@Maurits there is no truth claim to make with matters like this. there is either belief or there isn’t. and personal preference IS our tool for determining our beliefs
@Maurits you can’t run tests to prove the existence of god or lack thereof. there is no way for humanity to determine fact around this. and whether or not god exists has no bearing on the world, but as david said, a huge effect on morality. and every person i’ve interacted with prior to you has maintained that it is an opinion thing because there is no unobstructed views of god, no perfect truths of religion. most people would say that constitutes as reason to just leave someone alone to their beliefs, not turn into a pedantic ass and wax pseudointellectual in the youtube comments
@Maurits "And if you believe that we should leave eachother alone because we can never determine with certainty whether God exists or not, I simply disagree with you, and I'm sure hundreds of years of theological debate and the vast amounts of scholars and literary works on this question would too." That simply sounds like someone who wants to argue and dislike something. Believe in it? Dont care. Dont believe in it? Dont care. Want to cause strive because you disagree with someone on the matter of god existing? Now i care because you're making a problem. Its a toxic behavior at its core and should not be encouraged. And yes, all these centuries of theological debate are meaningless and simply in the wrong. There is no reason to cause strive over this matter. Only false pride encourages someone to do so.
@@dektarey4024 I know this is probably a mistake joining in, but i’d say it isn’t always a matter of atheists causing a problem. While it’s fine for one to chose to believe in avid because it gets them through the day, my personal problem is when a certain god is used as a justification for anything. Any decisions are likely to be influenced by this belief, however, this still isn’t a significant problem until you start using god to justify any number of things, the largest modern one being homophobia, but notable past ones include burning of witches, the crusades, all the various killings/wars caused by divide between protestant and catholics, the catholics killing those who didn’t believe in catholic god. Now in the case of Agnostics, like David speaks about in the video, there is no problem, as they don’t commit to a specific god and system, but those who follow a specific god, and a specific system have an inbuilt flaw in their reasoning, which could influence any number of decisions. So while yes, belief god is not a problem in it self, I would say that belief can be used for false conclusion, and quite often is. while i don’t personally argue with strangers over the internet about gods existence(the present excluded), as it tends to be pointless, i think those that do are understandable, and should not be seen as arguing because they specifically want to argue, but because they have seen what religion has caused. I hope that this has helped you possibly get an idea of why i personally think we shouldn’t just leave each other alone. If you have any criticisms of my argument or don’t understand one of my points, please let me know, i don’t want this to descend into the normal pointless bickering of youtube comments. Also i recognize this was more of debate between agnostics and atheists, and as a general atheist, I have no problem with agnostics Added note: I did the classic comment thing of not watching the video fully, and i realize David directly went against what i just said, but just to put down his argument. One: He make an huge assumption that people look to kill each other and will use any reason to do so, which is not backed up by him, and i find to be a leap. I don’t want to come across pretentious by quoting philosophers, but i’d say that humans aren’t good or bad, but humans are simply the culmination of all of those who exist at any time. If all humans helped each other, then we would be good, even if 100 years before, we all lived in a state of constant fighting, stealing, and killing. We went from bad to good, however we are not inherently either. So this idea that humans just want to kill each other and will find any reason is a bit silly. Two: He says that many things have been used to justify murder, such as the political ideology. I’d say that this is not relevant, as simply because people kill each other over many things, doesn’t mean that those things are acceptable. I would say that while yes, people have killed over many things, i’d say the less reasons to fight, the less fighting that happens. Simply because people have killed over communism, doesn’t make killing over religion alright. While i would say that killing over anything is not acceptable, ill be honest in ambitions that that is an assumption. With that assumption, i’d say killing over politics is not acceptable either, and we should try and prevent that. without that assumption, i’d say that while there may be an argument that killing over a certain belief is acceptable, like in the example of communism, where by killing you think you are being about a better long term world, this killing is based on a belief which may or may not be true. If the belief(communism) is true, then the killing may be justified(i’d say it isn’t, but i want to avoid assumptions about morality) and if it isn’t true, then killing is not. And this must be applied to religion, where when we can totally conclude that religion is not true(or is unprovable through the means of reason), then killing over religion is not justified, and in turn, we must work to prevent the cause of said killings, religion. Three: I think i may have already addressed this before but i’ll restate it. He says that even without religion, killing will continue, presumably at the same rate(This is my interpretation, please correct me if you see it differently). I think this implies that in the hypothetical situation that in history, if there were no religion, the killings like the crusades would be replaced by something else, however no proof is given as to why. I’d say that if people had no reasons to kill there would be no killing, and as there are less reasons to kill, less killing takes place. So, yeah. Once again, any criticism are welcome. I decided to comment hear with the hope of two, equally happy endings(not that kind). Either i convince someone of my argument rationally using facts(or at least make them understand my point), or i am critiqued rationally, and in turn, my views are changed, causing me to become a better, more rational person. I simply hope this doesn’t sputter out into pointless bickering
@@aidensexton3343 JayZus you typed too much but I got through it and agree for the most part. DM is A smart man but he's wrong about this just because he wants to believe like millions of people holding on to childhood fairy tales. There's way too much badness from religious people even apart from killing and I don't wanna type a novel but just look at the USA puritan evangelical trumpets for a start and even if there was a gahd, then it's clearly a POS that's inflicted Untold murder, pain and misery on it's own creations. The flooding of millions of innocent women and children was bad enough but it was only getting started then. Obviously it's nonsense stories used to brainwash and control people
No it's not, he doesn't understand the terms at all, I imagine he's substituting atheism for the claim there is no god, but atheism is just a lack of a belief in gods. Furthermore one can be agnostic and atheist, I am myself, one is about knowledge, and one about belief. And who's taking away the comfort? The religious don't have to listen to atheists, just like atheists don't have to listen to the crap religious people say. Religion may be comforting but it can also be a waste of your life, and typically the truth is usually the best thing.
@@Ben-Rogue He's right on the agnostic part sure, though I think it doesn't actually matter that much since everybody understood what kind of people David meant. He is also oblivious to how both atheists and theists can be extremely overbearing for some reason and try to destroy the other person's comfort completely.
Only a comedian could perfectly articulate these very thoughts I've had in my head. Some find comfort in religion. I find comfort in comedy. Having one of my favorite comedians express my feelings about religion through comedy... well peak level achieved.
Since there's now less danger of me being married to that unfunny, annoying woman (albeit, there was very little chance anyway..), I might be tempted to share your opinion.
@@JB_inks That is a matter of personal opinion, when it comes to religion, there is a right and there are wrongs but we have no idea what those are, therefore, saying someone is wrong is disrespectful and hypocritical. We don't know if there is a god and, therefore, anyone is free to make their own opinions.
@@DerPinguim no, not at all. Why don't you ask me why he's wrong? It's not about personal opinions, he's factually wrong about the definitions of the words he's using. As a pedantic person I expected better of him.
@ConManliness As much as I like him at times, and his work, he is a proper twat at times, and he's definitely in the category of comedians that mitchell is referring to
@@anokah anyone can be a twat sometimes but Gervais is right and David is talking nonsense here obviously. It's a few years ago so he might've copped himself on since
@@damienjoseph7540 not everything's about being right all the time, that's kind of the point. Religion these days is a thing people choose to believe in, not something that people myopically believe in. So yeah, organised religions are a pain, but the very faith that drives them also leads to great thing. It's not a binary matter where you can say 'religion good' or 'religion bad'. Nothing is that simple
I agree with him about "celebrity atheists" assuming that they have the right to lecture others about belief and denigrate them for holding them. I'm right you're wrong. And the argument that a lot of suffering was caused by religion shows a fundamental lack of understanding about humanity. I'm amazed that Dawkins can't see that. He's supposed to have a keen intelligence.
Not being "honest" he is simply say he does not know....which is not an answer either. Of course there is no such thing as a God who seems to be able to do anything ...but does nothing. It also breaks all the law of Physics to suggest there is a magical being who does nothing all day and relies on their unfounded legendary status to be noticed.
@@snap-n-shoot ...no, it is pretty honest to admit you don't know something. I don't know how you can term that as anything other than honest, unless you suspect David of possessing actual concrete proof one way or the other about god.
@@willchurch8376 - He's not being entirely honest with himself though. Atheism and agnosticism address different things. They're not different points on the same scale and he's definitely intelligent and knowledgeable enough to know this. Theism and atheism are to do with belief, whilst agnosticism is to do with claims of knowledge. They are not mutually exclusive. Most atheists are agnostic atheists, as they don't believe in gods and goddesses but don't claim to know for certain. Most things can't be proved or disproved absolutely and this includes all gods and goddesses. Thus agnosticism is the only honest and self-aware position to take. The fact that almost anything is theoretically possible, is not proof and isn't the same as saying that everything is probable. That gods and goddesses can be neither proven nor disproven does not mean that the probability of their existence or non existence is equal and wanting something to be true has no bearing on whether it is, or not. With atheism, it's the matter of a simple question. Do you believe that any gods or goddesses exist? If you do, you're a theist. If you don't, you're an atheist. You either believe, or you don't. Claims of knowledge are completely irrelevant. It's to do with what you believe, not with what you know.
Stop bickering about labels. I feel the same as David, I just don't know and i'm not really keen on ruining anyone else's day so long as they dont try to ruin mine.
That's what agnosticism is, though? Uncertainty of whether or not there is a god. That's literally what the term agnostic refers to. It's a word that describes a religious view.
Cleveland Brown Fair enough, but religious people tend to band together and push through social changes in line with their beliefs. If you don’t share their view then you might well have your day ruined by them. Evangelical Christians were instrumental in electing Donald Trump for example.
The issue isn't about the idea of a benevolent god, it's about strict adherence to religious dogma by some that results in the persecution of others. Religion has comforted plenty, but has caused immense pain to others and continues to do so.
as has communism, because strict rules and laws and reasons for ppl to be in power is again a human society trait, not one exclusive to religions of any kind
yes, it's the use of some set of ideas which are unprovable and unarguable as a reason to ignore the needs of some in order to satisfy the desires of others. Any philosophy can be taken to extremes this way - it's obviously an abuse but religion makes if very difficult to argue against the abuse of itself. Jesus is supposed to forgive and be kind and yet I was sent to be beaten at school by priests who were apparently doing it "for my own good and out of love". The purity of the original idea doesn't matter.
Personally, I've never pointed to the immoral acts committed in the name of religion to claim that they're a reason for religion to not exist, but I have pointed to them to point out that religion does not occupy this superior moral high ground that so many religious people claim it does. He's exactly right, people will use any ideology to commit atrocities against one another, including religion, which means it's just like all the rest. I do consider myself an atheist, but with enough agnosticism that I'm willing to shift if someone can present sufficient evidence. Unlike David, I don't have an inherent desire for there to be a supreme being, I find enough comfort just looking at the beauty of the natural order of things to not need that desire. If other people do find comfort in that belief though, as long as they're willing to keep the belief to themselves and not force its ideas on others or cause them harm, then have at it.
I agree completely with you. Unfortunately there have been many wars in the name of religion in the past and will be more in the future I am sure; the "holy land" is still claiming innocent lives as we speak. It is a tragedy.
Define "sufficient evidence". The problem here isn't the word agnostic, nor atheist, but how people define the word "belief". I, as an atheist, do not believe in the existence of any deities. And if there was evidence of deities, there'd be no reason to "believe".
@@WolfRitesI think it’s more ‘faith’ than ‘belief’ that’s the issue. I believe in plenty of things that haven’t been 100% proven to me, simply because there is very strong evidence for them . But ‘faith’ is believing something without any evidence. Faith is the problem.
From my understanding these two terms answers two separate questions, "what do I know" and "what do I believe". In my case I don't know whether or not a God exists, so I'm agnostic in that sense. The lack of evidence for a God leads me to believe that there is no God (or simply a lack of belief in God, whatever you prefer), making me an atheist. I'm therefor an agnostic atheist.
More precisely: "What do I (think I) know?" You can never truly know whether you know something for real, only whether you consider it "knowing" or "believing". (Except for certain extremely undeniable pure-logical truths, such as the fact that you exist.) Also, you don't have to actively believe that there is no such thing as a god in order to be an atheist. So long as you don't believe that one or more gods exist, you're an atheist. There are even atheistic religions! That is, religions with no deity.
@Time Warp For the same reason you can't truly know that unicorns or fairies don't exist: There is no proof (note the terminology, I said "proof" and not "evidence" for a reason) that they _don't_ exist. You can come up with reasons and scenarios showing that they _could_ potentially exist without us finding any evidence of them, even though there is no evidence and thus no reason to believe that they do exist. In order to prove (or even show through evidence) that something _doesn't_ exist, you'd need to know its exact properties, and show that it cannot be found in the places where it would be if it existed, or show that its properties are contradicted by our knowledge of reality, or show how its properties are logically incoherent and therefore impossible. "God" is a nebulous concept that has many different interpretations, many different entities that fit the description and are alleged to exist (or have been made up for fictional stories), and that are not fully disproved by evidence or logic. The yawning abyss (figuratively) that exists where the evidence for these entities should be is enough reason to believe they don't exist, but it may not be enough to satisfy the conditions for claiming that you _know_ they don't exist - depending on your exact definition of the term "know".
since god is impossible to disprove and, unless his face pops out of the sky and he starts presenting us evidence of his omniscience and omnipotence, so is his existence, any question of knowledge is equivalent to a question of believe. or in simpler terms: if you have no evidence, claiming "I know there is a god" and "I believe there is a god" is the same, since your claim of "knowledge" is solely based on your believe and not on evidence. therefore: atheism and agnosticism is the answer to the same question.
1:27 I don't want to take religion away from people. I just don't want them to force their religion on me. I think everyone should think this should be true regardless of whether you're atheist or religious.
And this is true, I don’t believe he’s met anyone who wants to take belief away from others. Atheists couldn’t care less and aren’t trying to change minds.
Honestly I’ve never been pushed into any religion, and I had been in a catholic school most my life. And if you do, just say no, you have free will. Unless you’re trapped in some kind of cult, being forced into a religion is not that common, or a big problem. Walk away if so.
@@danielcortes1553 It's not about someone forcing you to go to church. It's about someone passing laws that are based on their religion that still rule you.
I'm an atheist, and I agree with David. Atheists don't have to try to take other people's belief and hope away, and people would have plenty of excuses to fight and kill without religion. I'd rather look for the good things we share with other people instead of the differences, and try to let everyone have a better day.
@@leebennett1821 Thats not what he said he said that it's unlikely there's a god but there's no way to know there isn't so ultimately you can't prove your point so why hate the other said for their point because they can't prove it
@@joshuawright4198 The Trouble is what we Believe affects our actions you must acknowledge some Actions that are Done in accordance with Religious Belief are harmful for Example with holding Medical Aid from a Child Because of a Religious Belief
It's a common mistake in this debate that agnosticism is placed as some kind of middle position between theism and atheism, and it's a bit of a bugbear of mine. Gnosticism and Theism are two different planes/dimension entirely; an X axis and a Y axis, if you will. The former concerns claims to knowledge or knowing something, the latter concerns the worship or belief in a god or gods. Most atheists are agnostic atheists: they don't worship god yet don't claim to know there isn't a god (it's likely they arrive at atheism because they are agnostic). I'd say a lot of religious people are agnostic theists because faith, by definition, is believing in something regardless of whether you know it's true. I don't think I've ever met a gnostic atheist - rationally, they're incompatible positions. But I have certainly met gnostic theists; those claiming to know of the existence of god/gods.
Half the problem is that people have different definitions of what they think "atheism" and "agnosticism" are, to the point where they become meaningless labels. The question shouldn't be "Are you an atheist or an agnostic?" It should be "Can you tell me what you believe?"
"The question shouldn't be "Are you an atheist or an agnostic?"" Right, because that is a faulty question, since it assumes that the two labels are mutually exclusive, which they are not. Hence, the problem with different definitions. "It should be "Can you tell me what you believe?"" Well, that is a bit silly and vague because you could say that about anything, i.e. words, labels, ideologies. We use words because they have meaning.
...There's nothing wrong with the terms Atheist and Agnostic. They don't mean similar, or even samey-sounding things, you're just an idiot. One is taking the philosophical stance that God is [probably] a load of shit. The other is _not_ behaving like an edgy 12 year old, and admitting there _are_ in fact limits to what one can be sure of. Take your pick.
I always say I'm an agnostic atheist because I tend to swing between the two sides. I'm not utterly convinced there's really anything but on the other hand imagining there's nothing when I die is pretty depressing so like David said I WANT there to be some sort of wish granter when I die so I can go world hopping. I suppose my beliefs are pretty agnostic but they seem really atheist to me as well in how I approach them. Not to mention I hate saying I'm agnostic purely because some people interpret it to mean i believe in some form of god and Christians and that take delight in it. But that is far from the truth. I don't believe in it but I know that I want there to be some sort of God system upstairs (I'm more inclined to wish for a multiple gods system rather than just a one for all one). Believing is faith without fact. Wanting has no faith or fact it is just impulse.
No it's because you don't realise what drives a lot of religious people. You automatically fantasise that you are more intelligent than them, but really you're weak and just want to feel superior, just like those religious people
Father Christmas is a comforting thought, and I would like it to be true that a benevolent old man delivers Yuletide gifts to all the well-behaved children in the World.
The big difference is that Father Christmas was definitely made up. Furthermore, Father Christmas isn't being posited by anyone as the potential cause of there being something rather than nothing. Father Christmas not existing doesn't create a mystery. God not existing creates a mystery of what caused stuff to exist, and in the way that it does.
@@Picnicl The big similarity is that there is exactly the same amount of evidence for Father Christmas as there is for God. Father Christmas not existing does create a brief mystery for children, when they are told he doesn't exist they invariably ask, 'so who brings us our Christmas presents?' When it is explained to them that's it's actually Mum and Dad, they accept the fact; theists never grow up.
@@Arkatox Atheism is not the assertion that there is no God, it is the lack of belief in a God. If you don't believe in a God, you are by definition, an atheist.
@@Arkatox From the Oxford dictionary: "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." "A" is a negative prefix. For example, when used in asexual, it means not sexual. When used in atheist, it means not a theist. No one can know that there is or isn't a God. The fact is, most agnostics are atheists, including Mr Mitchell.
@@hatchingdraggon8073 I don't think you listened to what David Mitchell said. At the end of the day it is commonly accepted athiest means belief there are no gods while agnostic is we can not know for sure.
I hate this "You're taking away people's comfort" argument. If I take away the bottle from a drunk, I'm taking away his comfort. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken away.
People fear there being nothing because all we know is the continuity of our lives and we are hard wired to not want it to end. But in the case of nothing there's no fear or pain possible. Imo there's comfort in nothing.
It's not a "disdain for people who find that a comfort". It's disdain for the attached aspects. Because religion rarely just gives the comfort, it attaches demands. It also threatens with discomfort. To obediently follow whatever is told. To believe those who arent part of your "comfort" are evil. To indoctrinate children into your beliefs. All these things are very commonly attached, and they are the problem. Not that some guy finds some comfort in an afterlife.
atheism is an umbrella. If you are not convinced that there exist a deity or deities, then you lack the conviction that these things exist, you are therefore an atheist. If you're not sure or you think it might be possible, then ok fine maybe you are an agnostic atheist. If you are convinced there is NO god or any gods anywhere, you're a gnostic atheist. Either way...if you do not answer "yes" to the question "are you convinced of the existence of one or more deities?" then you are an atheist. Semantics aside, that is the unavoidable conclusion.
***** Tradition and respect. It's a Jewish thing. Kinda loses a bit in the digital medium, but the premise is that G-d's name is to be treated with respect, so it's improper to write it on something that would be crumpled up, thrown away, or used to line a birdcage. There's ritual methods to dispose of worn prayerbooks or torahs respectfully. For similar reasons blessings used in recordings (songs, movies, for mass entertainment rather than education) are often subtly changed to alter the name used for G-d to a common similarly sounding standin (Adoshem), so that there's no possible concern about the recordings then being tossed in the trash. For that matter many (perhaps all, not sure) of the words for G-d used in prayer books do not translate phonetically to what's said (YHWH (well, the Hebrew equivalent) is very different, for example, but probably easily recognized to many laypeople. I've also seen YY (again, the Hebrew equivalent) used. I think there's a few more, but as a Jewish athiest it's been a while since I've been in services.)
***** It depends on usage for me. Referring to belief in a god is different from referring to belief in G-d. I think it also relates to the usage of abbreviations and standin names. To use your example, it's like your dog's name isn't Dog, but you refer to him as Dog because his true name isn't appropriate outside of the Temple, and then it's used enough that referring to Dog people know what dog you mean, so then Dog takes on similar issues of respect and use.
+Myles Adams No. Do you believe in the existence of a god or gods? Yes, and it can be known and demonstrated: Gnostic theist Yes, but it's all faith and can't be proven: Agnostic theist ANYTHING BUT YES + I don't claim to know: Agnostic Atheist Anything but yes + I know for sure: Gnostic Atheist.
People need to admit that they understand what is meant by these kinds of statements instead of trying to flex on everyone with their knowledge of semantics. "Doubt is healthy and rational, but faith and hope aren't inherently wrong or harmful." That is obviously the argument being made here regardless of how the words are technically defined.
Yes faith is wrong and harmful. It's in fact harmful BECAUSE it's wrong, it's wrong because it isn't right, it isn't right because it isn't true and well meaning lies, white lies and all other forms of "good lies" are in fact not good. Being honest and truthful is simply far too important. Lies get in the way of the truth and the truth matters, it really matters and the sooner you know the actual truth, the sooner you can actually move forward. The argument for faith as a lie is an argument to live your life as a lie, it's literally "ignorance is bliss". Ignorance should never be aspired to. Religion isn't bad or good because of what it teaches to me as far as morality or ethics, it's bad, because it purports to be true and isn't. It lies every day endleslly to billions of people and the truth is too important to accept anything but the truth.
@@sparkzbarca This is the best explanation I've ever seen or heard. Lots of people don't get this, and I understand why, plenty of Atheists point out stuff they disagree with in the Bible and so it's assumed that the argument against religion is about the morality of the religious person, but it's really not, it's about truth and lie. There's simply no reason to believe in a God unless there is concrete evidence, that should be the end of it.
@@fellinuxvi3541 I think this is too much. Is it really _lying_ to say we might be living in a simulation for example, just because we have no evidence for it? Being an agnostic atheist is not giving up, but rather acknowledging we don't know for sure and should continue to ask questions, rather like science.
@@ab8jeh It isn't, but those who believe in simulations don't usually demand faith. I gotta say, in these two months I've reconsidered a lot about faith, and I'm not as against it as I used to be, but I still consider it something rather sinister to ask of people, I wouldn't dare ask to be trusted with anything I cannot prove, but I guess since most modern religions don't teach a literal interpretation of their texts, it's less harmful to follow religion now than it was during, say, the inquisition or the middle ages.
@@fellinuxvi3541 Indeed. Organised religion that indoctrinates the young at an early age is something quite different to coming up with an individual position over time after exploring the subject as fully as possible from many viewpoints. Whether the latter is truly possible is up for question, but we can strive for it I guess. Anyway, some questions cannot be answered, and definitely should not be the basis for organised religion!
See I'm an atheist and I actually think one of the greatest things about religion is the fortitude and resilience it gives people. The things people have accomplished a d overcome because of their faith is awe Inspiring and I wish I had that kind of faith in myself and other people because without God that's all we have.
As a wonderful song goes: "I believe there's nothing after life goes by/ I believe it's over when we die, die, die/ Others may be thankful their beliefs are strong/ but every night I'm praying that I'm wrong, wrong, wrong"
@@Wisdomdigger101 I very well may be wrong. It is just a silly song after all. While I, like so many others, find comfort in the idea of Divine Retribution for those who do wrong in the mortal world, im not sure my desire for that to be the case means it is necessarily true. Hence the "Every night I'm praying that I'm wrong, wrong, wrong" However, I am happy for your strong conviction :)
@@Wisdomdigger101 The problem with that is we have absolutely no evidence for such a thing. The real world isn't fair, a lot of shit happens to people who don't deserve it. Why is it so obvious that the afterlife, should it exist, is any different? Personally I always think our beliefs should be guided by the evidence we see. Unless we have evidence to show something exists, we should assume that it doesn't. Not exactly an extreme position I don't think. Nobody knows if there's an afterlife and there's no evidence to suggest it, much less any details of it. That's not to invalidate your beliefs of course, not at all. But just don't present them as clear as day absolute fact, when it is far, FAR from it. Just makes you come off as closed-minded.
@@paredesmarcangeloc.621 I would not expect you, or anyone, to. It is the chorus of a song called "After Life Goes By" by the Folk duo Lou & Peter Berryman. Peter Berryman is imo one of the most extrodinary lyricists in the world and everyone should witness his brilliance
Obviously, as an agnostic, David would see agnosticism as the most rational response to the world as we see it. If he didn't, then I would imagine he would convert to whatever he DID consider the most rational response. Not all atheists are out to destroy the beliefs of others. I'm an atheist but I would be mortified if someone abandoned their faith simply because I'm an atheist. Obviously that wouldn't happen even if I did try to change them. I know lots of religious people and I make no secret about my own atheism but I don't think anyone I know has ever ceased to take comfort from their faith simply because they know some bloke who happens to be an atheist. I will accept that many atheists seem to distain the comfort that others take from their faith and try to bring religious people around to their own way of thinking. But they don't succeed because a religious belief or lack thereof is an intangible concept that cannot be proven either way. People obviously do convert to other religions or lapse into atheism and, indeed, there are atheists who become religious. But it's always a conclusion arrived at after a degree of soul-searching rather than being convinced by someone who holds a different view.
My worry is the damage that religion does to peoples thinking and how religion takes the responsibility for their own actions and gives it to a invisible friend
@@gowdsake7103 I guess a distinction has to be made between religious people that follow the teachings morally and are rational with their beliefs, willing to apply critical thinking to what they read and use their religion for good and other religious people that will treat it like a cult, or use it as an excuse for sexism which I have a particular annoyance at because it contradicts most of the other parts of the bible which talk about loving others, but they will choose to focus on a particular sentence and use that for hatred
@@ryclemo4942 How can you even differentiate ! Religion at its heart is all about avoiding responsibility for your own actions, thats why the devil was invented As for the bible and morals hmmm It really isnt a moral book in many ways and most christians ignore the 613 commandments But the bible openly supports slavery, rape, homophobia, child abuse, misogamy and mass murder
@@gowdsake7103 I think once again the problem is not the idea that we should forgive others, but the idea that people can get away with stuff and then just repent it, which isn't at all how it should work but the problem is that people think that's how it works. I feel like there is also a split between people who take the bible too literally and others. The bible is full of contradictions and while it is written about God it's written by humans who are prone to getting stuff wrong and talking about what is accepted at the time (e.g. homophobia) which does not reflect today's beliefs or God's views, but some will say I'm speaking heresy and choose to hate on anyone who doesn't fit the Old Testaments' narrative.
Even though the ideas pertaining to atheism are a part of agnosticism, I don't think its wrong for an agnostic person to say they're not an atheist as it just means that atheism is not their sole belief
The thing is, atheism is about belief/lack of belief. If you believe there is a god, you're a theist. if you don't believe in a god, you're an atheist. Agnosticism is about knowledge. If you're an agnostic, you're saying you can't be sure that there is a go. So it is possible to be an agnostic atheist. You can believe there isn't a god, but accept that you cannot KNOW there isn't one. People should really realise this. It's not a case of you have to be either a believer (theist), a "don't know" (agnostic) or a non-believer (atheist).
Sums it up so succinctly. I was previously in the Hitchens school of thought when it came to religion but now I realize it's literally what gives so many the strength to face everyday struggles that would consume them otherwise.
Agnosticism is just much more logically sound than Atheism, because it addresses the issue of our inability to truly know. It has more intellectual integrity.
Hitchens always professed that he was happy for people to believe if they kept it to themselves, the problem was they rarely didn't, especially in america. Edit: to paraphrase old hitchens again. This opinion is also incredibly patronising. 'Oh, some people *need* religion to get by, I dont, but some people do'. Maybe if we empowered people with reality, rather than make believe they will deal with shit better.
@Thomas Clifford agreed, but also the US is the only (I think?) Secular nation in terms of government, yet all (if not, most) nationals are religious to their core, thats a problem.
@@amosungar5248 someone claims God exists. I say "I don't believe you until you demonstrate your claim to be true. Do you think that that is an intellectually dishonest position?
Except, it doesn't. Deism and spirituality lets people have that comfort, not religion. Christianity, Islam, etc. are just that added layer of "this is true, you can't question it" that's used to abuse, control and extort people. We should be tearing down that wall and guiding the religious to spirituality and deism, but, like always, the religious structures have labelled that as an attack and you can't criticise someone's religion without them claiming their source of comfort is attacked.
It is good to see a celebrity - especially a British comedian - being so frank and rational about this. I was 'agnostic' for several decades before coming to the Christian faith - and I did so, at first, on purely rational grounds ( I have a degree in Philosophy - though now I appreciate the limits of 'reason' ).
Taking away the comfort isn't the issue Atheism deals with. Its fighting against religious zealots trying to force their beliefs on to others, especially those that dont want it. If you are religious, and take comfort in it, and don't bother anyone about their beliefs, then more power to you. The moment you use your religion to bring harm to another, be it psychical, or psychological, you are removing the tolerance for you and your beliefs. That said, im sure there are Atheist Zealots out there as well. Not saying there is not or that they are always right. But i understand why they are bringing a loud voice, as that seem to be the only way to be heard over the loud voice that is religion. And im personally, kind of tired of Laws being based on outdated religious beliefs.
David seems to be referring to the atheists who will go to anyone who says they have a religious belief (even if they aren't trying to force it upon anyone in any way) and telling them that they're wrong for it. He's talking about the atheist zealots who attack people who are not zealots. And that is just trying to strip them of the comfort given to them by their God or whatever.
Clearly it may give some people comfort as they face the possibility of oblivion. But what about those who genuinely believe they are about to be tortured for all eternity? Their last days might not be so palatable.
I can't speak for other faiths, but Christianity's whole shtick is about the redemption of the sinner. If a person believes that they are going to hell, they must also believe in a forgiving God before whom they can be redeemed. And it is in the aid of the dying who fear hell that priests, pastors, and ministers of all stripes visit the dying, at home and in hospitals, to help them on the way to redemption.
You don't know what the two terms mean. Atheism isn't a claim, atheism is the rejection of a claim. Agnostic atheism is "I don't believe there is a god, but I don't know". And since there is, as per your admission, no evidence to suggest there IS a god, the default position is "I don't believe". Mitchell said he doesn't believe there is a god but he can't know for sure, therefore he is an agnostic atheist. What he WANTS to be true is immaterial and has no bearing on his atheism/agnosticism.
@@horatioredgreenblue2130 That is not true. Atheism is the rejection of a claim. As an agnostic atheist myself I don't believe in any of the gods that people currently claim are real, yet don't claim for certainty none of them are real.
@@bennylloyd-willner9667 it really isn't. I don't believe in any of the current gods that people believe in, but I'm open minded enough to believe if enough evidence convinces me.
Excellent statement of what agnosticism is, and why it is most definitely not the same as atheism. I say that as someone who is proudly agnostic, of course. I love this take on the issue.
@@snichelsticks8653 Gnosticism is knowledge or a claim of knowledge about something. Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge or claim of knowledge. Theism is belief in god(s). Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). There are gnostic theists, agnostic theists, gnostic atheists, and agnostic atheists.
No idea why this popped into my feed after 11 years, but allow me to explain. Agnosticism is not a pitstop on the road between theism and atheism. Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge. Atheism is a statement of belief. I am an agnostic-atheist, meaning I don't believe in god, but I can't prove one doesn't exist (though I believe certain traits are self-contradictory, meaning a god with those traits can't exist). There are gnostic-theists (believe in God and think they can prove it exists), gnostic-atheists (don't believe in god and think they can prove it doesn't exist), agnostic-theists (believe in god but can't prove it exists), and agnostic-atheists.
If you are reading this and you’re Agnostic, do you come from a religious upbringing? It just occurred to me that most Agnostics probably started out religious as is the case with Mitchell. For me personally I probably was Agnostic for a period but it was like a stepping stone towards Atheism.
I was brought up as a Lutheran and stepped away when I was in my teens. I don't know if I'll ever fully step into Atheism because it's simply impossible to determine. Similar to how the big bang theory is impossible to 100% prove, there being a God is impossible to 100% disprove
It's reasonable, but certainly not logical. He flat out says he's not an atheist because he "wants there to be something". That's very relatable, but reality doesn't care what you want, and the burden of proof is on those trying to convince people that there is some sort of god, not on those of us who dismiss the notion just as we do the existence of the Greek pantheon, leprechauns and ghosts.
@gowdsake7103 What do you find difficult to understand about someone being on the fence about something that can neither be proven nor disproved? Let me guess, you're one of these pseudo-intellectual soyboys that claims to "fucking love science", but will claim with 100% conviction that God does not exist despite being unable to prove your point.
@@fluffynator6222 Seriously. "Sure, people kill because of religion, but people kill for all kinds of reasons, and it make 'em feel nice" is a shockingly dumb statement for someone like David Mitchell.
Atheist and agnostic aren't mutually exclusive options. Anyone who doesn't have an explicit belief in a god is an atheist. An agnostic is someone who thinks it's impossible to _know_ anything about the nature of gods. Unless you actually believe in the existence of a god, you are an atheist. That's just what the word means: "without (belief in) a god". If anything, agnosticism is more radical than atheism, because you're not just saying you personally don't believe in a god, but you're saying it's *impossible* to even _know_ *anything* about gods (so others who claim to believe in gods are wrong or lying).
You’re Missing necessary nuance, I think. You cannot KNOW there is a good, but you have FAITH. That’s a believer. An agnostic does not have faith to rely on.
@@dreboyle167 - I simply pointed out the definition of the words (that results from their etymology), which a lot of people seem to get wrong (sometimes to the point of _swapping_ them around, or confusing "atheist" with "anti-theist"). And I'm pretty sure the whole point of "faith" is that people with faith *know* (as in, are *fully* convinced / have *no doubt* that) there is a(t least one) god. Those _without_ faith in a(t least one) god are *atheists.* That's what the word means, and David clearly seems to fit that definition. Agnostics are the ones who claim it's *impossible to know* anything anything about the nature or existence of gods. It's _less_ clear whether David fits that definition as well, but he might.
There’s different meanings to it. If you ask a lot of people, they would refer to agnosticism as being unsure if god exists, whereas an atheist will answer that question as ‘no’. An agnostic person would usually say ‘i don’t know’
@@janusmcgee8909 The problem is people using one word when two are needed. The Political Compass covered this issue very well when they pointed out that politics needs two axes. Right and Left cover financial choices but you need an authoritarian vs libertarian axis to cover how much power you believe the government should have. Atheism and agnosticism are not on the same axes so you end up with problems when people use one word to describe themselves. You need an axis for how much you believe in God or gods and a separate axis for how much proof you believe there is or could be for God. So someone who is completely atheist would say "But I have no proof that god exists or doesn't" if they were completely agnostic or "because the existence of any gods is impossible" if they were also completely gnostic. The opposite corners have the gnostic theist "I believe in God - here is the proof He exists" and the agnostic theist "I 100% believe there is something, but I don't know what it is"
I have only one firm religious belief: that there is a special hell reserved for TH-cam experts. For all eternity the devil stabs them with a pitchfork while they argue that that is not, in fact, a trident.
@@creativecredence850 My pastry cutlery has three prongs. Are they tridents? If yes, is a trident cutlery? Does that make Neptune someone stoked for some cake?
I'm an atheist myself, but I fully agree with David on the subject I think. There's no real reason to hold religion in disdain, and it does act as a comfort for a lot of people. I don't personally value that comfort, but I would never wish to take that from another
Actually, he's an agnostic atheist. One cannot be merely an agnostic but must have an underlying belief of whether or not they're convinced there is a god. So, he's not just an atheist, but an agnostic atheist.
Agree with everything aside from it not being the most rational, people still talk as if atheism is some sort of belief itself, it’s not. It’s just not believing in any god or religion and as there is no shred of proof…that is the most rational. Not least because there have been scientific discoveries that can prove religious claims wrong too. “We don’t know” is always what scientists say to things that they can’t yet explain, to say that religion is a rational choice (even just potentially) to answer those questions cannot be rational either
Atheism: The belief there is not a higher power Agnosticism: Lack of belief in a higher power. Often people say one and mean the other, usually it's atheist when agnostic would be more appropriate. Where's his error?
@Colin Thisaname That's not the actual modern dictionary definitions. While atheist was originally a-theist as you say through use it evolved to mean a positive claim that there is no god. And so agnostic was coined as a term to provide distinction
@@rowanbrown5541 Atheism is about belief (or the lack of it). Agnosticism is about knowledge. There's no information on the existence of a god and so I'm an agnostic atheist.
For anyone who came into contact with philosophy, this is just ridiculous. Theism/atheism deals with claims to *belief* - you either *believe* there are some gods or you don't. Gnostic/agnostic deals with claims to *knowledge* - you either claim to *know* something or you don't. So one can be an agnostic atheist - holding no god beliefs and making no claims to knowledge, or a gnostic atheist - claiming to know that there are no gods. Both are atheists because they hold no god beliefs, they don't believe there are any gods.
nikolaneberemed Hooray, someone does understand. You'd think Mitchell would know this shit. The root latin isn't exactly complex, and he is definitely the type to rant about how improper the common usage of the 2 terms is.
Yes, while Radgar lists the technical definitions, David seems to be using the popular connotation of "uncertain." I think what he means is quite clear.
@@OctopusGrift the problem with those usages is that they crippled our power to offer meaning and important descriptions. The minimum requirement for someone to be an atheist doesn't include knowledge or even to make a negative claim against the god concept. Using a single label to criticize the act of the rejection of claim(Atheism) and the promotion of a knowledge claim(Antitheism) is just ignorant and dishonest. We expect from people like David to be more responsible that ordinary illiterate people.
You have to start with a blank sheet of paper. If your starting point is that you want there to be something then you will be pulled in that direction. An Atheist doesn't want there NOT to be a god. They just go where any evidence takes them. It's just that there is zero evidence to take them anywhere.
We like the idea that there is something else, we want that to be true, but only because we are alive and we cannot wrap our heads around the fact that there could be nothing. The thing is, once you are gone, all that fear and doubtfulness goes away, because you are dead.
I remember when I identified as an atheist in my adolescence that I was really put off by the snobbishness of other atheists. Ironically, they were projecting evangelical attitudes with their beliefs. I'm aware not every atheist acts like this, but coinciding with the whole belief system that David just described, I truly felt like I didn’t belong. It wasn’t until at 20 I really started to think things through, especially the fact that my sense of instilled moralism was probably due to me surviving Stage IV cancer at four months old. So therefor, I comfortably identify as a theist. But I believe every religion has it’s pros and cons. We’re all trying to make things work in this brief existence we have on this planet.
That's the thing though, you don't need religion for your spiritual and deistic life to flourish and provide comfort. When one takes that step from "I think there's a loving god" to "The Bible speaks for him", you've stepped into a realm of insanity, persecution and exploitation. Religion is the extra layer added to deism to extort people.
@@Capybarrrraaaa that's an interesting point. I believe, as a Christian, that "religion" is just a category used to define Christianity which makes it sound like a strict set of rules, but Christianity is actually about the relationship we have with God thanks to Jesus. The Bible, then, isn't a set of rules, but it's 1. Letting us know of God's love and 2. Setting out guidelines God has given to us for living this good relationship. People unfortunately then take these guidelines and bend them into rules which give them unjust power over others. So I'd slightly alter your point by saying the Bible doesn't lead to exploitation, but the way it's wrongly used does.
@@robeldridge5668 The problem with that is that we know so little about the authors of the bible, we just cannot trust their opinion of what happened. Which makes every interpretation almost identically justified. Which drops people down to Christ-flavoured deism, but then that's not supported by reality, because the only thing pointing to the Christ-god is the Bible anyway. Which drops the point down to deism. God-belief is fine, but I really can't say that any religion layered on top is inaccurate to that god's will at best, and just plain exploitative at worst.
@@robeldridge5668 I don't think that's entirely fair in that the whole premise (and claim) of The Bible- to have any validity or authority at all- rests upon it's Divinity. Therefore to be truly Divine it _Must_ be taken as written without "Diluting" a lot of the claims and demands it makes. Otherwise that would be- like in the past- Herecy. If we are to accept that it is not in fact Divine, and is purely a work of humanity then it holds no merit in the Physical sense- it is merely a collated compilation of associated mythological texts ( Which of course, in a small sense it is after Constantine's involvement at the first Nicea Council). In terms of LIterature it is absolutely a valuable asset of culture and writing but as a representation of the Physical realm (and more than that) it becomes no more valuable than Beowulf. I prefer to look at it as an Historical source. It is not a good source- we cannot identify (precisely) it's origin or even authorship nor the exact time frames involved (Did the original author witness these supposed events or not? We have estimates and supposition). It is after all a piece of Religious Propaganda- it's purpose is to proseletyse. If there were an equivalent text that was simply the adulation of a Monarch we wouldn't treat it as potential verbatim reality- we would assess it like any other text. That's my only issue with The Bible, Torah or Qu'ran- there seems to be a hesitancy to truly analyse them as a purely Historical Document/ Source. I mean the very premise of the Qu'ran is no more reliable than The Book of Mormon- a man makes a claim that something happened when no one else was there to see it (In that case, seeing Jibril appear before him in a desert cave and commanding him to learn to read and write to then start the Qu'ran). That is not a reliable Historical Source yet it's not commonplace to state that. I don't mind at all what people believe- only what effect their belief should have on others- if it's any at all then we have a very obvious issue.
@@Capybarrrraaaa I have to disagree. It's easy for us to say we developed morals on our own without external influence but that's because Western society (and the world at large) has already been moulded by Christian and Muslim values and principles. Without religion, morality is no longer objective and instead becomes subjective. In other words, the terms right and wrong become meaningless because they turn into abstract terms that are completely open to interpretation. For example, in Nazi Germany, people genuinely felt it was 'right' to persecute and kill innocent Jews, even though we both know that it was a heinous crime against humanity. And we believe that because of the religious values that society's inherited throughout the ages, even though the attachment to religion has largely been lost.
I could respect people taking comfort in the belief in God if I could get someone to explain to me why it's comforting that their suffering, rather than being simple bad luck, is instead being intentionally inflicted on them by a being that nominally cares for them, and that the best case scenario is that they'll have forever to reflect on the inscrutability of the reasoning behind this. Also, why does anyone mind death? Being dead is just like being asleep, and nobody goes to bed terrified that they might not be woken up at 4am by a whining dog because otherwise their consciousness wouldn't be blissfully annihilated for another three hours and who wants that?! The only scary part of death is DYING, which I can surely imagine is an unpleasant experience, but even the most devoted believer would concede that, even if they don't think they STAY dead, they still have to go through the PROCESS of dying, and why would you find comfort in the idea that you have to go through all the unpleasant parts of being mortal without getting to enjoy the payoff?
@@anotheruserism Most atheists have ! Although I bet you never studied the Greek or Roman gods ? The Egyptian, ever read the Quran ? book of the dead ? I I bet for sure you cherry picked your particular version of self excuses
@@gowdsake7103 you mean the Islamic new believers course I did? Always amuses me the assumptions people make and then they claim to be all about facts!
Thank you David for such a reasoned comment. I am a liberal Crhistian (I think that's what I'd call it) and I feel a connection to agnostic. Because who is arrogant enough to think they know for sure.
I get his point, I don't want to rip away anyone's comfort blanket if they aren't hurting anyone. But if you don't think there is a god you are an atheist by definition.
@@Sir_Sethly I can't find the clip, but I think it was on an episode of The Daily Show. If I had to guess, I would say the context was most likely in reference to people committing violence in the name of their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, that doesn't really narrow it down much, does it?
@@adamellis6785 It’s a pretty idiotic claim, religion has caused division yes, but not nearly as much as atheists claim. 7 percent of the wars have been religious. Not to mention the violence and division caused by atheism and anti theism, which is a thing as hard as it is to believe.
@@tsarnicholasii274 I'd be very interested to see this comprehensive study of historical warfare that displays the percentage of wars that were started/based on religion...maybe the number you just pulled out of your ass is right, maybe its 7%..maybe its 90% the idea that anyone knows is laughable.
@@DJ_Dopamine You might be a scientist, but you aren't very good at logic. Anyone is free to believe that there isn't a God. There is therefore nothing "illogical" about being an atheist.
You're right. For this reason, everybody is actually "agnostic" with respect to God, and I'm surprised that David Mitchell isn't honest enough with himself to realise that he is in fact an atheist.
Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. You can be both. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. An agnostic is someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, if a god exists. So you can believe God does not exist and also admit that you do not know if God exists. One is about belief and one is about knowledge. I struggle to understand how someone smart and seemingly well read like David Mitchell doesn't know the distinction. Every atheist is also an agnostic as they would admit that, whilst they don't believe there is evidence of the existence of God, they would also have to say that they do not know whether there is a god.
Agnosticism is not mutually exclusive with atheism. I would think David Mitchell would get that... almost all self described agnostics are also atheists, and almost all self described atheists are also agnostic.
just want to point out that the argument David just made could also be made for the existence of the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. Wanting something to be true doesn't mean that it is (despite a very loud group of people saying it does these days)
He didn't argue that god exists, you made that part up in your head. He also didn't say that wanting something makes it true. He just said that he wants it to be true. You added the "and that makes it true" part in your head.
@@therentboys7787 Agnostisism is a question of knowledge, athiesm is a question of belief. I can tell you with much certainty 99% of athiests do not deny there being a god, they deny EVIDENCE of their being a god. Saying "there is no evidence of a god, and thusly I do not believe in a god" is a perfectly rational response to a question on belief. Agnostics are defined as "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God". That's about KNOWING, not believing. You can be an agnostic atheist, as you can be an agnostic theist, but claiming there is a middle ground is a bit deceptive.
@@joshuahollowell9170 Thank you! I love David Mitchell, but claiming that agnosticism is more logical than atheism just doesn't make sense. The two terms are not mutually exclusive and you explained it perfectly.
As soon as you get into different types of agnostic or atheist it’s becomes quite theist. Keep it simple. “I do not know, I probably can’t know”= agnostic. “I refuse to believe and do not want to believe”= atheist. “I believe in something, I’ve chosen a belief system” =theist. “I believe, I have a rigid structure of a belief system and I’ll bloody well tell you every opportunity I get maybe something worse “ =fundamentalist. I think ‘I don’t know but it’d be nice if I saw my mum again because I miss her’ or ‘this is a terrible life and I hope there’s something that will help me or something better at the end of all this’ are perfectly reasonable things to believe. Who are we to tell people they can’t. It’d be cruel and unkind. I can’t quite bring myself to believe in such a thing.. but then, I miss people I’ve lost. And if I was in a truly truly awful place .. I may well hope for something more “There’s no atheists in the foxholes” as the saying goes...
I like that sentiment. If you draw comfort from a belief without hurting anybody, I for one will never attempt to pry it from you just because I don't believe. Most empathetic atheists probably wouldn't
I have yet to have people at my door handing me pamphlets about how there probably is no god. I have reports about cars with atheistic stickers on them being routinely thrashed, while cars with religious stickers on them rarely are. Why is that?
Do you believe in a God or believe in any Theism? if your answer isn't yes than you are atheist. If you "don't know" than you are atheist. Atheism is not a belief in something it is a lack of belief in something.
+Michaelreqd He isn't wrong, atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of one more more deities. And if he doesn't believe in that then he is an atheist by definition. Of course, if he doesn't know if there is a god or not then he is an agnostic too. Which is why there is the term "agnostic atheism".
And by using the definition agnostic as michaelreqd did, he is also (probably) agnostic about invisible dragons, little midgets dancing around in your garden when you're not watching, and such sort of events.
This has popped up in my recommendations again and I can see 2 incredibly long comments I left 5 years ago. Jesus Christ I was boring! Arguably I still am, but I can't believe I spent so long arguing against nobody over "The most logical starting point of religious beliefs". I also used so many words to argue quite basic points.
This has also popped up in my recommendations multiple times. I'd be tempted to leave a long-winded comment, but I'm genuinely not sure if I already did so I won't.
To paraphrase Ricky Gervais: "Everybody is agnostic, it has nothing to do with belief. You either belief there is a god or you belief there isn't, nobody KNOWS if there is one. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheist and theism deal with belief, they're in a different category."
@@noelpucarua2843 It's not a matter of what i believe it deals with. "agnosticism, (from Greek agnōstos, “unknowable”), strictly speaking, the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience." That's what it means, which is very close to science and scientific truth.
I can prove that there is no greatest prime number. This is something I can know with absolute certainty beyond experience or phenomena. There are an infinity of those. The belief that one cannot know is provably false.
People often say Agnosticism is a cop out. I think it's the other way around in that atheists so firmly can't accept that we don't know anything. That's the real cop out to me.
I really don't like that people mistake Atheism for always being Gnostic (knowing there is no god). Most atheists I've seen and know about are Agnostic atheists. As in lacking belief in a god. Now if we're talking about a specific god that's a different topic.
@mariatanya3533 3 years is a while to update this. Mitchell is, by normative usages of the word even if he doesn't use the label because his usage of the word doesn't fit how he feels. To me it's the same as a Subway worker saying they're not a fast food worker, they're a sandwich artist. I'd call them a fast food worker and they can call themselves whatever they want
Saying you are agnostic rather than theist or atheist is a fundamental misunderstanding of the question. It is a true dichotomy that you either believe or do not believe in a God. Agnosticism refers to your belief on the ability to know anything for certain. There are agnostic theist (believes there is a God but doesn't claim to know for certain), agnostic atheists (doesn't believe there is a God But doesn't know for certain), gnostic theists (believes in a God and claims to know for certain) and gnostic atheists(believes there is no God and claims to know for certain).
Love David, especially his spontaneous outbursts :-) But here his definitions are not clear and therefore his arguments don't hold up well either. Many have already talked here about difference between agnostics, atheists and anti-theists so I'll focus on another issue that bothers me in David's argumentation: The crimes done by "communists, fascists" etc. are done in the name of a ideology, an -ism. In this sense religion fits into exactly that same category... the belief in an ideal future, a grand narrative and thus justifying specific (ugly) behaviour in the present. Atheists do not believe in a grand narrative, if anything they are mid-range theory based thinkers and actors, hence things have to be verifiable, tangible and not forced to fit into a grand, unproveable narrative such as any ideology or religion.
+Thomas Hardy If your argument is that religion falls under an -ism.. and crimes have been comitted under -isms.. therefor religion is bad as a whole, I fear you won't find much in the ways of good in this world. I personally don't see much harm in the argument David is using, because he's completely right. You're also completely right if you're saying opression (the problems with a lot of the -isms you seem to be describing) is bad, but I think that's a problem bigger than religion itself. As a matter of fact, you're saying brainwashing is a bad thing and thereby admitting David is right in that those bad things we exclusively reserve for religion in this commentsection, are perfectly capabable of manifesting themselves through other means. I seriously can't understand why people take offense at David admitting to wanting and atleast being open to the posibility there's a god. Should we atheists become radical and prosecute and ridicule everyone who admits to believing in a higher power? Would make us a bit hypocritical and oppressive. We don't all want to become Hitchens who is the Atheist's equivalent of a Jehovah's witness. Think that's whom you got the argument from?
+Apkans "Believing in a higher power"... which flying spaghetti monster carries your fancy today? And what actions are you going to justify with that intergalactic teapot? So sorry, no, just because David says; "I don't want something to be not there"... well tough, your personal emotions remain a bad motive when dealing with truth and our attempts at approaching truth. Agnosticism is not a viable intellectual position. It is either a lazy position, ie. avoiding Occam's Razor showing that there is not a single shred of evidence for the supernatural or metaphysical being some people crave... or it is intellectually dishonest by masking ones own emotionality with pseudo-argument.
+Apkans And comparing Hitchens to a hard-core religious person ("Witness of Jehova") is also a dishonest comparison: Hitchens debated anyone willing to join him on stage. When was the last time you saw a J's Witness of any prominence do that? Hitchens also was desperately waiting for good arguments to prove him wrong... as any scientist, one is desperate to further knowledge and understanding by being proven wrong and understanding why and how. Show me any religious person of any form or colour that brings that basic mindset ;-) And you sadly don' t understand the problem of -isms (the "problem bigger than religion itself"). These are the grand narratives humans have tended to crave for guidance and imbued full with emotionality (communism, fascism, nationalism, patriotism, any religion etc. etc.) Every single one is an ideology: purporting to know the ideal state of human kind and thus justifying the means to achieve that end... hence justifying the horrors committed under any of these ideologies (including religion). So when you consider that and then hear David mumbling vaguely he'd like something to be there... remaining uterly vague about everything and nothing... then the honest response should have been: "I have no proof and reason to believe any random metaphysical concept but it is nice and soothing to have that imaginary teddy bear to cuddle".
+Thomas Hardy It could be, that this isn't really something he spends a lot of time thinking of. His approach seems to be fairly neutral to the whole subject, which is fitting and quite common for any agnostic, be they theistic or atheist.
No, David has it correct. Atheism rejects the existence of any god or gods. Agnosticism says I don't know and the evidence for either Deism or Atheism doesn't exist. Agnosticism may not exclude Atheism. But Atheism does exclude Agnosticism. Mutuality therefore does not exist.
David is one of my favourite humans .. at least in tv and movie land ... But his argument is flawed.. Agnosticism and Atheism are mutually exclusive and they deal with slightly different concepts... knowledge and belief ..... i am both agnostic and an atheist .. So is David, by anyones definition
“But I’m not ready to reject it and I’m suspicious of the disdain for people who find that a comfort in their life, and the desperation among some atheists to tear that comfort away from them.” This really resonates with me. I would call myself agnostic and it really puts into words my reasons for being agnostic and not atheist.
David Mitchel: "I don't believe in god, but I don't consider myself an atheist either." Definition: Atheism = disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Still love him though.
+Anna Chris It is though, not only that it's the only rational response to the world as we see it, if it wasn't there would be proof of god's existance and we would have 1 single religion.
His points are based on ignorance. Knowledge is not required in order to reject a claim which is based on faith. Logic is though. He is confusing atheism with Antitheism, with agnosticism.....and ignores the Default Position on an existential claim, dictated by logic.
One thing I think that is important to know is the distinction between "logical" and "rational". Agnosticism (technically a type of atheism) is more logical, as you are acknowledging the fact that you cannot prove one way or the other. "Rational" applies when you have decided to draw a conclusion (in spite of not having all the required data) and choosing to be satisfied with what is deemed most probable. So, I disagree that agnosticism is more rational.
It's about probabilities. Technically, nothing can be proven. There is only likely and unlikely. Gravity can't be proven. If you let go of an object 99 times and 99 times, it falls, when you let go of the object the 100th time, the likelihood is that it will fall. However, there is a tiny, infinitesimal possibility that the object won't fall, that the object will float, thus showing that the theory of gravity is wrong. Because that remote possibility exists, is it reasonable to say that you don't know that the force of gravity exists? Of course not. The probability that gravity doesn't exist is so low, that while it's not exactly zero, for all intents and purposes, you may as well call it zero. It isn't rational to say you don't know if gravity exists. By the same token, the evidence for a natural explanation for existence is so high and possibility of the existence of a deity is so low that saying "I don't know" isn't a rational response based on the evidence. Like the possibility of gravity not existing, the likelihood that God does exist is so low that in scientific terms, it's pretty much as close to zero as you can get, at which point, the rational conclusion to draw is that gravity exists and God doesn't. Agnosticism is based on ignorance. I don't mean that to be insulting. I simply mean that the only way one can be agnostic is if they haven't looked at the evidence or lack thereof. There isn't a shred of evidence to support the God hypothesis. If there was, there would be no atheists. Also, once you say that God is beyond evidence then you are making a faith-based assertion, not a rational, scientific one.
jedsithor The problem with that, as I see it, is that trying to draw a conclusion on the existence of God is getting ahead of oneself, when what God is has not been sufficiently established, even in theory. Ultimately, the people choosing to conclude the (non)existence of God are doing so about their own interpretation of it god, or someone else's interpretation, or worse yet, their interpretation of what someone else inadequately explained was their own interpretation. If, for instance, The Bible is our reference for relevant events, then it's either completely true, partially true, or completely false. As it does, on the whole, contain some historically accurate facts, it is not completely false. Even if, for the sake of argument it is completely true, that does not mean it can or should all be taken literally. The complete exclusion of symbolic writing, in my opinion, is an unreasonable assumption to make. And then there is the possibility of any given writer not fully understanding what they are seeing, and so relating it as best they know how. So what we're left with is a possibility that the thing being called god is real, but that any given person's idea of that thing's qualities is simply inaccurate. If someone is asked if God exists, and that person says no, then even if God does exist, that person could be entirely correct about what they are calling God not existing. People argue about whether or not God exists without it having been sufficiently established what said God actually is, because those people were not their to witness the actual goings-on said to be directly related to said God. That's why I think people who insist one way or the other are being foolish. The lack of information goes much deeper than most people care to consider. Gravity is not something a good comparison, because at least we can see something fall and say, yep, that's gravity. 'God' in spite of the entire Bible, is still so inadequately defined that if it does exist then you could very well see evidence every day and not even realize it. Rationality is about probability. Logic, however is about knowns: the if/then's. Neither existence nor non-existence has been proven, therefore I do not know. That is simply a fact. If a person actually feels it's necessary to take the issue a step further into drawing a conclusion, then they move into the realm of rationalizing. Not everyone feels any need to take that step.
Kirisu Guroundosu I'm not talking about the Biblical God. I'm not talking about any God. I'm talking about the basic concept of a supernatural being without associating that being with any religion. It's the first mistake theists make. They fail to establish a premise for the existence of a divine being and go straight to their own specific dogma, which is utter nonsense. We can talk about the Biblical God if you like. The first two books are proven nonsense. Genesis tells the story of the creation of the world and of early man. Science has already shown how the world was actually created and charted the evolution of life. Exodus tells the story of Moses leading his people to the promised land. Archeology has already shown that the Hebrews were never slaves in Egypt and their religion grew out of a polytheistic religion in Canaan. The Yahweh mythology doesn't begin in a paradise garden or with a burning bush. Yahweh was just one god among a pantheon of Canaanite gods and over time, took on more importance and was elevated to the chief deity and then the only deity. Yahweh's actual rise to prominence has no more substance than the story of Zeus or Ra or Odin. There's nothing special about the Abrahamic God. Therein lies the trouble with arguing for theism. Once you open it up to scrutiny and compare it with reality, it doesn't hold up. If you make the debate about that, then you've already lost. First you must establish whether any divine being can exist before you try to get into the idea of a specific deity. But even sticking with a basic, deistic idea of a divine being without attaching specific religions to it, saying you can't prove it one way or another, therefore you don't know, creates a false equivalency, as if the existence or non existence of God is 50-50. It's not. It's not even a 1% chance. The possibility is so low that it may as well be zero. The gravity analogy is actually a perfect one because as you said, you can measure the effects of gravity. The evidence of experimentation backs up the theory. Essentially, the universe behaves in the manner you would expect if gravity exists. Gravity has evidence to support its existence. God has none. All of the evidence points in the opposite direction, towards a completely natural explanation for existence. A theist will tell you that God is beyond the laws of nature, which is a convenient excuse but at least most theists will admit that their belief in a deity is held in spite of nature. They (well, not Creationists, who are idiots) acknowledge that the universe doesn't support their beliefs but believe anyway. So it all comes down to a very simple question: which is more likely? That the universe and everything in it came into existence through natural means, as demonstrated by the evidence or that in spite of all the evidence, there exists a divine being that created everything, a being that is beyond evidence, beyond the laws of nature, beyond reason and beyond logic? I submit that not only is the natural explanation more likely, the supernatural explanation is so unlikely, as in less than 0.00001% likely, that it's not even worth entertaining. It's more likely that gravity doesn't exists than that God does exist, which is the point I was making.
jedsithor I use the Bible as a well known example to help illustrate the point that a person's idea of the deity is just an interpretation of what is in a book, an unknown amount of which may not be meant to be taken literally. If you take something literally that was spoken symbolically, then you can absolutely prove it wrong, even if the thing being spoken about was an actual event just being descsribed in a non-literal way. That any given "unlikely" or even "scientifically false" thing in the Bible is actually false requires an assumption on top of an assumption. A person's idea that, again just as an example, the Biblical god actually is a supernatural entity is an interpretation. So the perception/interpretation can be false while the falsely described God could be real, just simply falsely describe. Most dogma comes from the interpretation of text. "Proving" there is no supernatural entity that exists beyond the laws of nature does not prove that a given named god didn't/doesn't exist. Personally, as much as I appreciate science, I value logic more, so I don't hold KNOWN science up as trusted 100%. It's not like scientists have never been wrong or that we have reason to believe nothing new will ever be discovered that changes our whole view of what we know. You can't know all that isn't without first knowing all that is. It's only the limit of what we DO know that makes a supernatural entity a false idea. We make judgements based on the information we have, and it doesn't always mean we have all the the information, or that all of what we do have is 100% accurate. Even a bit of knowledge we view as 100% could actually be 85% depending on scale. Let's not turn "science" into god for the sake of proving there is no god. It is the arrogance of many scientists. They lose the humility of "as far as we know".
Kirisu Guroundosu To quote an Irish comedian, science knows it doesn't know everything. If it did, it would stop. You're making a god of the gaps argument. There's lots that we don't know but not knowing doesn't give licence to insert a supernatural explanation. Not knowing doesn't mean there isn't a natural answer. It just means that there's more to find out. There will always be more to find out. But there's no reason to think that any of what we don't know about the universe has supernatural origins. The only time when suggesting a supernatural cause might be acceptable is if we come across a situation that can't be explained by natural means and thus far, that's never happened and as our knowledge grows, the places where a person could attempt to insert a supernatural explanation keep shrinking, which is why the gods of the gaps argument is illogical. The gaps will keep getting smaller. Arrogance is the furthest thing from a scientist's mind. No scientist claims to know everything. Unlike religion, which is arrogant and rejects scrutiny, science requires scrutiny. It is the basis of the scientific method. If evidence emerges that shows that a scientific theory is wrong, the scientists don't hold on to that theory, they adapt it based on the evidence or throw it out entirely if the facts don't support the theory at all. Science changes based on the evidence. Religion doesn't. Science isn't out to prove there is no God. God isn't even part of the equation. The purpose of science is simply to learn about the universe around us, That the discoveries science makes ends up showing that supernatural explanations aren't necessary is something that people will just have to deal with. Charles Darwin was a theist. As was Isaac Newton. The concepts of evolution and gravity weren't conceived by them as a means to dispute God. They simply wanted to understand how the world works.
The fact that we are driven by hatreds, that see us running around killing each other, does more to prove the Bible's message that we are sinners, (souls controlled by a sinful nature) in need of salvation and rebirth, than to diminish it.
I personally am not an agnostic atheist. I am an agnostic. I don't believe there is a god. I don't believe there isn't. I don't believe anything. I know that I don't know whether or not there is one and that he can't be proven. Atheists who deny that pure agnostics can exist because "you have to believe in something!" just sound close-minded when they say that. Hell, they almost sound like the Christians they argue against.
"I don't believe there is a god." Then you're an atheist... that is literally the ONLY component of being one, nothing more and nothing less. No atheist would ever say "you have to believe in something!" because in order for them to be an atheist they would themselves lack belief in a deity. This isn't about the merits of any particular world view, this is simply about language and the meaning of words. Holding the exact positions you have described here fits 100% perfectly under the term atheist by itself with zero qualifications needed. There are of course varying stances that fall under the term, but vilifying the word out of ignorance is just not an acceptable means to disagree with those people. Its anti-intellectual and toxic to the entire process of humans trying to communicate with each other in a civilized manner.
Agnosticism is a form of Atheism, I agree, but there are Atheists out there who make claims that you can't be a pure Agnostic. You're either an Agnostic Atheist or an Agnostic Theist, depending on which side you believe in more. They don't believe you can be dead center.
bonclay123 Incorrect. Theists believe there is a deity, Atheists believe there is not a deity. The belief that something isn't there is just as much a belief as believing it is there. To all intents and purposes, Atheism is a religion, a religion of self. There are people who don't subscribe to either view. It's like watching a fight. Some people want person A to win. Some people want person B to win. And there are some people who have no idea who they want to win. By your logic, because they don't actively want person A to win, they must want person B to win. But likewise, because they don't actively want person B to win, they must want person A to win. Does this mean they want them both to win? Of course it doesn't, it just means they have no opinion on the matter whatsoever. And that is the definition of an Agnostic: someone who doesn't know what they believe!
I am a big fan of David Mitchell, but it's disappointing to see that he has misunderstood the meanings of atheism and agnosticism. They are not competing concepts, they are orthogonal concepts and you can be both at the same time. In fact most people that call themselves "atheist" or "agnostic" are what technically would be "agnostic atheist". (Belief) - Theist = belief in the existence of a god - Atheist = lack of belief in the existence of a god (not same as believing god does not exist) (Knowledge) - Gnostic = Knowing a god exists - Agnostic = Not knowing whether a god exists (Combinations) - Agnostic atheist = Does not know if a god exists, therefore chooses not to believe due to lack of evidence. - Agnostic theist = Does not know if a god exists, but chooses to believe despite lack of evidence. - Gnostic atheist = Knows for a fact that god does not exist, does not believe in god - Gnostic theist = Knows for a fact taht god does exist, believes in a god. So technically David Mitchell is a "agnostic atheist", even if he would want a god to exist. This is also the most rational position, given no evidence and the way we approach anything (beyond the topic of religion). Most rational belivers are "agnostic theists", they would not claim they know god exists or that they can prove it, but they might feel there are signs that he exists or chooses to believe since they think it's good for their life. More extreme believers (like ISIS) are Gnostic theists. They are completely sure they know god exists, no doubt. I've never met anybody claiming to be a Gnostic atheist (claiming they know for a fact that god does not exist), which would be an extreme position. But sady "gnostic atheist" is what many non-atheists think what atheism is! Ps. it could also be that I misunderstand what he is saying.
Most people cant seem to grasp knowledge is a subset of belief so any other answer apart from a positive one yes I belive in god means you are an atheist you can be an agnostic one but whatever
That God does not exist, I cannot deny. That my whole being cries out for God I cannot forget. (Sartre) I'm actually a Christian, but I think this is a profound admission from Sartre and resonates with David Mitchell here.
christianity, islam, communism, capitalism... it all boils down to ideology. We live in a global culture that insists on putting abstract ideas above human good. And certainly, some ideologies are more conducive to violence than others.
Come on. People are arguing because they are defining the words differently. Mitchell also gave a definition of the words he used and by those definitions he is an agnostic. Which is quite close to the, in lack of a better word, classical definition of religious standpoints i.e. theist - believe there are one or more god's or higher power; agnostic - don't know or think we are incapable of knowing if there are o aren't; atheist - believe there aren't even one God. Gnosticism is a religious movement, not a method or standpoint.
@T And Me most atheists I meet are waaaaay more zealous than most religious people I've met. Hence why it's basically seen as a religion by most folk mate. Like how smoking weed isn't a religion but when you meet those guys that have a marijuana leaf on their hat, shirt, lighter and wallet. It seems a bit religious and you realize that you just don't wanna be told "alcohol is a drug" by them anymore.
Honestly watched the first minute and 20 seconds not thinking they would be sitting that close to each other.
Same 😂 Oh what has 2020 done to us?
where are their masks
Even outside of recent events, I would say they are oddly close, given that there is nothing else around them. It feels uncomfortable.
I saw your comment before I saw how close they were to each other, and I still was truly not at all prepared for just how close they are
They _could_ hold hands
“i’m not convinced there’s something, but i don’t want there to be nothing” is the most relatable thing i’ve ever heard
@Maurits there is no truth claim to make with matters like this. there is either belief or there isn’t. and personal preference IS our tool for determining our beliefs
@Maurits you can’t run tests to prove the existence of god or lack thereof. there is no way for humanity to determine fact around this. and whether or not god exists has no bearing on the world, but as david said, a huge effect on morality. and every person i’ve interacted with prior to you has maintained that it is an opinion thing because there is no unobstructed views of god, no perfect truths of religion. most people would say that constitutes as reason to just leave someone alone to their beliefs, not turn into a pedantic ass and wax pseudointellectual in the youtube comments
@Maurits "And if you believe that we should leave eachother alone because we can never determine with certainty whether God exists or not, I simply disagree with you, and I'm sure hundreds of years of theological debate and the vast amounts of scholars and literary works on this question would too."
That simply sounds like someone who wants to argue and dislike something. Believe in it? Dont care. Dont believe in it? Dont care. Want to cause strive because you disagree with someone on the matter of god existing? Now i care because you're making a problem.
Its a toxic behavior at its core and should not be encouraged. And yes, all these centuries of theological debate are meaningless and simply in the wrong. There is no reason to cause strive over this matter. Only false pride encourages someone to do so.
@@dektarey4024 I know this is probably a mistake joining in, but i’d say it isn’t always a matter of atheists causing a problem. While it’s fine for one to chose to believe in avid because it gets them through the day, my personal problem is when a certain god is used as a justification for anything. Any decisions are likely to be influenced by this belief, however, this still isn’t a significant problem until you start using god to justify any number of things, the largest modern one being homophobia, but notable past ones include burning of witches, the crusades, all the various killings/wars caused by divide between protestant and catholics, the catholics killing those who didn’t believe in catholic god. Now in the case of Agnostics, like David speaks about in the video, there is no problem, as they don’t commit to a specific god and system, but those who follow a specific god, and a specific system have an inbuilt flaw in their reasoning, which could influence any number of decisions. So while yes, belief god is not a problem in it self, I would say that belief can be used for false conclusion, and quite often is. while i don’t personally argue with strangers over the internet about gods existence(the present excluded), as it tends to be pointless, i think those that do are understandable, and should not be seen as arguing because they specifically want to argue, but because they have seen what religion has caused.
I hope that this has helped you possibly get an idea of why i personally think we shouldn’t just leave each other alone. If you have any criticisms of my argument or don’t understand one of my points, please let me know, i don’t want this to descend into the normal pointless bickering of youtube comments. Also i recognize this was more of debate between agnostics and atheists, and as a general atheist, I have no problem with agnostics
Added note: I did the classic comment thing of not watching the video fully, and i realize David directly went against what i just said, but just to put down his argument.
One: He make an huge assumption that people look to kill each other and will use any reason to do so, which is not backed up by him, and i find to be a leap. I don’t want to come across pretentious by quoting philosophers, but i’d say that humans aren’t good or bad, but humans are simply the culmination of all of those who exist at any time. If all humans helped each other, then we would be good, even if 100 years before, we all lived in a state of constant fighting, stealing, and killing. We went from bad to good, however we are not inherently either. So this idea that humans just want to kill each other and will find any reason is a bit silly.
Two: He says that many things have been used to justify murder, such as the political ideology. I’d say that this is not relevant, as simply because people kill each other over many things, doesn’t mean that those things are acceptable. I would say that while yes, people have killed over many things, i’d say the less reasons to fight, the less fighting that happens. Simply because people have killed over communism, doesn’t make killing over religion alright. While i would say that killing over anything is not acceptable, ill be honest in ambitions that that is an assumption. With that assumption, i’d say killing over politics is not acceptable either, and we should try and prevent that. without that assumption, i’d say that while there may be an argument that killing over a certain belief is acceptable, like in the example of communism, where by killing you think you are being about a better long term world, this killing is based on a belief which may or may not be true. If the belief(communism) is true, then the killing may be justified(i’d say it isn’t, but i want to avoid assumptions about morality) and if it isn’t true, then killing is not. And this must be applied to religion, where when we can totally conclude that religion is not true(or is unprovable through the means of reason), then killing over religion is not justified, and in turn, we must work to prevent the cause of said killings, religion.
Three: I think i may have already addressed this before but i’ll restate it. He says that even without religion, killing will continue, presumably at the same rate(This is my interpretation, please correct me if you see it differently). I think this implies that in the hypothetical situation that in history, if there were no religion, the killings like the crusades would be replaced by something else, however no proof is given as to why. I’d say that if people had no reasons to kill there would be no killing, and as there are less reasons to kill, less killing takes place.
So, yeah. Once again, any criticism are welcome. I decided to comment hear with the hope of two, equally happy endings(not that kind). Either i convince someone of my argument rationally using facts(or at least make them understand my point), or i am critiqued rationally, and in turn, my views are changed, causing me to become a better, more rational person. I simply hope this doesn’t sputter out into pointless bickering
@@aidensexton3343 JayZus you typed too much but I got through it and agree for the most part. DM is A smart man but he's wrong about this just because he wants to believe like millions of people holding on to childhood fairy tales. There's way too much badness from religious people even apart from killing and I don't wanna type a novel but just look at the USA puritan evangelical trumpets for a start and even if there was a gahd, then it's clearly a POS that's inflicted Untold murder, pain and misery on it's own creations. The flooding of millions of innocent women and children was bad enough but it was only getting started then. Obviously it's nonsense stories used to brainwash and control people
This is one of the most level-headed discussions about religion I've seen anywhere on youtube. Respect.
No it's not, he doesn't understand the terms at all, I imagine he's substituting atheism for the claim there is no god, but atheism is just a lack of a belief in gods.
Furthermore one can be agnostic and atheist, I am myself, one is about knowledge, and one about belief.
And who's taking away the comfort?
The religious don't have to listen to atheists, just like atheists don't have to listen to the crap religious people say.
Religion may be comforting but it can also be a waste of your life, and typically the truth is usually the best thing.
@@colinjava8447 Astonishing how oblivious you are and that's from a non believer.
@@sagnikmondal4058 Oblivious to what
@@sagnikmondal4058 Look up a "gnostic, agnostic" chart, you'll realise Colin is correct
@@Ben-Rogue He's right on the agnostic part sure, though I think it doesn't actually matter that much since everybody understood what kind of people David meant. He is also oblivious to how both atheists and theists can be extremely overbearing for some reason and try to destroy the other person's comfort completely.
Only a comedian could perfectly articulate these very thoughts I've had in my head. Some find comfort in religion. I find comfort in comedy. Having one of my favorite comedians express my feelings about religion through comedy... well peak level achieved.
He's married to Victoria Coren. Of course there's a god. :-)
Since there's now less danger of me being married to that unfunny, annoying woman (albeit, there was very little chance anyway..), I might be tempted to share your opinion.
@@ilikethisnamebetter Yeah well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Lmao
Oh fuck how did I not realize that's where the Mitchell in her name comes from???
@@paulallen579 ,DUDE,
I like David Mitchell.
David Mitchell likes you.
@@eddieburrelli no he doesnt
As do we all!
@@defectivepikachu4582LET THE MAN DREAM DAMMIT!
We all say in unison
He outlined my exact thoughts in a way 10x more eloquent than I ever could
He's wrong though
@@JB_inks That is a matter of personal opinion, when it comes to religion, there is a right and there are wrongs but we have no idea what those are, therefore, saying someone is wrong is disrespectful and hypocritical. We don't know if there is a god and, therefore, anyone is free to make their own opinions.
@@DerPinguim no, not at all. Why don't you ask me why he's wrong? It's not about personal opinions, he's factually wrong about the definitions of the words he's using. As a pedantic person I expected better of him.
@@JB_inks what's wrong about it
@@creeproot he got the definitions of atheism and agnostic completely wrong.
With David's appearance in this video, it's like a glimpse of an alternate universe where Ricky Gervais isn't a bell-end.
And then the waveform collapses and we once again find ourselves in the wrong universe
@ConManliness As much as I like him at times, and his work, he is a proper twat at times, and he's definitely in the category of comedians that mitchell is referring to
@@anokah anyone can be a twat sometimes but Gervais is right and David is talking nonsense here obviously. It's a few years ago so he might've copped himself on since
@@anokah how is he in that category?
@@damienjoseph7540 not everything's about being right all the time, that's kind of the point.
Religion these days is a thing people choose to believe in, not something that people myopically believe in.
So yeah, organised religions are a pain, but the very faith that drives them also leads to great thing. It's not a binary matter where you can say 'religion good' or 'religion bad'. Nothing is that simple
I totally admire and respect what he's saying - he speaks my mind! :-)
I agree with him about "celebrity atheists" assuming that they have the right to lecture others about belief and denigrate them for holding them. I'm right you're wrong. And the argument that a lot of suffering was caused by religion shows a fundamental lack of understanding about humanity. I'm amazed that Dawkins can't see that. He's supposed to have a keen intelligence.
It's nice to see a popular celebrity being so intellectually honest for a change. Very cool!
Even if he’s not being intellectually correct?
@@myopenmind527 You might want to worry about being grammatically correct before you concern yourself with any facet of correctness in other people.
Not being "honest" he is simply say he does not know....which is not an answer either. Of course there is no such thing as a God who seems to be able to do anything ...but does nothing. It also breaks all the law of Physics to suggest there is a magical being who does nothing all day and relies on their unfounded legendary status to be noticed.
@@snap-n-shoot ...no, it is pretty honest to admit you don't know something. I don't know how you can term that as anything other than honest, unless you suspect David of possessing actual concrete proof one way or the other about god.
@@willchurch8376 - He's not being entirely honest with himself though. Atheism and agnosticism address different things. They're not different points on the same scale and he's definitely intelligent and knowledgeable enough to know this. Theism and atheism are to do with belief, whilst agnosticism is to do with claims of knowledge. They are not mutually exclusive. Most atheists are agnostic atheists, as they don't believe in gods and goddesses but don't claim to know for certain. Most things can't be proved or disproved absolutely and this includes all gods and goddesses. Thus agnosticism is the only honest and self-aware position to take. The fact that almost anything is theoretically possible, is not proof and isn't the same as saying that everything is probable. That gods and goddesses can be neither proven nor disproven does not mean that the probability of their existence or non existence is equal and wanting something to be true has no bearing on whether it is, or not. With atheism, it's the matter of a simple question. Do you believe that any gods or goddesses exist? If you do, you're a theist. If you don't, you're an atheist. You either believe, or you don't. Claims of knowledge are completely irrelevant. It's to do with what you believe, not with what you know.
Stop bickering about labels. I feel the same as David, I just don't know and i'm not really keen on ruining anyone else's day so long as they dont try to ruin mine.
Well put
That's what agnosticism is, though? Uncertainty of whether or not there is a god. That's literally what the term agnostic refers to. It's a word that describes a religious view.
Serious? You are equating the existence of God to the existence of square circles? I believe that would qualify as an Argument from analogy fallacy.
Cleveland Brown Fair enough, but religious people tend to band together and push through social changes in line with their beliefs. If you don’t share their view then you might well have your day ruined by them. Evangelical Christians were instrumental in electing Donald Trump for example.
I don't know how David feels, but he appears to be ignorant on what exactly those two letters address.
The issue isn't about the idea of a benevolent god, it's about strict adherence to religious dogma by some that results in the persecution of others. Religion has comforted plenty, but has caused immense pain to others and continues to do so.
as has communism, because strict rules and laws and reasons for ppl to be in power is again a human society trait, not one exclusive to religions of any kind
yes, it's the use of some set of ideas which are unprovable and unarguable as a reason to ignore the needs of some in order to satisfy the desires of others. Any philosophy can be taken to extremes this way - it's obviously an abuse but religion makes if very difficult to argue against the abuse of itself. Jesus is supposed to forgive and be kind and yet I was sent to be beaten at school by priests who were apparently doing it "for my own good and out of love". The purity of the original idea doesn't matter.
Personally, I've never pointed to the immoral acts committed in the name of religion to claim that they're a reason for religion to not exist, but I have pointed to them to point out that religion does not occupy this superior moral high ground that so many religious people claim it does. He's exactly right, people will use any ideology to commit atrocities against one another, including religion, which means it's just like all the rest. I do consider myself an atheist, but with enough agnosticism that I'm willing to shift if someone can present sufficient evidence. Unlike David, I don't have an inherent desire for there to be a supreme being, I find enough comfort just looking at the beauty of the natural order of things to not need that desire. If other people do find comfort in that belief though, as long as they're willing to keep the belief to themselves and not force its ideas on others or cause them harm, then have at it.
I agree completely with you. Unfortunately there have been many wars in the name of religion in the past and will be more in the future I am sure; the "holy land" is still claiming innocent lives as we speak. It is a tragedy.
Define "sufficient evidence". The problem here isn't the word agnostic, nor atheist, but how people define the word "belief". I, as an atheist, do not believe in the existence of any deities. And if there was evidence of deities, there'd be no reason to "believe".
@@WolfRitesI think it’s more ‘faith’ than ‘belief’ that’s the issue. I believe in plenty of things that haven’t been 100% proven to me, simply because there is very strong evidence for them . But ‘faith’ is believing something without any evidence. Faith is the problem.
From my understanding these two terms answers two separate questions, "what do I know" and "what do I believe". In my case I don't know whether or not a God exists, so I'm agnostic in that sense. The lack of evidence for a God leads me to believe that there is no God (or simply a lack of belief in God, whatever you prefer), making me an atheist. I'm therefor an agnostic atheist.
More precisely: "What do I (think I) know?" You can never truly know whether you know something for real, only whether you consider it "knowing" or "believing". (Except for certain extremely undeniable pure-logical truths, such as the fact that you exist.)
Also, you don't have to actively believe that there is no such thing as a god in order to be an atheist. So long as you don't believe that one or more gods exist, you're an atheist. There are even atheistic religions! That is, religions with no deity.
@Time Warp
That is exactly what lack of evidence means: No evidence.
@Time Warp
For the same reason you can't truly know that unicorns or fairies don't exist: There is no proof (note the terminology, I said "proof" and not "evidence" for a reason) that they _don't_ exist. You can come up with reasons and scenarios showing that they _could_ potentially exist without us finding any evidence of them, even though there is no evidence and thus no reason to believe that they do exist.
In order to prove (or even show through evidence) that something _doesn't_ exist, you'd need to know its exact properties, and show that it cannot be found in the places where it would be if it existed, or show that its properties are contradicted by our knowledge of reality, or show how its properties are logically incoherent and therefore impossible.
"God" is a nebulous concept that has many different interpretations, many different entities that fit the description and are alleged to exist (or have been made up for fictional stories), and that are not fully disproved by evidence or logic. The yawning abyss (figuratively) that exists where the evidence for these entities should be is enough reason to believe they don't exist, but it may not be enough to satisfy the conditions for claiming that you _know_ they don't exist - depending on your exact definition of the term "know".
That's how I thought of it when I was an agnostic atheist. Still seems the most useful definition.
since god is impossible to disprove and, unless his face pops out of the sky and he starts presenting us evidence of his omniscience and omnipotence, so is his existence, any question of knowledge is equivalent to a question of believe.
or in simpler terms: if you have no evidence, claiming "I know there is a god" and "I believe there is a god" is the same, since your claim of "knowledge" is solely based on your believe and not on evidence. therefore: atheism and agnosticism is the answer to the same question.
1:27 I don't want to take religion away from people. I just don't want them to force their religion on me. I think everyone should think this should be true regardless of whether you're atheist or religious.
I’m religious and I 100% agree with the rhetoric of your comment
And this is true, I don’t believe he’s met anyone who wants to take belief away from others. Atheists couldn’t care less and aren’t trying to change minds.
Honestly I’ve never been pushed into any religion, and I had been in a catholic school most my life. And if you do, just say no, you have free will. Unless you’re trapped in some kind of cult, being forced into a religion is not that common, or a big problem. Walk away if so.
@@danielcortes1553 It's not about someone forcing you to go to church. It's about someone passing laws that are based on their religion that still rule you.
I thought I couldn't love David Mitchell more than I already did
I was wrong
What a wonderful man he is
Aww so sweet 😢
this is exactly how i feel. he put it in words.
Your a bit soppy and inconclusive then ?
I'm an atheist, and I agree with David. Atheists don't have to try to take other people's belief and hope away, and people would have plenty of excuses to fight and kill without religion. I'd rather look for the good things we share with other people instead of the differences, and try to let everyone have a better day.
I love him. He didn’t bash anyone or anything in this. He very eloquently and honestly spoke his mind
Love David !!!
Religion should not be exempt from Criticism it is not harmless
Lee Bennett never said it should be exempt
That’s not what my comment was about
@@leebennett1821 Thats not what he said he said that it's unlikely there's a god but there's no way to know there isn't so ultimately you can't prove your point so why hate the other said for their point because they can't prove it
@@joshuawright4198 The Trouble is what we Believe affects our actions you must acknowledge some Actions that are Done in accordance with Religious Belief are harmful for Example with holding Medical Aid from a Child Because of a Religious Belief
@@leebennett1821 yes and you can criticise that just not believing in a higher power
It's a common mistake in this debate that agnosticism is placed as some kind of middle position between theism and atheism, and it's a bit of a bugbear of mine. Gnosticism and Theism are two different planes/dimension entirely; an X axis and a Y axis, if you will. The former concerns claims to knowledge or knowing something, the latter concerns the worship or belief in a god or gods.
Most atheists are agnostic atheists: they don't worship god yet don't claim to know there isn't a god (it's likely they arrive at atheism because they are agnostic). I'd say a lot of religious people are agnostic theists because faith, by definition, is believing in something regardless of whether you know it's true.
I don't think I've ever met a gnostic atheist - rationally, they're incompatible positions. But I have certainly met gnostic theists; those claiming to know of the existence of god/gods.
You'd think that a gnostic atheist would be an impossible position to arrive at, but they somehow do exist.
@@iwonakaplon3399 you can dismiss a lot of gods as being fiction though
@@JB_inks not really. Why are you dismissing things you don't know about?
@@iwonakaplon3399 because some gods were undeniably made up. I point you towards the God of thunder, for example.
@@iwonakaplon3399 you literally just did what you falsely accused me of, by the way
Half the problem is that people have different definitions of what they think "atheism" and "agnosticism" are, to the point where they become meaningless labels. The question shouldn't be "Are you an atheist or an agnostic?" It should be "Can you tell me what you believe?"
"The question shouldn't be "Are you an atheist or an agnostic?""
Right, because that is a faulty question, since it assumes that the two labels are mutually exclusive, which they are not. Hence, the problem with different definitions.
"It should be "Can you tell me what you believe?""
Well, that is a bit silly and vague because you could say that about anything, i.e. words, labels, ideologies. We use words because they have meaning.
...There's nothing wrong with the terms Atheist and Agnostic. They don't mean similar, or even samey-sounding things, you're just an idiot. One is taking the philosophical stance that God is [probably] a load of shit. The other is _not_ behaving like an edgy 12 year old, and admitting there _are_ in fact limits to what one can be sure of. Take your pick.
I always say I'm an agnostic atheist because I tend to swing between the two sides. I'm not utterly convinced there's really anything but on the other hand imagining there's nothing when I die is pretty depressing so like David said I WANT there to be some sort of wish granter when I die so I can go world hopping.
I suppose my beliefs are pretty agnostic but they seem really atheist to me as well in how I approach them. Not to mention I hate saying I'm agnostic purely because some people interpret it to mean i believe in some form of god and Christians and that take delight in it. But that is far from the truth. I don't believe in it but I know that I want there to be some sort of God system upstairs (I'm more inclined to wish for a multiple gods system rather than just a one for all one). Believing is faith without fact. Wanting has no faith or fact it is just impulse.
atheist should be renamed as anti religion because that's all those irritating people are. Aethiests tend to lack emotional intelligence
No it's because you don't realise what drives a lot of religious people. You automatically fantasise that you are more intelligent than them, but really you're weak and just want to feel superior, just like those religious people
Father Christmas is a comforting thought, and I would like it to be true that a benevolent old man delivers Yuletide gifts to all the well-behaved children in the World.
Does he have to break into people's homes and spy on their children though?
The big difference is that Father Christmas was definitely made up. Furthermore, Father Christmas isn't being posited by anyone as the potential cause of there being something rather than nothing. Father Christmas not existing doesn't create a mystery. God not existing creates a mystery of what caused stuff to exist, and in the way that it does.
@@PicniclNot having full understanding of the creation process leads people to 'fill in the gaps' with mumbo jumbo and imaginary gods.
@@Picnicl The big similarity is that there is exactly the same amount of evidence for Father Christmas as there is for God. Father Christmas not existing does create a brief mystery for children, when they are told he doesn't exist they invariably ask, 'so who brings us our Christmas presents?' When it is explained to them that's it's actually Mum and Dad, they accept the fact; theists never grow up.
Sums up perfectly my stand on the matter. Also I'm glad someone as funny as Mitchell shares it!
Honestly, I wasn’t expecting to be recommended a video that so perfectly and succinctly summarizes my views on existence.
@@Arkatox
Atheism is not the assertion that there is no God, it is the lack of belief in a God. If you don't believe in a God, you are by definition, an atheist.
@@hatchingdraggon8073 I've never heard that definition of atheism before.
@@Arkatox From the Oxford dictionary: "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
"A" is a negative prefix. For example, when used in asexual, it means not sexual. When used in atheist, it means not a theist.
No one can know that there is or isn't a God. The fact is, most agnostics are atheists, including Mr Mitchell.
@@hatchingdraggon8073 I don't think you listened to what David Mitchell said.
At the end of the day it is commonly accepted athiest means belief there are no gods while agnostic is we can not know for sure.
Thank you, Davi Mitchell, for that beautifully sensible explanation of your views!
I hate this "You're taking away people's comfort" argument. If I take away the bottle from a drunk, I'm taking away his comfort. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken away.
People fear there being nothing because all we know is the continuity of our lives and we are hard wired to not want it to end. But in the case of nothing there's no fear or pain possible. Imo there's comfort in nothing.
Yes I agree. It seems far more comforting than what most people want the something to be - an eternity of never ending experience
Wow. My respect for David was high, but now it's gone to a new level.
"suspicious of the disdain" ... well put.
It's not a "disdain for people who find that a comfort". It's disdain for the attached aspects. Because religion rarely just gives the comfort, it attaches demands. It also threatens with discomfort. To obediently follow whatever is told. To believe those who arent part of your "comfort" are evil. To indoctrinate children into your beliefs.
All these things are very commonly attached, and they are the problem. Not that some guy finds some comfort in an afterlife.
atheism is an umbrella. If you are not convinced that there exist a deity or deities, then you lack the conviction that these things exist, you are therefore an atheist. If you're not sure or you think it might be possible, then ok fine maybe you are an agnostic atheist. If you are convinced there is NO god or any gods anywhere, you're a gnostic atheist. Either way...if you do not answer "yes" to the question "are you convinced of the existence of one or more deities?" then you are an atheist. Semantics aside, that is the unavoidable conclusion.
+Sparrowhawk Does G-d exist?
Yes: Thiest
No: Athiest
I don't know: Agnostic
***** Tradition and respect. It's a Jewish thing. Kinda loses a bit in the digital medium, but the premise is that G-d's name is to be treated with respect, so it's improper to write it on something that would be crumpled up, thrown away, or used to line a birdcage. There's ritual methods to dispose of worn prayerbooks or torahs respectfully. For similar reasons blessings used in recordings (songs, movies, for mass entertainment rather than education) are often subtly changed to alter the name used for G-d to a common similarly sounding standin (Adoshem), so that there's no possible concern about the recordings then being tossed in the trash. For that matter many (perhaps all, not sure) of the words for G-d used in prayer books do not translate phonetically to what's said (YHWH (well, the Hebrew equivalent) is very different, for example, but probably easily recognized to many laypeople. I've also seen YY (again, the Hebrew equivalent) used. I think there's a few more, but as a Jewish athiest it's been a while since I've been in services.)
***** It depends on usage for me. Referring to belief in a god is different from referring to belief in G-d.
I think it also relates to the usage of abbreviations and standin names. To use your example, it's like your dog's name isn't Dog, but you refer to him as Dog because his true name isn't appropriate outside of the Temple, and then it's used enough that referring to Dog people know what dog you mean, so then Dog takes on similar issues of respect and use.
+Myles Adams Are you going to actually acknowledge bad1dobby's response to your comment or just go on and on about names of gods?
+Myles Adams No.
Do you believe in the existence of a god or gods?
Yes, and it can be known and demonstrated: Gnostic theist
Yes, but it's all faith and can't be proven: Agnostic theist
ANYTHING BUT YES + I don't claim to know: Agnostic Atheist
Anything but yes + I know for sure: Gnostic Atheist.
'Humans just like killing each other' lmao couldn't have said it better
People need to admit that they understand what is meant by these kinds of statements instead of trying to flex on everyone with their knowledge of semantics.
"Doubt is healthy and rational, but faith and hope aren't inherently wrong or harmful."
That is obviously the argument being made here regardless of how the words are technically defined.
Yes faith is wrong and harmful. It's in fact harmful BECAUSE it's wrong, it's wrong because it isn't right, it isn't right because it isn't true and well meaning lies, white lies and all other forms of "good lies" are in fact not good. Being honest and truthful is simply far too important. Lies get in the way of the truth and the truth matters, it really matters and the sooner you know the actual truth, the sooner you can actually move forward.
The argument for faith as a lie is an argument to live your life as a lie, it's literally "ignorance is bliss". Ignorance should never be aspired to.
Religion isn't bad or good because of what it teaches to me as far as morality or ethics, it's bad, because it purports to be true and isn't. It lies every day endleslly to billions of people and the truth is too important to accept anything but the truth.
@@sparkzbarca This is the best explanation I've ever seen or heard. Lots of people don't get this, and I understand why, plenty of Atheists point out stuff they disagree with in the Bible and so it's assumed that the argument against religion is about the morality of the religious person, but it's really not, it's about truth and lie. There's simply no reason to believe in a God unless there is concrete evidence, that should be the end of it.
@@fellinuxvi3541 I think this is too much. Is it really _lying_ to say we might be living in a simulation for example, just because we have no evidence for it? Being an agnostic atheist is not giving up, but rather acknowledging we don't know for sure and should continue to ask questions, rather like science.
@@ab8jeh It isn't, but those who believe in simulations don't usually demand faith. I gotta say, in these two months I've reconsidered a lot about faith, and I'm not as against it as I used to be, but I still consider it something rather sinister to ask of people, I wouldn't dare ask to be trusted with anything I cannot prove, but I guess since most modern religions don't teach a literal interpretation of their texts, it's less harmful to follow religion now than it was during, say, the inquisition or the middle ages.
@@fellinuxvi3541 Indeed. Organised religion that indoctrinates the young at an early age is something quite different to coming up with an individual position over time after exploring the subject as fully as possible from many viewpoints. Whether the latter is truly possible is up for question, but we can strive for it I guess. Anyway, some questions cannot be answered, and definitely should not be the basis for organised religion!
See I'm an atheist and I actually think one of the greatest things about religion is the fortitude and resilience it gives people. The things people have accomplished a d overcome because of their faith is awe Inspiring and I wish I had that kind of faith in myself and other people because without God that's all we have.
As a wonderful song goes:
"I believe there's nothing after life goes by/ I believe it's over when we die, die, die/ Others may be thankful their beliefs are strong/ but every night I'm praying that I'm wrong, wrong, wrong"
OFc there is afterlife
You think people who murder, cheat , steal etc will get away without punishment?
You are wrong :)
@@Wisdomdigger101 I very well may be wrong. It is just a silly song after all. While I, like so many others, find comfort in the idea of Divine Retribution for those who do wrong in the mortal world, im not sure my desire for that to be the case means it is necessarily true. Hence the "Every night I'm praying that I'm wrong, wrong, wrong"
However, I am happy for your strong conviction :)
@@Wisdomdigger101 The problem with that is we have absolutely no evidence for such a thing. The real world isn't fair, a lot of shit happens to people who don't deserve it. Why is it so obvious that the afterlife, should it exist, is any different?
Personally I always think our beliefs should be guided by the evidence we see. Unless we have evidence to show something exists, we should assume that it doesn't. Not exactly an extreme position I don't think. Nobody knows if there's an afterlife and there's no evidence to suggest it, much less any details of it.
That's not to invalidate your beliefs of course, not at all. But just don't present them as clear as day absolute fact, when it is far, FAR from it. Just makes you come off as closed-minded.
what is the song, sorry I don't really know
@@paredesmarcangeloc.621 I would not expect you, or anyone, to. It is the chorus of a song called "After Life Goes By" by the Folk duo Lou & Peter Berryman. Peter Berryman is imo one of the most extrodinary lyricists in the world and everyone should witness his brilliance
Obviously, as an agnostic, David would see agnosticism as the most rational response to the world as we see it. If he didn't, then I would imagine he would convert to whatever he DID consider the most rational response. Not all atheists are out to destroy the beliefs of others. I'm an atheist but I would be mortified if someone abandoned their faith simply because I'm an atheist. Obviously that wouldn't happen even if I did try to change them. I know lots of religious people and I make no secret about my own atheism but I don't think anyone I know has ever ceased to take comfort from their faith simply because they know some bloke who happens to be an atheist.
I will accept that many atheists seem to distain the comfort that others take from their faith and try to bring religious people around to their own way of thinking. But they don't succeed because a religious belief or lack thereof is an intangible concept that cannot be proven either way. People obviously do convert to other religions or lapse into atheism and, indeed, there are atheists who become religious. But it's always a conclusion arrived at after a degree of soul-searching rather than being convinced by someone who holds a different view.
My worry is the damage that religion does to peoples thinking and how religion takes the responsibility for their own actions and gives it to a invisible friend
If you are a theist regarding something, you're an atheist to everything else. We're all atheists, it comes with the package
@@gowdsake7103 I guess a distinction has to be made between religious people that follow the teachings morally and are rational with their beliefs, willing to apply critical thinking to what they read and use their religion for good and other religious people that will treat it like a cult, or use it as an excuse for sexism which I have a particular annoyance at because it contradicts most of the other parts of the bible which talk about loving others, but they will choose to focus on a particular sentence and use that for hatred
@@ryclemo4942 How can you even differentiate ! Religion at its heart is all about avoiding responsibility for your own actions, thats why the devil was invented
As for the bible and morals hmmm It really isnt a moral book in many ways and most christians ignore the 613 commandments
But the bible openly supports slavery, rape, homophobia, child abuse, misogamy and mass murder
@@gowdsake7103 I think once again the problem is not the idea that we should forgive others, but the idea that people can get away with stuff and then just repent it, which isn't at all how it should work but the problem is that people think that's how it works. I feel like there is also a split between people who take the bible too literally and others. The bible is full of contradictions and while it is written about God it's written by humans who are prone to getting stuff wrong and talking about what is accepted at the time (e.g. homophobia) which does not reflect today's beliefs or God's views, but some will say I'm speaking heresy and choose to hate on anyone who doesn't fit the Old Testaments' narrative.
The slight problem with him saying he's not an atheist he's an agnostic is that implies they're mutually exclusive
Even though the ideas pertaining to atheism are a part of agnosticism, I don't think its wrong for an agnostic person to say they're not an atheist as it just means that atheism is not their sole belief
The thing is, atheism is about belief/lack of belief. If you believe there is a god, you're a theist. if you don't believe in a god, you're an atheist.
Agnosticism is about knowledge. If you're an agnostic, you're saying you can't be sure that there is a go.
So it is possible to be an agnostic atheist. You can believe there isn't a god, but accept that you cannot KNOW there isn't one.
People should really realise this. It's not a case of you have to be either a believer (theist), a "don't know" (agnostic) or a non-believer (atheist).
Sums it up so succinctly. I was previously in the Hitchens school of thought when it came to religion but now I realize it's literally what gives so many the strength to face everyday struggles that would consume them otherwise.
Agnosticism is just much more logically sound than Atheism, because it addresses the issue of our inability to truly know. It has more intellectual integrity.
Hitchens always professed that he was happy for people to believe if they kept it to themselves, the problem was they rarely didn't, especially in america.
Edit: to paraphrase old hitchens again. This opinion is also incredibly patronising. 'Oh, some people *need* religion to get by, I dont, but some people do'.
Maybe if we empowered people with reality, rather than make believe they will deal with shit better.
@Thomas Clifford agreed, but also the US is the only (I think?) Secular nation in terms of government, yet all (if not, most) nationals are religious to their core, thats a problem.
@@amosungar5248 someone claims God exists. I say "I don't believe you until you demonstrate your claim to be true. Do you think that that is an intellectually dishonest position?
Except, it doesn't. Deism and spirituality lets people have that comfort, not religion. Christianity, Islam, etc. are just that added layer of "this is true, you can't question it" that's used to abuse, control and extort people. We should be tearing down that wall and guiding the religious to spirituality and deism, but, like always, the religious structures have labelled that as an attack and you can't criticise someone's religion without them claiming their source of comfort is attacked.
My respect for this man 📈📈📈
David is just a great person
I agree with him on so many levels
It is good to see a celebrity - especially a British comedian - being so frank and rational about this. I was 'agnostic' for several decades before coming to the Christian faith - and I did so, at first, on purely rational grounds ( I have a degree in Philosophy - though now I appreciate the limits of 'reason' ).
Taking away the comfort isn't the issue Atheism deals with. Its fighting against religious zealots trying to force their beliefs on to others, especially those that dont want it. If you are religious, and take comfort in it, and don't bother anyone about their beliefs, then more power to you. The moment you use your religion to bring harm to another, be it psychical, or psychological, you are removing the tolerance for you and your beliefs.
That said, im sure there are Atheist Zealots out there as well. Not saying there is not or that they are always right. But i understand why they are bringing a loud voice, as that seem to be the only way to be heard over the loud voice that is religion. And im personally, kind of tired of Laws being based on outdated religious beliefs.
David seems to be referring to the atheists who will go to anyone who says they have a religious belief (even if they aren't trying to force it upon anyone in any way) and telling them that they're wrong for it. He's talking about the atheist zealots who attack people who are not zealots. And that is just trying to strip them of the comfort given to them by their God or whatever.
Right, the ones that don't exist in the real world outside of the rationalist subreddits, then.
don't you realise atheists are zealots too... these days they seem more zealous than religious folk
Yes, I regularly see them handing out leaflets in the street, proselytising door to door and demonstrating loudly outside church services.
There are millions of religious people in the UK who rarely mention it or don't seek to convert you
David is more than smart enough to understand that agnosticism and atheism belong to separate categories of knowledge vs belief.
He's being serious at the end, but I still couldn't help laughing when he talked about how we all face the possibility of oblivion.
Like Mark entering The Void
The probability of oblivion.
It's a lovely feeling when a person whom you like and respect expresses similar views to your own.
1:19
"There was a time when I cared about politics, but it's just an excuse men use to kill one another."
Unfortunately he said "humans" not "men" when your version was correct.
That imposes a moral equivalence that completely ignores the reality of policy and its impact.
@@fluffynator6222 Agreed. Not taking a side is taking a side against better conditions for humanity and the earth.
Clearly it may give some people comfort as they face the possibility of oblivion. But what about those who genuinely believe they are about to be tortured for all eternity? Their last days might not be so palatable.
Have they heard the good news? They're not! Sadly, that still means death is just non-existence.
I can't speak for other faiths, but Christianity's whole shtick is about the redemption of the sinner. If a person believes that they are going to hell, they must also believe in a forgiving God before whom they can be redeemed. And it is in the aid of the dying who fear hell that priests, pastors, and ministers of all stripes visit the dying, at home and in hospitals, to help them on the way to redemption.
You don't know what the two terms mean. Atheism isn't a claim, atheism is the rejection of a claim. Agnostic atheism is "I don't believe there is a god, but I don't know". And since there is, as per your admission, no evidence to suggest there IS a god, the default position is "I don't believe". Mitchell said he doesn't believe there is a god but he can't know for sure, therefore he is an agnostic atheist. What he WANTS to be true is immaterial and has no bearing on his atheism/agnosticism.
Atheism is a claim. It's a claim that there is no God. Absence of proof isn't proof of absence. Therefore atheism is a leap of faith.
Do you think this is his channel or that he reads this?
@@horatioredgreenblue2130 That is not true.
Atheism is the rejection of a claim.
As an agnostic atheist myself I don't believe in any of the gods that people currently claim are real, yet don't claim for certainty none of them are real.
@@garyconyers-davies5781to me, that's a bit like saying "religion is not a claim, it's the rejection of the claim that there is no God."
@@bennylloyd-willner9667 it really isn't.
I don't believe in any of the current gods that people believe in, but I'm open minded enough to believe if enough evidence convinces me.
Excellent statement of what agnosticism is, and why it is most definitely not the same as atheism. I say that as someone who is proudly agnostic, of course. I love this take on the issue.
You can be both.
@@El-Meowblo how? agnostisism is the belief that there is/ might be a god/gods, atheism is the rejection of any god
@@snichelsticks8653 Gnosticism is knowledge or a claim of knowledge about something. Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge or claim of knowledge. Theism is belief in god(s). Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). There are gnostic theists, agnostic theists, gnostic atheists, and agnostic atheists.
No idea why this popped into my feed after 11 years, but allow me to explain. Agnosticism is not a pitstop on the road between theism and atheism. Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge. Atheism is a statement of belief. I am an agnostic-atheist, meaning I don't believe in god, but I can't prove one doesn't exist (though I believe certain traits are self-contradictory, meaning a god with those traits can't exist). There are gnostic-theists (believe in God and think they can prove it exists), gnostic-atheists (don't believe in god and think they can prove it doesn't exist), agnostic-theists (believe in god but can't prove it exists), and agnostic-atheists.
If you are reading this and you’re Agnostic, do you come from a religious upbringing?
It just occurred to me that most Agnostics probably started out religious as is the case with Mitchell. For me personally I probably was Agnostic for a period but it was like a stepping stone towards Atheism.
I was brought up as a Lutheran and stepped away when I was in my teens. I don't know if I'll ever fully step into Atheism because it's simply impossible to determine. Similar to how the big bang theory is impossible to 100% prove, there being a God is impossible to 100% disprove
The most logical thing I've ever seen him say, and he's said a ton of logical things.
What is logical about being too wet to make a solid decision
It's reasonable, but certainly not logical. He flat out says he's not an atheist because he "wants there to be something". That's very relatable, but reality doesn't care what you want, and the burden of proof is on those trying to convince people that there is some sort of god, not on those of us who dismiss the notion just as we do the existence of the Greek pantheon, leprechauns and ghosts.
@gowdsake7103 What do you find difficult to understand about someone being on the fence about something that can neither be proven nor disproved? Let me guess, you're one of these pseudo-intellectual soyboys that claims to "fucking love science", but will claim with 100% conviction that God does not exist despite being unable to prove your point.
It's not logical at all. "It feels good, therefore you should believe it" is a dangerous precedent to set.
@@fluffynator6222 Seriously. "Sure, people kill because of religion, but people kill for all kinds of reasons, and it make 'em feel nice" is a shockingly dumb statement for someone like David Mitchell.
Atheist and agnostic aren't mutually exclusive options. Anyone who doesn't have an explicit belief in a god is an atheist. An agnostic is someone who thinks it's impossible to _know_ anything about the nature of gods.
Unless you actually believe in the existence of a god, you are an atheist. That's just what the word means: "without (belief in) a god".
If anything, agnosticism is more radical than atheism, because you're not just saying you personally don't believe in a god, but you're saying it's *impossible* to even _know_ *anything* about gods (so others who claim to believe in gods are wrong or lying).
You’re Missing necessary nuance, I think. You cannot KNOW there is a good, but you have FAITH. That’s a believer. An agnostic does not have faith to rely on.
@@dreboyle167 - I simply pointed out the definition of the words (that results from their etymology), which a lot of people seem to get wrong (sometimes to the point of _swapping_ them around, or confusing "atheist" with "anti-theist").
And I'm pretty sure the whole point of "faith" is that people with faith *know* (as in, are *fully* convinced / have *no doubt* that) there is a(t least one) god.
Those _without_ faith in a(t least one) god are *atheists.* That's what the word means, and David clearly seems to fit that definition.
Agnostics are the ones who claim it's *impossible to know* anything anything about the nature or existence of gods. It's _less_ clear whether David fits that definition as well, but he might.
@@RFC3514 To clarify, an agnostic says that there is no proof of gods OR that it is impossible to have proof.
There’s different meanings to it. If you ask a lot of people, they would refer to agnosticism as being unsure if god exists, whereas an atheist will answer that question as ‘no’. An agnostic person would usually say ‘i don’t know’
@@janusmcgee8909 The problem is people using one word when two are needed. The Political Compass covered this issue very well when they pointed out that politics needs two axes. Right and Left cover financial choices but you need an authoritarian vs libertarian axis to cover how much power you believe the government should have.
Atheism and agnosticism are not on the same axes so you end up with problems when people use one word to describe themselves. You need an axis for how much you believe in God or gods and a separate axis for how much proof you believe there is or could be for God.
So someone who is completely atheist would say "But I have no proof that god exists or doesn't" if they were completely agnostic or "because the existence of any gods is impossible" if they were also completely gnostic.
The opposite corners have the gnostic theist "I believe in God - here is the proof He exists" and the agnostic theist "I 100% believe there is something, but I don't know what it is"
what i have learned here in this comments section is that confused people view the not confused as being confused
I have only one firm religious belief: that there is a special hell reserved for TH-cam experts. For all eternity the devil stabs them with a pitchfork while they argue that that is not, in fact, a trident.
Hmm, idk. If the pitchfork has 3 prongs then it's a trident. Seems like a rather obvious and inarguable thing.
@@creativecredence850 My pastry cutlery has three prongs. Are they tridents? If yes, is a trident cutlery? Does that make Neptune someone stoked for some cake?
@@dektarey4024 as a self proclaimed expert in three pronged appliances you are correct
If it is a 3 pronged spear with each prong straight, parallel and barbed then it is a trident, seems easy enough.
Even an atheist could agree with that!
I think he is assuming atheism is saying I know there is no god and not just I don't think there is a god
I'm an atheist myself, but I fully agree with David on the subject I think.
There's no real reason to hold religion in disdain, and it does act as a comfort for a lot of people. I don't personally value that comfort, but I would never wish to take that from another
Actually, he's an agnostic atheist. One cannot be merely an agnostic but must have an underlying belief of whether or not they're convinced there is a god. So, he's not just an atheist, but an agnostic atheist.
Agree with everything aside from it not being the most rational, people still talk as if atheism is some sort of belief itself, it’s not. It’s just not believing in any god or religion and as there is no shred of proof…that is the most rational. Not least because there have been scientific discoveries that can prove religious claims wrong too. “We don’t know” is always what scientists say to things that they can’t yet explain, to say that religion is a rational choice (even just potentially) to answer those questions cannot be rational either
For a smart guy he seems not to know the difference between agnosticism and atheism.
couldn't agree more - he's so far off I'm actually wondering if he's trolling!
Atheism: The belief there is not a higher power Agnosticism: Lack of belief in a higher power. Often people say one and mean the other, usually it's atheist when agnostic would be more appropriate. Where's his error?
@Colin Thisaname That's not the actual modern dictionary definitions. While atheist was originally a-theist as you say through use it evolved to mean a positive claim that there is no god. And so agnostic was coined as a term to provide distinction
@@rowanbrown5541 Atheism is about belief (or the lack of it). Agnosticism is about knowledge. There's no information on the existence of a god and so I'm an agnostic atheist.
I always enjoy listening to intelligent and nuanced opinions like this.
David Mitchell, I think I just fell in love with you even more.
He does seem to be a very nice man. I don’t want ‘seen’ to sound nocuous- I’ve just never met the man. It’d likely be a lovely conversation
For anyone who came into contact with philosophy, this is just ridiculous.
Theism/atheism deals with claims to *belief* - you either *believe* there are some gods or you don't.
Gnostic/agnostic deals with claims to *knowledge* - you either claim to *know* something or you don't.
So one can be an agnostic atheist - holding no god beliefs and making no claims to knowledge, or a gnostic atheist - claiming to know that there are no gods. Both are atheists because they hold no god beliefs, they don't believe there are any gods.
nikolaneberemed Hooray, someone does understand. You'd think Mitchell would know this shit. The root latin isn't exactly complex, and he is definitely the type to rant about how improper the common usage of the 2 terms is.
nikolaneberemed The core messages remain, even if the wrong words are used.
To be fair the way David Mitchell uses agnosticism and atheism is how most people use those terms.
Yes, while Radgar lists the technical definitions, David seems to be using the popular connotation of "uncertain." I think what he means is quite clear.
@@OctopusGrift the problem with those usages is that they crippled our power to offer meaning and important descriptions. The minimum requirement for someone to be an atheist doesn't include knowledge or even to make a negative claim against the god concept.
Using a single label to criticize the act of the rejection of claim(Atheism) and the promotion of a knowledge claim(Antitheism) is just ignorant and dishonest.
We expect from people like David to be more responsible that ordinary illiterate people.
You have to start with a blank sheet of paper. If your starting point is that you want there to be something then you will be pulled in that direction. An Atheist doesn't want there NOT to be a god. They just go where any evidence takes them. It's just that there is zero evidence to take them anywhere.
We like the idea that there is something else, we want that to be true, but only because we are alive and we cannot wrap our heads around the fact that there could be nothing. The thing is, once you are gone, all that fear and doubtfulness goes away, because you are dead.
I remember when I identified as an atheist in my adolescence that I was really put off by the snobbishness of other atheists. Ironically, they were projecting evangelical attitudes with their beliefs. I'm aware not every atheist acts like this, but coinciding with the whole belief system that David just described, I truly felt like I didn’t belong.
It wasn’t until at 20 I really started to think things through, especially the fact that my sense of instilled moralism was probably due to me surviving Stage IV cancer at four months old. So therefor, I comfortably identify as a theist. But I believe every religion has it’s pros and cons. We’re all trying to make things work in this brief existence we have on this planet.
That's the thing though, you don't need religion for your spiritual and deistic life to flourish and provide comfort. When one takes that step from "I think there's a loving god" to "The Bible speaks for him", you've stepped into a realm of insanity, persecution and exploitation. Religion is the extra layer added to deism to extort people.
@@Capybarrrraaaa that's an interesting point. I believe, as a Christian, that "religion" is just a category used to define Christianity which makes it sound like a strict set of rules, but Christianity is actually about the relationship we have with God thanks to Jesus. The Bible, then, isn't a set of rules, but it's 1. Letting us know of God's love and 2. Setting out guidelines God has given to us for living this good relationship. People unfortunately then take these guidelines and bend them into rules which give them unjust power over others. So I'd slightly alter your point by saying the Bible doesn't lead to exploitation, but the way it's wrongly used does.
@@robeldridge5668 The problem with that is that we know so little about the authors of the bible, we just cannot trust their opinion of what happened. Which makes every interpretation almost identically justified.
Which drops people down to Christ-flavoured deism, but then that's not supported by reality, because the only thing pointing to the Christ-god is the Bible anyway.
Which drops the point down to deism. God-belief is fine, but I really can't say that any religion layered on top is inaccurate to that god's will at best, and just plain exploitative at worst.
@@robeldridge5668 I don't think that's entirely fair in that the whole premise (and claim) of The Bible- to have any validity or authority at all- rests upon it's Divinity. Therefore to be truly Divine it _Must_ be taken as written without "Diluting" a lot of the claims and demands it makes. Otherwise that would be- like in the past- Herecy.
If we are to accept that it is not in fact Divine, and is purely a work of humanity then it holds no merit in the Physical sense- it is merely a collated compilation of associated mythological texts ( Which of course, in a small sense it is after Constantine's involvement at the first Nicea Council). In terms of LIterature it is absolutely a valuable asset of culture and writing but as a representation of the Physical realm (and more than that) it becomes no more valuable than Beowulf.
I prefer to look at it as an Historical source. It is not a good source- we cannot identify (precisely) it's origin or even authorship nor the exact time frames involved (Did the original author witness these supposed events or not? We have estimates and supposition). It is after all a piece of Religious Propaganda- it's purpose is to proseletyse. If there were an equivalent text that was simply the adulation of a Monarch we wouldn't treat it as potential verbatim reality- we would assess it like any other text. That's my only issue with The Bible, Torah or Qu'ran- there seems to be a hesitancy to truly analyse them as a purely Historical Document/ Source. I mean the very premise of the Qu'ran is no more reliable than The Book of Mormon- a man makes a claim that something happened when no one else was there to see it (In that case, seeing Jibril appear before him in a desert cave and commanding him to learn to read and write to then start the Qu'ran). That is not a reliable Historical Source yet it's not commonplace to state that.
I don't mind at all what people believe- only what effect their belief should have on others- if it's any at all then we have a very obvious issue.
@@Capybarrrraaaa I have to disagree. It's easy for us to say we developed morals on our own without external influence but that's because Western society (and the world at large) has already been moulded by Christian and Muslim values and principles. Without religion, morality is no longer objective and instead becomes subjective. In other words, the terms right and wrong become meaningless because they turn into abstract terms that are completely open to interpretation. For example, in Nazi Germany, people genuinely felt it was 'right' to persecute and kill innocent Jews, even though we both know that it was a heinous crime against humanity. And we believe that because of the religious values that society's inherited throughout the ages, even though the attachment to religion has largely been lost.
I could respect people taking comfort in the belief in God if I could get someone to explain to me why it's comforting that their suffering, rather than being simple bad luck, is instead being intentionally inflicted on them by a being that nominally cares for them, and that the best case scenario is that they'll have forever to reflect on the inscrutability of the reasoning behind this.
Also, why does anyone mind death? Being dead is just like being asleep, and nobody goes to bed terrified that they might not be woken up at 4am by a whining dog because otherwise their consciousness wouldn't be blissfully annihilated for another three hours and who wants that?! The only scary part of death is DYING, which I can surely imagine is an unpleasant experience, but even the most devoted believer would concede that, even if they don't think they STAY dead, they still have to go through the PROCESS of dying, and why would you find comfort in the idea that you have to go through all the unpleasant parts of being mortal without getting to enjoy the payoff?
I think you should study a belief before you ridicule it. That way at least you know what you are talking about.
@@anotheruserism Most atheists have !
Although I bet you never studied the Greek or Roman gods ? The Egyptian, ever read the Quran ? book of the dead ? I I bet for sure you cherry picked your particular version of self excuses
@@gowdsake7103 you mean the Islamic new believers course I did? Always amuses me the assumptions people make and then they claim to be all about facts!
@@anotheruserism Ohh you have read all of those then hmmm You have read every single religious book ever then
Thank you David for such a reasoned comment. I am a liberal Crhistian (I think that's what I'd call it) and I feel a connection to agnostic. Because who is arrogant enough to think they know for sure.
Atheism is a lack of belief in god not a statement that they know there is no god.
I get his point, I don't want to rip away anyone's comfort blanket if they aren't hurting anyone. But if you don't think there is a god you are an atheist by definition.
No. If you're not sure whether *or not* a "God" or similar supreme being (or beings) exist then you're an agnostic.
“Religion. It's given people hope in a world torn apart by religion.”
― Jon Stewart
When did he say that? I’d like to know the context of that quote.
@@Sir_Sethly I can't find the clip, but I think it was on an episode of The Daily Show. If I had to guess, I would say the context was most likely in reference to people committing violence in the name of their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, that doesn't really narrow it down much, does it?
@@adamellis6785 It’s a pretty idiotic claim, religion has caused division yes, but not nearly as much as atheists claim. 7 percent of the wars have been religious. Not to mention the violence and division caused by atheism and anti theism, which is a thing as hard as it is to believe.
@@tsarnicholasii274 I'd be very interested to see this comprehensive study of historical warfare that displays the percentage of wars that were started/based on religion...maybe the number you just pulled out of your ass is right, maybe its 7%..maybe its 90% the idea that anyone knows is laughable.
@@tsarnicholasii274 7%? That is a lot of wars. How could they have been avoided?
Great analogy man.
*sigh*
Agnosticism is about knowledge, Atheism is about belief.
Correct. I am a scientist, therefore being Atheist is not logical to me. Being Agnostic certainly is however.
Agnosticism is a belief claim, not a knowledge one.
@@DJ_Dopamine You might be a scientist, but you aren't very good at logic. Anyone is free to believe that there isn't a God. There is therefore nothing "illogical" about being an atheist.
You're right. For this reason, everybody is actually "agnostic" with respect to God, and I'm surprised that David Mitchell isn't honest enough with himself to realise that he is in fact an atheist.
@@ilikethisnamebetter But he has just stated that he's an "agnostic", though.
Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. You can be both. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. An agnostic is someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, if a god exists. So you can believe God does not exist and also admit that you do not know if God exists. One is about belief and one is about knowledge. I struggle to understand how someone smart and seemingly well read like David Mitchell doesn't know the distinction.
Every atheist is also an agnostic as they would admit that, whilst they don't believe there is evidence of the existence of God, they would also have to say that they do not know whether there is a god.
Agnosticism is not mutually exclusive with atheism. I would think David Mitchell would get that... almost all self described agnostics are also atheists, and almost all self described atheists are also agnostic.
Unfortunately its slowly lost its meaning and people don't realize that everyone is either agnostic or gnostic.
just want to point out that the argument David just made could also be made for the existence of the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. Wanting something to be true doesn't mean that it is (despite a very loud group of people saying it does these days)
He didn't argue that god exists, you made that part up in your head. He also didn't say that wanting something makes it true. He just said that he wants it to be true. You added the "and that makes it true" part in your head.
@ktwashere5637
Here I'll help you out.
"You're right, I was wrong. Thanks for pointing that out and helping me learn!"
There you go.
YES! SO MUCH YES! FINALLY, A PROMINENT AGNOSTIC! YEEEEAAAAAAH!!!
I feel like most people are agnostic but they’d prefer to just pick a side and they don’t really know that there’s a middle
@@therentboys7787 Agnostisism is a question of knowledge, athiesm is a question of belief. I can tell you with much certainty 99% of athiests do not deny there being a god, they deny EVIDENCE of their being a god. Saying "there is no evidence of a god, and thusly I do not believe in a god" is a perfectly rational response to a question on belief.
Agnostics are defined as "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God". That's about KNOWING, not believing. You can be an agnostic atheist, as you can be an agnostic theist, but claiming there is a middle ground is a bit deceptive.
@@joshuahollowell9170 Thank you! I love David Mitchell, but claiming that agnosticism is more logical than atheism just doesn't make sense. The two terms are not mutually exclusive and you explained it perfectly.
@@joshuahollowell9170 fair but when most people think atheist vs agnostic, they just mean I believe there is no god vs I do not know
As soon as you get into different types of agnostic or atheist it’s becomes quite theist. Keep it simple. “I do not know, I probably can’t know”= agnostic. “I refuse to believe and do not want to believe”= atheist. “I believe in something, I’ve chosen a belief system” =theist. “I believe, I have a rigid structure of a belief system and I’ll bloody well tell you every opportunity I get maybe something worse “ =fundamentalist. I think ‘I don’t know but it’d be nice if I saw my mum again because I miss her’ or ‘this is a terrible life and I hope there’s something that will help me or something better at the end of all this’ are perfectly reasonable things to believe. Who are we to tell people they can’t. It’d be cruel and unkind. I can’t quite bring myself to believe in such a thing.. but then, I miss people I’ve lost. And if I was in a truly truly awful place .. I may well hope for something more “There’s no atheists in the foxholes” as the saying goes...
I like that sentiment. If you draw comfort from a belief without hurting anybody, I for one will never attempt to pry it from you just because I don't believe. Most empathetic atheists probably wouldn't
I have yet to have people at my door handing me pamphlets about how there probably is no god.
I have reports about cars with atheistic stickers on them being routinely thrashed, while cars with religious stickers on them rarely are. Why is that?
Oh god. Is there an option to just say I don't fucking know? I thought I was agnostic but apparently I'm not according to the comments
Do you believe in a God or believe in any Theism? if your answer isn't yes than you are atheist. If you "don't know" than you are atheist. Atheism is not a belief in something it is a lack of belief in something.
Earthbjorn Nahkaimurrao ok thanks
he is wrong, you are agnostic by definition of the word
+Michaelreqd
He isn't wrong, atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of one more more deities. And if he doesn't believe in that then he is an atheist by definition.
Of course, if he doesn't know if there is a god or not then he is an agnostic too. Which is why there is the term "agnostic atheism".
And by using the definition agnostic as michaelreqd did, he is also (probably) agnostic about invisible dragons, little midgets dancing around in your garden when you're not watching, and such sort of events.
This has popped up in my recommendations again and I can see 2 incredibly long comments I left 5 years ago. Jesus Christ I was boring! Arguably I still am, but I can't believe I spent so long arguing against nobody over "The most logical starting point of religious beliefs". I also used so many words to argue quite basic points.
This has also popped up in my recommendations multiple times. I'd be tempted to leave a long-winded comment, but I'm genuinely not sure if I already did so I won't.
Your choice of expletives is interesting!
To paraphrase Ricky Gervais:
"Everybody is agnostic, it has nothing to do with belief. You either belief there is a god or you belief there isn't, nobody KNOWS if there is one. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheist and theism deal with belief, they're in a different category."
Is it your belief that agnosticism deals with knowledge? I tend to believe it deals with the question of knowledge. Also a different category.
@@noelpucarua2843 It's not a matter of what i believe it deals with. "agnosticism, (from Greek agnōstos, “unknowable”), strictly speaking, the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience."
That's what it means, which is very close to science and scientific truth.
@@taserrr Ah, so that's what you believe.
Or is it just what you want me to believe?
I can prove that there is no greatest prime number. This is something I can know with absolute certainty beyond experience or phenomena.
There are an infinity of those. The belief that one cannot know is provably false.
Yes but that would involve having to listen to that dick !
Great man, always relatable.
People often say Agnosticism is a cop out. I think it's the other way around in that atheists so firmly can't accept that we don't know anything. That's the real cop out to me.
what do you mean,most atheists are agnostic?
Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive.
I'm an agnostic atheist. Regardless of what Mitchell claims, he is as well.
I really don't like that people mistake Atheism for always being Gnostic (knowing there is no god). Most atheists I've seen and know about are Agnostic atheists. As in lacking belief in a god. Now if we're talking about a specific god that's a different topic.
@@Omagadam1 Regardless of what Mitchell claims? So you're claiming to know him better than he knows himself? Lmfaoooo
@mariatanya3533 3 years is a while to update this. Mitchell is, by normative usages of the word even if he doesn't use the label because his usage of the word doesn't fit how he feels.
To me it's the same as a Subway worker saying they're not a fast food worker, they're a sandwich artist. I'd call them a fast food worker and they can call themselves whatever they want
Saying you are agnostic rather than theist or atheist is a fundamental misunderstanding of the question. It is a true dichotomy that you either believe or do not believe in a God. Agnosticism refers to your belief on the ability to know anything for certain.
There are agnostic theist (believes there is a God but doesn't claim to know for certain), agnostic atheists (doesn't believe there is a God But doesn't know for certain), gnostic theists (believes in a God and claims to know for certain) and gnostic atheists(believes there is no God and claims to know for certain).
Love David, especially his spontaneous outbursts :-) But here his definitions are not clear and therefore his arguments don't hold up well either. Many have already talked here about difference between agnostics, atheists and anti-theists so I'll focus on another issue that bothers me in David's argumentation: The crimes done by "communists, fascists" etc. are done in the name of a ideology, an -ism. In this sense religion fits into exactly that same category... the belief in an ideal future, a grand narrative and thus justifying specific (ugly) behaviour in the present. Atheists do not believe in a grand narrative, if anything they are mid-range theory based thinkers and actors, hence things have to be verifiable, tangible and not forced to fit into a grand, unproveable narrative such as any ideology or religion.
+Thomas Hardy If your argument is that religion falls under an -ism.. and crimes have been comitted under -isms.. therefor religion is bad as a whole, I fear you won't find much in the ways of good in this world. I personally don't see much harm in the argument David is using, because he's completely right. You're also completely right if you're saying opression (the problems with a lot of the -isms you seem to be describing) is bad, but I think that's a problem bigger than religion itself. As a matter of fact, you're saying brainwashing is a bad thing and thereby admitting David is right in that those bad things we exclusively reserve for religion in this commentsection, are perfectly capabable of manifesting themselves through other means. I seriously can't understand why people take offense at David admitting to wanting and atleast being open to the posibility there's a god. Should we atheists become radical and prosecute and ridicule everyone who admits to believing in a higher power? Would make us a bit hypocritical and oppressive. We don't all want to become Hitchens who is the Atheist's equivalent of a Jehovah's witness. Think that's whom you got the argument from?
+Apkans "Believing in a higher power"... which flying spaghetti monster carries your fancy today? And what actions are you going to justify with that intergalactic teapot? So sorry, no, just because David says; "I don't want something to be not there"... well tough, your personal emotions remain a bad motive when dealing with truth and our attempts at approaching truth. Agnosticism is not a viable intellectual position. It is either a lazy position, ie. avoiding Occam's Razor showing that there is not a single shred of evidence for the supernatural or metaphysical being some people crave... or it is intellectually dishonest by masking ones own emotionality with pseudo-argument.
+Apkans And comparing Hitchens to a hard-core religious person ("Witness of Jehova") is also a dishonest comparison: Hitchens debated anyone willing to join him on stage. When was the last time you saw a J's Witness of any prominence do that? Hitchens also was desperately waiting for good arguments to prove him wrong... as any scientist, one is desperate to further knowledge and understanding by being proven wrong and understanding why and how. Show me any religious person of any form or colour that brings that basic mindset ;-) And you sadly don' t understand the problem of -isms (the "problem bigger than religion itself"). These are the grand narratives humans have tended to crave for guidance and imbued full with emotionality (communism, fascism, nationalism, patriotism, any religion etc. etc.) Every single one is an ideology: purporting to know the ideal state of human kind and thus justifying the means to achieve that end... hence justifying the horrors committed under any of these ideologies (including religion). So when you consider that and then hear David mumbling vaguely he'd like something to be there... remaining uterly vague about everything and nothing... then the honest response should have been: "I have no proof and reason to believe any random metaphysical concept but it is nice and soothing to have that imaginary teddy bear to cuddle".
+Thomas Hardy It could be, that this isn't really something he spends a lot of time thinking of. His approach seems to be fairly neutral to the whole subject, which is fitting and quite common for any agnostic, be they theistic or atheist.
@Adam Southworth So you're saying that atheists don't have morals?
Very clearly and relatably put that his childlike wishes drives his beliefs. I want - therefore it must be so!
I don’t feel he has a grasp on atheism , agnosticism and the difference between the two. Specifically they are not mutually exclusive at all
No, David has it correct. Atheism rejects the existence of any god or gods. Agnosticism says I don't know and the evidence for either Deism or Atheism doesn't exist. Agnosticism may not exclude Atheism. But Atheism does exclude Agnosticism. Mutuality therefore does not exist.
David is one of my favourite humans .. at least in tv and movie land ...
But his argument is flawed..
Agnosticism and Atheism are mutually exclusive and they deal with slightly different concepts... knowledge and belief ..... i am both agnostic and an atheist ..
So is David, by anyones definition
“But I’m not ready to reject it and I’m suspicious of the disdain for people who find that a comfort in their life, and the desperation among some atheists to tear that comfort away from them.”
This really resonates with me. I would call myself agnostic and it really puts into words my reasons for being agnostic and not atheist.
David Mitchel: "I don't believe in god, but I don't consider myself an atheist either."
Definition: Atheism = disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Still love him though.
Atheists are convinced there is no God, David Mitchell is not sure either way.
I love him for this, some important points made
+Scream Phoenix that atheism isn't necessarily the most rational response to the world as we see it
+Anna Chris It is though, not only that it's the only rational response to the world as we see it, if it wasn't there would be proof of god's existance and we would have 1 single religion.
His points are based on ignorance. Knowledge is not required in order to reject a claim which is based on faith. Logic is though.
He is confusing atheism with Antitheism, with agnosticism.....and ignores the Default Position on an existential claim, dictated by logic.
What interview or program was this on? I'd like to watch the entire thing. Thanks in advance!
...and 6 years later
th-cam.com/video/KGO_kwiyLw4/w-d-xo.html
@@jsandppr cheers !!
One thing I think that is important to know is the distinction between "logical" and "rational". Agnosticism (technically a type of atheism) is more logical, as you are acknowledging the fact that you cannot prove one way or the other.
"Rational" applies when you have decided to draw a conclusion (in spite of not having all the required data) and choosing to be satisfied with what is deemed most probable.
So, I disagree that agnosticism is more rational.
It's about probabilities. Technically, nothing can be proven. There is only likely and unlikely. Gravity can't be proven. If you let go of an object 99 times and 99 times, it falls, when you let go of the object the 100th time, the likelihood is that it will fall. However, there is a tiny, infinitesimal possibility that the object won't fall, that the object will float, thus showing that the theory of gravity is wrong. Because that remote possibility exists, is it reasonable to say that you don't know that the force of gravity exists? Of course not. The probability that gravity doesn't exist is so low, that while it's not exactly zero, for all intents and purposes, you may as well call it zero. It isn't rational to say you don't know if gravity exists.
By the same token, the evidence for a natural explanation for existence is so high and possibility of the existence of a deity is so low that saying "I don't know" isn't a rational response based on the evidence. Like the possibility of gravity not existing, the likelihood that God does exist is so low that in scientific terms, it's pretty much as close to zero as you can get, at which point, the rational conclusion to draw is that gravity exists and God doesn't.
Agnosticism is based on ignorance. I don't mean that to be insulting. I simply mean that the only way one can be agnostic is if they haven't looked at the evidence or lack thereof. There isn't a shred of evidence to support the God hypothesis. If there was, there would be no atheists. Also, once you say that God is beyond evidence then you are making a faith-based assertion, not a rational, scientific one.
jedsithor The problem with that, as I see it, is that trying to draw a conclusion on the existence of God is getting ahead of oneself, when what God is has not been sufficiently established, even in theory.
Ultimately, the people choosing to conclude the (non)existence of God are doing so about their own interpretation of it god, or someone else's interpretation, or worse yet, their interpretation of what someone else inadequately explained was their own interpretation.
If, for instance, The Bible is our reference for relevant events, then it's either completely true, partially true, or completely false.
As it does, on the whole, contain some historically accurate facts, it is not completely false.
Even if, for the sake of argument it is completely true, that does not mean it can or should all be taken literally. The complete exclusion of symbolic writing, in my opinion, is an unreasonable assumption to make.
And then there is the possibility of any given writer not fully understanding what they are seeing, and so relating it as best they know how.
So what we're left with is a possibility that the thing being called god is real, but that any given person's idea of that thing's qualities is simply inaccurate.
If someone is asked if God exists, and that person says no, then even if God does exist, that person could be entirely correct about what they are calling God not existing.
People argue about whether or not God exists without it having been sufficiently established what said God actually is, because those people were not their to witness the actual goings-on said to be directly related to said God.
That's why I think people who insist one way or the other are being foolish.
The lack of information goes much deeper than most people care to consider.
Gravity is not something a good comparison, because at least we can see something fall and say, yep, that's gravity.
'God' in spite of the entire Bible, is still so inadequately defined that if it does exist then you could very well see evidence every day and not even realize it.
Rationality is about probability. Logic, however is about knowns: the if/then's.
Neither existence nor non-existence has been proven, therefore I do not know. That is simply a fact.
If a person actually feels it's necessary to take the issue a step further into drawing a conclusion, then they move into the realm of rationalizing.
Not everyone feels any need to take that step.
Kirisu Guroundosu I'm not talking about the Biblical God. I'm not talking about any God. I'm talking about the basic concept of a supernatural being without associating that being with any religion. It's the first mistake theists make. They fail to establish a premise for the existence of a divine being and go straight to their own specific dogma, which is utter nonsense.
We can talk about the Biblical God if you like. The first two books are proven nonsense. Genesis tells the story of the creation of the world and of early man. Science has already shown how the world was actually created and charted the evolution of life. Exodus tells the story of Moses leading his people to the promised land. Archeology has already shown that the Hebrews were never slaves in Egypt and their religion grew out of a polytheistic religion in Canaan.
The Yahweh mythology doesn't begin in a paradise garden or with a burning bush. Yahweh was just one god among a pantheon of Canaanite gods and over time, took on more importance and was elevated to the chief deity and then the only deity. Yahweh's actual rise to prominence has no more substance than the story of Zeus or Ra or Odin. There's nothing special about the Abrahamic God.
Therein lies the trouble with arguing for theism. Once you open it up to scrutiny and compare it with reality, it doesn't hold up. If you make the debate about that, then you've already lost. First you must establish whether any divine being can exist before you try to get into the idea of a specific deity.
But even sticking with a basic, deistic idea of a divine being without attaching specific religions to it, saying you can't prove it one way or another, therefore you don't know, creates a false equivalency, as if the existence or non existence of God is 50-50. It's not. It's not even a 1% chance. The possibility is so low that it may as well be zero.
The gravity analogy is actually a perfect one because as you said, you can measure the effects of gravity. The evidence of experimentation backs up the theory. Essentially, the universe behaves in the manner you would expect if gravity exists.
Gravity has evidence to support its existence. God has none. All of the evidence points in the opposite direction, towards a completely natural explanation for existence.
A theist will tell you that God is beyond the laws of nature, which is a convenient excuse but at least most theists will admit that their belief in a deity is held in spite of nature. They (well, not Creationists, who are idiots) acknowledge that the universe doesn't support their beliefs but believe anyway.
So it all comes down to a very simple question: which is more likely? That the universe and everything in it came into existence through natural means, as demonstrated by the evidence or that in spite of all the evidence, there exists a divine being that created everything, a being that is beyond evidence, beyond the laws of nature, beyond reason and beyond logic? I submit that not only is the natural explanation more likely, the supernatural explanation is so unlikely, as in less than 0.00001% likely, that it's not even worth entertaining. It's more likely that gravity doesn't exists than that God does exist, which is the point I was making.
jedsithor I use the Bible as a well known example to help illustrate the point that a person's idea of the deity is just an interpretation of what is in a book, an unknown amount of which may not be meant to be taken literally.
If you take something literally that was spoken symbolically, then you can absolutely prove it wrong, even if the thing being spoken about was an actual event just being descsribed in a non-literal way.
That any given "unlikely" or even "scientifically false" thing in the Bible is actually false requires an assumption on top of an assumption.
A person's idea that, again just as an example, the Biblical god actually is a supernatural entity is an interpretation. So the perception/interpretation can be false while the falsely described God could be real, just simply falsely describe.
Most dogma comes from the interpretation of text.
"Proving" there is no supernatural entity that exists beyond the laws of nature does not prove that a given named god didn't/doesn't exist.
Personally, as much as I appreciate science, I value logic more, so I don't hold KNOWN science up as trusted 100%. It's not like scientists have never been wrong or that we have reason to believe nothing new will ever be discovered that changes our whole view of what we know.
You can't know all that isn't without first knowing all that is.
It's only the limit of what we DO know that makes a supernatural entity a false idea.
We make judgements based on the information we have, and it doesn't always mean we have all the the information, or that all of what we do have is 100% accurate. Even a bit of knowledge we view as 100% could actually be 85% depending on scale.
Let's not turn "science" into god for the sake of proving there is no god. It is the arrogance of many scientists.
They lose the humility of "as far as we know".
Kirisu Guroundosu To quote an Irish comedian, science knows it doesn't know everything. If it did, it would stop.
You're making a god of the gaps argument. There's lots that we don't know but not knowing doesn't give licence to insert a supernatural explanation. Not knowing doesn't mean there isn't a natural answer. It just means that there's more to find out. There will always be more to find out.
But there's no reason to think that any of what we don't know about the universe has supernatural origins. The only time when suggesting a supernatural cause might be acceptable is if we come across a situation that can't be explained by natural means and thus far, that's never happened and as our knowledge grows, the places where a person could attempt to insert a supernatural explanation keep shrinking, which is why the gods of the gaps argument is illogical. The gaps will keep getting smaller.
Arrogance is the furthest thing from a scientist's mind. No scientist claims to know everything. Unlike religion, which is arrogant and rejects scrutiny, science requires scrutiny. It is the basis of the scientific method. If evidence emerges that shows that a scientific theory is wrong, the scientists don't hold on to that theory, they adapt it based on the evidence or throw it out entirely if the facts don't support the theory at all. Science changes based on the evidence. Religion doesn't.
Science isn't out to prove there is no God. God isn't even part of the equation. The purpose of science is simply to learn about the universe around us, That the discoveries science makes ends up showing that supernatural explanations aren't necessary is something that people will just have to deal with.
Charles Darwin was a theist. As was Isaac Newton. The concepts of evolution and gravity weren't conceived by them as a means to dispute God. They simply wanted to understand how the world works.
The fact that we are driven by hatreds, that see us running around killing each other, does more to prove the Bible's message that we are sinners, (souls controlled by a sinful nature) in need of salvation and rebirth, than to diminish it.
So much respect for this man.
I personally am not an agnostic atheist. I am an agnostic. I don't believe there is a god. I don't believe there isn't. I don't believe anything. I know that I don't know whether or not there is one and that he can't be proven. Atheists who deny that pure agnostics can exist because "you have to believe in something!" just sound close-minded when they say that. Hell, they almost sound like the Christians they argue against.
"I don't believe there is a god." Then you're an atheist... that is literally the ONLY component of being one, nothing more and nothing less.
No atheist would ever say "you have to believe in something!" because in order for them to be an atheist they would themselves lack belief in a deity.
This isn't about the merits of any particular world view, this is simply about language and the meaning of words. Holding the exact positions you have described here fits 100% perfectly under the term atheist by itself with zero qualifications needed. There are of course varying stances that fall under the term, but vilifying the word out of ignorance is just not an acceptable means to disagree with those people. Its anti-intellectual and toxic to the entire process of humans trying to communicate with each other in a civilized manner.
Agnosticism is a form of Atheism, I agree, but there are Atheists out there who make claims that you can't be a pure Agnostic. You're either an Agnostic Atheist or an Agnostic Theist, depending on which side you believe in more. They don't believe you can be dead center.
bonclay123 Incorrect. Theists believe there is a deity, Atheists believe there is not a deity. The belief that something isn't there is just as much a belief as believing it is there. To all intents and purposes, Atheism is a religion, a religion of self. There are people who don't subscribe to either view. It's like watching a fight. Some people want person A to win. Some people want person B to win. And there are some people who have no idea who they want to win. By your logic, because they don't actively want person A to win, they must want person B to win. But likewise, because they don't actively want person B to win, they must want person A to win. Does this mean they want them both to win? Of course it doesn't, it just means they have no opinion on the matter whatsoever. And that is the definition of an Agnostic: someone who doesn't know what they believe!
bonclay123 Atheists make the specific assumption that there is no god, its not a neutral position on the matter, that would be agnosticism.
+Karen Sparkes Wow you missed the mark completely.
I am a big fan of David Mitchell, but it's disappointing to see that he has misunderstood the meanings of atheism and agnosticism. They are not competing concepts, they are orthogonal concepts and you can be both at the same time. In fact most people that call themselves "atheist" or "agnostic" are what technically would be "agnostic atheist".
(Belief)
- Theist = belief in the existence of a god
- Atheist = lack of belief in the existence of a god (not same as believing god does not exist)
(Knowledge)
- Gnostic = Knowing a god exists
- Agnostic = Not knowing whether a god exists
(Combinations)
- Agnostic atheist = Does not know if a god exists, therefore chooses not to believe due to lack of evidence.
- Agnostic theist = Does not know if a god exists, but chooses to believe despite lack of evidence.
- Gnostic atheist = Knows for a fact that god does not exist, does not believe in god
- Gnostic theist = Knows for a fact taht god does exist, believes in a god.
So technically David Mitchell is a "agnostic atheist", even if he would want a god to exist. This is also the most rational position, given no evidence and the way we approach anything (beyond the topic of religion).
Most rational belivers are "agnostic theists", they would not claim they know god exists or that they can prove it, but they might feel there are signs that he exists or chooses to believe since they think it's good for their life.
More extreme believers (like ISIS) are Gnostic theists. They are completely sure they know god exists, no doubt.
I've never met anybody claiming to be a Gnostic atheist (claiming they know for a fact that god does not exist), which would be an extreme position. But sady "gnostic atheist" is what many non-atheists think what atheism is!
Ps. it could also be that I misunderstand what he is saying.
Most people cant seem to grasp knowledge is a subset of belief so any other answer apart from a positive one yes I belive in god means you are an atheist you can be an agnostic one but whatever
That God does not exist, I cannot deny. That my whole being cries out for God I cannot forget. (Sartre)
I'm actually a Christian, but I think this is a profound admission from Sartre and resonates with David Mitchell here.
My whole being calls out BS to the god claim sorry for that
I was looking for a based substitute for Ricky Gervais, and I've now found it
Based? Based on what?
@@S4INTW4RRIOR based on you having zero bitches
@@xander1226 Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh
@Thomas Clifford and based? based on what is a meme. Looks like the teacher has become the student
christianity, islam, communism, capitalism... it all boils down to ideology. We live in a global culture that insists on putting abstract ideas above human good. And certainly, some ideologies are more conducive to violence than others.
Come on. People are arguing because they are defining the words differently. Mitchell also gave a definition of the words he used and by those definitions he is an agnostic. Which is quite close to the, in lack of a better word, classical definition of religious standpoints i.e. theist - believe there are one or more god's or higher power; agnostic - don't know or think we are incapable of knowing if there are o aren't; atheist - believe there aren't even one God.
Gnosticism is a religious movement, not a method or standpoint.
@T And Me most atheists I meet are waaaaay more zealous than most religious people I've met. Hence why it's basically seen as a religion by most folk mate. Like how smoking weed isn't a religion but when you meet those guys that have a marijuana leaf on their hat, shirt, lighter and wallet. It seems a bit religious and you realize that you just don't wanna be told "alcohol is a drug" by them anymore.
So did we create ourselves or was we created?