No, Atheists Aren't Fundamentalists, and Here’s Why

Patreon: / geneticallymodifiedske...
PayPal: www.paypal.me/...
Truth Wanted: / @truthwanted
Jordan Peterson and Reza Aslan have called atheists like Sam Harris atheist fundamentalists. But are atheists fundamentalists? What do atheists believe which that make them fundies? Richard Dawkins has responded to this criticism before, but I felt it worthy to address on my own.
Christian fundamentalism breeds bad ideas like creationism and reliance on faith. Many atheists and anti-theists think that deserves a challenge. If that means we spend time debunking biblical literalism, then so be it.
This video contains 100% therapeutic grade skepticism.*
------------------------------------------FOLLOW------------------------------------------
Twitter: / gm_skeptic
Facebook: / gmskeptic
Discord: / discord
Sources:
Peterson on atheists vs. fundamentalists
• Jordan Peterson - Athe...
Reza Aslan interview
• Reza Aslan - Bigotry, ...
Why atheists are fundamentalists (Richard Harris)
• Video
Jordan Peterson and Matt Dillahunty
• Does God Exist? Jordan...
Sam Harris with Maajid Nawaz
• Islam and the Future o...
*This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA

[@GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic]

Alright, all you nasty atheist fundamentalists, tell me about your atheist extremism! I'm so extreme in my humanism that I support LGBT rights! Crazy, right?? Also, I misspoke at 5:02 and said "my interpretation" when I meant "my answer."

[@dansattah]

@@helenohenzo2778 You again? Didn't you follow TMM's videos for a while? Also, do you have anything, any kind of scientific study, to prove your assertion that homosexuals were in any way harmful for society?

[@willscott1533]

Ahhh yes, as a bisexual, can confirm 100% you can't have homosexuality and heterosexuality in a single society. /s obviously, I have them both in one MIND. WHO is seeking to purge heterosexuality? @HELENO HENZO , your argument makes no sense. We just want to be allowed to express ourselves like you can. If anything, the world is getting too many people, and could use more of us, but that's just it. We aren't even trying to make more gays, bis, and lesbians. We only want to allow people to learn who they are and express it.

[@nicolasandre9886]

@thatoneusernam e: but your freedom to express yourself impedes on the religious freedom to oppress the minorities god doesn't like!

[@sophietherobot6343]

Did I just see Peterson straw man science? Heleno, come out of the closet already. It's well known what a homophobe you are.

[@pansepot1490]

A nice combination of projection and strawmanning.

[@diablominero]

Jesus: "Let me in" Homeowner: "Why should I?" Jesus: "So I can save you." Homeowner: "Save me from what?" Jesus: "From what I'm going to do to you if you don't let me in." (A bit off topic, but I thought it'd be appreciated here)

[@martinm6368]

I kind of appreciate it. While it's ancient and whoever roams around here probably knows the joke already it still makes me smile every time. It's a good one.

[@mandarinablue8438]

It's good and old. Like wine should be.

[@fionafiona1146]

@@mandarinablue8438 The majority of wine is best between 15 and 50 months, the wine still good later might be brilliant but can't be guaranteed to be good.

[@fionafiona1146]

@Fighter For Christ Is any of that evidence "because the Bible says so"? Since the earlyst writing collaborating it is 3rd century and suspected to be dependent.

[@BroNumsi]

@Fighter For Christ I picked a couple randomly and I can assure everyone that it wasn't worth the effort. The first was just a collection of bible verses and the second was the usual gish gallop of already disproven misconceptions and "gotchas". Like how the giraffe couldn't have evolved from anything else since its circulatory system in the neck is specialized to be able to function being so long and all...

[@DutchJoan]

I do not play tennis. I don't own a racket, I don't go to the tennis court. And when I walk on the street the rules of tennis do not apply to me. I don't play soccer. I don't own a ball, I don't go to the soccer field. And when I walk on the street the rules of soccer don't apply to me. I don't play chess. I don't own a chess board, I don't go to the chess club. And when I walk on the street the rules of chess don't apply to me. I don't believe in a god. I don't have faith, I don't go to a house of worship. Then why the hell do christians - and sometimes muslims - try to apply their rules on me when I walk on the street? How does opposing that behaviour make me an extremist?

[@davidbauler3159]

Because you are secretly playing tennis and soccer and chess, but you may not be aware of it.

[@DutchJoan]

@@DaFeanor20 Still doesn't explain why I'm the extremist

[@DutchJoan]

@@davidbauler3159 How does that make me an extremist?

[@davidbauler3159]

Because you secretly play tennis or are angry at tennis or don't know that the sidewalk is owned by the same people that own tennis

[@jilliansmith7123]

CH2517Joan: that's one of the reasons why religion is so dangerous and why antitheists oppose it so very much. Their rules should NOT apply to you, and yet they insist that they must. Your post was really well-written and well-thought-out. Thanks!

[@SuicidalLaughter]

Them: Dont take the bible literally! me: ok, Jesus and god are metaphors not literal existing entities them: No not like that!

[@carreviewer6345]

😂 Good one

[@gerritvalkering1068]

Yeah, you're supposed to kinda pick and choose which ones to take literally and which ones you shouldn't. Or, better yet, listen to the authority figure who'll tell you exactly what to believe

[@prince_of_summer]

lol

[@ThomQuinnHere]

I’ve had this argument in real life. 😂

[@feelthepony]

i cant stand the whole"holy books aren't meant to be taken literally" so it is all metaphors and symbolism? god sends a rulebook and the rules are encrypted?

[@RictusHolloweye]

I take it to mean God is a metaphor. Kind of destroys any reason to worship him.

[@epifloyd7357]

If God is symbolism does he still exist?

[@jamesu8033]

I’ve always found that quite strange. Why did God choose scripture to give his message. Any form of literature can be interpreted in many ways. It is fundamentally flawed to send a message in such a way.

[@MegaChickenfish]

So well encrypted that no two humans on earth can agree on which ones are metaphors and which are literal. Which still apply or which don't.

[@vanessawhite2084]

Also, which parts are supposed to be literal and which parts are metaphorical? And how do they know? It's a cop-out.

[@FortheLuIz]

"We can make our magic book mean whatever we want it to whenever we want"

[@thomasmaughan4798]

Of course. You can do that too. So what? Men are now women if they wish. It means whatever anyone wants it to mean. You don't even need to change the words.

[@Faint366]

Thomas Maughan then it has no real meaning. And therefor you have no reason to believe the god it presents is anything but a metaphor. That would be de facto atheism

[@thomasmaughan4798]

@@Faint366 "then it has no real meaning" Yes, you have taken a giant leap forward in understanding. "That would be de facto atheism" it would be exactly that for persons that simply have no religion and have not bothered to assign a definition to "god". But for nearly all youtube commenting atheists, it is not so; they have a very specific idea in mind what "God" means; the problem is that for any particular atheist, the meaning will differ from the next; and they aren't just atheist, they are anti-theist. That kind is a lot more fun to try to understand since generally speaking each of them also hasn't really thought about it much.

[@Faint366]

Thomas Maughan wow. Not even going to bother since everything you said is nothing but a straw man and an insult right at the end. “All my opponents think this way and none of them do much research so I win.” Let me know when you’re ready to be honest. You’ve responded to me in multiple threads using dishonest tactics in every single one. I’m honestly starting to wonder if you’re even capable of honest argumentation.

[@jamesmccreery250]

Yes, because our shared imaginary friend say so! Or a book about him says so, or a book made up by the romans to control the Jews told me so, but they actually stole most of their ideas from mithraism......Religion is the art of bullshitting ones way out of needing figuring things out.

[@apartfromtheobvious7783]

"We're not plugging our ears and running away when we hear these arguments. We're charging toward them unafraid to engage and demonstrate their flaws" Great quote Drew, I'm stealing that 🤝🏾😄

[@thomasmaughan4798]

""We're not plugging our ears..." There is no WE. Well, okay, there is; a herd of sheep all bleating the same bleats.

[@spiderworld384]

Well I’m stealing that from you then 🤝

[@Shitsthebed]

Most atheists speak out about religion because most have come from a religious background and see the damage that they do.😉

[@williamnewton3327]

Thank you very much for pointing that out... I was raised Christian and I feel like I'm forcing myself to be an atheist due to societal norms. I'm frightened to confess what I really believe. I believe in science and aliens, and I don't really think the biblical god is real, but I honestly believe in a higher power of some sort.

[@marianmeletlidiscrap]

@@williamnewton3327 So, you're a deist of some sort?

[@kathleen5237]

@@williamnewton3327 Just be yourself and stay strong. We all meet opposition for some reason. People should be free to believe what they do so long as they hurt nobody else

[@efandmk3382]

I personally, don't know any Atheists who were NOT raised in a fundamentalist atmosphere. Interesting.

[@efandmk3382]

Kate..But religious fundamentalists, Muslim and Christian, to harm other people.

[@Longtack55]

Peterson has made me so suspicious and distrustful of "intellect." He's so dodgy, evasive and non-committing. Atheists do not say "never" - they say "show me the evidence."

[@bamawebdev8640]

The problem in your rationale is that atheists are not monolithic. If you've been on the internet discussing religion in the past 15 years, you have certainly seen hardline, dogmatic atheists. They do exist, and in rather large numbers. Some of us aren't agnostic.

[@dominikwendel3560]

Belief and personal ideals are not rarely detached from intellect. It is rather a matter of indoctrination and personal experiences. I know lots of people (professors and students alike) that are incredibly smart but believe in miracles or a hidden truth in their holy book by not reading it literally, missing the point that not all people see it that way and that this is the root problem of extremism.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

Many atheists do indeed say affirmatively there is no god of any kind any where. In fact, you can google it. "There is no God" with quotes so you get that exact phrase: About 8,340,000 results (1.13 seconds) "There is No God (And You Know It). Sam Harris, Contributor." "Stephen Hawking: 'There is no God,' says physicist"

[@thomasmaughan4798]

@Derogation "Saying there is no god is not dogma." It is not only dogma, it's stupid. What exactly do you mean by "god"? "It's saying there is no tooth fairy. No Santa Claus" Still stupid. In my house I am the tooth fairy and my children know it and expect me to arrive in a pink tutu. Santa Claus is a distant echo of Saint Nicholas, a German priest. So if you define "god" with sufficient precision so I know what you mean, I may well agree with you. But if you mean to implicate an entire Universe of possible life forms, and assert that absolutely nothing out there is Supreme, well, that's dogmatic and irrational; it cannot be known.

[@dominikwendel3560]

@@thomasmaughan4798 I know what you mean but don't you think it is a bit extreme to think that another life form somewhere in the universe could actually have created the universe in six days, made two humans and spread false clues about the earth being much older than a few thousand years old? It is ovious that Hawking and others refer to the god eg. in the bible and this god is easily debunked, especially if that god is supposedly good and benign.

[@ObjectivelyDan]

Just because your Christianity isn't fundamentalist doesn't mean it's any more correct. You can have as liberal of a theology as you want to, that doesn't mean there's a God or that Jesus rose from the dead.

[@RevanorSzeged]

Yeah, every time you claim to have an enlightened , modern, or broadly accepted view that differs from broadly accepted dogma from 300 years ago, you just admit that it’s all made up. At least fundamentalists have a simplistic honesty and loyalty to the bullshit they believe in.

[@jansson007]

@@RevanorSzeged lol, you know what they say; if you're not a fundamentalist, there's something wrong with your fundamentals!

[@admiralbirdcrap661]

András Agócs Some people think that all you must do is pray a simple prayer and, SHAZAM!... you are perfect now.... BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION it's really about controlling your imagination..

[@ObjectivelyDan]

@Bluemonsoon There's an emphasis in modern Christian culture to make sure that your interpretation is relevant to the context, while at the same time holding some fundamentals as true (i.e. jesus rose from the dead, jesus is God, etc.) There are many Christians that insist that if you just have the right interpretation, or if you just understood things in the right context, then suddenly Christianity will make sense and you can believe it as true. My comment was simply rejecting this assertion. Don't know of any nu-speak here.

[@thisiscait]

💯 - and those people are far less damaging to humanity in general than fundamentalists and extremists.

[@LarsPallesen]

He's talking about "atheistic science" ? What science would that be? Biology? Geology? Astronomy? I wasn't aware that these sciences also come in a religious flavour? Theistic geology - is that a thing? Geologists who see signs of a global flood everywhere they dig? Do theistic biologists find that women are indeed made out of a man's rib?

[@thomasmaughan4798]

Science now comes in many flavors as a backlash to the Patriarchy. So does mathematics which was designed to oppress Africans.

[@Faint366]

Thomas Maughan do you just go around every comment section strawmanning the OPs and assigning them beliefs based on random unrelated SJW video clips from 5 years ago? No one here was part of that African video about black magic. No one here agrees with it. Why are you bringing it up? You strawman even worse than Peterson

[@variedgaming5402]

Mathematics was created to oppress Africans... please tell me how you believe that. Sounds like quite a stretch to me man.

[@musiccer7446]

@@thomasmaughan4798 I hope you are joking, because these days I can’t tell if you are or if you are not

[@thomasmaughan4798]

@@musiccer7446 My comment is in reply to "He's talking about atheistic science ? What science would that be? Biology? Geology? Astronomy?" and the significance apparently isn't obvious. These branches of science have nothing to say about God; introducing these branches of science in a conversation about God (or Not God) has already introduced religion into science. As most scientists have traditionally been pale skinned men, it obtains political aspects as well. SJW's, while trying to distance themselves from pale skins, tend to also distance themselves from science; although it is not necessary to do that.

[@anotherstorm]

"sky daddy" *Mr Atheist has left the chat*

[@Julia99lol]

Was looking for that comment xD

[@AMikeStein]

Cee Writes oh I laughed heartily at this one. That’s funny.

[@GBfanatic15]

my thoughts :P

[@ccb36]

We know that's who he was thinking of lol (but much love to both of them)

[@bamawebdev8640]

@Fighter For Christ Easily, huh? Let's hear it. Prove it to me.

[@HardestManInTarot]

I was raised Catholic in the UK and didn’t realise that there were people that took the Bible as literal truth until I was about twenty.

[@gerritvalkering1068]

Must have been a shock

[@Martial-Mat]

"You're like us so you're bad" - Christian apologist logic.

[@bdf2718]

Yep. Next they'll be saying it takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe in gawd. Wait. I thought faith was supposed to be a *good* thing according to theists.

[@davisiimdavisiim1295]

The desperate false equivalence fallacy to bring down a concept into the mud because that their opposition is no better than them. Sad

[@davisiimdavisiim1295]

@@bdf2718 "It takes more faith to not believe than to believe." I hate that stupid remark so much when I hear it.

[@Mikri90]

To be fair, they are already saying that. By the millions.

[@rarebeeph1783]

They're trying to make their targets seem hypocritical. This fails, because in doing so they are both being hypocritical themselves and being wrong.

[@groshuard]

"You're a Wizard, Harry." YOU COULD MAKE A RELIGION OUT OF THIS!

[@fionafiona1146]

Australia has a new census soon.

[@StormsandSaugeye]

No wait don't

[@JH-zs3bs]

You have a lizard, Harry

[@Yash-wm1nj]

No wait Don't

[@redreaper7417]

it already is

[@peteralmeida3612]

All religions textbooks were written to be taken literally. According to those mythologies, moderation is a deadly sin

[@thomasmaughan4798]

And when the scripture says a thing is a parable, THAT is to be taken literally. It is literally a parable!

[@geoffstemen3652]

Peter Almeida - profound, profound misunderstanding

[@peteralmeida3612]

@@geoffstemen3652 are you trying to tell me that when the Torah/Pentateuch commands to 'murder the gay' it was joking? Really? Hahaha, you lost that argument before you got the Religion Syndrome, man!

[@geoffstemen3652]

Peter Almeida - we’re not arguing. you made something up & i called you out for making it up

[@thomasmaughan4798]

@@geoffstemen3652 Here on youtube comments I have a doubt that "calling someone out" is effective. There is no "out".

[@xBINARYGODx]

This is just the latest tactic. Not that long ago, "they" tried to tell me that my atheism is just "belief in nothing" - sort of missing the point. You either have it or you don't, it's not faith in something vs nothing. You cannot have faith in nothing, but you can lack faith in something in particular. For a skeptic (an atheist is basically a religious skeptic) - you need to show them proof - it's literally at odds with faith, which is thinking something is true without any evidence (and, generally, not needing any). But now, we are extremists like religious fundamentalist. One more try at the false equivalency.

[@RictusHolloweye]

I suspect many theists honestly cannot comprehend not believing in something. They can understand converting to another religion, even if it's Satanism, but just not having any religion at all.... many don't seem to consider that to even be possible.

[@int0x80]

I think a religious skeptic is an agnostic, because just because you can’t prove something doesn’t mean that anyone has disproved anything. I would be surprised if anyone could definitively disprove or prove Deism.

[@random-user9818]

right? i've been told that atheism and science are just religions, which clearly indicates they understand neither religion or either of those. the kicker is the say it with disgust on the word religion, from religious folks. nope the exact opposite, and stop with the self hatred please folks. lol.

[@smigboke9878]

@OtherWorlds AllWorlds what do you mean by that comment?( this is the first time i knew about this religon)

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"You either have it or you don't" The fallacy of the false alternatives. Bad logic does seem to follow many atheists. Faith or belief comes in degrees. I have some faith that the extremely expensive Large Hadron Collider has demonstrated the existence of the Higgs Boson. But maybe it didn't.

[@DrumWild]

Hearing so many religious people speaking of "Atheism" and "what it says," I tend to suspect that *_Atheism does not exist._* As a life-long non-believer who will use the term "Atheist" in a political context, I have yet to see an Atheist belief, dogma, holy text, anointed leader, or other artifacts that are essential to fill an ISM. This comes to mind every time I hear, *_"Atheism says..."_* because Atheism never "said" anything to me. Ever. Indeed, there are individual Atheists everywhere. I don't know any who subscribe to a system known as "Atheism."

[@brisca1668]

Atheism says "i dont believe in god" and thats literally it.

[@brookefoxie9610]

Atheism is a reaction. We react to people calling themselves, and wanting to call us, theists, so we call ourselves atheist. We don't go after minority Christian beliefs, usually, because we react to the majority/loudest/most harmful beliefs. Atheism will die out when theist stop existing because we will have nothing to "react" to. Everyone would still be an atheist, but if everyone is an atheist, then there's no purpose to calling yourself one. This isn't a common view on Atheism, but I find it accurate. Some react more than others, but we all react. I'm not sure if there is a major flaw to this idea as I've only been growing it for a week or so. I may have unintentionally borrowed it from someone else and forgotten it.

[@davidbauler3159]

Hitchens

[@rhondah1587]

DrumWild Totally agree with your comment. A-theist = Not a theist A-theism = Not accepting theism, without theism Atheism is the opposite, the negation of theism. There are no fundamentals associated with it, no dogma, no holy books, no rituals, etc.

[@Twentydragon]

Atheism is basically like writing "N/A" for religion. It's a placeholder for something that that some people look for, and informs them that nothing goes here. Atheism is just the empty space where religion thinks it belongs.

[@JacksonWheat]

Terrific points. On his point about being an evolutionary biologist and not writing about Darwin, you don’t really need to write about Darwin anymore. He’s really only interesting in a historical context. You’ll see very very little about Darwin in a modern college biology textbook. He’s just not needed.

[@donniejefferson9554]

In any college classes I've taken that discussed evolution there was nothing said about Darwin beyond a quick reference to his name. The subject has gone a long way since Darwin and it's not helpful to anyone or anything to act like every idea about evolution came directly from him

[@jimlovesgina]

It is good to give credit to those who started us on the path of discovery.

[@jilliansmith7123]

Yes, giving credit is good. But it's not the whole topic by a landslide. And Darwin wasn't even the first...he just got the most physical evidence and wrote the best book first. His grandfather had the same ideas, as did others before Charles Darwin. And HE was the one to come up with "natural selection" which was a wonderful explanation for why it all worked the way it does. Then you move on to modern evolutionary work, DNA and the rest.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

I agree Jackson, but that is the problem... you are taking Peterson serious. He's just using naive images and simplistic language to muddle the waters of "what makes up good morals"... his argument why Atheism "is bad" is a fucking BOOK character FFS! Cause HE cannot see anybody not become a Raskolnykov... See the problem? His most famous "argument" is one from personal incredulity. And it's not the only one where he simply showcases lack of understanding of differing positions and strawmans the heck out of his targets. JP is the intellectual's Potato amongst the low hanging fruits.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

Excellent points, Jillian Smith & Jackson Wheat & Alex Reinke.

[@BroNumsi]

In the Potterist-analogy you forgot one major group - the ones who pick-and-choose and claim that some parts are literal and have to be believed and obeyed by the letter, and some parts are metaphors, open to interpretation (their, of course). And which parts are which change over time. Those Potterists are the most infuriating ones. - X is literally true because the bible says so! - But doesn't it also say that Y? - No, that's a metaphor. Why do you have to take that literally, you fundamentalist!

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"open to interpretation (their, of course)" Well of course it is my interpretation; why would it be yours?

[@RictusHolloweye]

That's a point I like to raise when it comes to some parts of scripture being metaphor. Surely that raises the possibility (likelihood) that the character of God is a metaphor, perhaps representing the universe or biological life or energy or... whatever.

[@aymericst-louis-gabriel8314]

Like, waw, different genres of literature exist, I promise.

[@Flying_Spaghetti_Monster]

Well there is magic and it is real, and you just don't know about it because you're a muggle, but the ministry of magic is just a metaphor.

[@johaquila]

This is only really problematic if people pick and choose based on stupid criteria, which is of course often the case. But it's not really stupid to interpret Mosaic law and the Ten Commandments as meant literally and Song of Songs as poetry that isn't meant literally.

[@JesseTheGameDev]

"Atheist Fundamentalism" kind of sounds like an oxymoron, no?

[@aarush3603]

It IS an oxymoron. How the heck can an atheist be a fundamentalist?

[@MikaelLewisify]

An oxymoron thrust upon us by morons.

[@spiderworld384]

@@MikaelLewisify yes

[@claytonreeves150]

When they use that term, the people using it don't even understand that the term they mean to be using is "anti-theist." Anti-theists can definitely be fundamentalists, but atheists - by definition - cannot.

[@collan580]

@@aarush3603 I think he simply means that someone treats science as a religion. And there are people like that who just blindly follows it just because one paper said X thing. When in reality science is not an organised thing and quality between research papers exist and biases can affect results especially when it comes to sociology.

[@hilossrt4]

People tend to not understand that atheism is based on a lack of belief in gods. It's not a system of belief but not believing in what others believe.

[@DrumWild]

This is why I am not so certain that "Atheism" exists, for there is no holy text, anointed leader, or other artifacts that are required to fill an ISM. For me, it started when someone asked me if I believed in their god. I said that I did not, later looked into it, found no reason to believe, and moved on. No ISM required, at all.

[@Hirnlego999]

It exists. A theist has a certain meaning, the a- in front of it changes it all. Compare with sexual and asexual.

[@amadeusdebussy6736]

I would agree with DrumWild, atheists exist, but atheism really doesn't.

[@davisiimdavisiim1295]

@@DrumWild as in the condition of atheism is the default, rather than the other way around lil religion would have you Believe.

[@xCorvus7x]

@@Hirnlego999 Atheists exist. Whether Atheism (note the capital "a") exists, depends on what an -ism is supposed to be. If it is a system of believes, then no. If it simply denotes the state of mind of an atheist, then yes. (Which, of course, includes but is not limited to any belief system that is based on not believing in any god.)

[@Saintly]

I watched the Peterson vs Dillahunty debate and I don't know what Peterson was talking about half the time... He goes off on so many tangents because he's not willing to argue finite and definable points with Matt.

[@sablemae8853]

He did a lot of tap-dancing and said a lot but on what he believes he gives non-committal answers. His taking mushrooms and quitting smoking was absolutely dishonest. He made it sound like it was fact when it was a small 15 person study. But he sat up there and acted like it was some important study when it wasn't

[@kaycarol8867]

sable mae one of my best friends who’s an atheist has done mushrooms and Psychedelics but he still has not quit smoking.

[@Zanzopan]

@@kaycarol8867 There has been several case studies now with it and it looks like if you are serious about not smoking and include psychological counseling and prep work it can cure many addictions. The best analogy I saw was it rebooted the PC in Safemode and with psychological therapy, it can allow a kinda editing/rewiring. It seems to do similar things to PTSD and depression people. BUT this is in collaboration with more orthodox treatment methods. Just taking shrooms won't cure anything. It is still in testing but it seems to help more than just orthodox treatment alone in a high percentage of people. But with many things Peterson, he linked it to theology and simplified beyond being helpful to where it is near fabrication.

[@granta3044]

Peterson developed battling college students, not intellectuals, hes a bully.

[@Nobodynewduh]

It's because he's a hack.

[@thalmorbiznitch4028]

"Sky daddy, which I usually I find ridiculous and irritating" - Jab at Mr. Athiest? lol

[@edgecrusherhalo]

I guess my complete lack of interest in sports makes me an extremist when it comes to sports. I guess my great appreciation for science fiction makes me an extremist when it comes to science fiction. 🤦‍♂️

[@garethbaus5471]

A strong appreciation of science fiction as a genre is a more extreme position than that taken by much of the population.

[@carreviewer6345]

I'm really into cars that makes me a car fundamentalist

[@Nonquack]

I didn't see the whole debate, but when Peterson was asked what are the real issues, all he did was rattle off authors. He didn't point out a particular issue.

[@danielessex2162]

He wants others to believe he is well read and is ready to address the issues he never talks about

[@olaf3140]

You can find videos of him talking about these authors and their ideas in more depth. But even then, how many religious people base their ideas of religion on interpretations of the texts of Dostoevsky, Jung, etc. ? He's probably one out of like 5 people.

[@foodiebeauty6738]

That's Peterson though. He never answers a question clearly, just waffles on with a word salad trying to sound deep and hoping you forgot the question by the time he finishes.

[@djixi98]

Nonquack Oh, you should've heard him when the moderator asked him if there are any passages in bible so outrageous that they cannot be excused.. Oh what a salad that was! It was in the first debate with Sam Harris in Vancouver, if anyone is interested.

[@johntran2252]

i love how he always uses the main character from crime and punishment as an example of what would happen if someone was a "true atheist". Yes let's use the example of a fictional character. JP is a quack and essentially the same as the televangelists back in the 80's and 90's but repackaged judeo-christian beliefs so that his manipulation is more subtle.

[@graey24601]

I've always had a problem with the whole "scripture is not literal" thing. To me it seems like any given holy book is either (A): Meant to be taken literally, from cover to cover. (B): All allegory and metaphor. (C): A mix of the previous two, with some passages being one and others the other. To me, the first book (A) would be useful if it were correct. It would contain actual facts and knowing those things could be of benefit. The second book (B) is not entirely useless, but not really worthy of devotion. It might be thought provoking but it doesn't provide anything real that wasn't already within you. The third book (C) is what I think a lot of people (theists and atheists alike) see the holy books as. The problem is that it's really no different from the second one in practice. If some of it is not literal and we admit this, then the entire thing is open to personal interpretation because you have to determine which parts are actually literal. In my experience the "don't take it literally" thing has been used mostly as a crutch by theists to excuse the more ridiculous parts of their holy texts. To me, the very first time you find yourself correcting a holy book in this way it has lost any claim of divine origin. At that point, it's no more worthy of basing your life on than Stephen King's The Dark Tower (and probably quite a bit less, due to King's vastly superior morals as compared to most gods).

[@WingedEspeon]

Honestly most holy books are really supposed to be case (B)

[@tobyswiss7909]

The Bible is a collection of 66 different texts, dubbed books. Whether we take them literally is based on the genre of a given book. Since Genesis is written as a history, it ought to be interpreted as a history. Since Psalms is written as poetry, it ought to be interpreted as poetry. Since Jeremiah is written as prophecy, it ought to be interpreted as prophecy. And so on...

[@jordank.5589]

This is a good observation. You are right that the holy text of the bible falls into category C. There are literal historical accounts and there are metaphors, illustrations, parables etc. For people who don't understand that the bible is a compilation of different books from a variety of authors including prophets, kings, priests, historians etc it's easy to see how they might get confused or critical. For instance in the book of "Kings" when it describes King David having 19 different wives and how he got them and what the names of all their children were, are we to understand this is simply a weird metaphor? No it's clear that it's supposed to be a historical account. And when Jesus says "I am the good sheperd and you are the sheep" he's clearly not saying they are literal sheep, but rather that they are his followers. Or when a prophet says "i had a vision of a beast with ten heads" we understand that it is a metaphor, and later the prophet explains that it represents 10 leaders of a future kingdom. So yes its a compilation of a variety of literature that reveals the nature of God and his interaction with and plans for the world.

[@Faint366]

Jordan K. Then what you’re left with is a collection of books where none of the supernatural parts or parts that have to do with god are meant to be taken literally. You might as well be saying that Harry Potter has some real bits, like London being a real place, and some fake bits, all of the magic. But then your conclusion is that Harry Potter is real even tho the magic is only metaphor. How does that follow? If the god bits are only metaphor then fine, I agree. It’s a work of fiction that we can get meaning from. But why would you believe god is real in that case?

[@tobyswiss7909]

@@Faint366 Because God is also very active in the history books (i.e., So God created man in his own image). Usually, the format of text (say, whether it's written in paragraphs or stanzas) or clear indications within the text ("This is the word of Prophet Joe, to whom the word of the Lord came...") give you an idea what kind of writing you're reading.

[@wayagames]

I greatly appreciate Drew’s intellectual approach to his rhetoric. Even when disproving or countering the opposition, he still remains calm and respectful. I wish we could all conduct ourselves in such a manner.

[@jeffc5974]

I'm pretty sure the people who claim we aren't addressing the "real" god are the same ones who claim we can't comprehend the real god.

[@KonradZielinski]

Sophisticated theologens always refuse to define god. That way whatever an atheist says they can reply with "I don't believe in that god either." Its intelectually dishonest in my view. If you believe in a god and have spent ten or tweny years studdying the matter, you should be able to articulate what it is that you do believe in.

[@jeffc5974]

@@KonradZielinski I've never heard a definition of god that isn't either incoherent or self referencing.

[@amazingbollweevil]

Peterson says that celebrity atheists aren't contending with the real issues? What real issues? Russian novelists? Early psychiatric explorers? C'mon, man. Real issues would include suppressing human rights, woo peddling, science denial, and morals.

[@roscoedash6673]

"real issues" = whatever Jordan thinks is important. Jordan loves Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and Jung, so those guys must be presenting the "real issues". Never mind that maybe 1% of the population has read any of their writings on religion, and less than 1% base their religious views on these writings, these are the "real issues" because Jordan deems them so.

[@riverstyxarmory9782]

The real issues, a fictional story about a guy who states a fact of "if there is no god, there are no afterlife consequences" but ignores the fact that societal consequences exist in society. Yeah, real issues. Sure.

[@tiglathpilesariii]

He presents these thinkers as real issues because in their writings they address human rights and morals in a way few others have done. In studying and contending with their ideas, we gain a greater understanding of the problems that plague our society. They give us a stronger basis from which to launch our battle against current societal ills as well as insight to prevent us from making the mistakes that those who came before us made.

[@VeriVeronika]

@Bluemonsoon citations please? From personal experience I've seen the exact opposite.

[@YourIdeologyIsDelusional]

Suppressing human rights: Celeb atheists are bad at having serious, in depth discussions on this topic. They by large and far suffer from what I like to call Hugo and Jake syndrome, which is to go "BAD THING IS BAD, C'MON GUYS" and say absolutely nothing of useful substance outside of said virtue signal. Woo peddling: Very rarely is this of any real concern. We live in a world where we have well known KZbin atheists that deflect for Islam while people in the same movement concern themselves with shit like spirit science, showing that we have a serious problem with prioritization... Or more likely, less than pure intentions or principles. This isn't even to speak of the absolute blindness to what Peterson is actually accomplishing for us, regardless of what his goals personally are. Science Denial: Yeah, I'll give you this one. So far that's one point for celeb atheism without a caveat. Very often does celeb atheism manage to not only address this problem head on, but do so with detailed and informative breakdowns. I wish there was just a little more push for solutions. Morals: I wouldn't trust the current atheist movement to know good morals from its ass. Look, atheism+ is a black mark on the face of our entire movement, and nobody had a fucking clue what sort of awful shit we were creating while it was happening. Internet atheism gave the world Steve Shives, and proved that people in this movement can just trade one religion for another without realizing it. Peterson has points and you guys are butthurt that he has points. That's what this is. That's what's happening here. As much as his "clean your room" shit annoys me, this is one of the examples where it really, really makes sense in a real world manner. We birthed Atheism+. There is no denying that we have not just religious thinking in dark corners of the atheist community, but a very real analog to fundamentalism.

[@CausalityLoop]

In my view, theists always claim to believe in some specific god, but as soon as an atheist starts questioning the specifics, the theist gets defensive and starts backing off saying, "Oh you're just being too literal". The theist would rather not defend solid ground, but keep their position so fluid and diluted it becomes impossible to challenge. Notice how every "Does God Exist" debate devolves into arguments for Deism from Christians or Muslims. They never want to defend what they actually believe, because the defense simply doesn't exist. My religious mother always accuses me of being close-minded, even though I've told her repeatedly that I am open to evidence that meets good standards, which she never provides. But she never addresses any points that I make, she just stops listening partway through, shrugs, and says I'm trying to make myself into God. Although I'm sure some would, I've never heard an atheist say 'nothing would ever change my mind', while religious people say that all the time, and proudly.

[@CausalityLoop]

@BTIsaac Sure, and to avoid strawmanning them I always ask people to tell me what they believe and do my best to respond to exactly that, and nothing more. My observations above are based on a majority of my discussions with theists, though I will readily admit not every theist argues like this. I realize I said "always" in my comment, it's not always, so maybe I did exaggerate a little with that one word. Some will acknowledge they know their belief is irrational but they want to hold it anyway, and some (like presups) will tell you straight up they know God exists and everyone else does too.

[@Bill_Bo]

Stig, exactly! It is all a dodge. When you base your entire world view on a primitive overly edited book that claims never seen again magic happened for real you cannot have anyone questioning it. All praise Lazarus that is risen from the dead.

[@CausalityLoop]

@BTIsaac Sure I'm aware of cultural christianity. My position is that if a "christian" is irreligious, deistic, or atheistic, calling them a christian just muddies the waters. I'd be curious what you mean by "beliefs identified with Christianity" that don't mean you're actually a Christian. I also don't care if someone claims to be culturally christian, for the most part. I care whether or not beliefs are true. Christianity makes claims about truth. I dispute many of them. Hence my comment. How many versions of Christianity there are is irrelevant to me. Even if there was only one, it wouldn't make it any more or less valid. The claims stand or fall on their own merit. Claiming that Hitchens made a fatal error and "acknowledged the validity" of these is nonsense. There are many different alien abduction stories I could point out. Does that acknowledge their validity too? Or maybe... they're all mistaken. That seems far more likely to me. Dawkins being a Christian only makes sense if Christianity is so diluted as to not contain any of its doctrine, since Dawkins doesn't think God is real, doesn't think Genesis is true, doesn't think Jesus was the messiah, and so on. Also I'm just as biased toward Christianity over Islam too. Christianity has been considerably defanged in recent history, unlike Islam. Kind of like how I'd prefer to carpool with a serial molester over a serial killer if I had to pick one. (crude analogy I know, but it illustrates what I mean). Hope that clarifies what I wrote.

[@CausalityLoop]

@BTIsaac Fine. Then you're a Christian, I'm a Christian, Osama bin Laden was a Christian, and Santa Claus is a Christian. We're all Muslim, we're all Hindu, and we're also all Zoroastrian. We've all been abducted by aliens, we all believe in faries, and we've all seen Bigfoot. And we all think chocolate is the best ice cream. How do I know that's all true? Because I just defined all of those categories as applying to all humans. See the problem? When you strip away everything meaningful about a particular label that makes that label unique, you render it meaningless. 2nd example: I just defined "dogs" as "people commenting on KZbin named BTIsaac". So you're a dog now. Make sense why we don't do that yet? I'll also spell this out, so you can't miss it: I. Don't. Care. About. True. Christianity. All I care about is whether your claims are true. Are you convinced God exists? That Jesus is the messiah? That aliens stuck a probe up your ass? That Claim X is true? If you are, please present your evidence or stop muddying the waters.

[@CausalityLoop]

@BTIsaac Okay this conversation has been pointless because now I'm pretty sure if we weren't hung up on semantics we actually agree on most things. I do take this issue seriously, I challenge all religious truth claims where they deserve to be challenged, and I'm still not entirely sure what your whole point even was. You have a good one.

[@ferociousfeind8538]

"Do you think the bible, taken literally, is true?" "Yes/no." "You had to take the bible literally to answer! So you're a biblical literalist and a fundamentalist!" Do they not see the issue with their definition of atheists as fundamentalists?

[@sorryifoldcomment8596]

Atheism has nothing to do with the Bible, this is so stupid. Evidence of god is separate. I don't care what the stupid book says and religious people are trying to force us too again! Once they have evidence for god, they can come bother me lol.

[@fluffynator6222]

*Yesn't

[@miguelpereira9859]

"Fundamentalism" noun a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture. "there was religious pluralism there at a time when the rest of Europe was torn by fundamentalism" strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline. Easy to see how ridiculous this argument is when you actually look up the definition of fundamentalism

[@tyler_da_wiz]

Whenever Jordan Peterson speaks about religion it's intellectual dishonesty at it's finest.

[@transsylvanian9100]

Whenever he speaks about anything it's intellectual dishonesty. He's just as wrong about pretty much everything else. What he says about marxism and "postmodernism" for example is pure bullshit.

[@tyler_da_wiz]

@@transsylvanian9100 True, but from what I noticed personally he seems to be most intellectually dishonest when talking on religion. Just some of the points he makes are so damn wrong and just sounds like a charlatan.

[@tyler_da_wiz]

@@transsylvanian9100 I do agree he is mostly full of shit. Hopefully he gets less and less appeal as he gets called out for it, but some part of me says that's probably not going to happen.

[@transsylvanian9100]

@@tyler_da_wiz He's even worse in my opinion when it comes to his political views. Whenever he talks about leftism it's pure bullshit reactionary propaganda. He completely misrepresents it.

[@sulljoh1]

It gets finer

[@irlserver42]

Funny thing is Jordan Peterson doesn't believe in god, he believes in belief. Those aren't the same thing. He's just an atheist. Any religious person that actually believed in god would recognize he's just one more atheist academic trying to be a priest.

[@someoneelse1904]

IRL Server “Well that depends on what you mean by god.”

[@Peasham]

Now if you could just explain what that means without being incredibly vague, that'd be great.

[@Faint366]

Right. He says Romeo and Juliet is true. Not because it’s actually true, but because the story speaks to the human condition. He says religion is true in the same way. And then he says holy books are all metaphors. If you take that approach then you’d have no reason to believe in an actual god, only a metaphorical god. Aka, atheism.

[@miguelpereira9859]

@@Faint366 Exactly. He is an atheist. He interprets religious texts in the same way he interprets fiction like Tolstoy

[@UsenameTakenWasTaken]

I always love it when the religious attempt to use comparisons to religion as reasons to not be an atheist. They are, without any sense of irony, roasting themselves.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"as reasons to not be an atheist." It is impossible to BE an atheist. It is not a thing. It is a not-thing; but what else you are is unspecified.

[@Nojintt]

One reason to target Creationists (as an Atheist) is that Creationists are doing the most harm to society.

[@davidj3167]

"and don't call me a Muggle" *Bust out laughing*

[@paxmule]

Yeah, that was a good quip !

[@tawanda5034]

Ahh.. the classic "no, you are".. Gets atheists everytime

[@johnsanders561]

I've talked to so many people who claim to be very religious and want to convince me but when questioned have very little knowledge their own beliefs. They go to church, and trust that someone more learned in the subject knows all the answers but cannot argue anything themselves and think you are very rude to even doubt them for their lack of knowledge of their own beliefs.

[@Nerobyrne]

I suppose you could say that all atheism is fundamentalist, since it has, by definition, only one principle and thus every atheist must believe in ALL fundamental principles of atheism. But I suppose that's quite the stretch since it's really what we DON'T believe that makes us atheist. It's like that old analogy, where not collecting stamps is a hobby. Everyone who doesn't collect stamps does so on a fundamental basis.

[@DrumWild]

This is why I tend to suspect that "Atheism" does not exist, for it has no beliefs, holy texts, anointed leaders, or other attributes required to fill an ISM. So if it makes others feel better, I can just be the guy who isn't buying anyone's claims about their god, regardless of whether or not it's commercially-available for purchase. *_There are no fundamental principles of Atheism._* There is no ISM.

[@Nerobyrne]

+DrumWild It exists only in so far as that it is a term to describe people who reject a widely held belief. So basically it exists the same way any other answer exists. I suppose that's something everyone has to decide as it is more semantic than anything else.

[@DrumWild]

A term to describe a person who does not believe is "Atheist." A term to describe people, or a group, is "Atheists." It's a useless term that gets abused.

[@Hirnlego999]

Which fundamental principles? You can be a Buddhist and an atheist.

[@Hirnlego999]

Which fundamental principles? You can be a Buddhist and an atheist. It's a non-belief and that's all it is.

[@roscoedash6673]

Azlan is one of the most disingenuous "intellectual" thinkers of ANY field in the modern day. He is constantly engaging in what I call the "double strawman" argument. First, he claims that Atheists follow Sam Harris to the point where he has a "zealous following" without proving that A. Some sizable number of Atheists are basing their beliefs of Harris's ideas and B. that said Atheists have demonstrated any sort of zealous behavior. Then he proceeds to actually straw man Harris's beliefs by claiming that Harris is utterly certain of his beliefs and that Harris only debates literalistic interpretations of scripture. This type of discourse is so dishonest that I'd PREFER to debate a fundamentalist like Hovind or Ken Ham than I would Aslan. At least the fundamentalists have some sort of code that they claim to live by. "Spiritual" people like Aslan are just bullshitters that want to get along with everyone. That's why they can't stand "New Atheists", AKA Atheists that aren't pussies and will actually speak out about what they think is right.

[@rkernell]

@Fortunado999 Fortunado, Fortunado, Fortunado, A little wound up, huh Buddy? Give an example of Sam Harris lying, not an assertion but a verifiable example. I am an atheist, I'm not sure if I am "new" or not but I have no desire to be "edgy" only to be precise and accurate, something of which, by your post, you have no concept. Please attempt to try to clarify the latter portion of the second sentence. It is worded so poorly that it is on par with your closing sentence, "neckbeard"? WTF????

[@thomasmaughan4798]

The Four Horsement (Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and I don't remember the fourth) are zealous believers in their rightness and duty to preach their gospel.

[@rkernell]

@@thomasmaughan4798 Assuming that you are any where near correct, how is this different than christian evangelicals? I would like for you to find a program that is run by atheists on any broadcast network proselytizing about atheism. I can give examples of many christian ones, so support your assertion that they "are zealous believers in their rightness and duty to preach their gospel". The main difference between atheists and christians is that atheists can show evidence for their assertions, christians can't.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

@Platypus So which is it? You argue against the existence of zealous followers of Sam Harris, then you assert "Atheists that aren't pussies and will actually speak out about what they think is right."

[@thomasmaughan4798]

@@rkernell "so support your assertion that they "are zealous believers in their rightness and duty to preach their gospel"." I believe AronRa would count as a preacher of Atheism. That he chooses a different *medium* for his message is irrelevant to me.

[@Gahet]

As an agnostic atheist I absolutely encourage and welcome challenges to what I think I understand. What a great opportunity to grow and learn!

[@Tenchi707]

Yeah but ego is a problem for a lot of a people, people just can't give up their ridiculous beliefs

[@pettersonystrawman9291]

"...and stop calling me a MUGGLE!" XD I lost my shit at that point

[@thethrashyone]

I'm a tad ashamed to admit that I would use the whole "atheists are just as bad!" spiel when I was a Christian apologist myself some 9 years back. Not only does it essentially boil down to an unabashedly deflective "NO U" argument which utterly fails to actually address the criticisms against religious fundamentalism, but as pointed out here, the _reasons_ for why atheists are just as bad utterly fall flat. The one that really gets me is how some of the apologists shown in these clips can honestly hold up religious scientists as a shining example of what atheists are "failing to address". We _have_ addressed this point, people - numerous times, in fact. This is nothing but a hollow appeal to authority. The simple fact of the matter is that the religious musings of scientists like Karl Jung, Sir Isaac Newton _et al._ are lent no credence whatsoever by mere virtue of being believed in by men who made great contributions to science. If Lawrence Krauss came out as a Potterist tomorrow, his beliefs in Potterism would have *precisely dick-all* to do with his contributions to cosmology. All it would prove is what's already been known for quite some time: That even smart people aren't above chasing moonbeams from time to time.

[@marianmeletlidiscrap]

@Rawlings What's your deal?

[@heckingbamboozled8097]

@Mary-Anne Meletlidis Rawlings is a pretty well known fundamentalist in the GMS comment section, notorious for their constant ad hominems and lackluster arguments. Go look at his subscriptions, for example.

[@TheCamdowd]

Jordan Peterson sounds just like Kermit the Frog😂😂

[@dathanlo]

I think you're misrepresenting him a bit here. He might sound somewhat like Kermit, but we have to assume that he knows something we don't as a professor with over 9000 citations. The metaphysical embodiment of our culture isn't something you just understand overnight. Have you even watched all of his lectures?

[@DrumWild]

He's got orange fake spray tan coagulating in the back of his throat like adipocere.

[@admiralbirdcrap661]

dathanlo Haha, you are sooo right.. I had many teachers in college that talked funny, but I learned a wealth of knowledge from them.. Poking fun will never get you an A on the finals!

[@bdf2718]

It seems to me that he sounds more and more kermit-like as his ideas get more fucktarded. Back before he spouted so much utter shite his voice was normal. I suspect the cognitive dissonance is causing it. It might even be a symptom of a mental breakdown - those long pauses followed by an explosively loud outburst indicate there's a screw or two loose.

[@bdf2718]

+dathanio I'd guess that 8,999 of those citations are along the lines of "Peterson is talking crap again." dressed up as "The conclusions in [87] are not supported by the evidence."

[@redstickviking2808]

Is it just me, or is Jordan Peterson persistently "operating at the edge of his understanding"?

[@OddityDK]

I think the great misconception about atheism vs theism is the notion that it’s about science vs faith. I don’t care what Peterson’s heavy hitters, or Lennox’s great thinkers had to say about it. It doesn’t matter to me, though fascinating and wonderful, that evolution and cosmology can explain pretty much every step from the Big Bang to now. None of that changes the fact that the fundamental proposition of religion, an entity creating everything from nothing, is both nonsensical, in that cause/effect requires something“affected”, has an obvious problem of infinite regress only solved through special pleading and has no real explanatory power beyond what is essentially magic. Great thinkers can argue about from here to eternity. Religion, the idea of God, is dead in the water and always has been.

[@heinzguderian9980]

If you don't interpret religious scriptures literally, then it is all interpretation. And the problem with interpretation is that it is highly subjective. Just look at the wide amount of interpretations that are available for any work of literature. Some of them completely disagree with each other. Peterson should be aware of this since he likes literature but he seems to completely ignore this fact. Just like he does with many other things.

[@elainelouve]

And the interpretations have been a cause to many wars and conflicts. It never seizes to amaze me how terribly important those seemingly minor issues have been to people. Catholics vs. protestants, etc. Just a side note.;)

[@Majormindandsoul]

Interpretation isn't necessarily subjective. We interpret languages objectively dont we? So, what if the scriptures are written metaphorically, & are meant to be interpreted in a specific way, like a language?

[@joeytribbiani34]

MAJOR MINDS That's your interpretation. Some people will agree with that notion, others will not. These differences in opinions might give birth to heated conflicts and then we are back to square one.

[@Majormindandsoul]

Joey Tribbiani but sir I did not present an interpretation for anyone to agree or disagree with, I merely ask you to consider what IF there is a specific way to interpret or translate the Bible that many are not aware of?

[@joeytribbiani34]

MAJOR MINDS And I am sure that many people believe that their subjective interpretation really is objective. So, how can we even know if we have found a way to objectively interpret the bible?

[@mastaskep]

I got a headache watching the clips. They are so illogical simple questions would destroy their arguments.

[@hazelsunderstood6784]

"Don't call me a muggle" -🤣🤣🤣

[@danieldougan269]

My man is so sharp and so well-spoken. Well done. I know I get emotional and angry due to my own church experience and trauma, but even someone this calm and measured will still be attacked by religious people.

[@hewasfuzzywuzzy3583]

There's definitely a lot more that needs to be addressed on this topic. This video's a good start. Thank you!

[@MRayner59]

Gotta love the notion that religious “holy books” aren’t meant to be taken literally - except in all of the cases where they are. Usually, whenever it happens to conveniently suit the believer’s purpose to do so.

[@TheBoogeymanProject]

A simple counter to all these accusations against atheism would be to ask the accuser, "would you be willing to consider 100% of your religion to be fictional?" Very few, I would think, would answer in the affirmative, which not only shows that they DO take at least some of their religion literally AND refuse to change their mind.

[@flyby2300]

Your metaphor with 'Potters' Apotters' is excellent.

[@ListlessLion]

Religious moderates: wow its so weird atheists don't come after us and just misrepresent god like fundamentalists do. Atheists: we literally don't have an issue with you and agree with you on fundamentalism. Stop trying to pick fights with us.

[@davidbauler3159]

atheist: I am going to bitch about Ten Commandment monuments on public land, while drinking my overpriced, trendy coffee.

[@doofy3111]

David Bauler Christians: im going to stop buying trendy overpriced coffee not for obvious reasons but because it didn’t say merry Christmas on the cup

[@ListlessLion]

@@doofy3111 - idk why he had to bring coffee into this, but you burned him real good for it 10/10

[@92brunod]

atheist: I'm going to reject religious nonsense to be taken as instructions applicable to humans as if it were laws that made any sense like the supposed "ten commandments" being placed where human law is applied. If we judged people by those laws all religious people would be in jail for constantly breaking the second one by making monuments of god (Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image) and none would be for raping little kids or owning slaves. P.S.: Search what the real 10 commandments say. Yeah, the ones that forbid to boil a young goat in its mother's milk

[@davidbauler3159]

darn tooting ;0)

[@darkoleskovsek2558]

Wait! Harry Potter is not real? OMFG

[@admiralbirdcrap661]

Darko Leskovšek Yes, Harry Potter is real. He cums over at my house on occasion and we make pottery together... 😇

[@hexa1905]

I can't prove you'r wrong therefor you'r right !

[@UlshaRS]

Don't worry though Spider-Man is still real and he's here to save your day. Well unless you believe like though hell bound heathens that leave out the hypen in our savior's name.

[@admiralbirdcrap661]

UlshaRS 🎼🎺🎷 Spider Man, Spider Man. Does whatever a spider can. Spins a web any size, catches thieves just like flies.LOOKOUT! There goes Spiderman!

[@diobrando6716]

Blasphemy!!

[@wunnell]

Man, Jordan Peterson has such a hard-on for Dostoevsky. I've heard him use his work in arguments so many times. The problem is that such arguments fail for the same reason that arguments based on morality and so many others fail. The problem is that, at best, they show that it would be better for humankind that a god exist than for no god to exist. I don't believe that they even manage that but that's the best they can do and, as such, they actually reveal that theists are at least prepared to engage in wishful thinking. Obviously I can't know what's in his head but it seems to me that Peterson's religious position is just wishful thinking or else purely pragmatic. It seems that he has a picture of what he wants the world to be like and he thinks that the best way to achieve that is through Christianity. It's not that he thinks that we should behave a certain way because that's what a god wants but, rather, that he thinks that we should behave a certain way and having people believe that a god wants that is the best way to have them do it. It seems rather ironic that he's so dead against the government forcing people to speak or behave a certain way but he's OK with effectively conning them into speaking or behaving the way he wants by fear of a god that even he doesn't seem to believe actually exists, other than as a concept.

[@nunyabiznatch243]

Perfectly constructed. Thank you. One serious issue that has always troubled me however is as follows; As a person who has always rejected the inadequate and plainly flawed ways that religion addresses the most fundamental existential questions posed by the intuitively curious, and logical human mind I have always struggled with the various ways that God is defined by humanity on all sides of the issue. For this reason I have never been comfortable identifying as an Atheist as opposed to Agnostic unless I am clear on which definitions of the word God are fixed in the minds of the participants in the conversation. Many people I know who identify as Atheists defined by the statement "I do not believe God exists" leave me with the same two basic questions that religious people I know do when they say, "I do believe God exists." 1) How are you defining the word God? and 2) What empirical evidence do you have to support that statement? Of course many times the answer may be plainly anticipated but I still think its important to always ask this question even if everyone else in the conversation thinks I'm daft for asking it. Here's why I think it's important for me to keep those questions front and center in my mind however; First, for me to identify as an Atheist I have to be clear on the definition of the God I don't believe exists. That's usually easy as long as the conversation is about any of the world's established religions. I can provide plenty of sound reasoning behind a logical argument, and lots of evidence of factual errors and logical inconsistencies in the texts of those religions that debunks the credible existence of the God of their belief. However the philosophical concept of the Ultimate Reality is something that I can not easily dispense with as evidenced through scientific discoveries in Physics and Quantum Mechanics. As to what exactly the ultimate reality is of course we may never know. Never the less, in that context there exists the possibility of the existence of some complete and ultimate source of reality that could meet many of the criteria of the God concept, and we certainly can not dismiss the possibility that there is intelligence in this theoretically possible source. If that broader philosophical concept of Ultimate Reality is the standard by which everyone agreed to construct boundaries for the discussion about whether or not God exists then I most certainly am Agnostic. In that context, to assert as fact that God does not exist would require proof that the source of all reality and the laws that govern it are in fact something else.

[@justinlumpkin1874]

You have to take scripture literally if you believe it's the word of a perfect God. If you disagree with any claim in the scripture, there's no reason to believe any of it. Also one of my teachers is Mr. Potter and he has a God complex so potterism has me shook

[@Anonim-os7rp]

Like if God couldn't use metaphors...

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"If you disagree with any claim in the scripture, there's no reason to believe any of it." Your lack of reason is not my lack of reason. Genesis 6 verse 6 claims that God repented of making man (at least in the King James Version it is written that way). That seems unlikely and it is also one of the oldest writings most translated and based on oral tradition a thousand or two years removed from its origin. On the other hand, the bible speaks of Jerusalem, and it seems to me there really is a Jerusalem, and Romans. So, I believe the bible when it claims Jerusalem exists, and I do not believe the bible when it claims God repented of making man.

[@stevephillips8083]

I’m a fundamentalist and so are you, all I have to do is change what the word fundamentalist means ;)

[@TheAliceUwU]

what

[@ElectricMusicianDude]

I like how the first fundamentalist he had talk sounded like Kermit but after 20 years of smoking

[@markhaunert5029]

You must be talking about Peterson. Very annoying fellow.

[@spiderworld384]

Yet another one of the greatest actors ruined by drugs and alcohol

[@eugenelubbock5478]

its jordan peterson

[@GraceGrimoire]

See, this is why I don’t tend to affiliate myself with groups even if I share their beliefs. People love to generalize and misrepresent ideas they don’t understand.

[@bigrivet985]

Atheism is not "new"; It existed before any religion.

[@anonymaus8191]

That's not true. The Australian aboriginals believe in a creator-god. Also animal (and human) sacrifice (to the gods) are well documented in ancient civilizations all across the world. And eapecially in the middle east. Instead of reading the Bible as a sequence of logical assertions (which is never how it was supposed to be read). You can read it as an esoteric guide for how to correctly perform animal sacrifice. A law book (similar to sharia) and a history of the rise and fall of two kingdoms. Judea and Israel.

[@munstrumridcully]

@@anonymaus8191 all evidence we have points to hunter gatherer humans, predating all civilizations, had no gods and the first religion was animism(specifically the belief that inanimate objects have souls and an afterlife for their own souls), not theism. Theism came later and started as polytheism, which predates monotheism, then henotheism(believing in more than one god, like those of other religions, but worshipping one god, their own, as above others) then monotheism. So that would make not believing in gods(atheism) older than belief in gods(theism). Link to animism as first religion below www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4958132/%23:~:text%3DResults%2520indicate%2520that%2520the%2520oldest,by%2520shamanism%2520and%2520ancestor%2520worship.&ved=2ahUKEwil-c6m1pvrAhXRZTUKHe4gAL0QFjABegQIEhAG&usg=AOvVaw3YRUeBEviotRZG-rGHt4ML

[@heinzguderian9980]

A very common fallacy that Peterson makes is the argument from adverse consequences (and those adverse consequences are usually dubious at best). Ie: you have to have religion because without religion there is no reason for morality; free will exists because those who don't believe in free will don't want to accept responsibility for their actions.

[@0x777]

Actually, WITH religion there is no reason for morality. If you believe that there is a supernatural CCTV that punishes you eternally if you don't behave, you needn't be moral. You only need to be fearful and willing to hedge your bets. It takes a moral person to not think that there is that supernatural CCTV and still behave decently.

[@georgesimon1760]

I disagree that atheists referring to an invisible guy in the sky is simplistic or ridiculous. I grew up Christian and that essentially describes what we were told. And most Christians I know seem to basically believe just that. THAT is why many atheists use those terms.

[@lucisferre6361]

If an individual's views can be changed with the introduction of valid, testable evidence, then they are not fundamentalists.

[@CondemnedGuy]

1:00 I literally thought I had a left a tab open with a Kermit video or something.

[@MrAranton]

Religious person: "My holy book says..." Atheist: "I read that book that's not what it says, it really says...." Religious person: "You are a fundamentalist!" It's their go to response when somebody points out that their creeds contradict their allegedly holy books. I stopped caring about being called a fundamentalist. A lot of religious people don't read their belief from the holy texts, they have their beliefs and then scour the holy texts for passages that justify them and try to figure out ways to ignore passages, that don't match their beliefs. Calling bullshit on that practice by contrasting the creed to the text, is not "being a fundamentalist", it's exposing a hypocrite. As an atheist I refuse discuss beliefs people gained from their "personal experience" with god because the only access I have to those is what these people tell me, what I can discuss are the so-called holy books; those are texts that are objectively there, everybody can read them and those interpretations can be discussed. But when religious people say "You atheist read my holy book like a fundamentalist would", they refuse to do just that. It boils down to: "You don't get to interpret my holy text, you have to bow to my interpretation".

[@msjkramey]

We don't hate it when you our Book better than us. We just hate it when you're a smug asshole about it lol

[@ADerpyReality]

I will not give up shrimp for your religion.

[@rokhamler3352]

Reading it like a fundamentalist doesn't make you a fundamentalist. Just because you examine something through a different lens doesn' mean you have to accept it. What a dumb argument about fundamentalism. It is accepting what you read as absolute truth, uncritically about something based on nothing more than feelings, preferences and belief then completely basing your life around that something that makes you a fundamentalist. Someone inspecting your dogma with the lens you gave them then saying no to it, simply means he doesn't agree with you. If all the power of these beliefs are located in the supernatural realm with no way of using natural tools to examine its validity being more than feelings and preference then you can't get mad when someone "dogmatically" says you are wrong and that your "truth" can only be considered opinion at best. If we take atheists out of the argument and simply place someone who has beliefs in a deity but very diferent from your gods the entire argument always turns into a dickwaving contest about whose god is better because there is no other way to proceed than throwing out your laundry list of preferences. But the basic ability 2 believer have to disagree and even deny the validity of each others' objectively unprovable claims is the same ability atheists use except they say all believers are probably wrong. I consider this argument about fundamentalism conceited and really trying to torpedo an ideological opponent by making him look like a fundamentalist (or bad person) therefore discrediting them and their argument without needing to think about it. Just like how people now scream nazi at everything on the internet they don't like.

[@MrAranton]

​@@msjkramey Apparently you have no idea how smug religious people can be when they think they're dealing with people that haven't read their allegedly holy book. They tend to be all about: "I read this book and realized a great truth that will get me to heaven and you'll burn in hell for eternity because you didn't read the book". That's smugness level 9000.

[@johngalt6627]

@Ad Lockhorst Well, that's because you atheists usually only engage with idiots who never studied anything by themselves.

[@TheIfifi]

"Stop calling me a muggle!"

[@SleepyMatt-zzz]

Why do Athiests argue about biblical depictions of god? Because theists make god political, simple as that.

[@dgrhm08]

I keep seeing common tactics among certain groups; mischaracterize, create a strawman around that, attack the strawman to make yourself look right/good/smart.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

Yes. One of the most common is ridiculing "Sky Daddy".

[@Mikri90]

Saying atheism is the same as fundamentalism is just an attempt to smear atheism by making an equivocation fallacy. "Fundamentalism is bad, but you are just as bad as fundamentalists are. And isn't it telling that even these people think there is something wrong with fundamentalism, even though their own world-view massively overlaps with the world-view of a fundamentalist? If you try to smear people who are trying to follow religious doctrine in the strictest way possible, the same religious doctrine you ascribe to in a more diluted fashion, what does that tell you about the actual fundamentals? The most important factor that makes a difference between moderates and fundamentalists is that the moderates tend to discard the ugly bits, because their moral compass steers them away from some very disturbing practices of bronze age Middle East, which means they've been fairly critical of their religious doctrine. Saying that it's not meant to be literal is just an excuse to keep holding to whatever is left of it. I have about the same moral standards as an average western Christian, I have the same needs, same desires, mostly the same lifestyle. So of what use is such a belief system, especially given how most of people professing belief in God (the Abrahamic one that is) is not even obeying the teachings loosely, let alone strictly. So of what value are those beliefs, since they are useless in the modern day, but still carry a lot of unnecessary baggage? I'd be the first to point out how absurd and inhumane the teachings of Islam are (caveat: not all the time of course, so don't start with that), but at least those folks have lifestyles that are mostly consistent with their worldviews. Christians on the other hand profess their belief and then go on to do the same stuff non-believer does, be it good or bad. It serves no purpose and it's irrelevant to the way they conduct their life. If it's not meant to literal, let's ask the real question here: where does one draw the line between taking biblical claims at face value and interpreting them, and how does one "interpret" it? And can religious moderates agree on any standard definition of what it means to be a Christian?

[@Ergeniz]

The only consistent definition I can seem to apply to Christians is that a) they believe in middle eastern god of death and destruction derived from the torah and Judaism and b)they see the bible as an book of an authority, either written directly or indirectly by god. More precisely, I classify anyone who describes themselves as Christians as such. So, I don't allow any so-called moderates to invoke the No true Scottsman fallacy when one of their brethren does or says something indefensible.

[@robertmiller9735]

It seems to mean "anyone who keeps arguing after they've been told to shut up and not make waves". My Unitarian sister called me fundamentalist for that reason.

[@Scroteydada]

Toasters kill more people than shatks therefore we should ban toasters

[@thomasmaughan4798]

Fundamentalism is neither bad nor good. It simply sticks to simple; the fundamentals. Fundamentalism in mathematics is the four basic operations. They must be mastered before going to algebra and calculus. For an atheist, a fundamentalist point of view is "there is no god". That's pretty simple and basic.

[@Mikri90]

@@thomasmaughan4798 of course, but people tend to use the term as if it's bad. I didn't mean to say fundamentalism is indeed bad, but rather that even religious people tend to see religious fundamentalism as a bad thing, not because fundamentalism is bad itself, but because the fundamentals under which those people operate are problematic.

[@stephenaaronshepard1374]

Your videos are epic bro. Keep at it. Don't decline.

[@username-ru6ul]

“Accuse your opponent of what you’re doing or going to do” -Joseph Goebbels

[@0Fyrebrand0]

Even if you don't take the Bible as a literal historical account, and instead interpret it as allegory or metaphor, it's still garbage. Take the story of Adam and Eve. Some "lessons" we learn from that story: - Someone who doesn't understand right from wrong should still be punished, *permanently,* for their misdeeds, with no hope of redemption. - If your child misbehaves, you should disown them. Disobedience is *unforgivable.* - To gain awareness and learn right from wrong is a bad thing. - Morality is not a concept we ought to be concerned with, only strict obedience to authority. - Whatever God says, *do it,* and never mind what you might learn about the man behind the curtain if you disobey. - If a malicious agent sneaks into your home when you're not looking and coerces your oblivious kids into doing something bad, the main concern is what shitty kids you have. - By the way, "sin" is a thing. What is sin? Is it bad? No, it's just not doing what God wants. In this story, sin is actually good for you, and harms no one. - "Sin" can be passed down through generations, infecting all of humanity for all time, for what two individuals did in time immemorial. So, if your great, great, great grandfather robbed a liquor store, *you* are a criminal. But wait, so if Adam and Eve are a metaphor, does that mean there is not factually any "Original Sin" that infects humanity? Did that whole Global Flood story never happen? What was the metaphor in Noah's Ark? That if you make God mad enough, he'll fucking murder the whole world? Great lesson, very enlightening. So what was the whole Jesus thing about? Was he really the son of God, or was that just symbolic? Did he really walk on water, turn water into wine, feed a huge crowd with a few loaves and fishes, really cure lepers by touching them? Or is that bullshit fantasy too? Did he rise from the grave, or is that a metaphor for his cultural legacy? Wait, so if Adam and Eve never happened, then there wasn't any Original Sin. So, humanity is *not* innately sinful after all, and is not in need of "salvation" from anything (other than God being a dick, anyway). So, the crimes of one generation weren't literally passed on throughout time to all people. And Jesus didn't die for our sins, he simply died. But even that could be a metaphor, the moral lesson of which is that *you can murder someone, and they inherit and take away your guilt.* Like, seriously, Bible? That's how it works, huh? If a meek, kind, forgiving person just sacrifices themselves to a mob of savage sickos, then he absolves all of them of their evil? Wow, I'm glad our justice system doesn't work like that anymore. Come to think of it, perhaps God himself is a metaphor. Why not, right? I don't want to be one of those "fundamentalist" atheists who take the text too literally! Surely, God is the most fantastical and far-fetched characters in all the books. Clearly, this is so unbelievable that we are meant to take this character as a symbol and not as an historical person. The only thing is, I'm not sure if he's meant to be a good guy, or the ultimate villain. The Bible keeps *saying* he's good, -- desperately, obsessively so -- but it doesn't seem to be demonstrated anywhere in God's words or actions. Everything this guy does is so sick, violent, angry, and insecure. He seems to want to antagonize people and drive humans against each other. He wants to start wars. He wants us to kill others, including his only son, just to please him. I dunno, I think this "God" character is a sinister force, and not good for humankind. That's the symbolic message I get from it, anyway.

[@undogmatisch5873]

The claim, that most philosophers during the last centuries were believers or at least related to some kind of religious mindset might be true, but, and it's a gigantic but, there are specific reasons for that fact. For way more than a millenium, people, who dared to even doubt, what preachers told them, were tortured to death in ways, even the most vicious religious concepts of demons wouldn't be able to surpass. But that's typically apologist: even if they tell the truth, it's always incomplete.

[@Ergeniz]

These religious people seem to forget how Galieo was excommunicated and almost killed for pointing out a simple fact. Yet so-called moderates laugh at fundamentalists who deny evolution.

[@thephidias]

......PLUS it is simply not true.

[@aznkingdom12345]

God came to me in my dream and asked me, "who do you wish for me to bring back to life?" And I said, "Revive Christopher Hitchens, and take away Jordan B. Peterson, your Holy Kim Jun Un."

[@Novarcharesk]

Honey, you've got the wrong man to hate :P Peterson is thoughtful and gives damn good reasons why he says a damn thing, and when he doesn't know the answer, he actually says he doesn't know. If he's the one you want purged from the Earth, you either don't know who you're talking about, or you don't like reasonable people.

[@drhexagonapus]

@@Novarcharesk I thought the same when I first encountered peterson, he is quite good at making reasonable sounding arguments. However, when you peel back all the word salad of what he's saying, he's really just an asshole that dresses up like an intellectual. He makes the worst things sound almost noble, and that is what makes him so dangerous. He helps to justify all sorts of awful things, by giving the masses a rational sounding argument for being a terrible person. He's kind of like Ayn Rand, he brings out the worst in his followers.

[@Novarcharesk]

@@drhexagonapus No, he really doesn't. Another person who has no clue of what Peterson says. Word salad? Work on your comprehension skills. I understand every word he says.

[@harounfarhani2138]

@@Novarcharesk peterson has zero respect for transtender people, and he opposes gay marriage, and gay couples having kids, despite overwhelming scientific evidence that gay couples raise just as healthy kids as straight couples. Considering my mom is gay, I take great offense to this. His arguments towards these points sound sensible, which is precisely why he is dangerous, he might not be a homophobe himself, but his arguments do appeal a great deal to religious homophobes, and his arguments most definitely encourage hate towards lgbt people.

[@drhexagonapus]

@@Novarcharesk word salad doesn't mean I don't understand what he's saying. It means he makes things way more complicated than they need to be, and he tries to justify being an asshole by obfuscating the issues. He is good at what he does, I'll give him that. He just uses his gifts to rationalize hate, and that's why he is an awful person.

[@ananthakrishnanma6650]

I personally loved the word skydaddy😂

[@UlshaRS]

When Reza Aslan talks I have to close my eyes lest they roll hard enough to achieve escape velocity.

[@yakib4663]

Great vid Drew!

[@twentyfirstcenturygothic]

As a fundamental potterist, I am extremely offended

[@Glaswalker1001]

Is a pedestrian a reckless or a safe driver? The answer is: no

[@Anonim-os7rp]

If you want a reckless driver pedestrian (in power armour), you should know that many died to anti-theist regimes... only because they believed... Mexico in 1920's... Soviet Union...

[@Anonim-os7rp]

@ In USSR churches were sacked and the clergy imprisoned. Stalin never refered to religion during his political career, neither did any officials in USSR. Religiousness was slandered as "the opium for the masses" and any official showing belief in God was punished. There were also widespread newspapers like "Безбожник" (The Godless) that claimed religion is source of ignorance, backwardness and superstitiousness and denounced clergy as parasites that only support the capitalism by turning the workers away from revolution. The slight increase in freedom of religion during WW2 served just to heighen morale when fighting against Germans and was temporary - commies returned to their old ways after the war.

[@alexanderofrhodes9622]

@@Anonim-os7rp It's weird for me that commies and theists would fight each other. They're both in the business of believing dumb shit for no reason and abusing their fellow man

[@Anonim-os7rp]

@@alexanderofrhodes9622 1. Weird? Are you serious? Too many wars were masqueraded as ideological/theological differences (and nearly always are in reality started by financial incentives or power hunger) 2. Both communism and several religions have important principle of into helping the fellow man because it's "good". If we pretend only our moderate, "pedestrian/safe" wing to exist and boil down everything else to a bunch of reckless radicals we can prove almost anything to be the only real helpful ideology. Both ideologies and religions are double-edged swords, in almost all cases. 3. Commies claim their shit is a science, and if you don't agree then "you believe in dumb capitalist shit for no reason/because you are indoctrinated". Yea, I do believe capitalist shit, and I do believe theist shit, are you gonna call me abuser of proletariat/nonbeliever over that? I'm not interested in theocracy or wild ancap, the former twists the religion into earthly gains, the latter is too unstable and insecure to help people.

[@BattousaiHBr]

Apologist: *scores last place* Atheist: "LOL dude you're last place" Apologist: "no I'm not! In fact, you're also tied in last place with me!" Atheist: "uh, no I'm no-" Apologist: "so if you're tied with me on last place that means _you_ are the loser!" Atheist: *facepalms into microcephaly*

[@jmg94j]

The moderate Christians are the most dishonest Christians. Not only do I not believe the moderate christian's interpretation of the bible, I disagree with their interpretation of the word "interpretation". Every moderate Christian that I have met, thinks that they can take any verse, or claim in the bible, and just change it to mean something different, or say that it's intended to be metaphorical, and call it interpretation. That is called alteration, not interpretation. If one wants to play the interpretation card, then you have to go through the verse, word by word, in it's original language, and show how you came to that interpretation, which of course they can not do. The moderate Christian is not guided by the bible, the bible is guided by the moderate Christian. They direct it to where they want it to go, through the misuse of the word interpretation.

[@radicallyalyssa]

I don't think you understand what a moderate Christian is. A moderate doesn't know Bible verses. We don't go to church every Sunday or pretend to have interpretations of verses we don't know to spout off to people who just want to make fun of or argue with us. We pray every so often that life keeps moving forward, pray for our families on Christmas, and just try to live good lives. If that to you us worse than Bible thumping jackasses who scream on the sidewalk at intersections or go downtown to bars telling drunks they're going to hell, then bro, you gotta see a psychiatrist.

[@jmg94j]

A moderate Christian is someone who takes a moderate, or progressive stance on scientific, social, and ethical issues. I grew up in a moderate Church. Our church accepted the theory of evolution as undeniable fact, it was one of the first churches in the country to ordain women, and has just finally started to accept, and even ordain gay people. All of those things happened despite very vocal opposition by some members, and despite the fact that the bible is clearly opposed to all of those things. The dissenting members would quote the bible verses that oppose all of those changes, and the members who were pushing for the changes would say, "You are taking the bible too literally. You have to interpret it properly." That is a pile of crap. These people are just taking bible verses or teachings that are false, crazy, or brutal and unjust, and changing them to suit their sensibilities, which I think is a good thing. I'm not saying that moderates are worse than fundamentalists. I'm saying that fundamentalists are more honest than moderates.

[@Ergeniz]

Alyssa, even if that is what you would describe a moderate Christian it is certainly not a defensible position. You just admitted that you don't really know the bible (but yet you follow and believe in it ANYWAY), you pray without giving it any profound thought or consideration (else you would know its completely ineffective and even contradictory to the concept of the Christian god who is omnipresent and sees/knows all). So you're following the crowd because you were a) indoctrinated or b) too lazy to think for yourself and blindly follow the rest of your group for the sake of inclusion without any sort of consideration for why or c) both. None paint you in a good light. At least the 'bible thumpers' are actually focused and driven in that regard.

[@galarstar052]

see, being a moderate is bad because at least fundamentalists are honest and actually take the bible as it's supposed to, instead of cherrypicking and asusming things to fit your argument.

[@Anonim-os7rp]

@BTIsaac And you share another one with Stalin... Hitler... Lenin... Calles... Wait, no, there is no aboslute morality!

[@kazuoua]

Fundamentalist Christian: 1+1=3 Moderate Christian: 1+1=🌈 Atheist: 1+1=2 Jordan Peterson: These fundamentalist atheists argue with the most stupid arguments ever.

[@egoapto]

The problem with hunting invisible beasts is knowing where to aim.

[@CteCrassus]

Imaginary beasts, on the other hand, are easy. No matter where the shot lands you can claim you scored a bullseye.

[@snuffywuffykiss1522]

What a strange argument... If the scriptures are not to be taken literally then they are not to be believed as true. So these "christians" who believe it is figurative have no reason to believe in any god... But they do, and those who do not are the fundamentalists? very warped...

[@ultimatedespairgamer6722]

Exactly non fundamental versions of religion, would mean that they think it’s not true just pretty metaphor

[@Ergeniz]

This is a good point. Its also ironic when so-called casual or cultural Christians attempt to dissemble (no true scottsman fallacy) by claiming fundamentalists or extremists are not 'true christians'. Its like saying ISIS or HAMAS are not true Muslims. When in fact, they are more 'muslim' than any so-called conservative are (who aren't really even conservative themselves, since they never condemn the actions of said groups and surveys taken make it clear many of them support things like the death penalty for homosexuals).

[@Ergeniz]

Again, if they seek to use the label then I will categorize them there. No exceptions. Christians have made it clear they will cherry pick and twist the bible in any way they please in order to avoid psychological discomfort or make a point to those who would challenge their faith so I don't make special cases or judgements other than all who claim it, are.

[@msjkramey]

The no-true Scotsman thing is stupid. If someone believes in Jesus as the Son of God and calls themselves a Christian, then they're a Christian, period. We could argue about whether their a good Christian or a bad Christian but it's all about perspective. I'm sure I'm considered a bad Christian by a lot of my family just because I admit that I don't know God is there for sure. I'm so over it. As long as people aren't hurting anyone who cares? It's just a word

[@Majormindandsoul]

The scriptures are written in metaphor and there are specific ways to interpret them.

[@aubreymilowski680]

His Dark Materials is sooo good! Some really good atheist literature.

[@juliocbp9389]

Peterson didn’t even bother in reading Zizek’s bibliography (or even The Capital, for that matter) before his debate. There’s no way he just “finished reading all of Harris’ books”

[@snooganslestat2030]

I wouldn't waste my time talking to any theist that deliberately mis interprets what atheism is

[@timothyinnocent3311]

literally horeshoeists "Two insanely different extremes? I can't tell the difference!"

[@zr1129]

I think calling athiest fundamentalists is a form of poisoning the well.

[@sorryifoldcomment8596]

Definitely. It's trying to force athiests to care about religion...when it isn't about religion. It's about the supernatural. They are trying to distract us from their lack of evidence of God...because they still haven't provided any! We need to not let us be distracted by this crap. This is shit. There are religious people who are atheists, like Buddhists!

[@hadleyjolley3375]

I always thought the "Atheists are fundamentalists" criticism was such a double standard, since it mostly seems to criticize atheists for being sure in their beliefs and not hedging, which is not how it is used for religious believers. My grandma is a devout Episcopalian and not a fundamentalist at all, but as far as I can tell she is as sure in her beliefs as any atheist "fundamentalist", and as likely to believe that others are wrong.

[@amvCBG]

What bothers me about religion is not things like taking mythical stories seriously as much. It's the interpretation of scripture as a set of infallible rules that cannot be questioned

[@theonlysumireharafanboyint6919]

That’s cuz metaphoric interpretations of scripture can’t be disproven!

[@92brunod]

I often wonder what the metaphorical meaning is anyway. Noah's Ark is a metaphor...OF WHAT? What is the great teaching of that? And if there's one, why couldn't god just say it literally instead of playing around? I can link you to an article which literally makes the case that “Don’t seethe a young goat in its mother’s milk” actually means: “Teachings about God are difficult to understand. Don’t accept new spiritual teachings about God that look too good, and too easy, to be true; they have probably been deliberately ‘cooked up’ to deceive you” while being totally obnoxious about how stupid the "literalists" are for having a literal interpretation...SERIOUSLY?? It's absolutely baffling that they think their god wouldn't literally said that if that was his intended message but he preferred to talk about boiling a goat in its mother's milk

[@theonlysumireharafanboyint6919]

92brunod Well duhhh, of course an all powerful, all knowing god meant that he created the world in seven METAPHORIC days would make everyone who worshiped him for thousands of years believe that it was literal until they disproved it themselves. Isn’t god amazing?

[@Ergeniz]

Reading the bible 'metaphorically' or 'interpretation' is Christian shorthand for 'moving the goalposts'.

[@electricant55]

@Donald Trump But... He's not. He promised Noah he won't do it again.

[@iamElectro]

2:18 The cross on his neck is doing morse code! IT'S A SIGN AND A MESSAGE FROM GOD!!!

[@iamElectro]

Btw good job on Truth Wanted

[@thomasmaughan4798]

So what is the interpretation? Do you understand Morse code?

[@theoskeptomai2535]

I am such an extreme atheist that I actually answer "I don't know" to questions of which I actually don't know the answer.

[@klaasbarends]

In my experience combating the literalists not by attacking them for taking scripture literal, but by using source criticism is the better strategy. Bart Ehrman helped me more to grow as an atheist than Dawkins ever did.

[@Amazing_missB]

I just found these channels and there seems to be so much anger on all sides that making progress seems like a very painful endeavor. A consider myself Agnostic just because of the vitriol. They are provably right but the anger is too close a match to a fundamentalist.

[@alexandreaugusto615]

@@Amazing_missB I agree that we have to be more civil to have progress in these conversations, but being angry happens from time to time when religious people in power determine the way you live based on an archaic book