4 Things Atheists Should Never Say

Patreon: / geneticallymodifiedske...
PayPal: www.paypal.me/...
Some common sayings and ideas within the atheist community are just wrong. I'm an atheist, so it's up to me to correct my peers when they're mistaken. If we care about humanism / humanistic values, science , and skepticism, we can't propagate falsehoods like "Religion is a mental illness," or "Religion was just invented to control people." If we're going to talk about it, we need to actually understand the history and psychology of religious belief, and represented accurately.
I see a lot of these sayings and ideas as vestiges of "New atheism" from the hayday of The God Delusion, God Is Not Great, and the Four Horsemen: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett. Regardless of their source, atheists shouldn't say these things. Like I've said previously in videos like Why Theists Can't Convert Atheists, we should strive for positive, constructive discourse with theists.
------------------------------------------FOLLOW------------------------------------------
Twitter: / gm_skeptic
Facebook: / gmskeptic
Discord: / discord
Links
Shannon Q's channel: / @shannonq
Truth Wanted: / @truthwanted
DSM 5 on mental disorders: www.saybrook.e...
Excellent wiki entry on religion's ancient origin: en.wikipedia.o...
This video contains 100% therapeutic grade skepticism.*

[@GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic]

Do you agree with me here? Can you think of anything else we shouldn't being saying?

[@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676]

1# Be respectfull, engage with the argument and not the person

[@aldousfaraday3448]

Genetically Modified Skeptic I talked to God the other night tho

[@Frank_144]

@@aldousfaraday3448 having a near death experience is rough, are you ok?

[@dg7455]

Never mention the abhorrent things in the Old Testament or they will just disconnect and dismiss everything as Jesus fixing everything.

[@rutessian]

@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 When you attack an idea that has become part of someone's identity, you, in effect, are attacking the person. In their mind that idea is who they are.

[@MandyGBX]

I hate when people say "Religion is a mental illness." Mental illness is not a choice you make, nor something you can or are converted to. While someone who is deeply religious and suffering from mental illness may have symptoms that interact with their religious beliefs (paranoia, delusions of religious figures or voice, etc), being religious was not what made then mentally ill in the first place.

[@NLSasuga]

At the risk of sounding negative, when someone ingest something that has a permanent effect on their physical or mental health, they can be said to have aquired an illness or anomaly, if you will. When someone adopts a view that impairs their mental growth or perception of the world, you might as well ay they have aquired an illness. That does not have to be a religion. Some people work religiously or do something else in overabundance. I myself have two 'illnesses', both listed in the DSM. I have litterally been treated as sick person. But I wouldn't want it any other way. I guess a religious person would say the same and so would any 'workaholic'. It doesn't really matter how others perceive us and in what way they think we are impaired or addicted. Every curse can be a gift and vice versa. Your own perception of it matters most. If you can make it work, that's all you need.

[@Scyllax]

It is if you are religious.

[@jeezuhskriste5759]

@@Scyllax I don’t even know which part you’re referring to

[@Scyllax]

@@jeezuhskriste5759 Religion is a mental illness if you are religious. Better?

[@jeezuhskriste5759]

@@Scyllax OK, could you elaborate on that point?

[@bardot777]

Remember it was Mark Twain who first said you can't believe everything you see on the internet.

[@claudioestrella1160]

@smarter than a liberal are you being serious?

[@benaskalinskas4154]

@smarter than a liberal can you translate what you said to English please

[@stupidhat1779]

That was president Lincoln who made the comment about the internet ;-)

[@dzerres]

Damn because I just read where that quote was attributed to Abraham Lincoln.

[@randomuser5443]

Should I believe this?

[@danlini2021]

I’m a pastor, and I’ve recently found your channel. You have some really good content. I appreciate that you show in this video that you’re fair and critical to both sides.

[@samhughes1747]

Both sides? I'd suggest that you may need a few more categories to describe the weight of possible perspectives, as opposed to just "both sides." That said, thanks for being willing to engage with tough topics, and to appreciate and even affirm someone like Drew, well, it's both rare and a delight to see. Thank YOU!

[@gatewaytobeing]

I'm impressed at your open-mindedness. The priests/pastors I've known over the years would have never even clicked on a video created by an atheist. Have you seen this? kzbin.info/www/bejne/iHOWmGmjjbF4gc0

[@kazunabe4288]

It is nice to know a pastor is engaging in atheist content. But honestly what do you get out of it? I mean you are religious and it is based on pure faith. So do you ever think you'll switch sides? Or is it more to understand the atheistic position?Because really if you watch Christopher Hitchens' old debates I think that REALLY sums it up. Assuming you haven't seen them.

[@samhughes1747]

@@kazunabe4288, I doubt that the above pastor is considering a change in religious affiliation as much as a lot of religiously-oriented material is hopelessly caustic, and even if you don't resonate with the position, it's oh-so-refreshing when a communicator is as gracious and patient as what goes on here. I'll give you a "what I get out of it", as a religious agnostic: I get challenging questions to tackle. I'm not interested in proving Christianity is correct, and I'm not interested in debunking Christianity. The material here is even-handed, kind, and quite thought-provoking. It's a sort of conversation-by-proxy. Folks like Aaron Ra and Matt Dilahunty are a bit more "toothy", while Paulogia and (aaah! Dustin? blanking on his name) are kinder in their apologia non deus. Even if I'm indefinitely a closet atheist (more agnostic, really), the more comedy-oriented response channels are rich in quips, while more deliberate channels (kind or blunt) are useful for playing out the field of discussions. P.S. I've also watched a number of Chistopher Hitchens' debates, and my takeaway more-often-than-not is merely that Christian Apologetics is preselective for terrible people.

[@kazunabe4288]

@@samhughes1747 Interesting. As an Atheist this type of content doesn't really provide much for me. A long time ago it might have, but now its just the same arguments over and over and over and over (literally). I just can't really see how thought provoking these conversations are at this point. Granted I don't really have religious friends. It isn't a topic that comes up and we are pretty much all Atheist. Not really by choice, just kinda gravitated that way. And all of us sorta went through this period (raised in the church) where we found out how little we each believed in this...and moved on. I watched some debates and criticisms of religion for a while, then it never really entered my mind. I've read about history and religions since I like history a lot, but not Atheism vs Theism. History of religions is interesting to me. I clicked this video to kinda see how far PC culture has taken us and its funny cause now even the "I used to be in a cult now Im an atheist" channels are popping up and all I can think is "oh wow I thought KZbin atheism succeeded way back in 2010, but its still a thing...wow." I guess I didn't realize how many religious people there still are or even people on the fence.

[@Nikigettingbetter]

I’m definitely guilty of claiming religion is a tool of control. A friend of mine who is also an atheist helped me to realize that I am mistaken and that my personal experience with religion lent me to be biased in that way. Challenging my own thoughts and beliefs fell to the wayside once I felt I already had. Never stop being skeptical!

[@Outcast115]

If it's not for control then what purpose does it have seems to have no reason for existing if not to control people

[@robertmcelwaine7024]

Well, whether it was invented or not to be a tool of control is speculative but at the end of the day it still has been used to be so in the past, so whether or not it was created for that specific purpose for me is ultimately irrelevant because if history has borne out anything is the negative and controlling influence that it can and has had. Therefore it's ultimately a moot point.

[@roguepsykerhaaker4813]

​@@Outcast115well it could simply exist because people genuinely believed in it, it can serve as a sense of community, aid with many grieving processes etc. There are benefits to religion beyond control, even if that is what it has often been used as

[@cheesi]

I think there's an important distinction between _religion can be used as a tool of control_ and _religion was created as a tool of control._ As long as you stay on the right side of that I think it can be a useful point to make, but overgeneralising is awful for sure :]

[@Gwyndolin-hk4ql]

I think this is a pretty complex question. While it definitely has the function to control, it is "unconscious" about it. Take Old Testament as an example, it is quite straight forward in how it uses a divine cause to justify the rulings. However, when people truly believe in it and developing it base on the belief, it becomes something more than tool of controlling. There are people like Thomas Aquinas whose works are definitely beyond a mere tool. But we should not avoid the problem that while religion can be a life guidance, its all arguments are based on assumptions that are 80% been proven wrong, and 20% unfalsifiable.

[@eddyguizonde401]

as a chronic sufferer of bipolar disorder, thank you. a religious person can lose faith. i can't lose my bipolarity, even though i wish i could.

[@elenagibbons4719]

Eddy Guizonde I second this! I have anxiety, and I doubt it will ever go away. This is something I will have to deal with for the rest of my life. But most people in a religion like it and are there by choice. Mental illnesses are not choices.

[@lughtube5596]

Taha Hagar Who were you saying that to? Both of them? In any case that’s a horrible thing to say. I wouldn’t want that for anyone, even the people I really hate. They said nothing wrong or negative, they didn’t attack anyone, they just said that they appreciate what the video was saying and now you’ve just condemned them and said that it’s good that they are suffering. I don’t see how under any circumstance that is justified whatsoever

[@sergeantrex]

You too?

[@lughtube5596]

rex gerber Who’s that in reply to?

[@livi6440]

Elena Gibbons no they're not there by choice! Well, SOME may be. You can't say MOST. I don't have stats but I want to say MOST were never given a choice. Born into it, risk persecution or ostracism for leaving it.

[@KD-vb9hh]

I believe Mark Twain was making what is called in some circles, a "joke."

[@theblueclue3843]

K D100 Sorry i’ve never heard of this “joke” before? Is it some sort of book?

[@KD-vb9hh]

​@@theblueclue3843 lol

[@FakeSugarVillain]

Ah yes, the good ol' joke, the good ol' prank as the kids called it these days

[@alexandercanella4479]

@@theblueclue3843 I think it's like a pictureless meme

[@agimasoschandir]

It was probably told as a joke to soften a more blunt output. It was the kind of joke to illustrate the nature of how he viewed religion.

[@somedude172]

as a trans guy, ive learned this a lot. just try to be as understanding as possible with the person youre talking to, and more people will leave understanding you. if they can tell youre just trying to understand them, theyre a lot more likely to try to understand where youre coming from. ive had people send me death threats, and by the end of a few hour long convo, actually lose all of their animosity for trans people, just by asking them questions about their beliefs, and calmly stating why i believe what i believe/am the way i am. just being nice gets you SO far

[@Outcast115]

I would rather destroy their lives and hopefully push them into dispair. As a trans woman, I don't want to understand the enemy, I want them destroyed before they kill more of us.

[@nicoleangel437]

@@Outcast115 Dam, you get them gir! Don't let anyone tell you what you can and can't be

[@moonl1314]

@@Outcast115 I'm literally terrified of you, I'm scared typing this comment, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[@nt78stonewobble]

"as a trans guy, ive learned this a lot. just try to be as understanding as possible with the person youre talking to, and more people will leave understanding you. if they can tell youre just trying to understand them, theyre a lot more likely to try to understand where youre coming from. ive had people send me death threats, and by the end of a few hour long convo, actually lose all of their animosity for trans people, just by asking them questions about their beliefs, and calmly stating why i believe what i believe/am the way i am. just being nice gets you SO far" It's ok to disagree and see things differently, as long as we can all let each other live as we see fit. In any case... your personal happiness and sense of self worth, should not be dependent on others. :)

[@nt78stonewobble]

@@Outcast115 "I would rather destroy their lives and hopefully push them into dispair. As a trans woman, I don't want to understand the enemy, I want them destroyed before they kill more of us." Hmm, seems like a good way to create more enemies... Especially if it's simply people who eg. see gender differently than you and whatever other silliness people have been called transphobic for (ie. being gay, straight, lesbian etc.). Of course, if we're talking literal justified self defense... have at it, just like everyone else. PS: Is it regarding "trans panic defense" aka. "gay panic defense" aka. temporal insanity defense? Well, that legal defense is available to everyone, including trans people, so if we got rid of that, we might see trans people sent to jail, when they shouldn't have been.

[@wolf1066]

"You just believe in God because..." - I find that a perfectly acceptable _retort_ to "you just deny the existance of God because you want to sin" a bit of _quid pro quo_ that might just shock the person into reevaluating their own approach and realising that broad sweeping statements are stupid. Other than that specific use, it has no value.

[@wolf1066]

@Liz Lee I'm not understanding your point, sorry.

[@Liggliluff]

The "so you're saying that..." argument

[@wolf1066]

@@Liggliluff I've lost track of the number of times I've been told why *I* am an atheist by self-styled experts in me (a.k.a. religious people). I've tried numerous responses - reasoned rebuttals, derisive laughter, _quid pro quo_ - but none of them seem to have much effect. I think that when you're dealing with a person who _seriously believes_ they know other people's motives, thoughts, innermost beliefs etc, you're dealing with someone who's so far up their own arse that nothing you say/do will get through to them.

[@Cancoillotteman]

@@wolf1066 Well I have managed to work around this issue with some people (I too come from a deeply religious family), but it takes time, a long argument, and a lot of nerves. The thing to do is to always work with your interlocutor's view of the world or arguments. For instance I met this one "you're atheist just because you are too lazy to pray". My answer was this process (summed up with a lot of back and forth) : - let's admit your argument, let's say it is because I am lazy, it is true I hate preying. - Now that would mean I did believe in God before stopping preying, but tell me : what should we prey for ? - answer was "to better our lives" (the kind of prey-reward system). - So I ask "would you define me as someone who never takes troubles to better my life ? (I happened to be studying for a master and training for a marathon at that precise time) - The answer was "no, but..." But had nothing following it - So can we agree I didn't stop preying just because of lazyness ? - The answer was finally to admit they did not know why I stopped preying. It's a very long process but worth entering into if the person is someone you'll meet frequently.

[@wolf1066]

@@Cancoillotteman You're quite right, you can engage in lengthy discourse - if the other person is interested in sticking around and _hearing your side of the story_ (which is not always the case) and if the person is someon you'll be meeting frequently (rather than some random arsehole who accosts you on the street or at a party). Deeply religious family members or co-workers that you can't avoid contact with (and who can't avoid contact with you) *do* require some sort of discourse to bring them to a point of at least agreeing to disagree, if not actually understanding that you're not the person they arrogantly think you are... and if they think *they* know what *your* motives are, and have the balls to say that to your face, then they are being extremely arrogant. However, the ones who randomly accost you often don't have time for a lengthy debate and there are many who are not interested in hearing anything that counters their position - they've just made an extremely arrogant statement so the chances are good that they're not the sort of person who likes having their ideas challenged. And there's no easy "one-size-fits-all" answer to deal with them. Maybe they're just parroting what their priest/pastor/minister/elder says in sermons and haven't actually stopped to think about it; maybe it's their own conviction based on their understanding of scriptures and they're heavily invested in it; maybe it's some wild-arsed assumption based on delusions of grandeur. Maybe they want to stick around and debate; maybe they just want to metaphorically 'stick the knife in' and retreat feeling smug that they've "shown that filthy atheist the error of his ways". Maybe they're open to reasoned discourse; maybe they're the sort to shut down the moment you give them an answer that contradicts what they or their religious leader claims to be true.

[@lylez00]

I'm not an atheist, but I salute your diplomacy, intellect and eloquence.

[@Hello-pz6hb]

Well said.

[@nordicfalcon]

Thank you for the kind words towards an upstanding man of our community. We might believe differently, but I’d rather discuss it, than argue about it. Hate is like you drinking poison, but waiting for your enemy to die. But if both sides hate each other, who is left alive? Just because I don’t believe in a god, doesn’t mean I’m not interested in hearing your story. Many of us find religions to be fascinating to research. In the same veins as one would be in psychology and history. Just as I’ve met some Christians that are not angry, but are genuinely curious as to why I don’t believe. That’s what we need more of. Curiosity and civility. Not vitriol and emotional arguments, or petty spitefulness.

[@Kronangaurd]

Protect this man (or woman) at all cost

[@michaelsmith4904]

@@nordicfalcon Something you said hit a chord (or was it a nerve?) with me... "Many of us find religions to be fascinating to research." When I was younger I found the search for truth to be an insatiable curiousity. If what you believed was in fact as important as some religious people make it out to be, such as profoundly effecting you for all eternity, and if in fact there was a right and a wrong answer, why would you not make finding the right answer your highest priority in life? And yet, someone who was very deeply involved in this sort of thing once made an "observation" about me, stating that my intense interest in the subject implied a truth behind the question. And as with a lot of things this person said, I later found myself agreeing with them and saying to myself, "Yes! But not in the sense that you think!"

[@aleatharhea]

@lylez00 I am an Atheist and I made a similar comment on the "upon friar review" channel. Not that they were intellectually dissecting arguments, but they talk about their religion in a way that is respectful of others. They react to humorous videos as a jumping off point for deep dives into multiple views from different sources on various religious topics. You get a little history of religious philosophy and a good number of dad jokes. They're interesting and warm. Oh, they're friars, in case you didn't catch that.

[@rawhideleather]

Knock knock... Who's there? It's Jesus... let me in! Why? So I can save you! Save me from what? From what I'm going to do to you if you don't let me in!

[@NOtORIouS316m]

Lol classic,God wants to save you from the things he created and let happen

[@TeenDreamsBH]

@@NOtORIouS316m Accept me or my big daddy gonna spank you.

[@callsignblaze4388]

Lmao it’s kinda true though.

[@raetekusu1]

@@callsignblaze4388 Not to Universalists, which seems to be becoming more and more of a popular sect.

[@mrob4357]

"I stand at the door and knock".

[@sailoreligaming]

Thank you for the callout on Unitarianism! I'm an atheist, but I belong to the Unitarian Universalist church and even grew up in it. One of our seven principles is that everyone has the right to a free and responsible search for truth and meaning, and we welcome people who have beliefs of all kinds. It would be incredibly difficult to control us when our beliefs can basically be summed up as "agree to disagree (and then have a meeting about it)."

[@rjlesch]

Or multiple meetings😀

[@chriskelso723]

Do Athiests jointhose meetings? Asking for "a friend".

[@cinnastag]

Ironically, a Christian ad popped up before the video began...the literal first Christian ad I've ever gotten

[@AlejandroCastilloRapper]

That’s not irony

[@arandomuser9459]

I get religious ads only when I watch atheist youtubers. Like this guy and mr.Atheist. Only religious ads I get.

[@jasonchan4732]

It’s because the Religious company or what’s ever are targeting atheist channels. It’s just marketing

[@Liggliluff]

I find ads for religions is weird. Advertising faith xD Are there true (non-joking, non-parody) atheist ads?

[@jebemtigolaz]

Ah yes, that's one of the reasons why I'm installing adblockers whenever I can. Facebook served me an ad from a reactionary party once and I threatened them that I will flood my profile with porn and gore. I never got a political ad again.

[@brendanmccabe8373]

Mark Twain was a humorist it was a joke I wouldn’t call him ignorant

[@Soapandwater6]

@WORST CHANNEL EVER Twain also said that faith is believing something you know ain't so.

[@PacesIII]

And Thomas Edison simply said, "Religion is bunk."

[@Soapandwater6]

@@PacesIII Smart guys, those two.

[@brendanmccabe8373]

WORST CHANNEL EVER what bubble I never mentioned his beliefs and he references God and religion enough that anyone with limited knowledge of him would be able to work that out

[@Soapandwater6]

@Mandatory Late Term Abortions for All DemoKKKrats Those are science based, not faith based.

[@droppedpasta]

Regarding the Mark Twain quote, I think it’s called “hyperbole”.

[@savage1267]

Ikr Also, "Duh"

[@Nerobyrne]

it's also possible he simply didn't know better. Just because you're a good author doesn't mean you're any kind of authority on anything else. For the best recent example, see JK Rowling.

[@jaymiddleton1782]

Nerobyrne JK Rowling isn’t a good author

[@Nerobyrne]

@@jaymiddleton1782 please provide 5 criteria to determine if an author is good.

[@jaymiddleton1782]

Nerobyrne how about just one? They don’t write derivative kids-in-peril stories designed for children but that, due to our tragically infantilised culture, appeal to soft-brained adults. But that’s just my opinion, precious.

[@bobmoretti4893]

I've been an Atheist for 35 years (since high school), and i really don't give a crap what others choose to believe. It does not affect me, so why should I push my beliefs (or non-beliefs) on others? I don't want others' views pushed on me, so I keep my opinions to myself. The way I see it is if your religion and/or deity gets you through the day, more power to you. As long as you're not hurting others I truly do not care. I will also say I will defend the rights of others to believe what they wish, as Freedom of Religion should be alive and well.

[@DodgeThatAttack]

i dont choose what to believe. my beliefs arent a choice.

[@kazunabe4288]

The problem is that many (not all) but many religious people try to directly mold society via legislation and thus ARE affecting us,

[@7yu00]

The thing is, when religions get harmful (like we have seen in the past and present) it gets a problem. No one stabs a person in the “name of Atheism”, most of the wars start BECAUSE of religious conflict (even with atheists being persecuted, or christians being persecuted by muslims, cult1 persecuted by cult2, etc etc). When something is HARMFUL we need to speak up about it and challenge it. How often do we see modern problems we can evident to the existence of dogmatic religions? Plenty of times. If not even daily. Just a little example: I’m an ex-muslim Atheist. Now you can easily google what would happen to me in an idealistic islamic country: capital punishment aka death for apostasy. THIS is where the problem starts. A RELIGION that is WIDELY STILL practiced and even DEFENDED wants people like me dead. And it doesn’t even have to go that far to capital punishment, even people inside of religions (like abrahamic ones like islam) face subjugation (simply look at how women live under islamic laws). While I do totally resonate with your point, as long as a person’s belief in a deity helps them get through whatever, and they’re not hurting themselves or anyone else, they can do as they please. However, that is unfortunately not the case for today’s world religions. Have a wonderful day :)

[@dustinthewind2648]

Religion dictates Society, so you are wrong.

[@robertpodbery242]

Of course,, religion helps millions ,, but is also used to persuade people to murder millions, including todays americans and british

[@Fuzen.]

I have a hard time agreeing with the crowd control part. I will gladly give the point about (all of) them not coming to life for that specific purpose - but religions (or cults as a whole) *are* social tools by essence. It is true for modern monotheistic religions as much as it is for ancient animistic cults. Besides, control doesn’t only mean the control of a group over another : it may be a tool for a group to control itself and rhythm its life, as is the case for animistic religions. In the modern era, Shinto is a good example. (Besides, the story behind the birth of that religion as such is quite interesting in that regard.) Now, for Christianity, it has times and times been used for the specific purpose of controlling populations. It’s no coincidence that it inserted itself in the religious practices of so-called pagan societies in order to convert them. In a sense, it has led to a new branch of Christianity - and then who is to say that this branch was not created as a tool of social regulation ? Finally, religions aren’t just born ex nihilo. Either they are created as a tool for control or they are the result of an interpretation of the world. (Or most likely, both.) And here it might be important to differentiate the nature of different religions : is it a way to explain a phenomenon or a way to circumvent the explanation or simply a view that exists concurrently to a physical explanation ? For instance, you mention ancient burials that point toward the existence of religions… but is that really the case ? It boils down to how we define religions since there is a difference between symbolic and/or abstract thinking and religious thinking. Otherwise, we could say that elephants and great apes are religious since they have shown mourning behaviors. Just because they understand the idea of death (and some of (?) its tangible consequences) doesn’t mean that they are abstractly thinking beyond that aspect. Thus, as far as burials are concerned, we have to ask ourselves if it is a way to honor the deceased regarding their death or their life - all that while taking into account the way our ancestors perceived the world that was without a doubt different than ours. And don’t even get me started on neanderthals. All that to say that admitting that there were religions tens of thousands of years before our era is a bit of a leap in logic. It hasn’t been that long since we developed complex social structures, let alone complex language and written language. Everything beyond that is nothing but our interpretation from our (subjective) understanding of our distant ancestors.

[@geoffreygeorge999]

us protestants arent like that

[@SlvtSammichArchive]

In the very least perhaps it can be said, that since humanity began to form complex social systems, ie. proto cities like Catalhoyuk, we have had ritualized behavior that looks very much like religion, at least based on observation. So it would probably be safe to say that there is something to humanities natural inclination toward reverence of some sort, in a religious sense. We can't exactly tell if it was used to control in this example though, because from what I understand, these are depictions not unlike wall paintings in Lascaux from much earlier that seem to "spiritualize" animal depictions, either for ritualized beliefs in the hunt or something similar. I think similar sites like Lepenski Vir with the use of statues, and the carved "venus" fertility figurines reinforce this notion. Do you believe these were also forms of control, either of an outgroup or of an ingroup? Or is it these repeating patterns of human behavior are more about "spiritual" significance that then gets corrupted by the formation of it as a religion?

[@Fuzen.]

@@SlvtSammichArchive I do believe that it is important to distinguish “spirituality” and “religion” since one is born from an intrisic… inclination perhaps ? while the other is more of an institutionalized structure. Animism is indeed an interesting case because as you say the way it is expressed (as far as we know at least) is similar to rituals but I wouldn’t say that we necessarily have to equate it to religions. I’m not dismissing the spiritual aspect of course, but I’d like to offer another take : it can also be related to “traditions” and we can observe the modern world to better understand them. Nowadays we have traditions that were born centuries ago but we still follow them regardless. (I’m French, and we celebrate the 14th of July because of the Storming of the Bastille in 1789.) The initial intrinsic meaning has been mostly lost to time, but it is still an occasion for festivities. In other words, it serves a purely social purpose. It wouldn’t be surprising that these early “rituals” served a similar purpose in addition to the spiritual aspect. Where I’m getting at here is that early spirituality was not necessarily a form of control but a way to unite/federate a group and because of that it wasn’t necessarily born with the goal of control either. However, we need to take a hard look at the way these forms of spirituality, old and new, are structured. Was/is there a form of hierarchy that can or do have an impact on the social structure or daily life of the believers ? If there is, then there is an almost 100% chance that there is a form of control either de facto or on purpose. (And for that, you have striking examples in the big modern religions. In Christianity you had the Pope who had the perogative to legitimize kings. Don’t even mention Jeovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower. Islam is an interesting case since the highest authority is supposed to be the Quran but the religion is highly reliant on its interpretations through religious authorities.) For these reasons, I’m inclined to agree with your second conclusion, while the first is more of a grey area. After all, spirituality has always been at its core a way to “explain” or at least “comprehend” the world. How it evolves from here… there isn’t really a single answer but we can at least see how it went with modern religions.

[@abasis.baruti9819]

I think the thing that most people either miss, ignore, or conceal in this conversation is that the fundamental nature of people in groups is to exert influence on the group. We inevitably fall into competition for control, authority etc. The fact that this video attempts to set boundaries on what should be acceptable is a case in point. Religion is no different. The essence of human interaction at the group level is competition for influence and its natural outgrowths (control, authority, etc.). The form and function of all social groups are predicated on the individuals who have the most influence over it. Belligerent people make belligerent groups and diplomats make diplomatic groups. However, regardless the temperament, all groups use some level of coercion to maintain its desired form/function. This is the problem that is at the heart of this entire discussion. So, even if all religions weren't designed to control populations, explicitly, they will no less end up doing this very thing using the same fundamental methods that every other group employs: increasingly constrictive levels of influence and eventually naked coercion.

[@SlvtSammichArchive]

@@abasis.baruti9819 While I think that may be true for most historically - as a socialist I have to believe we're able to raise above that "innate" desire or predilection as a species and achieve something more than the primitive need for in groups and out groups, and the forming of coercive hierarchies. If we cant master our own potentially innate natures (if that is the case) I worry for the future of humanity. Either way, one step forward is to find a way past mystical thinking - which under coercive religious institutions - continues to wedge humanity against each other for the sake of a non-existent supernatural overlord.

[@theDyingAtheist]

Good content. Some of my favorite conversations are with LDS (Mormon) missionaries. After getting past their first "lesson" I just start asking them questions and then REALLY listen. Although I'm not an ex-Mormon it's easy to relate to them on a personal level. They know I'm an atheist, but we have moved past the lessons and now we talk about life. They ask me more now about science, relationships and my ideas on life and death. I even have them bring their missionary buddies over, so I get to meet them.

[@AnastaciaInCleveland]

You're a better person than I am! The last time I interacted with Mormon missionaries was on a Sunday morning. Ex-husband and I greeted them at the door in our robes (we just so happened to have had sex) and with champagne glasses in our hands (we were in the middle of eating a post-coital, decadent brunch). After asking about the whole all-men-are-priests issue, I let them know that I was a Druid priestess (which was true, see www.adf.org) and that I could not be in a religion where women can't be clergy. They were non-plussed, and then they mumbled a good-bye and left. ~Anastacia in Cleveland

[@KOKO-uu7yd]

The Mormons I've met over the last 30 years have genuinely seemed to be good people. They were willing to listen, and discuss, and always treated me respectfully. I figured if nothing else, by MY continuing to discuss things with THEM, they may have felt there was "still some hope for reaching me". Meanwhile, I'm maybe reaching THEM, even if it's not evident for years after. Also, it's often enjoyable. And besides, I think some at least had the "understanding people to reach people" as genuine goal. Side note: my mother was terminally ill, and I could not spend the time with her I wanted. Her Mormon "friends" visited, ran errands, and generally helped her to an extent I wish was NOT rare, but is. I will always respect THAT, no matter if it was personality or faith driven. SIDE side note: I STILL am not comfortable with my kids perusing their literature, though! One child in particular would, I think, be vulnerable to the claims and "logic" in them. Instead, we read it TOGETHER, and I do my level best to ask the kind of questions to help the kids find their own answers, but ones based on a wider definition of "truth" than presented in the literature. 😁

[@Tijggie82]

I had a same kind of conversation with not a mormon (I forgot which religion) and it's kind of interesting to hear what kind of worldview such a person has. It was a fun conversation 😊.

[@theDyingAtheist]

I understand, well as much as I can. I wanted to include your response because it told me something I didn't know.

[@Tijggie82]

@UCWiKLeFoftTgEgr7l0tVmig I would say to 'that person', If I interpret correctly, yes I agree. Most people who are in a strict religion have been fed the rules of that religion since they were born. You should never engage in a discussion with them with the mindset of "destroying" their religion with "facts and logic!" to use a phrase. Just see if you can wiggle their brain a little bit to see if you can slowly get it to work again 😉. The same thing is true also for non-religious topics. I too have had my beliefs around the world challenged and turned, completely unrelated to religion. Hardheld ideas are not easy to moved.

[@jesusmark3872]

Simply want to thank you for promoting intellectual honesty.

[@thorstambaugh1520]

Yes, because the religious do not.

[@jesusmark3872]

@@thorstambaugh1520 big, bad athiest feel better now that you made a sad attempt at derogatory humor?

[@ntokozomahlangu1480]

Jesus Mark wanker

[@archiesimpson5172]

@@thorstambaugh1520 We don't what? Possess intellectual honesty or promote intellectual honesty?

[@pjaworek6793]

Don't call theism a mental illness, created to control people, that faith can only mean one thing to everyone (ask for their definition), don't make any ad hominem assumptions about your interlocutor. 👍 Keep it up Drew! It's so hard out there to have these conversations. Your moderate and considerate approach is sorely needed in today's divisive environment.

[@bradgillette9253]

Well said, Drew. My own trick is, as you suggested, is to listen with respect and to ask genuine questions. This usually allows for a Theist to explain to themselves the God of the Gaps. It, if done correctly, can lead to some genuinely good conversations and, perhaps, a better understanding of a different point of view. I've been an Atheist since I was 9, (I'm 48 now,) and have had many wonderful conversations with people of many faiths. I do not believe in anything, but that's not to say that I believe in nothing. If treated with respect the religious mind can be quite interesting.

[@bryantfox9689]

My opener in almost every conversation about religion is "Why do you believe that?"

[@darkmetro8882]

Thats a bad opener in my opinion.

[@Fuzen.]

@@darkmetro8882 Why would it be ? If a religious person asked the same thing to an atheist, they would have no problem answering. Same thing with any reason-backed position. In some cases, it might lead to having one’s views changed or eroded - but still or rather because of that, it has value. So why would it be a bad opener in the case of religion ?

[@rohnekkdosi1979]

I use a slightly better version of this. Out of all the religions that exist, what makes you believe yours is the one that is true?

[@rohnekkdosi1979]

@Fighter For Christ Says the man listening to a millenia old book full of lies and contradictions

[@diamondflaw]

I believe in god(s) because of personal experiences which unfortunately I do not feel communicate well to others. I don't agree with any religion I have been exposed to so far. I seek to use science and rational thought for as many life decisions as possible. I do not seek to convert others to my beliefs because as they are not adequately falsifiable I do not feel comfortable trying to argue for their validity outside my own mind. My belief in higher power does occasionally offend atheists around me, and I have lost at least one friend who was deeply offended I continued to personally believe in higher power. How's that for an honest answer?

[@ColeMillward]

I agree with everything that you’ve said, save for one thing: the faith argument. The reason why some of us Atheists approach the use of the word faith by our interlocutors with particular apprehension is because they are often using the word for both definitions (belief without evidence AND confidence based on evidence) interchangeably, and conflating the two. I’m 100% down to use whatever their definition is, but if they refuse to stick to a single definition, it becomes difficult to move forward in the conversation.

[@helvarstark4282]

As a practicing Lutheran, I tend to use the second with hints of the first. I tend to use faith with a definition of “confidence based on at least some form of evidence or intuition, especially in the face of doubt”. To elaborate here, most religious people that I’ve met are religious still because they see some value or something that maintains their faith in a god. For example, I regained my faith after God answered my prayers. That’s evidence insofar as I’m concerned. It’s not necessarily objective proof of God. But it’s at least something to go off of. I’m curious though. Why are the two definitions contradictory in this context? Let me elaborate here. Normally yes they’d be contradictory, but in this case given that you cannot prove nor disprove God’s existence. As such evidence for either side isn’t quite objective. Atheism has the “there’s no objective proof” and other similar arguments and ground to stand on, whereas theism has numerous arguments (both good and bad alike) that argue from the existence of God to the logical validity of the notion of a god, and everything in between.

[@ianu1082]

Yo no way I love thesauruses too

[@mathewhiscock7986]

This, and the Bible, which many people believe to be an absolute truth that dictates how things should be, defines faith that way.

[@varun7599]

Why should one stick to one definition? Who is an atheist, explain in 2 sentences. I am sure you'll get counter arguments.

[@phineasflinn6035]

@@varun7599 I couldn't quite explain in two sentences: Sticking to one definition, in my personal opinion, is not required, as long as the used meaning of the word is understood by all parties wherever it appears. Ambiguity can be detrimental in more than one way. Some examples: -It can be basis for unintentionally (or intentionally, as people like to assume what suits them) strawmanning the other's position, which can have a degenerative effect on most discussions -One can sandwich examples based on the non-empirical type of faith in between ones based on the semi-empirical (I don't want to offend anyone here, so: based on experience not scientifically testable, but experience valuable for the individual nonetheless) type so their (the examples') status can be somewhat elevated -Persons can argue different topics in a dialogue and assume they are are talking about the same thing without realizing and this can be a slippery slope to more and more unjustified assumptions. These things are not exclusive to religious terminology and one can notice various forms of misunderstanding due to ambiguous terms in everyday life. Again, this is my opinion, based only on interactions that I was part of, and, while explaining every word you say is a waste of time, one should probably do so with some of the more conceptual or abstract terms, if he wants to clearly convey his message. Now, sticking to rigour solves all this and is preferred because of that, but rigour is one of the many ways someone can convey their message, surely you can find one that suits you, but rigour is readily available, as most people can Google the meaning of a word. Tl;dr: we don't need to stick to rigour as long as we make our position understood.

[@pawel.b]

My confirmation bias was so displeased with this video. I'm glad I watched it till the end despite a strong urge to close it.

[@straightupnothavingagoodtime]

I'm very happy to hear you were able to view a differing opinion outside of your's without making a fuss about it.

[@Sophie-gk1me]

I got an ad for pureflix before this...

[@youronetruegodcthulhu5043]

I forced myself to watch the ad through just to see how bad it was...it really hurt to watch

[@DanielBoonelight]

i can't even handle the douchebaggery of that frosted-hair dude.

[@ded8103]

Please avert your eyes

[@theargonianmercenary184]

I remember watching Telltale and I remember that religious ads would pop up for whatever reason beforehand.

[@doubleirishdutchsandwich4740]

I've seen God's Not Dead ironically maybe 5 times. It is so dumb and I love it.

[@westingtyler1]

it's all about, when you have these conversations, are you more interested in getting to truth and resolving confusion, or are you more interested in 'appearing dominant' in the conversation?

[@theafterparty726]

Din Ding what don’t we tell the truth about?

[@theafterparty726]

@Din Ding I... I just asked to handle the truth. hence why I watched this video. if I wanted to be in a religious bubble then I would do so instead of seeking these challenging videos

[@ashkebora7262]

I think you're forgetting about the atheists that say these things just because it is offensive. I feel that most atheists understand basically everything that you've said, but sometimes people just get fed up hearing the same excuses. Sometimes people want to clap back against an assumption with another shallow assumption. Some people want to use shock factor to get someone to think about something in a non-normal way. It's always possible to get someone to think differently if you're a well received, well spoken person... But us plebs sometimes just want to verbally slap someone's mindset in the face. There are lots of reasons people would want to do it, but like the second half of your video: It's important to realize the depth of someone else. I was once a theist, but on the way out, _ALL_ of those things crossed my mind: What is death without God? Do I believe this only because I grew up that way? etc. etc. If you work based off of the idea that someone else has simple motivations ... You're very likely wrong.

[@LeneChibi]

Absolutely agree. As soon as I notice that the other person mocks me or loses respect because they learn that I'm an atheist, I won't put any effort in keeping the moral high ground and be the understanding person

[@SalisburyKarateClub]

@@LeneChibi Here's what I do after I've been abused by a theist, (happens a lot) I tell them I want to talk to them, and that I'm not interested in calling each other names. If that's the road they intend going down then goodbye. It's surprising how many change tack and actually we end up having a great chat. It's easy to bite back, I know.

[@ashkebora7262]

@@SalisburyKarateClub That's definitely taking the high road. I wish the video would have focused much more on building the emotional fortitude to not clap back instead of saying everything most of us already know. We _know_ the truth is more complicated. Most of us just need help keeping things from turning in to a food fight. Treating someone calmly and with dignity even after they insult you is a great way to try. It's just difficult, especially after they insult your own beliefs.

[@sandakureva]

Being fair, it's a quick and easy, knee jerk reaction to insult or offend theists intentionally, especially when they insult you first. (Theists have gotten spicy for some reason lately.) Now is it beneficial, no; but it is cathartic.

[@KOKO-uu7yd]

@elijah mikle I was really put off by the commenter's statement. Then I noticed the user name - she/he/they is at least honest that way, and I'm learning to keep my "hot buttons" out of the reach of trolls. (A lot easier for me to do online than in person, btw 😂)

[@Cavistus729]

I'm definitely guilty of saying more than a couple of these, mainly borne out of general frustration with my inability to see eye-to-eye. I''m way too quick to project my own religious experiences onto my interlocutors instead of simply asking them about their own beliefs. I often come back to this video to kind of keep myself in check. I appreciate it. One of the things I often dislike seeing other atheists say would be things like "god doesn't exist" as a truth claim. It''s often said in its isolation, without any intention to bridge discourse, just to rile up religious people. Leaves a bad taste.

[@SlyPearTree]

Thanks for making this. I hate it when someone uses an unnecessarily strict definition of a word in a discussion and won't move from it or allow for context. I now realize that I do the same with "faith".

[@hughobyrne2588]

Yeah, I do that sometimes, too, and need to watch myself on that front. I consider us in good company (as well as bad company), though, since our friend uses this arguing from one chosen strict definition when it comes to the phrase 'mental illness'.

[@shazaman23]

I agree and disagree on the faith point you made here. I agree that it's not helpful to define faith for people in these kinds of conversations. However, I think it's a natural tendency for the atheist to be rigid on a specific definition of faith. I think it comes from a frustration with the way that many theists will jump around between definitions. On one hand, they'll say that faith is a confidence level in a belief, in another they'll say that faith is the evidence of things hoped for, and therefore a BASIS of their belief or confidence level. It creates a frustrating circular argument. In the end, I agree with your suggestion of a better approach. We need to be rigid to a definition of faith in these sorts of discussions, but it should be the interlocutor's definition. And if they try to jump to a different definition it should be identified as something different. Like "trust faith" vs "evidence faith". Letting someone jump around with every definition of faith that meets their fancy will only serve to muddy the water.

[@Ludvich-y8i]

Very well said. I agree with you 100%

[@jeffc5974]

I hate when people play definition games. If they are aware they are doing it, or want to, they will often avoid being pinned down. That's when you know you aren't going to have an honest discussion.

[@Fuzen.]

When I need to debate with someone, as much as possible, I try to first have a clear definition of problematic terms for all of the participants before they are even discussed. It’s pointless to argue on a thing when we aren’t even arguing about the same thing to begin with. So you define a thing, it is what it is. If you want to use it in another way, you define another expression. Simple as that. One could say that it’s what dictionaries are for, but polysemy is a b**** so having a subjective definition framed around a specific discussion is less confusion-prone.

[@JaneDoe-dg1gv]

Liz Lee the point of a public discussion is to convince those listening, not your opponent, of your positions validity. Proving yourself right does make more atheists; albeit at a slow pace.

[@Valdrex]

I love getting PureFlix commercials on GMS videos.

[@creativerealms]

I always get a laugh when I get a Christian commercial in an athiest video.

[@alleatnar4373]

Yep I get the same ad on cosmicskeptic too :/

[@SoFloShylockPrankstv]

Ever get a Christian dating site ad?

[@ladyfreedomrocks]

I get them a lot before things like Atheist Experience and The Thinking Atheist. I call it an advertising FAIL!

[@robertcartier5088]

@@creativerealms I wonder if we can report Christian ads as hate-speech to KZbin? At the very least call them "offensive". ;-)

[@sjames1012]

I’m very religious and love this channel. A breath of fresh air from what is sadly the norm of bad faith discourse

[@thierrydecker8110]

"Religion evolved" This makes sense but it shouldn't.

[@malumy]

Considering religion is a meme (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme, not to be confused with an internet meme), it makes a lot of sense and theoretically everything is under the effects of evolution.

[@zvipatent]

@@malumy Daniel Dennett has a great video on the evolution of religion.

[@rintje6507]

Underrated comment

[@dma8657]

Great content as usual. A small point - the singular of “criteria” is “criterion”.

[@Codswallop58]

DMA 65a2 Yup. Put this in the same category as "media" and "medium," most often misused by artists and alleged journalists, both of whom work in at least one medium but who refer to that medium as "a media."

[@mightyaxolotl74]

I had no clue, thanks to both of you 😮 (Wonder if it's true in my language though 🤔)

[@fuyukazemi]

@@Codswallop58 I did not know that about medium and media. Probably because english uses mediums as the plural. Thank you for the lingual insight!

[@seanbirch9663]

@@Codswallop58 Meh, people even say "one dice". What are you gonna do.

[@GrouchierThanThou]

@@mightyaxolotl74 Not sure what language that is, but since criterion is an ancient Greek word and medium an ancient Latin word... yeah it's probably true in your language as well.

[@TeleportRush]

The religious clause in 4 should probably be ignored because it explicitly is a religious clause. I'm not saying religions are mental disabilities, particularly since it doesn't fit other factors, but the addition in #4 seems to be explicitly for the protection of even mentally harmful religious practices on the case that they are religions.

[@Uhlbelk]

You are missing the forest for the trees. The rule excludes a fallacious generalization. Its not saying someone can't be mentally ill if they are religious, nor is it saying religious belief cannot be caused by mental illness. Only that you cannot conclude someone has a mental illness based on their religious belief/participation.

[@ROFT]

@@Uhlbelk the fuck I can't. I wouldn't usually but I may start doing so on the basis of your comment

[@ziggyoickle3445]

I think it's included because as a species, we're extremely social and bound to do strange things when compelled to do so by our peers. So particular behaviours which are good marks for underlying mental illness are brought out of non-mentally ill individuals because of certain situations which could lead to a misdiagnosis.

[@tylergriffin3667]

My thoughts exactly. As we've all heard said before "In any other context, people describing the kinds of experiences that are reported by the religious (hearing god's voice, hallucinations of sensation like being touched or pushed, etc) would easily be grounds for immediate psychiatric evaluation. Unless it's religious... because....? Why? Sounds like Special Pleading to me.

[@savage1267]

Yes. This. Thank you.

[@andthatsshannii]

Number 5: “But God doesn’t exist though” - lack of evidence is not the same as evidence of lack and saying something with so much conviction makes you look as ignorant as the person asserting that god does exist. I’m a Christian but I can admit that there’s no clear evidence either way. It’s all about personal experiences for me.

[@theworstcatholic7247]

To be fair, if anyone used the argument "you don't have proof he doesn't exist", one could make it and use it for anything. For example I could say "I believe the universe is surrounded by a chocolate milkshake of gooey goodness." There is no proof for this, neither is technically proof against it. Personal experience is fine, in fact it's one of the reasons I believe, however it can't be used in against people who do not know you personally and have faith(pun intended) in your word. Anecdotal evidence cannot and should not be used in large scale discussions. Coming from a Christian.

[@SandhillCrane42]

I agree with you, but some people take issue with the rather narrow cultural world view associated with religion and its political implications. Nearly every religion appears to develop out of ancestor worship fusing with an impersonal eternal divinity of nature to give it personality, and then we are supposed to believe the God of billions of galaxies incarnated in a manger 2000 years ago as a male Hebrew person in the Levant descended from David (I hope that isn't an offensively blunt summary). Tribal lineage is very important to God, it would seem. I think it's easier and more scientifically accurate to value it as a cultural expression of spiritual attitudes rather than facts, which, judging by the wild variations in belief and practice prior to political purges as it formalized and gained power, was probably closer to the way its earliest practioners viewed it themselves. Once all other texts are deemed heretical, the truth remains locked in a book of ancient words.

[@andthatsshannii]

Barrett you’re seeming to think that everyone who believes in a god subscribes to an organised religion of sorts. That is not true for many of us out there

[@glamourchick21]

I think the bigger problem with telling a theist “But God doesn’t exist” as if it’s a valid argument is that it is simply incompatible with the theist’s worldview, and it’s not actually saying anything that would be valuable to the discussion. The theist says, “God wants me to do this.” If the atheist’s retort is just, “But God doesn’t exist,” the argument devolves into the theological equivalent of two children screaming “ ‘Did not!’ ‘Did too!’” and no one is actually getting anywhere. I remember once when I was still involved with religion-currently an unaffiliated sort-of theist-I was in a religious chatroom, and a couple of atheists came into the room and basically started text-yelling at us that God didn’t exist. No real arguments, just saying over and over that religion was a lie and that God was imaginary. Finally, one of them said, “Come on, (other person). We can continue opening their minds tomorrow.” I was left wondering whose minds they believed they had opened.

[@pajamas720]

@Mette B that was a horrible excuse of a trolling attempt.

[@MsDjessa]

1:51 I can give a personal anecdote for this. I have OCD and was raise religious. Religion didn't cause my OCD but I think it became worse because I imagined thoughts could influence the universe in form of prayers. So I caused myself anxiety by trying to pray a specific way, a specific amount during a day. Drew and Shannon in a same video.

[@jursamaj]

Regarding "faith": If the person claims they're not believing without evidence, have them trot that evidence out. They won't be able to. And if they claim faith can be a reliable path to truth "in some circumstances", have them demonstrate how they can determine those circumstances. Again, they won't be able to. (Also, asking somebody why they believe is often futile. The reasons they give can often be shown to be false, if you keep them talking.)

[@jesusmark3872]

Well if you disallow personal experience as evidence and only allow the physical you willfully ignore so much of what it means to be human. Also could you imagine that legal system. "I'm sorry ma'am. You simply saying you saw who killed your son isn't evidence. Do you have any evidence to prove you saw something?" And this is what faith is in It's purest form. We don't know anything. Seriously. We cannot even empirically prove reality is real. But we all have faith in that truth will be found.

[@nicolasandre9886]

@@jesusmark3872 : the thing is, personal experience that cannot be verified objectively by other people is very weak evidence. I'm sure you would agree it would be dangerous if someone could be sent to jail or to the death row for murder based only on a single testimony.

[@jaymiddleton1782]

Jesus Mark you’re kind of arguing that a woman should be able to get someone thrown in jail for murder just because she said so. Personal experience is not evidence for god because the human mind is fallible. 100% of the time whenever a religious claim is investigated it turns out to be naturally caused, which is why people don’t really accept “well I’ve seen Jesus!” Because it’s more likely you’re jus seeing things. There is no evidence for god because god doesn’t exist.

[@jesusmark3872]

@@jaymiddleton1782 science is the culmination of unseen and unprovable facts that thenselves cannot be proven individually but evidence will emerge. The point is in scientific history if personal experience was ignored like you want the foundation to your precious intelligence would not exist. And even a scientist needs faith to dedicate his life to a equations that embodies everything. I mean where is your physical proof that you are made of quarks? Also manipulating math is very easy compared to people. It's why it ia so loved. Makes smart people feel like they have hidden knowledge and power to control.

[@jaymiddleton1782]

Jesus Mark I appreciate what you’re saying, but personal experience still isn’t evidence for god, for the reasons I already explained.

[@AshleyJohnson-mk6tm]

As a Christian I genuinely appreciate you and what you're doing to promote civil discourse between people of differing viewpoints thank you and I love your content

[@mjay8488]

God is real

[@aluminium5738]

@@mjay8488 Steak is Grill

[@ncrwadr]

@@aluminium5738 BBQ BACON BURGER

[@nuridenizdurucu1249]

​@@ncrwadr HAMBURGER CHEESEBURGER BIG MAC WHOPPER

[@chriskelso723]

Eggs, pancakes and bacon with honey instead of maple syrup.

[@manuelk1853]

More atheists should be like you! Tolerant, respectful and open minded.

[@Diviance]

...just want to say I loved that show when I was younger. The one from your little "no, never happened, etc" clip at the beginning. Good times.

[@OnPlanetVenus]

Me too! I watched it...dare I say.... religiously 🤭

[@kyliesiwa2509]

That show was my childhood

[@chucheeness7817]

@treos2 Was that Riker from Star Trek: The Next Generation?

[@themousethatroared3371]

@@chucheeness7817 Yup :) Johnathan Frakes.

[@joemann7971]

Religion itself isn't a mental illness, but religion can be amplified by mental illness. My wife suffers from bipolar disorder and one of the signs when she was going on a mania was that she would become excessively religious. Back when u was religious, I used to believe she actually saw stuff when she was in an episode. It was terribly healthy. After I was convinced by atheists, I made it my duty to ensure my wife stopped believing in such nonsense. She agrees with me, even though she had problems as the beginning. Mental illness and religion are a dangerous combination. I'm not saying religion is a mental illness but it does seem people that suffer from real mental illness tend to be very religious. I don't think it's a coincidence. I have a cousin that is also mentally ill. He is also, excessively religious. It's not a surprise that some atheists might run into some religious people that might have a mental illness and make the assumption that religion is the mental illness. They say what? 1 in 5 people in the US suffer from some form of mental illness.

[@AndrewMartinNZ]

@WORST CHANNEL EVER Note that Stalin practised Stalinism. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism Mao: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism

[@AndrewMartinNZ]

@@zjohnson8773 Wikipedia is a good source for educational material for people ignorant about Stalinism and Maoism and who make strawmen about atheists.

[@joemann7971]

@@zjohnson8773 Wikipedia can be edited by everyone and should never be used directly as reliable information, but it's not to say completely unreliable. Many wikipedia articles have sources at the bottom of the page, which you can look up directly where the information was taken from. If you dont trust what wikipedia is saying, you can also track down the source it lists and look up the validity of the claim. It's not difficult to do.

[@joemann7971]

@@komrad She is doing much better. Thank you.

[@joemann7971]

@WORST CHANNEL EVER I'm not sure what all this has to do with Stalin, other than you started off with a straw man. Religion and mental illness are DANGEROUS because if a person believes in an afterlife and they are suffering, they are MORE likely to take their own life thinking they could go join the creator.

[@ShiftingFixations]

Wow, I strive to be able to speak as well as Shannon Q or Drew, honestly. My ADHD (a legitimate mental illness, unlike religion, lol) and my Anxiety makes it hard to be so eloquent on the spot. I’m always hunting for words and struggling to make my point so clearly, even in writing, haha! You guys are on point with this stuff in my opinion.

[@LuffyMonkey0327]

I recently had a falling out with my religious friend. Long story short, she started making devotional posts recently that sorta had me worried. She was focusing heavily on the afterlife and talking about losing interest in the "carnal world." She was also telling me habits that sounded worrying, too. One day, the worrying got to a boiling point when she made a tweet that worried me. I got upset at her and snapped at her. She got upset and blocked me on everything.

[@misterbitey2107]

Loved this video - as an athiest this hit on a lot of points within my own group that does frustrate me. Mainly because, as a historian I see that religion has a very nuanced and complex history that makes sweeping generalizations inaccurate at best. This is especially true with regards to statements on the relationship between the Catholic Church and science. Bottom line: religion is complicated, those who follow religious beliefs are themselves complicated, and taking the time to really understand why somebody might believe the way they do is important for not just general harmony but self-growth.

[@BeenThinking]

History itself is a science that causes many questions. At least I think so.

[@samvimes9510]

I used to be one of those atheists who said stuff like "religion is a cancer" and thought humanity would be further ahead by now without it. But after learning about the site of Gobleki Tepe a few years ago, I became interested in ancient civilizations. I started studying them in my free time and that invariably led to learning about ancient belief systems as well. That got me interested in the history of religion as a whole, and I came to realize something. Every single civilization that made contributions to science, agriculture, math, etc was religious. The Egyptians, the Hindus, the Greeks, the Arabs, etc. I'm no longer an atheist.

[@Outcast115]

No, fuck those worthless evil rats.

[@Kimmie6772]

@@samvimes9510 same, but I'm still an atheist.

[@Outcast115]

@@samvimes9510 Oh so you're gullible, likely homophobic, and stupid is what you're saying

[@jursamaj]

The fact that DSM specifically exempts religion & culture shows that its integrity is compromised. Being well-adapted to religion the majority isn't always a good thing.

[@hellishhybrid1839]

I used to go to church with my cousin George and... well, it was one of those churches that has people become "filled with the spirit of God" and fall over and starting to flop around like an epileptic exposed to a strobe light or speaking in "tongues". I'm quite sure the people doing that are probably mentally ill.

[@tatiana4050]

@@hellishhybrid1839 Triggered by a strob of light? Sounds like epilepsy actually.

[@jpe1]

Hellish Hybrid I suspect that the vast majority of people who engage in charismatic behaviors such as glossolalia (speaking in tongues) are simply faking it to fit in with the group, no further explanation needed.

[@Uhlbelk]

The DSM doesn't say anything about religion being a good thing, it is defining parameters that makes religion NOT a mental illness. That doesn't mean someones religious beliefs is not based on a mental illness, only that you cannot conclude someone has a mental illness based on their participation in religion.

[@Outcast115]

@@Uhlbelk I think that that is incorrect because every single religious person is absolutely insane

[@averyocallahan9634]

As a Christian, I appreciate this. I do go out to randoms and talk about God, and sometimes I get this kind of thing, which makes it nigh impossible to have a decent conversation. I also watched your video about what theists also shouldn't say, and many of us are guilty of that. Thank you very much for encouraging constructive conversation.

[@Keaperman]

Maybe... Dont go up to random people to talk about your God ? Because, maybe that tends o piss people of ? I have less then Zero interest to hear about your imaginary friend, and will say what ever I can come with to make you buzz of !

[@nt78stonewobble]

@@Keaperman "Maybe... Dont go up to random people to talk about your God ? Because, maybe that tends o piss people of ? I have less then Zero interest to hear about your imaginary friend, and will say what ever I can come with to make you buzz of !" Well, personally I'm ok with it, as long as people respect a "thanks, but no thanks". I mean everyone else can come bother us regarding anything from our cars extended warranty to friggin vegan bacon taste samples.

[@kazunabe4288]

Please don't take this as rude. Maybe don't talk about these topics with randoms then? Honestly, most Atheists have put a lot of thought into this topic and are bored of the same old debunked arguments Christians/theists have made. If you are curious watch some debates (Christopher Hitchens is my favorite), but really for religious people it is about faith for Atheists it faith alone is just isn't enough. So really no matter how nicely you put it, eventually decent conversation will dissipate - at least in my experience. I think this is because theists often feel attacked for their personal beliefs in their religion. It is a big part of their system.

[@redlamb]

Maybe don’t try to convert “randoms” and complain when they’re not receptive. They don’t owe you a “decent conversation.”

[@averyocallahan9634]

@@kazunabe4288 Interesting, 'cause that hasn't been my experience The vast majority of the athiests I talk to haven't given spirituality much thought at all, and are just kind of atheists by default (but then again, I live in one of the most athiest countries in the world, so my experience may not be indicative of yours). And yes, I have watched several debates, and I do find them quite interesting. From what I see, everyone has faith, whether they like to think so or not. Everyone is believing things on the credibility of what someone else has told them, or at least what their senses have told them. The question is, what's the most reasonable thing to put your faith in? And I think Christianity is just a more reasonable view of the world than athiesm is. Tbh at this point it's hard for me to feel attacked; I have a pretty thick skin haha

[@sawman209]

I agree 100 percent. I believe this is excellent constructive criticism which I will definitely be adopting. Thank you for putting out a video like this, it's so easy to get caught up in shunning other individuals when we sometimes are just as guilty of the transgressions we accuse them of

[@LNRMusicCuration]

What happened to the essential oils in the background? How are we gonna cure atheism without them?

[@certifiedautist5387]

I'm expecting an r/whoosh moment.

[@Theproclaimed]

LNR - After Effects “cure atheism”? Should we cure intelligence to?

[@thepaganforger7672]

@@certifiedautist5387 I think it's happened now.

[@LNRMusicCuration]

@@thepaganforger7672 it was a matter of time

[@ruanluies5909]

lol ! need them oils else i burn in church

[@GodlessCranium]

1st one: if you're not qualified to diagnose mental health, you shouldn't be doing it.

[@TheBeatle49]

He's not diagnosing a person. That would be wrong.

[@janvanruth3485]

if you are not a qualified meteorologist you should refrain from saying that it is raining?

[@checkeredcheese]

jan van ruth That’s such a weak, shitty analogy. You don’t need to be a meteorologist to know it’s raining yet to diagnose a mental health disorder you definitely do. Diagnosing any medical disorder/disease is exclusively reserved for medical professionals and for good reason.

[@checkeredcheese]

Michael Brook And the person you’re saying that to didn’t imply he was... he’s agreeing that you shouldn’t say theists are mentally ill. Re read it.

[@checkeredcheese]

jan van ruth It’s more like a meteorologist saying climate change is real, man made and it’s already killing us; compared to a lay person denying climate change. The meteorologist is qualified to answer the question where as the lay person relies on limited understanding of climate science.

[@davidav8orpflanz561]

"Stop asking me why I make fun of religion, I've told you so many times already, because it's mental, now you can stop asking me." - Ricky Gervas

[@SartorialDragon]

3:25 THANK YOU. Framing bigotry, harmful beliefs or hate crime as mental illness seriously harms those of us who struggle with mental illnesses. We are not villains, not monsters, not assholes, we do not inherently cause harm. Hate and bigotry stems from somewhere else.

[@comradeatomo]

Me 2 seconds in: “RIKER YOU BEAUTIFUL, BEARDED MAN”. 😃

[@jeffc5974]

It's false. No way. Not this time.

[@IIIJT]

Solid video, solid breakdown, wonderfully said and clearly explained. Great shout out to Anthony Magnabosco as the master of conversation in a way that truly values people. We need to step more away from tribalism and come closer to humanism.

[@Fleet-Admiral-Harrison]

I totally agree J T.

[@techwithbec]

Hi, I just found your channel thanks to Telltale. I've been binge watching all of your videos. I'm so impressed at how well spoken and to the point you are. I love all of the information you pack into one video. I'm an ex-mormon turned agnostic atheist and your videos are like a breath of fresh air 😁 Thank you for all of your hard work

[@techwithbec]

@Power The criterion cool story bro

[@RedAngelSophia]

I LOVE what you say about the definition of "faith". I, as a matter of fact, as an Atheist, was unable to continue reading a certain book by a fellow Atheist because the author kept doing the exact kinds of stupid things you are calling out. I think that many Atheists are so rigid on the definition of "faith" because they are fixated on a strategy based on proving that faith isn't a virtue. However, depending on what definition of "faith" a theist uses (specifically if they define it as something like "belief based on experience and reason") it may be appropriate to instead switch to a strategy based on showing how Atheism is more faithful than Theism.

[@MahraiZiller]

Great video, and I’m especially pleased that you tackled the mental health issue first and so well. My main objection isn’t with the point you thought it would be, and isn’t the objection you’d possibly expect (I also have one objection with the point you expect pushback on, but it also probably isn’t the objection you expect). When people say religion is invented in order to control people, they are using the idea of control pejoratively - and unwittingly promoting the worse form of nihilistic individualism. Plus, as you say, they’re wrong about it being an intentional goal of religion in a general sense. Religion is a tool for social control, which in itself is no bad thing. We are a social species and we create narratives in order to promote social norms and agreed upon ethical systems. I’d suggest that a religion basically comes about, in the main, when people with comformable spiritual beliefs (that is, different spiritual beliefs that share some common threads - for instance types of deities, rituals, dates or events or spaces of significance, ideas of ethical conduct) engage in discourse. This discourse results in those involved conforming their beliefs in accordance with others - importantly, everyone is doing this to some degree, so it’s not everyone conforming to one person’s ideas, but everyone gradually to each other’s ideas (hence the idea of “conformable beliefs”). These resultant beliefs and the traditions that follow from them act as a tool for social cohesion. Again, this isn’t in itself a negative thing. Social cohesion is important to human social groups, and it is achieved through common narratives, wherever they come from. So I contend that religion (as defined distinct from individual spirituality) is a tool for control. I just reject that this is itself a negative thing. It’s a tool, and tools can be misused but they also can have a valid use. My other objection isn’t so much to do with your third point, as to do with the whole reason why “we” (atheists) talk to religious people. I don’t feel the need to deconvert people, see it as my ultimate goal in any such conversation, or even feel that I’m talking to a lovely person who is just misguided and continue my conversation with the idea of my superior metaphysical reasoning running in the background. If someone’s trying to convert me, I’ll take up the challenge - though even then only if they are themselves adamant that I’m wrong or even evil, or they are spouting demonstrable non-truths. But most conversations are just about trying to understand how the other person sees life and the universe. I don’t talk to religious people thinking that I hope they become atheist. Unless their beliefs are harming themselves or others, I’ve no interest in “winning a debate” or “deconverting someone”. I’m a 100% atheist. I’d go beyond most and say that I know there is/are no gods. But even in that absolute certainty, I don’t find the desire to meet people who think different and dissuade them for its own sake. I’ve met a broad spectrum of religious and spiritual people to understand that not everybody - indeed, the vast majority - don’t fall into the harmful subset of religious believers. They don’t even fall into the subset of believers that deny science, reality and human progress. They’re just people who believe something I don’t for their own reasons.

[@0x777]

Well, to be honest, the only thing that keeps religion out of the DSM definition of delusion is an explicit exempt clause. DSM-5, delusion: "Delusions are fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. Their content may include a variety of themes (e.g. persecutory, referential, somatic, religious, grandiose).[…] Delusions are deemed bizarre if they are clearly implausible and not understandable to same-culture peers and do not derive from ordinary life experiences. […] The distinction between a delusion and a strongly held idea is sometimes difficult to make and depends in part on the degree of conviction with which the belief is held despite clear or reasonable contradictory evidence regarding its veracity." Of course this definition is not aimed at religions, but the core problem remains that most religions include in their belief system certain aspects that are clearly SO bizarre that outside of the religious context, these things would be something we'd send someone to a shrink for. Imagine you know nothing about religion and I come up to you and tell you that there is an invisible man that you can't see (and neither can I), that is watching everything I do. And that invisible man has a long list of rules, some of them quite bizarre and not really making a lot of sense, but I have to heed them all, because if I don't, he will put me into a really, really nasty place, but only after I die. But then for eternity. Be honest. What would be your reaction?

[@janvanruth3485]

DSM once stated that homosexuality was an illness. so much for the validity of the DSM on the matter of definitions of mental illnesses. to me all religious people are delusional. i do not care if it is inside or outside a context, delusional is delusional no matter how many share the same delusion

[@paulie1]

The thing is, if religion were a fixed delusion, there wouldn't BE any atheists.

[@0x777]

@@paulie1 I think that assertion deserves an explanation, so please elaborate.

[@Dustin_Bins]

I agree. I honestly believe by saying "Oh you aren't mentally ill because CULTURES say it's expected for you to have these religious beliefs....." well you know what was also culturally acceptable back in the time where Christendom was at it's peak? Slavery. Oh wait you're telling me you can't own slaves anymore? I'm sure one could come up with other examples that follow the premise of "Oh culture expects you to behave in a certain way" and then to see the change where that societal expectation would change. What your "culture" wants isn't always right and shouldn't always be followed.

[@Dustin_Bins]

@@janvanruth3485 I agree with this statement. To me the argument that religion isn't a delusion because many people believe is BASICALLY the Ad Populum agrument

[@mariearce8021]

As a non Christian for many years, I have tried to have respectful discussions with others and they've not been willing to be respectful in return, listen and have only been hurtful or very pushy, which is uncomfortable. I keep it to myself because I no longer feel the need for any explanations on either side, we believe what we believe and I'll leave it at that. I believe in having healthy boundaries. It's a weight off my shoulders to feel confident in myself.

[@nitrocharge2404]

That was a lot more unsolicited Jonathan Frakes than I ever expected to see in a KZbin video, and I love it

[@Barbreck1]

While I agree that the generalisation that "religion was only invented to control people" is false, I hold that many organised religions (and most specifically Christianity and Islam) were created for that purpose, as they are designed to perpetuate the heirarchical traditions of feudal societies. Consider: While the eldest born son became the heir apparent (of the father's estate and power), the second born went to the church, their function to ensure the servile minions remained at the beck and call of their master (the heir and new Lord), who would keep the second son through the tithe paid to the church. The Lord thence had an army to draw upon (who feared "outsiders" and so would fight) and the priests had a guaranteed income and roofs over their heads and could perpetuate the fears to keep the minions in their place. So while it's true that Bhuddism and many others do not follow this methodology, the organised religions of the Abrahimic model most certainly do. Faith. I don't think the issue is in any misunderstanding of the word 'faith' but rather in the statement that 'Faith is no reliable path to truth". Faith (that is- the belief that something is absolutely reliable) is something you can only have in what you accept is "true" from your perspective. The problem as I see it is in the definition of "true". Atheists consider something to be true only when it is DEMONSTRABLY true, whereas Theists consider truth to be defined by the Bible or what their friends, church or instinct (described as God) tells them. So the Theist begins by placing faith in something BEFORE engaging in any "reliable path to truth" and then tend to entrench their position because to do otherwise would be to slight their friends, their church or their instinct (namely their God). In essence they have constructed a cognitive wall of dissonance which they call "faith" in what they blindly accept as "truth". The Atheist engages in the "reliable path to truth" BEFORE engaging any faith and does so without fear of slighting anyone because truth cannot be a slight; It is truth regardless of anyone's feelings, including their own! This is the hard path the Atheist must walk.. or perhaps (to use the Biblical pun) the burden they carry!

[@doms.6701]

That is specifically organized religion, which is completely different from religion in general.

[@warrendriscoll350]

Unfortunately, both of those are bad definitions of truth, since truth is those things that are actually true, not those things that are demonstrably true or those things that are believed true.

[@Barbreck1]

@@warrendriscoll350 LOL, ONLY that which is demonstrably true is actually true.

[@warrendriscoll350]

@@Barbreck1 That's a very rare philosophical position. Verificationism. It got quashed a long time ago.

[@Barbreck1]

@@warrendriscoll350 By Theists per chance?! :D

[@wadeb5042]

I miss the “BS” sign in the back pointing to the essential oils.

[@ctrlaltdestroy91]

Mr. Spaghetti you cited a 10-year-old “article” from a quack celebrity doctor. Nah, I’ll take my chances with “mainstream” medicine as you call it.

[@wadeb5042]

Daniel Bermudez what?

[@ctrlaltdestroy91]

@@wadeb5042 Ah, it looks like the person who commented before me deleted his comment. He just posted a link to some quack doctor, trying to take down "mainstream" medicine (as he called it).

[@Cancoillotteman]

"Religions evolve"... I see what you did there ! XD

[@yanushkowalsky1402]

"You only believe in god because your parents made you do it" - how can anyone disagree with that? Statistically this is 99% true.

[@AJ-zf6mi]

Cuz it's not always true and that statistics is false

[@havefunwithadarios340]

This is the same as saying; ''You don't believe in God because you haven't read the Bible/Quran/Torah/etc. Statistically, this is 99.9999% true''

[@yanushkowalsky1402]

@@havefunwithadarios340 you are somewhat right but missed my point. If your parents bought you a small green silly looking car for your 16th birthday you would be in no position to tell your friends that you own this car because you like it. It just happened to you just like religion did.

[@havefunwithadarios340]

@@yanushkowalsky1402 This is true for most cases, but you can also say that to any atheist who were born an atheist, they were born into parents that lack belief in God, so they grew also lacking belief in God. But, you're saying that people who were born into a religion believe in God only because they were born into that belief, which is incorrect, even though there is some that this statement is true. Tell yourself that in some point in their life, they will start questioning their religion and the existence of God. There will be people, who after questioning themselves, will conclude that God exists and their religion is true and that conclusion will come from their own reasoning. Same thing for those who conclude that God probably doesn't exist and/or their religion is false. That goes also for atheist that were born into an atheist family, they might start following a religion or they might stay in the same position than when they were born. Again, you are right for some cases, but not all and I would even go as far than saying that only a minority of people will believe in something because they were born into it. Don't assume, always question why they believe because you're just underestimating religious reason, they don't lack as much reason as you think.

[@havefunwithadarios340]

@@yanushkowalsky1402 Also, fiy, I was born Muslim but became agnostic. I questioned myself and came to the conclusion that I simply don't know and I don't have enough information to come to a conclusion. My case isn't rare, I have some friend that became atheistic/agnostic too and also have some friend that just enforced their belief, it isn't for lack of reason, we all questioned it, just came to different conclusions.

[@drkim4077]

Drew, you’re an awesome atheist, one of my role models in fact, lots of love from uk 🇬🇧

[@stickiedmin6508]

UK represent! He is awesome.

[@aaronpolinati]

Yes he's an intelligent atheist who's ready to listen and understand and then respond unlike some atheists won't

[@stickiedmin6508]

@Trolltician Oh dear. You just _had_ to go and spoil things, didn't you? Well, we're all terribly impressed. Good job.

[@Gericho49]

We all worship at the altar of something, buddy. Whats your god? Is it ego, self image, greed, materialism, religion bashing, gambling, sport, sex, internet porn, drug addiction, chauvinism, racial hatred, wife bashing? . Where do u get off pontificating about perceived evil in one ancient culture with all the evangelical zeal u despise in fundamentals? Now u do understand the difference between allegorical literary genre and historical fact?, No? What really is so tragic is idiots like those on this blog do justify a denial of God's existence by creating a god no one believes in from just one religious text they obviously havent read nor understood a word of. Even worse these hypocrites love to ridicule the morality of others while being blissfully ignorant of their own transgressions.

[@stickiedmin6508]

@@Gericho49 Who's 'denying' your God? Show me. Who's 'creating their own gods?' Please show me. What 'transgressions' are you accusing us of committing? Please be detailed.

[@thelogician9879]

The statement "religion is at least as old as humanity itself" makes no sense. The oldest it could possibly be is as old as humanity. And ritualistic burial does not necessarily imply religion, let alone a theistic religion.

[@kaderose1082]

What about genetic ancestors to what we currently think of as humans? I think the statement is fine, unless you know otherwise for a fact.

[@calebl6609]

You’re a very good example of why theists get annoyed with atheistic pedantry. Your recognition of this point has little to do with the point of the video and adds no value to the dialog as a whole.

[@toddglover6386]

I found this video important. I wasn't raised in a religious household but my parents and extended family are religious, but possibly lazy about it. However, the tiny town I grew up in was incredibly religious and I was surrounded by it. I've seen a lot of toxic rhetoric surrounding religious talking points and so I can get a little defensive about being non-religious. I've never shamed or tried shallow talking points to defend or attack either view points but I have had thoughts outlined in this video and so it's important for me to see these well thought out and researched viewpoints put forth so succinctly. I appreciate all the efforts you're doing to improve the discourse between varying levels of opinion.

[@andrew-rc8se]

I'm a believer and I absolutely love this video and this channel! I dream to one day have a platform to have a constructive discourse with you about Christ

[@BionicDance]

The problem with discussing faith with theists is that, even if you let them define it for themselves, when they describe what they're actually _doing,_ it doesn't fit the definition that they described.

[@micksjotts884]

Then we should find ways to work that out, right? :)

[@edwardfanboy]

if you manage to establish that they really are believing without evidence, you can call it 'believing without evidence', rather than 'having faith', to avoid confusion.

[@KarltheKrazyone]

Most theists don't actually have a fully internalized understanding of what they believe. Most atheists have thought about the framework of their worldview far more than most theists. Its the nature of how most people journey away from religion, you are making your own map, so you have to engage those things on your own. Or you simply follow a guru and while might be atheist still end up a "Petersonite", or "Harrisite" you get the idea.

[@suitov]

Yes, exactly! You can only find that out if you let them talk. And then you can gently bring up the contradictions you perceive and maybe change some minds, instead of yelling at them and closing them off.

[@dionettaeon]

Especially when they're sourcing the Bible/Quran for their definitions, seeing as they define a fool as the opposite of what a fool actually is and try to assert faith as evidence. I've heard enough from AE and TH videos to know how much theists can contradict themselves (especially talking about slavery).

[@meetalleeka]

1. Religion is a mental illness. Disagree. Religion itself isn't a mental illness, but some religions, more so the extremities of religions, can cause mental illness in some people, or actions so resembling mental illness as to be virtually indistinguishable. The word 'religion' is such a broad term covering numerous weak and strong ideologies in the past, present, and future, that it's not possible to make that statement without focusing on very particular sects/cults. I believe religion is a cancer upon our species, at least in the vast majority of forms it takes today, but understand that it isn't so for many people within those religions, that it can help people, and that it has the potential for good. Unfortunately, for me those don't outweigh its capacity for the opposite. Not all religions are equal in this manner, although virtually none are innocent. 2. Religion was just invented to control people. Disagree. As you said, religions certainly have been used to control people, and certainly still are, but absolutely not the origination of religion, no. A need to explain the natural world is most likely where religions came from, such as worshipping the sun, the wind, the rain, etc. With no way of explaining things, we had to come up with something. We, as a species, are fantastic at anthropomorphising. We see agency everywhere, especially where there is none (or none needed), so we saw agency in everything, from the sun to the animals. A natural step, so to speak, is to polytheism, where gods control multiple areas, then all the way down to monotheism and its one god. I often wonder what the world, at least my small part of it, would have been like had the Roman empire not embraced Christianity. It's a thought experiment I've indulged in from time to time, and can be quite fun. Probably ignorant and complete bollocks, but fun. 3. The definition of faith is... I take this as belief in the absence of evidence when it comes to religion, but know others have other definitions. There is also the fact that many believers, no matter how they came to believe, say there is evidence for their faith. Some point to vague passages in their particular holy book, some a coincidence in their life, others to speaking in tongues, and yet others to faces in toast or names in zebra stripes, and they count these as evidence that their particular god is real. I count none of this as evidence, just as most here don't, I imagine, but it doesn't mean it isn't classed as evidence by the religious. If you want a definition use a dictionary, or just ask someone, as in the epistemology clip. At least then you know where you stand. I've had very confusing conversations online due to someone using a specialised definition of a word not found in your common or garden dictionary. It's never fun to speak at cross purposes over a number of days. 4. You just believe in God because... If you want to know which religion someone adheres to, just look at their parents' religion, and the vast majority of the time they'll be the same. This is how religions are usually passed on; from mother and father to son and daughter. I almost touched upon this above, but didn't, as it's related. Most people, as I said, adhere to a particular religion because it's culturally normal to do so, because it's the religion of their family, because it's comfortable to do so, but this isn't the only reason. Many of those people have evidence to justify their belief in that particular deity, which I highlight in statement 3. Far fewer, but still not an insignificant number, converted from one religion to another, or unbelief to religion, likely through an emotional period in their life, or because of a vulnerable moment, or because they felt it was the right one for them as its doctrines rang true (read: culturally familiar). So whilst we can say that most people believe in a religion because it's what they were brought up to believe, it isn't the only reason those people may have, just likely the strongest one.

[@meetalleeka]

@Trolltician - Lol wat? Most people have some measure of cognitive dissonance with beliefs of varying kinds, whether atheist, agnostic, or religious. No person is unique in that vein.

[@meetalleeka]

@Trolltician - Whatever. I don't really care. Troll somewhere else.

[@bigboyrenki]

You are a great example on that you don't have to be a christian to have good manners and the ability to show respect.

[@nineteenthly]

I'm Christian and this is absolutely awesome! I love it!

[@olemanshavadoo7893]

DSM is published by the American Psychiatric (not Psychological...that's a different organization) Association.

[@noradrenalin8062]

That's true. Doesn't help they use the same acronym though.

[@rstevewarmorycom]

GMS, You're WRONG! 1) There has NEVER occurred an event in which a god has "come down" and told everybody, "Uh, hi, I'm god, I made you and everything, so worship me!" NEVER HAPPENED!! Instead all we got was powerful leaders with henchmen with swords and spears, and who claimed, or their favorite prophet claimed they had spoken with some god in secret (dontcha know), and they knew what we have to do and that we must obey what they tell us god wants, and of course, to avoid being stabbed, we complied. Christianity was nothing but a fading cult till Constantine's mother fell for it and he started stealing money from pagan groups and funneling it to christians. Then Theodocious, who followed Constantine, made it illegal to be anything BUT a christian, promising confiscation of farms and property and one's family being broken up and you even being killed if you weren't christian, and that's why families beat their children to make them believe this crap JUST SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT DIE under the emperor's hand!! Control? Fuck yeah! 2) DSM criteria written by a predominantly christian APA are NOT definitive, Peter Boghossian and a cadre of colleagues have been working to have religious mania revised to indicate mental illness, AND for the DSM criteria for delusion to include religious delusion, INSTEAD OF SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDING IT for no reason!! 3) Faith is nothing because faith can be faith in anything, even contradictory things, and therefore CANNOT BE a path to truth. Faith is pretending to know things you obviously CANNOT KNOW!! I haven't seen SE, street epistemology, have any significant results. The interviewee toddles off with the same views as previous. 4) You are of the polite persuasion, like Anthony, but Peter Boghossian has much more effective presentations by being confrontational. I think you are deceiving yourself and therefore giving cover to delusional morons who NEED an abrupt confrontation!!

[@KarltheKrazyone]

So, one person, one anecdote is not data. So I'm just me, but your arguments are the exact thing that I have seen drive people deeper into their religion. Fundamentalism in any form breeds fundamentalism in others. You seem very sure of what you have stated, almost as though you have absolute faith that it is true. Now I could make that statement in bad faith, and read far more into your statements than are there. But I don't think that helps either of us. All I will say is that I think you need to adjust the contrast on your worldview and see if you can't start to find some shades of grey between the black and white. It seems you are looking at this as a "them vs. us" thing and not a "we" thing. "We" as humanity need to do better, no question, but blind adherence to God or No God will not get us there.

[@Outcast115]

@@KarltheKrazyone we don't need a "we" we need to get rid of these terrorist rats as swiftly and decisively as possible before they kill us all

[@Kimmie6772]

Religion isn't inherently a mental illness, but religious trauma is 100% a thing. It's sad that people hurt each other through ideology. It's more how people use the ideology than the belief in the ideology itself being a sign of illness.

[@HeavyMetalHindu]

I'm on imgur and its community says all of these problematic things and upvotes them into the stratosphere pretty much daily. Its sickening.

[@tonybennett4159]

In a discussion, words like "faith" need to have their meanings established before any meaningful dialogue can take place, in the same way that we should be careful about using "theory" when "hypothesis" would be less confusing. I'm afraid that sometimes theists try to jump horses in mid-stream by starting off with one meaning for faith, but try to justify a point retroactively by using its other meaning.

[@danielessex2162]

Difference is they do not know the difference between theory and hypotheses. Much like they think faith has evidence to back it because......you know look at the trees and the clouds.....is that not all the proof you need to have faith??

[@pauligrossinoz]

I have always clarified the word "faith" to mean *"blind faith"* in the context of an argument about Christianity. Because basically everyone agrees with the meaning of "blind faith", then we can quickly get to the business of *discussing the actual evidence* - discussing the real crux of the matter.

[@stephenolan5539]

@@pauligrossinoz And scientists have confidence not faith.

[@ROFT]

@@stephenolan5539 to be more precise they have reasonable confidence based on the lack of repeated rigorous attempts to falsify. Whereas people can be confident without any reason, or despite all experience.

[@stephenolan5539]

@Frances Snowflake but scientists only tentatively believe. The real issue is that people of faith will not give up their beliefs. Where any scientific experiment is designed to be able to prove the scientist wrong.

[@ladysybylgrey]

1. Stupidity isn't caused be religion, religion is caused by stupidity. 2. Religion itself isn't inherently controlling,(example: wicca/pagan) however certain elements of a religion can in fact be controlling.

[@notlisztening9821]

What i find disturbing when i look at atheists engaging in discussions with theists, is that many atheists just throw around the exact same phrases you hear all the time or, as you said, assume something and then attack that, which - even if it's valid - is still a strawman. You also hear theists throwing around the same fallacious arguments all the time. Which may have been answered 10.000 times already, but at best in 2 different approaches... all others are basically exact copies, which - even if correct - obviously fail to be convincing.

[@zvipatent]

I have faith that you are wrong LOL

[@notlisztening9821]

@@zvipatent that means very little to me

[@zvipatent]

@@notlisztening9821 and if it meant nothing ? :-)

[@zvipatent]

@@notlisztening9821 I just being silly bro. Peace and justice !

[@archiesimpson5172]

Here are two things an atheist said to me after I laid out what I thought was a very fair and eloquent response to his premise: Don't you know how to read English? and Your argument is ludicrous. He then accused me of arguing in bad faith, even after I attempted to elevate the discourse again. I finally had frankly had enough and told him I was tired of playing chess with a pigeon. Here's a hint to anyone : if you have to start listing out logical fallacies simply because you don't agree with what your opponent said, then give up. You are showing you have no more points to make.

[@katkramer3310]

Thank you. I have been guilty through anger of saying some of these things and you bring good points to the table. I’m going to try to do better.

[@AussieNaturalist]

Personally, I don't believe or claim that religion was "made up to control people", but for most of recorded history, religion has been used by people in positions of power to control the masses. That much is self-evident.

[@jesusmark3872]

And those people would technically fall into thw categories of atheist or satanist since they put themself as the absolute authority. They were non believers who infiltrated and manipulated to elevate the singular self above all others.

[@AussieNaturalist]

Jesus Mark, So you believe that all religious leaders, Monarchs, etc... throughout history were actually atheists? Can you please provide a link to some sort of evidence to support that amazing claim? Thanks. And most Satan worshipers are actually theists who practice and adhere to religious rituals, which is the very opposite of what an atheist is.

[@jesusmark3872]

@@AussieNaturalist the point is the actions. They were not worshippers of the diety if the only goal is self promotion and gathering of power. Now maybe they saw themselves as divine, who knows, the fact is it was infiltrated. Also satanist don't worship anyone. Satan is simply the ideal entity of self government to them and free thought. Satanist are athiest. People just tend to confuse satanism with diobalism. If you can't see that thru history it is either willful ignorance or mental deficiency. Also God said those you elect will decieve you which fits your evidence that religion manipulates people. Don't worry. They know how to manipulate you too. Money is your faith.

[@AussieNaturalist]

Jesus Mark, There is so much wrong with that comment it would take a very long time to unpack it and explain where and why it’s so wrong, which, sadly, I suspect would be wasted on you anyway, but I will point out the fact that you have used multiple logical fallacies as the basis of your argument, which clearly demonstrates that it’s not supported by evidence and or a logically rational argument. Please, come back with a logically sound argument supported by evidence, or not at all, because I don’t appreciate you wasting my time with your baseless and rude opinions.

[@jesusmark3872]

@@AussieNaturalist then you choose ignorance.

[@ChryosSkathe]

My only possible issue is with the "faith" one, for a couple reasons. First, trust-based faith isn't a reliable pathway to truth, either. It's at best a pathway to justifiable confidence, and often not even that. Second, the "trust-based faith" of many theists, when you question them properly, ends up being more of the same absolute faith that most practitioners hold, they've just built layers of rationalization over it. However, because of conversations I have had with those who believe their faith is trust-based, I can typically agree that it's better not to simply state that faith, or more specifically religious faith, is inherently blind. Instead, it is usually more productive to steer the conversation towards where trust-based faith can no longer be the justification for their beliefs, and get them to admit that it is the case that at some point they must make a blind faith decision to hold their religious belief.

[@jaymiddleton1782]

ChryosSkathe faith isn’t a reliable path to truth. I don’t know what “trust-based” faith is but why would that be a reliable path to truth?

[@ChryosSkathe]

@@jaymiddleton1782 I didn't say it was. Justified trust is a second definition of faith. Justified trust is often confused with "truth" by many.

[@jaymiddleton1782]

ChryosSkathe to justifiable confidence then. I am sincerely asking what specifically do you mean by trust based faith? I’ve just googled it and can’t find a consistent definition.

[@ChryosSkathe]

@@jaymiddleton1782 it's literally the first definition of faith when googled. "Strong trust or confidence in someone or something." It's the faith you have in your spouse, or what people mean when they say "faith in humanity."

[@jaymiddleton1782]

ChryosSkathe oh, right. I thought you were talking about something else. In that case it’s not a reliable path to justified confidence, either. Faith is useless for everything except maybe a baby name.

[@danmorgan712]

Religion was invented to control: I agree with your assessment, but once again I disagree with you analysis of the original line. "Religion", at least within the US, is often used to collectively describe Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Asserting that these religions in particular were, if not created, at least molded into their current form by a desire to control masses of people, does not seem like an outrageous claim.

[@gking407]

My first reaction is to get defensive. Why do atheists have to prove themselves by “staying cool” all the time? Then I realized that’s just the way the world is at the moment. Kind of like how black folks can’t show anger or outrage. The world’s not a fair place but I can accept it and move on. Stay cool.

[@jeremyh9033]

Well the truth is, it has nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with effective communication. Religious people don't convert many atheists by ridicule and mockery, and making assumptions about what they believe, so why should we assume it will work in the other direction? If you have no desire to actually convince people of your religion and just want the catharsis of mockery, then I can't exactly convince you that's a bad way to conduct yourself. But... If you want to be effective...

[@faizalqorni3611]

Ummm... Riots?

[@larsswig912]

@@faizalqorni3611 I though so too but the comment is 7 months old

[@faizalqorni3611]

@@larsswig912 LA riot.is older than this comment

[@vanillabean7832]

Jeremiah Houtz Exactly.

[@MasterSpade]

Definition of "Faith" in the BuyBull -- John 20:29 - Blessed are they who have NOT SEEN but yet believe. Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the assurance of things HOPED for, the conviction of things NOT SEEN. 2 Corinthians 4:18 - We look NOT at things seen, but at things NOT seen. So according to the bible, which they believe is the "word of god", Faith is the belief in something with no Evidence. So you cannot have real Evidence AND Faith. It’s either/or. Going by how the bible defines faith, it’s all about being Gullible. Unless you want to disagree with the "word of god". "Religion is a phase a species goes through when it evolves enough intelligence to ask profound questions but not enough to answer them." -- Bill Flavell

[@GrouchierThanThou]

Lol. Checkmate.

[@berserkerbard]

Master Spade ‘Not seen’ and ‘no evidence for’ are 2 different things. For example you never ‘see’ air, but you see it’s affects, you can’t see atoms yet we know they make up everything through evidence, you can’t see all your ancestors yet you accept they existed or you wouldn’t be here. I guess what you’re really saying is that you don’t believe there is (or can be) evidence to back up belief. Saying that Christians say that evidence is against their beliefs is a straw man fallacy.

[@MasterSpade]

@@berserkerbard -- You left out one very important part, that being the "things HOPED for". Huge difference is, things like air and atoms can be "Tested". There is no need for Hope. There is no need to believe in things "Not seen". Therefor there is no need for faith. Remember, those definitions I gave in the Original Post are directly from the supposed 'word of god". So.......... In Science, the more evidence you have, the more you can believe. In religion, the LESS evidence they have, the more they believe. Why? It leaves more room for the Blind Faith required by their "god". About your last sentence, so many christians say that they have True Evidence for their "god". They say that they have both True Evidence, AND they have true Faith that their god be the only true one. Well, going by the bible's definition of faith, that being things HOPED for but NOT SEEN, well as you know, True Evidence CAN be seen and hope has nothing to do with it. True Evidence is Falsifiable because it can be tested. Going by the definition of faith in the bible, and what True Evidence is, one Cannot say they have both Real Evidence for their god AND faith. It's either Or. When you truly have Real Evidence for something, you present that Real Evidence and there is no need for faith. When you do NOT have Real Evidence for something, THAT is where you need faith. So, one or the other, not both. Remember, the god of the bible said "thou shall NOT put your lord your god to the test". Only Con Artists say that after promising to give you ANYTHING you ask for in payer. Science/Real Evidence CAN be tested, the "god" of the bible demands you don't test him.

[@GrouchierThanThou]

@@berserkerbard Consider that the bible texts were originally written in Hebrew over two millenia ago and maybe you'll realize how hairsplitting the modern English translation like that did not make you come across as a particularly clever or well-educated person.

[@berserkerbard]

Master Spade I agree that faith is not an argument or a lone basis for belief. However, faith can and usually does come after evidence. If you had travel plans with a friend and you trusted or ‘had faith’ that they would book the plane tickets, because they said they would and they never let you down before, would it be silly or baseless to have that faith or trust in them? On the reverse if you had an untrustworthy acquaintance promise they’d buy you plane tickets free of charge, are you likely to trust or have faith in them? If you went to hospital with a broken leg, would you have faith that you’d eventually be seen and treated by a medical professional? Or do you have faith in the evidence presented by scientists who are reputable in their field? These are all examples of rational faith - not everyone has a super powerful telescope to see for themselves what astronomers see, but we take it as trustworthy because why would they lie? What have they to gain? A scammer gains money when someone falls for their scam and people use people’s faith or religion or just their vulnerability to target them too, like in Scientology or other cults, be they religious or not. But only a small minority of religious people have something physically to gain when they try to evangelise or teach others about their beliefs. Indeed, over the centuries many Christians were heavily persecuted and killed for their beliefs - so saying it’s because they’re all scammers is hardly a reasoned argument. After all, if someone called you a scammer for spreading your beliefs you would probably (quite rightly) refute their claim. As for hope, hope is a precursor and successor to faith. Imagine this conversation: Someone says, ‘I have faith that my friend will turn up with the tickets’ Then someone else asks, ‘what if they don’t?’ Then they say, ‘I hope they do or I’ll miss the concert!’ And imagine it the other way around, hope coming before and after. It would be totally reasonable to hope and have faith there. The hope represents fear of what would be without, but faith reassures. Scientists have hope and faith too, faith that their experiments will prove their hypothesis and hope that their hypothesis is correct. You say that a Christians hope is meaningless, well, it is for you and other atheists but not for them. It’s like a scientist believing their hypothesis but you, a sceptic, spurning them. You have nothing to lose if they’re wrong, but they do, so it’s a matter of opinion and not an argument. Also, I completely agree that the ‘god of the gaps’ argument has no weight. It would be ludicrous to only believe in a deity because ‘science can’t explain a, b and c.’ (Though I know those people are out there…) Scientific discoveries are being made all the time to the benefit of humanity, from the understanding of ourselves to the wider universe, the Big Bang theory and expanding universe model bringing us closer to explain our origins and where we’re headed. If religion and science were fundamentally incompatible then modern science as we know it would not exist, as the scientific method we still use today was founded by Roger Bacon, a 13th century Franciscan friar. Many other philosophers and religious scholars furthered our understanding of the natural world *because* of the single source/origin doctrine of their beliefs, rather than pagan beliefs which had lots of deities doing different things, so, for them, there was no reason to study the natural world as we do today. In summary, I think we agree that belief shouldn’t exist because of negatives (e.g an absence to explain a positive belief) But I disagree what you said about faith and hope. Hope and faith are not always irrational or separate from facts - evidence can make them stronger and evidence on the contrary would make them weaker. It just depends how much evidence you’re willing to accept or deny and where that evidence comes from.

[@doms.6701]

People seem hung up on "Religion was invented to control people" section. Yes, religion has been and still is used to oppress and control but that is far from being invented for that purpose. I think people hear this part and it goes through some filter before it reaches the brain. Is religion used and has it been used to control, yes. Was religion created/invented to control, no.

[@Soapandwater6]

Spot on!

[@nicolasandre9886]

It seems more likely religion was invented as a result of the natural tendency of the human brain to detect agency in natural phenomena combined with a desire to explain same phenomena.

[@doms.6701]

@@nicolasandre9886 what is this loud bang and flash of light coming from the sky? Maybe something is angry at us. It makes sense to think such things in the past.

[@nicolasandre9886]

@@doms.6701 : of course everyone is aware now that the loud bang in the sky is just Iron Man.

[@Outcast115]

Spiritualism and spiritual things are demonstrably false the only reason for religion to exist is to control

[@thechunkyatheist27]

Id like to thank you because ive been stuggling with my faith and i recently converted to atheism and you and a couple other youtubers have helped me greatly

[@zvipatent]

One does not CONVERT to atheism. Atheism is a default value (i.e. we are all born atheists). Wish you the best. Peace, love, justice and hugs !

[@vanillabean7832]

I recommend The Atheist Experience KZbin channel if you haven’t found it already.

[@akmonra]

About faith, I have had the opposite experience. Almost everyone religious I speak with insist that their belief isn't about evidence, and that nothing could happen to make them change their mind. Even more moderate and reasonable Christians I've met have said that Christians who seek evidence for their faith are "weak Christians".

[@frickinfrick8488]

The Faith definition argument needed to be tackled thank you! I think everyone needs to understand that if two people are using a word to describe something they both understand and they both know what that word means in that context then bringing up dictionary definitions is the least helpful argument to make. I see this with people talking about socialism a lot, two left wing people will be talking about certain policies using the colloquial definition of socialism and then somebody will be like “ThAtS nOt SoCiAlIsM pIcK uP a BoOk” or “BuT vEnUzUeLa” and just completely miss the point that they’re not talking about that, they’re using it colloquially. This weird dictionary Puritanism not only completely disregards etymology and the fact that words change meanings over time and in different context, but it also just makes zero points at all. Now we’re arguing over definitions instead of arguing over the discussion at hand when the definition really doesn’t matter as long as all parties know what’s being talked about. Don’t be like this, you’re so frustrating to debate with.

[@ericpierce3660]

You meant to say etymology. Entomology is the study of insects (my wife is an entomologist, I have to stick up for her field of science).

[@frickinfrick8488]

Eric Pierce oops thanks that was my autocorrect

[@pavelZhd]

Regarding "Definition of Faith" most of definitions I hear are mostly in line with a scientific concept of "Axiom" A statement that is considered to be true even without explicit proof. For example "any 2 dots can be connected with a line". Axioms are at the bottom of every field of science and sometimes Theist refer to them making a point that science is also "based in Faith". However the useful part here is how scientists go about them. Namely - there should be as little axioms as possible. Suppose you have a set of observed Phenomenon, and you can explain every phenomenon in this set with statements based on a set of axioms "A" and then you find a subset of axioms "A-" that you also can also use to construct statements explaining every Phenomenon, then any statement that is part of A but not part of A- should not be treated as an axiom.

[@PamSesheta]

Oof back when I first abandoned Abrahamic religion I was a hit abrasive in the “define a spirit” and “faith is always useless” talk because I was just importing my dogma to atheism. I grew out of it, but I sure put my foot in my mouth a few times. Ive softened over the years. Or maybe age is destroying my brain. Either way, im a pagan reconstructionist now but I super duper love your even-handed temper in discussions. Please keep making videos! You rock

[@usernameunidentified175]

I always wondered why religion is considered a protected class but political beliefs aren't?

[@ggauche3465]

Criterion is the singular, criteria is plural. Phenomenon is the singular, phenomena is plural. I've given up on datum/data.

[@fionafiona1146]

Sad to hear your defeat in the face of English language being abused.

[@danl.909]

GGauche "I’ve given up on datum/data." ...and medium/media.

[@fionafiona1146]

I am pretty happy to still nitpick over Atlas and Atlanten vs Atlases... That's however happens seldom, let alone with English speakers.

[@craigcorson3036]

How about there/ their/ they're? Lose /loose? I have about a million little pet peeves like those. Have you noticed that the past tense seems to be dying out? Like in that sentence, the D in noticed would have been omitted. Omit. 😁

[@conradkorbol]

fiona fiona that’s not what it is. He arguing language is scared and unchanging. When under every scientific, rational, and historical evidence shows Language evolves. We don’t speak classical English and that’s ok. Our language should Change

[@paulsummerford8104]

Hey Drew, Although I am what you would call a theist, I greatly appreciate your calm and respectful approach to constituting discussion between theists and atheists. Many people of my belief often utilize fallacious arguments in their justifications and cannot see the view from the other side due to their faith being ingrained in them culturally, socially and even psychologically. In order to strengthen one’s faith/beliefs, whether it be theism or atheism, they need to be met with resistance and challenge. You have been a healthy dose of that challenge and your approach that aims to educate, rather than belittle, my faith has made me want to keep educating myself on why atheists believe the way they do and what empty arguments I may use to justify my faith to others. Just wanted to thank you and possibly get directions to more resources that aim to promote discourse rather than persecution.

[@philopharynx7910]

I tend to focus on problematic behaviors. I don't have a problem with people being religious. I have a problem when they are intolerant or try to pass laws based on their religious beliefs on nonbelievers. There is more than enough of these issues to go around. By focusing linking specific behaviors to the harms that they do, it helps keep me away from some of the pitfalls.

[@superdave5948]

One thing I've found is when you ask someone why they are religious, a lot of them are not articulate enough to get there thought across and most don't even really know. They just say things like, "It's just the right way" or "That's the way I was raised."

[@TheRenoOcarinaTrio]

As a pagan myself thank you for all the points you bring up I have atheists say a lot of these things, and I know that there’s a lot of polite people out there. So peace be with you my friend and have a wonderful day.

[@ShadinCore]

my theist friend once brought up "i just trust god" when i was talking about faith as believe in something without sufficient evidence, so for me it was the other way around it was pretty easy to say "well, you wouldn't trust someone who you don't believe even exists, right?" to bring conversation back to my original points, but, yeah, i agree that people do often get cought up in terminology without just asking what others mean and proceed to talk past each other, not very productive

[@brianvasquez2649]

everyone of any religion and atheist should learn to listen to someone of different beliefs

[@persomelizegoo-gullcervesa6684]

Faith --> pretending to know things that you dont know.