Is Adam Savage Still an Atheist?

What's Adam Savage's current outlook on the grand mysteries of life? Has he ever had the desire to create cosplay from a book, radio program or song? In this live stream excerpt Adam answers these questions from Tested members @NathanielSalzman and @spencerbarton1770, whom we thank for their support. Join this channel to support Tested and get access to perks, like asking Adam a question during a live stream:
/ @tested
Subscribe for more videos (and click the bell for notifications): kzbin.info_c...
Join this channel to support Tested and get access to perks:
/ @tested
Tested and Adam Savage Ts, stickers, (de) merit badges and more: tested-store.com
About Tested: www.tested.com/about
Meet Adam in Person: www.tested.com/events
TikTok: / testedcom
Instagram: / testedcom
Twitter: / testedcom
Facebook: / testedcom
Discord: / discord
Amazon Storefront: www.amazon.com/shop/adamsavage...
Intro bumper by Abe Dieckman
Thanks for watching!

[@monsterq6]

I am a devout Christian and I would so much like to thank you for such a dignified and respectful response to this. You're a very smart individual and you have my unending respect! Thanks for sharing your perspective as I understand it's very personal and comes with a lot of challenge.

[@knutolavbjrgaas1069]

Im also a christian and I also respect Adam very much, such a creative mind. I hope he is saved before its too late.

[@feloniousbutterfly]

Let me say kiddo, when you are free of religious oppression and able to think freely and clearly, it is not difficult at all to express this sentiment. I wish you peace and freedom.

[@jothain]

@@knutolavbjrgaas1069 As an atheist. I hope you're too.

[@mikedee1]

⁠@@feloniousbutterflyI’m a Christian and I don’t feel oppressed.

[@TripleDeuce_]

@@feloniousbutterflythat kind of arrogance is honestly so gross

[@theminingassassin16]

I love how, as you get older, Adam, you don't become any less animated when you talk about things. That's always been something I like about you.

[@Trashed20659]

I once read about a study showing that born genius types have a child-like fascination with everything that never dies as they age.

[@mattcalebpatton]

Humility, honesty, and vulnerability are rare these days. Thanks for sharing with us.

[@jjukkyumiz]

it is precisely people like you, Adam, that made me feel it was ok to leave my religion about a decade ago, when I realized I no longer believed. You just being the admirable person you are reassured me that people were able to be kind, generous, and compassionate without needing a religious impetus for their behavior. At the time, I was concerned about who I’d become without a god, and I’m thankful to report I’ve become more considerate and understanding than I ever was before.

[@CallMeQuinnie]

It's not about "needing" a religious impetus so much as accrediting it to it.

[@Mike-SS]

I’ll be praying that you come to Christ!

[@sethdoster8448]

There is no such thing as right or wrong without God because who am I to say I am right and who are you to say you are right there has to be an ultimate right so if you believe you’re doing something right you believe in God

[@Scarred4life420]

Congratulations on your emancipation. Remember to free someone else before you check out.

[@wolfrat4998]

3:38 if you held me over a chasm and demanded I tell you what I believed in, I'd probably say gravity

[@johnthomas1422]

Can you even prove gravity? How does it work, explain gravity to me, you believe in it.

[@mikeuk666]

​@@johnthomas1422 flerf 😂

[@Siberius-]

​@@johnthomas1422 - From memory (my teenage years of internet-debating on this subject lol), the typical argument that your comments reminds me of, was, "well, wind isn't visible, yet your believe in that". The response was to mention that there are other ways to detect and prove that wind exists (including using vision to notice the effects it has on other stuff). Same with gravity, regardless of being able to truly explain gravity or not, and not true of the concept of gods (in a scientific sense). Something like that!

[@adrienturbo]

​@@johnthomas1422things that are true should be testable.

[@Richard_Nickerson]

​@@johnthomas1422 Seriously, troll? 🙄

[@pancakelegend]

I remember you saying that if you had to be sworn in for something, you'd choose a McMaster-Carr catalogue as the book to swear on. I enjoyed that.

[@robadams1645]

I was lucky. The only time I was asked to swear to something they allowed me to skip the Bible and just hold up my hand.

[@BooksForever]

If I had to be sworn in on a text I’d choose The Silmarillion or the even heftier The Lord of the Rings.

[@theHardChargerVids]

yes...but if you remember...that same video...he made if clear...he wasn't saying it was the holy bible...but he reverend the holy bible..

[@theHardChargerVids]

@@robadams1645 that is sad...

[@Tat2Dragons]

⁠@@theHardChargerVidsSad?

[@Yarmuck]

Thank you for being genuine and vulnerable during your human journey. I came from the "other" direction as a very zealous religious pastor. Now, I feel like I'm in a very similar state as you. Thank you.

[@GregTuckerKellogg]

Love this video, Adam. My grandfather, who was an atheist in the "dark corner" of South Carolina, lived into his 90s. One day he realised that his congestive heart failure was kicking in, so he drove from the farm to the hospital. He knew he was dying as he lay in the hospital bed, with my grandmother sitting at the bedside. A hospital clergyman stopped by and asked my grandfather if he would like him to pray with him. My grandfather replied, "well, if it would make you feel better, you go right ahead". I miss him.

[@JSSSSS]

As someone who lives in SC and a stone's throw from no less than 5 churches 🙄, I really appreciate you sharing this story. Thank you.

[@zyourzgrandzmaz]

I don't believe in Jesus but I appreciate and like church groups. Its a good community and not just about worshipping a dead hippy.

[@te9591]

Lol

[@nexpro6985]

I wouldn't have been so kind to the clergyman.

[@AccoSpoot]

Reminds me of Voltaires final words; when asked to renounce Satan while on his deathbed he allegedly responded "Now is not the time to be making enemies."

[@kylehill]

I also consciously left the "Skeptics" movement because of toxicity.

[@DrachenGothik666]

That's a pity because there are definitely more of the cooler, live & let live types in the skeptic community than the trolls you allowed to drive you out. People like the Genetically Modified Skeptic, for example, or Professor Plink. If all of your exposure to the skeptic crowd was Reddit-level discourse, yeah, you're gonna run into the neckbeard-y fedora types we could all do without, but seriously, there aren't as many of those sea-lioning AHs as you might think. Maybe give us another chance?

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i find most of my heroes can be irritating and off-putting, they are still right though. i think mr deity and the non stamp collector are the only people who don't annoy me.

[@TimBigler]

you may have left the movement, but hopefully you are still keeping your skepticism. and also, what group isn't toxic these days?

[@jrrarglblarg9241]

I was a member of the International Skeptics Forum until one of the non-breeder mods threw ME over the woo fence over a conversation about children and sugar. It was the final straw.

[@CaptainXJ]

Yeah I quit golf because of the golfers.

[@TukaihaHithlec]

Sometimes you look back on something you liked as a kid, or learn more about someone you looked up to, just to be horrendously disappointed. I’m glad Adam Savage is neither of those.

[@norman7566]

Man, Adam, how much I would love to sit down with you and have a drink and talk about so many things...we share so many artistic and personality traits. I love how you get so exited about what others would look at as mundane the most. Your love for creativity is infectious and perhaps someday, God willing, we can have that conversation, lol. Keep up the great work and stay curious...

[@chriserickson4417]

I just fell onto your channel while looking up Tapping explained. I see you have many subscribers and rightfully so, as you have a GREAT channel and your delivery is very good. I am now a subscriber and will tell others about your excellent content. Thank you for such great info and instruction.

[@echognomecal6742]

Adam is a font of knowledge with intriguing perspective & is enjoyably articulate. He's also a delightful, nerdy goofball.

[@balsalmalberto8086]

The world would be a better place if everyone had an Adam in their life

[@echognomecal6742]

@@balsalmalberto8086 yyyyyyyes. Yes, it would. Oooo, lookit all those likes! Thanks, everyone ☮❤ Have a lovely, thought-provoking day!

[@mikehenkelman2111]

@@balsalmalberto8086 Super True.

[@backonlazer791]

I sort of have the opposite experience. I used to call myself agnostic but way too often it would lead to theists thinking that means I am a believer in denial and that it makes me willing to convert. So instead I call myself an atheist to make my skepticism perfectly clear. I don't care what others' beliefs are as long as it doesn't harm people and they aren't aggressively trying to convert others. I do agree that some people are asses about their non-belief and I firmly think mutual respect and the concept of "please leave me be" should go both ways.

[@anonymes2884]

If it comes up I usually go with "agnostic that lives as an atheist" :) - I don't _know_ but at the same time, I personally am convinced that there's no God/god/gods. But that "if it comes up" is pretty key. In my youth I was more "militant" and would bring it up for the sake of the debate. Nowadays i'm way more "live and let live" and just leave people be if they're not hurting anyone (and of course expect the same in return but there i'm lucky because living in the UK, evangelicals etc. are pretty thin on the ground - even religious people here are overwhelmingly not _that_ kind of religious and maybe ironically given that we _do_ have an official religion, religion in schools etc. if it ever started influencing legislation that'd be treated with _extreme_ suspicion by basically everyone).

I don't remember if it was Richard Dawkins who said that although at a philosophical/logical level we are agnostics, really in practice/on a daily basis we're atheists, because we function just as if gods simply don't exists, not constantly reminding us that we can't disprove their existence or non-existence. Yeah, I believe it was Dawkins with an example of what if there is a teapot orbiting the sun, small enough to not be detectable by any current technology, on a philosophical level we would argue that we can't disprove a teapot is orbiting the sun right now, but in practice we go on our lives as if we're just "teapot atheists" not wondering about it and not giving thought to the possibility of some natural phenomena being caused by some kind of divinity/god/providence just because we cannot disprove it

[@Ryoku1]

Technically agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive stances. I would more closely identify myself as an agnostic atheist. But yeah, in the face of someone trying to save my soul I would just say atheist too.

[@occamraiser]

Hmm, people are asses about their non-belief...how? If you walking into a church and proclaimed that there was no god you'd merely be stating your views - the opinions of the God-Botherers have no special rights. If I can go to a Patriots Game and cheer for the Giants why shouldn't I disabuse the religious in the same way?

[@CJRoberts8812]

@@occamraiser Are you familiar with the name Madeline Murray O'Hare? She's the woman that pretty much single handedly got prayer removed from schools. Whether you believe that schools should allow prayer or not, she was such an ass about her atheism that she got laws changed across the country so that even if one wished to pray in school, they can't.

[@vokkera6995]

I usually clarify that I’m an Agnostic Atheist. People misconstrue both words to be mutually exclusive, but they describe different things. An Agnostic Atheist doesn’t believe there’s a god because there isn’t convincing evidence to support it, but acknowledges that that evidence could arrive later (however unlikely). As opposed to Gnostic Atheists, who “know” there isn’t a god.

[@Raiden-the-Goat32]

Are you can be agnostic on some God's and Gnostic on other God's like me. I would not say as an agnostic atheist that I know no God's exist , but rather some God's as defined I am as close as one can be , while other God's I am completely unconvinced one way or the other. In other word's you got to approach each God claim individually. As I also see it all religious ideas of God past , present and future could be wrong but some type of God could still exist.

[@charlesmuhmanson3928]

I consider myself an agnostic Christian.

[@inktologist]

I think that was a brilliant way to explain one's self on their own existence and comprehension of it. Great little video!

[@TheLazyLabrador]

I used to say I was atheist. My beliefs haven’t changed, but I don’t use that label anymore because of the negative stigmas associated with it. I just tell people I’m not religious.

[@robadams1645]

I do the same thing. The term atheist is so misunderstood that I prefer to say I don't believe in gods.

[@BooksForever]

But religious gets only at the practice/behavior without insight about the underlying belief or lack thereof. I feel it to be useful to plant my flag on the atheistic “high ground” of the Non-Belief minority to help embolden those who are wanting but fearful to leave the majority ranks for the more rational but more easily bullied minority.

[@mexkato]

The community using the atheist label became as dogmatic and fanatic as the radical religious groups, usually regurgitating talking points without properly understanding them.

[@gonesnake2337]

If asked (no one really does) I'll say I'm atheist. Most people don't assume anything about it or question it and I feel the need to be 'publicly an atheist' to counter the number of very loud, obnoxious religious people out there.

[@bobbabai]

Yeah but what do you believe about gods? Saying you're not religious and leaving it at that doesn't say much at all. I call myself an atheist because atheist appears to be the best label to describe someone who doesn't have belief in gods. I call myself an agnostic atheist because I don't have knowledge that tells me a god exists or doesn't exist. I don't shy away from the label atheist at all because it's an accurate label. I do understand there are people out there who won't want to talk to you anymore if you say you're an atheist and they think you're going to talk about it. I'd like to know who those people are as soon as I possibly can.

[@Felttipfuzzywuzzyflyguy]

As a former member of a religion, I have found no greater wonder than discovering and experiencing the beautiful mystery of life when I was no longer told how to experience it. I was so afraid that not having a pre-constructed surety would be unbearable, but it wasn't until I was free of a, in my opinion, severely flawed framework was I able to truly find comfort and wonder. I embrace the questioning now and I feel that I'm so much better for it.

[@p.t.anderson1593]

I feel similar. Also, I still wonder at when I realized that all, at least as far as I'm aware, of the worlds human communities have some sort of religion, no matter how isolated. I wonder... why?

[@mm9773]

Beautifully said.

[@anonymes2884]

Indeed. Something I hear often from religious people if it comes up that i'm not is "So you believe this is all there is ?" asked with incredulity. And my equally incredulous response is, "How can _this_ not be enough for anyone ?" - you can spend a lifetime studying a leaf and still not fully understand all its mysteries, nevermind something like consciousness. (i'd upvote you BTW but, though it won't last, right now you're on 42 upvotes which seems entirely appropriate :)

[@TwistedD85]

​@@p.t.anderson1593 Easy way to explain wondrous or frightening things you don't have the ability to explain at the time and usually a way to enforce a rule of law on a large portion of the population to keep them in check.

[@MrDevintcoleman]

The real stuff is waaaay more magnificent than anything we could invent.

[@leif2660]

Love your honesty and integrity, Adam! Blessings! ☺

[@skyeshore5704]

You are well articulated. Really enjoy your presence Adam. Cheers.

[@bikerbobcat]

I worked 20yrs backstage in theatre and "audience as colony lifeform" is a fascinating and beautiful way to put that moment, and it's absolutely true.

[@gregswank4912]

Adam, I always love hearing both your stories and your outlook on life. I think you have one of the best perspectives on this world that I have ever come across, and you are an inspiration to so many people.

[@maasman240]

What an odd thought, to realize I have been watching your content since the early days, for nearly 20 of my 30 years. Thanks for existing man, I'm a current working Industrial Engineer. I was very much inspired by mythbusters and have been a fan since.

[@dnwheeler]

Daniel Dennett was one of my first introductions to "meta" thinking about self.

[@carpediem4619]

I couldn't help but chuckle on how quickly you pivoted from metaphysics to shop talk. 😂 Love it

[@chaoscope]

A Moebius inspired spacesuit would be such an amazing project. He was such a great, "out of this world" artist. Anything by him would be fun to reproduce: spaceships, cars, buildings, artifacts... Looking forward to a Jean Giraud themed project!

[@SeorkMaxx]

I immediately thought of a Moebius string spacesuit 😂 no idea how it would work, but that is where my mind went…

[@TesserId]

Gets my vote. I love that artwork and crave more of it.

[@griffinwolf5704]

+

[@BenjaminT.Minkler]

Moebius drawings changed how I view shapes, volumes, and fashion ....at an early age(first seen in "Heavy Metal" magazine) he pushed my imagination and art work to new levels; now I didn't master Jean Giraud's forms in my own work(mostly sculpture) but there will always be a bit of inspiration from him in my stuff, or I'd like there to be

[@covid-20lit41]

Thank you so much for this.

[@802Garage]

Extremely relatable video. Thank you.

[@Woods-qt5oo]

Super glad ur not shy Adam to cover a topic such this. Most with a platform dance around it. Ur ability communicate both sides of the spectrum without off putting anyone who doesn't share ur same thoughts is amazing. Thank u for what u do sir!

[@takumi2023]

You'd be surprised how the religious camp could take this mild stance and twist it to be something bad.

[@mikerada2773]

Except it’s “cool” to be anti Christian/religious so people are more likely to talk about not being religious and topics like this. You’d probably get more “attacks” from coming out as Christian than if you came out as atheist.

[@Earthad23]

There’s no both sides of the spectrum, there’s human beings arguing about meaning. Everyone takes god for granted.

[@Earthad23]

@@mikerada2773Atheism magically becomes an oppressive belief system, imagine that.

[@Earthad23]

@@takumi2023You are just as bad as the religious folks

[@VideoRecon]

This is why I have always loved your shows and videos. If one believes in being good to others I don't think the rest matters. We will find someday either the truth or figure out the way to live our lives that works best for us.

[@MidwestMoney]

This is also how I choose to live my life. We will all find out eventually how it ends. In the meantime just be a good person to yourself and others and enjoy the ride as much as possible.

[@betoinbeta]

“It’s hard to argue with his (Jesus) philosophy of people”… I love that. Thanks for being open and honest in your answer. Being curious is always a good first step at being a human. I’d recommend reading some Richard Rohr.

[@alansimpson3942]

Thank you for articulating your worldview in this way. I appreciate it.

[@FormerlyKnownAsAndrew]

That's so cool to know that Adam and Ram Dass crossed paths.

[@itsfine5818]

From everything that I've heard he sounds like an interesting guy but his name sounds like Rammed Ass and it makes me chuckle because I'm 12, apparently. I'm sure he's a whole lot more generous than the lesser known Tye Tass. I'm sorry, it's just funny to me.

[@meeponinthbit3466]

That unified crowd example colony analogy just broke my brain and I love it.

[@SirRoadkillGaming]

love these different videos. adams just such a smart guy and i just want to keep learning any range of subjects from him

[@sl1138utube]

Awesome honesty. Massive respect.

[@DeadRobit29]

I've been a Christian for most of my life and you've been someone I've looked up to since the Mythbuster days. Here recently, I've begun working on projects after getting space for my own little shop and it's because I started watching Tested and wanted to try to build things with my hands.

[@mycosys]

I recommend reading the Bible cover to cover

[@Numenorean921]

@@mycosys I have, did you think that would somehow change my view on my religion?

[@mycosys]

@@Numenorean921 Only if you have cognitive abilities

[@AdamKeele]

Yeah, it had been a while since I had read anything in the bible after decades of it being such a central part of my southern culture I was born into. I had taken an upper division philosophy of religion class years into being an atheist and really read so much of the bible with a more objective lens. It blew me away how much preachers and Sunday school teachers, and myself to degree, cherry picked that for our own satisfaction. At that point, I was into my third degree program in anthropology and archaeology, and had read ton of history on my own and in the coursework, that it was so striking in comparison to what I read growing up. It’s so easy to see how cults can exist after having the perspectives in life I have.

[@ReclaimerTyphoon]

​@@mycosys Someone like you WOULD recommend reading the Bible "cover to cover", instead of " Read the entire bible - and also do you best to understand the actual meanings of the words as much as we can know their meaning, from the original languages used to convey the messages, and then apply those things with as much context as you can, and then come to a logical, reasonable conclusion - and then, when you've done all of that, if you still want to make the choice to believe that God is real, and inherently good, etc., then that's your choice, and is the very definition of one having faith, and thus, you'd be following the teachings as written, and good on you for being dedicated to something, because that's one of many ways to enjoy this life, and that's really all anybody should be concerned with - enjoying life while we have it, and not bumbling and fretting about what the true origin is of what is, effectively, a lifestyle we basically all agree on living" I recommend you try harder, or stop wasting your time.

[@ChirumboloFilm]

I don’t know about anyone else, but I would definitely watch a series about a deep dive into Moebius to design and build a spacesuit. The whole idea sounds fascinating!

[@Thats_Fedorable]

I have been saying this same exact thing. I do not waste time arguing over something that can never be proved or disproven as it is not a good usage of my energy on earth in this existence. I focus on the everyday improvement of myself and the world around me

[@TheVerendus]

"New testament agnostic" Amen to that! You don't need to believe in the wooey to be a good person, just treat others as you would like to be treated! This video really resonated with what I've also come to believe, thank you for this Adam. We are all connected in more ways than we realize, peace be with you

[@Peatingtune]

I was raised in a totally non-religious home. Since "atheism" is awkwardly most often a discussion of Christian vs ex-Christian on the English Internet, it's easiest for me to explain that Christianity always seemed equally unbelievable to me as magic, sun gods, ancestor spirits or the ancient Greek pantheon. Given how in my experience "atheist" is commonly popularly understood to mean a specifically *ex-religious* non-believer, I prefer to just say that I'm not and never have been religious or spiritual.

[@cw9475]

Hello fellow raised-non-religious! You certainly aren't alone.

[@Fifsson_]

I was also raised in a non-religious home. While I don't care about discussing religions with people (if someone tries really hard, I'm probably just going to insult their authority figures, most often the pope), I found a funny aspect of being raised like that - I have almost zero knowledge about christian rituals, songs, names and stuff. I'm also free of concepts such as premarital sex and other bullshit, to the point that my friends find it baffling lol.

[@still_functional]

i wish i had this experience, i sincerely dislike how my religious past colors my perspective. i don't want to be an "atheist" but i'm too ingrained into cultural christianity for my view of the christian god to not be relevant to my identity

[@HarryNicNicholas]

my parents were spiritualist, that's enough to put anyone off religion.

[@move_i_got_this5659]

I used to be an atheist, but now I'm the wisest person on earth.

[@dawsonsmith793]

I relate to the new label of "New Testament Agnostic" incredibly well, thank you for your wisdom Mr Savage 😆

[@martinmoss317]

apart from the fact that the concept of hell was introduced in the new testement...eternal torture for some infraction is a hideous concept. it's been a while, but that revelation came from Christopher Hitchens in his book God is not great. I've not combed through the Bible to fact check.

[@johnrad3442]

@@martinmoss317 I agree, As a believer, I don't believe in the concept of eternal torture. I'm not only one, lot's of Christians completely disagree with that concept because it doesn't match a loving merciful God. If your interested, there are lots of different viewpoints that have been shared online that are interesting to read and have a scriptural backing.

[@chadparsons50]

​@@johnrad3442What if the presence of God is a refining fire? For those on-board for that process it is a comforting thing, for those dedicated to rebellion it is not fun. His creation, his paradigm.

[@Eloign]

@@chadparsons50 100% If you hate light to you it's torture. If you love light then it's joy. Heaven and Hell may just be ways of describing people's response to God's immediate and unmediated Presence. This jives well with what Jesus said in John 3:16-21 16 For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Anyone who believes in him is not condemned, but anyone who does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. 19 This is the judgment: The light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the light and avoids it, so that his deeds may not be exposed. 21 But anyone who lives by the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be shown to be accomplished by God.”

[@chadparsons50]

@@Eloign Amen brother!

[@JarrettOriginal]

We don't know what we don't know, but the burden of proof is on the claim of existence. Easy reasoning for me to stick with the Atheist label, but I do like how you prefer to be divorced from the terminology all together. I think part of my insistence on keeping the label is that I grew up in a place where atheists were "bad people" and I stand in defiance of that notion.

[@ZeroStatic]

Thanks Adam, I completely agree with your sentiment ❤

[@skywatcher2025]

My main takeaway from this is that Adam considers himself a scientist, which makes me so happy

[@riparianlife97701]

96% of scientists are unable to explain why an entire 4% believe in an imaginary sky man.

[@supermexicanroboninja3116]

​@@riparianlife97701 100% of scientists who aren't fooling themselves agree that the big bang is a THEORY. Not a fact, and no more provable than "an imaginary sky man."

[@semibbc]

@@riparianlife97701 100% of r/atheist cant prevent themselves from being a dick about it

[@Johnny5isstillalive]

@@riparianlife97701it’s not hard to explain. Cultural inertia, and it objectively makes people happier to imagine the continuation of our conscience and to feel like we belong to a community.

[@Chris-hw4mq]

@@riparianlife97701 the word believe is crazy, people should say they hope there is something beyond death.

[@Hylanos]

You know, by your definition, I think i'd also call myself a new testament atheist. In fact, one of the things i feel pushed me towards atheism was my desire to better myself as a Christian, realizing how anti-establishment Jesus was, and realizing just how much the modern church now embodies the establishment Jesus specifically spoke against. I know that I have less years of experience on this planet than you, Adam, so maybe i am less qualified to say it, but it is my point of view that, historically, everytime we inserted a supernatural entity into an explanation, it was because we didnt have a good enough understanding of the phenomenon. Then when we did understand it, that need for a god disappeared. I don't know if a god created the universe, but i feel like its just one more thing we don't understand. Its in the realm of possibility, sure, so i guess im agnostic, i wont rule it out, but i will call it very very unlikely.

[@AncientEgyptArchitecture]

The Pharisees took over a long, long time ago, about 200AD.

[@ethanholmes5677]

The problem is that we still haven’t found an explanation for the resurrection that is more probable than a straight up miracle

[@Hylanos]

@@ethanholmes5677 did you not listen to this man talk about how spongey human memory is? And you want to believe a 2000 year old story comprised of eyewitness accounts?

[@LogicBlaster]

The New Testament has a lot of problems. Not only does Jesus claim that his followers need to abandon their families in order to follow him, like every modern day cult leader does, but the Book of Revelation elevates Jesus to this judgmental gatekeeper who decides who, or who is not, worthy of entering heaven? Honestly, there is a reason why Evangelicals love the New Testament Book of Revelation, where they can take everything that is written there and use it as a reason why they hate a certain group of people.

[@mestrinimaster3602]

​@@ethanholmes5677Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not finding a body can't be immediately ascribed to a resurrection. And also, the New Testament was written by unknown authors more than 70 years after the supposed existence of a man named Jesus

[@Ian..]

“New Testament Agnostic” is genius - I’m totally stealing that. 😂

[@evilClive21]

Adam's love for moebius is sooooooo good, he's my first and. biggest inspiration to draw. It has spread in all directions but at the core I just want to achieve such skill. The ease and freedom Jean Giraud exhibits in his work is addicting to look at and always makes me want to grab a pen and just find where the line leads me

[@gravelrhoads]

I was raised Baptist, but over the last decade or so, I've moved away from that into agnostic territory. I like the description of "new testament agnostic" for much the same reasons as you described.

[@p.t.anderson1593]

There are some who say that Jesus spent many years amongst the Buddhists during the "missing" years after traveling there on the silk road as a young lad.

[@bikerbobcat]

Mr Savage recommends the writing of Alan Watts, and if you can find his lectures and commentary on agnostics, you may find it very interesting.

[@anonymes2884]

@@p.t.anderson1593 I doubt it personally (that's a lot of travelling for a humble carpenter's son :) but the "golden rule" certainly has roots in Buddhism so _someone_ involved in the New Testament almost certainly knew of those teachings. And I suspect all honest people are at least _weak_ agnostics (assuming "weak agnostics" believe we don't know whether God exists and "strong agnostics" believe we can _never_ know whether God exists) - all the religious people I know will, when pressed, say that they don't _know_ whether there's a God/god/gods (which for them is where faith comes in) and all of my fellow atheists (that haven't strayed from an evidence based rational scepticism into dogma) admit the same.

[@jothain]

I knew surprisingly many baptist raised people that have moved into agnostic terroritory or downright atheist one. I've alway been curious as they're absolutely minority where I live. As agnostic or even atheist maybe, I try to remain neutral with everyone, unless they try to "convert me". But yeah, I've been curious why there are quite many of these I know. Cause of the "neutrality" I haven't ever questioned them why, but always been bit curious. To be honest I don't know if it's just random thing that I've encountered many or is the "ratio" same in other religions too. But all the same. They're all good people,

[@reeseparquette7506]

The best arguments for a God being in existence are St. Thomas Aquinas' arguments and answers on "how can a God exist," "how can God not have a beginning," and "if he exists, how is he loving if he allows bad to happen?" Truly life changing stuff for me, since it relies entirely on philosophical logic rather than a preconceived agenda. Not to mention much of modern philosophy credits Aquinas as being an important figure in its evolution, next to Plato and Socrates.

[@lhpl]

I hear a faint echo of the problem of evil there? Epicurus gave what I think is a quite convincing argument against god. If god is willing, but not able, to prevent evil, he is not omnipotent. If he is able, but not willing, he is not benevolent. If he is all three, then why does evil exist?

[@LegacyFarmandFiber]

This is one of the easiest arguments to debunk. And all I have to do is show you a good parent. Have you ever allowed your children to make mistakes, even if you could have stopped them? You show that your kids the way but you have to allow them to learn themselves. You have to allow them the free will to make mistakes and learn from them.​@@lhpl

[@lhpl]

@@LegacyFarmandFiber that does not debunk the argument in any way.

[@LegacyFarmandFiber]

@@lhpl "if he's able but not willing then he is not benevolent". My argument is that the most benevolent action can be inaction. How does this not disprove that statement? If inaction can be benevolent then it disproves that statement.

[@lhpl]

@@LegacyFarmandFiber No if evil exists, he either failed preventing this from being the case, implying inablility = not omnipotent, or was able to prevent it, but intentionally didn't, implying malevolence. There are no outs of that.

[@adlordt5202]

Adam, you frequently say “I thought to myself” or “I’m thinking to myself”. Are you able to “think” to OTHER people-thus the need for the delineation? 🤔 I have learned so much from you over the years; if you could think something to me I would consider it an honor!

[@BigBadBeauD]

Amen to all of this. Thank you.

[@zigorously]

"New Testament agnostic" is honestly such a succint way to describe that outlook, I feel much of the same way! Edit: This isn't meant as endorsing Christianity, more agreeing with Adam's point that Jesus's (the dude, whether fictional or historical) own words have a nice outlook on how to treat others and be a kind person, I can dig the vibe but don't have to subscribe to the rest of the book wholecloth 😌

[@jogreeen]

Yes, believe in that made version of a book, that's good. Enjoy. 😀

[@groerulesyourface]

@@jogreeen Many things in the New Testament are commonly accepted as excellent life advice by Christians AND secularists alike. No need to be snide. Love always

[@jogreeen]

@@groerulesyourface christians love trump

[@matwyder4187]

I feel "Jesus agnostic" would be a better way to put it, as there's A LOT of "3rd party" stuff in that book that's clearly been bodged in to secure the authority of the church, or muddy the waters so they could act against the original principles. I'd rather avoid the impression that I agree with any of that shady business.

[@anonymes2884]

@@matwyder4187 I mean, personally I think just "moral agnostic" means the same thing (and also makes explicit the redundancy - is anyone going to label themselves _not_ moral ?? :). Yes, the NT has some good advice but (for me) "New Testament/Jesus agnostic" kind of plays into the idea some religious people propagate that if not for the Bible we'd all be running around shooting babies and so on. There's also some stuff Jesus got very exercised over that i'm either fine with or don't care about (interest on loans is fine by me for instance :) _and_ there's the ambiguity of the whole "don't forget the old laws" bit (so arguably if you follow what Jesus says you _also_ have to adhere to Leviticus' stuff about shellfish and stoning adulterers etc. Or _maybe_ only if you're Jewish ? The word of God is, as usual, somewhat murky on the details :). So to me it's much more straightforward as a non-believer to just not slap a biblical label on my morality (i.e. to simply admit without recourse to an ambiguous shorthand that you're taking bits and pieces of wisdom wherever you find it, for sure _including_ the Bible but lots of other places too. Arguably Jesus' "big one" for instance, the "golden rule" about "doing unto others..." is lifted directly from Buddhism - which I expected Adam might mention given that Buddhism came up, I guess he may not know ? - and very likely even predates that).

[@virtuous-sloth]

I love the idea that an audience is a unique, temporary gestalt that the performer interacts with and dissipates at the end of the performance.

[@jameskirkland3187]

Sounds like an SCP

[@andycook7220]

Adam, loved this. The skeptic community can definitely be intense, militant, and very silly when it comes to words and definitions. Bart Ehrman, a great new testament scholar and skeptic, has really defined and differentiated "atheism" and "agnosticism" in a way that makes more sense than anything else I've heard, and I often refer to his definitions when asked about religion or faith. Ehman states that the two words are actually best used to describe two very different things - knowledge and belief. If someone asks "do you know if there's a god?" and you say "I don't know" - then you are agnostic (from the Greek gnosis/knowledge). If someone asks if you believe in a god - well no, you don't, so you are an atheist by definition - because atheism is defining a belief. At the end of the day, I don't even think "atheism" should be a word - there's not really any other examples of words we have for not holding a belief. It's also able to be used in misleading ways very easily - Christians in particular love to talk about "atheists" as if we are a religious group, when the fact of the matter is we don't have anything inherently more in common than we do with all the other people that don't believe in Santa.

[@manifestgtr]

Modern atheism went through an evolution that I think some of today’s social issues (which shall remain nameless but I think people know what I’m referring to) will go through. When it was “the new thing”, a lot of young people (myself included) hopped onboard and became SUPER outspoken. Then with time, people got a bit older, got tired of the scene, tired of being angry all the time and tired of watching “Christians pwned” compilations. It’s not that people’s outlooks have changed…it’s just that it’s difficult to remain militant and committed for years on end as real life is happening all around you. After you hit a certain age, being angry on the internet isn’t cute anymore…it gets weird. Other priorities enter your life and your beliefs just sort of melt into the person you’ve become.

[@Myemnhk]

I agree with this 100%. But it wasn't me being angry it was me being a hypocrite. My biggest gripe as an atheist was Christians believing in something they couldn't prove,in something not empirical. Then I learned about agnosticism and I learned that while there might not be any proof that God exists there's no proof that he doesn't exist either. I was literally being a hypocrite my belief that God didn't exist had no factual basis. So I matured and admitted i was wrong and changed my outlook on life and became agnostic.

[@ssjcosty]

⁠​⁠​⁠@@Myemnhk I just want to address some of the things you said. Atheism and agnosticism are fully compatible, because they refer to different things. Theism and atheism refer to belief, whereas gnosticism and agnosticism refer to knowledge. So you can be an agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist or a gnostic theist. What you mention there about there being no proof that a god doesn’t exist is true, but that’s only a problem if you label yourself as a gnostic atheist. As an agnostic atheist though, I’m not making a claim that I know that gods don’t exist, but I’m saying that I haven’t found any of the claims of gods existing to be convincing.

[@Myemnhk]

@@ssjcosty I understand the concept of a agnostic theist and a agnostic atheist. I firmly believe there is no evidence to prove whether any god does or does not exist. You cannot prove a negative when that negative would defy all known laws of the universe. I literally don't know what to think. And i know that essentially makes me an agnostic atheist since I don't have a belief in god but i don't like the label atheist it just doesn't feel right but maybe that's just my own personal association with the word.

[@tedmoss]

@@ssjcosty Or words have no meaning at all.

[@tedmoss]

@@Myemnhk I have heard that mathematicians have proof that a creator exists.

[@chrissnyder4439]

"Agnostic" and "atheist" are not mutually exclusive terms. If one doesn't know something exists, and one doesn't believe it exists, that would make one an agnostic atheist.

[@cowslaw]

Yes! It's a 2x2 grid of agnostic/gnostic & atheist/theist, not 3 camps of "agnostic" or "atheist" or "theist". Most well-mannered, self-described "atheists" would be _agnostic atheists_, i.e. what you said, "I do not believe (atheist), but I don't claim to know for certain that a god does not exist (agnostic)." But honestly, just saying "I'm agnostic" is enough these days lol

[@Celtic_Blade]

Agnostic means you don’t know if it’s real but you think it could be. Atheism is a belief that it’s not.

[@chrissnyder4439]

@@Celtic_Blade Not quite correct. Agnostic means you don't know if you can know something. Atheism is not a positive belief, rather a lack of belief. Without evidence, I cannot believe a claim to be true.

[@cowsaysmoo51]

@@Celtic_BladeWrong. Atheism is the absence of belief in any gods rather than the belief in the absence of all gods. It's simply the state of not being convinced of the existence of any god or gods, not a positive claim about the nonexistence thereof.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

There is _but one_ claim that the position of atheism addresses. And that is the claim asserted by _certain_ theists that some particular god exists in reality. Like all claims to truth, this claim breaks down on three dichotomous axes: *_truth_* of the claim (true, false); *_acknowledgement_* as to the truth of the claim (acknowledge, fail to acknowledge); and *_sufficiency of knowledge_* as to ascertain the truth of such claim (sufficient, insufficient). It is the the position we take on these dichotomies that establishes our identity in regard to atheism and agnosticism. The first dichotomous axis addresses the truth _position._ Like any claim to truth, the 'theistic' claim is either true or _not_ true (false). There is no other possible option as is dictated by the laws of logic (Identity, Non Contradiction, and Excluded Middle). The second dichotomous axis addresses the acknowledgement _position._ The recipient evaluating the claim either acknowledges the claim as to be true (theism), or fails to acknowledge the claim to be true (atheism). Again, there is no other available option. The third dichotomous axis addresses the _sufficiency of knowledge_ as to the claim _position._ Either the recipient evaluating the claim has sufficient knowledge or information as to ascertain the truth of such claim (gnostism), or does _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information concerning the claim (agnosticism). The default 'acknowledgement' position on the claim that "a particular god(s) exists" is _atheism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the theistic claim for the first time. It would be impractical to acknowledge the truth of a claim _before_ hearing it for the first time. The default position addressing 'sufficiency of knowledge or information' is _agnosticism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim. One can not claim to have sufficient knowledge or information concerning any given claim _until_ he or she hears the claim for the first time. This presents four populations of recipients evaluating the claim that "a particular god(s) exists." The 'gnostic theist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) to theism by acknowledging the truth of the claim. Often this population claims to acquire "sufficient knowledge" from revelation from (or personal relationship with) the deity mentioned in the claim. The 'gnostic atheist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify remaining in the position of atheism (default) by _rejecting to acknowledge_ the claim. This population is sometimes referred to as 'strong atheists'. This population may or may not make the additional claim "god(s) don't exist." If so, like the theists in the original claim, those that make such a claim now encumber a burden of proof to substantiate such claim with evidence. The 'agnostic theist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) by does so _anyways_ by acknowledging the truth of the claim _through_ 'faith'. And last, the 'agnostic atheist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their initial position of atheism so they _continue to suspend acknowleging the truth of the claim until sufficent evidence is presented._ Of the four populations, only the 'gnostic theists' and the 'agnostic atheists' are *_justified_* in their final positions. The former is justified in changing their position to theism by 'revelation'. The latter is justified in suspending such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced, and therefore remain atheist. This is how I can demonstrate that I am indeed an atheist - an _agnostic_ atheist.

[@ofdlttwo]

Placing a label is hard and isn't often wanted. forrest Valkai does a great job of describing these terms. Theist, gnostic, a-theist, a-gnostic. It's tough.

[@Earthad23]

Forrest doesn’t know what a woman is

[@jonnowds]

@@Earthad23Trans-hating ain’t a personality. Go find one.

[@Earthad23]

@@jonnowds What is a woman? What is a “trans person” define them both biologically or keep your social science out of biology.

[@taurengraybeard218]

​@@Earthad23 Forrest is a biologist. I can absolutely assure you that he knows what the definition of a woman is, and it's not as simple as you think.

[@Earthad23]

@@taurengraybeard218 It’s very simple, unless you conflate cultural stereotypes with biological facts. Forest is wrong, trans is a social construct.

[@slow9573]

I was raised agnostic. I'm thankful that I was, given certain influences in my hometown that were just very irrational. I went to college and fell in love with philosophy and eventually became Catholic because of it. I loved Mythbusters as an agnostic kid, and I love it even more watching it as a Catholic with my own very scientifically-minded children, and I'm really grateful to you and the team for the many hours of fun and discussion you have given us. I find the phrase "new testament" agnostic rather lovely. Thank you for sharing.

[@davidsnedigar7851]

Agnostic to Catholic? That's a BIG swing! 😉 (And I say that having been raised Catholic and an now attend a non-denominational Christian church.) Catholicism IMHO required too much "religion" for me and not enough personal relationship with and faith in Christ.

[@kottekanin4006]

@@davidsnedigar7851 Respectfully, isn't this exactly what one would want when looking for a religion? Being in a strict religion obviously requires faith and relationship to a very high degree, the only thing you don't get is freedom to do whatever you feel like. But from a Christian perspective, that's the thing you don't want, you want to follow the Laws and Rules established by the Creator? So was it too much "rules" or "structure", also when looking from a historical perspective, is this not very well established in history? The first Christians did not see the religion as modern day non-denominationalism (not saying they saw it exactly as Catholicism either).

[@davidsnedigar7851]

@@kottekanin4006 being Catholic, Presbyterian, or nondenominational Christian doesn't prevent you from doing whatever you feel like... Your faith and commitment to it does. Catholicism is certainly full of structure and rules for sure... Many of them not biblically sound. And MANY established by MEN and the CULTURE of the times... And then translated from dead languages... And sometimes incorrectly as we've learned... So, you have to consider all of those things when you talk about religious practices and traditions. Following those rules is NOT a guarantee to get you into Heaven, contrary to what many believe. For me, and many family and friends, Catholicism became more about the rules and less about my relationship with God. Everything was dictated to us and we were told you just need to believe this because the priest or nun said it was true. There was no encouragement for a personal relationship with Christ because the structure of the church made you feel like that was reserved for only those that dedicated their lives to the church... Like priests and nuns. Heck... For decades they said the mass in Latin so you couldn't even understand what they were saying... Just believe. And certainly, many other Christian faiths are full of structure as well... But not like Catholicism. That structure is a guide, and NOT "the faith" nor proof that you have it. Everyone has to decide for themselves in the end whether you are going to follow ANY sort of religion based structure... And many who claim to be "good Catholics" or "good Christians"... Don't. We're still human. But non-Christians love to use as examples against us as much as possible unfortunately. Of course this is just my opinion based on my experience. And some people need more structure than others for sure. But I had all that structure from the time I was born through sixth grade Catholic school... And I didn't really know or understand and got it any better until I left the Catholic Church and sought to know more about him on my own and a personal relationship with him. I could recite prayers and beatitudes and all other kinds of dogma that I have been taught and forced to memorize with no problem... Except that it didn't mean anything to me. I had no personal connection to it because that wasn't the goal. The goal was simply memorizing for achievement to the next level with your peers. Whether it was first communion, confirmation, etc. But everybody has to choose for themselves what worked best for them. But I'm 100% certain, now that I know Christ better, that God's goal isn't for you to follow a bunch of rules or dogmatic structure And that will make you a good person and get you into heaven. There's so much more to it.

[@kottekanin4006]

@@davidsnedigar7851 Well first of all, Religion has always been about rules. The Christian religion is not different, although maybe some wish it was? God has always given laws and regulations on what we can or can't do, look at the entirety of the Book of Leviticus, a law book full of regulations enforced to the Israelites. You can't really criticize the Catholics for not being biblically sound, when first of all non-denominational all have completely subjective interpretation of scripture, nothing grounds them in their faith. Meaning that you can ask your cousin and his interpretation will be equally as valid in the proper non-denominational view. The Catholic Church predates the Bible, the men who organized it and decided what books to include, were Catholic, or at the very least Apostolic Christians. Something being established by men is not bad? The Apostles were men of their time, and a lot of their teachings have been preserved in the Catholic and other Apostolic Churches, something the more Protestant ones have abandoned. I don't really get what you mean by "And then translated from dead languages", are we speaking about Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, none of which are dead languages and still to this day have a bunch of speakers, especially in Academia. There isn't really any other language we can include, and even then, the Catholic Church literally still speaks Latin. I have a hard time imagining they mistranslated their own language. Same with the Greek Churches and the Syriac Churches speaking Greek and Aramaic respectively. Following the rules established by Christ, does indeed not guarantee a ticket to heaven, but it's a incredibly good foundation towards one. Maybe you just want more relationship than rules, the church requires both, as it always have. The Church of the Apostles had laws, and if you broke them, you would get excommunicated (Anathema). Yes, you generally listen to the teachers and accept what they teach as true? People didn't leave the early church because it was the Apostles that preached to them, not God himself. Doesn't matter if its a nun, a priest, a bishop or a monk. If they are teaching you, then you are to assume they are teaching you correctly? The Mass in the Latin Rite was spoken in Latin, just for the reason that many spoke it? The Rite is developed in Rome and the Western Roman Empire, where the official and most common language was Latin. Compare it to the Eastern Empire, which spoke Greek, and their liturgy was in Greek as that is the Byzantine Rite. Anyone who didn't speak Latin, and still participated in the Mass every single week, would learn the language quite fast, so saying they did it so people couldn't understand, is just disingenuous. Quite the opposite, it was the most spoken language, and actually helped non-speakers learn the Language. Every single Apostolic Church (that is all the denominations created before the Protestant Reformation), has extremely similar structure and hierarchy as the Catholic Church. The only difference is the Papacy, whereas in the Eastern Churches, there's multiple Patriarchs who are all equal. Protestants really are the odd one out in this aspect. Sadly many people claim to be many things, of which they are not, this doesn't really plague Catholicism specifically. Theologically speaking, Communion is pretty much as good of a "relationship with God" you can come. You're quite literally consuming the Body and Blood of Christ, in a Liturgy developed and established by Jesus Christ himself. Done in the way he directly commanded and for the specific reason he stated. Confirmation is also an incredibly important part. You are quite literally receiving the Holy Spirit. If God's goal wasn't for us to follow a bunch of rules, then first of all he wouldn't have given us rules? You can see it time and time again that God gave the Israelites rule, and its not even something explicit to the Old Testament. Christ gave the Apostles rules all the time. He appointed Bishops and Apostles, very much dogmatic structure. Of course there are more to it than, "attend church and go to heaven", but that doesn't mean we should throw that away and hyper-focus on something else. The Hierarchical Structures and Traditions of the Apostolic Churches, were established by the Apostles. You are arguing against them, not modern day Catholics. The "Man-made rules" were done by men, sure, but those men were the Apostles, appointed by God to shepherd his people. They didn't create Non-Denominational parishes, they created Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental Churches. None of the Churches mentioned in the Book of Acts, was nor is, part of the Protestant branch. These views are incredibly recent, way more so than just the Protestant Reformation. Non-Denominationalism specifically originates in the 18th Century. That's 18th whole centuries after the Apostles and their churches. We can't find this type of reasoning nowhere before. I don't know what you think, but personally that is an issue. How can we be sure that we got it right, if no one supposedly did for the first 18th centuries, including the direct disciples of the Apostles.

[@davidsnedigar7851]

@@kottekanin4006 you're stereotyping non-denominational Christian churches out of the gate. So we're not going to be able to have a reasonable and logical discussion. 🙄

[@Ungtartog]

I think we are getting more answers from neuroscience, machine learning (AI), and biology.. than physics on consciousness. Your comment about intelligence being collective (Michael Levin has great stuff on this) is on point. There is no "individual" intelligence. Intelligence is built up out of subordinate systems just like our biology is. Very rudimentary sensations are subsumed by complex systems to yield more sophisticated strata of awareness. The "hard problem" CAN be solved!

[@danielbutler8103]

Atheist doesn’t mean “I know there is no God.” Atheist means “I do not believe in or worship a God.” If you can not name the God/s you don’t believe in/worship then you’re an atheist. Doesn’t mean you think it’s impossible for a God to exist just that you are not convinced one does. I’m not convinced that unicorns exist but it is possible that a horse will a horn could exist, But until I have prof I won’t believe in unicorns.

[@jothain]

Quite well put. As I consider myself to be Atheist, it's mostly about "Do not feed me your religion" type of opinion. For me fact is. Religions, yes note that s in the end there. ReligionS have killed by people by millions and millions. Many completely innocent. Worst thing is that this continues today, right now in the world. Religion. Just why? To me it's very hippocrite to say many things, about many religions, as pretty much of all of them have shot themselves in their foot some time or have acted the exact opposite what they claim to do. To me it's all the same what you people believe in. If it makes you happy, very good for you. But I absolutely loathe the feeling if someone is approaching me in veins of turning into some religion. I despise such people.

[@benjoleo]

many people are vaguely spiritual and believe in some abstract higher power. it would be silly to call them atheists.

[@robertdewindt862]

@jothain “Religion has killed millions” Nah dude, stop using this tired excuse. People have killed millions of people. People kill for all sorts of reasons, we should blame the people. Obviously a religion like Christianity is very anti murder. Can’t say the same for Islam, but you get my point.

[@JP-mp5st]

Agnostic is the correct word

[@kadyb3540]

@@benjoleo If someone says I believe in a higher power that puts them solidly in the theist category, no one would call them an atheist.

[@nylonstringninja]

I always say everything that is real can be measured. Physics and math are undefeated. There are so many religions and so many creative stories people have invented and interpretations to be able to reconcile their cognitive biases, it seems like they would either all have to be true or none of them are.

[@Eclectic.Nostalgia]

Keep doing what u doing, Adam, I like the way you think. ❤

[@0ptixs]

Adam I love that you trust your audience enough to share your beliefs. I may disagree with you on things, but find myself moved by things you've said still. I think it's little moments like this that make me, and hopefully us all, realize that we're not all too different. We're all out here trying to figure why we're out here! As always, love your streams and videos, thanks.

[@Xsetsu]

I always took the label of agnostic atheist. As in what I know "gnosis" is that I don't and at least trying to be honest. Atheist as in "without religion". I generally think this is the more prevailing terminology these days. Is there a god? None of us know or can prove it, but it is much easier to deny religions with lack of evidence. I seriously think more people need to read Ernest Becker's Denial of Death not necessarily because "it is the truth" but because it is probably closer to the actual truth. Our religions and very culture are built off knowing that we will cease to exist. It is one of the most powerful motivators in our life. I also think more need to read Hume or something like Bruce Hood's Self Illusion to understand the idea of self is not real. This compliments our own denial of death or terror management.

[@paintballercali]

Awesome to hear someone put my thoughts into words so well.

[@rvbcave]

This is beautiful, Adam. Well said.

[@dpastor6631]

I wish I had time to sit down with Adam on this one. I would suggest he look up several videos with a man named Jeff Durbin who has spent some significant time conversing with atheists.

[@maxnits9556]

I never understood what does being a scientist (like myself) have to do with not being a spiritual person? There's is natural world which we can observe and study and then there's spiritual world which we believe in. Where does the conundrum lie in?

[@tainicon4639]

Believing in a non testable unobservable spiritual world is entirely antithetical to the scientific world view. If you equally applied the scientific method to all beliefs you would simply go “the spiritual world is an unfalsifiable claim and thus not capable of being studied and consequently claims as to its accuracy can not be made in any direction”. As a scientist I would argue that it’s very hard to trust the conclusions made by someone that could hold beliefs that are not based on the evaluation of evidence. If you can make that error in evaluating certain topics it makes it more likely you will make errors in evidence evaluation in other domains as well.

[@maxnits9556]

@@tainicon4639 Well that's a nice word salad, but go study love. And explain scientifically why do you love your parents, your spouse and your kids and with what device to quantifiably measure it and reproduce. Makes no sense, does it?

[@tainicon4639]

@@maxnits9556 how was it word salad? I explained the concepts of falsifiable vs unfalsifiable claims and how that relates to the scientific method… simply restated unfalsifiable claims are completely untestable and can’t be engaged with in an honest intellectual capacity. And you picked the wrong field to try and trump me on… I am a neuroscientist. I would be happy to regurgitate a list of the anatomical regions responsible for processing things like love and pair bonding as well as the neuro chemicals responsible for these feelings… it’s pretty well understood. We can explain human emotions and behaviors as a consequence of evolutionarily selected for (advantageous) behaviors that tend to encourage reproduction. These behaviors are encoded in the structure of Brains as evidenced by studies of humans with brain lesions and the stereotyped deficits in different cognitive or emotional behaviors.

[@peterathbun507]

"New Testament agnostic." Nicely put. Thanks!

[@forerunner1246]

Agreed

[@coolvids841]

I would also highly recommend Joseph Goldstein and Stephen Batchelor. They’re both wonderful buddhist writers to learn from.

[@danyoungwas]

Hey as a Christian, thanks for being so candid and honest. I'd love recommend the resource "answers in genesis" if you'd be keen to hear a scientific and evidence based perspective on Christianity.

[@THAT1J0SHGUY]

Adam was very pivotal for me. 4 years ago one of my sisters passed away and I was having a hard time with it struggling with the idea of why god would do something like that and I came across his speech atheist convention and it all made sense. It was really cool getting to meet him during Kansas City Comic-Con... I didn't get to speak with him but it was definitely a life-changing experience

[@bobbabai]

God, if he drops "Deepak Chopra" in any kind of favorable way, I'm going to throw myself down in front of tonight's FedEx truck.

[@rainydaylady6596]

​@@bobbabaiThis is a response to someone opening their heart?

[@LeonardoMastrogiovanni]

@@rainydaylady6596 the person started their sentence with "God". What do you expect?

[@BOSS_DOG]

I've realized that this life is so temporary, and that we are all headed for the same thing very fast. So, I tend to think that God wouldn't really care if you think he did something or not. I think we get to hung up on the here and now. I do think that God can be interventionist when moved or when wanted, but for the most part God is hands off. One wouldn't move all the chess pieces all at the same time.

[@bobbabai]

@@BOSS_DOG it sounds about 86% like a god who isn't there at all.

[@rickfazzini22]

No matter what you believe in, you seem to appreciate others for the way they are and cast little to no judgement which I believe is what makes you so endearing. Treat people with kindness and receive it back in spades, no matter what beliefs you have this is one of the most basic practices to a happy life.

[@TheCyberDeaf]

About the mystery of consciousness, I think that Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett have written various convincing (to me, at least) books, both together and individually. Usually enjoyable, too.

[@CoopBo]

I admire your open-mindedness. Most people in similar positions to you are so hateful towards religion. I am a Christian, and I am also very scientifically minded. Because of the latter, I basically grew up admiring you.

[@-feonix48-47]

I am absolutely stealing New Testament Agnostic as a label, it really encompasses a sort of Christian American upbringing that lacks the sort of “God Is Real” that is inherent in a lot of organized religion. Love to hear your thoughts

[@mrjesuschrist2u]

Cultural Christian is the new lingo lol.

[@MPyr0maniac]

Common misconception that Adam made here. It is not a 3-step range of theist-agnostic-atheist. Nosticism and theism are answers to two different questions. Your answer to: Can we know that a god or gods exist? Shows whether you are nostic or agnostic. Your answer to: Do you believe god/gods exist? Shows whether you are a theist or atheist. You can be a nostic theist (most theists are going to be nostic, because they claim to know gods exist, and they believe in those gods. You can also be a nostic atheist, in which you do not believe in god/gods AND you’re going the extra mile and saying that it is knowable and you take on the burden of proof. Most atheists are agnostic atheists, in which you do not believe in a god or gods but you are not taking up the burden of proof that it is provable/knowable. This should be the default position. If I tell you I have a monkey hiding in my closet, it would be somewhat silly to say “No, you don’t.” But you would simply say “I don’t believe you until you give me evidence to prove that is the case.” That is the same as being an agnostic atheist. If you do say “No you don’t” you are taking a nostic atheist position, commonly known as an anti-theist position, where you are claiming you don’t believe me, and in fact you KNOW that is it not true, in which case you need evidence to prove that it is not true. Just wanted to explain the difference between agnostic and atheist. Adam said he doesn’t call himself an atheist because he doesn’t think it is knowable, so he is an agnostic. The fact that he doesn’t think it is knowable does in fact make him an agnostic, but it also would (technically speaking) make him an atheist, because he doesn’t believe in a god/gods. Obviously there are some connotations with the title atheism in which people think you’re making the positive claim that gods aren’t real, but that is not an accurate account of what an atheist is. Atheism/theism have to do with belief, not claim of evidence/knowledge. Please correct me if I am wrong!

[@warlockpaladin2261]

Sounds about right.

[@Rhewin]

I was raised evangelical, and we were constantly taught the atheist-> agnostic -> theist progression. We’d think it was such a win to get atheists to “admit” they’re really agnostic. It fed into the lie that everyone intuitively knows there’s a god and just resists it.

[@BobDole1216]

Your answer sounds incredibly similar to my current mishmash of selected Eastern and Western spiritual beliefs mixed with scientific skepticism, especially the perception of humanity as a collective being that, while not necessarily sentient, acts as a single organism (like an insect hivemind of sorts). It's so cool to hear; thank you for publicly sharing something so personal and vulnerable. Also, if you haven't, I'd strongly recommend checking out The Midnight Gospel. It's a mini series made from Duncan Trussell's (a direct pupil of Ram Dass) podcast and it explores life, death, spirituality, and grief through a very diverse set of lenses.

[@psychickumquat]

The thoughts about consciousnsess remind me about my thoughts when learning about ants recently. The colony is made up of thousands of individual members, but it almost seems more practical to understand them as a single "organism". Their individual members act much like the cells of the body, receiving and communicating through chemical signals and reacting and adapting as needed to their environment. The colony's capabilities are vastly greater than the sum of what their individual members would be capable of without comminication and coordination. Definitely makes me think about consciousness and what truly defines it.

[@NateConklin]

As a person of faith, I enjoy every word of your perspective.

[@natewinter8949]

Hi Adam! Childhood fan of Mythbusters and long time Tested viewer here. Given your mention of "imperfect meditation" I am curious if you have ever been to a Friends (Quaker) Meeting? If so I am curious what you experienced.

[@seansretroverse9082]

I was brought up in a Baptist church, and there was a time in my life that I distanced myself from Christianity. I think the biggest turning point for me was having a debate with my Mother about it, and her answer was simply "either you believe, or you don't" It was then that I realized "faith" is simply believing in the existence of a higher power, and that it is really a conscious choice. Faith is a choice that is completely okay, and does not have to clash with the scientific method. I always felt emotional comfort and support in my faith that God and Jesus exist. I feel that believing in God, and being willing to attribute some amazing wild coincidences to His hand is perfectly fine and does not interfere with the science in my mind. I recognize the Bible, Qur'an, Book of Mormon, and all the other holy books were written by the hands of man. Perhaps some of these books were written through divine influence. Faith is taking the beliefs at face value, and knowing what feels most natural to you, and what is morally right. I commend you for your mysticism, Adam. The true problem is when people actively think they know better, and have all the answers and proof that no higher power exists. Those are the most obstinate and poisonous minds of all - the ones that believe because you cannot prove existence means it does not exist, which is simply untrue. Someone "knowing" they are right about what they cannot see is where all the toxicity comes from.

[@Elixovid]

Love hearing your views on life

[@rambletonne]

I like the term "Apathist", which holds closer to the question being irrelevant - it doesn't matter if it's true or not. (I can't Reply to those commenting below for some reason, so my Reply here - we're not talking about aliens though, where it doesn't matter if I believe in them or not up until the moment they arrive and start affecting our shared reality. In my cultural background god is an all seeing, all powerful, always existing being. God always was and always will be, so whatever effect god has on our shared reality was the same yesterday as today and tomorrow. Until the rapture occurs or alien jesus lands on the white house lawn it just doesn't matter if I believe god exists or not. Our shared reality is the same with or without an answer to the question; reality is the same whether the question is asked or not.)

[@anonymes2884]

Kind of implies "I don't care" too though which is different to "I wouldn't _act_ differently either way". I _do_ care how reality actually works, it's something i'm profoundly interested in.

[@rambletonne]

@@anonymes2884 we're not talking about aliens though - for my cultural background I'm talking about an all seeing everywhere being omnipotent god. I can not care if aliens exist or not, but it will really matter if and when they show up and start making a difference to my shared experience of the planet. If the omniscient omnipotent always being god has always been here and always will be it has made zero difference to my shared experience of the world and it never will. So until the rapture occurs or the alien jesus lands on the whitehouse lawn, it really doesn't matter if god exists or not. It matters as much yesterday as today and tomorrow. Not much, not at all.

[@rambletonne]

@@anonymes2884 we're not talking about aliens though, where it doesn't matter if I believe in them or not up until the moment they arrive and start affecting our shared reality. In my cultural backgroung god is an all seeing, all powerful, always existing being. God always was and always will be, so whatever effect god has on our shared reality was the same yesterday as today and tomorrow. Until the rapture occurs or alien jesus lands on the white house lawn it just doesn't matter if I believe god exists or not. Our shared reality is the same with or without an answer to the question; reality is the same whether the question is asked or not.

[@rambletonne]

@@anonymes2884 we're not talking about aliens though, where it doesn't matter if I believe in them or not up until the moment they arrive and start affecting our shared reality. In my cultural backgroung god is an all seeing, all powerful, always existing being. God always was and always will be, so whatever effect god has on our shared reality was the same yesterday as today and tomorrow. Until the rapture occurs or alien jesus lands on the white house lawn it just doesn't matter if I believe god exists or not. Our shared reality is the same with or without an answer to the question; reality is the same whether the question is asked or not.

[@rambletonne]

@@anonymes2884 we're not talking about aliens though, where it doesn't matter if I believe in them or not up until the moment they arrive and start affecting our shared reality. In my cultural backgroung god is an all seeing, all powerful, always existing being. God always was and always will be, so whatever effect god has on our shared reality was the same yesterday as today and tomorrow. Until the rapture occurs or alien jesus lands on the white house lawn it just doesn't matter if I believe god exists or not. Our shared reality is the same with or without an answer to the question; reality is the same whether the question is asked or not.

[@dflosounds]

+1 for Pema Chodron. Love her books. Buddhism has been very helpful for me and how I approach life in recent years. Really beautiful and thought-provoking stuff.

[@ChrisHoffman-Zap-Bang-BZZZT]

@Adam, I'm with you. I think the skeptic movement got too negative and aggressive for me. We can't build bridges with other minds if we are looking down at them. I'm not a believer but lean towards the study of how our minds trick us thousands of times a day. And just wants us to have a simple story that helps us move on through our lives. Buddhism being non diety based has a lot of alignment with my views, attempting to see as much reality as we can and taking the moment for what it is. Not what we attach to it. You continue to impress with your insights and interests! Thank you!

[@user-fk6zp6he9z]

love how you did the pause of how Skepticism devolved into.... several factions haha.

[@wonder_platypus8337]

As cool as it is to meet people with completely different views, it's amazing to hear you describe pretty much exactly how i see things as well. A thought that blows my mind is that if we're made of the same stuff as everything else in the universe. On some level, the universe is conscious. I'm not saying the stars have thoughts. But if our atoms can do it, what's the difference really?

[@conradgittins4476]

Brian Cox has said when asked if he thinks the universe is conscious he said (and this isn't word for word) the universe created humans, so yes.

[@MizardWizard]

Problem is we kinda need to define conciousness before we can point to something and as if it contains it. And as a complete idiot I can safely state i dont have the slightest clue where to start.

[@K__a__M__I]

"You are the Universe experiencing itself." - Alan Watts

[@mycosys]

There are many physicists who suspect consciousness is as basic a quality of the universe as gravity and magnetism

[@K__a__M__I]

@@MizardWizard Even the smartest people can't define it because to define something you need to observe it from the outside. Which is inherently impossible for us.

[@balcorn9211]

As an atheist raised Catholic I totally relate to the idea of being a "New Testament Agnostic."

[@darkstarprojekt]

Catholics kinda separated themselves from Jesus, and become a human power heirarchy with its own tax scheme. Humans who follow science without taking physics classes are also just as hypocritical though, trading faith for faith.

[@CMDR_John_Crichton]

They're not often in the background, but I'd spend a genie wish to be able to cosplay in one of the black space suits from Farscape. They're so sleek and simple, I love them.

[@cyclone3999]

I think you answered this question very well. You explained what makes sense to you and why it resonates with you without attacking or disproving anyone else’s beliefs. More people need to see religion and spiritual beliefs through your lenses. As a christian it breaks my heart when fellow christians will outcast or shun anyone who believes differently. Yes we believe in God but until we see him face to face, we cant 100% confirm or deny his existence so whos to say that anyone elses beliefs are wrong or right?. Sorry for the mini tangent. I just really appreciate your honesty and outlook on life, Adam. 🤟🏻

[@edeverick23]

There's a term "Christian Agnostic" that fits your description. Not believing in the supernatural aspects of the Bible, but appreciating that there are good and valuable lessons within it

[@MikeBeltMikeBelt]

Valuable lessons like promotion of slavery, sexism, and homophobia?

[@tainicon4639]

@@MikeBeltMikeBeltshhhh people want to think the Bible gives good life morals and not simply contain scattered stories describing some of the most reprehensible behavior imaginable.

[@antonschmitz2255]

Atheism does not mean you believe that no god exists, it simply means that you don't believe in a god. Agnosticism is arguably just a specific type of atheism.

[@I_am_Mister_Y]

Not just arguably. If one is agnostic, then one doesn't know. And if one doesn't know, then it's impossible to actually believe. My wife said it best: "is there a GOD? I don't know, and because I don't know I don't believe". It really isn't more complicated than this: if you're agnostic, then the number of gods you believe in is zero. If you believe in zero gods, you lack belief and that makes you a non-believer. A person that believes in a number of gods that is equal to zero is an atheist. An agnostic is simply a person who doesn't know that they're an atheist. That being said, if Adam feels more comfortable not calling himself an atheist, I don't see why that wouldn't be cool.

[@Ninjamanhammer]

You are correct that atheists can be agnostic, and most people who describe themselves as agnostics are atheists. But theists can be agnostic, and a lot are. If someone says they don't know if there is a god, but they believe there is, then they are an agnostic theist.

[@I_am_Mister_Y]

​@@Ninjamanhammer Absolutely correct. There are plenty of people who sincerely believe in the existence of a GOD and are , at the same time, honest about their lack of knowledge of whether or not there is a GOD. Those people could by all right identify as agnostic theists. At that point I could argue about epistemology and the nature of knowing and the nature of belief as mental models, and how when we deal with knowledge and belief we have to keep in mind that one is a subset of the other, and I could have several questions about doxastic voluntarism, but honesty deserves better than pedantic argumentation and exigent interrogation, so in most cases I would just accept that my curiosity and inquisitive nature won't be satisfied.

[@rubenhernandez470]

I appreciate your transparency in regards to your outlook on faith. I would like to challenge you and anyone to research the evidence supporting the Christian faith. It is not just supported by blind faith, but by personal accounts and countless prophecies that have been fulfilled. All the best to everyone and God bless.

[@SamLee-tm6jn]

He's my favorite kind of "non-believer" if you will. It's as simple as "I can't know what I can't know, I can't say it's not real for sure but it generally teaches principles of behavior that I agree with so I'm not going to take a crap on those who believe it." And I feel that if there was some kind of real proven experience he had with divinity that to him was very definitive, he would be willing to change his view in a heartbeat because he seems to have honest intent about it.

[@KevinJDildonik]

Even Richard Dawkins says the same thing. Nobody can "prove" there isn't a god or gods. But nobody can prove there aren't microscopic pink unicorns powering our electronics either. But nobody makes me stop and explain to them why I don't believe in tiny pink unicorns. I'm an atheist like I'm an a-unicornist.

[@steveferguson698]

I believe there are invisible elephants that eat pink popcorn on the dark side of the moon.... Christopher Dicarlo

[@bythegraceofadoni]

Except there is no evidence for your suggested scenario. But there is evidence for God. You have you find evidence around you to know what's true and false. Nothing in this existence is provable. You just need enough evidence that you can come to an evidence based conclusion.

[@illusioned0ne]

​@@bythegraceofadonithere isn't evidence of God. There's more "evidence" that we live in a simulation than some magical god created us and a talking snake that could trick us into short life and pain.

[@jester1983]

​There is no proof of god because there can't be. What is faith with proof? Surely not faith.

[@JesterAzazel]

@@bythegraceofadoni There's evidence of invisible elephants that eat pink popcorn, as well. You have to find the evidence around you to know what's true and false.

[@TheSaltyPilgrim]

Thank you, Adam.

[@jigawatts121]

Adam, my wife and I really enjoyed chatting with you at FanExpo in Philly. Scripture tells us that no one comes to Christ unless The Father draws him. As a recent convert from the Materialistic Faith, I can truly attest to this. I'd like to recommend some books in addition to the New Testament that hopefully help you to know the good news Jesus Christ has given us. 1. "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Athiest" by Dr. Frank Turek 2. "Cold-Case Christianity: A homicide detective investigates the claims of the Gospels" by J. Warner Wallace 3. "What Does God Want" by Dr. Michael Heiser All three of these authors have a wealth of videos on KZbin as well. I hope one of these seeds takes root. God Bless you

[@Kurth_Works]

I don’t think we always need labels, but I call myself an 'agnostic atheist.' Agnosticism is about what you know, and atheism is about what you believe. I find this label helpful because it shows others who feel the same way that they’re not alone, especially here in the US where religion is so ingrained. If nobody believed in gods, then 'atheist' wouldn’t even be a necessary term. I also don’t believe in unicorns, but you won’t hear me calling myself a 'monocerist.' That’s because no one’s trying to base laws or limit freedoms on some ancient unicorn lore :D

[@laertesindeed]

It's better not to keep calling the word atheist a label; when it's really just the answer to an implied question. The only time you would ever be saying "I am an atheist" is if someone is asking your decision on their claim about a god. The word atheist is "not" about for or against a god.... it is for or against some other human making a claim about a god existing. When you say you are an atheist, you're saying you don't believe any of the humans who make the claims. "theism" is the claim, "atheism" is lack of belief in that claim and/or not believing that claim.