Comments on: Separation of Church and State

By: Mati

Mati — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 21:43:16 +0000

Atheists need to accept that the only human beings that have a lack of belief are dead human beings. All living humans have some belief regarding G-d. “Religion” defined (my lay man’s translation of Websters) is “what one believes regarding G-d and how he practices that belief.” “Atheists” choose to believe that G-d doesn’t exist (for truely they cannot know), choose to promote that belief, and come together to encourage each other on their dogma. Agnostics say that one cannot know or that it is impossible to know that G-d exists, and therefore choose to believe there is no G-d. Atheists claim they KNOW there is no G-d (or they would be agnostic). In order to be able to do this, they MUST be all knowing…for one can only be all-knowing to know there is no G-d. Therefore by definition, the atheist claims to be G-d, which is blasphemy. (Incidently, this logic applies to those who KNOW they are going to heaven, as only G-d knows who’s name is written in the Book of Life.) One more thing, the religious who demand that the 10 commandment stones be created and placed in the courtyards are violating the very commandments they claim to uphold. For upon those commandments is a teaching of “you shall not create any (3-D) image (replication) on anything on the earth, seas or heavens. (It also adds that you shall not bow before them nor worship them…3 things regarding the images.)

By: Dogtags

Dogtags — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 02:25:13 +0000

If you will permit me, I wrote a short article about how the church is holding on to the tax exempt status for their silence in the political sphere.

http://americancreed.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/a-lesson-from-jonah/

By: Dogtags

Dogtags — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 02:21:54 +0000

nhodge,

You haven’t seen the “right to privacy” because you are just not looking at “emanations from penumbras.” That is where the Supreme Court found it in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 489 (1965), right next to the rainbow colored unicorns and “substantive due process.”

By: Butterfly

Butterfly — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 22:59:51 +0000

Actually seperation of church and state does appear in one leagal document that I know of. The Utah constitution. Boring but does show up.

By: lobe

lobe — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 18:58:52 +0000

I totally already knew the whole source of Sep. Church/State. Go me. Besides that, fantastic video.

By: asbauer

asbauer — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 01:50:14 +0000

where did you get your information for this video??

By: nhodge

nhodge — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 19:18:48 +0000

This video is the one that got me completely hooked on the show. It got me thinking about other issues that might make for an interesting discussion (or debate depending in your point of view). Would a “right to privacy” also fall under this same category? I’ve not seen it explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Constitution but it seems to be implied by the 3rd, 4th, and 10th Ammendments. I’m no law expert but I find this topic very interesting!

By: JimmytheNoob

JimmytheNoob — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:52:07 +0000

Interesting how even the church are willing to give up some of their ability to “spread the word of God” just for a little more money.

By: marc

marc — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:05:48 +0000

I worship space monkeys!

By: drumdudguy

drumdudguy — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:41:01 +0000

First off, glad to see you guys back, I haven’t been to this site in awhile, and thought I’d check it out today in some of my free time.

While I agree that the debate of whether atheism is a religion won’t be solved anytime soon, I want to post my views on the subject here. I think it really depends on what your definition of religion is. Most of the arguments and definitions I’ve read for it being a religion are that it’s still a belief in something. I don’t agree that religion is belief in something, because that would mean that by believing you exist, that you’re breathing, or anything else, then you have religion. But, if that’s your definition of religion, then yes, atheism is a religion.

Some arguments narrow the above definition a little bit by saying religion is the beliefs dealing with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. I view this as just a different version of the first argument, as it’s still saying, if you have have any sort of belief on the cause, nature, or purpose of the universe, then you have religion. It doesn’t matter if you believe it was God, some scientific theory, or nothing at all.

My personal view is that religion is a set of blind beliefs. Or, beliefs without question or evidence, usually involving some sort of ritualistic observance, passed down to future generations by elders of the same beliefs. Atheists on the other hand, believe in evidence, logic, and reasoning. The only reason they don’t believe in God, is because the majority of available evidence, logic, and reasoning right now suggests that there probably isn’t one. If that were to change, and the majority of available evidence, logic, and reasoning were to suggest there is a God, then a true atheist would then believe that there is one. This is why I think atheism is not a religion.

Because religion in my view is blind belief without question or evidence, and non-religion is belief in evidence, reasoning, and logic. And atheism falls in the latter.

It all really depends on what your definitions of things are, but this is mine. I probably won’t change anyone’s view on this today, and this topic probably won’t ever really be fully agreed upon, but I felt like sharing my opinion. That is all. Again, glad to see you guys back.

By: vwmads

vwmads — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:08:16 +0000

like i’ve said on youtube whether you think so or not, atheism is a religion.

By: Guin

Guin — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 02:42:22 +0000

Wow ! Thanks for giving me a sense of reminiscence…

I havent thought about that show (He-man) since i was little kid. Never did see the ending though.

If you do another show using He-man as a metaphor , use your old action figures as visual aids. (cuz i know you still got them ! LOL )

By: socalcutie82

socalcutie82 — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:54:26 +0000

Sorry I’m late seeing this but thanks for the video…we really enjoyed it and will save this as a perfect response for people who say that churches should lose their tax exempt status…this is the perfect response (and I don’t even have to be there to argue with them…thank you electronic transmission!!). You are absolutely right…and what’s interesting is that I can guarantee there are many churches like the one we belong to that even if you took away the tax exempt status trying to “hurt ‘em where it counts” it would only fuel more donations and now the church would be a GIANT lobbying power…and boy would we be a force to be reckoned with =)

Thanks again for the post!!! Merry Christmas

By: pkw

pkw — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 07:08:34 +0000

Beautiful. Love your example of “Thinking Beyond Step 1″.
Awesome.

By: Swip

Swip — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 02:57:55 +0000

Zealousness: Adjective. full of, characterized by, or due to zeal; ardently active, devoted, or diligent. Origin:
1520–30; < ML z?l?sus.

OK, it’s real.

By: Pheonix_blu{207}

Pheonix_blu{207} — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:00:52 +0000

also I wish there was an edit feature on the page so I could go back and fix all my typos, YIKES!

By: Pheonix_blu{207}

Pheonix_blu{207} — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:56:37 +0000

You know, Ive been following the flame war on you-tube and some people just don’t get the whole “athiesm is a religion” thing. They think they can just explain it away by saying “it’s not a belief it’s a LACK of belief, but that is not possible sinces nobody can know beyond a shodow of a doubt which “theory” is correct. If you say that the universe wasn’t created by a god, then that creats a vaccum of belief and since nature abhorrs a vaccum some other belief about the nature of origins must fill the void created. Becuase negatives don’t exist in reality you cannot have a negative position on nature of origins you must make a choice of how you think it came to be and that choice reflects a belief since it can’t be proven right or wrong, it’s a bit like Pascal’s wager in that you cannot choose not to make a choice, you are commited by the nature of the univers to choose something.
The only way to really avoid a choice is to be agnostic and even that doesn’t refute other beleifs, agnosticism just tries not to embrace any particular one. agnostics don’t lack ANY belief, they just lack a SPECIFIC belief. But no matter how long you argue with some of these people you’ll never get them to admit the flaws in their so-called logic.
BTW: Maybe the Bro’s should do a show about Athiesm being a religion!!

By: Meandering {207}

Meandering {207} — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:18:15 +0000

You are officially back! I had almost given up checking back here and I’m so glad I didn’t. Great episode, well thought and excellently executed. Keep up the great work!

By: Jennifer McKenzie

Jennifer McKenzie — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:40:29 +0000

I absolutely love this. Timely and well reasoned.
Camera Guy, get away from that fudge!!!!

By: The Sasquatch

The Sasquatch — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:09:00 +0000

koolman2:

The definitions you gave us were as follows. Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God -or- disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

You said we need to test Atheism against the definition of a religion. The Brothers did just that and came to the conclusion that Atheism is a religion. Here’s a basic philosophical summary:

P1: Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and and purpose of the universe
P2: Atheism believes God does not exist
C1: A lack of belief in a god/gods necessarily and inherently includes beliefs about how the universe was caused (it was not caused by a god), its nature (not supernatural), and its purpose (not to worship a deity)
C2: Atheism is a religion.

In order to respond, you needed to show that the definition of a religion is different from what is in P1, that the definition of Atheism is different from what is in P2, or that C1 is false.

You started by using different definitions from what you originally suggested, saying “Atheism does not replace religion – religion (or theism) replaces atheism.” If people replace Christianity with Islam, are they not still following a religion? Replacement, then, does not remove a set of beliefs from the religion category.

You then said that people don’t believe in God when they’re born. Aside from being an unprovable premise, this attempt fails because it doesn’t change the definition of atheism, it doesn’t change the definition of religion, and it doesn’t say anything about whether atheism meets the criteria you suggested.

Near the end of your post, you said atheism is “a lack of religion.” Do you have evidence or reason to believe that atheism is a lack of a set of beliefs about the cause fo the universe, its nature or its purpose? The brothers suggested that it IS a religion because it is a negative statement about these things. Your response was to simply restate your initial premise. This fails.

Next, you attempted to discuss C1.

You attempted this by saying “it is not religion that is being protected, but the individual beliefs of the people.” This fails to chance P2, however, because the definition you suggested doesn’t say anything about the number of followers as a requirement. One atheist holding to beliefs about the cause, nature and purpose of the universe doesn’t change the fact that atheism meets your definition, even if that atheist thinks differently than every other atheist alive.

You attempted it a different way, saying “If I could define it another way: religious people have not a different belief, but an extra belief compared to atheists.” This fails because your definition in P1 doesn’t say anything about differing or competing beliefs, or the relative number of beliefs in the set.

Since your attempts failed to either change the definitions in P1 and P2, or prove that C1 is false, Atheism stands as a religion.

By: koolman2

koolman2 — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:28:39 +0000

First let me say thank you for your kind and very informative response to my comment; it’s much more than I had expected. You are right; this topic is one that is much debated. When a topic is debated such as this, I usually refer to actual definitions. So you have to ask yourself: does atheism fit the accepted definition for religion? I believe that if you take these two words, define them in an accepted dictionary, and ask just about any person, they would disagree.
-
Atheism does not replace religion – religion (or theism) replaces atheism. People don’t believe in a god when born – how can they? Their brains have no memories, nothing stored in them yet, which is why they must learn anything that is not programmed as innate behavior.
-
Yes, atheism is protected under the first amendment, along with all religions and anything remotely resembling a religion; however, it is not religion that is being protected, but the individual beliefs of the people. If I could define it another way: religious people have not a different belief, but an extra belief compared to atheists. Some atheists may disagree and sick Dawkins on me here, but hear me out: when a religious person claims that there is a god, an atheist doesn’t simply disagree, he rejects that the religious text has any merit or credibility. He simply rejects all religions equally, and, by default, falls into the category of atheist. To be classified as a religion, it must have that missing set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Atheism by itself cannot fall under that definition.
-
If you could put the religiousness of a person on a scale from 0 to 1000, 0 being no religiousness and 1000 being the most religious possible, atheism simply falls at 0. There is no negative here, simply the lack of a numerical value. Atheism is the lack of religion. Since theism is the belief in at least one deity, atheism is without belief in at least one deity, or, lacks a theistic view – atheism.

By: The Brothers Winn

The Brothers Winn — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:29:18 +0000

koolman2, Thanks for your nice words about the show. As to Atheism is not a religion: I predict this will be a topic as easy for society to agree upon as abortion. The problem is semantics. No atheist wants to be associated with the word religion for obvious reasons.
-
First off, the fact that atheists believe the opposite of what a person of faith believes doesn’t change the fact that it is still the same thing… belief. Now here is where all my friends on youtube would jump in and say the burden of proof is on the religious. And sure, I’ll agree with that. But I’ll take it a step further. Logically the burden of proof should be with anyone who makes a definitive claim. Like “God is real” or “There is no God”.
-
The funny thing about God is nobody can prove it. It’s sort of a paradox. In order to really know, you would have to be able to look out and see through all of the universe across all time in every possible place simultaneously to determine that there never has been, isn’t currently, and never will be a God. In fact I’d go as far saying that in order to actually prove the existence or non existence of God, you’d have to be God. (all knowing, all powerful, etc.)
-
On to the atheism definitions. To me it looks like a list of their tenets, or in this case single tenet. Doctrine or belief that there is no God / supreme being(s). Your argument is that because there is no specific belief in origins that this cannot possibly be a religion. But the claim that there is no God is an indirect statement as to a belief in origin. Not from God. While faith based religions take a positive position or claim, atheism makes a negative one. “We came from here” vs “we didn’t come from there” or “we could have come from anywhere but there.” Two sides of the same coin.
-
We could split hairs on definitions all day long. But why do that when we have the United States Supreme Court. In 1961 they ruled in Torcaso v. Watkins that there does not need to be a belief in a God to be protected under the first amendment, effectively moving atheism into the same category as Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, and Secular Humanism – religions that do not teach or express belief in what would generally be considered a supreme being.
-
So atheist are protected by the first amendment and express a belief in something that cannot be proved. If it looks like a religion, and it acts like a religion, then it must be… But wait! They don’t meet together on sundays! Oh never mind. there are plenty of people claiming to be religious that don’t do that.
-
As a side note, you also mentioned the idea that each atheist comes to a belief of origins on their own, but that doesn’t make it any less of a religion. It just makes it a religion of one. That is provided you don’t buy into someone like Richard Dawkins and his followers. Atheism may not cover all the bases of other religions but there is no hard or fixed rule book on what subjects or matters a religion has to have doctrine for.
Our point without trying to be antagonistic is simply this: If its acting like a religion and filling that need for people, then it is.
-
Well there is our answer. We hope you weren’t offended. Like we said, this is a hotbed issue (just like abortion) and I doubt will change with one post.

By: koolman2

koolman2 — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:21:47 +0000

First: loved the show, it was very informative.

Second: athiesm is NOT a religion. Dictionary.com defines “religion” as, “1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe…”

The same site also defines “atheism” as, “1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God,” or, “2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.” Atheism is the lack of belief of any form of supreme being – that’s it. There is no set atheistic belief in where the universe came from, each atheist comes to that belief on his own. Since the requirement to be considered a religion is a belief in where we came from, atheism is not a religion. :-)

By: FatAnorexic

FatAnorexic — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:00:06 +0000

28th! Yes I know it’s not as good as third place, but It still says I’m in dernit! Very interesting and fairly funny. Anyways it’s this show then back to watching Something Something Darkside-tis Family Guy for those of you who aren’t in the know XD.

By: kulika

kulika — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:09:29 +0000

LIFE HAS MEANING AGAIN AT LAST!!!

By: Ingrid

Ingrid — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:57:45 +0000

Wow, I love how you guys keep teaching me stuff about the English language, I keep learning things with you guys. Zealousness, awesome word, I have to remember that one :P . Further more, Awesome episode, I don’t know that much about the founding of America and stuff, but I guess the discussion of seperation of church and state is active in most (western?) countries. Over here, the discussion keeps existing on whether to allow moslim women to wear a headcloth(?) when they have public/state jobs. I think it’s interesting… Anyhow, two thumbs up for yet another awesome show…

By: haleymathiot

haleymathiot — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 04:29:41 +0000

Thank you for this video!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! people need to know the truth. would you believe me if i knew the answer to your first pop quiz right away because i’ve done some research on this topic? whatev. maybe it’s my homeschooler zealousness. i think i’ll put a link to this video on my blog. :D

By: steph {207}

steph {207} — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 01:34:57 +0000

YES! Welcome back and what a great show to start out with! I’m adding this one to my favorites list! Equals D!

By: Nospinplease

Nospinplease — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:52:03 +0000

OMGGGG!!! =D welcome back! i missed you guys. and i actually searched for the phrase myself a while back, out of curiousity… when i didnt find it in the constitution. i was puzzeled. it all makes sense now. thanks!

By: grimhold

grimhold — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 03:59:17 +0000

First, glad to see you two back
Second, loved the show
Third, most of the founding fathers felt they were making a Christians state and meant for it to be a place where Christians could worship GOD and the Christ in peace and safety their own way and did not really care or give thought to any other religion. other non-christian religions get the same freedoms by default.

By: Teagan

Teagan — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 02:00:35 +0000

… I <3 you guys.

By: GameDroid98

GameDroid98 — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:21:45 +0000

HOORAY!!! The Brothers Winn are back! Excellent show you guys, but it’s kind of cutting it close on your “new show in the first two weeks of December” promise. But know you have a new WYOTK quote… I HAVE THE POWER!!! Equals D

By: the pants eater

the pants eater — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:09:49 +0000

I am no doubt excited to see you guys back in action, but I must say, I don’t like the theme song.

By: hydrohead

hydrohead — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 04:49:23 +0000

Best WYOTK Ever!

By: nick

nick — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 04:48:39 +0000

First I got the quiz right, and second I disagree with your statement that the only reason churches don’t endorse political candidates is to keep their tax exempt status. I think it is because there is no candidate that upholds every religious standard found in the bible, or whatever text that specific church uses. Also the part about the United States not being a christian nation you were correct about the fact that there is no government endorsed religion, however I believe most Americans would say they are christian, even if they don’t uphold the standards in the bible… well nobody upholds the standards in the bible because we are people.

By: sudhir

sudhir — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 03:22:16 +0000

I do not know why History Channel cannot understand this simple fact that they are so BORING. There only chance to make their shows interesting is by involving you guys. But i guess they are Bozo who never learns from their mistakes

By: chancemuse

chancemuse — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:58:34 +0000

Awesome show, very interesting!

By: Kel

Kel — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:14:05 +0000

Glad to see you back! Space out those new episodes, ok? I don’t want them to run out too quickly.

By: Samuel

Samuel — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:18:23 +0000

You’re back! this is pretty interesting. Did you get a new mike or something? cause it sounds different.

By: montymontgomeri

montymontgomeri — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:22:01 +0000

this is extremely interesting.

By: gettoman

gettoman — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:55:25 +0000

Awesome post! So appropriate for the crap going on in today’s political nightmare! I learnt a lot in that one! You should do a whole 1.5 hour long show on History Channel with that stuff!

By: overlord

overlord — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:22:00 +0000

yay your back..awesome stuff guys love it equals D

By: cburningham

cburningham — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:53:30 +0000

Where am I supposed to turn in my essay?

By: Dandapani

Dandapani — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:02:45 +0000

Welcome back! Good vid. Right down the middle with the facts. Nice.

By: BlueX273

BlueX273 — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:27:08 +0000

YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOOHHOOO!!!!! You guy are finnally back!!!!! WOOOHOO!!!!!

By: sudhir

sudhir — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:46:07 +0000

At Last Brothers Winn you are again active. i am so glad to find your new video again. I started watching your shows in October and “binged watched” all your shows in a week or so. I used to check every now and then for your new video. The world needs such insightful shows as you make and yours are so funny too. Thank You so much!

By: Pheonix_blu{207}

Pheonix_blu{207} — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:02:15 +0000

Hey!! This isn’t Tuesday! Aww forget it, I’m just glad you guys are back for a few weeks. Great video by the way. Equals D!!!

By: The Informant

The Informant — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:01:51 +0000

Whoo!! New episode’s always bring Equals D’s to my face! Keep them up, guys! <3

By: CrazyDave

CrazyDave — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 04:40:18 +0000

w00t, does it get better than He-Man?? and Thomas Jefferson?? and The Brothers Winn???

…pure awesomeness mixed with zealousness, shaken not stired…

By: Curtis

Curtis — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 03:43:05 +0000

Argh, second. Oh, I’m so mad. I should’ve won. You cheated. Wanna play again? Anyway, welcome back. Good history, and it was insiteful. Thanks. See ya next week.

By: The Brothers Winn

The Brothers Winn — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 03:27:12 +0000

First! (Sorry, but I’ve wanted to do that forever.) Hope you all enjoy the show. We will have another for you next week. And the week after I think. We’ll see. It all depends on how much fudge Camera Guy ends up eating.