Honestly watched the first minute and 20 seconds not thinking they would be sitting that close to each other.
@calebmcurby8580
3 жыл бұрын
Same 😂 Oh what has 2020 done to us?
@BigGov74
3 жыл бұрын
where are their masks
@ethanh6370
3 жыл бұрын
Even outside of recent events, I would say they are oddly close, given that there is nothing else around them. It feels uncomfortable.
@samrust4366
3 жыл бұрын
I saw your comment before I saw how close they were to each other, and I still was truly not at all prepared for just how close they are
@ximono
3 жыл бұрын
They _could_ hold hands
@caseyhamm8822
3 жыл бұрын
“i’m not convinced there’s something, but i don’t want there to be nothing” is the most relatable thing i’ve ever heard
@caseyhamm8822
3 жыл бұрын
@Maurits there is no truth claim to make with matters like this. there is either belief or there isn’t. and personal preference IS our tool for determining our beliefs
@caseyhamm8822
3 жыл бұрын
@Maurits you can’t run tests to prove the existence of god or lack thereof. there is no way for humanity to determine fact around this. and whether or not god exists has no bearing on the world, but as david said, a huge effect on morality. and every person i’ve interacted with prior to you has maintained that it is an opinion thing because there is no unobstructed views of god, no perfect truths of religion. most people would say that constitutes as reason to just leave someone alone to their beliefs, not turn into a pedantic ass and wax pseudointellectual in the youtube comments
@dektarey4024
3 жыл бұрын
@Maurits "And if you believe that we should leave eachother alone because we can never determine with certainty whether God exists or not, I simply disagree with you, and I'm sure hundreds of years of theological debate and the vast amounts of scholars and literary works on this question would too." That simply sounds like someone who wants to argue and dislike something. Believe in it? Dont care. Dont believe in it? Dont care. Want to cause strive because you disagree with someone on the matter of god existing? Now i care because you're making a problem. Its a toxic behavior at its core and should not be encouraged. And yes, all these centuries of theological debate are meaningless and simply in the wrong. There is no reason to cause strive over this matter. Only false pride encourages someone to do so.
@aidensexton3343
3 жыл бұрын
@@dektarey4024 I know this is probably a mistake joining in, but i’d say it isn’t always a matter of atheists causing a problem. While it’s fine for one to chose to believe in avid because it gets them through the day, my personal problem is when a certain god is used as a justification for anything. Any decisions are likely to be influenced by this belief, however, this still isn’t a significant problem until you start using god to justify any number of things, the largest modern one being homophobia, but notable past ones include burning of witches, the crusades, all the various killings/wars caused by divide between protestant and catholics, the catholics killing those who didn’t believe in catholic god. Now in the case of Agnostics, like David speaks about in the video, there is no problem, as they don’t commit to a specific god and system, but those who follow a specific god, and a specific system have an inbuilt flaw in their reasoning, which could influence any number of decisions. So while yes, belief god is not a problem in it self, I would say that belief can be used for false conclusion, and quite often is. while i don’t personally argue with strangers over the internet about gods existence(the present excluded), as it tends to be pointless, i think those that do are understandable, and should not be seen as arguing because they specifically want to argue, but because they have seen what religion has caused. I hope that this has helped you possibly get an idea of why i personally think we shouldn’t just leave each other alone. If you have any criticisms of my argument or don’t understand one of my points, please let me know, i don’t want this to descend into the normal pointless bickering of youtube comments. Also i recognize this was more of debate between agnostics and atheists, and as a general atheist, I have no problem with agnostics Added note: I did the classic comment thing of not watching the video fully, and i realize David directly went against what i just said, but just to put down his argument. One: He make an huge assumption that people look to kill each other and will use any reason to do so, which is not backed up by him, and i find to be a leap. I don’t want to come across pretentious by quoting philosophers, but i’d say that humans aren’t good or bad, but humans are simply the culmination of all of those who exist at any time. If all humans helped each other, then we would be good, even if 100 years before, we all lived in a state of constant fighting, stealing, and killing. We went from bad to good, however we are not inherently either. So this idea that humans just want to kill each other and will find any reason is a bit silly. Two: He says that many things have been used to justify murder, such as the political ideology. I’d say that this is not relevant, as simply because people kill each other over many things, doesn’t mean that those things are acceptable. I would say that while yes, people have killed over many things, i’d say the less reasons to fight, the less fighting that happens. Simply because people have killed over communism, doesn’t make killing over religion alright. While i would say that killing over anything is not acceptable, ill be honest in ambitions that that is an assumption. With that assumption, i’d say killing over politics is not acceptable either, and we should try and prevent that. without that assumption, i’d say that while there may be an argument that killing over a certain belief is acceptable, like in the example of communism, where by killing you think you are being about a better long term world, this killing is based on a belief which may or may not be true. If the belief(communism) is true, then the killing may be justified(i’d say it isn’t, but i want to avoid assumptions about morality) and if it isn’t true, then killing is not. And this must be applied to religion, where when we can totally conclude that religion is not true(or is unprovable through the means of reason), then killing over religion is not justified, and in turn, we must work to prevent the cause of said killings, religion. Three: I think i may have already addressed this before but i’ll restate it. He says that even without religion, killing will continue, presumably at the same rate(This is my interpretation, please correct me if you see it differently). I think this implies that in the hypothetical situation that in history, if there were no religion, the killings like the crusades would be replaced by something else, however no proof is given as to why. I’d say that if people had no reasons to kill there would be no killing, and as there are less reasons to kill, less killing takes place. So, yeah. Once again, any criticism are welcome. I decided to comment hear with the hope of two, equally happy endings(not that kind). Either i convince someone of my argument rationally using facts(or at least make them understand my point), or i am critiqued rationally, and in turn, my views are changed, causing me to become a better, more rational person. I simply hope this doesn’t sputter out into pointless bickering
@damienjoseph7540
3 жыл бұрын
@@aidensexton3343 JayZus you typed too much but I got through it and agree for the most part. DM is A smart man but he's wrong about this just because he wants to believe like millions of people holding on to childhood fairy tales. There's way too much badness from religious people even apart from killing and I don't wanna type a novel but just look at the USA puritan evangelical trumpets for a start and even if there was a gahd, then it's clearly a POS that's inflicted Untold murder, pain and misery on it's own creations. The flooding of millions of innocent women and children was bad enough but it was only getting started then. Obviously it's nonsense stories used to brainwash and control people
@AnarchyApple
3 жыл бұрын
David Mitchell is like Ricky Gervais with Emotional Intelligence.
@andyd6338
3 жыл бұрын
I wouldn't say that Ricky has no emotional intelligence, he just chooses not to care.
@emilybarclay8831
3 жыл бұрын
@@andyd6338 which is pretty close to a lack of emotional intelligence. You can’t really choose to not to care if you actually do care
@steckelton717
3 жыл бұрын
@@emilybarclay8831 I'd say choosing to ignore it is worse? If you don't have something, you are not as much as fault as going out of your way to ignore something you have available. He chooses to be a dick about it, which is why he just really sucks tbf
@emilybarclay8831
3 жыл бұрын
@@steckelton717 that’s definitely true, but I don’t think actually emotionally intelligent people actually get a _choice_ in caring. I myself have a very odd level of emotional intelligence. I just really struggle to relate to and deal with others emotions despite wanting to help people and don’t tend to feel emotions particularly strongly myself, but I’m very influenced by the emotions of those I care about. Like, a while ago I was at the funeral of a relative that frankly I barely knew and I really wasn’t anywhere near crying (obviously it was a very sad occasion and I understood that, I just personally wasn’t feeling much because I’d barely interacted with this relative) but when I saw my sister crying suddenly I was blubbering as well. I didn’t have a choice in the matter, I couldn’t have not cared if I tried. I think if you’re able to turn off your ‘caring’, either you didn’t actually care in the first place or you’ve had some significant trauma/reason to stop caring for your own well-being
@WillyoDee
3 жыл бұрын
And actually funny and witty
@joem4585
3 жыл бұрын
With David's appearance in this video, it's like a glimpse of an alternate universe where Ricky Gervais isn't a bell-end.
@swiggsoclock
3 жыл бұрын
And then the waveform collapses and we once again find ourselves in the wrong universe
@anokah
3 жыл бұрын
@ConManliness As much as I like him at times, and his work, he is a proper twat at times, and he's definitely in the category of comedians that mitchell is referring to
@damienjoseph7540
3 жыл бұрын
@@anokah anyone can be a twat sometimes but Gervais is right and David is talking nonsense here obviously. It's a few years ago so he might've copped himself on since
@benjaminlundback8394
3 жыл бұрын
@@anokah how is he in that category?
@__-cd9ug
3 жыл бұрын
@@damienjoseph7540 not everything's about being right all the time, that's kind of the point. Religion these days is a thing people choose to believe in, not something that people myopically believe in. So yeah, organised religions are a pain, but the very faith that drives them also leads to great thing. It's not a binary matter where you can say 'religion good' or 'religion bad'. Nothing is that simple
@kurodashinkei
11 жыл бұрын
This is one of the most level-headed discussions about religion I've seen anywhere on youtube. Respect.
@colinjava8447
3 жыл бұрын
No it's not, he doesn't understand the terms at all, I imagine he's substituting atheism for the claim there is no god, but atheism is just a lack of a belief in gods. Furthermore one can be agnostic and atheist, I am myself, one is about knowledge, and one about belief. And who's taking away the comfort? The religious don't have to listen to atheists, just like atheists don't have to listen to the crap religious people say. Religion may be comforting but it can also be a waste of your life, and typically the truth is usually the best thing.
@sagnikmondal4058
3 жыл бұрын
@@colinjava8447 Astonishing how oblivious you are and that's from a non believer.
@colinjava8447
3 жыл бұрын
@@sagnikmondal4058 Oblivious to what
@Ben-Rogue
3 жыл бұрын
@@sagnikmondal4058 Look up a "gnostic, agnostic" chart, you'll realise Colin is correct
@johncatson6658
3 жыл бұрын
@@Ben-Rogue He's right on the agnostic part sure, though I think it doesn't actually matter that much since everybody understood what kind of people David meant. He is also oblivious to how both atheists and theists can be extremely overbearing for some reason and try to destroy the other person's comfort completely.
@officeskivy
10 жыл бұрын
I like David Mitchell.
@eddieburrelli
3 жыл бұрын
David Mitchell likes you.
@defectivepikachu4582
3 жыл бұрын
@@eddieburrelli no he doesnt
@daidarabotchi3891
3 жыл бұрын
As do we all!
@ISLWYN2007
8 жыл бұрын
He's married to Victoria Coren. Of course there's a god. :-)
@ilikethisnamebetter
4 жыл бұрын
Since there's now less danger of me being married to that unfunny, annoying woman (albeit, there was very little chance anyway..), I might be tempted to share your opinion.
@paulallen579
4 жыл бұрын
@@ilikethisnamebetter Yeah well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
@colmwhateveryoulike3240
4 жыл бұрын
Lmao
@NovaBlueNova
3 жыл бұрын
Oh fuck how did I not realize that's where the Mitchell in her name comes from???
@banjopete
3 жыл бұрын
@@paulallen579 ,DUDE,
@DerPinguim
3 жыл бұрын
He outlined my exact thoughts in a way 10x more eloquent than I ever could
@JB_inks
3 жыл бұрын
He's wrong though
@DerPinguim
3 жыл бұрын
@@JB_inks That is a matter of personal opinion, when it comes to religion, there is a right and there are wrongs but we have no idea what those are, therefore, saying someone is wrong is disrespectful and hypocritical. We don't know if there is a god and, therefore, anyone is free to make their own opinions.
@JB_inks
3 жыл бұрын
@@DerPinguim no, not at all. Why don't you ask me why he's wrong? It's not about personal opinions, he's factually wrong about the definitions of the words he's using. As a pedantic person I expected better of him.
@creeproot
3 жыл бұрын
@@JB_inks what's wrong about it
@JB_inks
3 жыл бұрын
@@creeproot he got the definitions of atheism and agnostic completely wrong.
@CalumnMcAulay
7 жыл бұрын
I totally admire and respect what he's saying - he speaks my mind! :-)
@stephenreeds3672
3 жыл бұрын
I agree with him about "celebrity atheists" assuming that they have the right to lecture others about belief and denigrate them for holding them. I'm right you're wrong. And the argument that a lot of suffering was caused by religion shows a fundamental lack of understanding about humanity. I'm amazed that Dawkins can't see that. He's supposed to have a keen intelligence.
@theTRUTHgroup
3 жыл бұрын
It's nice to see a popular celebrity being so intellectually honest for a change. Very cool!
@myopenmind527
3 жыл бұрын
Even if he’s not being intellectually correct?
@willchurch8376
3 жыл бұрын
@@myopenmind527 You might want to worry about being grammatically correct before you concern yourself with any facet of correctness in other people.
@snap-n-shoot
3 жыл бұрын
Not being "honest" he is simply say he does not know....which is not an answer either. Of course there is no such thing as a God who seems to be able to do anything ...but does nothing. It also breaks all the law of Physics to suggest there is a magical being who does nothing all day and relies on their unfounded legendary status to be noticed.
@willchurch8376
3 жыл бұрын
@@snap-n-shoot ...no, it is pretty honest to admit you don't know something. I don't know how you can term that as anything other than honest, unless you suspect David of possessing actual concrete proof one way or the other about god.
@Codex7777
2 жыл бұрын
@@willchurch8376 - He's not being entirely honest with himself though. Atheism and agnosticism address different things. They're not different points on the same scale and he's definitely intelligent and knowledgeable enough to know this. Theism and atheism are to do with belief, whilst agnosticism is to do with claims of knowledge. They are not mutually exclusive. Most atheists are agnostic atheists, as they don't believe in gods and goddesses but don't claim to know for certain. Most things can't be proved or disproved absolutely and this includes all gods and goddesses. Thus agnosticism is the only honest and self-aware position to take. The fact that almost anything is theoretically possible, is not proof and isn't the same as saying that everything is probable. That gods and goddesses can be neither proven nor disproven does not mean that the probability of their existence or non existence is equal and wanting something to be true has no bearing on whether it is, or not. With atheism, it's the matter of a simple question. Do you believe that any gods or goddesses exist? If you do, you're a theist. If you don't, you're an atheist. You either believe, or you don't. Claims of knowledge are completely irrelevant. It's to do with what you believe, not with what you know.
@emosongsandreadalongs
3 жыл бұрын
I thought I couldn't love David Mitchell more than I already did I was wrong
@heresfrankbetches921
3 жыл бұрын
What a wonderful man he is
@ellaeadig263
2 жыл бұрын
The most logical thing I've ever seen him say, and he's said a ton of logical things.
@gowdsake7103
2 жыл бұрын
What is logical about being too wet to make a solid decision
@dupersuper1938
10 ай бұрын
It's reasonable, but certainly not logical. He flat out says he's not an atheist because he "wants there to be something". That's very relatable, but reality doesn't care what you want, and the burden of proof is on those trying to convince people that there is some sort of god, not on those of us who dismiss the notion just as we do the existence of the Greek pantheon, leprechauns and ghosts.
@TH-ds2yx
6 ай бұрын
@gowdsake7103 What do you find difficult to understand about someone being on the fence about something that can neither be proven nor disproved? Let me guess, you're one of these pseudo-intellectual soyboys that claims to "fucking love science", but will claim with 100% conviction that God does not exist despite being unable to prove your point.
@michaelarrowood4315
2 жыл бұрын
Excellent statement of what agnosticism is, and why it is most definitely not the same as atheism. I say that as someone who is proudly agnostic, of course. I love this take on the issue.
@hannah-ni2wd
6 жыл бұрын
this is exactly how i feel. he put it in words.
@gowdsake7103
2 жыл бұрын
Your a bit soppy and inconclusive then ?
@LWT1331
3 жыл бұрын
People often say Agnosticism is a cop out. I think it's the other way around in that atheists so firmly can't accept that we don't know anything. That's the real cop out to me.
@poppopN
3 жыл бұрын
what do you mean,most atheists are agnostic?
@Omagadam1
3 жыл бұрын
Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive. I'm an agnostic atheist. Regardless of what Mitchell claims, he is as well.
@Slackerhun
3 жыл бұрын
I really don't like that people mistake Atheism for always being Gnostic (knowing there is no god). Most atheists I've seen and know about are Agnostic atheists. As in lacking belief in a god. Now if we're talking about a specific god that's a different topic.
@babbisp1
3 жыл бұрын
1:19 "There was a time when I cared about politics, but it's just an excuse men use to kill one another."
@michellestevens4126
3 жыл бұрын
Unfortunately he said "humans" not "men" when your version was correct.
@Forestgravy90
9 жыл бұрын
I am an atheist but I agree entirely with everything David Mitchell says here, and regarding the minority of atheists who want to take away that comfort and sense of community and purpose religion offers is wrong. I am an atheist, but I do not go on about it or seek to change anyone's views just because I think religion is stupid and incorrect because it isn't my place to. I just go around not believing in god and live my life, as we all should.
@arond94
10 жыл бұрын
Sums up perfectly my stand on the matter. Also I'm glad someone as funny as Mitchell shares it!
@Arkatox
3 жыл бұрын
Honestly, I wasn’t expecting to be recommended a video that so perfectly and succinctly summarizes my views on existence.
@hatchingdraggon8073
2 жыл бұрын
@@Arkatox Atheism is not the assertion that there is no God, it is the lack of belief in a God. If you don't believe in a God, you are by definition, an atheist.
@Arkatox
2 жыл бұрын
@@hatchingdraggon8073 I've never heard that definition of atheism before.
@hatchingdraggon8073
2 жыл бұрын
@@Arkatox From the Oxford dictionary: "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." "A" is a negative prefix. For example, when used in asexual, it means not sexual. When used in atheist, it means not a theist. No one can know that there is or isn't a God. The fact is, most agnostics are atheists, including Mr Mitchell.
@anotheruserism
2 жыл бұрын
@@hatchingdraggon8073 I don't think you listened to what David Mitchell said. At the end of the day it is commonly accepted athiest means belief there are no gods while agnostic is we can not know for sure.
@clevelandbrown5709
8 жыл бұрын
Stop bickering about labels. I feel the same as David, I just don't know and i'm not really keen on ruining anyone else's day so long as they dont try to ruin mine.
@JRMiracleman
6 жыл бұрын
Well put
@ssh1487
6 жыл бұрын
That's what agnosticism is, though? Uncertainty of whether or not there is a god. That's literally what the term agnostic refers to. It's a word that describes a religious view.
@JRMiracleman
6 жыл бұрын
Serious? You are equating the existence of God to the existence of square circles? I believe that would qualify as an Argument from analogy fallacy.
@majordendrocopos
6 жыл бұрын
Cleveland Brown Fair enough, but religious people tend to band together and push through social changes in line with their beliefs. If you don’t share their view then you might well have your day ruined by them. Evangelical Christians were instrumental in electing Donald Trump for example.
@nickolasgaspar9660
5 жыл бұрын
I don't know how David feels, but he appears to be ignorant on what exactly those two letters address.
@adamellis6785
3 жыл бұрын
“Religion. It's given people hope in a world torn apart by religion.” ― Jon Stewart
@Sir_Sethly
3 жыл бұрын
When did he say that? I’d like to know the context of that quote.
@adamellis6785
3 жыл бұрын
@@Sir_Sethly I can't find the clip, but I think it was on an episode of The Daily Show. If I had to guess, I would say the context was most likely in reference to people committing violence in the name of their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, that doesn't really narrow it down much, does it?
@tsarnicholasii274
3 жыл бұрын
@@adamellis6785 It’s a pretty idiotic claim, religion has caused division yes, but not nearly as much as atheists claim. 7 percent of the wars have been religious. Not to mention the violence and division caused by atheism and anti theism, which is a thing as hard as it is to believe.
@garybutler1975
2 жыл бұрын
@@tsarnicholasii274 I'd be very interested to see this comprehensive study of historical warfare that displays the percentage of wars that were started/based on religion...maybe the number you just pulled out of your ass is right, maybe its 7%..maybe its 90% the idea that anyone knows is laughable.
@davidwuhrer6704
2 жыл бұрын
@@tsarnicholasii274 7%? That is a lot of wars. How could they have been avoided?
@prole1917
10 жыл бұрын
You can be an atheist and an agnostic. Atheism is a statement of belief and agnosticism is a statement of knowledge. An agnostic-atheist is someone who doesn't have the knowledge of whether god exists or not but personally does not believe one exists. This IS the most rational mindset because no one knows if there is a higher force and there is currently no evidence of one.
@CheDonJohn
10 жыл бұрын
Finally, someone else who understands this! Too many people think that agnosticism is some middle position between atheism and theism, whereas it is a different dimension entirely.
@MrAlliCator
10 жыл бұрын
Wouldn't an agnostic apatheist be more rational?
@MarvinRB3
9 жыл бұрын
Your definition of terms is not particularly valid in this case since it is clearly an informal conversation; an interview not a scholastic debate or monologue. So, whilst agnosticism is probably better defined as an epistemological position, in common English usage it denotes a neutral viewpoint as to the existence of God. So, within the context that it was said, agnosticism is valid in of itself as an alternative to theism or atheism. Whilst it is amicable to strive for accuracy within the terms that people employ, it is important that we recognise context. Within a scholastic debate it is entirely correct that the definition of the terms employed be strictly adhered to. However, within a typical conversation, it is more important that we try to understand the intended meaning rather than becoming entangled in strict interpretations. So, in the context that it was said, I think it would be fair to say that David Mitchell employed the term 'agnostic' with the intended definition being something akin to: "A person or entity that believes the existence or non-existence of a God or Gods is unknowable within the realm of human knowledge. Furthermore, the person or entity expresses no opinion as to whether or not God(s) exist(s) and are either apathetic or otherwise incapable of drawing a conclusion as to the truth of either thesis." Lastly, I would point out that if one is agnostic, then whether or not one is a theist or atheist becomes a point of triviality since agnosticism requires that, regardless of which theistic position is assumed, it is intellectually indefensible and is purely a matter of arbitrary opinion without logical foundation. So, I regret, that I cannot agree with your sentiments for the reasons here mentioned.
@SgtLion
9 жыл бұрын
IMPERATOR If one's belief and knowledge are not one and the same, then I and any sane person should regard you as a fool.
@karensparkes1078
9 жыл бұрын
IMPERATOR Actually, Atheism is the belief that there is no God and Agnosticism is neither believing there is a God nor believing there is no God. Therefore, you can't have both.
@CheDonJohn
3 жыл бұрын
It's a common mistake in this debate that agnosticism is placed as some kind of middle position between theism and atheism, and it's a bit of a bugbear of mine. Gnosticism and Theism are two different planes/dimension entirely; an X axis and a Y axis, if you will. The former concerns claims to knowledge or knowing something, the latter concerns the worship or belief in a god or gods. Most atheists are agnostic atheists: they don't worship god yet don't claim to know there isn't a god (it's likely they arrive at atheism because they are agnostic). I'd say a lot of religious people are agnostic theists because faith, by definition, is believing in something regardless of whether you know it's true. I don't think I've ever met a gnostic atheist - rationally, they're incompatible positions. But I have certainly met gnostic theists; those claiming to know of the existence of god/gods.
@iwonakaplon3399
3 жыл бұрын
You'd think that a gnostic atheist would be an impossible position to arrive at, but they somehow do exist.
@JB_inks
3 жыл бұрын
@@iwonakaplon3399 you can dismiss a lot of gods as being fiction though
@iwonakaplon3399
3 жыл бұрын
@@JB_inks not really. Why are you dismissing things you don't know about?
@JB_inks
3 жыл бұрын
@@iwonakaplon3399 because some gods were undeniably made up. I point you towards the God of thunder, for example.
@JB_inks
3 жыл бұрын
@@iwonakaplon3399 you literally just did what you falsely accused me of, by the way
@abrakadabra6584
5 жыл бұрын
People need to admit that they understand what is meant by these kinds of statements instead of trying to flex on everyone with their knowledge of semantics. "Doubt is healthy and rational, but faith and hope aren't inherently wrong or harmful." That is obviously the argument being made here regardless of how the words are technically defined.
@sparkzbarca
5 жыл бұрын
Yes faith is wrong and harmful. It's in fact harmful BECAUSE it's wrong, it's wrong because it isn't right, it isn't right because it isn't true and well meaning lies, white lies and all other forms of "good lies" are in fact not good. Being honest and truthful is simply far too important. Lies get in the way of the truth and the truth matters, it really matters and the sooner you know the actual truth, the sooner you can actually move forward. The argument for faith as a lie is an argument to live your life as a lie, it's literally "ignorance is bliss". Ignorance should never be aspired to. Religion isn't bad or good because of what it teaches to me as far as morality or ethics, it's bad, because it purports to be true and isn't. It lies every day endleslly to billions of people and the truth is too important to accept anything but the truth.
@fellinuxvi3541
4 жыл бұрын
@@sparkzbarca This is the best explanation I've ever seen or heard. Lots of people don't get this, and I understand why, plenty of Atheists point out stuff they disagree with in the Bible and so it's assumed that the argument against religion is about the morality of the religious person, but it's really not, it's about truth and lie. There's simply no reason to believe in a God unless there is concrete evidence, that should be the end of it.
@ab8jeh
4 жыл бұрын
@@fellinuxvi3541 I think this is too much. Is it really _lying_ to say we might be living in a simulation for example, just because we have no evidence for it? Being an agnostic atheist is not giving up, but rather acknowledging we don't know for sure and should continue to ask questions, rather like science.
@fellinuxvi3541
4 жыл бұрын
@@ab8jeh It isn't, but those who believe in simulations don't usually demand faith. I gotta say, in these two months I've reconsidered a lot about faith, and I'm not as against it as I used to be, but I still consider it something rather sinister to ask of people, I wouldn't dare ask to be trusted with anything I cannot prove, but I guess since most modern religions don't teach a literal interpretation of their texts, it's less harmful to follow religion now than it was during, say, the inquisition or the middle ages.
@ab8jeh
4 жыл бұрын
@@fellinuxvi3541 Indeed. Organised religion that indoctrinates the young at an early age is something quite different to coming up with an individual position over time after exploring the subject as fully as possible from many viewpoints. Whether the latter is truly possible is up for question, but we can strive for it I guess. Anyway, some questions cannot be answered, and definitely should not be the basis for organised religion!
@yusurkassem4174
2 жыл бұрын
'Humans just like killing each other' lmao couldn't have said it better
@taserrr
2 жыл бұрын
To paraphrase Ricky Gervais: "Everybody is agnostic, it has nothing to do with belief. You either belief there is a god or you belief there isn't, nobody KNOWS if there is one. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheist and theism deal with belief, they're in a different category."
@noelpucarua2843
2 жыл бұрын
Is it your belief that agnosticism deals with knowledge? I tend to believe it deals with the question of knowledge. Also a different category.
@taserrr
2 жыл бұрын
@@noelpucarua2843 It's not a matter of what i believe it deals with. "agnosticism, (from Greek agnōstos, “unknowable”), strictly speaking, the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience." That's what it means, which is very close to science and scientific truth.
@noelpucarua2843
2 жыл бұрын
@@taserrr Ah, so that's what you believe. Or is it just what you want me to believe?
@davidwuhrer6704
2 жыл бұрын
I can prove that there is no greatest prime number. This is something I can know with absolute certainty beyond experience or phenomena. There are an infinity of those. The belief that one cannot know is provably false.
@gowdsake7103
2 жыл бұрын
Yes but that would involve having to listen to that dick !
@user-bf8ud9vt5b
2 жыл бұрын
Wow. My respect for David was high, but now it's gone to a new level.
@lyianx
8 жыл бұрын
Taking away the comfort isn't the issue Atheism deals with. Its fighting against religious zealots trying to force their beliefs on to others, especially those that dont want it. If you are religious, and take comfort in it, and don't bother anyone about their beliefs, then more power to you. The moment you use your religion to bring harm to another, be it psychical, or psychological, you are removing the tolerance for you and your beliefs. That said, im sure there are Atheist Zealots out there as well. Not saying there is not or that they are always right. But i understand why they are bringing a loud voice, as that seem to be the only way to be heard over the loud voice that is religion. And im personally, kind of tired of Laws being based on outdated religious beliefs.
@morganstiefvater1693
8 жыл бұрын
David seems to be referring to the atheists who will go to anyone who says they have a religious belief (even if they aren't trying to force it upon anyone in any way) and telling them that they're wrong for it. He's talking about the atheist zealots who attack people who are not zealots. And that is just trying to strip them of the comfort given to them by their God or whatever.
@marcforrester7738
7 жыл бұрын
Right, the ones that don't exist in the real world outside of the rationalist subreddits, then.
@5alami5ami
7 жыл бұрын
don't you realise atheists are zealots too... these days they seem more zealous than religious folk
@marcforrester7738
7 жыл бұрын
Yes, I regularly see them handing out leaflets in the street, proselytising door to door and demonstrating loudly outside church services.
@AM_o2000
Жыл бұрын
"I'm not convinced there's something." In other words, he's an atheist, because he isn't persuaded by god claims and is making the erroneous assumption that atheism is only the belief that there definitely isn't a god rather than also encompassing not believing claims that there is.
@Meggs23
Жыл бұрын
Only a comedian could perfectly articulate these very thoughts I've had in my head. Some find comfort in religion. I find comfort in comedy. Having one of my favorite comedians express my feelings about religion through comedy... well peak level achieved.
@BlackSabbath86
10 жыл бұрын
You don't know what the two terms mean. Atheism isn't a claim, atheism is the rejection of a claim. Agnostic atheism is "I don't believe there is a god, but I don't know". And since there is, as per your admission, no evidence to suggest there IS a god, the default position is "I don't believe". Mitchell said he doesn't believe there is a god but he can't know for sure, therefore he is an agnostic atheist. What he WANTS to be true is immaterial and has no bearing on his atheism/agnosticism.
@horatioredgreenblue2130
3 жыл бұрын
Atheism is a claim. It's a claim that there is no God. Absence of proof isn't proof of absence. Therefore atheism is a leap of faith.
@TheValeyard92
3 жыл бұрын
Do you think this is his channel or that he reads this?
@garyconyers-davies5781
3 жыл бұрын
@@horatioredgreenblue2130 That is not true. Atheism is the rejection of a claim. As an agnostic atheist myself I don't believe in any of the gods that people currently claim are real, yet don't claim for certainty none of them are real.
@MrStn
7 жыл бұрын
From my understanding these two terms answers two separate questions, "what do I know" and "what do I believe". In my case I don't know whether or not a God exists, so I'm agnostic in that sense. The lack of evidence for a God leads me to believe that there is no God (or simply a lack of belief in God, whatever you prefer), making me an atheist. I'm therefor an agnostic atheist.
@theuncalledfor
4 жыл бұрын
More precisely: "What do I (think I) know?" You can never truly know whether you know something for real, only whether you consider it "knowing" or "believing". (Except for certain extremely undeniable pure-logical truths, such as the fact that you exist.) Also, you don't have to actively believe that there is no such thing as a god in order to be an atheist. So long as you don't believe that one or more gods exist, you're an atheist. There are even atheistic religions! That is, religions with no deity.
@theuncalledfor
4 жыл бұрын
@Time Warp That is exactly what lack of evidence means: No evidence.
@theuncalledfor
4 жыл бұрын
@Time Warp For the same reason you can't truly know that unicorns or fairies don't exist: There is no proof (note the terminology, I said "proof" and not "evidence" for a reason) that they _don't_ exist. You can come up with reasons and scenarios showing that they _could_ potentially exist without us finding any evidence of them, even though there is no evidence and thus no reason to believe that they do exist. In order to prove (or even show through evidence) that something _doesn't_ exist, you'd need to know its exact properties, and show that it cannot be found in the places where it would be if it existed, or show that its properties are contradicted by our knowledge of reality, or show how its properties are logically incoherent and therefore impossible. "God" is a nebulous concept that has many different interpretations, many different entities that fit the description and are alleged to exist (or have been made up for fictional stories), and that are not fully disproved by evidence or logic. The yawning abyss (figuratively) that exists where the evidence for these entities should be is enough reason to believe they don't exist, but it may not be enough to satisfy the conditions for claiming that you _know_ they don't exist - depending on your exact definition of the term "know".
@colmwhateveryoulike3240
4 жыл бұрын
That's how I thought of it when I was an agnostic atheist. Still seems the most useful definition.
@RKBock
3 жыл бұрын
since god is impossible to disprove and, unless his face pops out of the sky and he starts presenting us evidence of his omniscience and omnipotence, so is his existence, any question of knowledge is equivalent to a question of believe. or in simpler terms: if you have no evidence, claiming "I know there is a god" and "I believe there is a god" is the same, since your claim of "knowledge" is solely based on your believe and not on evidence. therefore: atheism and agnosticism is the answer to the same question.
@kasbakgaming
Жыл бұрын
Personally, I've never pointed to the immoral acts committed in the name of religion to claim that they're a reason for religion to not exist, but I have pointed to them to point out that religion does not occupy this superior moral high ground that so many religious people claim it does. He's exactly right, people will use any ideology to commit atrocities against one another, including religion, which means it's just like all the rest. I do consider myself an atheist, but with enough agnosticism that I'm willing to shift if someone can present sufficient evidence. Unlike David, I don't have an inherent desire for there to be a supreme being, I find enough comfort just looking at the beauty of the natural order of things to not need that desire. If other people do find comfort in that belief though, as long as they're willing to keep the belief to themselves and not force its ideas on others or cause them harm, then have at it.
@gyros69420
7 ай бұрын
I agree completely with you. Unfortunately there have been many wars in the name of religion in the past and will be more in the future I am sure; the "holy land" is still claiming innocent lives as we speak. It is a tragedy.
@Liam2621
9 жыл бұрын
I really warmed to david here. He came across as a really warm and intelligent person in this video, often he comes across as a bit rigid and stiff and dull but here he seems much better than that
@ParadoxapocalypSatan
6 жыл бұрын
Warm and stupid more like.
@ParadoxapocalypSatan
6 жыл бұрын
No because he made up his own mind about the definition of atheism.
@themiller3319
6 жыл бұрын
ParadoxapocalypSatan He really didn't. The experiences he has with atheists are quite common. And what exactly is wrong about it?
@ParadoxapocalypSatan
6 жыл бұрын
His personal experience does not determine the definition. Atheism is simply lack of belief, ergo he himself is an atheist.
@themiller3319
6 жыл бұрын
You sound like feminists saying feminism is simply a belief in equality, ergo he's a feminist. Labels and identification are incredibly personal and nuanced things. If he chooses not to identify as an atheist, then that's his shtick. Trying to force your label onto him is just disrespectful and ignorant. He's not an atheist, deal with it.
@woweixiaomiandui
7 жыл бұрын
Come on. People are arguing because they are defining the words differently. Mitchell also gave a definition of the words he used and by those definitions he is an agnostic. Which is quite close to the, in lack of a better word, classical definition of religious standpoints i.e. theist - believe there are one or more god's or higher power; agnostic - don't know or think we are incapable of knowing if there are o aren't; atheist - believe there aren't even one God. Gnosticism is a religious movement, not a method or standpoint.
@Andrew-yl7lm
2 жыл бұрын
@T And Me most atheists I meet are waaaaay more zealous than most religious people I've met. Hence why it's basically seen as a religion by most folk mate. Like how smoking weed isn't a religion but when you meet those guys that have a marijuana leaf on their hat, shirt, lighter and wallet. It seems a bit religious and you realize that you just don't wanna be told "alcohol is a drug" by them anymore.
@RedSiegfried
3 жыл бұрын
"suspicious of the disdain" ... well put.
@Higginz1991
3 жыл бұрын
Sums it up so succinctly. I was previously in the Hitchens school of thought when it came to religion but now I realize it's literally what gives so many the strength to face everyday struggles that would consume them otherwise.
@amosungar5248
3 жыл бұрын
Agnosticism is just much more logically sound than Atheism, because it addresses the issue of our inability to truly know. It has more intellectual integrity.
@chrism6315
3 жыл бұрын
Hitchens always professed that he was happy for people to believe if they kept it to themselves, the problem was they rarely didn't, especially in america. Edit: to paraphrase old hitchens again. This opinion is also incredibly patronising. 'Oh, some people *need* religion to get by, I dont, but some people do'. Maybe if we empowered people with reality, rather than make believe they will deal with shit better.
@thomasandrewclifford
3 жыл бұрын
@@chrism6315 I've lived in a lot of religious countries and talked with a lot of religious people and they definitely kept their ideals to themselves unless I brought it up. The US is just more fundamentalist than most of us realize and treat it like it's the norm when really it's just a very noisy example.
@chrism6315
3 жыл бұрын
@@thomasandrewclifford agreed, but also the US is the only (I think?) Secular nation in terms of government, yet all (if not, most) nationals are religious to their core, thats a problem.
@diaboloavocado
3 жыл бұрын
@@amosungar5248 someone claims God exists. I say "I don't believe you until you demonstrate your claim to be true. Do you think that that is an intellectually dishonest position?
@PNETriffid
10 жыл бұрын
Father Christmas is a comforting thought, and I would like it to be true that a benevolent old man delivers Yuletide gifts to all the well-behaved children in the World.
@davidwuhrer6704
2 жыл бұрын
Does he have to break into people's homes and spy on their children though?
@robpegler6545
10 жыл бұрын
Half the problem is that people have different definitions of what they think "atheism" and "agnosticism" are, to the point where they become meaningless labels. The question shouldn't be "Are you an atheist or an agnostic?" It should be "Can you tell me what you believe?"
@ztrinx1
6 жыл бұрын
"The question shouldn't be "Are you an atheist or an agnostic?"" Right, because that is a faulty question, since it assumes that the two labels are mutually exclusive, which they are not. Hence, the problem with different definitions. "It should be "Can you tell me what you believe?"" Well, that is a bit silly and vague because you could say that about anything, i.e. words, labels, ideologies. We use words because they have meaning.
@J0ECRAWF15H
6 жыл бұрын
...There's nothing wrong with the terms Atheist and Agnostic. They don't mean similar, or even samey-sounding things, you're just an idiot. One is taking the philosophical stance that God is [probably] a load of shit. The other is _not_ behaving like an edgy 12 year old, and admitting there _are_ in fact limits to what one can be sure of. Take your pick.
@JustAnotherPerson4U
6 жыл бұрын
I always say I'm an agnostic atheist because I tend to swing between the two sides. I'm not utterly convinced there's really anything but on the other hand imagining there's nothing when I die is pretty depressing so like David said I WANT there to be some sort of wish granter when I die so I can go world hopping. I suppose my beliefs are pretty agnostic but they seem really atheist to me as well in how I approach them. Not to mention I hate saying I'm agnostic purely because some people interpret it to mean i believe in some form of god and Christians and that take delight in it. But that is far from the truth. I don't believe in it but I know that I want there to be some sort of God system upstairs (I'm more inclined to wish for a multiple gods system rather than just a one for all one). Believing is faith without fact. Wanting has no faith or fact it is just impulse.
@Talisman09
6 жыл бұрын
atheist should be renamed as anti religion because that's all those irritating people are. Aethiests tend to lack emotional intelligence
@Talisman09
6 жыл бұрын
No it's because you don't realise what drives a lot of religious people. You automatically fantasise that you are more intelligent than them, but really you're weak and just want to feel superior, just like those religious people
@brendanwatroba8568
3 жыл бұрын
As a wonderful song goes: "I believe there's nothing after life goes by/ I believe it's over when we die, die, die/ Others may be thankful their beliefs are strong/ but every night I'm praying that I'm wrong, wrong, wrong"
@Wisdomdigger101
3 жыл бұрын
OFc there is afterlife You think people who murder, cheat , steal etc will get away without punishment? You are wrong :)
@brendanwatroba8568
3 жыл бұрын
@@Wisdomdigger101 I very well may be wrong. It is just a silly song after all. While I, like so many others, find comfort in the idea of Divine Retribution for those who do wrong in the mortal world, im not sure my desire for that to be the case means it is necessarily true. Hence the "Every night I'm praying that I'm wrong, wrong, wrong" However, I am happy for your strong conviction :)
@lizardlegend42
3 жыл бұрын
@@Wisdomdigger101 The problem with that is we have absolutely no evidence for such a thing. The real world isn't fair, a lot of shit happens to people who don't deserve it. Why is it so obvious that the afterlife, should it exist, is any different? Personally I always think our beliefs should be guided by the evidence we see. Unless we have evidence to show something exists, we should assume that it doesn't. Not exactly an extreme position I don't think. Nobody knows if there's an afterlife and there's no evidence to suggest it, much less any details of it. That's not to invalidate your beliefs of course, not at all. But just don't present them as clear as day absolute fact, when it is far, FAR from it. Just makes you come off as closed-minded.
@paredesmarcangeloc.621
3 жыл бұрын
what is the song, sorry I don't really know
@brendanwatroba8568
3 жыл бұрын
@@paredesmarcangeloc.621 I would not expect you, or anyone, to. It is the chorus of a song called "After Life Goes By" by the Folk duo Lou & Peter Berryman. Peter Berryman is imo one of the most extrodinary lyricists in the world and everyone should witness his brilliance
@masuganut2082
4 жыл бұрын
I love him. He didn’t bash anyone or anything in this. He very eloquently and honestly spoke his mind Love David !!!
@leebennett1821
4 жыл бұрын
Religion should not be exempt from Criticism it is not harmless
@masuganut2082
4 жыл бұрын
Lee Bennett never said it should be exempt That’s not what my comment was about
@joshuawright4198
3 жыл бұрын
@@leebennett1821 Thats not what he said he said that it's unlikely there's a god but there's no way to know there isn't so ultimately you can't prove your point so why hate the other said for their point because they can't prove it
@leebennett1821
3 жыл бұрын
@@joshuawright4198 The Trouble is what we Believe affects our actions you must acknowledge some Actions that are Done in accordance with Religious Belief are harmful for Example with holding Medical Aid from a Child Because of a Religious Belief
@joshuawright4198
3 жыл бұрын
@@leebennett1821 yes and you can criticise that just not believing in a higher power
@DefaultPosition
10 жыл бұрын
Agnosticism answers a different question to theism and atheism. Agnosticism is about knowledge, theism and atheism are about belief.
@smhht
10 жыл бұрын
Indeed, and as such, both are tied. And both are NECESSARY. David is an agnostic atheist.
@kangaroo1888
4 жыл бұрын
None belief please
@brandonsatterstrom7894
4 жыл бұрын
@@smhht They are not necessarily tied together. Knowledge is a subset of belief (in that anything you claim to know, will also fall into the set of things you believe... but not everything you believe would fall into the set of things you claim to know). But beyond the simple fact that knowledge is a subset of belief, they are not necessarily tied together. Knowledge is necessarily tied to belief, but not the other way around... belief is not necessarily tied to knowledge
@smhht
4 жыл бұрын
@@brandonsatterstrom7894 Yikes, a 5 year old comment, really? Anyway, you're thinking/trying too hard, and don't need to explain this to someone who knows epistemology. The labels are tied. As in agnosticism/gnosticism and atheism/theism.
@brandonsatterstrom7894
4 жыл бұрын
@@smhht Yes really... why would I care the age of a comment? Why would that matter? And no half-wit, as I just explained the labels are not tied.... thanks for that tho.
@sparrowhawk81
8 жыл бұрын
atheism is an umbrella. If you are not convinced that there exist a deity or deities, then you lack the conviction that these things exist, you are therefore an atheist. If you're not sure or you think it might be possible, then ok fine maybe you are an agnostic atheist. If you are convinced there is NO god or any gods anywhere, you're a gnostic atheist. Either way...if you do not answer "yes" to the question "are you convinced of the existence of one or more deities?" then you are an atheist. Semantics aside, that is the unavoidable conclusion.
@huttj509
8 жыл бұрын
+Sparrowhawk Does G-d exist? Yes: Thiest No: Athiest I don't know: Agnostic
@huttj509
8 жыл бұрын
***** Tradition and respect. It's a Jewish thing. Kinda loses a bit in the digital medium, but the premise is that G-d's name is to be treated with respect, so it's improper to write it on something that would be crumpled up, thrown away, or used to line a birdcage. There's ritual methods to dispose of worn prayerbooks or torahs respectfully. For similar reasons blessings used in recordings (songs, movies, for mass entertainment rather than education) are often subtly changed to alter the name used for G-d to a common similarly sounding standin (Adoshem), so that there's no possible concern about the recordings then being tossed in the trash. For that matter many (perhaps all, not sure) of the words for G-d used in prayer books do not translate phonetically to what's said (YHWH (well, the Hebrew equivalent) is very different, for example, but probably easily recognized to many laypeople. I've also seen YY (again, the Hebrew equivalent) used. I think there's a few more, but as a Jewish athiest it's been a while since I've been in services.)
@huttj509
8 жыл бұрын
***** It depends on usage for me. Referring to belief in a god is different from referring to belief in G-d. I think it also relates to the usage of abbreviations and standin names. To use your example, it's like your dog's name isn't Dog, but you refer to him as Dog because his true name isn't appropriate outside of the Temple, and then it's used enough that referring to Dog people know what dog you mean, so then Dog takes on similar issues of respect and use.
@sparrowhawk81
8 жыл бұрын
+Myles Adams Are you going to actually acknowledge bad1dobby's response to your comment or just go on and on about names of gods?
@sparrowhawk81
8 жыл бұрын
+Myles Adams No. Do you believe in the existence of a god or gods? Yes, and it can be known and demonstrated: Gnostic theist Yes, but it's all faith and can't be proven: Agnostic theist ANYTHING BUT YES + I don't claim to know: Agnostic Atheist Anything but yes + I know for sure: Gnostic Atheist.
@JustChadC
3 жыл бұрын
My respect for this man 📈📈📈
@blackhatfreak
4 жыл бұрын
I'm an atheist, but I do believe people should be able to worship whatever they like as long as it doesn't fuck over their fellow humans.
@danstylus1
2 жыл бұрын
People fear there being nothing because all we know is the continuity of our lives and we are hard wired to not want it to end. But in the case of nothing there's no fear or pain possible. Imo there's comfort in nothing.
@thecrackfox99
2 жыл бұрын
Yes I agree. It seems far more comforting than what most people want the something to be - an eternity of never ending experience
@BrytonBand
3 жыл бұрын
I remember when I identified as an atheist in my adolescence that I was really put off by the snobbishness of other atheists. Ironically, they were projecting evangelical attitudes with their beliefs. I'm aware not every atheist acts like this, but coinciding with the whole belief system that David just described, I truly felt like I didn’t belong. It wasn’t until at 20 I really started to think things through, especially the fact that my sense of instilled moralism was probably due to me surviving Stage IV cancer at four months old. So therefor, I comfortably identify as a theist. But I believe every religion has it’s pros and cons. We’re all trying to make things work in this brief existence we have on this planet.
@Capybarrrraaaa
3 жыл бұрын
That's the thing though, you don't need religion for your spiritual and deistic life to flourish and provide comfort. When one takes that step from "I think there's a loving god" to "The Bible speaks for him", you've stepped into a realm of insanity, persecution and exploitation. Religion is the extra layer added to deism to extort people.
@robeldridge5668
3 жыл бұрын
@@Capybarrrraaaa that's an interesting point. I believe, as a Christian, that "religion" is just a category used to define Christianity which makes it sound like a strict set of rules, but Christianity is actually about the relationship we have with God thanks to Jesus. The Bible, then, isn't a set of rules, but it's 1. Letting us know of God's love and 2. Setting out guidelines God has given to us for living this good relationship. People unfortunately then take these guidelines and bend them into rules which give them unjust power over others. So I'd slightly alter your point by saying the Bible doesn't lead to exploitation, but the way it's wrongly used does.
@Capybarrrraaaa
3 жыл бұрын
@@robeldridge5668 The problem with that is that we know so little about the authors of the bible, we just cannot trust their opinion of what happened. Which makes every interpretation almost identically justified. Which drops people down to Christ-flavoured deism, but then that's not supported by reality, because the only thing pointing to the Christ-god is the Bible anyway. Which drops the point down to deism. God-belief is fine, but I really can't say that any religion layered on top is inaccurate to that god's will at best, and just plain exploitative at worst.
@gonufc
3 жыл бұрын
@@robeldridge5668 I don't think that's entirely fair in that the whole premise (and claim) of The Bible- to have any validity or authority at all- rests upon it's Divinity. Therefore to be truly Divine it _Must_ be taken as written without "Diluting" a lot of the claims and demands it makes. Otherwise that would be- like in the past- Herecy. If we are to accept that it is not in fact Divine, and is purely a work of humanity then it holds no merit in the Physical sense- it is merely a collated compilation of associated mythological texts ( Which of course, in a small sense it is after Constantine's involvement at the first Nicea Council). In terms of LIterature it is absolutely a valuable asset of culture and writing but as a representation of the Physical realm (and more than that) it becomes no more valuable than Beowulf. I prefer to look at it as an Historical source. It is not a good source- we cannot identify (precisely) it's origin or even authorship nor the exact time frames involved (Did the original author witness these supposed events or not? We have estimates and supposition). It is after all a piece of Religious Propaganda- it's purpose is to proseletyse. If there were an equivalent text that was simply the adulation of a Monarch we wouldn't treat it as potential verbatim reality- we would assess it like any other text. That's my only issue with The Bible, Torah or Qu'ran- there seems to be a hesitancy to truly analyse them as a purely Historical Document/ Source. I mean the very premise of the Qu'ran is no more reliable than The Book of Mormon- a man makes a claim that something happened when no one else was there to see it (In that case, seeing Jibril appear before him in a desert cave and commanding him to learn to read and write to then start the Qu'ran). That is not a reliable Historical Source yet it's not commonplace to state that. I don't mind at all what people believe- only what effect their belief should have on others- if it's any at all then we have a very obvious issue.
@beastvader
3 жыл бұрын
@@Capybarrrraaaa I have to disagree. It's easy for us to say we developed morals on our own without external influence but that's because Western society (and the world at large) has already been moulded by Christian and Muslim values and principles. Without religion, morality is no longer objective and instead becomes subjective. In other words, the terms right and wrong become meaningless because they turn into abstract terms that are completely open to interpretation. For example, in Nazi Germany, people genuinely felt it was 'right' to persecute and kill innocent Jews, even though we both know that it was a heinous crime against humanity. And we believe that because of the religious values that society's inherited throughout the ages, even though the attachment to religion has largely been lost.
@WhitbyStuff
3 жыл бұрын
For a smart guy he seems not to know the difference between agnosticism and atheism.
@paradanglers
3 жыл бұрын
couldn't agree more - he's so far off I'm actually wondering if he's trolling!
@rowanbrown5541
3 жыл бұрын
Atheism: The belief there is not a higher power Agnosticism: Lack of belief in a higher power. Often people say one and mean the other, usually it's atheist when agnostic would be more appropriate. Where's his error?
@rowanbrown5541
3 жыл бұрын
@Colin Thisaname That's not the actual modern dictionary definitions. While atheist was originally a-theist as you say through use it evolved to mean a positive claim that there is no god. And so agnostic was coined as a term to provide distinction
@WhitbyStuff
3 жыл бұрын
@@rowanbrown5541 Atheism is about belief (or the lack of it). Agnosticism is about knowledge. There's no information on the existence of a god and so I'm an agnostic atheist.
@kevinkgillette
2 ай бұрын
Thank you, Davi Mitchell, for that beautifully sensible explanation of your views!
@pzolsky
6 жыл бұрын
what i have learned here in this comments section is that confused people view the not confused as being confused
@TracyLalonde
11 жыл бұрын
David Mitchell, I think I just fell in love with you even more.
@patrickbyrne5070
3 жыл бұрын
He does seem to be a very nice man. I don’t want ‘seen’ to sound nocuous- I’ve just never met the man. It’d likely be a lovely conversation
@mickbaxter9440
3 жыл бұрын
Clearly it may give some people comfort as they face the possibility of oblivion. But what about those who genuinely believe they are about to be tortured for all eternity? Their last days might not be so palatable.
@LeeStoneman
3 жыл бұрын
Have they heard the good news? They're not! Sadly, that still means death is just non-existence.
@samuellawrencesbookclub8250
Жыл бұрын
I can't speak for other faiths, but Christianity's whole shtick is about the redemption of the sinner. If a person believes that they are going to hell, they must also believe in a forgiving God before whom they can be redeemed. And it is in the aid of the dying who fear hell that priests, pastors, and ministers of all stripes visit the dying, at home and in hospitals, to help them on the way to redemption.
@martinlaird4738
Ай бұрын
This video is just fabulous. What a considerate and well rounded response from David. Everyone would do well to listen to this short clip
@franconbean
7 жыл бұрын
Personally I find the idea of not existing far more comforting than the idea of there being an afterlife
@scottb32a
Жыл бұрын
totally agree . The thought of living forever in the afterlife is terrifying . It could be a heaven that was built for a few thousand people that's now crammed full of billions , all pissed off because its nothing like what they were expecting , and gods buggered off as its got way too much for him to administer and its just chaos. Sod that
@asherujudo7383
2 жыл бұрын
He's being serious at the end, but I still couldn't help laughing when he talked about how we all face the possibility of oblivion.
@jaimemurphy2208
Жыл бұрын
Like Mark entering The Void
@monsignorerasmus.6441
Жыл бұрын
The probability of oblivion.
@flashpeter625
8 жыл бұрын
A little recap for David Mitchell: 1. gnostic theist/deist/whatever-of-that-sort - "I know god exists" 2. agnostic theist/deist/whatever-of-that-sort - "I don't know if god exists, I believe he does" 3. agnostic atheist - "I don't know if god exists, I don't believe he does" 4. gnostic atheist - "I know god does not exist" The argument is this. Numbers 1 and 4 are simply wrong right away, because we objectively don't know if god exists. Number 2 is unjustified, because there is no evidence for existence god. Which leaves us at 3, the rational position.
@wolfgangouille
8 жыл бұрын
+flashpeter625 there are proofs however that believing in god and praying is at best useless to survive cancer.
@Elrond_Hubbard_1
3 жыл бұрын
I don't want to sound snarky, but David doesn't really understand the proper definitions of the words 'atheist' and 'agnostic'. I think most people probably don't, but I'll explain it. It's two separate questions. You're either a theist or an atheist, then you're either gnostic or agnostic about that particular question. Gnosticism simply means being absolutely sure about something, whereas agnosticism is being uncertain about something. The first question is, 'Do you believe in god or gods?', if yes then theist, if no then atheist. Then the next question is 'How sure are you about that?' which if you're absolutely sure about it you're gnostic and if you have some doubt then you're agnostic. I personally am agnostic atheist. I don't believe there is such a thing as god, or anything supernatural at all for that point, but I'm not willing to say that I can prove it or that I absolutely know for sure that I'm right about it, and that's the agnostic part for me, but if I had to say which I think is more likely, then I don't think there is a god. For me, if you're making a claim about something then you need to show evidence. While I don't believe in god, it's simply because I haven't seen evidence that some kind of sentient, extra-dimensional being is the reason this universe exists or why we exist in it. If you could show _proper_ evidence of it then I'd change my mind. The bible isn't evidence, or any holy book from any other religion. These are just books written by human beings and are anecdotal at best. I mean, L. Ron. Hubbard wrote Dianetics, are you going to call that infallible? Feathery philosophical arguments aren't going to do it for me either - you have to be able to demonstrate repeatedly that it's true. If you set up a test where a bunch of sick people got prayed for and knew about it, some that were prayed for and didn't know, and a bunch didn't get prayed for at all, and you had different categories for different faiths and you looked to see if one group recovered faster, that would be interesting. Problem is that experiment has already been done a number of times and praying doesn't seem to do anything. But if you could come up with some type of irrefutable test that clearly showed that a god, however you'd define it, is real, then we'd have something. Until then, I'm going to be in the 'probably isn't real' category.
@jonathanwebster7091
2 жыл бұрын
What about deism? That doesn't fit into those definitions.
@mitzic
10 жыл бұрын
In a 1953 essay, Bertrand Russell states: "An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time." Of course David knows what an agnostic is. And the arrogance of some atheists in their insistence that agnosticism is somehow a less intelligent stance is unwarranted. And demeaning - to themselves as well as their targets.
@nemo9864
4 жыл бұрын
I think the problem atheists have with agnostics is that they, in a way, concede to theists that their personal god might exist.
@ThreadBomb
4 жыл бұрын
Listen to what he actually says about his belief. His logical position is "I want there to be a god, so I can't be an atheist". Oh dear. That's not logical at all.
@williamkhairi4061
3 жыл бұрын
Thread Bomb whether or not god exists isn’t something one comes to with logic. It’s a choice. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have been arguing over it for millennia, else we would’ve come to a conclusion already. He doesn’t want life to be meaningless, but he’s not convinced it isn’t. Neither can anyone convince you using any sort of material evidence that God does not exist. It takes faith for both atheism and theism, the only true wisdom is that we have no fucking clue which is true
@alistairmorrish8613
3 жыл бұрын
@@williamkhairi4061 Life is what you make it - it's not meaningless. No-one should think that. But it certainly shouldn't be regarded as part of some god's plan...lol. And atheism and theism isn't a choice. You don't decide what you believe. All religious people are brainwashed into their faiths. It becomes a matter of whether what you believe is supported by evidence and whether that matters or not? And the process of determining that, takes place through learning about the natural world.
@williamkhairi4061
3 жыл бұрын
Alistair Morrish when I say meaningless I mean that life is just an act of random chance as opposed to the theistic belief that God has a plan and created you for a specific purpose. You can live a fulfilling life without faith, I’m not arguing you can’t do that, but there’s a difference between being created for a reason and being created out of a fluke. I’m curious as to why you say that believing in atheism or theism isn’t a choice and then go on to only talk about the theistic side of that coin. If I raised my child as an atheist is that not also brainwashing? Where does one draw the line between child rearing and brainwashing? Besides faith, children seem to inherit the same political views as their parents, the same mannerisms, they tend to eat the same foods they grew up with, take on the same culture, etc. so arguing against religion (and by extension the existence of God) on the basis that it “brainwashed” you is absolutely ridiculous. You also make a sweeping generalization when you say that all religious people are brainwashed into their faith. Not only is it fallacious, it’s extremely arrogant. You imply that they’re not making an intelligent decision in choosing theism and somehow you’re different (and more intelligent) for choosing atheism. Quite honestly, neither side has any substantial evidence for me to make a logical choice, otherwise it would be simple. Atheists have just as much to prove when they claim God doesn’t exist. Because they can’t physically see an invisible, incomprehensible and infinite being, to them that’s proof it doesn’t exist. How ridiculous! like a fish in a fish bowl, we think that after exploring the entire bowl we can somehow make conclusions about what’s outside it. If you want to truly investigate the natural world, one can contemplate the existence of math and why it works. Science and mathematics are done with the underlying assumption that the universe has laws, and therefore one has to wonder about the lawgiver. We can go on and on until the end of time debating both sides (humanity has already done it for thousands of years) and never come to a conclusion. As you said, it comes down to whether or not your side is supported by evidence. I verily say unto you that neither side has any evidence. The natural world has just as much power to make someone into an atheist as it does to make someone into a theist, so why do we still bother debating?
@8Rincewind
3 жыл бұрын
This has popped up in my recommendations again and I can see 2 incredibly long comments I left 5 years ago. Jesus Christ I was boring! Arguably I still am, but I can't believe I spent so long arguing against nobody over "The most logical starting point of religious beliefs". I also used so many words to argue quite basic points.
@Phlebas
3 жыл бұрын
This has also popped up in my recommendations multiple times. I'd be tempted to leave a long-winded comment, but I'm genuinely not sure if I already did so I won't.
@Unlocktube
Жыл бұрын
I get his point, I don't want to rip away anyone's comfort blanket if they aren't hurting anyone. But if you don't think there is a god you are an atheist by definition.
@heresfrankbetches921
3 жыл бұрын
David is just a great person I agree with him on so many levels
@BrightRomeo
10 жыл бұрын
True man, huge respect for he's personal opinion.
@ajnode
7 жыл бұрын
Judging by your profile pic (a red canceling circle around the masonic pyramid and all-seeing eye from the US $1 note), your perspectives are not valuable anyway...
@inkmaster5480
5 жыл бұрын
ajnode Your claim is unfounded. Their channel icon is a crossed out circle over the all seeing eye because the all seeing eye is a Free Mason thing and there are a lot of ridiculous conspiracies surrounding the Free Masons.
@inkmaster5480
5 жыл бұрын
jawa64ify Ever heard of a typo?
@nickolasgaspar9660
5 жыл бұрын
His personal opinion is ignorant, I respect him but not his illiterate position on the subject.
@aceofbass95
5 жыл бұрын
Nickolas Gaspar you keep using the word ignorant but you clearly don’t know how to use it in context
@vadimzaytsev2660
10 жыл бұрын
I have only one firm religious belief: that there is a special hell reserved for KZitem experts. For all eternity the devil stabs them with a pitchfork while they argue that that is not, in fact, a trident.
@creativecredence850
3 жыл бұрын
Hmm, idk. If the pitchfork has 3 prongs then it's a trident. Seems like a rather obvious and inarguable thing.
@dektarey4024
3 жыл бұрын
@@creativecredence850 My pastry cutlery has three prongs. Are they tridents? If yes, is a trident cutlery? Does that make Neptune someone stoked for some cake?
@bald_lightning
3 жыл бұрын
@@dektarey4024 as a self proclaimed expert in three pronged appliances you are correct
@immajustuseafakename2159
3 жыл бұрын
If it is a 3 pronged spear with each prong straight, parallel and barbed then it is a trident, seems easy enough.
@thomasandrewclifford
3 жыл бұрын
You won the internet 7 years ago and somehow this comment has only become more true over time
@DukeofBlasphemy
7 жыл бұрын
as someone with the name 'dukeofblasphemy' i completely side with david and respect his very constructive opinion on the topic if only the comments here were nearly as intelligent
@oak1739
3 жыл бұрын
David is sadly getting emotionally manipulated by the idea of an eternal punishment for being an Atheist, and the social embarrassment from him supposedly being rational yet believing in God. This is why he says he's agnostic. Can you really imagine DAVID MITCHELL saying " I don't know flat earth exists or not, so I'm unsure"? The Flat Earth theory has less holes in it than all of the most popular religions of today. David is rational until he's scared of the consequences of being rational.
@RubyDoobieScoo
3 жыл бұрын
Atheism just means that you don't have a theology, it doesn't mean that you think there definitely isn't a God. Agnosticism is a specific definition within the definition of Atheism.
@RubyDoobieScoo
2 жыл бұрын
@SCDuckling or... autocorrect did me dirty.
@peanutismint
10 жыл бұрын
This is an interesting and valid viewpoint. Good man!
@nickolasgaspar9660
5 жыл бұрын
He is wrong. He is confusing the Atheistic with the antitheistic position. He is also ignoring the differences between a knowledge claim (agnosticism) and belief claim.(atheism/theism).
@aceofbass95
5 жыл бұрын
Nickolas Gaspar Jesus fucking Christ. This is why atheists are equally as annoying as theists
@TheBaconWizard
10 жыл бұрын
Atheism and theism deal with belief. Gnosticism or agnosticism deal with what you know. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, or a gnostic theist.. or...
@wadsmitter511
4 жыл бұрын
This should be shouted at everyone in the real early morning
@potatoface6986
4 жыл бұрын
or...a twat
@Jake007123
4 жыл бұрын
Wrong. If you don't have faith in at least one god, you are an atheist. The label atheism is the most simple and tiny one of any label. It doesn't demand anything else than not have a blind belief in an unproven hypothesis, which is why it's the rational stance.
@theuncalledfor
4 жыл бұрын
@@potatoface6986 Talking about yourself, I see.
@theuncalledfor
4 жыл бұрын
@@Jake007123 Who are you responding to? What OP said does not disagree with your statement, yet you begin with "wrong". So either you misunderstood them, or you're responding to someone else.
@ianlawton7421
3 жыл бұрын
Gnostic = Knowledge. Theism = Belief. It’s baffling that most don’t see that distinction.
@hblake5213
3 жыл бұрын
The slight problem with him saying he's not an atheist he's an agnostic is that implies they're mutually exclusive
@rajanm5571
3 жыл бұрын
Even though the ideas pertaining to atheism are a part of agnosticism, I don't think its wrong for an agnostic person to say they're not an atheist as it just means that atheism is not their sole belief
@element4element4
7 жыл бұрын
I am a big fan of David Mitchell, but it's disappointing to see that he has misunderstood the meanings of atheism and agnosticism. They are not competing concepts, they are orthogonal concepts and you can be both at the same time. In fact most people that call themselves "atheist" or "agnostic" are what technically would be "agnostic atheist". (Belief) - Theist = belief in the existence of a god - Atheist = lack of belief in the existence of a god (not same as believing god does not exist) (Knowledge) - Gnostic = Knowing a god exists - Agnostic = Not knowing whether a god exists (Combinations) - Agnostic atheist = Does not know if a god exists, therefore chooses not to believe due to lack of evidence. - Agnostic theist = Does not know if a god exists, but chooses to believe despite lack of evidence. - Gnostic atheist = Knows for a fact that god does not exist, does not believe in god - Gnostic theist = Knows for a fact taht god does exist, believes in a god. So technically David Mitchell is a "agnostic atheist", even if he would want a god to exist. This is also the most rational position, given no evidence and the way we approach anything (beyond the topic of religion). Most rational belivers are "agnostic theists", they would not claim they know god exists or that they can prove it, but they might feel there are signs that he exists or chooses to believe since they think it's good for their life. More extreme believers (like ISIS) are Gnostic theists. They are completely sure they know god exists, no doubt. I've never met anybody claiming to be a Gnostic atheist (claiming they know for a fact that god does not exist), which would be an extreme position. But sady "gnostic atheist" is what many non-atheists think what atheism is! Ps. it could also be that I misunderstand what he is saying.
@wynwilliams6977
7 жыл бұрын
Most people cant seem to grasp knowledge is a subset of belief so any other answer apart from a positive one yes I belive in god means you are an atheist you can be an agnostic one but whatever
@smhht
10 жыл бұрын
Pretty sure the fact he's "not convinced by theism" and thus doesn't accept it means he's rejected it. His terminology is a bit skewed
@TaxingIsThieving
Жыл бұрын
It sounds like he's a believer in the making. It'll come.
@chrism6315
3 жыл бұрын
Taking away religion wouldn't stop mass killings or fascists, but it would tear down a lot of cover and mechanisms that those things hide behind.
@primary_magic1227
3 жыл бұрын
This. I don't know why he's acting like that wouldn't Be a step forward.
@rehanmemon3969
3 жыл бұрын
I like that sentiment. If you draw comfort from a belief without hurting anybody, I for one will never attempt to pry it from you just because I don't believe. Most empathetic atheists probably wouldn't
@davidwuhrer6704
2 жыл бұрын
I have yet to have people at my door handing me pamphlets about how there probably is no god. I have reports about cars with atheistic stickers on them being routinely thrashed, while cars with religious stickers on them rarely are. Why is that?
@yantivity956
7 жыл бұрын
Oh god. Is there an option to just say I don't fucking know? I thought I was agnostic but apparently I'm not according to the comments
@earthbjornnahkaimurrao9542
7 жыл бұрын
Do you believe in a God or believe in any Theism? if your answer isn't yes than you are atheist. If you "don't know" than you are atheist. Atheism is not a belief in something it is a lack of belief in something.
@yantivity956
7 жыл бұрын
Earthbjorn Nahkaimurrao ok thanks
@michaelreqd
7 жыл бұрын
he is wrong, you are agnostic by definition of the word
@SilverEye91
7 жыл бұрын
+Michaelreqd He isn't wrong, atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of one more more deities. And if he doesn't believe in that then he is an atheist by definition. Of course, if he doesn't know if there is a god or not then he is an agnostic too. Which is why there is the term "agnostic atheism".
@jodawgsup
7 жыл бұрын
And by using the definition agnostic as michaelreqd did, he is also (probably) agnostic about invisible dragons, little midgets dancing around in your garden when you're not watching, and such sort of events.
@keggerous
8 жыл бұрын
I'm an atheist and an agnostic. They are not mutually exclusive.
@jamesgatz6553
8 жыл бұрын
+keggerous Stop being.
@viccigates3756
Жыл бұрын
The fact that we are driven by hatreds, that see us running around killing each other, does more to prove the Bible's message that we are sinners, (souls controlled by a sinful nature) in need of salvation and rebirth, than to diminish it.
@pla1nswalk3r
7 жыл бұрын
I hate this "You're taking away people's comfort" argument. If I take away the bottle from a drunk, I'm taking away his comfort. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken away.
@Awnos
3 жыл бұрын
This logic could be applied to every single mythology in history. If there's a possibility of God then there's a possibility of leprechauns and fairies.
@scrapeape
3 жыл бұрын
Hell yeah, bro.
@tsarnicholasii274
3 жыл бұрын
Typical Reddit atheist comment, it’s impossible to disprove a universal and eternal creator outside of our universe because he’s outside of it. God and Allah are not the same as fairies.
@Awnos
3 жыл бұрын
@@tsarnicholasii274 That's a very convenient way to get out of having to provide any actual proof of an outrageous claim.
@tsarnicholasii274
3 жыл бұрын
@@Awnos An outrageous claim like the Universe came from nothing? And that a God doesn’t exist? And that nothing outside of what we see exists?Neither side is actually provable, but one side just doesn’t pretend to be based purely on evidence. Religions are based on faith and so is atheism, you just like to pretend otherwise.
@Awnos
3 жыл бұрын
@@tsarnicholasii274 Atheism is not synonymous with a belief in science or evolution. Atheist literally means a non belief in deities. Science doesn't claim everything came from nothing it says we don't know where matter came from but we're working on finding out instead of just saying "oh god did it" I don't understand how you could believe an intelligent designer exists and have no desire to know more, like where did the creator come from? Why did he create us? You all just read from your human made books and say "yep that's good enough for me" If science ever did prove gods existence you can be damned sure we would continue trying to find out where it came from and what it's intentions are but so far there has been zero evidence of a creator. Claiming there is a god that created the entire universe, has spoken to a select few humans and continues to monitor us is the most outrageous claim somebody could ever make.
@sniggleboots
11 жыл бұрын
What interview or program was this on? I'd like to watch the entire thing. Thanks in advance!
@themitchellbrothers
4 жыл бұрын
...and 6 years later
@jsandppr
3 жыл бұрын
kzitem.info/news/bejne/rH2FxZ-toqt9qmk
@s.j7423
3 жыл бұрын
@@jsandppr cheers !!
@nikolaneberemed
7 жыл бұрын
For anyone who came into contact with philosophy, this is just ridiculous. Theism/atheism deals with claims to *belief* - you either *believe* there are some gods or you don't. Gnostic/agnostic deals with claims to *knowledge* - you either claim to *know* something or you don't. So one can be an agnostic atheist - holding no god beliefs and making no claims to knowledge, or a gnostic atheist - claiming to know that there are no gods. Both are atheists because they hold no god beliefs, they don't believe there are any gods.
@DeepVoicedDude
7 жыл бұрын
nikolaneberemed Hooray, someone does understand. You'd think Mitchell would know this shit. The root latin isn't exactly complex, and he is definitely the type to rant about how improper the common usage of the 2 terms is.
@tomkenning5482
7 жыл бұрын
nikolaneberemed The core messages remain, even if the wrong words are used.
@OctopusGrift
7 жыл бұрын
To be fair the way David Mitchell uses agnosticism and atheism is how most people use those terms.
@johnnyd.5466
5 жыл бұрын
Yes, while Radgar lists the technical definitions, David seems to be using the popular connotation of "uncertain." I think what he means is quite clear.
@nickolasgaspar9660
5 жыл бұрын
@@OctopusGrift the problem with those usages is that they crippled our power to offer meaning and important descriptions. The minimum requirement for someone to be an atheist doesn't include knowledge or even to make a negative claim against the god concept. Using a single label to criticize the act of the rejection of claim(Atheism) and the promotion of a knowledge claim(Antitheism) is just ignorant and dishonest. We expect from people like David to be more responsible that ordinary illiterate people.
@rontocknell3592
4 жыл бұрын
Obviously, as an agnostic, David would see agnosticism as the most rational response to the world as we see it. If he didn't, then I would imagine he would convert to whatever he DID consider the most rational response. Not all atheists are out to destroy the beliefs of others. I'm an atheist but I would be mortified if someone abandoned their faith simply because I'm an atheist. Obviously that wouldn't happen even if I did try to change them. I know lots of religious people and I make no secret about my own atheism but I don't think anyone I know has ever ceased to take comfort from their faith simply because they know some bloke who happens to be an atheist. I will accept that many atheists seem to distain the comfort that others take from their faith and try to bring religious people around to their own way of thinking. But they don't succeed because a religious belief or lack thereof is an intangible concept that cannot be proven either way. People obviously do convert to other religions or lapse into atheism and, indeed, there are atheists who become religious. But it's always a conclusion arrived at after a degree of soul-searching rather than being convinced by someone who holds a different view.
@gowdsake7103
2 жыл бұрын
My worry is the damage that religion does to peoples thinking and how religion takes the responsibility for their own actions and gives it to a invisible friend
@gandalf8216
2 жыл бұрын
If you are a theist regarding something, you're an atheist to everything else. We're all atheists, it comes with the package
@ryclemo4942
2 жыл бұрын
@@gowdsake7103 I guess a distinction has to be made between religious people that follow the teachings morally and are rational with their beliefs, willing to apply critical thinking to what they read and use their religion for good and other religious people that will treat it like a cult, or use it as an excuse for sexism which I have a particular annoyance at because it contradicts most of the other parts of the bible which talk about loving others, but they will choose to focus on a particular sentence and use that for hatred
@gowdsake7103
2 жыл бұрын
@@ryclemo4942 How can you even differentiate ! Religion at its heart is all about avoiding responsibility for your own actions, thats why the devil was invented As for the bible and morals hmmm It really isnt a moral book in many ways and most christians ignore the 613 commandments But the bible openly supports slavery, rape, homophobia, child abuse, misogamy and mass murder
@ryclemo4942
2 жыл бұрын
@@gowdsake7103 I think once again the problem is not the idea that we should forgive others, but the idea that people can get away with stuff and then just repent it, which isn't at all how it should work but the problem is that people think that's how it works. I feel like there is also a split between people who take the bible too literally and others. The bible is full of contradictions and while it is written about God it's written by humans who are prone to getting stuff wrong and talking about what is accepted at the time (e.g. homophobia) which does not reflect today's beliefs or God's views, but some will say I'm speaking heresy and choose to hate on anyone who doesn't fit the Old Testaments' narrative.
@profeturulz8373
10 жыл бұрын
Great analogy man.
@SpicyCurrey
3 жыл бұрын
Saying you are agnostic rather than theist or atheist is a fundamental misunderstanding of the question. It is a true dichotomy that you either believe or do not believe in a God. Agnosticism refers to your belief on the ability to know anything for certain. There are agnostic theist (believes there is a God but doesn't claim to know for certain), agnostic atheists (doesn't believe there is a God But doesn't know for certain), gnostic theists (believes in a God and claims to know for certain) and gnostic atheists(believes there is no God and claims to know for certain).
@MBaileyuk
7 жыл бұрын
As Ricky Gervais explained really nicely, the problem is that you'd have to be Agnostic to most mythical ideas. You can never be 100% certain that something doesn't exist, but the liklihood is that it doesn't exist is so overwhelming that labelling yourself as an Agnostic is just willingness to submit to ignorance.
@haunter4708
3 жыл бұрын
If you are reading this and you’re Agnostic, do you come from a religious upbringing? It just occurred to me that most Agnostics probably started out religious as is the case with Mitchell. For me personally I probably was Agnostic for a period but it was like a stepping stone towards Atheism.
@zachhouston514
Жыл бұрын
I was brought up as a Lutheran and stepped away when I was in my teens. I don't know if I'll ever fully step into Atheism because it's simply impossible to determine. Similar to how the big bang theory is impossible to 100% prove, there being a God is impossible to 100% disprove
@coffeebreakfiction1765
3 жыл бұрын
When people say they’re atheist, most people mean they’re some degree of agnostic anyway. Ricky Gervais would call himself an agnostic atheist. We can’t know that there is or isn’t a god just as we can’t know if there is or isn’t a space spaghetti monster that sends us love on Valentine’s Day. We have to be agnostic about both.
@zelosjr
3 жыл бұрын
That's not true. If you accept the possibility of a higher power, you aren't an atheist. Atheism is specifically the rejection of higher power. Once you start talking about "we can't know", that's agnosticism.
@coffeebreakfiction1765
3 жыл бұрын
@@zelosjr No I’m sorry that’s not true. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, or a disbelief in a deity. I disbelieve in any gods so I fit the atheism label, but I’m also willing to accept the possibility of one, so I’m also agnostic.
@dixie8418
4 жыл бұрын
Could someone offer some advice on the locality of the full interview, that is the video itself on a medium and not the location where the interview took place, please.
@dixie8418
4 жыл бұрын
kzitem.info/news/bejne/rH2FxZ-toqt9qmk
@rickybojangles162
3 жыл бұрын
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, they're Two seperate things entirely.
@kierenmoore3236
2 жыл бұрын
David is more than smart enough to understand that agnosticism and atheism belong to separate categories of knowledge vs belief.
@mazzacone
3 жыл бұрын
I don’t feel he has a grasp on atheism , agnosticism and the difference between the two. Specifically they are not mutually exclusive at all
@SuperRand13
3 жыл бұрын
I think this just comes down to definitions. All Atheists I know define it as "Lacking a belief in a God" NOT "Believing there is no God". Agnosticism come in with Knowledge - claiming to KNOW whether or not there's a God. Thus, most Atheists I know are "Agnostic Atheists"
@Geokinkladze
3 жыл бұрын
Most Athiests I know who are not Agnostic believe there is no god. It's the reason why they become so antagonistic against Theists. Agnostics simply don't believe either way and so treat Theists and Atheists alike.
@HerrRoehrich
3 жыл бұрын
@@Geokinkladze You still have your definitions mixed up really badly. The mistake many people make is to conflate two entirely seperate concepts - knowledge and belief. Gnosticism/Agnosticism deal with knowledge, NOT belief: Gnostic - knows (or rather, claims to know) there is a god Agnostic - doesn't know whether there is a god or not (with no bearing on belief whatsoever) There is no other option - either you know or you don't - which makes all honest/sane people Agnostics, because due to lack of any actually reproducible evidence either way, there is currently no way in our lived reality of definitely knowing whether or not a god exists. So I really doubt you know (m)any Atheists who "are not Agnostic". Speaking of Atheists... there are four major categories of belief (or lack thereof): Deist - believes there is a supernatural creating force, but does not believe in any particular deity Theist - believes there is a specific god/specific gods (in case of polytheists) Atheist - doesn't believe there is a god Antitheist - believes there is no god Those last two are very often conflated, when they are actually very distinct. An Atheist doesn't believe in any god or deity, mostly because of lack of evidence. They do NOT make the claim that no god exists, they simply reject all available deities and theological dogmas as unsubstantiated. The main difference between an agnostic Atheist and an agnostic Theist (e.g. a Christian) is that the Theist looks at their religious teaching and says "I am convinced by this argumentation and therefore believe this is true.", while the Atheist says "I am unconvinced by this argumentation and therefore do not believe this is true." - while neither can know for sure. An Antitheist actually actively believes that there is no god for a variety of reasons, e.g. because they believe a supernatural god is cosmologically unnecessary due to creation of galaxies, planets etc. being explainable through natural processes, or the conviction that all known religions are equally false and therefore assume that it's all made up anyway. Compared to an Atheist, an Antitheist not only rejects the claims of all deistic and theistic beliefs, but stakes an active claim themselves - the belief there is no god (even though there might be). Atheism is basically the default/neutral position you are born with, since you can't believe in something you have never heard of, and you later "decide", or are indoctrinated into, which (if any) theistic or deistic belief you want to adhere to. This depends largely on sociological factors, of course, such as where you are born, or who your parents and the people influencing your development are. A great comparison would be the OJ-Simpson Trial: Nobody can know whether or not he killed his wife because there were no witnesses - so everyone is Agnostic. "Theists" look at the evidence and are convinced he's guilty. "Antitheists" look at the evidence and are convinced he's innocent and was framed by the "actual" killer (whoever that might be, we may never know) "Atheists" reject the evidence as "too circumstantial" and vote "not guilty" due to reasonable doubt.
@Geokinkladze
3 жыл бұрын
I read the bit where you got agnosticism wrong and saved myself the trouble of not reading the rest. Agnostics don't know whether a god exists or not and choose not to take a position either way. Non agnostic atheists believe there is no god. Agnostics just refer to such people as atheists to save time. Most atheists I know are not agnostic atheists. I know this because I simply ask them what do they believe will happen when they die and they explain with certainty that the only things that they believe will happen are the physical effects. They are quite certain that they will not encounter a god because none exists. Such people are NOT agnostics.
@Geokinkladze
3 жыл бұрын
@@eamontdmas "The agnostics you talk about DO take a position because they live as atheists. " They don't take a position on whether god exists or not. Because they don't know whether god exists or not. They are atheists because they don't believe god exists. "The day you discover a so-called agnostic living as a Hindu, Muslim, Jew or Christian get back to us, but don't hold your breath." The fact that you state this, as if it is some form of counter argument to my position just shows you don't understand my position. Contrary to what a lot of people in these threads think, there is no such thing as an agnostic theist because agnostics don't believe in things that they can't know about. And they can't know whether god exists. You can't believe in the existence of god (which theists do) and be agnostic. Equally you can't believe that god doesn't exist (as many atheists do) and be agnostic.
@Geokinkladze
3 жыл бұрын
@@eamontdmas Why do you mistakenly think that I think agnostic atheists cannot exist?
@verbalengine95
3 жыл бұрын
I was looking for a based substitute for Ricky Gervais, and I've now found it
@@S4INTW4RRIOR based is an internet term for being politically or socially intelligent
@aaronmolloy8019
3 жыл бұрын
@@thomasandrewclifford and based? based on what is a meme. Looks like the teacher has become the student
@DamnZodiak
3 жыл бұрын
I find that comparison to fascism extremely unnerving. Some ideas are inherently more dangerous than others and while I wouldn't argue that the concept of belief should be considered as such, it still puts the logic of his argument in question. Yes, people have killed each other over many things throughout history but that alone does not absolve a religion of any inherent danger to society it might possess. Again, I'm not saying it does, but IMO he's not making a good case either way.
@tamam9503
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah, the comparison kinda implies there isn't anything inherently dangerous about fascism.
@prehistoricworld_
3 жыл бұрын
I don’t think David understands what an atheist actually is
@iwonakaplon3399
3 жыл бұрын
What he's describing as an atheist is probably a gnostic atheist, someone who believes/claims to know that God doesn't exist, and has rejected the concept outright, while what he's describing as an agnostic is an agnostic atheist, someone who doesn't personally believe in a god, but doesn't know either way. Hope that clears it up.
@prehistoricworld_
3 жыл бұрын
@@iwonakaplon3399 thats what I’m saying, yeah
@iwonakaplon3399
3 жыл бұрын
@@prehistoricworld_ I think he's just using them as shorthand terms.
@prehistoricworld_
3 жыл бұрын
@@iwonakaplon3399 in which case I don’t think it’s a useful way to get across how he feels, it just creates confusion
@GiantSandles
10 жыл бұрын
I don't really think being an atheist and being an agnostic are mutually exclusive but other than that I agree.
@GiantSandles
10 жыл бұрын
***** No it's not. Some people are both but there's nothing in atheism that's intrinsically anti-theist.
@A-Duck
10 жыл бұрын
I agree, strictly speaking an agnostic does not believe in any deities existence, exactly like an atheist. Agnostic simply implies on top of that, a willingness to admit unforeseen possibilities. But neither really contradict each other in terms of definition, more in terms of inclination.
@CrankyLeopard
10 жыл бұрын
GiantSandles By definition, you cannot be atheistic and agnostic. An athiest is someone that strictly does not believe in a god or gods, whilst being agnostic means your beliefs do not strictly swing one way or the other.
@GiantSandles
10 жыл бұрын
Cranky Leopard Google 'agnostic atheism'.
@BigMikeMcBastard
10 жыл бұрын
Cranky Leopard It is impossible to both believe and not believe in a god or gods. You're either an atheist or you're a theist. If you're not sure, you're an agnostic atheist. If you're sure there's a god, you're a gnostic theist.
@vonBelfry
3 жыл бұрын
Truth be told, I'm agnostic but also kiiiinda against singular religions. The rationale I present is that... Well... The universe, to us, stretches far, far beyond our current understanding. I'm agnostic because I actually do believe there's a possibility that a god or godlike being exists, but I am anti-religious because any single religion claims to know the answers to all of the universe, when that sort of knowledge is completely out of our reach as it stands today. The primary flaw of religion is the fact that they're setting an answer in stone when there are literally infinite possibilities from what we can see. Do you know the wisest thing to do when you can't answer someone's question? You answer "I don't know." And you accept that.
@Freethinkingtheist77
2 жыл бұрын
That God does not exist, I cannot deny. That my whole being cries out for God I cannot forget. (Sartre) I'm actually a Christian, but I think this is a profound admission from Sartre and resonates with David Mitchell here.
@gowdsake7103
2 жыл бұрын
My whole being calls out BS to the god claim sorry for that
@joshuanorman2
6 жыл бұрын
Actually, he's an agnostic atheist. One cannot be merely an agnostic but must have an underlying belief of whether or not they're convinced there is a god. So, he's not just an atheist, but an agnostic atheist.
@Artifying
10 жыл бұрын
This is the reason I've remained religious, even as many of my friends have not. I want there to be something more and I genuinely believe that no matter what is true, I will be comforted by my own belief and will be happier because of that security.
@lewisner
10 жыл бұрын
Wishful thinking? Nice.
@Artifying
10 жыл бұрын
***** Eh, why not? In the words of Blaise Pascal's famous wager 1. "God is, or He is not" 2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up. 3. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions. 4. You must wager. (It's not optional.) 5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. 6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain."
@lewisner
10 жыл бұрын
Artifying Pascals Wager is nonsense, famous nonsense but nonsense nevertheless. To apply it correctly you would need to apply it to all of the 10,000 plus gods which have been worshipped by mankind throughout history then factor in which of them have a "hell" and whether you have the correct version of the religion (30,000 denominations of Christianity). Then you would need to ask, if the biblical god actually existed, why you would want to spend time with a being which impregnated a 12 year old girl and killed multiple millions of children? You believe in Yahweh because it is one of the most recent gods and, I suspect, because you were brought up that way by your parents.
@jakobpbengtsson3608
10 жыл бұрын
***** And what is wrong with that? Is anyone harmed by it? If it's merely for comfort, the overall effect seems to be beneficial. We are wrong about a lot of things in life. It is not rational to assume there is some sort of God, but as long as we are not talking about a human authority using that belief to dictate the lives of others it does not really present a problem.
@lewisner
10 жыл бұрын
Because beliefs inform actions and religion exerts a massive, malign influence on the world. And as for human authority it gives people, including the pope, their ability to dictate the lives of others. My sister died 13 years ago and it would have been "comforting" to think she was in heaven but at least accepting the fact that she is simply dead allows me to mourn her properly and move on. A comforting delusion is still a delusion and I would rather not be delusional.
@RacheleStrata
7 жыл бұрын
To all the annoyed commenters getting stressed about the definition of atheist, please just take a step back. In R.E you learn there are theists, agnostics and atheists, believe in God, don't know and don't. Yes there may be a different definition, but he is clearly going by this so just chill out.
@monsignorerasmus.6441
Жыл бұрын
I dont want to let go of my comfort in the face of oblivion. That's honest at least.
Пікірлер: 4,9 М.