I disagree with the second insight as to why theists believe what they do. I don’t believe in Christ because my friend who stabbed me in the back is now gonna get it when she dies or that I have comfort of love, forgiveness, and Heaven in one nice little package. I believe in Christ because whether or not I am forgiven and sent to Heaven, He is still worthy to be praised and served. Even if I were to go to hell I would still serve Him. And I know the first argument against this is that I can never be serious about that because according to my beliefs I never will go to hell, but in the coherence test of knowledge (something proven by my own experiences to be true) proves that for me (maybe not you, but me). I know several Christians that feel this way also. So don’t generalize.

Also with the second insight, even though many do reach out to Christianity because they think it offers comfort beliefs, there are several that know and don’t think that it’s that way. If you truly read the Bible, Jesus says that His followers will be persecuted and that “the way” is hard and narrow and few find it. That’s not comforting to me. If I wanted a “comforting” religion I’d chose anything, but Christianity, because in every other one you have to do something to get to Heaven instead of “picking up your cross and following Him”.

Unless you can go to all the corners of the universe and see that there’s no evidence for the existence of God, than you have to default. If the default is not good enough for you than I suggest you and anyone reading this blog to read “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel. If you are in search of truth than you can’t make any claims until you read this.

It is my personal belief that just as God created us through naturalistic process (evolution), he created our sense of right and wrong naturalistically. Of course this assertion can’t be verified by evidence, and I’m sure many will dismiss it because of that. But after reflecting on these issues I’m inclined to think that our moral intuition in and of itself is evidence of a God.

If this universe had no meaning, how would we have found out that it had no meaning? This is a point made often by C.S. Lewis who, admittedly, also came to some flawed philosophical conclusions. But I still feel this statement makes sense. You also talked about how the after-life seems appealing to many people, but that this doesn’t make belief in an after-life true. I would concede this point, but I would also like to note that it doesn’t make it untrue either. I’m inclined to disbelieve in the after-life, but I feel that existentially I can commit myself to a belief in God and consequently the concept of life after death becomes entirely plausible. Perhaps a bit of wishful thinking, but what a pitiful, meaningless life of utter nothingness our existence is if our hopes of a loving God turn out to be entirely misguided. Surely, religion often obscures our moral intuitions. But this says nothing about where morality came from.

I would nitpick with your use of the term “conspiracy theorist” in one of your other videos. Not all conspiracy theories are loony, and everyone on the planet believes in conspiracies– they happen everyday– they are agreements between people to commit crimes.

Please revise your belief!! hahaahah

I admire your morality. Have you considered becoming vegan?

1) You commit an “appeal to popularity” by, in effect, stating, “No one believes that humans don’t have value, of course atheists don’t either.” But that seems to be an unwarranted extrapolation. You will have to justify why atheists believe in the value of human life besides simply saying that most people do. In fact, that is (and many fallacies do overlap), to commit the naturalistic fallacy (the “unwarranted inference of ‘ought’ from ‘is’”) by saying that, normatively, an atheist is justified in believing in human value because, factually, everybody (or most people) do so.

2) What is the justification for not believing in certain religious matters, but still ascribing value to human life? I asked this in another post: Whence comes the value of human life? It is just not sufficient to simply assert it. Why aren’t atheists nihilists? I have my own reasons for believing that they need not be, but certainly the point here is for you to enlighten us as to the uniquely (or perhaps not uniquely) atheist position.

3) Naturalistic fallacy: We do believe in fairness, so we should believe in it. You seem to be feriving from our, perhaps evolutionary, normative prescriptions and saying that these are therefore universal valuative judgments. In other words, just because we do think that we should, does not mean that we should think we should…

4) Apparently one of your objections against religion is that it claims the destruction of life and individual agency in the name of a higher “purpose.” However, you state that individual consent can be overruled when it goes against the overall good (presumably determined by scientific, or even utilitarian, calculations). But isn’t this similarly sacrificing individual will, agency, and consent in the name of a higher good? How can this incongruity be reconciled?

5) The matter of revision is one of degree not kind. There is no such thing as extreme dogmatism, no one could possibly survive on that, and there is no such thing as extreme revision, our world would be totally incoherent. Even if we grant that new evidence inclines her to revise ger valuative prescriptions, nevertheless at every moment in between the presentation of new evidence, one’s prescriptions are just as dogmatic and universal as more revision-resistant institutions such as religion. Perhaps one could say that religion is undesirable insofar as it is more stubborn to accept new facts, but is this necessarily an inherent property of religion? Indeed, if it is, perhaps it is simply because the domain of religion (e.g., absolute facts of the nature of reality, etc.) is putatively resistant to such revision. But, given the proper domain of inquiry, resistance to revision need not be especially dubious.

The standard religious person, who is not an extreme outlier, is probably much more inclined to revisions in his or her web of belief (cf. W.V.O. Quine; although, just as with atheism, such revisions often do not completely change the web of belief, but are already framed within that “conceptual schema,” if we use Quine’s terminology). Besides, absolute dogmatism can only be truly maintained in abstracted theory. In our everyday lives, we necessarily make revisions, and this includes some theses that are related to religion. (You do accept this in your video on “What science isn’t”)

6) Isn’t it an appeal to consequences itself to assert, against religion, that it leads to killing, etc., and therefore it should be rejected? Now, I am not at all saying that this is your main argument, but you do state it several times, and this it warrants consideration.

Anyway, I applaud your critical thinking, your enthusiasm, your insights and that you’ve taken the time to post these videos! Keep it up! Oh, and I’d love to hear some of your responses to the comments people have left.

As far as I see it, Al’s thoughts on large scale gambling were an attempt to describe how he came to the opinion that he holds about gambling. Based on what he can observe, gambling tends to cause more harm than benefit to society as a whole (like most observations made by one person, the information may not be whole or complete, so some kind of “guess” or “blind faith” will need to be used to actually come to a conclusion.) If, for some reason, the negative consequences that Al uses to form his belief about gambling somehow change (or are mitigated) he retains the OPTION to change his views in regards to the new information (so long as the new information is compelling enough to cause him to change his opinion.)

Compare this to the anti-gambling (usually of ANY sort) laws, rules, regulations promoted in religious texts. I’m no religious scholar but from what I can make of these rules, there was no logical arguments given as to why gambling is bad. Instead there is only commandments given by God (or a messenger of God.) Thereby eliminating the POSSIBILITY that the followers of God, giver of commandments, could ever decide to gamble, even if there were no harm in it.

Most devout Muslims are forbidden to drink alcohol, even though the majority of humanity has the ability drink alcohol responsibility and in moderation with few ill consequences or themselves or society, these devout followers are not supposed to ever consume alcohol by religious decree. I can respect their choice to abstain from alcohol but I can’t support the reason why they choose to abstain.

So, while Al can agree with many of the religious on the subject of gambling, their basis for being against gambling differ. Al can change his mind with no expectation of punishment. The religious may not be able to change their beliefs system to allow for gambling as it would require an act of God (or a messenger thereof) to change the rules they are to live by.

When I finally get around to making a video for the Blasphemy Challenge, or for any other subject that I believe in, I would like to try and emulate your positive tone and fair argument style.

In short, thanks for being a good example.

I wasn’t certain, however, if you were advocating a prohibition to gambling or just stating your personal choice to refrain from it.

If the former, I’d have to disagree with you on that point. Your assertion gambling is a definite detriment on society, too, leaves something to be desired. As a form of entertainment, it has value much the same as watching professional sports, reading literature or looking at art, watching T.V., engaging in roleplaying games, or any other numerous activities some may easily claim are a complete waste of time and nothing more than non-productive pursuits. So even when such things may be considered zero sum activities on one front, they may yet have value in other ways that should not so easily be discounted.

More to the point, one must consider the alternative before making general proclamations as to the overall social detriment any activity may have. In this case, as in the case of recreational drugs, alcohol, prostitution, or other choices, one must compare the loss of our personal freedom to choose, as well as the frequent consequences of illegal operations and organized crime that might arise to circumvent such prohibitions. In particular, I’m fairly certain society would be far worse off if we didn’t have our freedom to make these choices and had to endure the fallout of society’s lame attempt to curtail these freedoms. After all, many wars have been deemed worthy enough to send millions to their deaths to win or maintain our basic freedoms, so it’s probably not the wisest suggestion to surrender these freedoms to allegedly help those few who cannot exercise sufficient discipline and essentially punish the majority for the actions of a few. There are better means to help this minority than a general prohibition.

However, if the latter, then yes, I agree, too, one should lead by example and never by force, so if you were merely saying you think gambling is a bad idea, others, also, may concur and refrain from such activities.

Similarly, I think atheism is intellectually correct and the only self-consistent, logical, and rational approach to life, but one may only lead by example, as you have done. And while I’d like to believe we’d all be better off embracing atheism, I’m not convinced the majority of people can intrinsically understand the wisdom of the golden rule and live their lives accordingly, and often think, if not for the fear of divine punishment in most people’s mind, society might be worse off as far too many would lose this fear and embrace choices far removed from altruism, empathy, and concern for the consequences of their actions.

Without the fear of God, what prevents one from doing evil? Well, what prevents us from doing good, too, one might reply. It’s a choice. Thus, ultimately, I often think my time is better spent teaching the wisdom of the golden rule, regardless of one’s belief in god, or the lack thereof, and the ever present on-going debate of atheism vs. theism is of secondary concern in comparison.

Might you craft a wonderful video in your style on the topic of game theory, wherein one does better embracing the golden rule rather than the practice of screwing over one’s neighbor? I’d like to see that.

Thanks again for the videos.

- Jim.