|
| ||||||||||||
atheism,examples,theism,discussion Response to: "Atheists have faith, just like theists."Response to: "Atheists have faith, just like theists."tags:In this moderately long video (RT 11:00) "Matt Dillahunty responds to the claim that people need as much faith to NOT believe in god, as to believe in god." He uses excellent examples to knock his callers points down one at a time and explains the atheist position very well. Priceless ending.
Comments  playlists with this video AllKindsOfAwesome by Farhad2000
• yogurt's Ultra-Upvote Colage by kceaton1
who voted for this video enon
- theaceofclubz
- jimnms
- xxovercastxx
- siftbot
x136 - kceaton1
- dystopianfuturetoday
- chtierna
- Enzoblue
who has this post bookmarked Zonbie
- R0SENCRANTZ
- rottenseed
- Kevlar
- RedEyedJack
- jimnms
- 9567
- Jlowen
- gargoyle
| Friends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote                 Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 14. Seric
(139 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments        | |||||||||||
Stumble This
That's as opposed to on online forums (where everyone acts like dickwads) and in the US media where it's used as a political bipartisan polarising vehicle and for viewer pandering.
The ending is awesome.
For once, I would love "Freedom of Religion" to be just that. Freedom to practice or to not practice without persecution. Agree or not with the content of the video or with atheism in general, but a good Christian would never threaten someone like this ever.
The ending speaks volumes for the evangelical Christian movement in this country. The guy in the video is very calm, intelligent, articulate, polite and honest and presents a very good discussion and answers this caller's questions fairly and thoughtfully. .
Bill Maher said, and I paraphrase, "religion is arrogance masked as humility." I think there's a great deal of truth in that.
LOL.
Still, a great discussion, and this guy is so nicely respectful of everyone, never tries to suggest that he IS RIGHT, never talks down on people, just calmly, RATIONALLY explains his case, and does so in a wonderful way.
Great stuff
He says, that while he cannot be 100% sure that god does not exist, he can deduce that there is about a 99% chance that god does not exist and that that is a good enough reason to sleep in on Sunday morning instead of going to Church.
This Matt Dillahunty guy is very sharp (and the caller very stupid). It's almost pointless to watch such a poor match up.
It's too over the top to be staged, but it made me wonder for a second.
"Absolute" is a placeholder people, especially philosophers, use when they want to obfuscate something or when they don't know what they are talking about. Kind of like "infinity", which only makes sense when you define it mathematically, and there's an infinity of different such definitions so the point is moot and relative.
>> ^spoco2
The end really seems odd to me also, it is indeed like it's suddenly a different person as up until that point[...]
The "angry guy" at the end seems pretty calm to me. Sure he's frustrated, but he was so since the beginning. His suggestion to come "punch him in the face" came naturally and without anger. In other words, it slipped through the cracks, but it didn't break the mold of false humility and calmness completely.
>> ^honkeytonk73:
I don't want to get rid of my false beliefs. I prefer to live an existence of ignorance and bliss. Life is much simpler that way.
Please stop truncating the quote, even when you're cynical, alluding or both. Thomas Gray said that "Where ignorance is bliss, / ‘Tis folly to be wise." I've never seen a place where ignorance is bliss, except perhaps in parts of the contemporary U.S.A. That is not to say there are not a lot of places where ignorance is better for your life expectancy. There are quite a lot, unfortunately. But in none of them does being ignorant grant you bliss. It usually grants (voluntary) servitude and powerlessness (of course, technically ignorance is a lack and thus can't grant anything: this is where the poetic/lyric value comes into play).
>> ^Hive13:
For once, I would love "Freedom of Religion" to be just that. Freedom to practice or to not practice without persecution.
I think the Fathers of the Constitution made a printing error: where it read "Freedom of Religion" they probably meant "Freedom from Religion".
You belong to a small indigenous tribe in South America, completely isolated from the modern world for nearly your entire life; would you likely believe that the world is flat or round? Do you think it would be difficult to accept that the world is round once presented with the idea, and remain difficult even after evidence is presented?
This goes to the caller's solitary point; he personally has Christian beliefs reinforced time and time again throughout his life, and to him giving up these beliefs even in the face of reason is very difficult. He (self-centered-ly) assumes in his question that disbelief is difficult for everyone,... a great departure from the default of Christian belief. The host rightly notes that disbelief does require you to value the cold, steely logic over comfortable beliefs, but doesn't share any sympathies for how difficult this choice can be. And thats were he loses the caller, with no real impetus to leave his comfortable stories and relearn logical one, and no sympathy that such a journey may be difficult.
I mean, sure there prolly is no god, sure religion is full of lies and sure there are religious extremists. But seriously, what would have happened to this world if people didnt develop religion as a way to share thoughts, beliefs, faith etc? There would have been even more wars actually. It is/was a form of laws. Outdated in lots of ways, but still efficient. And in any way you will have a hard time breaking beliefs with facts and words.
Its a scientific fact that humans have to believe in something bigger than themselves. It has been proven that its in the genes of humankind. EVERYONE, even atheists, believe in something, even though they dont admit it openly. May it be aliens, money, whatever. Its also proven that religious people handle very difficult times in life much better than atheists because they have something pre-made to hang on to.
I am 100% sure that even the hardest atheist nut would start praying eventually if he would be kidnapped and abused for weeks/months/whatever and lost all of his/her self esteem.
Oh and you find ignorance everywhere, not only in religion.
I talk to atheist-"concrete walls" all the time. And no, not about religion.
If you really want to end religion in its current form, you need to invent a new religion that is closer to facts and start spreading it. And prolly even that religion will be outdated in 2000 years from now, if youre even able to replace the current religions with it.
Your ignorance of logic eludes me, your example has nothing to do with what he is referring too. Watch it again.
I'd watch this video, but public access television makes my brain bleed, and I've seen enough bashing on fundies for one lifetime.
I loved the bigfoot argument, and the pluto argument. This video is great.
Well, there is this one between Dawkins and Alister McGrath, I personally think the latter is a bit of a douche, but he keeps being mentioned as this champion theist.. http://www.videosift.com/video/Dawkins-Interviews-Alister-McGrath
Or this one, with Dawkins and the Bishop of Oxford, it is among the best, speaking for the theist side:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-Interviews-The-Bishop-Of-Oxford-35mins
I have yet to see a video related to atheism in which both sides are presented by beings of equal intelligence and scholarly knowledge.
Took a while, but I re-found the one video I saw that did satisfy your conditions of both sides being fairly equal intelligence and scholarly knowledge. It's the uncut 'The Root of All Evil? - Uncut Interview', on youtube in 7 different parts and a little over an hour long.
Search listing the 7 parts here.
I highly recommend watching it, but it is uncut and thus the audio volume varies, etc. However, because it is uncut it's better as there is no manipulation through editing to modify the view of either speaker.
Q:"Do you believe that there are pixies, for example?"
A:"... I'm not sure."
and
Q: "If someone tells you they've been abducted by aliens--"
A: "Oh, people tell me that all the time."
LOL!
I've had arguments with believers that have invoked from them; violent anger, desperate sadness and even a car accident. It's more than just ignorance, it;s something deep and emotive.
Maybe compare it to finding out you're adopted.
I have yet to see a video related to atheism in which both sides are presented by beings of equal intelligence and scholarly knowledge.
Because it's nearly impossible to find a theist who matches your criteria. It's definitely no reason to downvote such a worthwhile video.
The people sitting in front of the camera did not attack the caller's religious beliefs, nor did they try to invalidate them. They answered his questions about their own beliefs in a calm and respectable way, logically and practically stating their reasoning for thinking the way they do, and being very clear in that they were not trying to convert the caller or reduce his religion. The fact that he took such offense can be due to several reasons, none which directly have anything to do with the people sitting in front of the camera.
Just speculating as to why the caller flew off the handle like that, he might never have talked to anyone before who did not believe in god, and as such was completely oblivious to the fact that anyone could doubt it. Or, he may only have argued against people who could not adequately justify their doubts in god or put their doubts into words eloquently enough, and as such his debating ego got a severe bruising when these atheists shot down all his points one by one.
Whatever the case may be, what we can be sure of is that the caller took the discussion way too personal and way too seriously. Would you say there could have been any other way that the people in front of the camera could have defended their views so to not cause the caller to be offended like that? Personally, I don't think they could have done anything to change the outcome but simply give up. And that would not be right either, would it?
I've never understood the difficulty people have with accepting atheists or their arguments. I think it's stated quite clearly here that atheism is the lack of belief, not the belief in nothing. Don't believe in something until it's got some form of credible validation and/or evidence speaking for it, that's not such a revolutionary position to take, is it? As I understand it, there's really nothing more to it than that.
Don't confuse the collective group of people with individuals whom you dislike for some reason or another.
And please don't make personal attacks, guys. If you disagree with what someone writes, by all means say you disagree, but it's really not necessary to take to name calling or bring up any issues the poster has which are not directly relevant to the video at hand or the discussion here. To clear up what I mean, I'll supply a link to a page which talks about logical fallacies:
http://www.rcaston.com/?q=node/606
Edit: And on the note of there being a lack of religious debates where both parties are equally learned and knowledgable, let's ask ourselves why that could be. Again, speaking for myself, there's the possibility that the learned religious people of which you speak abstain from entering these arguments simply because they know there's no "real" evidence for their beliefs (hence them being beliefs) and instead take their religion for how they perceive it was meant, as a personal guideline for living a moral and ethical life.
Of course, this is just mere speculation, but seems to me the polarized, extremist views some people hold can be the result of living with only likeminded. Separated from any and all people with different views and growing up in a (in the lack of a better word, excuse my poor English) one-sided environment seems to lead to points of contention more and more turning into personal truths.
If I told you that I believe in reincarnation and you ask me for evidence for it, I'd be unable to provide any for you. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop believing in it, it just means I'm probably not going to convince you to share my conviction, but that's alright because that's not my goal. Being the only one having that conviction would detract nothing from it, nor knowing that me believing in it was due to my parents teaching it.
I don't want to get rid of my false beliefs. I prefer to live an existence of ignorance and bliss. Life is much simpler that way.
>> Bidouleroux:
Please stop truncating the quote, even when you're cynical, alluding or both. Thomas Gray said that "Where ignorance is bliss, / ‘Tis folly to be wise." I've never seen a place where ignorance is bliss, except perhaps in parts of the contemporary U.S.A. That is not to say there are not a lot of places where ignorance is better for your life expectancy. There are quite a lot, unfortunately. But in none of them does being ignorant grant you bliss. It usually grants (voluntary) servitude and powerlessness (of course, technically ignorance is a lack and thus can't grant anything: this is where the poetic/lyric value comes into play).
Hehehe. You have a lot of time on your hands don't you?