Is Atheism Irrational? 

These people often point to the book by Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion". I've been an atheist for as long as I can remember, never even read it

@@Dystopikachu Same. I have seen snippets of his talks here and there, though I can't recall any of them never listened to any of his full presentations. Guess I am not qualified to be an atheist. Darn.

@avi8r66 I'm pretty sure he said "tenants," which would make it even funnier.

@@Dystopikachu I prefer "The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God" by Prophet Carl Sagan. 🙏 Though I might be biased towards him, so take it with a grain of salt. 👌

​@@YY4Me133 Well, if that's what he claims then he'll have to prove the existence of Landlord of Atheism first!

Logic is clearly ideas generated by electrochemical processes in the brain. The brain is material. Is thought a separate dimension? If it is that doesn't mean there's a weird spiritual dimension full of souls and prayers. It's funny how they say, "materialism is wrong, so that proves God and Jesus and angels and heaven and hell..." Nope, it really doesn't.

I think he meant philosophical materialism as opposed to economical materialism, but fair enough, I guess, he's still milking the system for material wealth with the help of his religion, I suppose.

He sure cares a lot about his bank balance for a spiritual man. Let's just say that he worships Mamon before his Jesus. Lucky for him it won't matter in the end as money is real but Jesus ain't. I just feel sorry for his victims.

Texas should secede. Religiosity would go down significantly.

@@SlowMotionAtheist000 I don't know, states like Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, and the rest are pretty religious. In fact by population, I'd bet that Texas is the most secular of all of those.

Give in to the blessed ignorance!

I don't find absurdism terribly compelling. Specifically because we CAN find meaning and purpose in life. But we have to create it for ourself because there is no such a thing as inherent purpose. #TeamOptimisticNihilism

@@Finckelstein Yes, that would be the existentialst solution to the situation. Both are fine, in my opinion. You CAN create your own meaning, but you don't HAVE TO. For me, accepting the absurd feels the most honest position, but I can see the other way as also completely valid. After all, it's neither suicide nor religion.

You sound a bit like Bernard Black (Dylan Moran) from "Black Books".

You're an absurdist? That's silly!

@@Mythraen I see what you did there.

I think it's just the demon inside him, taking sustenance from some of the food he eats, along with some of his soul.

@@pineapplepenumbra Todd Friel's purpose is to serve as a vessel for the parasitic Jeebus demon.

It's Dr Lyle. He's lying.

Your right. All we do is move even in our sleep our eyes are constantly moving we are never completely still even after death theres still bacteria all over our body moving and moving. Life is just a movie🤣

​@@GodsAphony "Life's a laugh and death's the joke." -Monty Python's Life of Brian

So, what you're saying is that as long as things are moving then a purpose is being served?

@@yesmansam6686 Not necessarily. Moving/movement and moving stuff are slightly different. Unless we are at Zero Kelvin, there is some movement. On the other hand, I in my daily life move things from one place to another in order to accomplish my purpose.

That's precisely the same experience scientists have and preacher's have. They move stuff, flap their gums, poop, and other such functions. It's almost as if we have to rely on objects and, you know, poop. Though, arguably, some of us are more full of shit than others and should poop a little bit more.

I'd like to know which one of them is smart enough to determine that another being actually knows everything. Was this a written test?

@@mrsatire9475 kind of unrelated but it's always really bothered me that I don't even have access to the knowledge that my own being must obviously be privy to. Right? My brain knows all about the biology of my body and how it works. It must. It built it all, and it runs the day to day operations, and its all of its primary functions. ..... so then why did I have to learn about all that shit in school? Why am I not awarecof or have any access to all this knowledge that i must obviously know? ..... makes me wonder who is really running this opetation here? If I don't have security clearance to my own brain,....who does?

@@gregsanich5183 "who does?" I do. So behave.

They also claim their purpose is objective, just like their morals, because someone/something else decided on that purpose. That's still subjective. Their god says don't kill, unless it tells them to and then it's OK. Don't steal, unless it's telling them to steal someone else's land so they can occupy it.

The usual answer is something along the lines of "to serve God by doing [insert whatever]."

@@ziploc2000yeah that’s my biggest issue with the theist version of objective morality. Just because “god” has a Birds Eye view of humanity doesn’t mean god’s morality isn’t subjective. Biblical God is also biased. Having a favored group of people that you created is not objectivity. Idk maybe I just don’t understand it very well.

Dude, religion's point is to give people purpose in life. It changes based off of what religion you're in. This isn't a gotcha, this is just dumb. Lol

It's being a slave to an Almighty Psycho.

You think so? ....all of em, you say , eh?🤔

@@gregsanich5183 have I upset your sensibilities with my use of hyperbole?

@@asyetundetermined no, hyperbole is legitimate satire. I'm sure you can see how your comment could easily be mistaken for simple vitriol bc that's what is readily apperant from how it's presented. The cleverness of your satire in your hyperbole aren't obvious at first glance, alongside & amongst so many countless other similar comments that have much more malicious motives than the cheeky and playful motives you had for yours. So that's my bad, I apologize.

@@gregsanich5183 They're all either idiots or grifters... or both. How's that?

thanks i get that a lot

My position is close to yours. I say, "Maybe you've made a case for an entity that created the universe, but there's absolutely no reason to believe that that entity is described in the Bible." To say, "There must have been a creator, therefore Jesus died for your sins" is absurd. It's like saying, "I'm hungry, therefore there's nuclear power." There's no actual connection. If there is a God, it's very clear that no one knows what it is like. To believe that it's some old man who is very concerned about you touching your own genitals is beyond bizarre.

@@itsROMPERS... I hear you. Even if they had made a good case for a creator (which they haven't), how does that validate the Bible? My position is similar on aliens. I'm not saying that aliens don't exist. In fact I'm saying the exact opposite. I think that there probably are alien civilizations out there somewhere, but Star Trek is still fiction. Star Trek and the Bible are both collections of stories written entirely by human beings with no divine, or extraterrestrial influence whatsoever.

@@itsROMPERS... I hear you. Even if they did make a good case for a creator (which they haven't), how does that validate the Bible?

@@james9524 Exactly. So these days when I'm arguing atheism, I just say, "ok, maybe your argument about the First Mover is right, a creation must have had a creator, the Swiss watch, etc. "How does that imply Jesus?"

you'd have to be crazy not to

I’m crazy but not 🐝cause I value rationality

It just seems crazy to be sane in a crazy world.

@@travisgarrison8777 we were taught what he talked about, “Lean not on your own understanding,” “the heart is deceitful and wicked,” “a fool says in his heart there is no god” etc I was taught to believe I was small and bad and not trustworthy but thankfully the kid god killed loves me. Still got beat though.

Troy McClure vibes...

It’s just a matter of opinion. Liking something doesn’t make it rational any more than not liking something makes it irrational. Those are predicated on someone’s environment.

@@Stitchman3875 Liking something is not the same as believing in something on faith alone. Faith is an excuse people give for believing in something that you don't have a good reason to believe in. That's irrational. You wouldn't use faith alone in any other aspect of real life, because that would be irrational. Take for instance, driving a car. Would you take your seatbelt off on the highway, close your eyes and have faith that you'll get to your destination safely? Probably not, because that's irrational.

@@jdhorror Just because you don't like something doesn't make it less rational. We use faith in everyday life. For the driving example you mentioned, doing a tad more real world application, you have faith that you will get somewhere safety. There is never a certainty of one's arrival, another car crash into you and seriously injure you. When I vote for a candidate, I do it in faith that he/she will do a good job, and that he will do the things that I want of him/her. I take a course, I do so in faith that it will get me closer to my goal, and that my efforts will merit me a passing grade. I go to the movies and pay my 20 bucks I do so in faith that I will like the movie. The type of "faith" you are talking about is closer linked to fanaticism, and it many ways, you are taking the black and white stance on the issue. The answers are rarely in that extremist thinking, I have yet to find one time when the black and white thinking is best answer. Rationality has many subjective components. People can always rationalize whatever view they take. Everything is based on personal values that were instilled in us throughout our life.

@@Stitchman3875 No. That's not what faith is. While driving, I have a reasonable expectation that I'll get to my destination safely. Because I have experiences, and knowledge of my car, I know that there are other people on the road, who might not be paying attention, so it's something I account for while driving. You don't have faith that a movie will be good, again, you have a reasonable expectation that the movie will be good, and that the people who made the movie knew what they were doing, and have probably seen a trailer for it. So you buy your ticket, not based on faith, but by other factors based on past experiences. Theists believe in a god that has never been verified, observed and is completely non-testable, based on a book that was written only after 200 years of oral tradition. You have no idea that the stories, passed from one person to another, to another, over 200 years before a single word was written down are true or not, let alone if it's the same story as when it started. You have no way to test the validity of that, or first hand experience, or anything else to compare it to. So all you have is faith, which again, is an excuse people give when they don't have a good reason to believe in something.

@@Stitchman3875 No. That's not what faith is. When I'm driving I have a reasonable expectation that I'll get to my destination safely based on experience, knowing my car and being aware that there are people on the road who might not be paying attention, so it's something I'm looking out for. That's not like faith, closing my eyes and believing a god will get me there safely. When you go to a movie, you don't have faith that it'll be good, again, it's a reasonable expectation from experience. Maybe you've seen the trailer, been to the theater before and enjoyed a different movie, or heard good things about the movie you want to see. So again, that's not faith. Theists believe in a book, written by people who didn't understand the world around them, that was based on over 200 years of oral tradition, before a single word was written down. There's no reasonable expectation with that. You didn't see anyone write it, or hear the stories passed from one person to another, to another, again, WAY before a single word was written down. You have faith that the stories are true without any evidence, or anything to base it off. So again, faith is an excuse people give when they don't have a good reason to believe that something is true. You wouldn't use faith alone in any other aspect of your life, as in my driving blind example. It's irrational to use faith alone for anything. And again, you keep bringing up "liking something" as if that's what I said at all, which is not even close to what I'm saying.

As should bringing children up in any religious/cult belief system.

Free-willed, if you will.

Do arrogant Christians come in any other forms than human? That's news to me! :P PS: I'm just messing. ;)

So, you figure that it’s rational to insist that if there is a God that such a being cannot make their own decisions on what to reveal and what not to reveal and therefore must comply to demands for evidence, and if such conditions are not met to the demander’s satisfaction, that is somehow proof that no God exists? Well, that’s rational, and by that I mean not at all.

@@kevinx7015 No matter what God/Goddess you worship, your God/Goddess has been disproven by more devout religious people of other faiths.

​@mrsatire9475 interesting proposal..... And obviously you must have the evidence that supports this assertion?

@@gregsanich5183 Yes, of course I do. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

@@mrsatire9475 I'm not sure i why I would be required to provide any evidence for an assertion you are making. My proof of the contrary would have to be thst our shared observation of reality demonstrates that it is not true. I still havnt seen your evidence yet ofc, but until I do, my reason for not being convinced that your assertion might be true, is bc I can readily observe that it's not true. If any particular conceptualization of what God is, could be disproven by someone with a diff conceptualization for god, simply being more righteous or devout. Then that would have happened already,. ....and it would continue to happen until before long we would have just 1 single lone religion left.

I've done some Answers in Genesis stuff here and there

Summarized the apologist video exactly.

I mean, he has to get his exercise somewhere. Apparently, no one liked/got my joke. He's constantly walking in those videos.

@@Mythraen mental gymnastics help too. 😀

Lean not on your own understanding.... verrrry rational.

turns out they've a bunch of videos on RU-vid!

Even so, it's still an irrelevant nonsense that explains nothing.

@@martin2289 There could be a creator deity that has never made its presence known to humans. It has never had its user manual telepathically written by humans. It snapped its fingers and triggered the singularity and everything ensued as we have observed. Nobody could argue that's not possible, though they could try.

I read bark assertions and it still felt appropriate.

What beliefs specificaly would a theist be required to have that are outside of rational thinking?

@@gregsanich5183 supernatural which is, by definition, not subject to observation and explanation.

@@bradypustridactylus488 🙄 pedantic word games aren't gona work on me, and the 'natural/supernatural' dynamic that you put forth has gotta be one the weakest and most transparently sad attempts to try to smuggle in an arguement from incredulity into your narrativeunder nothing more than purely definitional nonsense that's not even applicable to the real point of contention in this debate.

@@bradypustridactylus488 supernatural would be, by definition, definitionaly impossible to exist and therefore a nonsequitor. If anything supernatural was ever to be discovered to exist, it wouldn't have been supernatural bc it exists, and so was natural all along. So you see how it's a actualy a just a bulls#!t, illogical & meaningless paradigm.... If there is a creator its gona be a natural part of existance.

@@gregsanich5183 You say that supernatural/natural dynamic is a word game that smuggles in an argument from incredulity that won't work with you. All this boils down to evasive twaddle. If God, his angels, and demons are not "supernatural," please tell me in what realm of reality do they reside?

PineCone Dave > PineCreek Doug

@@vivahernando1 I know

Fantastic thank you for that I watched it immediately

@@TheKillagrams You're welcome. It's good for a few laughs, and shows just how out of touch with reality people like Todd Friel are. Hitchens was good at that. 😊

honestly it's pretty surreal to watch something I enjoy doing explode like this

@@danger.snakes fuck ya dude, congratulations..... also I don't know where that I've came from...lol

I guess that joke went over my head. Care to enlighten me who Pinecone Dave is? 🤔

@@uNiels_HeartA near 60 year old psuedo skeptic named PineCreek that in realtime is getting sucked into the alt right pipeline

@@vivahernando1 I see, thank you. That's really sad

46% in the US and 51% globally claim non-religious. We’re finally winning.

Because they know they sound crazy

I don't presume to know the needs of another person, I only know that need covers many realms

that's what I said, isn't it?

No. But it's a hilarious mistake. I follow him and he's a little irritating and given to being provocative. This made it a little silly and fun instead of upsetting. So thanks for it!

maybe, maybe not, I just call it like I see it and there's far more empathetic than me out there, e.g. my wife

what ideas are those

@@danger.snakes I think the commentor is referring to peanut butter ball and cheesehead

@@danger.snakes getting the DVD, and uhhhh dangit I'll have to watch the video again for the other one you floated

@@flowingafterglow629 @danger.snakes also the peanut butter ball. I'm totally down to be one of your test subjects on that

The mexican one

I prefer the Jehovah's Witness one, "Jizuz"