol
The supernatural always eluded me. It's not like I ever chose to be an atheist. Once I realized I had always been an atheist I found that there just isn't any coherent explanation of what "God" is supposed to be and no way for me to give "God" any positive ontological status.
The simple thing is that logically nature cannot exist without a supernatural being
How can such a complex and ordered universe be created by nothing from nothing for nothing?
@@cyberWarrior7519
Why can't it? Why can't the universe be uncaused? I'm certain that you hold the opinion that God is uncaused/caused itself. Why can't that be true for the universe?
I was raised under no religion. But over the years of trying out many different methods of thought. The only conclusion that I came to is that believing in any entity other than yourself is cowardice, heretical. Crying to a god to fix your issues wont. Living your life to avoid punishment wont make your now better. And your future is built on a string of nows. So that wont do either.
You are only saying that in the comfort of your couch, you haven’t seen the real world to realize how weak a human is, believing in yourself alone is even more ridiculous than believing putting a cape will make you fly
I'm an atheist because I wasn't raised religiously and was free to choose what to believe, and the worship of something that in my mind is so blatantly not real doesn't make sense to me (figuring out Santa didn't exist was a rough awakening lol). I also knew a few religious people that happened to be of the really weird, nutjob kind of variety, that pushed me even further away from religion.
As an agnostic, I think Francis isn't wrong. Many people left their parents' religion for exactly these reasons; it may be emotional or not. But it is still valid to rationalize initial impacts of emotional state. Personally, I think first 2 causes are the most common because they are on the surface level. The confusion within sects of religions, unintentionally inflict ironies infused by differences between denominations. Whoever sees it, wouldn't able to immediately ignore it. With great difficulty, they could try to rationalize their religious beliefs. Others might singlehandedly reject the whole religion (including sects). Practices of religious figures, do reflect on the image of religion. I know interpretations are completely contingent upon the humane nature of reasoning but it is always interpretations we rely on and they attach themselves to a price tag of religions.
My atheism is based on two factors: the problem of evil and the lack of compelling evidence. First, as per many philosophers, the fact that there is physical evil in the world is in contradiction to the existence of a god that is omnipresent, omnipotent, and onmibenevolent. All excuses (…I mean, *arguments*) to this problem involve contradicting or weakening one of these claims. Also, as it currently stands, the world doesn’t need a god to explain anything. The existence of a god doesn’t provide a more elegant explanation of any evidence than atheism does. If we start with the idea that we should only believe things that have the best explanatory strength of all the hypotheses, we should not believe in big G God.
you never heard of the devil or demons? they cause the evil that God is trying to defeat.
As I stated in another response, the problem of evil is only a problem for religions which claim that God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
As for "evidence" I've noticed that when most atheists I've encountered use this term, it's completely arbitrary and changes meaning depending on the evidence presented. Convenient, yes. Consistent, no.
@@mugsofmirth8101 a god that’s only there for you part time isn’t much of a god. what’s the point then?
@@reddykilowatt elaborate?
Thanks for your videos. You have a calm voice which is soothing to the ear.
What interesting how some people do not understand who was Francis Bacon. He was a Christian. In his own words: “To conclude, therefore, let no man upon a weak conceit of sobriety or an ill-applied moderation think or maintain that a man can search too far, or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or the book of God's works, divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavor an endless progress or proficience in both; only let men beware that they apply both to charity, and not to swelling; to use, and not to ostentation; and again, that they do not unwisely mingle or confound these learnings together.”
― Francis Bacon, The Oxford Francis Bacon IV: The Advancement of Learning
I thank god for granting me with the freedom to choose to be an atheist.
I was never indoctrinated into any religion.
The overwhelming lack of evidence is my only reason for my atheism
If there were evidences, what would they look like?
@@murilomurilo288 tell me what evidence you got, I will tell you if it's convincing
@@murilomurilo288 evidence such as being able to communicate or see a God. At the moment you could pray to a stone and seemingly get the same effect (no offence)
Do you have overwhelming evidence that morality exists?
Can you prove that a child grape is bad?
You can’t, yet you believe it blindly
God is common sense
How can this ordered and complex universe be created from nothing by nothing for nothing because of nothing??
Late comment but I'll write it for the algorithm, great video bro
I used to be an atheist when I was a teenager. My reason for doing that was because of the "problem of evil." Why would a God that is supposed to have unconditional love for His creations give some people horrible lives purposely?
used to?
@@justforfunlol2258 Yeah, I had a religious experience when I was in my early twenties.
The problem of evil is only a problem for religions that claim that God is simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
@@ourdivinemouseoverlord3308 There are literally millions of different gods. The chance that you worship the right one is very small. Also, let me guess, your experience was coincidentally with a god that someone already told you about in your past, not with a god you never heard of before, right?
@@TanteEmmaaa Oneness is the only truth and to realize that you don't need religions, just a few mystical experiences. Not saying that religions wouldn't be beneficial to some people as it gives them meaning surely.
Cause of atheism is our own comfort? Sounds perfect.
What ?
Yeah look up Francis Bacon's Ghost Chicken. Legend is that there's a ghost of a demon chicken that haunts England. The same chicken Francis Bacon stuffed with snow that inadvertently led to Francis Bacon's death.
Lack of evidence not being on of those reasons certainly outs him as biased.
I can also think of a couple more reasons:
1. Historical religious development. We can quite clearly trace the development of every world religion to see how they changed over time. Often specifically to appeal to new conditions and new people. This makes religion seem less monolithic and more like every other tradition, institution, or worldview.
2. Specific flaws in scripture. There are many specific flaws in scripture, such as the behavior of supposedly perfect supernatural creators being much closer to that of petty children, or clear flaws in the plans of omniscient beings who should know better, etc. Many "righteous" people in scripture, such as prophets of specific ethnic groups, commit horrific acts of evil that are then justified, giving off the feeling that these are more like propaganda texts. Many things are just factually wrong and often the only thing a believer can do to defend this factual errors is to double down or pretend it's metaphor. And doing the latter leads us into the third reason.
3. Most believers clearly just believe whatever is selectively convenient for them. Parts of scripture that you don't like can be labeled as metaphor. If you can't label it as metaphor then just ignore it. This isn't just a recent thing, but has also been historically done (see point 1). A good modern day example is homosexuality. Pretty much every religion says it's sinful and that it should be punished by death now and horrific endless torture in the afterlife. But clearly many believers don't actually believe this because it's too uncomfortable and obviously horrifying even for them. A devoted Christian mother would rather live with the peace of mind that her gay son isn't going to hell than be tormented with the horrible things her supposedly "good" God will do to her beloved darling boy when he dies. An historical example is evolution. After it became basically irrefutable many western Christians just labeled the creation myth as metaphor and moved on.
This gives off the feeling that even believers don't TRULY believe that everything in their faith is correct. How can an atheist be convinced if even the theists seemingly aren't?
4. Somebody else in the comments already said this. But what faith you believe is mostly decided by where you're born. Kinda seems weird that your access to the "Truth" and Salvation is limited by the circumstances of your birth. Some kid born on a Chinese rice farm will never in his entire life think about religion once. And a Christian born in Italy will never stop to consider if Islam is actually correct.
I knew Christianity was wrong when they said "If you don't believe you'll go to hell". I can't help if I don't believe, I don't think that'd deserve the worst punishment possible.
It's important to consider the time and environment of this essay. There is no part therein which is without bias. It begins with an assumption of god and ends with a declaration of god. There is no value in analysing a work if that work lacks any objectivity or accuracy.
A human cannot write, speak or think without bias. Biases are what minds are made with. We have to engage with biased media if we want to engage with any media at all.
Plus, not engaging with any media at all would just be a new kind of bias. An over-reliance on your own concepts of logic and experience.
@@oscargarciapenas5488 agreed, however, you can minimize bias through discussion and review with people of differing and conflicting views. If possible, repeatable measurement and varied analysis methods can also reduce bias. So, although you cannot eliminate bias, you can bring it to levels where it is insignificant. This is the goal of the scientific method, though not always successfully achieved.
@@CRuM770 so because Bacon's scientific work was written in the same environment and during the same time period then by your logic there is no value in that as well.
@@mugsofmirth8101 you do very well at misinterpreting information and selectively using quotes to misrepresent what was actually said. You should consider becoming a christian; you'd fit right. I specifically discussed the scientific method and how this essay did not meet the basic principals. If he tried to minimize bias in his scientific work by seeking input from those outside his circle and conducting research and tests that aim to disprove his hypotheses, then his work would be valid.
If you had any understanding of the work of Bacon, you would be able to recognize that the time period (15th century) and environment (christian) made it nearly impossible for him to apply his scientific philosophy to his religious bias. He never tested or challenged his belief system with his newfound scientific method which relied on scepticism.
Mr. Bacon's essay on atheism is an embarrassment beside his contribution to science.
@@CRuM770 you mentioned nothing whatsoever of the scientific method in your OP lol nice mental gymnastics though and backpedaling attempt.
This is AWESOME!
I do think that most people are Atheist is because the supposed "loving father God" never draw people to him. If a loving God do exist in reality, I do think way more people would acknowledge his existence and believe in Him.
Also even if their common theist arguments are strong, it still doesn't imply that one of the three monotheistic religions must be true. This is a common mistake made by almost all Christian Apologists.
you have to love God to get his love in return. every believer knows that. anyone in a relationship understands it as well. by the way there are more than 3 monotheistic religions. may the best one win!
@@reddykilowattdoesn't that defeat the entire point of an all-loving god you have to love him for you to "know his love" like even amongst theist they don't know if god loves especially when they behave towards those who of certain sexual orientation and that just makes his love limited aswell there ex-theist atheists
@@miguelatkinson why would someone who does not embrace God be concerned about why he loves them or not? to expect it anyway regardless of one’s own stance is an immature and narcissistic take.
@@reddykilowatt well because it would be in the nature of god he is said to be all-loving if he does not love those who don't embrace his love then he is not all-loving by definition and also their is one fatal problem with your comment above if where talking about people who don't believe in God then they won't believe in his love the only way for these people to affirm his love is if this all-loving god makes his love appearnt to those and also the problem of evil is also another reason why people don't embrace this God's supposed love
@@miguelatkinson should God be all loving toward Satan or Hitler? sorry it doesn’t work the way you want it to but that is not God’s fault
Based. This video slaps. Trill AF!
Thanks man!
@@PhilosophyToons I enjoyed the video also, however I don't recall you mentioning whether you yourself are atheist. I too BTW would like to see Taco Bell bring back that sangria drink.
While I understand where they're coming from, I'll just leave all this mess to the "Experts".
MessAge...belief structures believe it or not are Conceptualized Concepts pontificated and predicated upon profaning Precious Treasures Sacred Dimensions within the evolutionary human sojourn substituting senses of belonging, community and connectedness to things...such as reLegion, reAlliance, sustainable peer pressure, covert social eschew hostilities and that mysterious ditty: Love.
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
.
It's only about the evidence for me
this isn’t a courtroom
@@reddykilowatt How convenient for you that it isn't because you wouldn't have any proof of what it is you claim
@@sandrajackson709 yet neither would you.
@@reddykilowatt What would I need evidence for i am not claliming a zombie goat herder exists and getting pissed at others that have enough commens sense to not believe it
@@reddykilowatt I've always thought about God being discussed in a court room. I think the God case would be thrown out due to lack of evidence. I see it like me accuse you of shooting a Bald Eagle with the statement "Prove you never killed an Eagle or you're guilty".
I practice ancestor worship since only my family is divine. the rest of you are screwed. 😂
Some people find atheism appealing due to their desire for a more pleasure-oriented lifestyle. It's important to note, however, that atheists are actually a minority. Also, some individuals may use atheism as a means to showcase their trust in scientific values, which could help them secure funding.
I don't think it matters if they find it appealing or not. I think atheists just want to know the truth. The whole logic beind religion makes no sense to me.
@@dannysmith37 if that was the case
Then atheists would say “i believe in a creator because there is no way this complex and ordered universe with harmony between everything was a random caused by mindless force, but i don’t believe religions are real”
But instead you guys simply deny god because you don’t want morality
When there is no god, there is no good and right? You can challenge any moral standard right?
@@cyberWarrior7519 I know you're wrong because I don't think there is a god yet I think there is morally a right and wrong and it's wrong of you to think atheists don't want morality, is that lies taught in Sunday School?.
Questioning moral standards is healthy, infact religions have to deny their own scriptures to keep up with "free thinking" people not following the Bible/Quran i.e homosexuality shouldn't be a death sentence.
You can't explain where this creator came from anymore than I can explain the big bang. I think you're making far broader claims than a typical atheist.
If there is a God it isn't the Christian God and there is no chance he asked to be worshiped or sends anyone to hell for simply not believing.
@@cyberWarrior7519 every paragraph in your comment was wrong. So closed minded.
Bacon 😂
Correct answer: it isn’t lmao
I wish Frederick Niche inew that Hebrew Cosmology was true. He would've had a different take on up and down.
The fact that he doesn't seem to address Emotion as a big factor in Religion is very telling