Taking up the fizzing soda idea. People should that know from physics/chemistry that you cannot 'force' a chemical reaction to happen, more that it will definitely happen given the proper circumstances and environment, then if someone believes that we are NOT just molecules in motion they must believe there is something outside of the phyiscal realm (soul?) that interferes with our brain's chemistry/environment every time an action or thought to occurs. Dubious proposition if you ask me.
Why do they always say: "if the universe is just... and that's all it is, then.... " What's that about? The universe isn't wonderful enough? What more do you want?
@Meshugana "A celestial candyhouse. I demand one, especially when I die. If there isn't one then nothing matters. Not my wife, family, job, or Adidas endorsement." Sometimes, just sometimes, I wonder if a belief in a deity could possibly be a good thing. It's apparent to me that unless they feel like they are being watched, they won't know how to act. We have all heard the line, "if there is no god then why be good?" These people frighten me to no end.
"There may be perfectly natural and impersonal phenomena out there which can explain the origin of this universe yet to be discovered. Think how exciting that would be."
It shows that you still have a lil bit of "faith" there, which shows that you actually thinking more than just an evidential-based argument.
C'mon friend, you don't have to win an argument and neither do I. But all these can be a point for us to ponder.
Nope. But some people "looks" like it. If you looked at the truth only by whether it has evidence or not, you can't see the big picture.
Even the statement like "In the end, all human on earth will die" is not valid since it has not been proven by evidence. (though it is scientifically rational)
You must differentiate illogical from supra-logical. illogical is contra-ratio, but supra-logical is beyond ratio.
Wilson smugly says he has never encountered an atheist who attempts to explain how order comes out of chaos? So, even when he’s sitting next to one he still thinks he’s never encountered one. Obviously the explanations provided by bronze age goatherds must make much more sense. Likewise, his mantra about being saved by someone murdered 2,000 years ago must become more true every time he says it.
If you walk into a kitchen and see a puddle of milk on the floor, why assume an intelligence was involved? A gust of wind may have toppled a container of milk. A perfectly natural explanation. The same with the universe: it may very well be (and most likely is) the result of natural events with no intelligence involved. I find Douglas Wilson's reasoning extremely one-dimensional.
@RichieJohnSauls the example you given is a fairly simple case, which could happen either by intelligence intervention or not. But when you are talking about universe, you are talking abt a deeply complex system that a human mnd cannot comprehend easily, and might involved some mysteries in it for centuries. it's more than just an atmic particles that vibrates consistently in over a milion times, which is the current standart for "a second", human ( intelligence, conscience), nature, planet, etc
@sl1mm My question is: Why assume an intelligence is involved simply because the universe is so very complex from a human perspective? There may be perfectly natural and impersonal phenomena out there which can explain the origin of this universe yet to be discovered. Think how exciting that would be.
@RichieJohnSauls why not? the "funny" fact is, it's easier to believe in it and start building your reasons on it. When you do that, you can see things in a solid, clearer perspective. Rather than a "method" that is desperately denying God, and trying to patch each holes with mixed theory in the name sciences/assumption/"logic", etc.
Why do you find it hard to admit that it was God's, and trying to direct it into a impersonal phenomenon?
@sl1mm I don't see science "desperately denying God". There is no evidence for it's (i.e. "God's") existence. This is why I must deduct that the universe can not be it's creation. If there was evidence for "God" I would happily entertain your proposal that it created the universe, if it can be shown that it is demonstrably capable of such an act.
Wilson: how did it get so beautiful without god, it's impossible because obviously it's so beautiful, it had to have a divine creator;
he is unwilling to even try and concede that the question: "why" needs to be answered and is sequentially answered step by step, and it takes humans a long time to answer such very difficult questions by science, because they are difficult questions.
How does sun shine, how do animals run around, how does that or this happen? Those are all answerable by humans.
You wouldn't "ask" the universe what happened, you look at the state of the universe for clues. Just as you could look at the milk bottle and find clues as to what happened - the direction it was spilled, who was in the room, etc.
Wilson seems like a nice guy, but some of his arguments are so, so lacking.
@nick260682 Of course his arguments are lacking, he is a man of faith (dependence on belief with no evidence) rather than reason (the search for the actual answer). He has not answered a single question with any confidence. He has no answers apart from saying "I believe..." And yes the Universe IS a concourse of atoms banging around !!
This xtian is actually tolerable, probably bc he really believes his stuff. He doesn't just claim that religion is charitable. He tries to defend the faith, not just the works of the faith.
@nat6660 If you live in a none fertile part of the world, and know of a much better place to live, and you can gather up allot of people to take that area of land, from others, and have an easier life, is it more logical or less logical not to go and kill off all those in that land for your own easier life, so you children can live etc. Define what is logically, its based on perceptions. You can senselessly kill very logically, or very illogically. In the name of God/Gods or in no name.
Wilson, talking about chaos and showing how it concides with the scientific knowledge, has just given me one reason to convert to the ancient greek religion.
As to the milk at 5:06 it would be easy to ask it. We look to see the cup next to it and our child's size 4 foot print and we can easily see, indeed one could say the milk revealed, that it's current location is due to a child. More so we could analyse the milk and see that it is cow's milk and understand how it came from a teat, to a carton, to a cup, to a child, to the floor. Or we could pray....who will get the answer first?
Wilson eventually is treading quiksand as Hitchens is warning that quiksand is there, and the smart thing to do is not step into a very deep, and dangerous, unstable ground unless one first puts a stick into it to test it....nothing wrong with that logic...and hopefully at that seminary, the students would take note many are going to want to have absolute logical evidence and facts to prove what is out there is quiksand...others will rely on faith, but might as well test that faith
continued....it might be meaningful TO HIM...wilson assumes that no standards whatever are even conceivable to us without god...cf his opening remarks about the emptiness of judgements of "good writing"...so now add god...and how does THAT make these judgements now meaningful? if it's thought that god somehow places these standards in us, then the question is how do we understand them? god is out there...or not. we make the judgements inside our own minds. unless he's doing the thinking for us
this was quite amusing...and looking at the comments is more amusing. I would say 2 things. First, apparently Mr. Wilson i is totally unaware of the past 50 years or so of work in philosophy of mind and language which attempts to do just what he claims can't be done, namely, show how thought and meaning arise from physical reality. Secondly, if the universe without god is meaningless TO US, i really fail to see how adding god and saying he has a plan makes it any more meaningful TO US...
Okay, I'm going to give some advice to anyone who want to argue with mmac382: DON'T. This person is inherently biased in their claim and arguments. mmac382 has no idea what it's like to not believe in god(s). They keep bringing up "lazy" atheist when they're too fucking lazy to even explore the definition of atheism; they think it's a religion (lol). I have no problem debating theists but atheists need to draw a standard: no arguing with pricks that REFUSE to be reasonable.
By arguing with irrational theists immune to reason (or anything that concerns their self-obsessed beliefs) atheists are essentially wasting the one life we have They have no good arguments and resort to opinions.. I promise to only debate with SENSIBLE -not SENSITIVE- theists from now on. Atheist or skeptic, it would be wise to do so as well.
The problem is your assuming Im promoting religion. Im just making the observation that a faith in god has done more good than bad for society and the religion of none belief is stagnent and essentialy does nothing to improve the human condition. Your only defense is to try to stop the messanger when it disagrees with your little self involved world.
The bottom line is that the theists cannot prove their extra-ordinary claims. Even if the universe requires a prime mover to come into existence that does NOT mean that the entity responsible is the god of the Christians. There is no proof. It simply does NOT exist!
Hitchens tore him a new one. No satisfactory answer is given to Hitchens' objection that Wilson assumes a priori that the Bible is true. No argument offered. Hitch rather bluntly points that out, debate completely surrendered at that point.
I disagree. Wilson made a valid point about the axiomatic nature of the premise of science and even logic but Hitchens kind of dodged it... btw good debate...
Hitchens addressed it, probably not as forcefully as he could've. However, he did point out that science is a methodology for discovery rather than being "revealed wisdom". The point is that the methodology relies on observation and evidence, and makes testable predictions, reducing the role of faith beyond all reasonable comparison with that of mainstream religion...
...At some point, even a cynical old materialist like me would have to admit that I have faith that it's an orderly and knowable universe, (which I do for largely pragmatic reasons) but to equate that with the faith of the pious is disingenuous in my opinion.
I grant you the points about the difference between obtained and revealed knowledge and the methodology as a basis of science. My point is that both science and religion are closed systems which are based on assumptions that are unprovable and anti-intuitive. I see little difference between "god is eternal and omnipresent" and " two parallel lines dissect in infinity". Btw I am also an old materialist but I am having the crisis of "faith" :). That is why I seek this debate...hope you don't mind.
I would argue that science must is open to reality. Where theory is contradicted by actual observation, the theory must be revised or overturned. Either way, our actual empirical knowledge of the universe is advanced. I would also complain that your materialist counter argument is mathematical, and an entirely mental construct, having no analogue in reality. Don't get me wrong though, maths "works", which I find slightly mysterious.
Religion doesn't deny that the sun comes up it just gives a different reason as to why. Systems that explain reality are based on the mathematical/logical constructs that in their turn are abstractions. I have no problem with the method of observing and measuring (sun comes up every mourining), my problem is with the interpretation of the results (becouse gravity "wills" it). How can I honestly say "I know why the sun comes up every mourning"...
... If you except the premise of religion (god will's it) than everything in that system works. If you except the premise of science (math is the universal and unchangeable language of reality) than the result is the same. The problem is that those premises are unprovable. So in that regard I don't get the materialistic superiority...
Gravity is, of course, the reason that the sun comes up in the morning. That is testable, bourne out by observation, and makes accurate predictions. That says nothing about any intent or intelligence behind it, I don't know why it would be suggested in the absence of evidence. I don't think that science starts with that premise - through observation, the harmony of nature was noticed and described...
... why it should be this way, I don't know. That's not to say that we'll never know, and I submit that religion is unable to provide any intellectually satisfying answer, and I can't see that changing. Science is a self-correcting methodology, religion is anything but.
But gravity is not the reason, it is the mechanism by which it happens. And it is not measurable per say, it's effects are, presuming that it exists as such.
I can invent a force called love-ity, I can measure it by various degrees of absentmindedness and I can build a system around it. I still have not proven it's existence. All I did was construct a closed system of interpretation that fits in to the perception of reality.
Methodology of measurement is self correcting but only within the closed system of mathematical correlations that are human product. And of course science starts with a premise. Universality of mathematical laws are that premises. Try to have science without square root of 2. A leads to B is observation, A leads to B because C influences the process is interpretation. C can be god or gravity or love... I am not defending religion, I guess I am attacking the dogmatism of science.
See if you agree: science hopes to answer how, religion hopes to answer why. In that regard I view the struggle between science and religion as fake. In some regards as a battle between the old clergy (theologians) and the new clergy (technocrats) for our "faith". Look at us... neither you nor me has ever seen a quark. But somebody told us that they exist and are being measured and we took that at face value because it's the "law" (science) and we don't possess the tools to argue against it.
Gravity is the force involved, and it is very accurately measurable and predictable. It is not necessarily explainable though, action at a distance is weird! We may never know how that works, entirely, but I find the false sop that religion provides on these matters of little consolation.
You could invent any force you like (why not, the maths should work out), but if it doesn't describe the real world closely, and explain observations, then it will be overturned, like many other failed ideas.
But it will describe reality because it is reverse-engineered from it. I guess my final point is let us not become zealots in anybody's army. Anyhow, thank you for challenging me.
"Wilson made a valid point about the axiomatic nature of the premise of science and even logic but Hitchens kind of dodged it..."
But does that lend ANY further credibility to the religious belief system? I think if one denies the validity of the logic and science of physical existence, it actually removes one further from potential knowledge of the metaphysical or supernatural.
You are right. it doesn't. I am not looking to give credibility to religious explanations, I am just challenging the scientific assumptions. My fear is that the science is producing a new type of clergy, technical instead of theological. Neither you (presumably) nor me can explain the dynamo of gravity but we are both willing to defend it. Why? I found my self numerous times in a dogmatic moment defending things I don't understand. I was being intellectually dishonest... I didn't like that.
You're wrong; that's a presumption. A technical "clergy" is more useful than a theological one. Unlike religious claims, science is peer-reviewed and well-documented (by credible sources). I'm sorry to say this but technology is the only thing that has made life more livable for humans. We should make religious institutions pay taxes to be FAIR and make all technological institutions tax-exempt so that we invest in progress and reality and not on the belief and desires of ancient barbarians.
After all, modernizing ancient myths will not fix social issues. A belief in Santa is less useful than a generous person who actually gives gifts. If we give religion a special plea, then we might as well make holiday stores tax-except. Beyond all of that, as long as people have different imaginary friends to fight for there will be WAR. Yet, if everyone admitted that Yahweh, Allah, etc are just cultural perversions of a being that might even exist (just maybe)...then there will be progress.
@pwismyname But then you're asking everyone to accept that as ultimate truth. Is it not possible to just have a society that allows freedom of religion with the common denominator that no one can coerce or inflict harm onto another human.
Yep, Scientology provided many ministers to convert the downtrodden people. You can't talk about the altruistic actions of religion without mentioning it's selfishness. That's the rub. Religion demonstrates itself as a human institution that doesn't seek truth, but rather exerts itself on people in every action it takes. Poor Haitians.
@ariuszarim Give me an example of the selfishness of religion. Your correct in saying religion is a human institution. An effort to discount religion with scientific evidence makes no sense. Religion can be described as a search for the inner soul. That which makes us different from plants. Science has very little concerned with such concepts. And scientist whom do havent even come close.
@pwismyname So your in a round about way making a case for technology as a religion. If you people didnt have doubts about your position you probably would spend less time fretting about it and more time practicing. By the way do you mean peer reviewed like "Climate Change" data has been peer reviewed? What a joke. I think the whole peer reviewed credibility concept has long gone out the window. Scientist are no more trustworthy than the theist you so like to hate.
@mmac382 You know what's funny, I agree with you about the climate change because the Global Warming theory is exaggerated and flawed (even propaganda) in many ways. However, you're still a thickheaded moron.
"Look, no one knows where this shit came from, but I’d rather trust the guys in white lab coats who don’t demand I get up early every Sunday to overdress and apologize for being human"
@pwismyname long as science isn't degraded into something faith based like alternative medicine, scientology, or trust me baby i'm a doctor,. doesnt mean real science is different, but it can be bastardized. but i whole heartedly agree that religions should not be tax exempt. religion makes people think that their lives are better, studying and applying scientific method is what actually makes it so, if used properly. nothing should ever be followed blindly.
@pwismyname Well said. Anti-science proponents should be banned from all technologies and medicines such as antibiotics until they come back begging.
Science has saved millions of lives... far more than the number that Jesus allegedly saved (and I don't mean the theological meaning of saved just in case someone decides to distort what I said). We need to make a stand.
@RPM11111 No, I mean anti-science proponents, whether they are atheist, theist, black, white, female, male... ANYONE who slags off science continually should have all the fruits of science revoked. If I was in power anyone totally rejecting science would be forced to live in a cave with others. They would come grovelling back to society after a week.
Please don't try and put words in to someone's mouth. Thanks.
@pwismyname Why must you pit science against theology?
Science is a process of inquiry about the physical world and to find laws.
It is impossible to prove something transcends the physical world using physical properties.
The theist argument can be said: God created the physical world and the physical language and equations by which the universe exists. It is unreasonable to ask the Christian or thiest to prove God exists by using the equations we're saying God created.
Wilson's analogy of the universe with spilt milk is a bare assertion. Why can't there be evidence in the spilt milk about how it got to be spilt?
Stenger does attempt to give a reckoning of how order came from chaos, so Wilson is talking nonsense. All Wilson gives is an argument from ignorance. And Stenger has produced coherent models.
dbes02, I thought Wilson meant that WE are the spilt milk. Therefore, just as the two bottles of cola are fizzing not debating, the spilt milk cannot reasonably hope to understand its own origins.
That remark at 6:00 really sums up just how ignorant most theists are about what they're trying to refute. That's one of the worst over-simplifications I've ever heard.
ya, i find it interesting that morals could have only come AFTER a religious text came around. what did people do before that? i think that it is much more honest for an atheist to do a good deed than a christian because a christian feels compelled to do it for either reward or fear of punishment, an atheist doesn't feel like he is obligated to but does anyway. i believe that this shows a more benevolent spirit (to borrow a term, i don't believe in spirits necissarily per-say).
Religion came about as soon as the moon crossed the path of the sun....or maybe even sooner. One cant start the discussion at the time text was created. One would do this just so they can bash people of faith. And atheism if just a religion of not believing in a supreme being.
They say "atheism is as much a religion as bald is a hair color." Non-belief can never be a religion. Atheism doesn't seek to bash faith...it's the other way around. In fact, all humans are born atheist. Then most are indoctrinated as children (without consent) and never venture to reason because culture, society and institutions pressure them not to do so. On top of that, they are mentally tortured as kids with an imaginary place called hell and grow up to think it's real. Some "free will." Ha.
Well these days Athiest do the bashing. And Athiesm is a BELIEF that there is no God. Stop sitting on the sidelines and get into the game of life. Atheism is just an excuse to be lazy.
No, atheists usually "bash" when theists such as yourself make ridiculous claims like you just did. Atheists don't believe or "deny" god...THAT ASSUMES THAT GOD EXISTS. We don't believe, get it straight. Anti-theists, such as myself, understand that Christianity is threatening to turn the secular founded U.S. into a theocracy and that religion of any kind harms the critical/rational thought of human beings.
Lazy? Are you really that ignorant. I actually used to be an Orthodox Christian. It was LAZY, intellectually dishonest for me to believe what I did just because I was raised in such a way. Not using your brain is the laziness. It's easy to be superstitious or follow the faith you've been indoctrinated into. Thinking for yourself is the hard part. Based on what you said, you're lazy then because your atheist with regards to all the thousands of other gods you could believe in.
The game of life? I'm sorry, but I don't think that life is a just a game that I can play with. It's not just a bus ride to an imaginary afterlife. Despite how difficult it was for me to deconvert (I too didn't want to let go of the childish idea that we can live forever), I decided to take reality over delusion. Let's be honest, we only KNOW of this one life here on Earth. Once we accept that, our life has infinite value. I would never blindly waste my life practicing religion and DENIAL.
So you considor yourself an intellect but you cant accept the concept of religious faith as valid. I think your idea of an intellect is wrong to say the least. I think y9our just lazy and afraid.
So Atheist just ride the fence.......Lazy Id say. Your revisionist history is pretty interesting as well. What your saying is Atheist never utter the phrase "I dont believe in God..... and if they did say that it means there is a God? ....
Forgive me, I didn't realize atoms constituted for life. We should change the Periodic Table into Names of the Most Prominent Followers of Christianity (The Only Possible Religious Truth Since All Other Religions Are Wrong According to Our Bias). You're right: intellects never grasp ANY blind belief where there is no evidence. To counter your childish argument with my own, I'd say you're too afraid to accept any other religion or (more importantly) reality as we KNOW it. Chicken! bak bak bak.
Maybe religious people have more faith that people need the fear of god to be decent because they themselves really are scumbags at heart. It sure seems that way from listening to them.
huh, i've never thought of that but its a really interesting point. i think its just that they THINK they are like that at heart.... unfortunate and sad....
It certainly explains why they're so afraid that atheism will lead to complete chaos and are always asking us where our moral guidance could possibly come from if not god. But isn't that another way of saying that only something that could punish them for certain would be a sufficient deterrent to stop them from sinning? Or at the very least it suggests that without a god to reward them with a great afterlife they'd have no reason to be generous, loving, or thoughtful to other folk while alive.
This would be true if believers correlated atheism with low morals. They dont of course. Believers pray for athiest and detest those with low morals. Two differant things.
Btw, do you not see the arrogance in your own words? You sound condescending and believe you are superior because your fear of death forces you to believe. This makes you morally superior how? Just for the record, all atheists, most theists and maybe even you are more moral than your stupid fucking jealous God who promotes murder, rape, theft amongst his "chosen people." If you deny that then in your "relationship with God" you're being used.
God doesnt promote anything but be good to one another. Man just interprets it differantly. Atheists of course interpret everything religious in the worst possible light.
"God doesnt promote anything but be good to one another"
This sounds noble, but prove it. Apparently God has been very inconsistent with the millions that enter into a "relationship" and "speak with him" and "get answers." Let's not forget, there a re 33,000+ sects of Christianity ALONE for a reason. There are clashes, neglect and ignorance among religious communities (alot of it amongst different Christians) because we're "good to one another"?
I know these concepts require a little too much thinking for an Atheist. But scientist (whom have no more real evidence one way or the other) refuse to allow you think any other way.
Dude, please get this idea that Atheism = Science-based out of your head and tell your fellow theists that. I'm not an atheist because of science (it definitely HELPS though). I became an atheist because I decided to "think another way." The way being REASON and TRUTH and not desire or belief. Belief and truth are NOT interchangeable. Otherwise, please admit that all god(s) holds as much "truth" as your own. It's dogmatic religion that "refuse[s] to allow you to think any other way"
Your the one that brought up science not me. You became an Ateist because it took much effort to be a caring human. The REASON is ... your LAZY. The TRUTH is ... your LAZY. Im the on thinking out of the box. Your stuck in your insignificant little life.
@ananiasacts Admittedly, this is true. The core of Christianity is that we are all scum bags at heart, and the state of the world, despite no shortage of moral laws, is proof positive of that fact.
@jonathanpaulmayer, If you plot quality of life vs religiosity across countries, they are inversely correlated. The former rises as the latter declines. We need to find a way to inoculate kids in public school if we want to put an end to this tragic waste of life.
religion is the least of your worries, especially in public schools. Because of liberal interferrance and government desire to keep urban youths unedducated, kids are lucky to graduate with the ability to critically think. For profit private schools of course do a far better job. Of course libs hate that idea because it takes away from thier slave trade. Hey ARse hole did you think I went away? I see your still afraid of religion.
@mmac382, True, religion isn't the problem, it's the unscrupulous religious advocates, like yourself, that fraudulently promote agenda's like the one revealed in the Dover trial that most threaten our schools. I support the voucher idea--I think parents should be able to use them at any school which can earn accreditation--religious or otherwise. And I agree with Dan Dennett, that inoculating kids in primary school with the truth about religion is the best long term strategy to counter the scum.
There is no truth about religion, thats why its base on faith. Trust me religion is not accepted as a topic of conversation in any public school system these day. Therefore inoculating kids as you put it cannot be accepted in our schools either.
@mmac382, LIke all of your claims, that's quite false. Theologians, anthropologists, historians, and other scientists have discovered about a bit about the history and evolution of our species and the mythologies that evolved with us.
Religion is just a belief system. When the ancients saw an eclipes of the sun some interpreted it as an angered supreme being. You know if you took the time to have an original thought and relied less on others to think think for you, you might find it enlightening.
@jonathanpaulmayer, in w1m4mATYoig (Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne, AAI 2009) he presents this research. It's a very good talk. But I see statistics consistent with this all the time because I read the Economist which has long noted the amazing correlation between some aspects of the USA and dictatorial theocracies. Why anyone is surprised that religion makes a person loathsome and stupid is beyond me. I can't imagine where else such a belief could possibly lead one.
It is absurd that a person can claim to quantify "quality of life." You can quantify income, crime rate, charity, religion, education, and thousands of other factors. But quality of life? You cannot quantify spirituality, which has a profound effect on millions of people's quality of life. Loathsome and stupid? Maybe you should read Sam Harris if you want an example of loathsome stupidity. Or, maybe you already have.
@jonathanpaulmayer, You're just wrong. Quality of life is measurable. But if you're enough of an imbecile to accept truth only from the virgin born, then you'll just have to keep felching at the trough that most suits you.
@ananiasacts, Like every other atheist I've had the pleasure of exchanging with, you've shown that your remarkable talent for rhetorical (albeit hateful) insults is only surpassed by your inability to cite empirical data or to use plain logic. As Hitchens, archbishop of atheism said, "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Thereby, I may dismiss all of your comments, as I'm sure you have already dismissed mine.
@jonathanpaulmayer, Gosh, for all I know religion is the most important component of our modern world. It could be dramatically enhancing the applied intellect of humanity by convincing the most solipsistic people to waste their lives in pursuit of a better afterlife. Considering that the vast majority of imprisoned people are theists, and the vast majority of scientists are atheists it could easily be the most productive way to deploy people of low character and intelligence.
While a majority of those in prison are theists, this is natural given that atheists make up only 5-15% of the total population. However, in Wales, where the most detailed records of prisoners' religion are kept, 31.6% of those imprisoned were atheists or had no religion, compared to the 15% of the total population who had no religion in 2001. This reveals that an atheist is 3.84 times more likely to go to prison than a theist. They are also more prone to drug abuse, obesity, and depression.
@jonathanpaulmayer, Cite your source. I think you're probably puling that out of your ass, like most everything else you post.
The more "Christian" a place is, the greater the social ills and crime of the area. That's the primary conclusion of an exhaustive scientific study done by Gregory S. Paul and published in the scholarly onling journal, Journal of Religion and Science of the Creighton university of Omaha, Nebraska, a Jesuit school.
Office for National statistics: Census, 2001, "While Christians account for 39.1 percent of the English and Welsh prison population, they make up 71.8 percent of the total population." Population Research Center, Austin: "Religious attendance is associated with U.S. adult mortality in a graded fashion: People who never attend exhibit 1.87 times the risk of death... compared with people who attend more than once a week. and Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Straight from my ass.
Of course the opposite is true. Atheists are afraid of religion because they think in the after life they will find themselves as fools for having faith. So in the present the show intolerance and hatred to those whom believe. It angers atheists because they see believers are genneraly happier than non-believers.
Holy Christ, my head is hurting from Wilsons ignorant and illogical assertion that *something* that attributes meaning to *other things* cannot rise out of initial chaos governed by physical laws. (BTW the "chaos" he's talking about was extremely homogeneous compared to the current state, so calling that state "chaos" and this "order" is ridiculous).
We attribute meaning to things due to this being a competetive trait in the struggle for survival. It's not like "meaning" just arose.
I was thinking exactly the same thing. Hitchens argument was like music and Wilson's sound like a building crumbling. Wilson is trying to elaborate on a very simple position of his whereas Hitchens is trying to simplify and elaborate position. Reality is complicated.
At 6.20 is he saying he has never spoken to anyone about abiogenesis or evolution? They are, after all, the explanations he asking for. Why is that not a shock? Religious man keeps away from science. He asks questions and hides from the answers.
Wilson's arguement about seeing the puddle of milk on the floor and wanting to know what happened - he wouldn't "ask" the milk.
But isn't that exactly how we generally approach situations like that? For example at a crime scene with no witnesses, don't the police attempt to determine what happened with the evidence they find at the scene (like the spilled milk)?
What a contemptible question. To paraphrase, the audience member asks Wilson: "Can you tell us again why being the centre of the universe is preferable to being a random amalgam of atoms?"
That's all the question is: a desire for the affirmation that it's NICER to think we are, after all, beings of huge importance and part of a grand design.
All hail the Milk Jug, for is it not written that He hath spilt the Holy Milk that we may find creamy heaven? Yay, some that think themselves wise will try to bring ye from your faith but they are blind fools!
It is rather arrogant to say that our solar system is imperfect because we think it is. Perfection is subjective and since we know so little about the universe. I do not think we can speak with authority about that just yet.
Well... at least from the standpoint of all of us organisms here on Earth, I think it is safe to say the solar system is imperfect seeing that the sun is going to grow into a red giant and fry us. We all share the same subjectivity in that respect, or at least I hope we do.
Things wear out and die, that is the way the universe works. God created it and sustains it, there is regularity to it, there are laws, we live on a planet with the right balance of elements, the right distance from the Sun, a self regulating system, who could ask for more? We'll be long dead by the time the Sun is a red giant, so we should not worry about it.
We as individuals will certainly be gone. However, life will not be gone. Though I must say that if every single individual life-form will have the same attitude as you do that we should not worry about it, then life WILL be gone. Possibly never to return. That's the difference between atheists and theists. We atheists genuinely empathise with other living things and take precautions to ensure the survival of future generations. Theists can only let go of their selfishness when God commands.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Selfish? I'm quite taken aback, I have no idea how what I said was selfish. I stated a fact, I will be dead by then, that will be there ordeal to go through, I will be in paradise. I'm certainly not in favour of polluting the earth (if people owned their land and resources, they could sue polluters instead of the government politicising it, like they do with everything else), but I don't buy the AGW hype. All creation will be remade in any case, this is all just temporary.
Because we still have to go through life, God uses means toward ends, that's how he chooses to work within creation. He indeed knows who will pass and fail, but we do not. He brings people to salvation through the use of people and events. A better question is this, how are we to explain human suffering? What reason, if at all, does it serve?
if God knows certain people will fail, that means they are preordained to fail and suffer etc. Which would mean we don't have free will after all. Luckily the ramblings of bronze age israelites don't reflect reality.
'Perfection is subjective'? Perfection is an idea, objective and outside of oneself, hence why it does not exist in reality apart from how well things conform to it.
espunde, to parphrase, "perfection is subjective... perfection is an idea and objective..." this is a massive contradiction, for a view cannot be both subjective and objective. you can't bend, twist and mold the meaning of words to suit your argument. the words we use are the common ground for both sides of any argument; if the meaning of words go out the window, then a rational debate becomes impossible.
Personally, it seems like it would be really difficult to have a debate like this with someone who equates "faith in logic" with "faith in the Bible".
Interesting comment. I'm after inaccuracies not faith-bases at the moment actually, and I noticed that you had said that Wilson believes in a god because he cannot understand how we all got here.
Now here's the thing about sloppy logic, the observer blasts out something that is plausible, possible, even slightly probable, and they call it FACT. NO! It's SPECULATION.
There are any number of reasons that he has taken on the mindset he has, NONE of which you're privy to speculate on.
I was referring to your statement about your speculation regarding Wilson's motive for believing in god. You said, "he cannot understand how we all got here so he assumes god did it." -Zedek
NOW THEN.
Show me, sir, where you are using modern biology, geology, cosmology, etc. to show and prove that his uncertainty is the cause of his belief? See, what happened? I was bustin you on making claims that you cannot prove.
I was referring to the argument Wilson used in the clip, not why Wilson believes in a god or not on the whole. I don't know why Wilson believes in a god. Without him saying why, yes, it would be baseless speculation.
I cannot do what you ask because that was not my position. My point was that modern science is helping us understand how we came about from simply "atoms banging around" and the like. But clearly you weren't talking about that.
6:56 what does he say...a "hokeclear?"
smurfieboo 1 week ago
I think Wilson should have got his hat out more.
ciaracustard 7 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 8 months ago
Taking up the fizzing soda idea. People should that know from physics/chemistry that you cannot 'force' a chemical reaction to happen, more that it will definitely happen given the proper circumstances and environment, then if someone believes that we are NOT just molecules in motion they must believe there is something outside of the phyiscal realm (soul?) that interferes with our brain's chemistry/environment every time an action or thought to occurs. Dubious proposition if you ask me.
adknerr 9 months ago 3
I won't denigrate a baboon's intelligence by comparing its reasoning abilities to Wilson's.
playingdablues 10 months ago 4
Surely religion would be the milk asking itself what happened?
groovegears 10 months ago 2
Why do they always say: "if the universe is just... and that's all it is, then.... " What's that about? The universe isn't wonderful enough? What more do you want?
Meshugana 1 year ago 8
@Meshugana "A celestial candyhouse. I demand one, especially when I die. If there isn't one then nothing matters. Not my wife, family, job, or Adidas endorsement." Sometimes, just sometimes, I wonder if a belief in a deity could possibly be a good thing. It's apparent to me that unless they feel like they are being watched, they won't know how to act. We have all heard the line, "if there is no god then why be good?" These people frighten me to no end.
thelordmemnoch 11 months ago 2
@Meshugana
Through my telescope, I can see
All that is, and was, and ever will be
No sir, it isn't enough for me
What I need is a Jew that's been nailed to a tree
dorsk188 9 months ago 6
@Meshugana Good point; I had not thought about it like that.
writersblock26 5 months ago
Also, from your previous statement:
"There may be perfectly natural and impersonal phenomena out there which can explain the origin of this universe yet to be discovered. Think how exciting that would be."
It shows that you still have a lil bit of "faith" there, which shows that you actually thinking more than just an evidential-based argument.
C'mon friend, you don't have to win an argument and neither do I. But all these can be a point for us to ponder.
sl1mm 1 year ago
Nope. But some people "looks" like it. If you looked at the truth only by whether it has evidence or not, you can't see the big picture.
Even the statement like "In the end, all human on earth will die" is not valid since it has not been proven by evidence. (though it is scientifically rational)
You must differentiate illogical from supra-logical. illogical is contra-ratio, but supra-logical is beyond ratio.
sl1mm 1 year ago
Wilson smugly says he has never encountered an atheist who attempts to explain how order comes out of chaos? So, even when he’s sitting next to one he still thinks he’s never encountered one. Obviously the explanations provided by bronze age goatherds must make much more sense. Likewise, his mantra about being saved by someone murdered 2,000 years ago must become more true every time he says it.
ritchloui 1 year ago 3
If you walk into a kitchen and see a puddle of milk on the floor, why assume an intelligence was involved? A gust of wind may have toppled a container of milk. A perfectly natural explanation. The same with the universe: it may very well be (and most likely is) the result of natural events with no intelligence involved. I find Douglas Wilson's reasoning extremely one-dimensional.
RichieJohnSauls 1 year ago
@RichieJohnSauls the example you given is a fairly simple case, which could happen either by intelligence intervention or not. But when you are talking about universe, you are talking abt a deeply complex system that a human mnd cannot comprehend easily, and might involved some mysteries in it for centuries. it's more than just an atmic particles that vibrates consistently in over a milion times, which is the current standart for "a second", human ( intelligence, conscience), nature, planet, etc
sl1mm 1 year ago
@sl1mm My question is: Why assume an intelligence is involved simply because the universe is so very complex from a human perspective? There may be perfectly natural and impersonal phenomena out there which can explain the origin of this universe yet to be discovered. Think how exciting that would be.
RichieJohnSauls 1 year ago
@RichieJohnSauls why not? the "funny" fact is, it's easier to believe in it and start building your reasons on it. When you do that, you can see things in a solid, clearer perspective. Rather than a "method" that is desperately denying God, and trying to patch each holes with mixed theory in the name sciences/assumption/"logic", etc.
Why do you find it hard to admit that it was God's, and trying to direct it into a impersonal phenomenon?
sl1mm 1 year ago
@sl1mm I don't see science "desperately denying God". There is no evidence for it's (i.e. "God's") existence. This is why I must deduct that the universe can not be it's creation. If there was evidence for "God" I would happily entertain your proposal that it created the universe, if it can be shown that it is demonstrably capable of such an act.
RichieJohnSauls 1 year ago
Douglas Wilson watched this video 2 times luulz:D
brianwurst1234 1 year ago
milk? bottle? so, if any, god is being a milkman now? why not..any analogy is as anal as the next one he is pulling out his a**
trannyniggr 1 year ago
Hitchens is a bad ass
plasterosu 1 year ago 2
wilson's analogies are ridiculous. don't ask the milk. what a pinhead.
lhurien 1 year ago
@lhurien
Wilson isn't a pinhead, but his analogies are deeply fucking stupid at the best of times.
babyshambler 1 year ago 2
Wilson: how did it get so beautiful without god, it's impossible because obviously it's so beautiful, it had to have a divine creator;
he is unwilling to even try and concede that the question: "why" needs to be answered and is sequentially answered step by step, and it takes humans a long time to answer such very difficult questions by science, because they are difficult questions.
How does sun shine, how do animals run around, how does that or this happen? Those are all answerable by humans.
romanmir01 1 year ago
That milk bottle analogy was so, so poor.
You wouldn't "ask" the universe what happened, you look at the state of the universe for clues. Just as you could look at the milk bottle and find clues as to what happened - the direction it was spilled, who was in the room, etc.
Wilson seems like a nice guy, but some of his arguments are so, so lacking.
nick260682 1 year ago 2
@nick260682 Of course his arguments are lacking, he is a man of faith (dependence on belief with no evidence) rather than reason (the search for the actual answer). He has not answered a single question with any confidence. He has no answers apart from saying "I believe..." And yes the Universe IS a concourse of atoms banging around !!
sids500 1 year ago
Frankly I prefer Kafka's "Metamorphosis".
komododr 1 year ago
Imagine if the investment in churches was invested in science.
duppyconquerour 1 year ago 5
God is man-made control, nothing more, nothing less.
- Nathan Charles Gagné
nat6660 1 year ago
This xtian is actually tolerable, probably bc he really believes his stuff. He doesn't just claim that religion is charitable. He tries to defend the faith, not just the works of the faith.
mountainmanbear 1 year ago
Religion is just complicating an already complicated universe. IT'S VERY USELESS.
Jammed9000 1 year ago 2
It isn't only Hitchens massive intellectual ability that wins easily, it's being armed with a true sense of reason and rationality.
JohnnyZenith 1 year ago 5
is logic human made? uh yes it is
dcderek24 1 year ago 3
@dcderek24 But logic doesn't senselessly kill in the name of "god"
nat6660 1 year ago
@nat6660 im not a theist...but they used some type of logic to kill in the name of god... but just not very good logic..
GOD= is everything and whatever he says is good
if god tells me to kill it must be good.
if i dont listen to god its bad so i must kill
thats their logic.. its dumb as hell but thats it.
dcderek24 1 year ago
@nat6660 If you live in a none fertile part of the world, and know of a much better place to live, and you can gather up allot of people to take that area of land, from others, and have an easier life, is it more logical or less logical not to go and kill off all those in that land for your own easier life, so you children can live etc. Define what is logically, its based on perceptions. You can senselessly kill very logically, or very illogically. In the name of God/Gods or in no name.
ASexyChef 1 year ago
Is that Daniel Faraday from lost?
Insaneplanetman 1 year ago 4
@Insaneplanetman that's what I thought!!
ellhurst 1 year ago
Wilson, talking about chaos and showing how it concides with the scientific knowledge, has just given me one reason to convert to the ancient greek religion.
pavenis 1 year ago
As to the milk at 5:06 it would be easy to ask it. We look to see the cup next to it and our child's size 4 foot print and we can easily see, indeed one could say the milk revealed, that it's current location is due to a child. More so we could analyse the milk and see that it is cow's milk and understand how it came from a teat, to a carton, to a cup, to a child, to the floor. Or we could pray....who will get the answer first?
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago 2
Wilson eventually is treading quiksand as Hitchens is warning that quiksand is there, and the smart thing to do is not step into a very deep, and dangerous, unstable ground unless one first puts a stick into it to test it....nothing wrong with that logic...and hopefully at that seminary, the students would take note many are going to want to have absolute logical evidence and facts to prove what is out there is quiksand...others will rely on faith, but might as well test that faith
warwickshire008 1 year ago
continued....it might be meaningful TO HIM...wilson assumes that no standards whatever are even conceivable to us without god...cf his opening remarks about the emptiness of judgements of "good writing"...so now add god...and how does THAT make these judgements now meaningful? if it's thought that god somehow places these standards in us, then the question is how do we understand them? god is out there...or not. we make the judgements inside our own minds. unless he's doing the thinking for us
tyz228 1 year ago
this was quite amusing...and looking at the comments is more amusing. I would say 2 things. First, apparently Mr. Wilson i is totally unaware of the past 50 years or so of work in philosophy of mind and language which attempts to do just what he claims can't be done, namely, show how thought and meaning arise from physical reality. Secondly, if the universe without god is meaningless TO US, i really fail to see how adding god and saying he has a plan makes it any more meaningful TO US...
tyz228 1 year ago
Okay, I'm going to give some advice to anyone who want to argue with mmac382: DON'T. This person is inherently biased in their claim and arguments. mmac382 has no idea what it's like to not believe in god(s). They keep bringing up "lazy" atheist when they're too fucking lazy to even explore the definition of atheism; they think it's a religion (lol). I have no problem debating theists but atheists need to draw a standard: no arguing with pricks that REFUSE to be reasonable.
pwismyname 2 years ago
By arguing with irrational theists immune to reason (or anything that concerns their self-obsessed beliefs) atheists are essentially wasting the one life we have They have no good arguments and resort to opinions.. I promise to only debate with SENSIBLE -not SENSITIVE- theists from now on. Atheist or skeptic, it would be wise to do so as well.
pwismyname 2 years ago 2
The problem is your assuming Im promoting religion. Im just making the observation that a faith in god has done more good than bad for society and the religion of none belief is stagnent and essentialy does nothing to improve the human condition. Your only defense is to try to stop the messanger when it disagrees with your little self involved world.
mmac382 2 years ago
The bottom line is that the theists cannot prove their extra-ordinary claims. Even if the universe requires a prime mover to come into existence that does NOT mean that the entity responsible is the god of the Christians. There is no proof. It simply does NOT exist!
ChimeraWarrior73 2 years ago 3
Hitchens tore him a new one. No satisfactory answer is given to Hitchens' objection that Wilson assumes a priori that the Bible is true. No argument offered. Hitch rather bluntly points that out, debate completely surrendered at that point.
Buddythunder1 2 years ago
I disagree. Wilson made a valid point about the axiomatic nature of the premise of science and even logic but Hitchens kind of dodged it... btw good debate...
archay1 2 years ago
Hitchens addressed it, probably not as forcefully as he could've. However, he did point out that science is a methodology for discovery rather than being "revealed wisdom". The point is that the methodology relies on observation and evidence, and makes testable predictions, reducing the role of faith beyond all reasonable comparison with that of mainstream religion...
Buddythunder1 2 years ago
...At some point, even a cynical old materialist like me would have to admit that I have faith that it's an orderly and knowable universe, (which I do for largely pragmatic reasons) but to equate that with the faith of the pious is disingenuous in my opinion.
Buddythunder1 2 years ago
I grant you the points about the difference between obtained and revealed knowledge and the methodology as a basis of science. My point is that both science and religion are closed systems which are based on assumptions that are unprovable and anti-intuitive. I see little difference between "god is eternal and omnipresent" and " two parallel lines dissect in infinity". Btw I am also an old materialist but I am having the crisis of "faith" :). That is why I seek this debate...hope you don't mind.
archay1 2 years ago
I would argue that science must is open to reality. Where theory is contradicted by actual observation, the theory must be revised or overturned. Either way, our actual empirical knowledge of the universe is advanced. I would also complain that your materialist counter argument is mathematical, and an entirely mental construct, having no analogue in reality. Don't get me wrong though, maths "works", which I find slightly mysterious.
Buddythunder1 2 years ago
I don't mind a bit, by the way, thanks for the thoughtful response.
Buddythunder1 2 years ago
Religion doesn't deny that the sun comes up it just gives a different reason as to why. Systems that explain reality are based on the mathematical/logical constructs that in their turn are abstractions. I have no problem with the method of observing and measuring (sun comes up every mourining), my problem is with the interpretation of the results (becouse gravity "wills" it). How can I honestly say "I know why the sun comes up every mourning"...
archay1 2 years ago
... If you except the premise of religion (god will's it) than everything in that system works. If you except the premise of science (math is the universal and unchangeable language of reality) than the result is the same. The problem is that those premises are unprovable. So in that regard I don't get the materialistic superiority...
archay1 2 years ago
Gravity is, of course, the reason that the sun comes up in the morning. That is testable, bourne out by observation, and makes accurate predictions. That says nothing about any intent or intelligence behind it, I don't know why it would be suggested in the absence of evidence. I don't think that science starts with that premise - through observation, the harmony of nature was noticed and described...
Buddythunder1 2 years ago
... why it should be this way, I don't know. That's not to say that we'll never know, and I submit that religion is unable to provide any intellectually satisfying answer, and I can't see that changing. Science is a self-correcting methodology, religion is anything but.
Buddythunder1 2 years ago
But gravity is not the reason, it is the mechanism by which it happens. And it is not measurable per say, it's effects are, presuming that it exists as such.
I can invent a force called love-ity, I can measure it by various degrees of absentmindedness and I can build a system around it. I still have not proven it's existence. All I did was construct a closed system of interpretation that fits in to the perception of reality.
archay1 2 years ago
Methodology of measurement is self correcting but only within the closed system of mathematical correlations that are human product. And of course science starts with a premise. Universality of mathematical laws are that premises. Try to have science without square root of 2. A leads to B is observation, A leads to B because C influences the process is interpretation. C can be god or gravity or love... I am not defending religion, I guess I am attacking the dogmatism of science.
archay1 2 years ago
See if you agree: science hopes to answer how, religion hopes to answer why. In that regard I view the struggle between science and religion as fake. In some regards as a battle between the old clergy (theologians) and the new clergy (technocrats) for our "faith". Look at us... neither you nor me has ever seen a quark. But somebody told us that they exist and are being measured and we took that at face value because it's the "law" (science) and we don't possess the tools to argue against it.
archay1 2 years ago
Gravity is the force involved, and it is very accurately measurable and predictable. It is not necessarily explainable though, action at a distance is weird! We may never know how that works, entirely, but I find the false sop that religion provides on these matters of little consolation.
You could invent any force you like (why not, the maths should work out), but if it doesn't describe the real world closely, and explain observations, then it will be overturned, like many other failed ideas.
Buddythunder1 2 years ago
But it will describe reality because it is reverse-engineered from it. I guess my final point is let us not become zealots in anybody's army. Anyhow, thank you for challenging me.
archay1 2 years ago
"Wilson made a valid point about the axiomatic nature of the premise of science and even logic but Hitchens kind of dodged it..."
But does that lend ANY further credibility to the religious belief system? I think if one denies the validity of the logic and science of physical existence, it actually removes one further from potential knowledge of the metaphysical or supernatural.
MrAtheism33 2 years ago
You are right. it doesn't. I am not looking to give credibility to religious explanations, I am just challenging the scientific assumptions. My fear is that the science is producing a new type of clergy, technical instead of theological. Neither you (presumably) nor me can explain the dynamo of gravity but we are both willing to defend it. Why? I found my self numerous times in a dogmatic moment defending things I don't understand. I was being intellectually dishonest... I didn't like that.
archay1 2 years ago
@archay1
I couldn't agree more.
MrAtheism33 2 years ago
You're wrong; that's a presumption. A technical "clergy" is more useful than a theological one. Unlike religious claims, science is peer-reviewed and well-documented (by credible sources). I'm sorry to say this but technology is the only thing that has made life more livable for humans. We should make religious institutions pay taxes to be FAIR and make all technological institutions tax-exempt so that we invest in progress and reality and not on the belief and desires of ancient barbarians.
pwismyname 2 years ago 62
After all, modernizing ancient myths will not fix social issues. A belief in Santa is less useful than a generous person who actually gives gifts. If we give religion a special plea, then we might as well make holiday stores tax-except. Beyond all of that, as long as people have different imaginary friends to fight for there will be WAR. Yet, if everyone admitted that Yahweh, Allah, etc are just cultural perversions of a being that might even exist (just maybe)...then there will be progress.
pwismyname 2 years ago 23
@pwismyname But then you're asking everyone to accept that as ultimate truth. Is it not possible to just have a society that allows freedom of religion with the common denominator that no one can coerce or inflict harm onto another human.
drjamiemoon 3 months ago
Tell that to the Haitians. Faith based institutions were the first responders in this tradgedy
mmac382 2 years ago
Yep, Scientology provided many ministers to convert the downtrodden people. You can't talk about the altruistic actions of religion without mentioning it's selfishness. That's the rub. Religion demonstrates itself as a human institution that doesn't seek truth, but rather exerts itself on people in every action it takes. Poor Haitians.
ariuszarim 1 year ago
@ariuszarim Give me an example of the selfishness of religion. Your correct in saying religion is a human institution. An effort to discount religion with scientific evidence makes no sense. Religion can be described as a search for the inner soul. That which makes us different from plants. Science has very little concerned with such concepts. And scientist whom do havent even come close.
mmac382 1 year ago
@pwismyname So your in a round about way making a case for technology as a religion. If you people didnt have doubts about your position you probably would spend less time fretting about it and more time practicing. By the way do you mean peer reviewed like "Climate Change" data has been peer reviewed? What a joke. I think the whole peer reviewed credibility concept has long gone out the window. Scientist are no more trustworthy than the theist you so like to hate.
mmac382 1 year ago
Comment removed
pwismyname 1 year ago
@mmac382 You know what's funny, I agree with you about the climate change because the Global Warming theory is exaggerated and flawed (even propaganda) in many ways. However, you're still a thickheaded moron.
"Look, no one knows where this shit came from, but I’d rather trust the guys in white lab coats who don’t demand I get up early every Sunday to overdress and apologize for being human"
pwismyname 1 year ago
@pwismyname long as science isn't degraded into something faith based like alternative medicine, scientology, or trust me baby i'm a doctor,. doesnt mean real science is different, but it can be bastardized. but i whole heartedly agree that religions should not be tax exempt. religion makes people think that their lives are better, studying and applying scientific method is what actually makes it so, if used properly. nothing should ever be followed blindly.
mistereveready 1 year ago 2
@pwismyname Well said. Anti-science proponents should be banned from all technologies and medicines such as antibiotics until they come back begging.
Science has saved millions of lives... far more than the number that Jesus allegedly saved (and I don't mean the theological meaning of saved just in case someone decides to distort what I said). We need to make a stand.
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
@mikeyo1234
When you say "anti-science proponents" who are you referring to?
I do hope you don't mean Christians?
RPM11111 1 year ago
@RPM11111 No, I mean anti-science proponents, whether they are atheist, theist, black, white, female, male... ANYONE who slags off science continually should have all the fruits of science revoked. If I was in power anyone totally rejecting science would be forced to live in a cave with others. They would come grovelling back to society after a week.
Please don't try and put words in to someone's mouth. Thanks.
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
@mikeyo1234
I merely asked a question - when since does that constitute putting words in someones mouth?
Can you give an example of such a person?
RPM11111 1 year ago
@pwismyname Why must you pit science against theology?
Science is a process of inquiry about the physical world and to find laws.
It is impossible to prove something transcends the physical world using physical properties.
The theist argument can be said: God created the physical world and the physical language and equations by which the universe exists. It is unreasonable to ask the Christian or thiest to prove God exists by using the equations we're saying God created.
drjamiemoon 3 months ago
An "accident" implies intent. Never can some escape this frame of thought.
thisnameisuniq 2 years ago
Wilson's analogy of the universe with spilt milk is a bare assertion. Why can't there be evidence in the spilt milk about how it got to be spilt?
Stenger does attempt to give a reckoning of how order came from chaos, so Wilson is talking nonsense. All Wilson gives is an argument from ignorance. And Stenger has produced coherent models.
dbes02 2 years ago 2
dbes02, I thought Wilson meant that WE are the spilt milk. Therefore, just as the two bottles of cola are fizzing not debating, the spilt milk cannot reasonably hope to understand its own origins.
Or something.
Anyway, yes, it's a false analogy.
queenastilon 2 years ago
That remark at 6:00 really sums up just how ignorant most theists are about what they're trying to refute. That's one of the worst over-simplifications I've ever heard.
photografreak7 2 years ago 2
ya, i find it interesting that morals could have only come AFTER a religious text came around. what did people do before that? i think that it is much more honest for an atheist to do a good deed than a christian because a christian feels compelled to do it for either reward or fear of punishment, an atheist doesn't feel like he is obligated to but does anyway. i believe that this shows a more benevolent spirit (to borrow a term, i don't believe in spirits necissarily per-say).
steveo3141 2 years ago 3
Religion came about as soon as the moon crossed the path of the sun....or maybe even sooner. One cant start the discussion at the time text was created. One would do this just so they can bash people of faith. And atheism if just a religion of not believing in a supreme being.
mmac382 2 years ago
They say "atheism is as much a religion as bald is a hair color." Non-belief can never be a religion. Atheism doesn't seek to bash faith...it's the other way around. In fact, all humans are born atheist. Then most are indoctrinated as children (without consent) and never venture to reason because culture, society and institutions pressure them not to do so. On top of that, they are mentally tortured as kids with an imaginary place called hell and grow up to think it's real. Some "free will." Ha.
pwismyname 2 years ago 2
Well these days Athiest do the bashing. And Athiesm is a BELIEF that there is no God. Stop sitting on the sidelines and get into the game of life. Atheism is just an excuse to be lazy.
mmac382 2 years ago
No, atheists usually "bash" when theists such as yourself make ridiculous claims like you just did. Atheists don't believe or "deny" god...THAT ASSUMES THAT GOD EXISTS. We don't believe, get it straight. Anti-theists, such as myself, understand that Christianity is threatening to turn the secular founded U.S. into a theocracy and that religion of any kind harms the critical/rational thought of human beings.
pwismyname 2 years ago 2
Lazy? Are you really that ignorant. I actually used to be an Orthodox Christian. It was LAZY, intellectually dishonest for me to believe what I did just because I was raised in such a way. Not using your brain is the laziness. It's easy to be superstitious or follow the faith you've been indoctrinated into. Thinking for yourself is the hard part. Based on what you said, you're lazy then because your atheist with regards to all the thousands of other gods you could believe in.
pwismyname 2 years ago
The game of life? I'm sorry, but I don't think that life is a just a game that I can play with. It's not just a bus ride to an imaginary afterlife. Despite how difficult it was for me to deconvert (I too didn't want to let go of the childish idea that we can live forever), I decided to take reality over delusion. Let's be honest, we only KNOW of this one life here on Earth. Once we accept that, our life has infinite value. I would never blindly waste my life practicing religion and DENIAL.
pwismyname 2 years ago
Your atoms will aways live on even when the earth is gone. Isnt that sort of living forever? I know thats a concept an intelect could never grasp.
mmac382 2 years ago
So you considor yourself an intellect but you cant accept the concept of religious faith as valid. I think your idea of an intellect is wrong to say the least. I think y9our just lazy and afraid.
mmac382 2 years ago
So Atheist just ride the fence.......Lazy Id say. Your revisionist history is pretty interesting as well. What your saying is Atheist never utter the phrase "I dont believe in God..... and if they did say that it means there is a God? ....
mmac382 2 years ago
Forgive me, I didn't realize atoms constituted for life. We should change the Periodic Table into Names of the Most Prominent Followers of Christianity (The Only Possible Religious Truth Since All Other Religions Are Wrong According to Our Bias). You're right: intellects never grasp ANY blind belief where there is no evidence. To counter your childish argument with my own, I'd say you're too afraid to accept any other religion or (more importantly) reality as we KNOW it. Chicken! bak bak bak.
pwismyname 2 years ago
Maybe religious people have more faith that people need the fear of god to be decent because they themselves really are scumbags at heart. It sure seems that way from listening to them.
ananiasacts 2 years ago 3
huh, i've never thought of that but its a really interesting point. i think its just that they THINK they are like that at heart.... unfortunate and sad....
steveo3141 2 years ago 3
It certainly explains why they're so afraid that atheism will lead to complete chaos and are always asking us where our moral guidance could possibly come from if not god. But isn't that another way of saying that only something that could punish them for certain would be a sufficient deterrent to stop them from sinning? Or at the very least it suggests that without a god to reward them with a great afterlife they'd have no reason to be generous, loving, or thoughtful to other folk while alive.
ananiasacts 2 years ago 3
This would be true if believers correlated atheism with low morals. They dont of course. Believers pray for athiest and detest those with low morals. Two differant things.
mmac382 2 years ago
Thanks, you pray for me and I'll think for you.
Btw, do you not see the arrogance in your own words? You sound condescending and believe you are superior because your fear of death forces you to believe. This makes you morally superior how? Just for the record, all atheists, most theists and maybe even you are more moral than your stupid fucking jealous God who promotes murder, rape, theft amongst his "chosen people." If you deny that then in your "relationship with God" you're being used.
pwismyname 2 years ago
God doesnt promote anything but be good to one another. Man just interprets it differantly. Atheists of course interpret everything religious in the worst possible light.
mmac382 2 years ago
"God doesnt promote anything but be good to one another"
This sounds noble, but prove it. Apparently God has been very inconsistent with the millions that enter into a "relationship" and "speak with him" and "get answers." Let's not forget, there a re 33,000+ sects of Christianity ALONE for a reason. There are clashes, neglect and ignorance among religious communities (alot of it amongst different Christians) because we're "good to one another"?
pwismyname 2 years ago
Shows that God allows you to believe what ever you want. There are clashes of all kinds everywhere. Only means people dont always get along.
mmac382 2 years ago
Lame excuse. Nothing to back it up, completely unjustified.
pwismyname 2 years ago
I know these concepts require a little too much thinking for an Atheist. But scientist (whom have no more real evidence one way or the other) refuse to allow you think any other way.
mmac382 2 years ago
Dude, please get this idea that Atheism = Science-based out of your head and tell your fellow theists that. I'm not an atheist because of science (it definitely HELPS though). I became an atheist because I decided to "think another way." The way being REASON and TRUTH and not desire or belief. Belief and truth are NOT interchangeable. Otherwise, please admit that all god(s) holds as much "truth" as your own. It's dogmatic religion that "refuse[s] to allow you to think any other way"
pwismyname 2 years ago
Your the one that brought up science not me. You became an Ateist because it took much effort to be a caring human. The REASON is ... your LAZY. The TRUTH is ... your LAZY. Im the on thinking out of the box. Your stuck in your insignificant little life.
mmac382 2 years ago
@ananiasacts Admittedly, this is true. The core of Christianity is that we are all scum bags at heart, and the state of the world, despite no shortage of moral laws, is proof positive of that fact.
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
@jonathanpaulmayer, If you plot quality of life vs religiosity across countries, they are inversely correlated. The former rises as the latter declines. We need to find a way to inoculate kids in public school if we want to put an end to this tragic waste of life.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
religion is the least of your worries, especially in public schools. Because of liberal interferrance and government desire to keep urban youths unedducated, kids are lucky to graduate with the ability to critically think. For profit private schools of course do a far better job. Of course libs hate that idea because it takes away from thier slave trade. Hey ARse hole did you think I went away? I see your still afraid of religion.
mmac382 2 years ago
@mmac382, True, religion isn't the problem, it's the unscrupulous religious advocates, like yourself, that fraudulently promote agenda's like the one revealed in the Dover trial that most threaten our schools. I support the voucher idea--I think parents should be able to use them at any school which can earn accreditation--religious or otherwise. And I agree with Dan Dennett, that inoculating kids in primary school with the truth about religion is the best long term strategy to counter the scum.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
There is no truth about religion, thats why its base on faith. Trust me religion is not accepted as a topic of conversation in any public school system these day. Therefore inoculating kids as you put it cannot be accepted in our schools either.
mmac382 2 years ago
@mmac382, LIke all of your claims, that's quite false. Theologians, anthropologists, historians, and other scientists have discovered about a bit about the history and evolution of our species and the mythologies that evolved with us.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
Religion is just a belief system. When the ancients saw an eclipes of the sun some interpreted it as an angered supreme being. You know if you took the time to have an original thought and relied less on others to think think for you, you might find it enlightening.
mmac382 2 years ago
Really? And how does one plot quality of life?
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
@jonathanpaulmayer, in w1m4mATYoig (Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne, AAI 2009) he presents this research. It's a very good talk. But I see statistics consistent with this all the time because I read the Economist which has long noted the amazing correlation between some aspects of the USA and dictatorial theocracies. Why anyone is surprised that religion makes a person loathsome and stupid is beyond me. I can't imagine where else such a belief could possibly lead one.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
It is absurd that a person can claim to quantify "quality of life." You can quantify income, crime rate, charity, religion, education, and thousands of other factors. But quality of life? You cannot quantify spirituality, which has a profound effect on millions of people's quality of life. Loathsome and stupid? Maybe you should read Sam Harris if you want an example of loathsome stupidity. Or, maybe you already have.
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
@jonathanpaulmayer, You're just wrong. Quality of life is measurable. But if you're enough of an imbecile to accept truth only from the virgin born, then you'll just have to keep felching at the trough that most suits you.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
@ananiasacts, Like every other atheist I've had the pleasure of exchanging with, you've shown that your remarkable talent for rhetorical (albeit hateful) insults is only surpassed by your inability to cite empirical data or to use plain logic. As Hitchens, archbishop of atheism said, "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Thereby, I may dismiss all of your comments, as I'm sure you have already dismissed mine.
Good day, and have a wonderful Christmas!
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
@jonathanpaulmayer, Gosh, for all I know religion is the most important component of our modern world. It could be dramatically enhancing the applied intellect of humanity by convincing the most solipsistic people to waste their lives in pursuit of a better afterlife. Considering that the vast majority of imprisoned people are theists, and the vast majority of scientists are atheists it could easily be the most productive way to deploy people of low character and intelligence.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
While a majority of those in prison are theists, this is natural given that atheists make up only 5-15% of the total population. However, in Wales, where the most detailed records of prisoners' religion are kept, 31.6% of those imprisoned were atheists or had no religion, compared to the 15% of the total population who had no religion in 2001. This reveals that an atheist is 3.84 times more likely to go to prison than a theist. They are also more prone to drug abuse, obesity, and depression.
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
@jonathanpaulmayer, Cite your source. I think you're probably puling that out of your ass, like most everything else you post.
The more "Christian" a place is, the greater the social ills and crime of the area. That's the primary conclusion of an exhaustive scientific study done by Gregory S. Paul and published in the scholarly onling journal, Journal of Religion and Science of the Creighton university of Omaha, Nebraska, a Jesuit school.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
Office for National statistics: Census, 2001, "While Christians account for 39.1 percent of the English and Welsh prison population, they make up 71.8 percent of the total population." Population Research Center, Austin: "Religious attendance is associated with U.S. adult mortality in a graded fashion: People who never attend exhibit 1.87 times the risk of death... compared with people who attend more than once a week. and Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Straight from my ass.
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
@jonathanpaulmayer
I agree quality of life has a subjective basis. What is your idea of a quality life?
MrAtheism33 2 years ago
@jonathanpaulmayer, This video, UxonEdmcRTA sums up what America would look like if Christians succeed in making it a Christian nation.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
Of course the opposite is true. Atheists are afraid of religion because they think in the after life they will find themselves as fools for having faith. So in the present the show intolerance and hatred to those whom believe. It angers atheists because they see believers are genneraly happier than non-believers.
mmac382 2 years ago
what gives rise to these orders...hmmm maybe a pattern seeking human mind.
18Porchmonkey 2 years ago 2
why is there even a debate and argument about something no one has even seen and there is not proof for?
WKaliberr 2 years ago
Those who believe such an entity exists believe that it has been seen, at least by historical figures, and that the proof is in reasoning.
Awesomesome 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I have a Probability argument for Theism
Search: "What Atheists Should Understand"
bj07bran7 2 years ago
You really call that an argument? :/
balkan2k 2 years ago 4
your video fails sire.
Raises people out of poverty. Go to brazil. Or Africa
More killed for Atheism. You surely jest.
Everything needs a cause. Only to those who need a reason.
finally, why did you make the smart liberal atheist look like sarah palin.
Also giving yourself a round of applause. Wow well done douche bag.
However, i will say this you are successful at failing.
18Porchmonkey 2 years ago
Holy Christ, my head is hurting from Wilsons ignorant and illogical assertion that *something* that attributes meaning to *other things* cannot rise out of initial chaos governed by physical laws. (BTW the "chaos" he's talking about was extremely homogeneous compared to the current state, so calling that state "chaos" and this "order" is ridiculous).
We attribute meaning to things due to this being a competetive trait in the struggle for survival. It's not like "meaning" just arose.
ARGH >:(
balkan2k 2 years ago 10
totally balkan2k
Dougca1985 2 years ago
I agree.
I think Wilson's assertion essentially that meaning arose from nothing is absurd. It's exactly what he himself believes.
theatheistinfidel 2 years ago
I was thinking exactly the same thing. Hitchens argument was like music and Wilson's sound like a building crumbling. Wilson is trying to elaborate on a very simple position of his whereas Hitchens is trying to simplify and elaborate position. Reality is complicated.
Im4science 2 years ago 4
At 6.20 is he saying he has never spoken to anyone about abiogenesis or evolution? They are, after all, the explanations he asking for. Why is that not a shock? Religious man keeps away from science. He asks questions and hides from the answers.
DanJC989 2 years ago 6
Wilson's arguement about seeing the puddle of milk on the floor and wanting to know what happened - he wouldn't "ask" the milk.
But isn't that exactly how we generally approach situations like that? For example at a crime scene with no witnesses, don't the police attempt to determine what happened with the evidence they find at the scene (like the spilled milk)?
What an obviously false arguement.
tat20001 2 years ago 4
3:02 :
What a contemptible question. To paraphrase, the audience member asks Wilson: "Can you tell us again why being the centre of the universe is preferable to being a random amalgam of atoms?"
That's all the question is: a desire for the affirmation that it's NICER to think we are, after all, beings of huge importance and part of a grand design.
What childish insecurity.
garethac81 2 years ago 19
@garethac81
I know.
Pathetic.
Domzdream 1 year ago
I for one would like to welcome the Milk Jug as our new overlord.
Stead3111 2 years ago 8
Stead3111, lolol!
All hail the Milk Jug, for is it not written that He hath spilt the Holy Milk that we may find creamy heaven? Yay, some that think themselves wise will try to bring ye from your faith but they are blind fools!
queenastilon 2 years ago
Well firstly, aren't we all a subset of this universe and everything in it, so his explanation doesn't make any sense.
And the Dr.Peppar argument, isn't that a physical reaction and not a chemical one?
This guy is a fucking retard
oxygenownz 2 years ago 3
God speaking to you = a mental disorder.
Perrine234 2 years ago
issac newton=has mental problems?
guitarista1988 2 years ago
I said earlier that I thought Wilson seemed to be an intelligent guy... I might have thought incorrectly.
ScarletandCreme32 2 years ago 6
It is rather arrogant to say that our solar system is imperfect because we think it is. Perfection is subjective and since we know so little about the universe. I do not think we can speak with authority about that just yet.
Elu112 2 years ago
Well... at least from the standpoint of all of us organisms here on Earth, I think it is safe to say the solar system is imperfect seeing that the sun is going to grow into a red giant and fry us. We all share the same subjectivity in that respect, or at least I hope we do.
ScarletandCreme32 2 years ago
Things wear out and die, that is the way the universe works. God created it and sustains it, there is regularity to it, there are laws, we live on a planet with the right balance of elements, the right distance from the Sun, a self regulating system, who could ask for more? We'll be long dead by the time the Sun is a red giant, so we should not worry about it.
espunde 2 years ago
We as individuals will certainly be gone. However, life will not be gone. Though I must say that if every single individual life-form will have the same attitude as you do that we should not worry about it, then life WILL be gone. Possibly never to return. That's the difference between atheists and theists. We atheists genuinely empathise with other living things and take precautions to ensure the survival of future generations. Theists can only let go of their selfishness when God commands.
SketchSepahi 2 years ago
How disgustingly selfish of you. What about the people living (if there are) at that time?
lachiemckenzie 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Selfish? I'm quite taken aback, I have no idea how what I said was selfish. I stated a fact, I will be dead by then, that will be there ordeal to go through, I will be in paradise. I'm certainly not in favour of polluting the earth (if people owned their land and resources, they could sue polluters instead of the government politicising it, like they do with everything else), but I don't buy the AGW hype. All creation will be remade in any case, this is all just temporary.
espunde 2 years ago
Why bother with the test? If god is all knowing, he knows who will pass and who will fail.
So why put up with any suffering at all?
Perrine234 2 years ago
Because we still have to go through life, God uses means toward ends, that's how he chooses to work within creation. He indeed knows who will pass and fail, but we do not. He brings people to salvation through the use of people and events. A better question is this, how are we to explain human suffering? What reason, if at all, does it serve?
espunde 2 years ago
if God knows certain people will fail, that means they are preordained to fail and suffer etc. Which would mean we don't have free will after all. Luckily the ramblings of bronze age israelites don't reflect reality.
BillKiernan 2 years ago 2
'Perfection is subjective'? Perfection is an idea, objective and outside of oneself, hence why it does not exist in reality apart from how well things conform to it.
espunde 2 years ago
espunde, to parphrase, "perfection is subjective... perfection is an idea and objective..." this is a massive contradiction, for a view cannot be both subjective and objective. you can't bend, twist and mold the meaning of words to suit your argument. the words we use are the common ground for both sides of any argument; if the meaning of words go out the window, then a rational debate becomes impossible.
noodoo19 2 years ago
'Perfection is subjective', was a quotation, nice job not recognising that.
espunde 2 years ago
Personally, it seems like it would be really difficult to have a debate like this with someone who equates "faith in logic" with "faith in the Bible".
flayktheone 2 years ago 7
how can they tho :S.. i dont get that...
fiddleronthegreen 2 years ago
you dont ask the milk you dumb shit~ you will test the milk its surroundings and with science you can find inforamtion that the bible cant.
YoungMetalgearPro 2 years ago 5
Seriously, is wilson an idiot?
and with the milk? WTF?!
Bam2raxa 2 years ago 5
Wilson's argument is entirely from incredulity. He cannot understand how we all got here so he assumes goddidit. He wrote a textbook on logic?
Zedekiah1020 2 years ago
Interesting comment. I'm after inaccuracies not faith-bases at the moment actually, and I noticed that you had said that Wilson believes in a god because he cannot understand how we all got here.
Now here's the thing about sloppy logic, the observer blasts out something that is plausible, possible, even slightly probable, and they call it FACT. NO! It's SPECULATION.
There are any number of reasons that he has taken on the mindset he has, NONE of which you're privy to speculate on.
D33veeoss 2 years ago
So really just stop bothering with all this "thinking stuff" because you're NOT doing it right.
Let me put it simpler than that for you:
Piss off little boy, the men are talking.
D33veeoss 2 years ago
Are you really trying to reduce modern biology, geology, cosmology, etc to mere speculation? Or, sorry, SPECULATION, as you put it?
Zedekiah1020 2 years ago
No no, you're not understanding me at all.
I was referring to your statement about your speculation regarding Wilson's motive for believing in god. You said, "he cannot understand how we all got here so he assumes god did it." -Zedek
NOW THEN.
Show me, sir, where you are using modern biology, geology, cosmology, etc. to show and prove that his uncertainty is the cause of his belief? See, what happened? I was bustin you on making claims that you cannot prove.
Be more fair with people.
Peace.
D33veeoss 2 years ago
I was referring to the argument Wilson used in the clip, not why Wilson believes in a god or not on the whole. I don't know why Wilson believes in a god. Without him saying why, yes, it would be baseless speculation.
I cannot do what you ask because that was not my position. My point was that modern science is helping us understand how we came about from simply "atoms banging around" and the like. But clearly you weren't talking about that.
Zedekiah1020 2 years ago