• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

A Christian Deconversion (videos)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zaptruder said:
Because the tact you take embodies the typical approach,

Hah?!

The typical approach is the nice and polite one. Being absolutely forthright is the only thing that makes the New Atheists new.

and you're also arguing it seems against the 'soft' point of view, rather than arguing for a hard approach.

I'm sorry, but this is bullshit.

This whole exchange started with a post by Sentry stating that atheists should be like the guy in the videos. If I've said anything against the 'soft' point of view, it was for defensive purposes, so to speak.

And that's the way it always works. I can easily find 10 articles that basically tell the 'hard' atheists to either shut up or be more respectful of religion (and calls us names like Fundamentalist Atheists), while I doubt you can find even a single article that does the opposite, except perhaps if the article is a reply to an article of the first type!
 
Furcas said:
This whole exchange started with a post by Sentry stating that atheists should be like the guy in the videos. If I've said anything against the 'soft' point of view, it was for defensive purposes, so to speak.
Now that I look back at that, it sort of came out wrong, but I still feel that if an atheist/agnostic looks to seriously discuss religion, this approach is the one that should be taken (again, imo). I was sort of assuming the meaning atheist in the context of debating with religious ideas, i.e. in a conversation with a christian, not simply as a standalone atheist who doesn't believe in god. Hope that makes sense... My point was just we shouldn't be perceived as hostile (or religion bashers) but simply as people who see no merit for religious beliefs, that's all..

Sorry if it came across as pushing you into a corner or something. It was general.
 
Furcas said:
Hah?!

The typical approach is the nice and polite one. Being absolutely forthright is the only thing that makes the New Atheists new.



I'm sorry, but this is bullshit.

This whole exchange started with a post by Sentry stating that atheists should be like the guy in the videos. If I've said anything against the 'soft' point of view, it was for defensive purposes, so to speak.

And that's the way it always works. I can easily find 10 articles that basically tell the 'hard' atheists to either shut up or be more respectful of religion (and calls us names like Fundamentalist Atheists), while I doubt you can find even a single article that does the opposite, except perhaps if the article is a reply to an article of the first type!

Typical GAF internet approach. You're been way too defensive man.

Point of the soft approach is not so much to 'respect the religion', but to 'respect the person'. Disarming a religious person is not dissimilar to disarming a bomb; you gotta make the right moves... otherwise the whole project blows up in your face.

Agitating directly isn't a great approach. Might work for some, but in most cases you're going to polarize the person.

The hard approach might work in the context of shoring up support from less ardent atheists; letting them know that it's ok to be loud and proud of their atheist beliefs so to speak... but the primary utility of that approach is in generating social noise and reducing social pressure (i.e. setting the social mood - just as the social mood towards sex in the last 100 years have changed dramatically); these elements working on an individual is no where near as caustic as taking a hard direct approach against them, and thus significantly more effective in that sense.

You can take my comments as a direct attack on yourself, or you can choose to let them stand as general comments, quoting you as a general point of focus in this discussion.
 
The aggravation felt by agnostics/atheists who are told to educate themselves on religion stems from the fact that they don't think it should be in issue in the first place. I would resent having to study physics and color theory to explain why water is blue to someone who thinks it's colorless. (my analogy is kind of broken but you get the point..)
 
RubxQub said:
Just finished watching the Lawrence Krauss video. Thanks for posting that Mumei, was incredibly awesome. I forgot how much of a hard-on I get for this type of discussion.

I think my biggest problem is that my brain can't comprehend (and nothing I've seen or heard has convinced me otherwise despite my own mental capacity) that you can have something from nothing.

In the video I just watched from Lawrence Krauss, he talks about how a flat universe can be created from nothing due to various theories. The problem is that that theory is entirely derived from reverse engineering our current conditions. Based on our observations of "now" we can determine what things were like then.

The concept of nothing creating something that Krauss talks about still depends on these theories explaining how nothing creates something...but what created the laws in which these theories operate? Mathematically it all works out, but practically it doesn't.

...now it's entirely possible I don't quite get what Krauss was getting at in the lecture I just watched, so perhaps it'd be best if I spent time reading his work...however I still can't grasp how nothing creates something, even if it's explained with math or theory. The laws of the universe that we're interpreting to discover it's origin had to have come from something.

My understanding is that the basic gist of it is that "nothing" as a state of being is inherently unstable at its most fundamental level, and will always produce something.

It is a bit counterintuitive, though from what I understand - about as little as you do, probably - that's essentially what is being said.
 
"...but finally I couldn't take the cognitive dissonance any longer, and turned to the internet."

I love it when he says this! I immediately imagined him running home and hurriedly starting a new thread on GAF.
 
pj said:
The aggravation felt by agnostics/atheists who are told to educate themselves on religion stems from the fact that they don't think it should be in issue in the first place. I would resent having to study physics and color theory to explain why water is blue to someone who thinks it's colorless. (my analogy is kind of broken but you get the point..)

Your analogy is really broken.

Because the translation of your analogy is: I would resent having to study (things that reinforce atheism/agnostic stance) to explain (that stance) to someone who is religious.


From what I understand, you're actually trying to say: I would resent having to study (things that reinforce religion) to explain (the atheist/agnostic stance) to someone that is religious.
 
RubxQub said:
I think my biggest problem is that my brain can't comprehend (and nothing I've seen or heard has convinced me otherwise despite my own mental capacity) that you can have something from nothing.

In the video I just watched from Lawrence Krauss, he talks about how a flat universe can be created from nothing due to various theories. The problem is that that theory is entirely derived from reverse engineering our current conditions. Based on our observations of "now" we can determine what things were like then.

As a tangent:

I think in the same video (or maybe another one of his), he actually says something along the lines of: "and it's incredible that we're in the right time and place to observe all these things... because if we had occurred a few billion years later, once the stars had drifted out of sight, even using the same tools/technologies and methodologies we would arrive as different; faulty conclusions, because the necessary evidence simply won't be there."

And what I want to know is... how do we know that this hasn't already happened for some of the evidence out there? How can we be sure that we've got all the necessary evidence to construct a full picture of our origin?

Mumei said:
My understanding is that the basic gist of it is that "nothing" as a state of being is inherently unstable at its most fundamental level, and will always produce something.

It is a bit counterintuitive, though from what I understand - about as little as you do, probably - that's essentially what is being said.

It's funny to think that after a century apart from the idea of the ether... that the idea could be reinvented in this form; nothing is no longer nothing... it is nothing, but with a little something extra! The ability to support reality as we know it! (albeit in a way differently to how we originally imagined it).
 
RubxQub said:
The video doesn't end as conclusively as I think the creator had hoped. Stating that God's existence creates a very complicated answer, therefore it is not the correct one is a very weak conclusion. It seemingly ignores that it's very possible a God does exist in the conclusion because it would be very inconvenient to explain and rationalize.

A very well put together video, regardless, just a weak conclusion in my opinion.

I agree with you, although it wasn't the conclusion that I was looking for. It was his journey that really struck me. I believe the author said there would likely be more follow up videos. I'm not certain that was the final video, even though it was titled 'The End'.
 
Zaptruder said:
Your analogy is really broken.

Because the translation of your analogy is: I would resent having to study (things that reinforce atheism/agnostic stance) to explain (that stance) to someone who is religious.


From what I understand, you're actually trying to say: I would resent having to study (things that reinforce religion) to explain (the atheist/agnostic stance) to someone that is religious.

Yeah, it's 3am and I was trying to shoehorn an actual experience of mine without really explaining it. My roommate is a bioinformatics major and thinks he's Mr Science now. He was convinced that I was an idiot for thinking water was blue. Asking him what color water is at night when viewed with a white colored flashlight didn't convince him, showing him pictures of blue ice didn't convince him. I finally gave up and looked up the science behind it and it of course supported me, but by then he had "lost interest" in the debate.

I resented having to research science to convince someone who thought they knew about science. The more I think about it, the worse this analogy gets. I guess I just wanted to say how stupid my roommate is........

But I still think agnostics resent being told to research religion. If you're agnostic or atheist then you most likely believe that religions are entirely man made, and therefore have zero weight to you as an argument for or against the divine. To be sure, they have significant historical significance and their effects should be studied, but they have no value in and of themselves.
 
pj said:
Yeah, it's 3am and I was trying to shoehorn an actual experience of mine without really explaining it. My roommate is a bioinformatics major and thinks he's Mr Science now. He was convinced that I was an idiot for thinking water was blue. Asking him what color water is at night when viewed with a white colored flashlight didn't convince him, showing him pictures of blue ice didn't convince him. I finally gave up and looked up the science behind it and it of course supported me, but by then he had "lost interest" in the debate.

I resented having to research science to convince someone who thought they knew about science. The more I think about it, the worse this analogy gets. I guess I just wanted to say how stupid my roommate is........

But I still think agnostics resent being told to research religion. If you're agnostic or atheist then you most likely believe that religions are entirely man made, and therefore have zero weight to you as an argument for or against the divine. To be sure, they have significant historical significance and their effects should be studied, but they have no value in and of themselves.

And to some extent, I'd agree. But I think it's important to have knowledge of some of the stuff, to know where the self-reinforcing fallacies lie... and to easily point out the contradictions in things.
But the main thing that any aspiring atheist/agnostic seeking to 'deprogram' someone is to know the catches that can set someone into a defensive stance where they essentially stop listening to anything coming from you, irrespective of the rationality/logic behind it.
 
RubxQub said:
Just finished watching the Lawrence Krauss video. Thanks for posting that Mumei, was incredibly awesome. I forgot how much of a hard-on I get for this type of discussion.

I think my biggest problem is that my brain can't comprehend (and nothing I've seen or heard has convinced me otherwise despite my own mental capacity) that you can have something from nothing.

In the video I just watched from Lawrence Krauss, he talks about how a flat universe can be created from nothing due to various theories. The problem is that that theory is entirely derived from reverse engineering our current conditions. Based on our observations of "now" we can determine what things were like then.

The concept of nothing creating something that Krauss talks about still depends on these theories explaining how nothing creates something...but what created the laws in which these theories operate? Mathematically it all works out, but practically it doesn't.

...now it's entirely possible I don't quite get what Krauss was getting at in the lecture I just watched, so perhaps it'd be best if I spent time reading his work...however I still can't grasp how nothing creates something, even if it's explained with math or theory. The laws of the universe that we're interpreting to discover it's origin had to have come from something.

I think what Krauss was saying is that our idea of 'nothing' isn't nothing at all, there is actually something there. There is a quote out there somewhere (not sure by who) that goes something like "The Universe is not only queerer than we suppose. It is queerer than we can suppose."
 
Zaptruder said:
And to some extent, I'd agree. But I think it's important to have knowledge of some of the stuff, to know where the self-reinforcing fallacies lie... and to easily point out the contradictions in things.
But the main thing that any aspiring atheist/agnostic seeking to 'deprogram' someone is to know the catches that can set someone into a defensive stance where they essentially stop listening to anything coming from you, irrespective of the rationality/logic behind it.

I think most religious people just tune you out as soon as they discover you're trying to undermine their faith, regardless of how polite, logical and knowledgeable about their religion you are.

That's why I gave up trying to convince people. I became an atheist at 12 or 13, went through the dickhead phase of antagonizing god in front of my christian siblings, "hey god, if you're not a fag, make lightning strike nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnow!". Then the arguing stage where I tried to convince people that god didn't exist by telling them how stupid religion is. Now I've chilled out a bit and just wish people would figure it out on their own so it stops impacting my life.
 
RubxQub said:
I think my biggest problem is that my brain can't comprehend (and nothing I've seen or heard has convinced me otherwise despite my own mental capacity) that you can have something from nothing.
RubxAnim-4.gif

False advertisement.
 
pj said:
I think most religious people just tune you out as soon as they discover you're trying to undermine their faith, regardless of how polite, logical and knowledgeable about their religion you are.

That's why I gave up trying to convince people. I became an atheist at 12 or 13, went through the dickhead phase of antagonizing god in front of my christian siblings, "hey god, if you're not a fag, make lightning strike nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnow!". Then the arguing stage where I tried to convince people that god didn't exist by telling them how stupid religion is. Now I've chilled out a bit and just wish people would figure it out on their own so it stops impacting my life.
Pretty much.. I tend to go after something personal first though, for example a friend of mine is a 'jesus lover' (she literally has a banner in her room, on her facebook, etc) and we share a friend who's gay. She's also in large support of gay rights. So I went that route once, sort of telling her she's not really a christian (in reality very few are tbh) and that she must not be reading the bible etc. It was my first time at this type of thing, so she right away brushed it off (almost ignoring) but she eventually broke and said something along the lines of 'gays weren't accepted back then in public so jesus had to say that or else people wouldn't have followed him'. Obviously she's just a teen with a religious family and knows nothing about nothing, so I didn't pursue it much further at the time. However I have gotten through a bit to my family, but very slowly..

On the topic of the big bang though, I should say again that we know very little. It is made out to seem like we have all the answers but it's still an absolute mystery, therefore nothing is certain (like if the universe was created from 'nothing'). It's pointless for that to be a religious center point imo personally
 
Seems like he came to his senses seeing the many paradoxes of the bible. Can't blame him and all we can do is welcome him to the party of freedom and wisdom.
 
That was a very interesting series of videos, lots of interesting recollections. I like these kinds of videos, especially when they really dig into the personal aspects of losing one's faith. It's messy, scary, and going over that "point of no return" seems to be a common thread amongst the stories of "de-converts".

There's another (shorter) series of "transition" Youtube videos that some of Gaf may be familiar with, by a user named Theramin Trees:

Transition to Atheism
Atheism as Congruence
No True Scotsman
 
Furcas said:
There are other ways to change a society. For example, the gay movement didn't further their cause with polite arguments, because they were aware that their opponents were unlikely to be enlightened anyway. Instead they did everything they could to get out of the closet they had been forced into by the rest of society, and they demonized their opponents by portraying them as bigots. The guy who came up with the word 'homophobe' is a genius.
I'd rather emulate something that worked instead of something that gets routinely clowned still by the same kind of people we have to work against.
 
Napoleonthechimp said:
The best gift my parents gave me was never forcing any religious belief on me. Now as an adult I'm even willing to question my preconceptions of reality...
elaborate please. serious request...
 
Himuro said:
Uh, it's obvious? Since he had no religion forced on him, he can think for himself. When you have a religion from a very young age, it's very hard to break free from it, and even when you do break from the religion itself it's still hard for people to come to accept that they don't believe in God.

Since he has no pressure (social, mental or otherwise) he can freely choose.

How was that not obvious from his post?
I got that part. Sorry I should of bolded, I was refering to the 2nd part.

Napoleonthechimp said:
Now as an adult I'm even willing to question my preconceptions of reality...
 
This thread reminds of the times I wonder whether we makes decisions our selves or have it partly made by influence.

Fusing god with religion, in this case: Christianity, to me, is possibly be a false dichotomy.

On a separate point, I see that there some here who do not think the religious lot belong to the intelligentsia.
 
The Universe has always existed, in one way or another, whether you're religious or atheist.

Ashes1396 said:
This thread reminds of the times I wonder whether we makes decisions our selves or have it partly made by influence.
We are 100% shackled by nature, nurture, prevailing desires, etc. Others call this "fate".
 
Zaptruder said:
As a tangent:

I think in the same video (or maybe another one of his), he actually says something along the lines of: "and it's incredible that we're in the right time and place to observe all these things... because if we had occurred a few billion years later, once the stars had drifted out of sight, even using the same tools/technologies and methodologies we would arrive as different; faulty conclusions, because the necessary evidence simply won't be there."

And what I want to know is... how do we know that this hasn't already happened for some of the evidence out there? How can we be sure that we've got all the necessary evidence to construct a full picture of our origin?

He makes that argument in the video linked as well - if we existed billions of years ago, we may have different observables that predict a completely different model of the universe.

I still find it strange to think about and the anthropic principle (what he calls anthropic mania) is the one last thing that prevents me from committing wholeheartedly to atheism.

The universe isn't specially tailored for us - we just happen to exist in a time where we can see that the universe is specially tailored for us.

It's just a leap that I find very difficult to make - although, of course, I'd rather make that leap than accept any precepts of the three major monotheistic religions.
 
this is unfortunately boiling down to a livejournal about his amazon reviews and pseudo-intellectual pestering of a college professor.
 
Himuro said:
Well, a lot of religious people probably don't question it and taught *not* to question it. That's probably what he means. Since he was raised without having a world view shoved down his throat, he can find his own with ease. He's not straddled by tradition or family.
I understand. I was really just wondering what his current views and conception on reality were. Sounds like a crazy concept to have new thoughts on reality itself, but i was genuinely interested in his thoughts on it. And wanted clarification if he meant what you were talking about, or something else...

No offence Himuro, but I hope he answers for himself. :)
 
Just finished watching it all and I thought it was excellent. I particularly enjoyed the background music; I think its important for non-believers to remember that religion has inspired so much great music and art and that the various cultures created by religious-inspired humans is very similar to what I find so engaging about fantasy worlds in television, books and games. I am a strong atheist but watching this made me realise that Im in no real position to preach or debate since Im ignorant about the bible and cannot truly understand what believing in a religion is and means.

Religious people often believe in religion because that is how they have been brought up. As an atheist its difficult to see whether being brought up in a non-religious, secular environment has led me to believe in an absence of a supernatural being. Were my parents just as bad as those Christians who indoctrinate their children or Jews who circumcise their kids in the name of God? I think what I mean is that its easy to understand why a child brought up as a Christian will probably go on to believe in God for the rest of their lives, but its not quite as easy to pinpoint why I believe what I believe in my own life. I sound weird, but I think that video series does inspire humility.
 
Thanks for the links I have not watched it all

For a long time I did not get why people believe in god or whatever religion.

But I finally recently actually got what I needed to know about god or religion for myself. So much so I would not mind actually being a Pastor/Priest or Spiritual guide.
 
Himuro said:
Well, a lot of religious people probably don't question it and taught *not* to question it. That's probably what he means. Since he was raised without having a world view shoved down his throat, he can find his own with ease. He's not straddled by tradition or family.

The fellow said he can question the preconceptions of reality, so I also agree that an explanation would be nice because, to me, that sounds along the lines of things like "This spoon is only a spoon because I think it is". And, in my opinion, those kind of baseless musings are pretty silly.

I'm all for questioning the world around you, but to phrase it as "the preconceptions of reality" is a bit odd.
 
BowieZ said:
Does science say nothing at all existed before the Big Bang?

As far as I know science is not sure. The big bang wasn't 'something from nothing' per-se. They assume that all the matter was there, but it was condensed and in one point only. This says nothing about the membrane or multiverse theory. There are many things in science that science is unaware of, or uncertain of. Doesn't mean it will always stay that way... but this is a topic for another thread perhaps..
 
BowieZ said:
Does science say nothing at all existed before the Big Bang?

Science doesn't say what happened before the big bang.

All we know is if we rewind the universe modelling it after all the data we have collected thus far it looks like all matter and energy in the universe is emanating from a single point around 12-15 billion years ago.

Religion demands the answer to what came before that moment but it's really not relevant to Science. It's not the job of science to make assumptions based on zero evidence.
 
...So, I skipped to the Bible ones, since I can get a good idea of a person's background, manner of thinking, and general understanding of their holy texts by such thing.

This is good as an explanation of a person's evolution (excepting certain parts like 7:30 in the 1st video), but really, really bad as theology. I don't want to mock Pentecostals, but geez. The guy didn't even understand covenant theology, which is kind of the entire basis of the Christian religion. He didn't know about canons or canonical criticism. He subscribed to weirdo apologists. I had a friend whose mind was blown by Religion 101 at college, and she was equally grating. Are the other videos more intelligent?

Edit: Oh, dear. I'm at 3:53 on "personal relationship" and I'm done. For the record, I'm a theologically conservative Christian myself.
 
Mumei said:
My understanding is that the basic gist of it is that "nothing" as a state of being is inherently unstable at its most fundamental level, and will always produce something.

It is a bit counter-intuitive, though from what I understand - about as little as you do, probably - that's essentially what is being said.
I get that part, but that still implies that there are some forces at work to make that something from nothing.

Nothing just doesn't become something by sitting there. All the theories about how you can create something from nothing implies that something needs to happen...but what kick-starts that something? How did this nothing even come to exist in the first place, and what created the properties in which nothing operates so that it could turn into something?

His definition of "nothing" doesn't really imply nothingness. He talks about dark energy and dark matter being "nothing". What created that stuff? In my mind, this isn't a question science could ever answer, and therefore the potential for a supreme being will always exist.

I really should give his books a read though to see if he does provide a reasonable explanation, but I really doubt it's possible.
 
Whilst I agree that athiesm is not a religious belief, I do find it amusing that its school of thought, also holds a 'welcome to the truth' sign.

When one criticises atheism, as a school of thought, typically, it appears that you cannot do it and not be thought of as the opposition.

I think a good mental exercise to increase our understanding of the various ideas is to play devils advocate. The very best of us can argue with all the rigiours of intelligence for both for and against the existence of a god, however you define this term to be.

Influence, as I mentioned before, is difficult for me. In pure science, it doesn't matter that Newton came up with gravity, or Einstein came up with the theory of relativity. But this argument that you need to be an intellectual to be an athiest, and that those who do not agree are brainwashed or don't 'get it', to me, is flawed.

There is no god detector. I think what religions show as proof is typically its doctrine. I prefer to leave it to individuals to study and decide whether they see this as valid proof for or against the existence of a god/gods.

As far the 'politeness' of argument rhetoric goes, I see no absolute need for or against this.
 
RubxQub said:
I get that part, but that still implies that there are some forces at work to make that something from nothing.

Nothing just doesn't become something by sitting there. All the theories about how you can create something from nothing implies that something needs to happen...but what kick-starts that something? How did this nothing even come to exist in the first place, and what created the properties in which nothing operates so that it could turn into something?

His definition of "nothing" doesn't really imply nothingness. He talks about dark energy and dark matter being "nothing". What created that stuff? In my mind, this isn't a question science could ever answer, and therefore the potential for a supreme being will always exist.

I really should give his books a read though to see if he does provide a reasonable explanation, but I really doubt it's possible.

You're looking for an explanation and there may be none. It's possible that matter may have always existed, and that it never needed to be created at all. We only search for purpose like this because we have a life with a starting point and an end. It's hard for us to understand, or even accept that matter could have always existed and that time stretches to infinite both in the past, and for the future.
 
New video update: it appears the series is continuing. The latest video is called 'Losing God'. While it's a bit over dramatic, I can empathize entirely as my feelings were very similar internally when I lost my faith.

Deconversion: Losing God

To most who were never religious it might sound like an emotional farce, but the feelings of isolation and confusion are pretty shocking for many newly deconverted people. Especially given that the world seems so much different afterwards. To me it was a willful (yet unwilling at once) abandonment of ideas long instilled since infancy and adolescence. A hard thing to do IMO once well into adulthood.

It also appears that there will be more videos afterwards with an annotation at the end of the video leading into a section on atheism (the video appears not to be made yet however). Will update thread again when more videos come.
 
wayward archer said:
Science doesn't say what happened before the big bang.

All we know is if we rewind the universe modelling it after all the data we have collected thus far it looks like all matter and energy in the universe is emanating from a single point around 12-15 billion years ago.

Religion demands the answer to what came before that moment but it's really not relevant to Science. It's not the job of science to make assumptions based on zero evidence.
So you have issue with zoku88's claim, then, not mine. I never spoke for scientists. :)
 
I've updated the OP with part 3 of these videos (and also the introductory vids):

3.0 Atheism: A New Way of Seeing God

Great video, and it sounds like it will continue on a bit longer. There is a brief section in this video I wasn't expecting where the author talks about almost going insane, believing he is the messiah for a bit during his deconversion :lol Great video though.
 
Atramental said:
Yeah, him thinking that he was Jesus made go "Whoa! What?" :lol

Yeah it sounds insane. When I deconverted, I never experienced the "shock" of being let go from a worldview and way of life so quickly. As a result I didn't enter into any kind of self defense mechanism psychologically. Personally my deconversion happened slowly over a couple or few years, so that I barely even knew it was happening until one day I could admit that I no longer believed in a god because all of my support pillars had dissipated over time.
 
Two new videos (updated OP as well)


3.1 Atheism: Definitions

3.2 Atheism - Nontheistic Gods

I've argued before that agnosticism precedes atheism in most cases; meaning that most atheists are also agnostics, and while the two ideas are not mutually exclusive, they are also answers to two different questions. 'Do you hold belief in a god/gods?' (theism/atheism), and 'To what degree are you certain of a god/gods existence?' (gnosticism/agnosticism). I'm glad to see the definitions here properly represented.

The below chart helps illustrate some of these definitions

grid.png


In general, I've found that most atheists I've met are in square 1, while most theists I've met are in square 4 (I know this is not true with everyone it's just my own observation) I think there is a lot of confusion regarding the differences between atheism, agnosticism, and certain theistic beliefs. The second video addresses some of these theistic ideas, such as panpsychism, panentheism, and deism. The second video is very compelling, and if you were ever in a similar situation I'm sure it'll strike a note (as it did with me).
 
The video and the reaction of a handful of aggro atheist types in this thread (well, one in particular), remind me about the flaw in the perspective of the hyper-aggressive tough guy atheist. This flaw has always been embodied best to me, in the remarks of one particular atheist a number of years ago.

This fellow, we'll call him Z, said the weirdest thing in bbs thread relating to Greek philosophy. Now it was clear Z was a jackass based on his aggressive, look-at-me-I'm-a-fucking-hardcore-skeptic attitude earlier in the thread.

So suddenly Z bursts out that the ancient Greeks were fuckin' idiots anyway, because they made up bullshit like gods and pantheons. These things were all clearly insane, and the Greeks, just like every other "ancient crude peoples" until, presumably, the precise generation Z saw himself a part of, were all just ignorant and deluded, and could barely think.

To which, others responded, the ancient Greeks were not insane (as a general observation). That they had gods, and conjectured that gods were responsible for some elements of nature and the behavior of the world, was just part of the process of human exploration of nature. To simplify it, people came up with the best explanation they could based on the observations and information they had available. Believing in a god for say, an ancient Greek, was quite reasonable. "insanity" is not merely believing in one thing that another person either thinks, or has proven to themselves, to be untrue or incorrect.

Z would have none of it. He had already created a giant category of "batshit insane stupidity" and deposited giant swaths of human thought - such as "gods" - into that box wholesale. Context didn't matter for him. The idea that people are quite sane to believe in something proven true or shown to be likely /within the framework of their own knowledge/ was irrelevant.

Modern aggro atheists remind me of Z. They believe that anyone who thinks differently from them should be justly and universally mocked and derided for being stupid, ignorant, and perhaps insane, because the aggro atheist has discovered The Clear and Obvious Truth, and this obvious truth should be instantly visible to all other people at a casual glance - regardless of their own background, education, cultural inheritance, personal observations and experience. The aggro atheist, like a religious fundamentalist, has constructed a locked reality box into which nothing may enter or leave. Truth is inside, "insanity and stupidity" is on the outside, and that's it. In all my experience, nobody is more equally unscientific and irrational than a religious fundamentalist or a seething aggro self-professed atheist.

The truth that many atheists find unacceptable and deny, is that the vast majority of the world's religions human beings are not "crazy", not insane, not deluded, and not unintelligent - within their intellectual and cultural context. Their brains and reasoning faculties are working just fine. The average religious person is capable of balancing their check book, performing complex and logical tasks, designing microchips, and NotGod forbid, doing science.

(In that old internet thread, Mr. Z responded to the suggestion that religious people were not by definition insane, and could be fully functional, rational people. Z sneered that "Serial killers can be functional and look normal too." Sure they can... except for the fact that they can't stop killing people.)

The aggro athiest has convinced himself that he's on Crazy Planet, a dangerous nuthouse full of broken insane and dangerous lunatics who believe in wacky loony toons wa wa juju. And that he is the soldier of truth. Unfortunately, it isn't that simple; the aggro, militant atheist is in for a world of hurt trying to rip people to shreds to prove he's right and they're stupid.

(For those who never saw my own position, I'm hardly religious, and in point of fact, do not believe "big box" religious institutions such as that created by Christianity can continue to function without evolving, probably into something different.)
 
As an atheist I find that standpoint to be just as annoying as the fundamental theist's. It also won't get you anywhere. I am glad to see there are videos online with a more calm, rational and understanding type of atheism, than the rampant, militant types that always seem to steal the spotlight. It's a shame.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom