-14 votes

Stefan Molyneux and Seth Andrews, host of The Thinking Atheist, discuss breaking free from religion.

Stefan Molyneux and Seth Andrews, host of The Thinking Atheist, discuss breaking free from religion, the social costs of accepting atheism, the predatory targeting of the young, religion as child abuse, the worship of ignorance, the benefits of religion and advice to religious parents.


http://youtu.be/Zp9wDT6kUtQ

The Thinking Atheist is a website, radio podcast and online community which rejects faith as a suitable tool for living. - http://www.youtube.com/user/TheThinki... - http://www.thethinkingatheist.com

Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.fdrurl.com/donate

Bitcoin Address: 1Fd8RuZqJNG4v56rPD1v6rgYptwnHeJRWs
Litecoin Address: LL76SbNek3dT8bv2APZNhWgNv3nHEzAgKT

Get more from Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio including books, podcasts and other info at: http://www.freedomainradio.com



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You're right, that is a

You're right, that is a perfect illustration of your "point." Infact "point of view" might be more apt.

You draw conclusions off of bad/faulty information and end up making incorrect assumptions.

Case in point: I didn't say any of what you just said I did. I said it was an interesting debait worth pondering (for all the reasons I listed, whic are quite true), and then said that I sided on a parents right to teach their child whatever they like, even if I think it is twisted and wrong. Freedom means the right to be stupid, even if its your children who have to suffer your coersive brainwashing and threats of eternal damnation for failing to be indoctrinated into your mystical delusions.

So you just attacked my reason and logic, accused me of philospohical Stalinism all based on the fact that you failed to comprehend what you were reading. I wonder how often this is the case?

I guess coming from a guy who sees the natural world around him, and interprets this to mean there is a cosmic king overwatching everyone from the magical realm of heaven, this isn't suprising. You're very adept at making mistakes by misinterpreting information. The fact that you get upvotes for poor reading skills just shows that that the human race is in deep shit.

SteveMT's picture

Not "breaking free from religion" as much as questioning.

Testing religious dogma is the only way to be sure. Knowing why, not just accepting is the key. Good video. Thanks.

lol

Of all the asinine arguments that have been thrown my way by these people to sway me into their understanding of the world, I've always found the whole "you'll be free once you think like us" to be the most amusing. They've done very little to suggest to me that their materialist understanding of metaphysics promotes any freedom, particularly from the interpersonal and national consequences of their values system.

As much as I like and agree with Stefan Molyneux regarding the horrific crimes of both past and present governing authority, he's usually tends to come off as irrational and almost cult-like in his thinking, particularly when it comes to disciplining children. He is great at identifying problems, but off the map when it comes to solving them.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

"The Thinking Atheist"

is that a disclaimer!?!?

it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove a negative. to suppose different is quite ludicrous.
to suppose that it cannot be known, is also silly. (agnostics)

what is wrong with admitting that you do not know?

I am a deist. yes, I chose to believe that there exists the possibility of a "God".

my "proof" for this possible existence is Entropy.
(classic thermodynamic meaning please)

any arguments??
no, I did not think there would be.

that sounds more like agnosticism

A Deist believes that God exists, but that God does not interfere in the affairs of the world after creation.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

uuuh

"to suppose that it cannot be known, is also silly."

What? The only logical conclusion is that we cannot concluded definitively either way if a God does or doesn't exist. Anything else is silly.

Pottawattamie County Iowa

"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism." -Dr. Ron Paul

what did I miss?

SteveMT's picture

These definitions are provided for clarification.

agnostic:

One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

deist:

The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

Definitions are important.

that is why #1 is a rookie.

and about #2.

I chose to be a deist based on just the first part.

"based solely on reason"

My "faith" is based on... what we do NOT know.
;)

Hvact,

Thank you for stating your religious conclusions. Mine are virtually identical.

it is our heritage bro..

we need to talk about it.

"Freedom of religion"

when we talk about it, when we learn, we grow.

Entropy..

...actually fails to validate the possible existence of god. It is not a proof in any case. The most it could (have) be/been is an evidence that would support a proof. Of course, one is entitled to hang on to it and apply it as they wish, but it cannot be accepted as a proof. I mistakenly relied upon entropy at one time as part of my toolbox of evidence. But as any honest seeker will find, through continued study some things don't hold up in the way we had hoped. There are a number of problems with the thermodynamics argument of entropy that I won't spend time with here tonight (gotta go to work). But they are, in my view, sufficiently problematic to conclude that entropy falls short of acting as a proof. We're all on a path and it's good to keep moving.

P.S. I thought when you said you are a Deist that you were going to say "motion" was your reason for believing in the possibility of god ;-)

Evolution.

The creation of higher levels of complex order in a relatively closed system. Does that not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

THIS IS NOT AN EVOLUTION/CREATION DEBATE STATEMENT, EVERYONE, DO NOT RESPOND ON EITHER SIDE OF THAT ARGUMENT PLEASE. THANK YOU.

The point is you have entropy on the one hand with systems decaying and you have evolution on the other with complex systems developing into higher levels of complexity.

So, I'm merely curious, can you build on your original reply above along the lines of a circumstance where increasing orders of complexity are occurring in a relatively closed system and how that fits into your line of reasoning?

Thanks.

Motion.... is resistance to Entropy.. is it not?

and if we define "Life" as such..

does that make me a pagan? or a heathen?

;)