I want Kirk Cameron to shine a flashlight at some peanut butter in front of this kid, just to see the expression on his face.

Good catch. I missed that.

It always bothers me when people misuse a thesaurus. While 'greater in amount or size' is a valid definition for superior I don't think it conveys the same meaning as, say larger or plumper.

Wow that's stupid. Why would the uploader assume this has anything to do with race and more of cultural differences in child rearing? Guy/gal must just be scraping the bottom of the barrel to gain a better case for thinly veiled Aryan superiority.

That was my greatest hope for this vid, and it has been dashed.

That's nice, but "a force or energy, that we all return to after we kick it" is not a god. Face it, you're an atheist.

Come on, Jedi is a valid religion. Just ask this guy. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214367/Jedi-church-founde r-thrown-Tesco-refusing-remove-hood-left-emotionally-humiliated.ht ml

When a guy flat-out tells you he believes in God, saying "Nope, you're an atheist!" makes you sound as silly as one of those street preachers who insists that all atheists are in denial and actually believe in Jesus deep down.

Different cultures define God in different ways. Hell, the same is true for different individuals within the same religion. Just because a person doesn't believe God is a magical old white guy living in a cloud castle doesn't make them an atheist.

I wasnt implying that the "energy" or whatever you may call it is an actual deity, but more of a giant source of "life" so vast that we can only percive it as a "god."

I actually was an athiest for quite a number of years, but Ive had a handful of paranormal/weird expieriences since then. So I kinda changed my views as a result. But I dont believe in an omnipotent being judging my every action.
My spirituality can best be described as a pseudo-Taoism Bhuddist thing. Basically trying not to be an asshole.
Reincarnation? Maybe. Shit, there could be nothing after I die, but at least I can entertain a thought while Im still alive.
But I can by no means lift an X-wing out of a swamp. Thats ridiculous.

Do, or do not. There is no try.

Haha, I just knew someone was going to drop that line.

Xenocide, he didn't "flat out tell (me) he believes in God." Where did you get that from? And if he does, why does he self-identify as an agnostic?

Comparing me to a street preacher is disingenuous and you know it. In the absence of evidence for a God, I say "I don't know." Religious people, with the same lack of evidence, say "I do know." There is a difference.

I am an atheist, but if God came down today and did some magic tricks for me, I would cease to be an atheist. In the presence of evidence I would change my position, because it's not dogma.

Words mean things. "God" is generally accepted to refer to a being that created the world/universe and rules over it. It doesn't just mean "anything paranormal thing you happen to believe in." If TimidAres identifies his force of energy as a god, then he is a theist and I don't even know why we're having this conversation.

I don't know what happens after death, nor does anyone. But, and I need to drive this point home, because it illustrates why Agnosticism is mental:

The Atheist doesn't know and without evidence says "I don't know what happens after death."

The Religious Person says "I know exactly what happens after death, but you've just got to trust me."

The Agnostic, meanwhile, seems to say "Since I don't know what happens after death and have no evidence to the contrary, it could be fucking anything!" Surely you can see the flaw in that logic?

tl;dr

Xenocide JUST GOT SCHOOLED.

I don't identify as an atheist because of the -ist part mostly. God is retarded, sure, but I don't feel a need to join the club and I try to be like that on every subject. I guess in a sense I don't believe in god on a point of moral/intellectual principle, but it's a broader principle that covers a lot of dumb shit. And I don't accept the standard hardcore atheist retort that god is a particularly powerful delusion politically or whatever, because it isn't.

erection, your atheist and agnostic specimens are saying the exact same thing.

additionally there are a lot of different interpretations of what god is and saying someone's personal definition for the word is wrong is really narrow minded. and dumb. I am stronger than you and can beat you up. I can beat everyone up.

I'm not saying his definition is wrong, just that it needs to be defined as one or the other. He wants to have it both ways. If you identify your faith-based belief as a God, you are not an agnostic anymore. On the other hand, if you have a faith-based belief about the creation of the universe but you don't want to call it a God, then what is it?

I am not a militant atheist by any stretch. I respect everyone's right to personal faith and I don't go out of my way to "convert" anyone, as it were. That said, God is a human construct and everyone on Earth is born an atheist. The onus is on the constructor of myths to plead their case in a grown-up world of science. If make the claim that I have green skin and I can fly, do agnostics automatically believe me until they can prove otherwise? That strikes me as a silly position is all.

Additionally, my dad could beat up your dad.

I don't think any agnostic on earth would believe you, no, and I'm not really sure what your analogy means since agnosticism is not about belief.

It was just a personal belief on what god might be IF god exists, not a belief on whether or not god exists at all. Actually what are you talking about. Actually what am I talking about. Does anyone want to see who's stronger between me and that somebody who wants to see something. I believe I am stronger. I am not agnostic about this.

Oh, and I think you all might be mistaken on the correct term here, that kid's a classic Deist.

There is no invisible magical part of you that continues to live after you die.

You die. You cease to exist. You have no further involvement with anything whatsoever and once you accept that it makes death a lot less worrisome.

Above me, a selection of retarded white men arguing they each have ownership over the universal meanings of terms used by cultures throughout history.

Or, You Don't Get To Define God For Everyone. You don't. The people who need to do this are desperately looking for a sense of superiority. Spend time researching human history and the amount of culturally valid versions of What God Is, becomes staggering. For a good range look into the Indian religions through to monotheism and shut up, you offer nothing but self wank.

Also, I'm agnostic and feel the same way about God being a state or force or energy. Suck my balls if you don't like it.

i don't want to be "that guy," but cat_mech leaves me no choice:

http://xkcd.com/774/

Cat Mech, you are a retard and a moral degenerate. Go fuck yourself.

1:25 too.

I'd have been all "we are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances, BITCH."

Actually at that age I probably would have said "yeah... I mean... he's not watching this now right? Oh, he is? Then yeah."

Actually, I have been working at a hospice center for a few years and we have had several patients literally see spiritual beings, dead loved ones, beams of light and all that in the last moments. These are lucid and clear, not inane babblings. So, to say people haven't seen wonderful things is false. You may argue that they're misfirings of a dying brain, but they've still seen them one way or another.

A worse crime than believing in something is to deny its existence with just as little proof. For what hurt does belief cause if it weaves seamlessly and benignly into a life?

I want to say here again, we've found that the easiest and most peaceful passings (you can ask about any hospice nurse this) has been when people not only accept death but have any belief at all that it is not an end but a passing, whether into the infinite or into some sort of heavenly state. They are hopeful and happy.

Anyway, that's just my opinion. You can make fun of me if you want, but I have nothing to prove. I just wanted to share my experience.

Those people were hallucinating, and that's it.

The burden of proof rests on the people who believe that something IS there, not the people who believe there's nothing there. It's basic rational thinking to say "I've never seen proof or evidence of something, so I don't believe it exists." It's not basic rational thinking to say things like "A worse crime than believing in something is to deny its existence with just as little proof."

He did prove something was there. He proved that (if his statements are true) the people who have belief systems experience a more peaceful and benevolent end of life.

He didn't make any claim that anything was there. So you have just attacked a straw man. If you want to claim the side of science, be scientific. Weak arguments like yours are primarily the domain of stupid white men doing what they do best, which is co-opting shit and making themselves priests out of it. You just happen to be part of the current trend of stupid white men doing it with atheism and science. Good on you for be part of what is ruining it for everyone else.

Second paragraph should have the word 'else' in the first sentence.

I can see where those visions/beliefs would be both comforting and practical. Frankly, if a person is on their death bed, it probably doesn't make a difference if they think they're Napoleon, as long as they go happy. (And I'm not cold-blooded enough to tell a dying person that their visions aren't objectively real.)

My cousins' grandma was atheist. Though her last days weren't easy, she suffered them gracefully. (Oddly, before she died no one mentioned her beliefs. We're mostly cultural Catholics and I guess they saw it as weird.)

Anyway, I disagree in a couple of spots. "They've still seen them one way or another" places more weight on the seeing than on why. For me the why is more important. Second -- and I know it's controversial -- I don't think belief is benign. I see it as symptomatic of a willingness to stop asking tough questions, which is something that doesn't fit in with my morals.

Thank you pastor, that was put better than I could have said it.

And I wasn't attacking a strawman, I was responding to the statement "A worse crime than believing in something is to deny its existence with just as little proof," which goes against all the basics of science and reason. It angered me to see somebody take that position.

And as far as belief goes, I won't say that belief isn't comforting, it absolutely can be, but there's no study or empirical proof saying it's more comforting to die a believer than to die a non-believer. All evidence presented so far is anecdotal.

You called that one right, Shark.

Nice assumption based on nothing there. I hear Saturn has giants that fart green gasses that power their space-cars too.

Nah, the one that has no god will grow up to stand around in a deserted wasteland reciting short, existential monologues in a monotone in between chess games with the grim reaper

Word. They were some dour little creatures. There really seems to be a pretty thick dividing line between an intolerance for bullshit and a capacity for joy. Sure wish someone would prove me wrong.

Kierkegaard was very religious. "Knight of Faith" stuff and all that. Maybe I'm missing your point.