|
|
Post by lordarvidthexiii on Dec 31, 2020 7:57:17 GMT
Actually appreciate how he approaches the subject matter, and while I am a theist, I know people like this guy are the kind who build interfaith communities. That's not an easy feat, but it is entirely worthwhile.
I have seen atheist make these points on this board.
1. 1:23 "We're all born Atheists until someone starts lying to us."
2. 3:56 "Reading the Bible will make you an Atheist."
3. 6:13 "You can't be reasoned out of something you weren't reasoned into."
4. 9:30 "Atheism and Atheists are honest/rational/reasonable."
|
|
|
|
Post by merh on Dec 31, 2020 8:57:10 GMT
I have not heard any of those lines...
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Dec 31, 2020 9:22:59 GMT
The only argument of the four he listed that I've seen being somewhat being used seriously was the first one.
|
|
|
|
Post by eastenn on Dec 31, 2020 12:20:42 GMT
much nicer than these jack-wagons who just use the old "Flying Spaghetti Monster" argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Dec 31, 2020 13:16:25 GMT
Some of those comments are generalizations and exaggerations...hyperbole, if you will...that I think are not meant to be taken literally. They each are intended to make a point...not to be an argument by themselves...or even an argument at all,
Of course not EVERYONE who reads the Bible "civer to civer," so to speak becomes an atheist...I think atheists know this. But it raises a point many of us found true...reading the Bible straight through...seeing how the stories tie together and how, when taken literally, seem to tell the story of a primitive and barbaric god rather than the 'that which none can be greater than' god of the philosophers and it opened our eyes to the possibility that...perhaps there really wasn't a god there at all and folks just made stuff up. What I found was that reading the Bible through was one step in a years long journey away from....first Christianity, then any theistic POV at all. And I admit I haven't studied ALL god concepts equally. And don't intend to. Because, best I can tell they all have a common thread...they're rationalized views that require significant special pleading to 'work.' And they often depend on one deferring to a priesthood (general term for experts in a given set of theistic doctrines) and thinking they really DO have the answers. And once I realized that those people really don't have the answers and that if one is willing to special plead one's 'explanations' and beliefs, 'believing' in God or gods became unimportant and more of an academic exercise rather than a particularly important one. If I can make up attributes about a god to suit my observations and wishes/perspective, what good are they...what good is that god?
And the comment that babies are born atheists only points to the fact that whatever god one ends up believing in is pretty much dependent on where one lives and what god one is presented with. I agree with him somewhat....NOT that humans believe in gods naturally, but that humans seem to have tendencies that lead them to believe in the supernatural and gods in general. I believe there are explanations for this tendency of people to be superstitious that don't mean the supernatural or god(s) really exist(s). But if a child is not introduced to the idea of a god, then they very likely won't believe in one or if they do, it's going to be a cockamamie conglomeration of 'just so' features that match their surroundings, character and POV. This is evidenced by the diversity of superstitious views we see across history and the world today. YES, most folks believe in some sort of supernatural, but it's pretty clear to me they aren't getting their info from ONE sort of entity.
And the whole 'you can't reason someone out of a belief they weren't reasoned into' or something like that, again, is a generalization (and hyperbole) that gets at the idea that many harbor god beliefs...and many other beliefs for that matter, for reasons OTHER than well thought out arguments.
In general, I'd say that when presented with these memes/generalizations, folks, including this chap, are taking them too literally.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 31, 2020 13:40:46 GMT
GMS is a nice guy, but as far as "internet/YouTube" atheists go, he's pretty far down on my list. Cosmic Skeptic, Paulogia, Shannon Q, and even Matt Dillahunty offer far more substantial content.
I somewhat agree with his arguments, but I think the problem is that it's easy to attack one-sentence, pithy phrases. Most of those statements could be expanded to be much harder to debunk arguments. EG, the "you can't use reason to get someone out of a place they didn't use reason to get into" may be wrong on the surface, but certainly there are irrational modes of thought that people use to get into beliefs that make it very difficult for reason to get them out of. There are entire fields of study of cognitive biases around this.
Religion is particularly insidious because not only does it rely on indoctrination, but convincing people that it's righteous to believe no matter what even when reason points out these errors (what Daniel Dennett termed "belief in belief"). It basically creates a defense mechanism against rational thought. Though it's possible for reason to bring someone out of the belief, it usually does so with them kicking and screaming the entire way (most deconversion stories aren't pleasant experiences) and only after the person decided to prioritize truth and reason. Also, he's fundamentally wrong about believers ever being "reasonable." Nobody comes to believe in God/religion through reason, but through various irrational cognitive biases we all have, which include believing without question what our parents/society teaches us and various forms of anthropomorphic projection. I do agree with him that atheists aren't necessarily any more rational either, though.
Anyway, that was just one example of how a pretty strong argument can actually be made out of one of those "pithy statements" that's much harder to debunk than what GMS is implying.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Dec 31, 2020 16:26:30 GMT
GMS is a nice guy, but as far as "internet/YouTube" atheists go, he's pretty far down on my list. Cosmic Skeptic, Paulogia, Shannon Q, and even Matt Dillahunty offer far more substantial content. I somewhat agree with his arguments, but I think the problem is that it's easy to attack one-sentence, pithy phrases. Most of those statements could be expanded to be much harder to debunk arguments. EG, the "you can't use reason to get someone out of a place they didn't use reason to get into" may be wrong on the surface, but certainly there are irrational modes of thought that people use to get into beliefs that make it very difficult for reason to get them out of. There are entire fields of study of cognitive biases around this. Religion is particularly insidious because not only does it rely on indoctrination, but convincing people that it's righteous to believe no matter what even when reason points out these errors (what Daniel Dennett termed "belief in belief"). It basically creates a defense mechanism against rational thought. Though it's possible for reason to bring someone out of the belief, it usually does so with them kicking and screaming the entire way (most deconversion stories aren't pleasant experiences) and only after the person decided to prioritize truth and reason. Also, he's fundamentally wrong about believers ever being "reasonable." Nobody comes to believe in God/religion through reason, but through various irrational cognitive biases we all have, which include believing without question what our parents/society teaches us and various forms of anthropomorphic projection. I do agree with him that atheists aren't necessarily any more rational either, though. Anyway, that was just one example of how a pretty strong argument can actually be made out of one of those "pithy statements" that's much harder to debunk than what GMS is implying. I think a lot of people come up with rationales post hoc. IOW I think the reasoning we see that supports various theistic views, the complicated arguments... came pretty much after the person was convinced in the existence of god(s). It is telling that regardless of the religion someone holds to, it seems to me that invariably, their arguments and lines of reasoning lead them to conclude THEIR particular brand of theism is the most likely to be true.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Dec 31, 2020 16:45:34 GMT
Should I stop telling people, "Your God drowned babies"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rissa on Dec 31, 2020 17:01:35 GMT
I stopped listening after his first argument.
How can infants grow up to believe in faith if it is not instilled in them by their parents or anyone else who has influence over them through their childhood years?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 31, 2020 17:20:10 GMT
GMS is a nice guy, but as far as "internet/YouTube" atheists go, he's pretty far down on my list. Cosmic Skeptic, Paulogia, Shannon Q, and even Matt Dillahunty offer far more substantial content. I somewhat agree with his arguments, but I think the problem is that it's easy to attack one-sentence, pithy phrases. Most of those statements could be expanded to be much harder to debunk arguments. EG, the "you can't use reason to get someone out of a place they didn't use reason to get into" may be wrong on the surface, but certainly there are irrational modes of thought that people use to get into beliefs that make it very difficult for reason to get them out of. There are entire fields of study of cognitive biases around this. Religion is particularly insidious because not only does it rely on indoctrination, but convincing people that it's righteous to believe no matter what even when reason points out these errors (what Daniel Dennett termed "belief in belief"). It basically creates a defense mechanism against rational thought. Though it's possible for reason to bring someone out of the belief, it usually does so with them kicking and screaming the entire way (most deconversion stories aren't pleasant experiences) and only after the person decided to prioritize truth and reason. Also, he's fundamentally wrong about believers ever being "reasonable." Nobody comes to believe in God/religion through reason, but through various irrational cognitive biases we all have, which include believing without question what our parents/society teaches us and various forms of anthropomorphic projection. I do agree with him that atheists aren't necessarily any more rational either, though. Anyway, that was just one example of how a pretty strong argument can actually be made out of one of those "pithy statements" that's much harder to debunk than what GMS is implying. I think a lot of people come up with rationales post hoc. IOW I think the reasoning we see that supports various theistic views, the complicated arguments... came pretty much after the person was convinced in the existence of god(s). It is telling that regardless of the religion someone holds to, it seems to me that invariably, their arguments and lines of reasoning lead them to conclude THEIR particular brand of theism is the most likely to be true. Yep, and rationalizations aren't reasons. Reason isn't "here's the conclusion, let's see what evidence/arguments we can find to support it," it's "here's the evidence, let's invent some possible hypotheses and find ways to test them." The latter is what science does, and why it's been so much more successful in accurately modeling reality than religion and non-empirical philosophy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fetzer Zinfandel on Dec 31, 2020 17:22:07 GMT
I got bored after about 5 minutes, but at that point, no, I hadn't said any of those.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 31, 2020 17:23:27 GMT
I stopped listening after his first argument. How can infants grow up to believe in faith if it is not instilled in them by their parents or anyone else who has influence over them through their childhood years? Humans seem particularly prone to anthropomorphic projection, probably as a result of it being evolutionarily advantageous to assume agency behind various sense perceptions (like helping us be aware of possible predators); so even without religious indoctrination it's very likely people would invent gods, or something similar, to believe in. After all, someone had to be the first person to propose that gods existed, and then everyone had to be convinced of it in order for religion to get off the ground; and given that it's happened in most societies throughout history, that should tell us it's pretty innate for us to invent and believe in them.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheLOSERDonTrump on Dec 31, 2020 17:41:22 GMT
I am always reminded of the joke about the vegan, the atheist, and the crossfitter walking into a bar....
|
|
|
|
Post by lordarvidthexiii on Dec 31, 2020 18:16:37 GMT
I stopped listening after his first argument. How can infants grow up to believe in faith if it is not instilled in them by their parents or anyone else who has influence over them through their childhood years? Because you never had kids and never seen them invent imaginary friends who are watching over them. trust me, kids could easily invent a religion if left to their own devices.
|
|
|
|
Post by hugsfromlv426 on Dec 31, 2020 18:18:38 GMT
5) Supposably
6) Valentimes Day
7) "Less" when "fewer" is the proper word.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rissa on Dec 31, 2020 18:33:42 GMT
I stopped listening after his first argument. How can infants grow up to believe in faith if it is not instilled in them by their parents or anyone else who has influence over them through their childhood years? Because you never had kids and never seen them invent imaginary friends who are watching over them. trust me, kids could easily invent a religion if left to their own devices. You have kids? |
|
Ransom
Junior Member
@ransom
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 288
|
Post by Ransom on Dec 31, 2020 18:37:19 GMT
Because you never had kids and never seen them invent imaginary friends who are watching over them. trust me, kids could easily invent a religion if left to their own devices. You have kids? Try not to sound too shocked about it.😂 |
|
|
|
Post by lordarvidthexiii on Dec 31, 2020 18:45:12 GMT
Because you never had kids and never seen them invent imaginary friends who are watching over them. trust me, kids could easily invent a religion if left to their own devices. You have kids? No, but I have done teaching, all levels, including young children. Plus done the psych classes for kids and teaching. I also did a lot of babysitting. I meant to include teaching in my original comments, sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordarvidthexiii on Dec 31, 2020 18:45:54 GMT
Try not to sound too shocked about it.😂 Rissa likely has followed past comments about me not having children.
|
|
|
|
Post by Winston Wolf on Dec 31, 2020 18:49:43 GMT
Can someone tell me what the four things are?
|
|
