-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.

Thank you sincerely for the

Thank you sincerely for the entertainment, I've never seen anyone reaching so desperately. The second listed definition is secondary? Since when? That's completely made up claim lol.

Grain

1. Crop
2. Small particle of a substance
3. Direction of the fibers in a piece of w

rather than...

using 1 word with two distinctly different definitions, why not just use the word that means exactly what you're trying to say:

Agnostic.

Because, as sumpm1 explains above

"Agnostic" can mean either agnostic atheist or agnostic theist. It's not specific enough. I choose not to alter my verbage simply to conform to the misconceptions of society. I'd rather stay consistent and help to educate in the process.

If you...

...want to say you're an agnostic that leans one way or the other, why not just say that? The terms 'theism' and 'atheism' carry with them more of a quality of certainty, which obscures the fact that you are unsure what to believe.

Tend to agree...

that atheism has a lot of common bonds with religion.

What ever happened to the word "Agnostic"? Why isn't that an option any more? Feels like I haven't heard that word for years, except when I say it.

Agnosticism (as I understand it) simply means, "I neither have faith there is a god nor do I have faith there isn't."

It would be hard to classify that as a religion, don't you think?

I think. that is funny!

"Agnosticism (as I understand it) simply means, "I neither have faith there is a god nor do I have faith there isn't."

can I sum that up for you?

WTF?

I am not confused. I chose modern Deism.

Sorry,

I just don't know what your comment is saying. Are you asking me a question? Maybe give at another try.

IMHO, agnosticism is the healthiest option of the three

The reason you don't hear about it is because it is hard to get all heated and upset about it, if you are an agnostic. Agnostics will never persecute others over their religious or anti-religious beliefs. In fact, do a search on amazon for books on agnosticism. I count only 7. IMHO, agnosticism is the closest of the three to the spirit of libertarianism.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Thank you, Ed.

I was beginning to feel very lonely in this place dedicated to "peace and love".

I think you hit it on the head in your analysis.

are you callin me a gnostic!

I am certainly not sir!
I am also not agnostic.

WTF?

agnostic = Duh, what was the question again?

The title and description

The title and description seem to imply that breaking away from organized religion and disbelief in God are the same thing. Aside from any objections to either, whatever their merit, the two just aren't the same. Seems dishonest to try to take one proposition and smuggle it in along with another. I must admit I didn't listen to the commentary as I consider internet atheists and anarchists to be vulgar and don't like to hear them talk of profound matters.

Excellent Post

The Christian vs Atheist fight has become a fabricated dichotomy that shuts out meaningful philosophical discussions as both sides have dug deep trenches.

Personally, faith did not bring me to God but ironically reason has. If you look at things such as the Fibonacci sequence and sacred geometry and how pretty much every aspect of out reality follows repeating fractal patterns it implies there is a certain order to the universe as if it was built by some kind of intelligence. Or in other words, "As above so below" or "On Earth as it is in Heaven".

Further, research into quantum mechanics suggests that our perception of reality changes reality itself perhaps implying that the Architect has bestowed us with the ability to create our own realities within the framework of the rules and patterns of existence. We do this every time we create art etc as we manifest our thoughts into reality by use of our human form of painting, sculpting etc.

Anyway, its just some interesting thoughts.

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

classic BILL3.

yes BILL, they are unworthy.

Do you think we will ever be

Do you think we will ever be good friends?

hate brings people together

you guys both hate atheists, so bond over that :)

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Ed you silly goose. Ever cook

Ed you silly goose. Ever cook a goose, btw?

yes, sir

I shot seven last year and tried to prepare them in various ways. There is not that much difference between preparing a duck and a goose, except that a goose tends to be more fatty. Roasting a goose is pretty straight forward. I tried making goose confit and goose prosciutto and totally screwed up. In my paranoia about bacterial spoilage, I left the meat in the salt way too long and the resulting product is too salty to be palatable. I hope to try again this year and do it right.

A great resource for duck and goose recipes is here:

http://honest-food.net/wild-game/duck-goose-recipes/

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

State religion demands obedience.

Common religions are voluntary.

Statists hate religious books because they blaspheme against the State.

Free includes debt-free!

Atheists: "we came from

Atheists: "we came from nothing"

Lol! I'm not knocking it...I'm just saying.

Ya.. the basic premise makes

Ya.. the basic premise makes no sense.

To affirm something that makes no sense is to affirm that the natural human mind is an incoherent instrument.

To believe such is to render all other beliefs futile.

I'm not saying that's not the right conclusion, but if it is one must embrace a profound skepticism of all conclusions and all reason.

I'm game either way.

We also came from fish and

We also came from fish and whales...they came from pigs.

please answer this

I'm not trying to be confrontational but I really can't seem to ever get a "logical" explanation from an atheist. Amazing since they always claim they are devouted to logic and reason.

Where do our rights come from? Why do people generally have moral values? Why are there laws? Why are there human rights?

The above questions pertain to issues that are wholly and undeniably at odds with godless evolution, or darwinism. If we are just accidents that came from the void with no puropse or reason then we have no value. When my kids spill my cocoa puffs on the floorI throw it away; when they paint me a picture at school I hang it on the wall. Can you not see the difference. Our founding documents reference our rights coming from our Creator. We didn't "evolve" rights out of Primordial Soup.

Even if there is no God as atheists say, without the existence of god-fearing people we would have no rights. It is the mere belief in a higher purpose, respect for others, and that our actions in this life have consequence that has spun the moral fabric of our society.

Is there a problem with religious fanaticism? Yes? has the Christian Church lost its way? Yes, but that does not water down or destroy the message. My advice to you is to understandn that religion was created by man, not God. All religions can be twisted just like laws and regulations.

Did this satisfy your

Did this satisfy your "logical" request for an explaination from an athiest? Somehow no one ever replies to this. I have a deep suspicion it has to do with a memnonic kil-switch being thrown that says "danger danger, you're about to question your faith! Abort to read only mode!"

Ive answered this at least

Ive answered this at least half a dozen times on these forums.

Our motivation to form natural rights come from the bonds of love we form from other humans. The finished product comes from human reason. We love our kids, so we view those things that cause them harm to be "bad" and those things that help them prosper to be "good." This is entrinsic in pretty much all humans who love other people. However there are going to be criminals.

The goal becomes: How can we, the majority of human who want to see our loved ones safe and prosper, structure society to protect our loved ones from that which harms them, while fostering that which helps them? The experiaments in social organizing begins. Though thousands of years, we have failure after failure. Every social structure that depends on collectivism creates a master/slave structure that ends when one class takes rights for themself and lives on the blood of the other. This always ends in violent upheval that leaves no one's loved ones safe, least of all the 'master" class.

Then, some great thinkers dream up natural rights. A logical way to organize socially wherein everyone's loved ones rights are protected, and the ability for everyone to prosper is maximised. Individualism where there is no master, and no slave.

We understand that logically, no one's loved ones are truly safe until everyone's loved ones are guaranteed the same protection. Think about the "Monkey gets unequal pay" thread and apply it to rights. Humans won't settle to be second class citizens for long. Sooner or later those who don't have rights will take them. Equal rights means equal oppertunities and equal justice. There will always be criminals who want to take what they did not earn, but thats our challenge as liberty loving humans, to keep out the tyrants and the criminals.

So as you can see, the concept of "equal rights" is very much possible without gods. All you need is to be capable of loving those around you, and morality will follow. Reason will hone that morality into a social structure like natural rights and the non-aggression principal. You may say "but love can't exist without god!" Perhaps you're right, but I love, even though I don't believe in gods. Ask yourself, if you found out tomorrow that there was no god, would you still love your children?

The conclusion is: It doesn't matter if there is a god or not. Natural rights are the only forward, so we should really focus on what works, and stop trying to tell each other what to be. Im not a christian, im not going to be one, and I resent christians telling me I need their religion to be moral or have rights. I have both and I don't believe in god. These debaits, while fun, are devisive and pointless. you do your thing, ill do mine. I won't tell you have to be athiest to have liberty, you don't tell me I have to be christian. win win.

Most religious believers tend

Most religious believers tend to connect religion and morality in such a way that one becomes unthinkable without the other. Thus true, genuine religion necessarily makes one a more moral person while being a moral person signifies that one has and requires true religion. None of this is true, though - the connection between religion and morality is at best incidental.

REASON:
Some may not immediately recognize the importance of reason for morality, but it's arguably indispensable. Unless morality is simply obedience to memorized rules or flipping a coin, we have to be able to think clearly and coherently about our moral choices. We have to adequately reason our way through the various options and consequences in order to arrive at any decent conclusion. Without reason, then, we cannot hope to have a moral system or to behave morally.

HONESTY:
Honesty is important because truth is important; truth is important because an inaccurate picture of reality cannot reliably help us to survive and understand. We need accurate information about what is going on and a reliable method for evaluating that information if we are to achieve anything. False information will hinder or ruin us. There can be no morality without honesty, but there can be honesty without gods.

Over and over, we are told that people need religion. In reality, people want what religion offers: a rulebook, which provides order in their lives and gives them hope for life after death. I am not saying no one gets any value from religion. However I do argue that there is more harm than good in organized religions and without question I've never felt more free, more loving toward my fellow man, and more genuine consideration of others than I have since I let go of the fantasy and superstitution that is religion.

As I have said many times...in the information age...ignorance is a choice. For people to continue to "believe" in a sky ghost and that prayer does anything whatsoever...they are remaining willfully ignorant because the truth is too uncomfortable for them to accept.

Its amazing how so many people can see the indoctrination of state schools and state propaganda but remain blinded by the exact same methods of control used by organized religon.

Stop being afraid of the unknown. Its incredibly liberating.

A question of grounding

Re: "Most religious believers tend to connect religion and morality in such a way that one becomes unthinkable without the other. Thus true, genuine religion necessarily makes one a more moral person while being a moral person signifies that one has and requires true religion. None of this is true, though - the connection between religion and morality is at best incidental."

I won't speak for all religions, but in Christian circles, the significant issue relating to the discrepancy between morality and atheism is the grounding of morality, not necessarily the adherence to morality. Christianity doesn't say that people are moral for being religious, on the contrary Romans 3 puts the religious and non-religious in the same boat of imperfection, godlessness, and un-goodness. Also, Isaiah 64:6 says: "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." The question is: "How does one account for an objective morality in atheism without appealing to mere arbitrary social conventions?". But regarding incidental-ness, imagine for a moment that Atheism is false, and that God is the source and sustainer of all goodness. To deny God in that scenario seems like it would be an immoral thing, especially if an all good God conveys from infinite knowledge that disbelief in God is not good. So if that scenario is true, then atheism could potentially be immoral in and of itself, but if atheism is true, then who is to say what is good or bad at all when everything that exists is just meaningless accidents made without purpose or objective value?

Perfectly stated, thank you.

Perfectly stated, thank you.

"Where do our rights come

"Where do our rights come from? "

In the garden of eden there was a tree of rights and eve picked them all off the tree and rolled them up in a piece of parchment she called the constitution. God got really pissed off because he had already told her that the constitution is just a GD piece of paper and you shouldn't wrap your rights in it.

"Why do people generally have moral values?"

We wouldn't be here if we didn't

"Why are there laws?"

There was a tree of laws in eden too.

"Why are there human rights?"

Human lefts sounds silly.

Knowledge is Power

Even knowledge you disagree with. Does that make it worth forcing at gun point others cannot discuss it with their own children?

On who's authority does someone have more control over children than their own parents? Nature gave no power to that extent, and neither does God.

This type of power is statist in pure form.

so...

1. no one has authority over a child more than the parent.
2. a parent cannot murder his child.

(system failure)

BTW, I'm not suggesting teaching religion to ones child is akin to murdering them...just simply suggesting that, yes, in fact even you probably agree that "we" do have some say in what a parent can and cannot do to his child. The debate is over where that line is drawn...but you can't say there is no line (unless, of course, you do think a parent has authority murder their child).