Shazard. You have some good points, but I disagree with you on a lot:
he says, that he does not get it coz he has no calculatiosns, so... if he does not get it and there is no math for some part of reality, then it is discardable? This boils down to "If I am lame to understand it, it is lame thing"... exactly my position on Chemistry in School
Yes, it is discardable, in the sense that there is no argument to believe in the existence of God (becaus his existence cannot be demonstrated/proved). Your analogy to your attitude towards chemistry in school is no good, because the laws of chemistry are demonstrable! - God is not. Therefore, you are required to believe in the basic laws of chemistry and physics, because not believing in them would be insane (and dangerous). Whereas with god, there is no reason to believe in him, because his existence is just speculation with no logical arguments to support the theory whatsoever, and there is no data to support his existence either. In fact, all the data (pointing to evolution) indicates the opposite. Therefore, believing in God is not rational.
00:53 He argues against "unviersal morality" and still is talking from position of such a morality - if that is not doubletalk then what is?
Aha. Yes, this one is always tricky. The problem is that he did not elaborate enough on this point. First of all, he did not argue against a "universal morality", he argued against the religious peoples definition of universal morality! Personally, I would have first stressed the difference between what I would consider to be this "universal morality" from religious morality! - which actually isn`t very moral at all. After all, what does a "law" against homosexual sex (two consenting adult males) have to do with morality at all? No more than "laws" against eating shellfish, wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or stoning a girl for not having yelled loud enough while being raped. Such things have nothing to do with morality, although all the major religions, judaism, christianity and islam have such misunderstandings concerning morality. They are mixing up genuine moral laws (such as "thou shalt not kill" - at least not indiscriminately, ha ha) with particularly peculiar "dislikes", such as the dislike of homosexuality and...shellfish (lol). What the guy in the video is saying is that he detests religion for always insisting on shoving their version of morality (which, in reality, has absolutely nothing to do with genuine morality) down the throats of us unbelievers. And I agree totally with him. After all, I am not trying to shove my version of morality down the throats of neither christians nor moslems. Of course, if I tried, I would probably be either A) sued for religious discrimination, or B) killed.
01:13 His argumetn about faith being act of will. Let him (or you) try to believe in fairy tales, in christianity (assuming you are atheist) in Hinduism or Islam... DO IT and PROOVE that it is act of will and you will fail. So no arguments here! You can pretend you believe, pretention is act of will, but real faith and beleive is beyond will! REJECTION is act of will, acceptance is not! I reject atheism and all other forms of faith by will, but Christianity I do accept not by will but as Gift.
I agree, he`s wrong on that point. Faith is not an act of will, I couldn`t make myself believe in god, even if I tried. On the other hand, the fact that religious beliefs is not an act of will, makes the entire concept of religion even stupider! Because it is impossible for me to believe, then why should I be sentenced to eternal hellfire (by christians) or beheading and hellfire (by moslems)? However, I disagree with you when you claim that rejecting religion is an act of will. How can accepting religion not be an act of will, while rejecting it is an act of will? To me, it is impossible to accept religious beliefs. I therefore reject them. My rejection of them is the logical result from the impossibility for me to accept them. How then, is my rejection of religious beliefs an act of will?
One more thing: Yes, the guy in the video messed up on this point. After all, if accepting religious beliefs truly was an act of will, then it could (probably) not be considered a mental illness. It would have to be considered to be pure...retardation.
02:30 So we should protect our children from horrors of reality? Well how about shutting down Hollywod first?
Yes, we should. A childs mind is like a sponge, it sucks up all the data it is given. Children should not be allowed to see the real horrors of morality, flashing over our TV-screens with phootage from Iraq and Afghanistan, and they should certainly not be subjected to even more horrible things that doesn`t even exist (in reality!) - things such as hell and Satan. Concerning Hollywood, it is not necessary to shut down Hollywood to protect children. Just send them off to bed before 9 o`clock in the evening.
Atheism which lies out everything in perfectly simple way - do what you want to do and let others to do what they want to do! No morality, no standards...
You accused him of presenting a faulty definition of faith. Now you are doing the exact same thing with atheism. Atheism is not the same as nihilism - or even satanism. I am an atheist too - but I absolutely believe in the difference between right and wrong - and I most certainly don`t need any god or religious text written down 2000 years ago to tell me what right is, and what wrong is. I can figure these things out myself, by using my brain. So can everyone else. Ethics are actually pretty logical. Not everything, there definitely are grey areas, but as for most things concerning human interaction, it is not difficult to come up with a certain set of basic rules, a "universal morality"...