Aggressive Atheism - YouTube

[seeker44]

We live in a secular, hedonistic time when the New Atheism is a popular “religion.” YouTube serves up a copious portion of atheist opinions bolstered by text comments declaring that theists are a bunch of disillusioned, ignorant, pathological fools; however, the non-believers’ rebuttals to theists’ objections seem not to address the objections directly–these atheists tend to ramble about by throwing out more scattered objections to belief instead of directly addressing the point in question. The immature ones tend to declare victory in their arguments when this is far from certain, or may resort to name-calling or using profanities against God, the Virgin Mary, and other persons in the Bible.

After answering some of these atheist comments, I’ve come to the conclusion that rational argument does little to change the emotional element of faith (faith that God exists or atheist faith that God does not exist). For atheists the Faith of theists has no empirical support whatsoever and is pure pathology (e.g., Freud - “Future of an Illusion”). For me the faith of atheists is not based on any certain empirical evidence (as they claim) and taps into pathologies developed in early childhood and emotional issues which have turned them against any theistic faith as well as confirmed them to deny any logic or reasonable evidence for God’s existence.

I only wish that I would have found more rebuttals to the comments I saw in the comments of Aggressive Atheism. They seem to be having a “Let’s Bash Believers” circus with no opposing views that might at least put some doubts or questions in front of their atheistic steamroller.

 

[punkforchrist]

One of the reasons I don’t post on youtube is that there is very little moderation, at least compared to forums like this one. My experience has been that theists generally win the debates whenever the exchanges are formal or somewhat moderated, in any case. Just check out any of the debates that William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Gary Habermas and others have participated in and you’ll see what I mean. Of course, it’s not all about “winning,” but about glorifying God, and I think these apologists do both.

One thing you can do, if you don’t want to jump into those youtube discussions, is simply point them to resources in which these debates take place in a formal setting. Here’s one of my favorites: veritas.org/media/talks/147

The debate is between Craig and Austin Dacey. What’s great about this exchange is that both men are gentlemen and very knowledgeable, so we have a good idea about what the best arguments for and against God’s existence are. Of course, I think Craig wins the debate hands-down, but everyone can decide for themselves.

Prayer is another useful instrument.

 

[Bob4BVM]

Good luck with reasoning with them…
An athiest is a person who defines himself as an accident.
Prayer is THE most effective thing we can do for them.

---

No God, No Peace .
Know God, Know Peace .

---

 

[Leela]

We live in a secular, hedonistic time when the New Atheism is a popular “religion.”

We live in a society where the vast majority of people claim a belief in God. This “persecuted minority” talk falls flat. Also, atheism is not a religion. It’s not really even an -ism. It is just a label for a person who has no religion.

YouTube serves up a copious portion of atheist opinions bolstered by text comments declaring that theists are a bunch of disillusioned, ignorant, pathological fools; however, the non-believers’ rebuttals to theists’ objections seem not to address the objections directly–these atheists tend to ramble about by throwing out more scattered objections to belief instead of directly addressing the point in question. The immature ones tend to declare victory in their arguments when this is far from certain, or may resort to name-calling or using profanities against God, the Virgin Mary, and other persons in the Bible.

After answering some of these atheist comments, I’ve come to the conclusion that rational argument does little to change the emotional element of faith (faith that God exists or atheist faith that God does not exist). For atheists the Faith of theists has no empirical support whatsoever and is pure pathology (e.g., Freud - “Future of an Illusion”). For me the faith of atheists is not based on any certain empirical evidence (as they claim) and taps into pathologies developed in early childhood and emotional issues which have turned them against any theistic faith as well as confirmed them to deny any logic or reasonable evidence for God’s existence.

I only wish that I would have found more rebuttals to the comments I saw in the comments of Aggressive Atheism. They seem to be having a “Let’s Bash Believers” circus with no opposing views that might at least put some doubts or questions in front of their atheistic steamroller.

You’d see the same inane level of discourse everywhere on the Youtube comments. Name-calling and profanity is not limited to videos about religion.

The best you could hope for there is off the mark accusations such as yours that atheists have faith that there is no God or the following deliberate misrepresentation of nontheist’s beliefs.

Good luck with reasoning with them…
An athiest is a person who defines himself as an accident.
Prayer is THE most effective thing we can do for them.
QUOTE]

Bob, atheists can be as unreasonable and as reasonable as believers. Complaining about such bigotry on Youtube is the point of this thread (though the concern seems to be only about bigotry towards believers). It is a shame that we see the same thing here.

Best,
Leela

 

[Sair]

I think the aggression is largely a product of the relative anonymity of internet correspondence. People are more likely to be forceful - and rude - the further they are removed from anyone who might be likely to take offence. It seems to be a fairly general phenomenon, not confined to the theism/atheism question. Read the comments on any opinion piece from an online newspaper - sometimes the level of vitriol defies description. In any case, I think that if you were to actually speak to many of these people in person, they may be much more reasonable.

And people do like to jump on bandwagons - if one person is cheering on the atheists/theists/socialists/capitalists/white supremacists/insert-pet-ideology-here-ists, there are bound to be plenty of camp followers.

 

[stenlis]

Maybe you are looking at the wrong atheist channels. There are those who engage in polite rational discourse:

www.youtube.com/user/TheoreticalBullS_hit (despite the self-deprecating profanity in his nickname, this one has probably the most eloquengly laid down arguments) Edit: I’ve put in the underscore to avoid automatical censorship - remove it to get to scott’s channel
youtube.com/user/infidelguy
youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t
youtube.com/user/ZOMGitsCriss
youtube.com/user/NonStampCollector (this one is pure satire, but it’s not offensive and spot on IMO)

 

[Leela]

Maybe you are looking at the wrong atheist channels. There are those who engage in polite rational discourse:

www.youtube.com/user/TheoreticalBullS_hit (despite the self-deprecating profanity in his nickname, this one has probably the most eloquengly laid down arguments) Edit: I’ve put in the underscore to avoid automatical censorship - remove it to get to scott’s channel
youtube.com/user/infidelguy
youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t
youtube.com/user/ZOMGitsCriss
youtube.com/user/NonStampCollector (this one is pure satire, but it’s not offensive and spot on IMO)

I agree that NonStampCollector’s stuff is terrific. “The thing that made the things for which there is no known maker” is awesome.

Best,
Leela

 

[seeker44]

Interesting perspectives throughout, Leela. How would you describe yourself in relation to belief or non-belief in a god? (If I dare use these terms.) Are there any important values, beliefs, orientation, or philosophy of life (whatever these terms mean for you) that you favor? I’d read all your posts to guess at an answer, but I’d probably form the wrong conclusions anyway. Thank you.

 

[Leela]

Interesting perspectives throughout, Leela. How would you describe yourself in relation to belief or non-belief in a god? (If I dare use these terms.) Are there any important values, beliefs, orientation, or philosophy of life (whatever these terms mean for you) that you favor? I’d read all your posts to guess at an answer, but I’d probably form the wrong conclusions anyway. Thank you.

Hi seeker44,

Nice to meet you. I don’t believe in any gods or practice any religion, so I could be considered an atheist. Since I don’t claim to know whether or not God exists I could also be called agnostic. If God does exist in some sense, I doubt God is much like the personal deity of monotheism. I don’t think God is like a person only more powerful.

I don’t prefer to claim these labels (atheist, agnostic) for myself because I would rather describe myself in terms of what I do believe rather than what I don’t believe. I believe in apple pie, democracy, little league baseball, and all the good stuff in this world. We nonbelievers love our children as much as Catholics love theirs. Philosphically, I am a pragmatist. My ethics are of the secular humanist variety.

How about you? I suppose by your handle that you are still working this stuff out to some extent.

Best,
Leela

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Hi seeker44,

Nice to meet you. I don’t believe in any gods or practice any religion, so I could be considered an atheist. Since I don’t claim to know whether or not God exists I could also be called agnostic. If God does exist in some sense, I doubt God is much like the personal deity of monotheism. I don’t think God is like a person only more powerful.

I don’t prefer to claim these labels (atheist, agnostic) for myself because I would rather describe myself in terms of what I do believe rather than what I don’t believe. I believe in apple pie, democracy, little league baseball, and all the good stuff in this world. We nonbelievers love our children as much as Catholics love theirs. Philosphically, I am a pragmatist. My ethics are of the secular humanist variety.

How about you? I suppose by your handle that you are still working this stuff out to some extent.

Best,
Leela

Leela,

Do you not agree, however, that the statement “I don’t believe in any gods” is the practical equivalent of the statement “I believe there is no god”? Thus, to speak of you as an atheist does speak to your beliefs.

This is what compels some to characterize atheists as people who do, in fact, hold a faith – a faith that there is no god.

Thoughts?

Peace,
Dante

 

[Leela]

Leela,

Do you not agree, however, that the statement “I don’t believe in any gods” is the practical equivalent of the statement “I believe there is no god”? Thus, to speak of you as an atheist does speak to your beliefs.

This is what compels some to characterize atheists as people who do, in fact, hold a faith – a faith that there is no god.

Thoughts?

Peace,
Dante

Hi Dante,

It would be accurate to call me an atheist from your perspective. I just don’t tend to claim the label anymore than I would call myself a “person who does not subcribe to Time magazine.” Likewise, I don’t see the god/no gods question to be a fundamental dichotomy that should define me.

On the issue of faith, you are wrong. I not have faith that there is no God. It doesn’t take faith to be unconvinced by the evidence and arguments for the existence of God. To call that a sort of faith seems strange to me, but if that is all you mean by faith then go ahead and think of atheism a faith. But would you then have to consider “not collecting stamps” to be a hobby and “bald” to be a hair color?

The question of faith seems to me to about whether or not we want our beliefs to be supported by evidence. If your belief in God is justified in your lived experience, why would you need faith to believe? Never understood that.

Best,
Leela

 

[seeker44]

Thank you, Leela for your reply. Actually, I did not intend this exchange for public viewing, but if anyone grows by it, all the better (I don’t know enough about navigating this forum to send private messages).

I’m 65 years old and have been “seeking” since I was a teenager. Although cradle Catholic, my closest friends include atheists and non-Catholics. I’ve known many, many so-called agnostics and atheists who are wonderful, good human beings as well as “religious” people who are not so good (in whichever way we might define the term), and vice versa. I have chosen to remain with Roman Catholic beliefs, although I don’t believe “we” have any monopoly on Truth or Virtue. Almost every philosophy or value system has elements that for me are worth seeking out and adopting, although I probably am not a relativist since I principally accept and try to practice my Catholicism. I also like apple pie, cats and dogs, my children and looking at the stars on a clear summer night–reflections for me of intelligent design, but for others may be the result of millions of years of evolution. That’s fine for me–if empirical knowledge is all there is, we probably haven’t discovered everything yet in order to know for sure, and if God is a Mystery, then I’m sure there is not much we really know about Him or creation either (after I die–and if God exists, of course, then I’ll ask Him). Like one atheist friend told me, “It’s a matter of epistemology” – He has chosen to follow one path to knowledge, and I’ve decided on another. We can still enjoy a hot cup of coffee and warm apple pie together.

For me belief or non-belief is influenced not only by empirical study or logical reasoning, but also by the unconscious, especially by what was collected in our early years of life and still influences us today, as well as the emotional baggage (happy or not) that we’ve stored thoughout our succeeding years of life. Thus, one may hold on tightly to belief or unbelief, be in denial to some truth or quickly accept it, etc., for behavioral reasons, brain chemistry and wiring.

Some believers see Faith as a gift from God which is either accepted or rejected, while non-believers may see Faith as pathologically-based (as Freud) and find that their faith is more rational. I don’t know since I accept the first opinion and haven’t lived the view of the latter. However, the God I believe in would welcome the non-believer who has done the best he could with whatever sincerely thoughout Truth he discovered. Can this be applied to Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot? Another question.

Anyway, right or wrong–those are my opinons. Thank you for sharing yours. Hopefully people grow by reading them.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Hi Dante,

It would be accurate to call me an atheist from your perspective. I just don’t tend to claim the label anymore than I would call myself a “person who does not subcribe to Time magazine.” Likewise, I don’t see the god/no gods question to be a fundamental dichotomy that should define me.

On the issue of faith, you are wrong. I not have faith that there is no God. It doesn’t take faith to be unconvinced by the evidence and arguments for the existence of God. To call that a sort of faith seems strange to me, but if that is all you mean by faith then go ahead and think of atheism a faith. But would you then have to consider “not collecting stamps” to be a hobby and “bald” to be a hair color?

The question of faith seems to me to about whether or not we want our beliefs to be supported by evidence. If your belief in God is justified in your lived experience, why would you need faith to believe? Never understood that.

Best,
Leela

Nice analogies.

I suppose that the idea of atheism as a “faith” arises from the fact that many consider God’s existence to be so self-evident in its necessity that one must choose to disbelieve despite a wealth of logical, philosophical, and spiritual evidence that argues for His existence on the one hand and a dearth of evidence arguing the contrary.

This, of course, is where your analogies break down. Choosing not to collect stamps is merely a choice not to partake of something the existence of which one acknowledges; disbelieving in God (from the perspective we’re discussing) is a choice to take it on faith – since there is no evidence to support the position – that God does not exist.

Does that make sense?

Peace,
Dante

 

[Leela]

Nice analogies.

I suppose that the idea of atheism as a “faith” arises from the fact that many consider God’s existence to be so self-evident in its necessity that one must choose to disbelieve despite a wealth of logical, philosophical, and spiritual evidence that argues for His existence on the one hand and a dearth of evidence arguing the contrary.

This, of course, is where your analogies break down. Choosing not to collect stamps is merely a choice not to partake of something the existence of which one acknowledges; disbelieving in God (from the perspective we’re discussing) is a choice to take it on faith – since there is no evidence to support the position – that God does not exist.

Does that make sense?

The issue here is deciding where the “burden of proof” lies–not that either side could hope to provide evidence so compelling the other side would be literaly forced to believe. By “burden of proof” I just mean, who has the duty to provide evidence and arguments in support of their belief for the question of the existence of God? The duty doesn’t arrise at all until one person wants to convince the other. It seems to me that whoever wants to convince the other has the burden of proof.

But here neither of us is trying to convince the other. I am just saying that I don’t believe in God, and you are asking for my evidence that God does not exist. The problem for us atheists is, how could we possibly provide evidence that anything does not exist? I don’t believe in flying unicorns either, but I don’t know what sort of evidence I could be expected to provide that they do not exist other than that if they did exist, I should have some positive evidence of such an astounding fact. So the lack of convincing evidence for the existence of flying unicorns is then evidence of the nonexistence of unicorns. Likewise, having investigated the evidence and arguments for the truth of many of the world’s plethora of religions and having found none of them convincing, I would say that I have evidence that makes me suspect that these religions are not making true claims about reality. Arguments for atheism would sound like “if Christianity, or whatever religion, is true, then the world would be like X, but it is not like X, therefore I doubt the truth of Christianity.” This is not an act of faith, it is just my attempt hold beliefs that I think are good to believe and not hold beliefs that are unsupported or contradicted by the evidence and arguments available to me.

Calling such reasoning the same as your concept as “faith” would diminish your own faith, would it not? In other words, if this is all you mean by faith, then fine, call it faith. But I don’t think this is how the word is generally used, and I think others would misunderstand my meaning if I called my lack of belief “faith.” For example, I am fully prepared to give up my lack of belief if evidence or arguments convinced me that God exists. The word faith implies a resistence to being convinced otherwise–that I would want to hold this lack of belief not because of the available evidence but even despite the evidence.

Best,
Leela

 

[seeker44]

Leela, I have to commend you for your genuine desire to know the truth. Whether what IS true turns out to be just that, at least you’ve been sincere and done your best to know the truth–just as I have, I might add. If God does exist, He can’t expect more than that from you or me.

I also thank you for a (may I use the term) scholarly or thoughtful approach to the questions of “religion” (I don’t really like this word, but I use it for lack of another). My original post about YouTube was more of an emotional reaction and rant against the purely from-the-hip attacks that some of their postings contain. I prefer to read thought-provoking discussion rather than mud-slinging and profanities. As self-righteous as that may sound, I freely confess that I also have many bad habits too, and yes, “sins” for those of us who believe in God. Like I’ve said before, I think (I’m not a psychologist) that our belief or lack thereof is stongly influenced by our unconscious. I don’t profess this as absolute truth–simply my opinion from personal experience and some reading I’ve done.

Again–I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of belief vs non-belief.

 

[lemonbeam]

We live in a secular, hedonistic time when the New Atheism is a popular “religion.” YouTube serves up a copious portion of atheist opinions bolstered by text comments declaring that theists are a bunch of disillusioned, ignorant, pathological fools; however, the non-believers’ rebuttals to theists’ objections seem not to address the objections directly–these atheists tend to ramble about by throwing out more scattered objections to belief instead of directly addressing the point in question. The immature ones tend to declare victory in their arguments when this is far from certain, or may resort to name-calling or using profanities against God, the Virgin Mary, and other persons in the Bible.

After answering some of these atheist comments, I’ve come to the conclusion that rational argument does little to change the emotional element of faith (faith that God exists or atheist faith that God does not exist). For atheists the Faith of theists has no empirical support whatsoever and is pure pathology (e.g., Freud - “Future of an Illusion”). For me the faith of atheists is not based on any certain empirical evidence (as they claim) and taps into pathologies developed in early childhood and emotional issues which have turned them against any theistic faith as well as confirmed them to deny any logic or reasonable evidence for God’s existence.

I only wish that I would have found more rebuttals to the comments I saw in the comments of Aggressive Atheism. They seem to be having a “Let’s Bash Believers” circus with no opposing views that might at least put some doubts or questions in front of their atheistic steamroller.

I am a regular on YouTube and I see that it has become quite a hub for atheists. It’s like their meeting place. I am shocked at some of the ignorance. Do you have any idea how many atheists I’ve talked with that have said they think Jesus Christ is a myth, even though their is a historical consensus among Scholars that Jesus Christ was a historical man. Simple things like that. Biblical interpretation etc.

It’s sad. I’m sure not all atheists are like that, but nearly all the atheists I’ve talked with lack knowledge of simple things like history of religions etc. The say all religion, and in particular CHRISTIANITY, Christianity is always the targeted religion, as mumbo jumbo, superstition etc. Very rarely have I seen an atheist try to actually argue FOR atheism. It’s mainly just put-downs for religion, and as I said before, mainly Christianity. Throwing random Bible verses around is another thing that is popular.

Another thing I’ve noticed, athiests typically don’t have to do much to get many subscribers. Christians on there have to work a lot harder. There are some very intelligent Christians on YouTube though, working their way through the rest of the garbage:

Father Barron (Catholic Priest): youtube.com/user/wordonfirevideo

KabaneTheChristian - youtube.com/user/KabaneTheChristian

lovejesusplz - youtube.com/user/lovejesusplz

UNFFwildcard - youtube.com/user/UNFFwildcard

drcraigvideos (Videos of Dr. Craig, his debates etc. He is probably the best Christian debater out there right now) - youtube.com/user/drcraigvideos

Christianjr4 ( WILLIAM LANE CRAIG DEBATES, LECTURES, AND MORE) -

youtube.com/user/Christianjr4

 

[PadraigPearce]

I’m sure there are many people out there who became atheists after studying philosophy and deciding against the existence of God. But most of the “new atheists” I know, the ones who follow Hitchens, Dawkins etc. think that all religions are fairy tales and use that as their starting point. I respect honest atheists who come to their conclusions honestly, but I can’t stand how the Dawkins crowd is trying to corner the market on “reason” and label everyone else as delusional. I had a long discussion the other day with a friend of mine who became an atheist after reading Dawkins God Delusion, and he refused to believe a person could be religious and also use reason. I told him his world was very small and he said I was delusional. It was pretty hard to argue since he wouldn’t even admit his view of the world was a philosophical one just like mine was.

 

[seeker44]

David Hume, Bertrand Russell, Freud and others have based their atheism on reason and the results of scientific study (some studies show that many of the prominent atheists have had issues with their fathers). Hopefully, people who have adopted atheism do so after careful and sincere quest for truth. We don’t want to adopt some medieval position that atheism is based on mental illness or demonic possession.

I’m not a psychologist, so this is only my opinion based on personal experience and some reading. Belief and unbelief are also influenced by the culture we grow up and live in, what resides in and influences a person from the unconscious (what developed in our psyche during the early years of life), our conscious experiences with belief and believers, etc. Belief and unbelief can also be strongly influenced by emotional issues and not so much by reasoning or the conclusions of empirical science. Although I’ve heard plausable reasons and read convincing scientific evidence on both sides of the question of belief, I may be tipped to one side or another of the question by the cultural, psychological and emotional influences in my life. I grew up in a Christian-Catholic home, adopted Catholic beliefs, and I want the security of knowing that there is a God who loves me and will welcome me into His arms when I die, and these feelings have been supported because my relationships with believers have always been rewarding in almost every way. If I would have been exposed to a harsh and judgemental belief system with a Divine Bookkeeper watching my every action and thought; hypocritical and even abusive parents or believers; and immersed in a secular culture that has no interest in God or religious questions, perhaps my slant would have been more towards nonbelief. Certainly this is not always the case, e.g. the agnostic Bart Ehrman was a Christian pastor. Nevertheless, in either case one can be influenced to chose the side which fits one’s comfort zone without serious intellectual study–I simply will put my feeling of assurance (I don’t like to use the words “faith in” since Faith for me is a theological term) in those atheists or theists who support my emotional needs with their study. The integrity of their work and conclusions may not be of too much interest to me as long as I can simply take refuge in their work or throw their thoughts into the face of anyone who opposes my beliefs. Believers and nonbelievers do this.

I don’t know everything there is to know, pro or con, about whether or not it’s reasonable, empircally probable or sane to believe God exists. I’ve experienced assurance and doubt, read about the question, thought about it, discussed it with my friends who are theists and those who are atheists, and come to a personal opinion that God does exist, even if He/She/It is a Mystery too great for me to understand. I’ve prayed to this Mystery, devoted time to lectio, and committed myself to developing a personal relationship with God. I’ve begun to know (but not necessarily understand) and love a Person, and see His action in my life. Another believer may know exactly what I am talking about. An unbeliever may or may not see this as wishful thinking, pie in the sky, or pure delusion. Maybe this is what Faith is about–that I continue my relationship with my Friend amidst the storm of doubters, the pros and the cons, and the questions that my “marriage” will work out in the end. And, of course, the end–at least in this life–will come.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I respect honest atheists who come to their conclusions honestly, but I can’t stand how the Dawkins crowd is trying to corner the market on “reason” and label everyone else as delusional. I had a long discussion the other day with a friend of mine who became an atheist after reading Dawkins God Delusion, and he refused to believe a person could be religious and also use reason. I told him his world was very small and he said I was delusional. It was pretty hard to argue since he wouldn’t even admit his view of the world was a philosophical one just like mine was.

Well I think that if you define ‘delusion’ as a false belief, then people who believe in a non-existent god are delusional. But this seems like mainly just a rhetorical device since under that definition, since by that definition, we all have some delusions since none of us are right about everything.

By the way, if you want a pretty rational response to The God Delusion, I recommend checking out The Dawkins Delusion?. He doesn’t set out to prove that God exists in that book, but merely explain some of the big things Dawkins got wrong. I thought it was a much more reasoned and logical response to Dawkins than many of the others that I’ve read.

 

[seeker44]

Yes…We sometimes use words that convey a strong emotional message along with an idea. I don’t have a dictionary at the moment, but “delusion” must mean that one is simply misguided, but the word has overtones that a deluded person is also “crazy” as in out of touch with reality.

Atheist Sam Harris says, “We stand dumbstruck by you [theists]–by your denial of tangible reality, by the suffering you create in service to your religious myths, and by your attachments to an imaginary God.” (Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, p. 91). I guess that Mr. Harris thinks that with all the suffering in the world, past and present, how could any rational person believe that an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-benevolent God actually exist. Perhaps he feels that we believers are not only misguided, but simply crazy. In all fairness, we believers sometimes react in like manner when we examine our reasons to believe and cannot understand why atheists presumably deny our evidence–“Gosh, they must be crazy!” It’s nice when we don’t let ourselves be distracted by the emotional vibes surrounding certain words.