"If you take away religion, people would find another reason to kill each other." Well then, if you take away their religion, might not they find another way to have comfort? Seems like special pleading.
I think their answer would be that it's all based on god's love. A horseshit line, but it would be their answer to how you can't have more love without god but you can still have evil. That and... The devil.
Not really. Human brains are predisposed to negative assumptions. It's a secondary survival characteristic related to our excessive propensity to find patterns where they don't exist, and anthropomorphize entities, objects, and events that cannot possibly be sapient. All lifeforms are built (even predators) to assume that the rustling in the grass is something trying to kill them. Religion and humanism both are just a malignant outgrowth of that response.
@@-8_8- You're wrong actually. It is true that you can't have love if God does not exist but evil will also not exist if God does not exist. So, neither good nor evil (and neither heaven nor hell) can exist without God.
Hello from one of your newest followers! As a victim of fundamentalist parents in the Church of Christ, I am so happy that you exist and have this channel. The tribal war god of Abraham is how I will talk in the future at family gatherings.
Hey Sondra! That's so nice!!! I'm so happy you exist too - especially if you're gonna leave comments like this. #Win/Win It's actually the Tribal War god of Canaan. But most people wouldn't know who I'm talking about. 😉
Hello Sondra and welcome! I'm one of Brian's oldest and biggest fans! Isn't he wonderful?!, Dang, I actually heard Stevie Wonder as I typed that, lol! Kudos to you on your freedom! How hard I imagine it must be for someone raised fundamentalist! People like you amaze me. 🤎🥰✌
And let´s remind everyone that it´s actually an old Mesopotamian god-of-war... So the Jews, like today´s Arabs, were Mesopotamian... Actually, back when "Jesus" were supposed to have existed, Jews looked exactly like all other Arabs.... (Fair-haired and blue-eyed, right ?)
I actually had to explain to a philosophy major that he was Atheist. He claimed to be agnostic. He disagreed strongly during our conversation, but the next day. He came to agree
To play 'Davids Advocate' here, It might be worth keeping in mind that English Jesus and American Jesus are two distinct entities. The 'comfort' of a British Jesus is inextricably interwoven with the kind of lightweight milquetoast Anglican flavour where The Queen/King is nonsensically considered a divine being. It's so nonsensical in fact that no one believes it for a second, not even the Queen. Even the bishops consider it a handicap to actually believe too fervently. So unlike American 'comfort' to be found in abasement to whatever charismatic, or hereditary pastor/preacher/prophet is local to them, the British 'comfort' is more closely related to sandwiches and tea at the local vicarage where they will condescend to the hapless priest and turn up on some Sundays under the clear understanding that they will do what they like and complain to the church authorities to have the vicar replaced if they get too happy clappy about Jesus. All that said, I agree with pretty much all that you say in this video.
Kings of old may have considered themselves divine beings, or at least appointed by god. The last to hold this misconception lost his head over it. I don't think anybody has given any value to that concept for about 400 years.
I'm in the camp with BionicDance. My activism is merely self defense. I'm only concerned with the god-botherers who are trying to interfere with my life and freedoms. I don't give a rat's backside what nonsense you believe, as long as you don't hit me in the head with it. If theism was just belief without consequence, there would be no discussion about it, any more that any other of the billions of fantasy stories. I have yet to find a forum in which trolls insult and threaten people who don't believe in Mickey Mouse.
From how I understand the terms. As far as the Abrahamic God and all the deities that I have heard of, then I am a gnostic atheist. As for deistic deities or deities that I have never heard of then I am an agnostic atheist.
It's been a long time since a Christian/Jew/Muslim asked me if I was an atheist, but I think now the most honest response I could give would be "Well, I'm an agnostic, but for sure I don't believe in YOUR God."
It would be nice if the universe gave a fuck. It doesn't. We must go on giving meaning to our own existence. No afterlife... make the best of the years you are given.
Gnosticism is hard for for some people to wrap their head around for some reason and they feel that it's a standalone word to describe their feelings on religion. What's even harder to to explain to most Americans the difference between Communism and Authoritarianism and even Fascism, but that's a topic for a different channel.
All three ideologies have one common thread; they reject the supremacy of the true God. They challenge God by creating false gods (idols) to be worshiped such as government (or the State), power, honor, material goods, etc.
That's the only one on the table. The Abrahamic faiths are the only faiths that have one single all powerful benevolent God. Perhaps all faiths are wrong, and there is an omni God that no one knows of.
Context (from experience being British): the common semantics in the UK are "Agnostic" and "Atheist" not "Agnostic Atheist". The meaning of the labels are essentially the same. The rest of the stuff is personal to David not common definition of the label "Agnostic".
Indeed, I know people that label themselves as 'agnostic' almost apologetically for not being religious, but it isn't some undecided mid ground between theism and atheism, it's an epistemological position about knowledge, not faith.
The term agnostic is also heavily used the the US, as atheists in the US are among the most hated and distrusted "religious" minority, even more so than muslims. In 27 states, it is illegal for person who doesn't believe in an omnipotent creator to hold public office. Of course, this goes against the federal constitution, so none of those restrictions would ever stand up in court, but the fact that they still exist is kind of telling. If you doubt any of the, take a walk over to TellTale Atheist, and watch his show on what happened to his family.
I'm wondering if David has conflated some experience with genuinely good people that happen to be Christian, with the religion itself. There are a lot of very good people that are Christians. The relevant question would probably be if they are better people because they are Christians. Or do they make their flavor of Christianity better because they are good people. And a lot of Christianity seems to have more in common with what it's followers want to believe and do, than in what the bible says. Just like he would like to believe in a benevolent powerful God, he also seems to want to believe in a Christianity, that is similarly powerful and benevolent. Perhaps he needs to take the rose colored glasses off, and consider Christianity as it exists, not as he wishes it was. Personally, I don't mind if people find comfort in religion. So long as they don't impose their religion on others.
Assertive agnostic atheist apistevist, and passionate antitheist. However in terms of gods described by humans thus far, you can swap out _agnostic_ to _gnostic;_ there's too many reasons to _know_ those gods are fake.
I am in the camp of antitheism. We'd be better off without a belief in this or that superpowered god telling me I can't have a surgery to stop the pain my periods bring me because, even though I'm past my prime child-making years and have a broken back, "god might *want* you to have another child." I'll be antitheistic even if they *could* prove a god, because proof of one doesn't mean it's worth worship or trailing behind it.
I thought Dawkins cleared This up when he declared himself a "Tooth Fairy Agnostic". None of us can know for certain that Santa Clause doesn't exist but we live our lives as though he does not. Good policy.
Thank you. I had family trying to feed me these views when I was younger and talking about calling myself an Atheist. They got more comfortable with it in time, and I knew the points were bad and could argue with them a little, but I can see how this sort of thing could poison the word Atheist for a growing non-believer.
"Oh wait. They're still My Chosen People. Hold on. I haven't even made the prototypes yet. This whole Omniscience thing makes it hard to know which parts of Everything...I've already done."
It's always a disappointment when someone you assumed was entirely sensible turns out to be almost as deluded as the religious. No David, I'm not as cynical as you. Mankind wouldn't have indulged in quite so many wars and genocides without the direct encouragement and "justification" of religion. In fact, anyone can point to a significant number of conflicts around the world today that are of entirely religious origin. To ignore them is cognitive dissonance. To suggest we'd simply find something else to fight over is special pleading and condescending.
In fairness, many of the 'religious' wars throughout history were political wars in which the ruling classes used religion as their way of motivating their cannon / arrow / spear fodder victims into fighting for them. It's probably quite difficult to persuade peasants to sacrifice their lives just so the guy oppressing them can have a bit more gold. It's a lot easier to persuade them that 'our god wants us to kill those ungodly bastards over there, and if you die no worries you'll get your reward in the next life'. The _mechanism_ of getting people to go to war may be religious, but the _cause_ (or origin, as you put it) of the war often isn't. Sometimes it absolutely is, of course, but not as often as some atheists claim... or, at least, as some goddists claim that atheists claim!
There's a big difference between the UK and US when it comes to Christianity and atheism. Here in the UK it's rarely a contentious issue. Christians tend to keep their faith to themselves and don't look down on atheists. It isn't a political issue either, any politician who is too overtly religious is seen as a bit odd. People who don't believe in god hardly ever use the term "atheist". They see that as someone like Dawkins and wonder why anyone is bothered what others believe. American atheists have far more at stake and tend to be better informed about what atheism is and what the bible teaches.
One point that should be stressed here is Christianity for the English is very different to that in the US (it is also different in Northern Ireland and Scotland where faith and politics are still partially intertwined). The majority of people who tick Christian (usually C of E) on their census form are unlikely to partake in active worship outside of christenings, marriages and funerals. They don't even go to services at Christmas or Easter. I am a very middle class brit who went to a C of E grammar school in the late 60s/early 70s. Even though we definitely don't have separation of church and state (as the Queen is head of both) and had hymns, prayers and a reading in every morning assembly, almost all that was referred to was the New Testament (and mostly Paul's teachings at that). Genesis and Exodus were taught without using the biblical text directly. So David possibly views the God he hopes for as the God of the New Testament (and specifically the Sermon on the Mount and Paul's teachings). I suspect that if he had to read the Old Testament, was tested on the text and it was made very clear that you cannot have the New Testament and Jesus without the Old Testament he would be a Buddhist in next to no time...
Listening to people talk like him is just as cringeworthy as listening to a priest in church. It's so disconnected from reality. They come off as if they feel superior and that religious beliefs need to be shown respect.
Who doesn't want an all powerful, benevolent god? I've sort of given up hope of finding them, but I'd still want one. As do I want a money tree and a cure for everything that ails me.
Addressing the side-title @1:02... I would argue that the two flavors of Atheism are Philosophical, and Not-Philosophical. Where the former is strict and means believing that god(s) don't exist, and the latter is whatever the person you're talking to tells you. Not unlike Theory, which comes in the Scientific and Not-Scientific flavors. Where the former is strict and means an explanation of a verified natural phenomena, and the latter is whatever the person you're talking to tells you.
@@moestietabarnak Maybe he's all powerful except for being unable to propagate his benevolent powers faster than the speed of light, and we're just unfortunately on a really bad commute for him. Argument from Too Big Universe.
Well articulated. It does seem to be religion David is thinking of. However, as you said, it is not that most atheists want to rip out the comfort of the belief people have. Like him most atheists understand the discomfort of there not being an omnipresent safety net of love and benevolence. That would be an unlikely motivation for most atheists. It is the consequences of believers making decisions based on their beliefs that negatively impact others that most atheists think is the biggest problem/threat. If David is referring to the (small) percentage of atheists that simply enjoy causing people distress then, I think he has a legitimate complaint about those, but not about the rest.
For all those not chosen by their god to be his people and not tied to the land which he promised them, welcome to the freedom to change your mind, outlook, location, etc., etc. Freedom is a much better deal.
I'm not technically a Communist, but I think it's very misunderstood, especially in America. As an ideal (given my limited understanding of it), I think it's amazing. The problem is how to get to the implementation of Communism. It has never been successfully implemented on a national scale, and I'm not sure it can be or that it can survive in a world of non-perfect humans. But, ultimately, I think most Communists (that's real Communists. China is not Communist. Russia was never Communist.) are people who are idealists who want the best for everyone. It doesn't make much sense to not want people to be Communists.
I didn't know I was a gnostic atheist, by far the most, in fact the only, rational position to be in on this matter. Mythical beings don't exist, by definition. I know that. Because it is true by definition. I am also a gnostic agoblinist.
To be fair, when dealing with people in general, because of notable atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens, many confuse atheism with antitheism, which is why I confuse things even further by calling myself a nontheist as in not a theist and try to leave it at that.
I clarify my atheism thus: I *know* that "God", the god described by the bible, does not exist. This is because That definition is self-contradictory, thus false. As for "does *any* god exist", I don't even know what the question means. As far as I can tell, every person who labels something as a god has their own personal definition of what qualifies as a god. Hell, some label all of existence as a god. Sure, I believe existence exists (tautologically), but that really doesn't get us anywhere.
@@dkazmer2 Yes it is. Occam's razor says: If you have multiple equal hypotheses explaining the same phenomenon the one that taking the least assertions is the most likely to be the true one. The god hypothesis used for anything has so many silly assertions that it cannot be used to explain anything at all ever.
As a Brit with a similar age and background to David, I wouldn't be surprised if he's just being polite about religion so he doesn't have to spend the rest of his life fending off god botherers. Religion doesn't have the stranglehold on people's lives in the UK that it does in the US.
This is obviously the answer. Someone in a previous post said " If David had any sense..." He obviously does. That being the case, this has to be a political stance, not a reflection of his true beliefs.
I love Mitchell & Webb!!! I saw David talking about this & I think he's misunderstanding agnosticism. I loved your explanation. TY!! 😍😍☮☮✊🖤🤎 PS: I suspect Mitchell has fallen prey to the encroached/ing authoritarianism which has taken over places which embrace greed... Sad.
Yeah, I always been a big fan of David, his Soapbox series that are available here on youtube being a big factor. So it really seems odd to actually hear some rather stupid shit come out of his mouth for once. It's in no way as bad as others for sure, but for someone like David to say this implies to me that it relates more to Wishful thinking than actual real world observations. Something I thought he was well beyond. Of course Religion can bring comfort, in the same way you can bring a lot of comfort to someone by telling them they will be given a million dollars in a week. The issue starts when people start acting as if they will actual Get those million dollars next week. And what If I put some condition on the million dollars (that they will never get) such as, Not eating ice cream. Suddenly they spend a week not enjoying one of their favorite things, because of the fake comfort of a million dollars. Now change the duration of the bet from 1 week to "Until you die". How less are you ready to make your life for a "potential" reward at the end of it? Fake stories can bring comfort for sure, but when we make decisions it is very important that we do so based on what is Actually real, and not what Feels comforting. Funny thing is, if I had simply seen this statement of his, on my own, I could probably have agreed that it was a rather ok statement. Breaking down his arguments one by one like this really help accentuate how off character it is for him
This is what the Church of England is like (fortunately for all of us here). Desperate not to offend, trying to be all things to all people, the 'well, I think there's probably something when you die but who knows, Jesus was nice' type of Christianity.
I dont really see the comfort in worshiping a God who can charge you with thought crime and the punishment could be infinite torture I'd you lose the faith. That's not comfort, that's fear.
It’s funny (strange) to me that so many people, with no active spiritual or religious life, bristle at the idea of being called an atheist when they don’t actually believe in any particular god. They just tell themselves “well, there could be something god-like out there some where”, and then consider themselves deep and reasonable.🙄 Centrists gonna center, I guess.
I claim knowledge that the War god Yahweh of the Israelites does not and could not exist as depicted in the old and new testaments of the King James Bible.
What if his god is not benevolent, at least to our minds? "Benevolent" is a human invention. Using our adjectives to describe a "god" is just anthropomorphizing it. Here he describes his idea(not the "god's") of an "all powerful" "god" to which the idea would mean nothing. If there were such a "god", it should be obvious that it would not be subject to our evaluations. Whatever it would do would just be what it does. Basically the idea of "god" means nothing because it is supposed to mean everything. That is why there is no definition of it. BTW, my favorite description of a universe of extraordinary beings or something or other, is in Jonathan Stroud's Bartimaeus books. Have you thought of doing an episode of Ulysses as the first atheist? That case can be made.
David Mitchell ran smack into Epicurus's Trilema. If God cannot prevent evil, he is not all powerful. If God is unwilling to prevent evil, he is not all good. If he is both all powerful and all good, from whence does evil spring. This is the foundation for the problem with evil. Mitchell's God is self contradictory in light of the world we live in. There is so much suffering and destruction that should be preventable by this God that has little or not relation to the humans, so it cannot be explained away as original sin.
More and more, the world is waking up to the fact that "benevolent god" is an oxymoron. David's longing for the comforting deity of his youth is understandable, but we all must grow up eventually.
@@Lerian_V ahh yes, how benevolent to kill millions upon millions of animals in a global flood. Maan, isnt he just lovely?😍 And I mean just look at his awesome design of some of earths viruses. How easily some of them can kill little children in just mere days😲 Wow, what an amazing and kind being🥺🥰
@@justadude7752 Humans and animals die because the of human evil. Glad to know that you believe in good and evil. But I have a question for you. Is there an objective [standard of] good and evil? Viruses, just like bacteria, are good and useful when they are not attacking, for example, human beings.
@@Lerian_V dafuq have animals to do with human evil? xD thats the dumbest statement of you that I have seen in this comment section yet. Also, please stay specific. How does human evil excuse GENOCIDE of every human being and other animals except for two according to your fairy tale book? Also what did the children of that time do exactly? Please be specific with that one aswell. What justifices such cruelty to drown them all? This also doesnt mean I believe in objective good and evil. Cuz such a thing doesnt make any logical sense. Morals have to do with values and values, by definition, are not inherent to things. Things only get value by other concious beings that can understand and/or feel such a need for the concept. And since morality is a tool to figure out what ideas of morailty work the best and are justified by the best logic that we have it only makes sense to question the morality of your book of fairies aswell (remember I aint even judging a God-being here since you people never even bother to proivde sufficient evidence for it in the first place. So the only one I'm really questioning here is you). Another thing tho on that. Even your God doesnt make it objective even if that being were to exist. It just means that being has its own likes and dislikes. There is no logical reason why one should ought to follow that being any more than your preferences or mine. But they *do* do that. So your response does nothing to fix the problem in your worldview of a world with such viruses living and a being that is supposedly giving a damn. Espacially when it also created the ones that DO attack human beings. Even if just animals where to suffer from them, still wouldnt make your being benevolent at the least. So you'd still have to wiggle your way out of that contradiction. Do have lots of fun with that😉 but even with supposed good viruses their use only come then into play when they cant sufficiently kill or harm the host (such as retroviruses or less harmful versions of herpesviruses) so the only reason why the host can work out a positiv outcome with these is because the virus wasnt actually good enough at being a virusxD cuz otherwise it would kill or harm the host aswell, dummy. aint that just wonderfully silly design🥰
I'm quite a fan of David's work,... but here comes the but,.... agnosticism can be a position held alongside atheism, because I would describe myself as an Agnostic Atheist. I don't have any faith in god(s), hence atheist, but I also think it's beyond mortal comprehension to know if a god could or could not exist (with absolute certainty in this, or any pre-existing Universe), hence agnostic. I don't want to tear down other people's religion, and in this matter I am a secularist, and want freedom of, and from religion. People should be free to practice whatever religion they like, with the caveat that they do not force it on others, or seek to impose it's tenets via law. I think indoctrinating children into a religion is wrong, and while some people say this is cultural, It's more tribal, and we should be looking to foster newer attitudes to people who are not the same as us.
Thank you Mister Deity for an excellent brief look into the comments of "Funny Man" Mr Mitchell. Frankly, I already had him pegged as an Atheist. Somehow, I never imagined him getting down on his knees to kiss the ring of a bloke in a frock. Mr Mitchell seems too cynical to want a Deity to exist. I am genuinely surprised that he calls himself an Agnostic. I wonder what Victoria has to say about all this?
We cannot disprove fairies, therefore it is not rational to not believe in fairies. You must believe in fairies at least a little bit, because that is the only rational position given that we cannot disprove them.
No. You can accept the null position, and neither believe nor disbelieve. Also, I would suggest the evidence against the existence of fairies is enough to justify the disbelief in them.
Does David Mitchell apply his "agnosticism" to Santa, fairies, leprechauns, dragons etc? While technically I am also an "agnostic atheist" I would say "there is no god" to the same level of confidence that David Mitchell might say "there are no fairies", unless maybe DM would also find that to be absurd.
Excellent point. Technically, we're all agnostic on the question of whether fairies exist, but in practice there's really no reason to allow for that possibility. Same with gods. Agnosticism assumes that belief is the default position.
But that is not at all how statistics & science works. We are capable of concluding (in science & statistics) that a thing doesn't exists - even if (philosophically) that's not possible. It's perfectly rational to say if there is no evidence for god then there is no god. We do it all day everyday in science in every context you can imagine.
Why take away the comfort of the religious when you can snatch blankets from infants, candy from babies, or if you’re feeling strong enough rip out the carpet from under the feet of the elderly?
I don't know if I am a rarity among agnostic atheists, but when I left evangelical christianity and embraced atheism, it was actually a moment of joy ... There was no more grand dictator of whatuniversal meaning I must believe in and conform to. Instead, I realized that I could create my own meanings, based on the kind of world I would like to live in ... and that world would certainly not include an all-powerful ruling monarch who would send people to eternal torture for not believing in him in the right way. As to oblivion? It is simply another word for nothing. Eternal torture (hell) or eternal boredom (heaven) are things worthy of fear. Nothing is not. I won't deny that I fear the possible suffering of a sickness or severe injury that might lead to my death, but death itself does not frighten me at all. When I was a christian ... I was.
I consider myself an Agnostic Atheist, I tend to add the word Agnostic when I'm asked, and like him I'd love to know there's a gawd and a life after death, but being realistic I accept that there more than likely isn't anything like that and I feel quite Gnostic about it even though I'm not actually Gnostic, I feel like there's a big difference between how you feel and what you claim about it, I feel like there's more likely no gawd or gawds that exists in (or outside of) our universe, and I'm probably correct in that feeling, but I have no evidence other than my gut feeling so I use the term Agnostic, I think people might misunderstand why some Atheists use the Gnostic term instead, the evidence for such a thing might not ever be possible but realistically speaking if there were any gawds I'm sure they'd have let us know by now, that's enough for me to "feel" it's the correct answer, but if I'm being intellectually honest in using these terms I'll always be Agnostic 😁
COMPLETELY AGREE. I hate when rational people suspend their rationality or invoke their mental laziness as it pertains to other people's assertions/claims. David seems like a good guy, whose gullible "get-along" attitude allows him to reject objective criticisms of civilization. He's being a dullard...and literally opposing the goodness he says he advocates.
IF one is using the term God as some unknown X, then I can grant that claiming that such doesn't exist is absurd, since X is an unknown. However, IF the term God denotes a claim, then it follows that IF that claim can be evaluated, then an adjudication predicated on a scope of knowledge can be applied. In defense of gnostic atheism... If I claimed that God doesn't exist and the term correlates to a claim wherein the term is essentially equivalent to a square circle, then it follows that such an adjudication is correct within the scope of the modeling being employed to make such an adjudication. If I claimed that God is pragmatically non-existent, then such is correct (so long as the claim remains pragmatically non-existent) within the context of the individual making such claim. If God is claimed to be omni-benevolent and material being linked to such a claim is in opposition to such a claim, then that claim is false as a byproduct of the totality of the claim being put forth. This would apply to ANY contradiction wherein such is an aspect of the claim being put forth. The point being that a claim of knowledge is predicated on what is being evaluated, thus IF the evaluation is based on claims which can be adjudicated and there is sufficient knowledge wherein such can be adjudicated, then it follows that knowledge with respect to the claim being put forth is possible depending on the claim being presented. There seems to be some sort of weird switching between a claim which can be possibly adjudicated and some unknown. The evaluations are being made on the claims as opposed to an unknown, since, if it were an unknown, there can be no actual discussion. Thus, the exchanges is about a known - the claims being made. If the exchange is being purported to be about an unknown, then the whole of such a discussion is inherently absurd.
My last stop before atheism was a belief in a deistic god... the watchmaker who creates the universe, turns it on and lets it run by itself. Then I thought, even if that's true... what's the point? What's the use of believing in a god you can't interact with... even if it's just to plead, 'Don't barbecue your flock or cook us in your wok'.(hope I got the lyrics right)
What's this? David very almost falling foul of an appeal to emotion and then blundering straight into whataboutism? Come on David. You're better than that.
There's a further wrinkle to agnosticism. There are those who state they personally do not know if there is a god or not and there those who state that it cannot be known by anyone.
If an all-powerful God existed, He could definitely make His presence known. I think there’s all kinds of evidence which COULD demonstrate God’s existence. If Christians could routinely perform the miracles Jesus said they’d be able to perform, that would get me 99% of the way there.
@@misterdeity I absolutely agree. However, as David demonstrates, self-declared "agnostics" of the latter sort delude themselves into avoiding the question entirely. Just as christians do.
About the only argument that gets close to gnostic atheism for me, is the reversal of the infinite regress argument for an eternal god. Logically it seems to me that any thinking agency could not exist eternally because it would involve an infinite regress of thoughts.
I've read a bit on violence and the human condition. It is a fair statement to say that certain areas of violence are understood but in general we have a poor understanding of human violence. Human violence is a reflection of mental health and mental health is still in a primitive state of sedation by drugs. David seems to think he knows why people are violent. This is great news! He should get himself published. As for as just hand waving goes I like Weinberg's observation, "Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things, but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion."
The thing is... Not all theists are religious. I consider myself to be an agnostic theist. Nonreligious, rejected the Christian notion of God I was raised to believe in. Too many inconsistencies in the bible. I don't think we can ever know who God is, only who he isn't. Religion kills true spirituality. True spirituality is about understanding the depth of our experiences as living beings and our connection to all things. Has nothing to do with believing in God or not. I believe hell is an exclusive club if it exists at all, for those rare few who truly delight in the suffering of others. It sickens me when other theists call atheists "lost". Always more drawn to critical thinkers. I have great respect for the minds of Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, and Sam Harris. I'm contrary, but I really do feel that's the only way to be honest. Cause we don't know, but many have personal experiences that lead us to contemplate the possible existence of a higher form of consciousness. Aware of all & greatly loving towards us. Why are we allowed to suffer if God exists with power to prevent/stop it? I am angered over this question myself, I cannot answer it. Life may be some kind of purification process that feels like punishment at times, meant to reveal our true nature... Not to God, but I think to ourselves... When faced with our own flaws exposed, we come into greater understanding. Saying God doesn't exist, is a definitive statement. It's basically the same as saying it's not possible. I'm keeping my heart open to something beyond this world and what is known...because I am human... and I don't know. If God doesn't exist? Doesn't affect me. There is still peace for all in the end. You can't regret not having a life if you don't exist. You can't miss anyone you've lost or regret any experience missed out on. The atoms that made us up will no longer be able to process anything. I do, however, think there needs to be accountability in the end, for those who did commit truly atrocious acts in secret, and got away with it all their lives. There isn't always justice in this world. I like to believe there will be in the next. Thank you for allowing me to share my personal view. Also... Mad respect for you Brian. I find you entertaining and delightful and I love the challenges you pose to religious views. Even my own. You're awesome!
I've heard plenty of folks smarter than me call your gnostic atheism simply atheism, and your agnostic atheism simply agnosticism. Tomato, tomahto. I'm as surprised as you that this individual doesn't ackowledge the striking differences between an actual benevolent God and the God of his childhood holy book. Sadly this is common! If more people noticed the difference we'd have fewer followers of the Abrahamic religions.
Two of the world's most famous Atheists, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and Richard Dawkins, consider themselves to be Agnostics. Or as Mr. D. would probably say, Atheist Agnostic. I am not JUST an Atheist. I'm an anti-theist.
Agnostic Atheism compared to Gnostic Theism simply seems to step on less toes. I am confident that Agnostic Atheism is preferred by many Atheists because of that. However Gnostic Atheism still appears to hold more water, from the ever shifting ontological goal-posts to the countless books claiming the inerrant word of God. I am confident in the non-existence of the tribal war god of Abraham, as I am confident in the non-existence of Azathoth, Zeus, Odin or any other fictional claims or characters. Such as Alexander The Great is not related to Hellenistic gods other than through fictitious tales as to Joseph Smith and his supposed connection to the tribal war god of Abraham. As I often say. . . Conviction to fiction in lieu of reality.
This is one of your best clips and i agree with your viewpoint. However do you allow your imagination to hope that we all will continue to exist in some form after our phyisical death
@@Brickerbrack your remark does not follow! Hope and lack of belief oppose each other. No one said the after life would be cosy for it may well be similar to this life with challenges .
Jesus askS God the Father as they watch people suffering in hell: "Dad, are we the baddies?"
30 of us see what you did there ;)
My favourite.
ua-cam.com/video/BYz1ADttI1g/v-deo.html
@@genagg5248 Jehovah says "I need you to look at this pen, son".
"If you take away religion, people would find another reason to kill each other." Well then, if you take away their religion, might not they find another way to have comfort? Seems like special pleading.
Such a brilliant fucking point!!! I love how smart my audience is. You guys always make the best points - the ones I've missed.
I think their answer would be that it's all based on god's love. A horseshit line, but it would be their answer to how you can't have more love without god but you can still have evil. That and... The devil.
Not really. Human brains are predisposed to negative assumptions. It's a secondary survival characteristic related to our excessive propensity to find patterns where they don't exist, and anthropomorphize entities, objects, and events that cannot possibly be sapient. All lifeforms are built (even predators) to assume that the rustling in the grass is something trying to kill them. Religion and humanism both are just a malignant outgrowth of that response.
@@-8_8- You're wrong actually. It is true that you can't have love if God does not exist but evil will also not exist if God does not exist. So, neither good nor evil (and neither heaven nor hell) can exist without God.
@@Lerian_V Both Good and evil (as we define and understand them - a moving target for sure) exist. And there is no God.
Hello from one of your newest followers! As a victim of fundamentalist parents in the Church of Christ, I am so happy that you exist and have this channel. The tribal war god of Abraham is how I will talk in the future at family gatherings.
Hey Sondra! That's so nice!!! I'm so happy you exist too - especially if you're gonna leave comments like this. #Win/Win It's actually the Tribal War god of Canaan. But most people wouldn't know who I'm talking about. 😉
Hello Sondra and welcome! I'm one of Brian's oldest and biggest fans! Isn't he wonderful?!, Dang, I actually heard Stevie Wonder as I typed that, lol! Kudos to you on your freedom! How hard I imagine it must be for someone raised fundamentalist! People like you amaze me. 🤎🥰✌
Congratulations! And welcome.
Fellow CoC deconvert here. Congrats.
And let´s remind everyone that it´s actually an old Mesopotamian god-of-war...
So the Jews, like today´s Arabs, were Mesopotamian...
Actually, back when "Jesus" were supposed to have existed, Jews looked exactly like all other Arabs....
(Fair-haired and blue-eyed, right ?)
I have no reason to believe in an invisible sky wizard and plenty of reasons not too.
He’s not a sky wizard, he’s an everywhere wizard
@@thescoobymike Allegedly.
Same here. As a Christian, I have no reason to believe that either.
I actually had to explain to a philosophy major that he was Atheist. He claimed to be agnostic. He disagreed strongly during our conversation, but the next day. He came to agree
To play 'Davids Advocate' here, It might be worth keeping in mind that English Jesus and American Jesus are two distinct entities. The 'comfort' of a British Jesus is inextricably interwoven with the kind of lightweight milquetoast Anglican flavour where The Queen/King is nonsensically considered a divine being. It's so nonsensical in fact that no one believes it for a second, not even the Queen. Even the bishops consider it a handicap to actually believe too fervently.
So unlike American 'comfort' to be found in abasement to whatever charismatic, or hereditary pastor/preacher/prophet is local to them, the British 'comfort' is more closely related to sandwiches and tea at the local vicarage where they will condescend to the hapless priest and turn up on some Sundays under the clear understanding that they will do what they like and complain to the church authorities to have the vicar replaced if they get too happy clappy about Jesus.
All that said, I agree with pretty much all that you say in this video.
Kings of old may have considered themselves divine beings, or at least appointed by god. The last to hold this misconception lost his head over it. I don't think anybody has given any value to that concept for about 400 years.
I’ve decided to call myself an Ain’theist: I just ain’t buyin’ any of it.
But... chocolate is so comforting David. You should consider a delicious rich very lightly sweetened hot chocolate.
This is always my plan of attach. And in the summer, it's ICE CREAM!!!!
David Mitchell normally comes off as smarter. He hasn't thought it through or read any Hitchens.
he's very funny, but i've never totally liked him, he gets too aggresive.
@@HarryNicNicholas Ricky Gervais or Jim Jefferies are my current favorites.
"You can't take my comfort blanket away from me, if you try i'll beat you to death with it"
Yes David. Please reconsider your views, even if only for the unbaptised babies... *won't somebody think of the children?*
You always make me laugh!
@@misterdeity You always make me think
@@a.randomjack6661 I was going to say that... and then I laughed. 😆
@@misterdeity Well now you've made me blush. So we're even.
I'm in the camp with BionicDance. My activism is merely self defense. I'm only concerned with the god-botherers who are trying to interfere with my life and freedoms. I don't give a rat's backside what nonsense you believe, as long as you don't hit me in the head with it. If theism was just belief without consequence, there would be no discussion about it, any more that any other of the billions of fantasy stories. I have yet to find a forum in which trolls insult and threaten people who don't believe in Mickey Mouse.
Did David say the benevolent god was Abraham?
And did he say "thinking" people get comfort from faith?
I don't think so.
I noticed years ago that David didn’t know what an atheist was, but that he was an atheist.
From how I understand the terms. As far as the Abrahamic God and all the deities that I have heard of, then I am a gnostic atheist. As for deistic deities or deities that I have never heard of then I am an agnostic atheist.
I love David Mitchell, and I think he’s bloody brilliant, but, yeah, he’s wrong on this one.
It's been a long time since a Christian/Jew/Muslim asked me if I was an atheist, but I think now the most honest response I could give would be "Well, I'm an agnostic, but for sure I don't believe in YOUR God."
One of your best episodes sir!
It would be nice if the universe gave a fuck. It doesn't. We must go on giving meaning to our own existence. No afterlife... make the best of the years you are given.
Gnosticism is hard for for some people to wrap their head around for some reason and they feel that it's a standalone word to describe their feelings on religion. What's even harder to to explain to most Americans the difference between Communism and Authoritarianism and even Fascism, but that's a topic for a different channel.
All three ideologies have one common thread; they reject the supremacy of the true God. They challenge God by creating false gods (idols) to be worshiped such as government (or the State), power, honor, material goods, etc.
@@Lerian_V Which true god? And why would I want to idolize my toaster?
@@gwolfe333 The only uncaused cause. You should not idolize your toaster. It's called idolatry.
Once again, I'm me!
P.S. check out his sketches on football and Homeopathic E.R. both really funny!
I'd rather have comfort in people who are actually acting to make the world a better place despite all the ugly.
I swear I’ve tried to explain agnostic atheism to so many people
" I want there to be an all-powerful benevolent god," is what David says. Don't think that's the same as saying the Abrahamic god is such a one.
That's the only one on the table. The Abrahamic faiths are the only faiths that have one single all powerful benevolent God. Perhaps all faiths are wrong, and there is an omni God that no one knows of.
Context (from experience being British): the common semantics in the UK are "Agnostic" and "Atheist" not "Agnostic Atheist". The meaning of the labels are essentially the same. The rest of the stuff is personal to David not common definition of the label "Agnostic".
Indeed, I know people that label themselves as 'agnostic' almost apologetically for not being religious, but it isn't some undecided mid ground between theism and atheism, it's an epistemological position about knowledge, not faith.
@@engineeredlifeform To some people it is the mid-ground, because they don't know what epistemological means.
The term agnostic is also heavily used the the US, as atheists in the US are among the most hated and distrusted "religious" minority, even more so than muslims. In 27 states, it is illegal for person who doesn't believe in an omnipotent creator to hold public office. Of course, this goes against the federal constitution, so none of those restrictions would ever stand up in court, but the fact that they still exist is kind of telling. If you doubt any of the, take a walk over to TellTale Atheist, and watch his show on what happened to his family.
Greetings from Australia!
Another great clip, keep up the good work!
I really, really wish there were a tooth fairy and Santa Claus, so why not just leave open that possibility and remain agnostic on the matter?
I'm wondering if David has conflated some experience with genuinely good people that happen to be Christian, with the religion itself. There are a lot of very good people that are Christians. The relevant question would probably be if they are better people because they are Christians. Or do they make their flavor of Christianity better because they are good people. And a lot of Christianity seems to have more in common with what it's followers want to believe and do, than in what the bible says.
Just like he would like to believe in a benevolent powerful God, he also seems to want to believe in a Christianity, that is similarly powerful and benevolent.
Perhaps he needs to take the rose colored glasses off, and consider Christianity as it exists, not as he wishes it was.
Personally, I don't mind if people find comfort in religion. So long as they don't impose their religion on others.
Assertive agnostic atheist apistevist, and passionate antitheist.
However in terms of gods described by humans thus far, you can swap out _agnostic_ to _gnostic;_ there's too many reasons to _know_ those gods are fake.
This.
I am in the camp of antitheism. We'd be better off without a belief in this or that superpowered god telling me I can't have a surgery to stop the pain my periods bring me because, even though I'm past my prime child-making years and have a broken back, "god might *want* you to have another child." I'll be antitheistic even if they *could* prove a god, because proof of one doesn't mean it's worth worship or trailing behind it.
David is right about many things. However since he is a human being he will get things wrong and this one is a lulu.
I think that's the first time I've seen anyone on the internet use that word when not talking about a cat or Final Fantasy.
@@Kaylakaze I aim to please. Brian's fans tend to erudition.
Yep. Stealing their hope and comfort. That's pretty much our only reason to oppose religious beliefs./smh
I thought Dawkins cleared This up when he declared himself a "Tooth Fairy Agnostic". None of us can know for certain that Santa Clause doesn't exist but we live our lives as though he does not. Good policy.
When I was a child I woke up to 6d under my pillow after losing a tooth. What more proof do you need?
An "Agnostic" is nothing more than an "Atheist" ...
.
.
.
with a wife and kids
Wow, where do you get the patience from to explain this again?
Admirable.
Thank you. I had family trying to feed me these views when I was younger and talking about calling myself an Atheist. They got more comfortable with it in time, and I knew the points were bad and could argue with them a little, but I can see how this sort of thing could poison the word Atheist for a growing non-believer.
Longing for a god that ones said:
"Let thare be light...so I can watsh Anne Frank poo her self to death"
Yes I played that card 😝
"Oh wait. They're still My Chosen People. Hold on. I haven't even made the prototypes yet. This whole Omniscience thing makes it hard to know which parts of Everything...I've already done."
It's always a disappointment when someone you assumed was entirely sensible turns out to be almost as deluded as the religious.
No David, I'm not as cynical as you. Mankind wouldn't have indulged in quite so many wars and genocides without the direct encouragement and "justification" of religion. In fact, anyone can point to
a significant number of conflicts around the world today that are of entirely religious origin. To ignore them is cognitive dissonance. To suggest we'd simply find something else to fight over is special pleading and condescending.
In fairness, many of the 'religious' wars throughout history were political wars in which the ruling classes used religion as their way of motivating their cannon / arrow / spear fodder victims into fighting for them. It's probably quite difficult to persuade peasants to sacrifice their lives just so the guy oppressing them can have a bit more gold. It's a lot easier to persuade them that 'our god wants us to kill those ungodly bastards over there, and if you die no worries you'll get your reward in the next life'.
The _mechanism_ of getting people to go to war may be religious, but the _cause_ (or origin, as you put it) of the war often isn't. Sometimes it absolutely is, of course, but not as often as some atheists claim... or, at least, as some goddists claim that atheists claim!
There's a big difference between the UK and US when it comes to Christianity and atheism.
Here in the UK it's rarely a contentious issue. Christians tend to keep their faith to themselves and don't look down on atheists. It isn't a political issue either, any politician who is too overtly religious is seen as a bit odd.
People who don't believe in god hardly ever use the term "atheist". They see that as someone like Dawkins and wonder why anyone is bothered what others believe.
American atheists have far more at stake and tend to be better informed about what atheism is and what the bible teaches.
One point that should be stressed here is Christianity for the English is very different to that in the US (it is also different in Northern Ireland and Scotland where faith and politics are still partially intertwined). The majority of people who tick Christian (usually C of E) on their census form are unlikely to partake in active worship outside of christenings, marriages and funerals. They don't even go to services at Christmas or Easter. I am a very middle class brit who went to a C of E grammar school in the late 60s/early 70s. Even though we definitely don't have separation of church and state (as the Queen is head of both) and had hymns, prayers and a reading in every morning assembly, almost all that was referred to was the New Testament (and mostly Paul's teachings at that). Genesis and Exodus were taught without using the biblical text directly. So David possibly views the God he hopes for as the God of the New Testament (and specifically the Sermon on the Mount and Paul's teachings). I suspect that if he had to read the Old Testament, was tested on the text and it was made very clear that you cannot have the New Testament and Jesus without the Old Testament he would be a Buddhist in next to no time...
Brian got that baby picture from ShutterStockpot.
Listening to people talk like him is just as cringeworthy as listening to a priest in church.
It's so disconnected from reality. They come off as if they feel superior and that religious beliefs need to be shown respect.
Who doesn't want an all powerful, benevolent god? I've sort of given up hope of finding them, but I'd still want one. As do I want a money tree and a cure for everything that ails me.
I don't, power corrupts. Nobody is immune.
@@tabularasa0606
Hence why I've given up hope. The combination with benevolent always seems to be missing.
The story of Job is always where I had a problem with a benevolent god when I was a kid.
Such restraint considering that Mitchell is so well known for his magnificent rants.
Addressing the side-title @1:02...
I would argue that the two flavors of Atheism are Philosophical, and Not-Philosophical. Where the former is strict and means believing that god(s) don't exist, and the latter is whatever the person you're talking to tells you.
Not unlike Theory, which comes in the Scientific and Not-Scientific flavors. Where the former is strict and means an explanation of a verified natural phenomena, and the latter is whatever the person you're talking to tells you.
There's not really a possibility for any all powerful god to be benevolent, especially in this world.
Right? What kind of benevolent, all-powerful god creates evil and suffering? Hello?!!!!
@@misterdeity the most benevolent you can maybe have ... is the indifferent type. create the universe and forget it.
@@moestietabarnak Maybe he's all powerful except for being unable to propagate his benevolent powers faster than the speed of light, and we're just unfortunately on a really bad commute for him. Argument from Too Big Universe.
@@gremlinn7
If he can't go faster than the speed of light he's not all powerful.
“Simply not a thinking person.” Describes way too many.
Well articulated. It does seem to be religion David is thinking of. However, as you said, it is not that most atheists want to rip out the comfort of the belief people have. Like him most atheists understand the discomfort of there not being an omnipresent safety net of love and benevolence. That would be an unlikely motivation for most atheists. It is the consequences of believers making decisions based on their beliefs that negatively impact others that most atheists think is the biggest problem/threat. If David is referring to the (small) percentage of atheists that simply enjoy causing people distress then, I think he has a legitimate complaint about those, but not about the rest.
For all those not chosen by their god to be his people and not tied to the land which he promised them, welcome to the freedom to change your mind, outlook, location, etc., etc. Freedom is a much better deal.
Like the bull in the labyrinth, you cannot back down from that one. #GreatJob Points to make always try to sum up a premise of existence.
I'm not technically a Communist, but I think it's very misunderstood, especially in America.
As an ideal (given my limited understanding of it), I think it's amazing.
The problem is how to get to the implementation of Communism. It has never been successfully implemented on a national scale, and I'm not sure it can be or that it can survive in a world of non-perfect humans.
But, ultimately, I think most Communists (that's real Communists. China is not Communist. Russia was never Communist.) are people who are idealists who want the best for everyone. It doesn't make much sense to not want people to be Communists.
I didn't know I was a gnostic atheist, by far the most, in fact the only, rational position to be in on this matter. Mythical beings don't exist, by definition. I know that. Because it is true by definition. I am also a gnostic agoblinist.
To be fair, when dealing with people in general, because of notable atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens, many confuse atheism with antitheism, which is why I confuse things even further by calling myself a nontheist as in not a theist and try to leave it at that.
I clarify my atheism thus: I *know* that "God", the god described by the bible, does not exist. This is because That definition is self-contradictory, thus false. As for "does *any* god exist", I don't even know what the question means. As far as I can tell, every person who labels something as a god has their own personal definition of what qualifies as a god. Hell, some label all of existence as a god. Sure, I believe existence exists (tautologically), but that really doesn't get us anywhere.
Hanging on to a belief in a god for comfort value is not a good reason to build a worldview around!
I find the idea of gods existing absurd. Occam's razor applies, it's an assertion so big that it must be the incorrect one.
that's not Occam's razor.
@@dkazmer2
Yes it is.
Occam's razor says: If you have multiple equal hypotheses explaining the same phenomenon the one that taking the least assertions is the most likely to be the true one.
The god hypothesis used for anything has so many silly assertions that it cannot be used to explain anything at all ever.
As a Brit with a similar age and background to David, I wouldn't be surprised if he's just being polite about religion so he doesn't have to spend the rest of his life fending off god botherers. Religion doesn't have the stranglehold on people's lives in the UK that it does in the US.
This is obviously the answer. Someone in a previous post said " If David had any sense..." He obviously does. That being the case, this has to be a political stance, not a reflection of his true beliefs.
I love Mitchell & Webb!!! I saw David talking about this & I think he's misunderstanding agnosticism. I loved your explanation.
TY!! 😍😍☮☮✊🖤🤎
PS: I suspect Mitchell has fallen prey to the encroached/ing authoritarianism which has taken over places which embrace greed...
Sad.
Yeah, I always been a big fan of David, his Soapbox series that are available here on youtube being a big factor. So it really seems odd to actually hear some rather stupid shit come out of his mouth for once. It's in no way as bad as others for sure, but for someone like David to say this implies to me that it relates more to Wishful thinking than actual real world observations. Something I thought he was well beyond.
Of course Religion can bring comfort, in the same way you can bring a lot of comfort to someone by telling them they will be given a million dollars in a week. The issue starts when people start acting as if they will actual Get those million dollars next week. And what If I put some condition on the million dollars (that they will never get) such as, Not eating ice cream. Suddenly they spend a week not enjoying one of their favorite things, because of the fake comfort of a million dollars. Now change the duration of the bet from 1 week to "Until you die".
How less are you ready to make your life for a "potential" reward at the end of it?
Fake stories can bring comfort for sure, but when we make decisions it is very important that we do so based on what is Actually real, and not what Feels comforting.
Funny thing is, if I had simply seen this statement of his, on my own, I could probably have agreed that it was a rather ok statement. Breaking down his arguments one by one like this really help accentuate how off character it is for him
Or he's just being polite so as not to alienate potential viewers.
This is what the Church of England is like (fortunately for all of us here). Desperate not to offend, trying to be all things to all people, the 'well, I think there's probably something when you die but who knows, Jesus was nice' type of Christianity.
I dont really see the comfort in worshiping a God who can charge you with thought crime and the punishment could be infinite torture I'd you lose the faith. That's not comfort, that's fear.
It’s funny (strange) to me that so many people, with no active spiritual or religious life, bristle at the idea of being called an atheist when they don’t actually believe in any particular god. They just tell themselves “well, there could be something god-like out there some where”, and then consider themselves deep and reasonable.🙄
Centrists gonna center, I guess.
I'm not sure that is "center", it sounds to me like "don't want to offend anyone" or something closer to that.
I claim knowledge that the War god Yahweh of the Israelites does not and could not exist as depicted in the old and new testaments of the King James Bible.
Just for the record, we know for a fact there was a creator that put the big bang in motion. I’m pretty sure his name is Chuck Lorre. 😂
Bazinga!
What if his god is not benevolent, at least to our minds? "Benevolent" is a human invention. Using our adjectives to describe a "god" is just anthropomorphizing it. Here he describes his idea(not the "god's") of an "all powerful" "god" to which the idea would mean nothing. If there were such a "god", it should be obvious that it would not be subject to our evaluations. Whatever it would do would just be what it does. Basically the idea of "god" means nothing because it is supposed to mean everything. That is why there is no definition of it.
BTW, my favorite description of a universe of extraordinary beings or something or other, is in Jonathan Stroud's Bartimaeus books. Have you thought of doing an episode of Ulysses as the first atheist? That case can be made.
Disappointed to hear David Mitchell say that, I thought he would be better informed on the arguments for atheism.
David Mitchell ran smack into Epicurus's Trilema. If God cannot prevent evil, he is not all powerful. If God is unwilling to prevent evil, he is not all good. If he is both all powerful and all good, from whence does evil spring.
This is the foundation for the problem with evil. Mitchell's God is self contradictory in light of the world we live in. There is so much suffering and destruction that should be preventable by this God that has little or not relation to the humans, so it cannot be explained away as original sin.
I'm an agnostic atheist, but I also term myself a gnostic ayahwehist
It sure is a comfort to so many that everyone else other than them will be put in hell forever.
More and more, the world is waking up to the fact that "benevolent god" is an oxymoron.
David's longing for the comforting deity of his youth is understandable, but we all must grow up eventually.
There's only one god who is benevolent - the Christian god.
@@Lerian_V ahh yes, how benevolent to kill millions upon millions of animals in a global flood. Maan, isnt he just lovely?😍
And I mean just look at his awesome design of some of earths viruses. How easily some of them can kill little children in just mere days😲 Wow, what an amazing and kind being🥺🥰
@@justadude7752 Humans and animals die because the of human evil. Glad to know that you believe in good and evil. But I have a question for you. Is there an objective [standard of] good and evil?
Viruses, just like bacteria, are good and useful when they are not attacking, for example, human beings.
@@Lerian_V dafuq have animals to do with human evil? xD thats the dumbest statement of you that I have seen in this comment section yet. Also, please stay specific. How does human evil excuse GENOCIDE of every human being and other animals except for two according to your fairy tale book? Also what did the children of that time do exactly? Please be specific with that one aswell. What justifices such cruelty to drown them all?
This also doesnt mean I believe in objective good and evil. Cuz such a thing doesnt make any logical sense. Morals have to do with values and values, by definition, are not inherent to things. Things only get value by other concious beings that can understand and/or feel such a need for the concept. And since morality is a tool to figure out what ideas of morailty work the best and are justified by the best logic that we have it only makes sense to question the morality of your book of fairies aswell (remember I aint even judging a God-being here since you people never even bother to proivde sufficient evidence for it in the first place. So the only one I'm really questioning here is you).
Another thing tho on that. Even your God doesnt make it objective even if that being were to exist. It just means that being has its own likes and dislikes. There is no logical reason why one should ought to follow that being any more than your preferences or mine.
But they *do* do that. So your response does nothing to fix the problem in your worldview of a world with such viruses living and a being that is supposedly giving a damn. Espacially when it also created the ones that DO attack human beings. Even if just animals where to suffer from them, still wouldnt make your being benevolent at the least. So you'd still have to wiggle your way out of that contradiction. Do have lots of fun with that😉 but even with supposed good viruses their use only come then into play when they cant sufficiently kill or harm the host (such as retroviruses or less harmful versions of herpesviruses) so the only reason why the host can work out a positiv outcome with these is because the virus wasnt actually good enough at being a virusxD cuz otherwise it would kill or harm the host aswell, dummy. aint that just wonderfully silly design🥰
I'm quite a fan of David's work,... but here comes the but,.... agnosticism can be a position held alongside atheism, because I would describe myself as an Agnostic Atheist. I don't have any faith in god(s), hence atheist, but I also think it's beyond mortal comprehension to know if a god could or could not exist (with absolute certainty in this, or any pre-existing Universe), hence agnostic. I don't want to tear down other people's religion, and in this matter I am a secularist, and want freedom of, and from religion. People should be free to practice whatever religion they like, with the caveat that they do not force it on others, or seek to impose it's tenets via law. I think indoctrinating children into a religion is wrong, and while some people say this is cultural, It's more tribal, and we should be looking to foster newer attitudes to people who are not the same as us.
It's so disheartening when someone one admires says something so disingenuous & ignorant.
Thank you Mister Deity for an excellent brief look into the comments of "Funny Man" Mr Mitchell. Frankly, I already had him pegged as an Atheist. Somehow, I never imagined him getting down on his knees to kiss the ring of a bloke in a frock. Mr Mitchell seems too cynical to want a Deity to exist. I am genuinely surprised that he calls himself an Agnostic. I wonder what Victoria has to say about all this?
She would congratulate him for being polite and not alienating potential viewers.
@@ziploc2000 Good Call.
We cannot disprove fairies, therefore it is not rational to not believe in fairies. You must believe in fairies at least a little bit, because that is the only rational position given that we cannot disprove them.
No. You can accept the null position, and neither believe nor disbelieve.
Also, I would suggest the evidence against the existence of fairies is enough to justify the disbelief in them.
Does David Mitchell apply his "agnosticism" to Santa, fairies, leprechauns, dragons etc?
While technically I am also an "agnostic atheist" I would say "there is no god" to the same level of confidence that David Mitchell might say "there are no fairies", unless maybe DM would also find that to be absurd.
Excellent point. Technically, we're all agnostic on the question of whether fairies exist, but in practice there's really no reason to allow for that possibility. Same with gods. Agnosticism assumes that belief is the default position.
But that is not at all how statistics & science works. We are capable of concluding (in science & statistics) that a thing doesn't exists - even if (philosophically) that's not possible. It's perfectly rational to say if there is no evidence for god then there is no god. We do it all day everyday in science in every context you can imagine.
Why take away the comfort of the religious when you can snatch blankets from infants, candy from babies, or if you’re feeling strong enough rip out the carpet from under the feet of the elderly?
Because the blankets, candy, and carpets aren't causing the people in question to abuse, torment, and murder others.
I don't know if I am a rarity among agnostic atheists, but when I left evangelical christianity and embraced atheism, it was actually a moment of joy ... There was no more grand dictator of whatuniversal meaning I must believe in and conform to. Instead, I realized that I could create my own meanings, based on the kind of world I would like to live in ... and that world would certainly not include an all-powerful ruling monarch who would send people to eternal torture for not believing in him in the right way. As to oblivion? It is simply another word for nothing. Eternal torture (hell) or eternal boredom (heaven) are things worthy of fear. Nothing is not. I won't deny that I fear the possible suffering of a sickness or severe injury that might lead to my death, but death itself does not frighten me at all. When I was a christian ... I was.
I consider myself an Agnostic Atheist, I tend to add the word Agnostic when I'm asked, and like him I'd love to know there's a gawd and a life after death, but being realistic I accept that there more than likely isn't anything like that and I feel quite Gnostic about it even though I'm not actually Gnostic, I feel like there's a big difference between how you feel and what you claim about it, I feel like there's more likely no gawd or gawds that exists in (or outside of) our universe, and I'm probably correct in that feeling, but I have no evidence other than my gut feeling so I use the term Agnostic, I think people might misunderstand why some Atheists use the Gnostic term instead, the evidence for such a thing might not ever be possible but realistically speaking if there were any gawds I'm sure they'd have let us know by now, that's enough for me to "feel" it's the correct answer, but if I'm being intellectually honest in using these terms I'll always be Agnostic 😁
COMPLETELY AGREE. I hate when rational people suspend their rationality or invoke their mental laziness as it pertains to other people's assertions/claims. David seems like a good guy, whose gullible "get-along" attitude allows him to reject objective criticisms of civilization.
He's being a dullard...and literally opposing the goodness he says he advocates.
If You believe in a god? You're a theist of some flavor. If You do not? You are an atheist of some flavor. Full-stop.
IF one is using the term God as some unknown X, then I can grant that claiming that such doesn't exist is absurd, since X is an unknown. However, IF the term God denotes a claim, then it follows that IF that claim can be evaluated, then an adjudication predicated on a scope of knowledge can be applied.
In defense of gnostic atheism...
If I claimed that God doesn't exist and the term correlates to a claim wherein the term is essentially equivalent to a square circle, then it follows that such an adjudication is correct within the scope of the modeling being employed to make such an adjudication.
If I claimed that God is pragmatically non-existent, then such is correct (so long as the claim remains pragmatically non-existent) within the context of the individual making such claim.
If God is claimed to be omni-benevolent and material being linked to such a claim is in opposition to such a claim, then that claim is false as a byproduct of the totality of the claim being put forth. This would apply to ANY contradiction wherein such is an aspect of the claim being put forth.
The point being that a claim of knowledge is predicated on what is being evaluated, thus IF the evaluation is based on claims which can be adjudicated and there is sufficient knowledge wherein such can be adjudicated, then it follows that knowledge with respect to the claim being put forth is possible depending on the claim being presented.
There seems to be some sort of weird switching between a claim which can be possibly adjudicated and some unknown. The evaluations are being made on the claims as opposed to an unknown, since, if it were an unknown, there can be no actual discussion. Thus, the exchanges is about a known - the claims being made. If the exchange is being purported to be about an unknown, then the whole of such a discussion is inherently absurd.
I had to look up Tourorists!
Oh nooo!
I've just been on a renewed Mitchell streak ("Back" is amazing, BTW), now I'm a bit disappointed :/
Atheism flavors, "new" and "mature".
My last stop before atheism was a belief in a deistic god... the watchmaker who creates the universe, turns it on and lets it run by itself. Then I thought, even if that's true... what's the point? What's the use of believing in a god you can't interact with... even if it's just to plead, 'Don't barbecue your flock or cook us in your wok'.(hope I got the lyrics right)
Yeah. I’ve never understood the appeal of deism. I can’t care about anything or anyone that doesn’t (or can’t) care about me.
How much for front rows seats to a debate between Dave and Sam Harris
What's this? David very almost falling foul of an appeal to emotion and then blundering straight into whataboutism? Come on David. You're better than that.
No he is not.
There's a further wrinkle to agnosticism. There are those who state they personally do not know if there is a god or not and there those who state that it cannot be known by anyone.
If an all-powerful God existed, He could definitely make His presence known. I think there’s all kinds of evidence which COULD demonstrate God’s existence. If Christians could routinely perform the miracles Jesus said they’d be able to perform, that would get me 99% of the way there.
@@misterdeity I absolutely agree. However, as David demonstrates, self-declared "agnostics" of the latter sort delude themselves into avoiding the question entirely. Just as christians do.
About the only argument that gets close to gnostic atheism for me, is the reversal of the infinite regress argument for an eternal god. Logically it seems to me that any thinking agency could not exist eternally because it would involve an infinite regress of thoughts.
5:18 The Jain Wars.
Were those the Sitar Wars
Tarzan was definitely not a Jain.
(I like that. Reward for me. Perhaps a grace toke.)
I've read a bit on violence and the human condition. It is a fair statement to say that certain areas of violence are understood but in general we have a poor understanding of human violence. Human violence is a reflection of mental health and mental health is still in a primitive state of sedation by drugs. David seems to think he knows why people are violent. This is great news! He should get himself published. As for as just hand waving goes I like Weinberg's observation, "Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things, but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion."
The thing is... Not all theists are religious. I consider myself to be an agnostic theist. Nonreligious, rejected the Christian notion of God I was raised to believe in. Too many inconsistencies in the bible. I don't think we can ever know who God is, only who he isn't. Religion kills true spirituality. True spirituality is about understanding the depth of our experiences as living beings and our connection to all things. Has nothing to do with believing in God or not. I believe hell is an exclusive club if it exists at all, for those rare few who truly delight in the suffering of others. It sickens me when other theists call atheists "lost". Always more drawn to critical thinkers. I have great respect for the minds of Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, and Sam Harris. I'm contrary, but I really do feel that's the only way to be honest. Cause we don't know, but many have personal experiences that lead us to contemplate the possible existence of a higher form of consciousness. Aware of all & greatly loving towards us. Why are we allowed to suffer if God exists with power to prevent/stop it? I am angered over this question myself, I cannot answer it. Life may be some kind of purification process that feels like punishment at times, meant to reveal our true nature... Not to God, but I think to ourselves... When faced with our own flaws exposed, we come into greater understanding. Saying God doesn't exist, is a definitive statement. It's basically the same as saying it's not possible. I'm keeping my heart open to something beyond this world and what is known...because I am human... and I don't know. If God doesn't exist? Doesn't affect me. There is still peace for all in the end. You can't regret not having a life if you don't exist. You can't miss anyone you've lost or regret any experience missed out on. The atoms that made us up will no longer be able to process anything. I do, however, think there needs to be accountability in the end, for those who did commit truly atrocious acts in secret, and got away with it all their lives. There isn't always justice in this world. I like to believe there will be in the next. Thank you for allowing me to share my personal view. Also... Mad respect for you Brian. I find you entertaining and delightful and I love the challenges you pose to religious views. Even my own. You're awesome!
I've heard plenty of folks smarter than me call your gnostic atheism simply atheism, and your agnostic atheism simply agnosticism.
Tomato, tomahto.
I'm as surprised as you that this individual doesn't ackowledge the striking differences between an actual benevolent God and the God of his childhood holy book. Sadly this is common! If more people noticed the difference we'd have fewer followers of the Abrahamic religions.
Two of the world's most famous Atheists, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and Richard Dawkins, consider themselves to be Agnostics. Or as Mr. D. would probably say, Atheist Agnostic. I am not JUST an Atheist. I'm an anti-theist.
Here here!!! And there there too!!!
Where they supposed to be misspelled "-nositc"?
Agnostic Atheism compared to Gnostic Theism simply seems to step on less toes. I am confident that Agnostic Atheism is preferred by many Atheists because of that. However Gnostic Atheism still appears to hold more water, from the ever shifting ontological goal-posts to the countless books claiming the inerrant word of God. I am confident in the non-existence of the tribal war god of Abraham, as I am confident in the non-existence of Azathoth, Zeus, Odin or any other fictional claims or characters. Such as Alexander The Great is not related to Hellenistic gods other than through fictitious tales as to Joseph Smith and his supposed connection to the tribal war god of Abraham. As I often say. . . Conviction to fiction in lieu of reality.
Do a video on fr Mike schmitz.
This is one of your best clips and i agree with your viewpoint.
However do you allow your imagination to hope that we all will continue to exist in some form after our phyisical death
Note that "hope" and "belief" are two very different things. You can _hope_ for a nice comfy afterlife, while also not _believing_ that you'll get it.
@@Brickerbrack your remark does not follow! Hope and lack of belief oppose each other. No one said the after life would be cosy for it may well be similar to this life with challenges .