Shermer was wrong to say there are infinite bubbles of universes. That is not even a theory, It has zelch evidence. The Universe was once smaller in size than a flea on a dog, and so the relative size of our human perspective to the Cosmos today means absolutely nothing. Behavior itself is more than Static Particles. Behavior itself , without adding, makes a case for God as a Verb, describing the Way everything behaves and is understandable, making no small case for an Intelligent Cause.
Atheism had nothing to do with the atrocities committed in China, North Korea, Cambodia and the old Soviet Union. Those crimes were committed in the name of Communism and Communism is a religion. It is taught like a religion, and it is enforced like a religion. In order for a religion to truly succeed it must be forced upon the people with an iron fist and all other competing religions have to be eliminated. It worked for Christianity, and Islam, and Communism learned from the best.
Wouldn't it be nice if god just came down to earth and settled this dispute once and for all, because it seems like we're nothing but cosmic playthings for this all mighty celestial god if he exists.
Jacoby fails. His arguement is Kinda this and Kinda that. But I do agree with his accessment of If Jesus came to the US today - he'd be crusified by his own "faithed up" people.
6:26 "Faith is not a flight from reason. Faith is response to evidence."
Faith is belief IN SPITE OF evidence. Faith is gullibility. Faith is what you invoke when you want to call your belief right instead of actually wanting it to be less wrong.
@CyberBushBush gee, sounds like so many scientific theories that are popular today..lol Beliefs in string theory, parallel universes, quantum theory, dark matter/energy or multi dimensions are not entirely evidence based, that's why there is dispute and not all scientists agree. So please don't make the mistake of thinking religious/spiritual minded are the only ones invoking "faith". If you do, then be consistent and apply to scientists and Shermer as well. :)
@dwheel39 I don't see where I have made the claim that only religious people have faith.
I don't have "belief in" string theory and the like, I see they are valid hypotheses. Unless they provide experimentally testable explanations for existing evidence, they aren't theories, which they do not claim to be in the first place.
Religious people may not be the only ones "invoking faith" but they are the majority who glorify faith(belief in spite of evidence), which in my mind is madness.
@CyberBushBush Forgive me if i misunderstood your application of your statement :) I'm happy you get my point though and i respect that you aren't employing a double standard. And i'm in agreement with you about many religious people who don't "think" and hold up "blind faith" on some spiritual pedestal. But there are non-thinking people on every side and spout off empty slogans without thinking anything through.
This was a great closing statement and he summed the debate perfectly. Shermer should not debate because he doesn't understand the rules of logics and committed multiple, obvious fallacies. When confronted he backed off his position by saying "we don't know". I think this debate could have been much better if formatted differently. I used to love Shermer in Scientific American, but was totally let down after this debate!
@Alix1437 Shermer doesn't back off with "I don't know." He is honestly declaring, "I don't know." Religious people have a real problem with not knowing, it seems. They claim knowledge even when honest men who know better are declaring "I don't know".
Because when it comes to questions of how the universe began, we, we being the ENTIRE human race... do not know. It is an unknown.
@UnitedKingdomify If Shermer were consistent with his seemingly humble position of "i don't know" then he wouldn't be Executive Director of his Skeptic Society. He should just get a law degree if he enjoys debating or arguing. No, threaded though all his articles and debates are claims of knowledge. He apparently knows enough to know that Christianity and Theism in general are false views. But how? If he was truly that humble he would change careers, don't you think? :)
2:47 "Skepticism is good. My faith teaches me, the scriptures teach me to be skeptic." Except when applied to the scripture itself of course, that would just be silly.
"Probability is on the side of theists" right on the money. In fact, science is on the side of theists too..just look at DNA. It is the language of a creator.
@jamestrekky It is curious that DNA is defective in that it randomly mutates. Intriguing that a creator god would pick something so flawed to be the bases of all biology. Interesting that DNA is so susceptible to being hijacked by viruses - which the creator god must have also created, too, apparently.
@CapnofRum You're comments are very misleading. Do know how many bases there are in the human genome? 3 Billion. If these randomly mutate all the time, we would all have 5 arms and 3 eyes. How many people around you look like random mutations?
The cell has DNA Redundancy and a mechanism to repair DNA damaged from UV radiation etc. The cell itself is a whole new world of mechanics and biological robots.
@jamestrekky The fact that they mutate at all is evidence that no higher intelligence is responsible for creating DNA. Why would an omnibenevolent God give us an informational medium, through which we can copy and reproduce, when, on occasion, people are born with hereditary and genetic diseases or mutations in the code that cause disability? Interestingly enough, children are occasionally born with polymelia.
The point about DNA is that it is information. Statistics say that Entropy or Informational content can be derived from DNA. Statistics tell us that pure randomness can never create Entropy. Information cannot come out of randomness. DNA is information. The EVIDENCE points to a creator. Please watch the videos again.
@CapnofRum You must have googled Entropy without context and glanced at wiki. Please google Entropy in Information theory as this is what I was talking about. And you will find that things like DNA have information. Where does this information come from? Well, it doesn't just occur like athiests claim, that things just happen and things appear. Science is telling us that. Again, evidence is on the side of theists.
How pathetic to save the "millions of people killed by atheist regimes" and the "something coming from nothing" and "x famous scientist believes in god" pseudo arguments until the end when there's no rebuttal time.
"How many zeros there are... that looks suspicious" What an idiot. This closing statement was almost painful to watch. Yet, on the hole, as usual: atheism wins hands down.
Full of deceiving shit, false arguments, vocabulary tricks, quotes from the idiots, but...
An extraordinary debater.
Dr. Shermer... You have no chance with such debaters. Shit after shit after shit is coming out of Dr. Jacoby mouth, but... What a beautiful, smooth shit it is. Listen to his soft, articulate voice. His accentuation. Pay attention to the imaginary numbers he's using out of the blue skies. Primitive anegdotes.
Er....what evidence? We're still sitting here scratching our heads. See, the problem with theists is this. They can never prove something which cannot be detected via any possible means. How can you prove something you cannot touch, taste, smell, see, hear etc etc.
Theists can only 'prove' their deiety via dialogue. Healthy brained people IE atheists, HAVE tangible proof- science! Not just dialogue.
Well, there's evidence of the koran. Does that make the islamic god any less credible? Think about this. Now take it further into all the other religions. Including Thor of the ancient scandanavian religion. Or Jupiter of the Roman religion. These are just a few of the thousands of choices.
Also, your argument is circular.
In addition, how can a book that has been written hundreds of years after your christ's death, edited many, many times, be evidence of a god? HUh??
@Domzdream There's no a lot of historical, or archealogical evidence in support of the Koran, or the miracles that Mohammad claimed to have commited. I've looked into the other religions, and while they all have some truth, there's not a lot of evidence to support them.
So Christian does have more support, with the historical and archealogical evidence. And the Gospels were written during the same generation as Jesus Christ, and is based on eye witness testimony. That's evidence for God.
Ah. I see. eyewitnesses. That's evidence!? eye witensses. Umm...no.
David Blaine walked on water. He floated in the air. He turns water in wine, and back into water. He's done all that with simple trcks of the trade. Nothing expensive--In front of witnesses who almost swear it was actual magic.
Now, put David Blaine into the jesus days. Wouldnt he appear christ -like?
People are simple now. But people were fucking idiots! back then.
@Domzdream Right, and many magicians probably did what Jesus did. But what seperates Jesus from magicians, is his resurrection. He died, and came back. And that's based on eye witnessed accounts in the Gospels. That's the evidence.
I couldnt find a reply to what you said about there being no contradictions.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME???
I've read the bible 3 times cover to cover. I spotted contradiction in church mass when I was 6 years old, dude.
Um...I know I'll sound condescending here, but there's a little search engine called google. Type in the search bar biblical contradictions. Click on the 1st link among hundreds. It'll blow your mind.
@Domzdream Oh, and there was not a magic trick back then, that would bring people back from the dead. Jesus use to bring people back from the dead and that's also based on eye witnessed accounts.
Ah! Well obviously it's true then. Gee. You got it! It's so clear. Like light!
You do realise that people were walking around in embalmings and bandages. You know how easy it would be to fools guys like yourself. Especially in Roman times??
You know how many people have seen ghosts and UFOs and Bigfoor and lochness monsters? Lots of them. Are there any clear photos? Any proofs. No. But ther are plenty of hoaxes. Why's this one credible?
No, no. We suspect they exist. But we DONT actually KNOW yet. If we did, there wouldnt be so many disputes over this, would there? Including amongst actual astronomers. I personally think there are beings visiting us/monitoring us. Based on the vastness of space. And based on statistics.
And I wouldnt be surprised if the frappy govmnt are hiding a mountain of evidence from us common folk.
Oh. More eye witness accounts? Umm...ever considered that those eye witnesses could be paid to tell whatever they wanted to spread their cult? Plus. Nobody actually saw jesus coing out of the grave. They only saw him way later, afterwards. Or at least that's what the eyewitnesses claim hehe. Eyewitnesses claim they saw a massive dinosaur at the Lochness (even though the lad who thought up the gag in the first place already did a confessed documentary on it).
@Domzdream And the first eye witnesses who saw the empy Tomb and the resurrected Christ, were women. And women were considered to be property back then, so their testimony wouldn't of gained any attention at all. So the fact that the writers of the Gospels claim that women saw the empty tomb, is proof that they weren't paid off. And there were 500 other eye witnesses who saw the resurrected Christ. And the 12 disciples saw Jesus ascend into Heaven.
So THAT is it? That is your proof. Because some blabering women said, therefore it must be true?
Oh, geez.
You are still relying on hearsay. And hearsay can and is usually twisted.
Ever hear of the broken telephone?
I cant believe this is what you christians rely on HAHA! Wailing women. I really dont see the difference if it were a bunch of freckled, ginger haired fatties who said this, to women.
As to the koran and miracles within islam. Maybe there were a few, but you only need one or two for the miracles to be supposedly real. And they had witnesses also. Why's jesus more credible. Come on!
And for you info, the bible was written hundreds of years after jesus death. Hundreds! And edited more times than you can imagine.
At least muslims have a rock as evidence from their gods. Christians have.....fuckall. Other than eye witnesses.
@Domzdream Christians have more eye witnesses accounts, and the Shroud of Turin. Which is slowly being revealed as proof of the greatest paranormal event in human history. Which would be the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Even if this was a person in shroud. Who's to say that this wasnt some bearded fellow. They all had beards back then. It was the Jewish law to have a facial hair fest!
But nope! It was jesus...OBVIOUSLY! Not necessarily. What I gather from this is a bunch of cult members who kept the 'business' going by providing bodies, tricks, 'miracles', actors who got paid off, etc.
Isnt it funny how there just arent ANY zombie jews walking around anymore? Hmm. Funny that.
Doug uses the copy/paste arguments from other debaters of this type. He is very well spoken and seems like a nice person, but parts of his argument are very weak. The part about atheism is riddled with problems. Atheism may seem "inadequate" in dealing with questions, but an indifferent universe does not owe you a sound sleep at night.
However, I do agree with him that belief in a creator is healthy. As long as it doesn't stray into fundamentalist territory where men are given great power.
Sick wrote, "Douglas Jacoby made sense..." In this debate he said evolution is true, that Shermer was right about the evolution of morality, that at somepoint our primate ancestors turned into "humans," and he argued for the big bang. Yes, on these points I think even Shermer agrees that Jacoby won the debate.
I invite you to go tell a 5 year old girl with cancer that's she's sick because our ancestors had a hankering for apples and a talking snake told them it was cool. How do you get theism from deism? You can't . It's a fucking conjuring trick faith heads like to spin.
Probability is on the side of the theists? Really, when was that decided? This guy is full of it. There are also many christians who become atheists, what does that say about christianity? Is it inadequate? That's a terrible argument. And I believe Michael Shermer used to be a fundamentalist christian before becoming an atheist, I doubt he will go back to that. Oh, and Anthony Flew is a deist, not a christian.
It was kind of condescending for Jacoby to say he hopes Shermer will become a Christian. What would Christians say if Shermer had said "I hope you'll see the light and become agnostic someday".
@Transformers217 I'm not saying Jacoby wasn't being sincere or that he didn't have good intentions. I'm saying it is condescending to tell someone that you have a truth that they don't see without offering any empirical evidence that can back up the claim.
@Jnmcda0 He's not being condescending. And Jacobdy can and has offered evidence in support of the existence of God. Read his book called "Compelling Evidence for God and the Bible."
It's not being condescending, when there have been other atheists who became Christians by looking at the evidence. I became a Christian, after looking at the evidence as well. I just couldn't ignore the truth.
The Bible is a more sure word of prophecy. God declares the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done. That authenticates the Bible as God's Word.
It's laughable how the religious try to argue that their delusional faith is anything but stone age myths and fables. They need to move on and get the most out of life because you are a long time dead.
its fustrating when youtube is being gay and just takes forever to post something. Ill haver to post the rest of the email i sent you in here later. thx for ur time btw.
U know, it used to be fun to discuss in youtube until all that stuff got into a firefight of a worldwide proportion. I think also you need to know that im not a christian nor muslim nor jew nor khrishna or wtv.
There is thousands of conspiracies out there, some contradicting and some adding to another. Some are about Religion, some about politics, some about persona, some about culture, some about right wing-left wing, some about money etc...
institution is evil. what he is saying is both atheism and theism are not meant to be institutionalised. when they are, then bad things happen. obviously the leader cares more of the material aspect of that power than anything else. "salvation" is really ambiguous to define when your country is "faithful" same thing with communism, if you werent a representation of its ideals then ud be killed. even in china, having a bible can be punishable of death.
lets go to the core of the issue. What is YOUR guideline to make someone or something responsible for his actions. Is about the doctrine? about the supposed follower, can the follower be responsible himself or is the religion or Atheist immedietly responsible for whatever is done on his idealistic purpose?
sigh... if only Jacoby would understand that it is all about standards. He promotes the standards used by the scientific method, but refuses to apply them to his beliefs. Such bias desires to keep these archaic "feel-good" beliefs alive cloud the mind and prevent clarity.
...Oh I see if atheism is institutionalised it turns people into warmongering genocidalists!
You have proof!?
I personally think he doesn't know how to separate his atheists from communists, and agnostics from fascists! He thinks your either with a faith, or a no faith and potentially a closet monster!
2:00 ...Oh no my mistake, he continues to tell us it becomes a monster if it doesn't remain "bland" and mind its own business. We become monsters if we stick are noses out and dare challenge religion.
What a good debate with 2 very intelligent people. Not the yelling and screaming and getting no where type of debate that proves to be worthless.
I only wish they would talk about specific things like "Noah's Ark" or "Adam and Eve". Oh ... and I also wish this debate was about 20 hours longer !!!
that is unrelated the the idealistic endeavors being done nor the outcome those "atrocities" were done for. as i explained before here, it matters not. Things were done in the name of Freedom and killed millions, so for Socialism, and so for Capitalism. If the Richard Lion heart did the crusade being called by a pope that wanted lands and money, but his position is of religious nature that yet DO NOT condone these, what is then the nature of the death? physical purposes are all secular.
Fact still is that atrocities have been and still are comitted in the name of religion. Even if the crusades were 100% politically motivated by only a small group of people, it was religion that made people go to war - religion was the engine. This is quite the opposite of WWII for instance. Even if Hitler was the ultimate atheist, which he wasn't, the war had nothing to do with religion or atheism. Also, the German population was as religious as can be.
So dont you see a problem with the in the name of? What the world does to itself is irrelevant and completly out of the concern of religion. let me explain, religion wants to deal only with the afterlife and spiritualism. whether its Emperor Ceasar or Stalin in power, it matters not. if Politics and worldy materalistic things are secular things, then how the fact someone believe in God a factor that the doctrine is what kills? dont you think that all those ppl were misled? (to continue)
"religion wants to deal only with the afterlife and spiritualism."
And to proselytize. Many Christians consider it their obligation to follow what is often termed 'the Great Commission of Jesus', recorded in the final verses of the Gospel of Matthew: "Go to all the nations and make disciples. Baptize them and teach them my commands." Evangelical Christians often use the term "witnessing" to mean discussing one's faith with another person with the intent of proselytism.
I am not saying that isnt the case. the point of that preaching is for one self to have a "relationship" with God. THAT is the purpose of the gospels, nothing else, since your quoting, so will I. :Matthew 6:19
[ Treasures in Heaven ] "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.
I will say it again. Money, countries,culture,politics IS irrelevant and secular to REAL christians. I am arguing that all of those guys arent.
That's why there are over 38,000 different christian denominations, and they all think they're the only true christians.
Had the bible been written properly, like a book of law or a science book, there would have been a lot less confusion. It's the ambiguity of the bible that's its strong point - you can read it anyway you want, you'll find whatever you're looking for - but it's also its weakest point.
Hey, if those guys doesnt wanna follow fully the book and still pretend they are somehow ok, then thats fine with me. But thru their action, i can see that the message isnt to blame but the messengers. I understand your critisms, however, the bible was written in a lot of different ways ( poetic, proverbs, songs, accounts of event etc..) and some were written as an historical document ( Esther, Moses, Kings, Samuel etc.. )
the OT is closest to what you describe ( leveticus, numbers, deutoronomy etc..) were all books of laws and prescription for the country. Ppl argue all the time about books content, the real issue is not necesserly the vagueness of the bible ( altho some passage needs clear contextual and historical perspective ) but the vagueness of the reader who is looking for a vague answer. thats why there is nothing wrong with science. Bottom line, institutionalised ideals are problematic.
Most self-described Christian groups have organizations devoted to missionary work which in whole or in part includes proselytism of people of other faiths. Most religions have strong political agendas all over the world. Officially, there is separation of church and state in the US, but in theory you've got 'in god we trust' on your money, and in US courts you still have to swear on the bible. This is discriminatory against other religions and atheists, and against the constitution.
And what was written on Soviet-U's money? Or the Biritsh Pound? So you are telling me that whatever I do in someone's name makes that name evil and the original of all evil? and you say i have logical fallacies? I agree that Theocracies are dangerous, so are Socialist countries run, or communism. like i said again,All those materialistic things are secular. meaningless from a doctrinal point of view.
"So you are telling me that whatever I do in someone's name makes that name evil and the original of all evil?"
No, it says that the people who do evil in the name of some deity apparently think that they're doing what their deity wants them to do. The holy scriptures - quran, bible etc - are very poorly written and extremely ambiguous causing confusing among the believers and division.
To claim that politics is secular is admitting that you don't know much about history - for most part of human history, countries have been run by religious institutions.
Also, this week, the pope said, during his visit to Africa, that condoms increase the chance of getting AIDS - an irresponsible, ignorant and immoral statement, contradicting all scientific research, leading to overpopulation and AIDS and other STD's. Spreading death and suffering in the name of god.
I am an historian in part, I have not yet my degree. Ill say it again and again: God on the money doesnt matter, Cursades doesnt matter, one self reason to freakin drop fart bombs from a Hot Air balloon in the name of God doesnt matter. All those things are irrelevant. The fact that the Pope says something like that is irrelevant. and i sayall those irrelevant not in regards of the subject but to what way the doctrine is supposed to be practiced.
"The fact that the Pope says something like that is irrelevant. and i sayall those irrelevant not in regards of the subject but to what way the doctrine is supposed to be practiced."
But religionists per definition seem to disagree with each other how their doctrine should be practiced. Again, had the holy scriptures been written a whole lot less ambiguous, more like a science book, there would be no interpretation differences and all religionists would agree on how to put in into practice.
And i say misled because if these were true "faithful". then you think they would have gone to war? If i see your lawer and he shows me a picture of you with a description, then can I go around and claim to do things in your name regardless of what it is? thousands of war were done with countless countries (secular) doing things for; country,freedom,socialism,capitalism,culture,colonies. (to continue lol )
What I Ultimatly means is, It isnt about religion nor atheism(altho ill talk about the bombing thing) but institutionalised system for political means aka; Christianity(the pope), Atheism (Boulad (prolly mispeled)) , Buddhism (Medieval China), Freedom+Capitalism ( USA) etc...
What Hitler did was for atheistic (secular) purposes aka: the perfect race, the german ppl, Leberstraun (living space).
"What Hitler did was for atheistic (secular) purposes"
A logical fallacy.
All oranges are fruit, but not all fruit are oranges.
You can say that Hitler was an atheist, which we know he wasn't, and that is fine. He also was a vegetarian.
But to state that he had 'atheistic' purposes makes no sense at all. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in the supernatural. It has nothing to do with doctrine.
Stalin and Mao wanted to be gods themselves, which explains the insane amount of statues.
Perhaps ive mis-chosen my word there. what i meant is that whatever Hitler did, it was only from a worldy materialistic for the german ppl in the name of the german ppl point of view. Perhaps he believed in a God of some sort, altho it is compeltly irrelevant to what he did and what he preached. Most of Military songs are based on Patriotism of the one true race and the Devil. Ive listened to them as part of studies.
"whatever Hitler did, it was only from a worldy materialistic for the german ppl in the name of the german ppl point of view. Perhaps he believed in a God of some sort, altho it is compeltly irrelevant to what he did and what he preached."
In the case of Hitler you're right - he just wanted to conquer the world, and even though he was a catholic, it is clear that he prefered to become a god himself instead of worshipping one.
which whether God exist or not, does make the institution and the real guilty ( himself) the only one to be condemned, the system of belief he created.
Stalin and Mao were dictators with a god complex and a personality cult, often found in dictatorships. Look at North Korea; dictator Kim-Il-Sung is officially called 'Eternal President of the Republic'. He's dead, but he still is president. The people of NK now also worship his son, Kim Jong-Il; father and son. Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Ceaucescu were all presented god-like.
They didn't want a godless state, they wanted to be god themselves.
So, if I was religious, and did things of the sort and I do crazy things or my leader is like that then God is to be blamed and i would probably approve of those atrocities. Check.
If an Atheist do crazy stuff or his leader; a ruler of an Institutionalised Atheistic state ( Commusim for instance) which is what it is. Then God is still to be blamed and religion and the Atheist guy has absolutly the right to be indignated cause he, of course doesnt approve of these.....right. Check.
Also, this is so cause Mao and Stalin ARE the State that is supposed to be the central and lifeblood of the people. which does give them a God-like figure to the people. Most Russians at that time were atheists, and Eastern Europeans. Apparently Franklin D Roosvelt was Atheist, so will I blame WW2 deaths on him? you are giving me arguments that are so one sided and completly straw man arguments. im not religious. I just see an historical and litteral problem with what you say.
Over one-third of the russian people professed religious belief. Christianity and Islam had the most believers. Christians belonged to various churches: Orthodox, which had the largest number of followers; Catholic and Baptist and various other Protestant sects. The majority of the muslims were Sunni. Judaism also had many followers. Other religions, which were practiced by a relatively small number of believers, included Buddhism and Shamanism.
"Apparently Franklin D Roosvelt was Atheist, so will I blame WW2 deaths on him?"
N=1
Apart from that, Roosevelt was not the agressor. Also, you have to look at the big picture.
Muslims have created a monopoly on suicide bombings, deliberately killing innocent civilians all over the planet, in the name of their deity, and strengthened by the idea that they will go to heaven as a reward. There's a direct link between religious beliefs and terrorism in the name of that belief.
Fact is that atheists are not kidnapping and beheading believers in the name of atheism, nor are they blowing themselves up in the name of atheism. Just look at the world today - the vast majority of the major conflicts in the world and terrorist attacks are all religiously motivated.
you would approve of thses? neither does the doctrine for followers (disciples) of a religion.
Islam is probably the only religion that I know of that Promotes and pushes fanaticly the state to merge with the doctrine and that believes the world under one government and sharia law. thru force. Communism, Aristocracy plutocracy are alike. but guerilla warfare(terrorism) has been practiced in order to change government since the persian empire of Xerses.
jacob I think u should of posted the whole debate without interference, it appears as if u may of been bias, why was the oppositions closing statement 4 minutes and the question time he refers too not being shown, whats going on?
As Sam Harris once said...."There's a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in my backyard. I have no proof of this, but I believe that my faith in God had given my life meaning."
Sorry, meant to say "my faith in that large diamond's existence has given my life meaning." In other words belief in something you have no proof of, does not constitute evidence.
It was a low blow - the horrors of non-theistic regimes were not founded on a lack of belief in a god, they were founded on unquestionable, absolute dogmas. Revealed truth, that the people must accept unquestioningly or be cast out from the true citizens and punished for their apostasy lest they corrupt true believers. Remind anyone of anything? The 20th century's great killers appropriated religion's model for controlling and subjugating free thought and individual moral responsibility.
I agree with the "low blow", none of those atrocities were commited in the name of atheism, as opposed to the atrocities that are/have been commited in the name of a god, to please a god, to prove faith, etc.
Do some research on the soviet union during joseph stalins rule and you will find out how much atrocities were commited by a atheist dictator....he ordered the execution of many of his own people the soviets...think on that.
the use of numbers in the 20th century for atheists killing people is so fallacious. if the spanish inquisition, crusades etc had the technology of gas chambers, bombs, guns and tanks, religion would have been responsible for millions more deaths. ooh, that annoys me...
Your logic is flawed. These guys were dictators and they assumed that they were a form of a deity in the respect that they decided who lived and who died. Hitler was a Catholic and he was pretty good at the killing game but nothing compared to the greatest mass murderer of all time....
you dont understand the implication nor the sense of whats been discussed. It isnt about traits, to comment you need to understand secularism and Doctrine. Politics kills, its just a plain fact, if a doctrine intermerge with the institution then yes, ud say religion kills. Purpose of religion however is totally unrelated to political outcomes or world institutinalism. It does not care nor should it. Politics is secular, things done for a country is secular. no matter why you do it.
Jacoby just kept beating around the bush on all of Shermer's questions. Shermer gave straight answers to all the questions from Jacoby. Jacoby has his one point, complexity suggests god. That is not any kind of logical statement, its just some fallacious claim. Shermer's position holds itself much stronger than Jacoby's position.
I agree with you, though. Perhaps the writer was more concerned with moral rightness than with factual rightness. I posted this merely to point out a place in the scriptures where readers are encouraged to be skeptical.
as shermer said, "why do we have to believe?" if there is a god, so what?. i dont have to believe in god to know if im doing good or bad, i just know. how many millions have died on battlefields with the bible in their right hand, and a sword in their left?....it seems "thou shalt not kill" is just ONE of the commandments the BELIEVERS dont have to believe in! . . .now im taking my doggy for walkies.
I really don't see Jacoby thrashing Shermer here. Both speakers did very well. That's not to say that they both didn't miss points and stutter, but the arguments were, for the most part, coherent and well defined.
the teaching of Jesus in his life. Jesus defines being his disciple as following his teachings in John 8:31-32. Jesus teaches that we should not hate our enemies, but love them in Matthew 5. Do you think Hitler did this? Just because someone goes to church or says they're a Christian, they are not necessarily a Christian in their lifestyle. An individual or saying they are a Christian doesn't make them a Christian any more than sitting in a garage and saying "I am a car" makes them a car.
Hitler was a Christian? Please provide support for your assertion. Even if Hitler said he was a Christian and you had some kind of record of him making the statement, or attending church, to say that he was a Christian would be insupportable. Simply look at what a Christian is: the original Christians or "little Christs" were just that, people who earned the derogatory name because they imitated Jesus and followed his teachings. You would be hard pressed to find evidence of Hitler following
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[c] 20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
"Jesus would be crucified today", hillarious. Because we really see a lot of cruxifictions going down today. Last week I drove by three on my way to work. I can't believe people are convinced by this guy.
Are you stupid, he doesnt mean in like a real cruxifiction, he is not being literal. He just means that if jesus was here today he would be assassinated or killed by somebody who didnt believe.
What is your response to "institutionalized atheism" like the government in China, etc. per the discussion. It seems like both athiesm and theism have done lots of harm to lots of people when misapplied through violence and force.
I like the way he left it til Shermer couldn't respond to drop in the Communism/Facism fallacy. I think Sam Harris puts it best: "The problem with North Korea is not too much skeptical enquiry." Replacing one dogma with another doesn't work.
Perhaps, then, Sam Harris can back off of the Crusades/Inquisition fallacy. The problem with the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages was not that they relied too heavily on the actual teachings of Christ.
Sort of. No-one holds all religious people accountable for Inquisition/Crusades/etc (I think Sam stresses this quite heavily), only that it is important to distinguish between atheism and evil facist dictators, and the same for religion.
My issue, and this goes for most atheists who have a viewpoint on the topic, is that when faith is not only allowed but encouraged and valued ahead of reason then you get the situation where terrible crimes can become acceptable to a great many people. 1 billion Christians (less Catholics, true) seem oblivious to the Church's role in the AIDs crisis.
In short, I put Stalin and Hitler in the same camp as the inquisitions, and good religious people in the same group as the good atheists. I am against "evil" and it seems to me that it follows from a suspension of reason. The only problem I have with religion and the religious, therefore, is that it can provide a framework for that. But it certainly isn't alone. I also have a great deal more objections to Islam, but thats another story =)
We would agree on putting Stalin/Hitler in the same camp as the Inquisitors. ALthough I would argue that the atrocities committed by the Church are more of an outright blatant betrayal of Christian ideals, given Christ's clear non-violent message. I wouldn't necessarily say the same about Marxist dictators since the Marxist communist ideal doesn't teach the same kind of non-violence. It does in fact advocate a form of "revolution" in a way that suggests force.
I'd be interested in knowing more about how you derive the concept of "evil" (or "good") based on a suspension of reason. Pity you are in the UK and I am in Washington D.C., otherwise you seem like the type of guy I'd really enjoy to converse with over a coffee or something...
Shermer was wrong to say there are infinite bubbles of universes. That is not even a theory, It has zelch evidence. The Universe was once smaller in size than a flea on a dog, and so the relative size of our human perspective to the Cosmos today means absolutely nothing. Behavior itself is more than Static Particles. Behavior itself , without adding, makes a case for God as a Verb, describing the Way everything behaves and is understandable, making no small case for an Intelligent Cause.
CarmineFragione 1 month ago
Atheism had nothing to do with the atrocities committed in China, North Korea, Cambodia and the old Soviet Union. Those crimes were committed in the name of Communism and Communism is a religion. It is taught like a religion, and it is enforced like a religion. In order for a religion to truly succeed it must be forced upon the people with an iron fist and all other competing religions have to be eliminated. It worked for Christianity, and Islam, and Communism learned from the best.
jmg94j 1 month ago
Wouldn't it be nice if god just came down to earth and settled this dispute once and for all, because it seems like we're nothing but cosmic playthings for this all mighty celestial god if he exists.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
Jacoby fails. His arguement is Kinda this and Kinda that. But I do agree with his accessment of If Jesus came to the US today - he'd be crusified by his own "faithed up" people.
resculptit 7 months ago
6:26 "Faith is not a flight from reason. Faith is response to evidence."
Faith is belief IN SPITE OF evidence. Faith is gullibility. Faith is what you invoke when you want to call your belief right instead of actually wanting it to be less wrong.
CyberBushBush 8 months ago
@CyberBushBush gee, sounds like so many scientific theories that are popular today..lol Beliefs in string theory, parallel universes, quantum theory, dark matter/energy or multi dimensions are not entirely evidence based, that's why there is dispute and not all scientists agree. So please don't make the mistake of thinking religious/spiritual minded are the only ones invoking "faith". If you do, then be consistent and apply to scientists and Shermer as well. :)
dwheel39 2 months ago
@dwheel39 I don't see where I have made the claim that only religious people have faith.
I don't have "belief in" string theory and the like, I see they are valid hypotheses. Unless they provide experimentally testable explanations for existing evidence, they aren't theories, which they do not claim to be in the first place.
Religious people may not be the only ones "invoking faith" but they are the majority who glorify faith(belief in spite of evidence), which in my mind is madness.
CyberBushBush 2 months ago
@CyberBushBush Forgive me if i misunderstood your application of your statement :) I'm happy you get my point though and i respect that you aren't employing a double standard. And i'm in agreement with you about many religious people who don't "think" and hold up "blind faith" on some spiritual pedestal. But there are non-thinking people on every side and spout off empty slogans without thinking anything through.
dwheel39 2 months ago
This was a great closing statement and he summed the debate perfectly. Shermer should not debate because he doesn't understand the rules of logics and committed multiple, obvious fallacies. When confronted he backed off his position by saying "we don't know". I think this debate could have been much better if formatted differently. I used to love Shermer in Scientific American, but was totally let down after this debate!
Alix1437 8 months ago
@Alix1437 Shermer doesn't back off with "I don't know." He is honestly declaring, "I don't know." Religious people have a real problem with not knowing, it seems. They claim knowledge even when honest men who know better are declaring "I don't know".
Because when it comes to questions of how the universe began, we, we being the ENTIRE human race... do not know. It is an unknown.
UnitedKingdomify 7 months ago
@UnitedKingdomify If Shermer were consistent with his seemingly humble position of "i don't know" then he wouldn't be Executive Director of his Skeptic Society. He should just get a law degree if he enjoys debating or arguing. No, threaded though all his articles and debates are claims of knowledge. He apparently knows enough to know that Christianity and Theism in general are false views. But how? If he was truly that humble he would change careers, don't you think? :)
dwheel39 2 months ago
Again, more flawed logic by Jacoby... does he not see this or is it deception?
drstrangelove09 9 months ago
2:47 "Skepticism is good. My faith teaches me, the scriptures teach me to be skeptic." Except when applied to the scripture itself of course, that would just be silly.
ben8129 1 year ago
"Probability is on the side of theists" right on the money. In fact, science is on the side of theists too..just look at DNA. It is the language of a creator.
jamestrekky 1 year ago
@jamestrekky reatard
GrittyMcCheese 1 year ago
@jamestrekky It is curious that DNA is defective in that it randomly mutates. Intriguing that a creator god would pick something so flawed to be the bases of all biology. Interesting that DNA is so susceptible to being hijacked by viruses - which the creator god must have also created, too, apparently.
CapnofRum 1 year ago
@CapnofRum You're comments are very misleading. Do know how many bases there are in the human genome? 3 Billion. If these randomly mutate all the time, we would all have 5 arms and 3 eyes. How many people around you look like random mutations?
The cell has DNA Redundancy and a mechanism to repair DNA damaged from UV radiation etc. The cell itself is a whole new world of mechanics and biological robots.
jamestrekky 1 year ago
@jamestrekky The fact that they mutate at all is evidence that no higher intelligence is responsible for creating DNA. Why would an omnibenevolent God give us an informational medium, through which we can copy and reproduce, when, on occasion, people are born with hereditary and genetic diseases or mutations in the code that cause disability? Interestingly enough, children are occasionally born with polymelia.
CapnofRum 1 year ago
The point about DNA is that it is information. Statistics say that Entropy or Informational content can be derived from DNA. Statistics tell us that pure randomness can never create Entropy. Information cannot come out of randomness. DNA is information. The EVIDENCE points to a creator. Please watch the videos again.
jamestrekky 1 year ago
@jamestrekky What does thermodynamics have to do with DNA?
CapnofRum 1 year ago
@CapnofRum You must have googled Entropy without context and glanced at wiki. Please google Entropy in Information theory as this is what I was talking about. And you will find that things like DNA have information. Where does this information come from? Well, it doesn't just occur like athiests claim, that things just happen and things appear. Science is telling us that. Again, evidence is on the side of theists.
jamestrekky 1 year ago
What evidence did Dr. Jacoby give for the existence of God? I must have missed it.
MrWagman11 1 year ago 2
the usual preachy BS from Jacoby.
alexhamster1134 1 year ago
hahaha! As any typical christian theist, Jacoby says 'join ussss....! 'jooooin ussss....!
Man, you theists are a creepy.
And dangerous to the public.
Domzdream 1 year ago
Jacoby won this debate. It was just too easy.
Transformers217 1 year ago
How pathetic to save the "millions of people killed by atheist regimes" and the "something coming from nothing" and "x famous scientist believes in god" pseudo arguments until the end when there's no rebuttal time.
"How many zeros there are... that looks suspicious" What an idiot. This closing statement was almost painful to watch. Yet, on the hole, as usual: atheism wins hands down.
cristianfcao 1 year ago
@cristianfcao How did atheism win? There are no atheists in this debate.
Transformers217 1 year ago
One word for Jacoby, "unconvincing"
LonesomeTroubadour 1 year ago
Dr. Jacoby... An exteraordinary debater.
Full of deceiving shit, false arguments, vocabulary tricks, quotes from the idiots, but...
An extraordinary debater.
Dr. Shermer... You have no chance with such debaters. Shit after shit after shit is coming out of Dr. Jacoby mouth, but... What a beautiful, smooth shit it is. Listen to his soft, articulate voice. His accentuation. Pay attention to the imaginary numbers he's using out of the blue skies. Primitive anegdotes.
There... A sheer winner !
MrJurekGG 1 year ago
@MrJurekGG Jacoby is actually speaking the truth, and talking about the evidence. I can't really say the same for Shermer.
Transformers217 1 year ago
@Transformers217
Er....what evidence? We're still sitting here scratching our heads. See, the problem with theists is this. They can never prove something which cannot be detected via any possible means. How can you prove something you cannot touch, taste, smell, see, hear etc etc.
Theists can only 'prove' their deiety via dialogue. Healthy brained people IE atheists, HAVE tangible proof- science! Not just dialogue.
This poor dope has absolutely fuck-all.
Domzdream 1 year ago
@Domzdream The evidence of the Bible, and the existence of Jesus Christ. That is hard evidence for God's existence.
Transformers217 1 year ago
@Transformers217
Well, there's evidence of the koran. Does that make the islamic god any less credible? Think about this. Now take it further into all the other religions. Including Thor of the ancient scandanavian religion. Or Jupiter of the Roman religion. These are just a few of the thousands of choices.
Also, your argument is circular.
In addition, how can a book that has been written hundreds of years after your christ's death, edited many, many times, be evidence of a god? HUh??
Domzdream 1 year ago
@Domzdream There's no a lot of historical, or archealogical evidence in support of the Koran, or the miracles that Mohammad claimed to have commited. I've looked into the other religions, and while they all have some truth, there's not a lot of evidence to support them.
So Christian does have more support, with the historical and archealogical evidence. And the Gospels were written during the same generation as Jesus Christ, and is based on eye witness testimony. That's evidence for God.
Transformers217 1 year ago
@Transformers217
Ah. I see. eyewitnesses. That's evidence!? eye witensses. Umm...no.
David Blaine walked on water. He floated in the air. He turns water in wine, and back into water. He's done all that with simple trcks of the trade. Nothing expensive--In front of witnesses who almost swear it was actual magic.
Now, put David Blaine into the jesus days. Wouldnt he appear christ -like?
People are simple now. But people were fucking idiots! back then.
You do the math of how easy this was.
Domzdream 1 year ago
@Domzdream Right, and many magicians probably did what Jesus did. But what seperates Jesus from magicians, is his resurrection. He died, and came back. And that's based on eye witnessed accounts in the Gospels. That's the evidence.
Transformers217 1 year ago
@Transformers217
I couldnt find a reply to what you said about there being no contradictions.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME???
I've read the bible 3 times cover to cover. I spotted contradiction in church mass when I was 6 years old, dude.
Um...I know I'll sound condescending here, but there's a little search engine called google. Type in the search bar biblical contradictions. Click on the 1st link among hundreds. It'll blow your mind.
good luck.
Domzdream 1 year ago
@Domzdream Oh, and there was not a magic trick back then, that would bring people back from the dead. Jesus use to bring people back from the dead and that's also based on eye witnessed accounts.
Transformers217 1 year ago
@Transformers217
Ah! Well obviously it's true then. Gee. You got it! It's so clear. Like light!
You do realise that people were walking around in embalmings and bandages. You know how easy it would be to fools guys like yourself. Especially in Roman times??
You know how many people have seen ghosts and UFOs and Bigfoor and lochness monsters? Lots of them. Are there any clear photos? Any proofs. No. But ther are plenty of hoaxes. Why's this one credible?
Domzdream 1 year ago
@Domzdream UFO's exist. That's just a plain old fact. Whoever keeps visiting us hasn't revealed themselves yet, but UFO's do exist.
The question is whether the UFO's are our technology, or technology from another civilization. But there are clear photos of UFO's.
Transformers217 1 year ago
@Transformers217
No, no. We suspect they exist. But we DONT actually KNOW yet. If we did, there wouldnt be so many disputes over this, would there? Including amongst actual astronomers. I personally think there are beings visiting us/monitoring us. Based on the vastness of space. And based on statistics.
And I wouldnt be surprised if the frappy govmnt are hiding a mountain of evidence from us common folk.
Domzdream 1 year ago
@Transformers217
Oh. More eye witness accounts? Umm...ever considered that those eye witnesses could be paid to tell whatever they wanted to spread their cult? Plus. Nobody actually saw jesus coing out of the grave. They only saw him way later, afterwards. Or at least that's what the eyewitnesses claim hehe. Eyewitnesses claim they saw a massive dinosaur at the Lochness (even though the lad who thought up the gag in the first place already did a confessed documentary on it).
try again.
Domzdream 1 year ago
@Domzdream And the first eye witnesses who saw the empy Tomb and the resurrected Christ, were women. And women were considered to be property back then, so their testimony wouldn't of gained any attention at all. So the fact that the writers of the Gospels claim that women saw the empty tomb, is proof that they weren't paid off. And there were 500 other eye witnesses who saw the resurrected Christ. And the 12 disciples saw Jesus ascend into Heaven.
Transformers217 1 year ago
@Transformers217
So THAT is it? That is your proof. Because some blabering women said, therefore it must be true?
Oh, geez.
You are still relying on hearsay. And hearsay can and is usually twisted.
Ever hear of the broken telephone?
I cant believe this is what you christians rely on HAHA! Wailing women. I really dont see the difference if it were a bunch of freckled, ginger haired fatties who said this, to women.
nice try.
Domzdream 1 year ago
@Transformers217
As to the koran and miracles within islam. Maybe there were a few, but you only need one or two for the miracles to be supposedly real. And they had witnesses also. Why's jesus more credible. Come on!
And for you info, the bible was written hundreds of years after jesus death. Hundreds! And edited more times than you can imagine.
At least muslims have a rock as evidence from their gods. Christians have.....fuckall. Other than eye witnesses.
Domzdream 1 year ago
@Domzdream Christians have more eye witnesses accounts, and the Shroud of Turin. Which is slowly being revealed as proof of the greatest paranormal event in human history. Which would be the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Transformers217 1 year ago
@Transformers217
Even if this was a person in shroud. Who's to say that this wasnt some bearded fellow. They all had beards back then. It was the Jewish law to have a facial hair fest!
But nope! It was jesus...OBVIOUSLY! Not necessarily. What I gather from this is a bunch of cult members who kept the 'business' going by providing bodies, tricks, 'miracles', actors who got paid off, etc.
Isnt it funny how there just arent ANY zombie jews walking around anymore? Hmm. Funny that.
Domzdream 1 year ago
'Jesus would be crusified these days if he came back' - how sad truth. Threre is a room for faith, unbeliefe and scepticism in hearts of christians
lachanonim 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lachanonim
" 'Jesus would be crucified these days if he came back' - how sad truth. "
???
Extremely debilitating statement. What is that saying based upon ? Where there is any sense in it.
More likely - he would be a star. A huge star. Temporarily, but a star.
MrJurekGG 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lachanonim
@lachanonim
" 'Jesus would be crucified these days if he came back' - how sad truth. "
???
Extremely debilitating statement. What is that saying based upon ? Where there is any sense in it.
More likely - he would be a star. A huge star. Temporarily, but a star.
MrJurekGG 1 year ago
Doug uses the copy/paste arguments from other debaters of this type. He is very well spoken and seems like a nice person, but parts of his argument are very weak. The part about atheism is riddled with problems. Atheism may seem "inadequate" in dealing with questions, but an indifferent universe does not owe you a sound sleep at night.
However, I do agree with him that belief in a creator is healthy. As long as it doesn't stray into fundamentalist territory where men are given great power.
PurpleHoneyBear 1 year ago
@manntizz Are you agreeing with me because you say sure but then jaja which one is it?
Sick2406 1 year ago
Sick wrote, "Douglas Jacoby made sense..." In this debate he said evolution is true, that Shermer was right about the evolution of morality, that at somepoint our primate ancestors turned into "humans," and he argued for the big bang. Yes, on these points I think even Shermer agrees that Jacoby won the debate.
spiph23 1 year ago
Douglas Jacoby made sense he won the debate...great job
Sick2406 1 year ago
@Sick2406 jajajj sure
manntizz 1 year ago
I invite you to go tell a 5 year old girl with cancer that's she's sick because our ancestors had a hankering for apples and a talking snake told them it was cool. How do you get theism from deism? You can't . It's a fucking conjuring trick faith heads like to spin.
setmedic 2 years ago
low blow... waits til his final statement to bring up thing he hasnt mentioned the whole debate
ymatmband 2 years ago
@ymatmband Yeah, the appeal to emotion. Cheap shot, imo.
drumrnva 2 years ago
who won the debate?
jedibassman100 2 years ago
I'm an atheist
Shermer sucked
Jacoby, although illogical and senseless, won....
Shermer was just dodging answers, these kind of guys have to be attacked, bot played around with
De4sher 2 years ago
@De4sher ????
manntizz 1 year ago
Probability is on the side of the theists? Really, when was that decided? This guy is full of it. There are also many christians who become atheists, what does that say about christianity? Is it inadequate? That's a terrible argument. And I believe Michael Shermer used to be a fundamentalist christian before becoming an atheist, I doubt he will go back to that. Oh, and Anthony Flew is a deist, not a christian.
BurtGummer28 2 years ago
This debate would have been much better without that moderator.
fknwtf 2 years ago 2
It was kind of condescending for Jacoby to say he hopes Shermer will become a Christian. What would Christians say if Shermer had said "I hope you'll see the light and become agnostic someday".
Jnmcda0 2 years ago 17
@Jnmcda0 It wasn't condescending. It was loving, kind, and honest.
Transformers217 1 year ago
@Transformers217 I'm not saying Jacoby wasn't being sincere or that he didn't have good intentions. I'm saying it is condescending to tell someone that you have a truth that they don't see without offering any empirical evidence that can back up the claim.
Jnmcda0 1 year ago
@Jnmcda0 He's not being condescending. And Jacobdy can and has offered evidence in support of the existence of God. Read his book called "Compelling Evidence for God and the Bible."
It's not being condescending, when there have been other atheists who became Christians by looking at the evidence. I became a Christian, after looking at the evidence as well. I just couldn't ignore the truth.
Transformers217 1 year ago
Thats was a real cheap speech.
boo..
VarialProductions 2 years ago 13
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you are an asshole.......are you not...I rest my case....lol...why watch this if you dont believe..don't waste your time...
Turpy7777 2 years ago
notice what I said and then notice what you said.
I am certainly not the asshole in this interchange.
VarialProductions 2 years ago
your an ass at least...lol
Turpy7777 2 years ago
maybe..
VarialProductions 2 years ago
The Bible is a more sure word of prophecy. God declares the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done. That authenticates the Bible as God's Word.
Ramohog 2 years ago
It's laughable how the religious try to argue that their delusional faith is anything but stone age myths and fables. They need to move on and get the most out of life because you are a long time dead.
Hellcat040369 2 years ago 5
Summarize for ppl: Theocratic states doesnt work, everyone has tried and ti was a flop.
we need to make a difference btw christianity, and biblical christianity, atheism and institutionalised atheism, islam and Qu'ran Islam.
warallied 2 years ago
its fustrating when youtube is being gay and just takes forever to post something. Ill haver to post the rest of the email i sent you in here later. thx for ur time btw.
warallied 2 years ago
U know, it used to be fun to discuss in youtube until all that stuff got into a firefight of a worldwide proportion. I think also you need to know that im not a christian nor muslim nor jew nor khrishna or wtv.
There is thousands of conspiracies out there, some contradicting and some adding to another. Some are about Religion, some about politics, some about persona, some about culture, some about right wing-left wing, some about money etc...
warallied 2 years ago
institution is evil. what he is saying is both atheism and theism are not meant to be institutionalised. when they are, then bad things happen. obviously the leader cares more of the material aspect of that power than anything else. "salvation" is really ambiguous to define when your country is "faithful" same thing with communism, if you werent a representation of its ideals then ud be killed. even in china, having a bible can be punishable of death.
warallied 2 years ago
lets go to the core of the issue. What is YOUR guideline to make someone or something responsible for his actions. Is about the doctrine? about the supposed follower, can the follower be responsible himself or is the religion or Atheist immedietly responsible for whatever is done on his idealistic purpose?
warallied 2 years ago
sigh... if only Jacoby would understand that it is all about standards. He promotes the standards used by the scientific method, but refuses to apply them to his beliefs. Such bias desires to keep these archaic "feel-good" beliefs alive cloud the mind and prevent clarity.
personalsinr 3 years ago
...Oh I see if atheism is institutionalised it turns people into warmongering genocidalists!
You have proof!?
I personally think he doesn't know how to separate his atheists from communists, and agnostics from fascists! He thinks your either with a faith, or a no faith and potentially a closet monster!
TooDrunkToCare808 3 years ago
2:00 ...Oh no my mistake, he continues to tell us it becomes a monster if it doesn't remain "bland" and mind its own business. We become monsters if we stick are noses out and dare challenge religion.
Thats what he said!!!
TooDrunkToCare808 3 years ago
I don't think his probability arguments are right. Probability is usually only useful for future events.
Let's play 2 betting games
Game 1) You write the name of a card on a piece of paper. Then you pick a card out of a deck of cards. If they match I give you $10.
Game 2) You pick a card out of a deck of cards. Then you write the name on a piece of paper. If they match I give you ten bucks.
Dr. Jacoby was playing game 2. He placed his bet after the cards were dealt.
bornonmybday 3 years ago
What a good debate with 2 very intelligent people. Not the yelling and screaming and getting no where type of debate that proves to be worthless.
I only wish they would talk about specific things like "Noah's Ark" or "Adam and Eve". Oh ... and I also wish this debate was about 20 hours longer !!!
coopersnoop 3 years ago 3
How many atrocities have been committed IN THE NAME OF atheism?
None.
How many atrocities have been committed IN THE NAME of religion?
Exactly.
DeusMerdaeEst 3 years ago
that is unrelated the the idealistic endeavors being done nor the outcome those "atrocities" were done for. as i explained before here, it matters not. Things were done in the name of Freedom and killed millions, so for Socialism, and so for Capitalism. If the Richard Lion heart did the crusade being called by a pope that wanted lands and money, but his position is of religious nature that yet DO NOT condone these, what is then the nature of the death? physical purposes are all secular.
warallied 2 years ago
Fact still is that atrocities have been and still are comitted in the name of religion. Even if the crusades were 100% politically motivated by only a small group of people, it was religion that made people go to war - religion was the engine. This is quite the opposite of WWII for instance. Even if Hitler was the ultimate atheist, which he wasn't, the war had nothing to do with religion or atheism. Also, the German population was as religious as can be.
->
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
So dont you see a problem with the in the name of? What the world does to itself is irrelevant and completly out of the concern of religion. let me explain, religion wants to deal only with the afterlife and spiritualism. whether its Emperor Ceasar or Stalin in power, it matters not. if Politics and worldy materalistic things are secular things, then how the fact someone believe in God a factor that the doctrine is what kills? dont you think that all those ppl were misled? (to continue)
warallied 2 years ago
"religion wants to deal only with the afterlife and spiritualism."
And to proselytize. Many Christians consider it their obligation to follow what is often termed 'the Great Commission of Jesus', recorded in the final verses of the Gospel of Matthew: "Go to all the nations and make disciples. Baptize them and teach them my commands." Evangelical Christians often use the term "witnessing" to mean discussing one's faith with another person with the intent of proselytism.
->
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
I am not saying that isnt the case. the point of that preaching is for one self to have a "relationship" with God. THAT is the purpose of the gospels, nothing else, since your quoting, so will I. :Matthew 6:19
[ Treasures in Heaven ] "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.
I will say it again. Money, countries,culture,politics IS irrelevant and secular to REAL christians. I am arguing that all of those guys arent.
warallied 2 years ago
"I am arguing that all of those guys arent."
That's why there are over 38,000 different christian denominations, and they all think they're the only true christians.
Had the bible been written properly, like a book of law or a science book, there would have been a lot less confusion. It's the ambiguity of the bible that's its strong point - you can read it anyway you want, you'll find whatever you're looking for - but it's also its weakest point.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
Hey, if those guys doesnt wanna follow fully the book and still pretend they are somehow ok, then thats fine with me. But thru their action, i can see that the message isnt to blame but the messengers. I understand your critisms, however, the bible was written in a lot of different ways ( poetic, proverbs, songs, accounts of event etc..) and some were written as an historical document ( Esther, Moses, Kings, Samuel etc.. )
(to continue)
warallied 2 years ago
the OT is closest to what you describe ( leveticus, numbers, deutoronomy etc..) were all books of laws and prescription for the country. Ppl argue all the time about books content, the real issue is not necesserly the vagueness of the bible ( altho some passage needs clear contextual and historical perspective ) but the vagueness of the reader who is looking for a vague answer. thats why there is nothing wrong with science. Bottom line, institutionalised ideals are problematic.
warallied 2 years ago
"Bottom line, institutionalised ideals are problematic."
At least we agree on something.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
->
Most self-described Christian groups have organizations devoted to missionary work which in whole or in part includes proselytism of people of other faiths. Most religions have strong political agendas all over the world. Officially, there is separation of church and state in the US, but in theory you've got 'in god we trust' on your money, and in US courts you still have to swear on the bible. This is discriminatory against other religions and atheists, and against the constitution.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
And what was written on Soviet-U's money? Or the Biritsh Pound? So you are telling me that whatever I do in someone's name makes that name evil and the original of all evil? and you say i have logical fallacies? I agree that Theocracies are dangerous, so are Socialist countries run, or communism. like i said again,All those materialistic things are secular. meaningless from a doctrinal point of view.
warallied 2 years ago
"So you are telling me that whatever I do in someone's name makes that name evil and the original of all evil?"
No, it says that the people who do evil in the name of some deity apparently think that they're doing what their deity wants them to do. The holy scriptures - quran, bible etc - are very poorly written and extremely ambiguous causing confusing among the believers and division.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
To claim that politics is secular is admitting that you don't know much about history - for most part of human history, countries have been run by religious institutions.
Also, this week, the pope said, during his visit to Africa, that condoms increase the chance of getting AIDS - an irresponsible, ignorant and immoral statement, contradicting all scientific research, leading to overpopulation and AIDS and other STD's. Spreading death and suffering in the name of god.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
I am an historian in part, I have not yet my degree. Ill say it again and again: God on the money doesnt matter, Cursades doesnt matter, one self reason to freakin drop fart bombs from a Hot Air balloon in the name of God doesnt matter. All those things are irrelevant. The fact that the Pope says something like that is irrelevant. and i sayall those irrelevant not in regards of the subject but to what way the doctrine is supposed to be practiced.
warallied 2 years ago
"The fact that the Pope says something like that is irrelevant. and i sayall those irrelevant not in regards of the subject but to what way the doctrine is supposed to be practiced."
But religionists per definition seem to disagree with each other how their doctrine should be practiced. Again, had the holy scriptures been written a whole lot less ambiguous, more like a science book, there would be no interpretation differences and all religionists would agree on how to put in into practice.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
And i say misled because if these were true "faithful". then you think they would have gone to war? If i see your lawer and he shows me a picture of you with a description, then can I go around and claim to do things in your name regardless of what it is? thousands of war were done with countless countries (secular) doing things for; country,freedom,socialism,capitalism,culture,colonies. (to continue lol )
warallied 2 years ago
What I Ultimatly means is, It isnt about religion nor atheism(altho ill talk about the bombing thing) but institutionalised system for political means aka; Christianity(the pope), Atheism (Boulad (prolly mispeled)) , Buddhism (Medieval China), Freedom+Capitalism ( USA) etc...
What Hitler did was for atheistic (secular) purposes aka: the perfect race, the german ppl, Leberstraun (living space).
Stalin+Mao: Rule the world for a Godless state
warallied 2 years ago
"What Hitler did was for atheistic (secular) purposes"
A logical fallacy.
All oranges are fruit, but not all fruit are oranges.
You can say that Hitler was an atheist, which we know he wasn't, and that is fine. He also was a vegetarian.
But to state that he had 'atheistic' purposes makes no sense at all. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in the supernatural. It has nothing to do with doctrine.
Stalin and Mao wanted to be gods themselves, which explains the insane amount of statues.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
Perhaps ive mis-chosen my word there. what i meant is that whatever Hitler did, it was only from a worldy materialistic for the german ppl in the name of the german ppl point of view. Perhaps he believed in a God of some sort, altho it is compeltly irrelevant to what he did and what he preached. Most of Military songs are based on Patriotism of the one true race and the Devil. Ive listened to them as part of studies.
warallied 2 years ago
"whatever Hitler did, it was only from a worldy materialistic for the german ppl in the name of the german ppl point of view. Perhaps he believed in a God of some sort, altho it is compeltly irrelevant to what he did and what he preached."
In the case of Hitler you're right - he just wanted to conquer the world, and even though he was a catholic, it is clear that he prefered to become a god himself instead of worshipping one.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
which whether God exist or not, does make the institution and the real guilty ( himself) the only one to be condemned, the system of belief he created.
warallied 2 years ago
"Stalin+Mao: Rule the world for a Godless state"
Stalin and Mao were dictators with a god complex and a personality cult, often found in dictatorships. Look at North Korea; dictator Kim-Il-Sung is officially called 'Eternal President of the Republic'. He's dead, but he still is president. The people of NK now also worship his son, Kim Jong-Il; father and son. Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Ceaucescu were all presented god-like.
They didn't want a godless state, they wanted to be god themselves.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
So, if I was religious, and did things of the sort and I do crazy things or my leader is like that then God is to be blamed and i would probably approve of those atrocities. Check.
If an Atheist do crazy stuff or his leader; a ruler of an Institutionalised Atheistic state ( Commusim for instance) which is what it is. Then God is still to be blamed and religion and the Atheist guy has absolutly the right to be indignated cause he, of course doesnt approve of these.....right. Check.
warallied 2 years ago
Also, this is so cause Mao and Stalin ARE the State that is supposed to be the central and lifeblood of the people. which does give them a God-like figure to the people. Most Russians at that time were atheists, and Eastern Europeans. Apparently Franklin D Roosvelt was Atheist, so will I blame WW2 deaths on him? you are giving me arguments that are so one sided and completly straw man arguments. im not religious. I just see an historical and litteral problem with what you say.
warallied 2 years ago
"Most Russians at that time were atheists"
Over one-third of the russian people professed religious belief. Christianity and Islam had the most believers. Christians belonged to various churches: Orthodox, which had the largest number of followers; Catholic and Baptist and various other Protestant sects. The majority of the muslims were Sunni. Judaism also had many followers. Other religions, which were practiced by a relatively small number of believers, included Buddhism and Shamanism.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
"Apparently Franklin D Roosvelt was Atheist, so will I blame WW2 deaths on him?"
N=1
Apart from that, Roosevelt was not the agressor. Also, you have to look at the big picture.
Muslims have created a monopoly on suicide bombings, deliberately killing innocent civilians all over the planet, in the name of their deity, and strengthened by the idea that they will go to heaven as a reward. There's a direct link between religious beliefs and terrorism in the name of that belief.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
->
Fact is that atheists are not kidnapping and beheading believers in the name of atheism, nor are they blowing themselves up in the name of atheism. Just look at the world today - the vast majority of the major conflicts in the world and terrorist attacks are all religiously motivated.
DeusMerdaeEst 2 years ago
(connected to what i wrote previously)
you would approve of thses? neither does the doctrine for followers (disciples) of a religion.
Islam is probably the only religion that I know of that Promotes and pushes fanaticly the state to merge with the doctrine and that believes the world under one government and sharia law. thru force. Communism, Aristocracy plutocracy are alike. but guerilla warfare(terrorism) has been practiced in order to change government since the persian empire of Xerses.
warallied 2 years ago
Great debate, intelligent, funny. Didn't get me any farther, it was ok thought
Apache1980 3 years ago
Once you 'get it', it's literally impossible to revert back to theism. Michael would never go back to circular logic IE bible.
Domzdream 3 years ago
what evidence?
maikeru01 3 years ago
jacob I think u should of posted the whole debate without interference, it appears as if u may of been bias, why was the oppositions closing statement 4 minutes and the question time he refers too not being shown, whats going on?
Darklordabc 3 years ago
weak
test123ok 3 years ago
Morality isn't based on right and wrong, it's based on hurt and doesn't-hurt. Looked at that way, anybody can judge.
No god required.
BionicDance 3 years ago
I believe in God. My life has been so much better since I accepted Christ in my life.
defenderofgaia 3 years ago
As Sam Harris once said...."There's a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in my backyard. I have no proof of this, but I believe that my faith in God had given my life meaning."
dave4248 3 years ago
Sorry, meant to say "my faith in that large diamond's existence has given my life meaning." In other words belief in something you have no proof of, does not constitute evidence.
dave4248 3 years ago
your life's better, accepting an imaginary jewish zombie? that's nice.
johnboy5581 3 years ago 2
low blow at the end there with institutionalized atheism...
kashirakashira 3 years ago
its not a "low blow", its a response to the question of relative morals
gigimf 3 years ago
It was a low blow - the horrors of non-theistic regimes were not founded on a lack of belief in a god, they were founded on unquestionable, absolute dogmas. Revealed truth, that the people must accept unquestioningly or be cast out from the true citizens and punished for their apostasy lest they corrupt true believers. Remind anyone of anything? The 20th century's great killers appropriated religion's model for controlling and subjugating free thought and individual moral responsibility.
Slabbers 3 years ago 2
I agree with the "low blow", none of those atrocities were commited in the name of atheism, as opposed to the atrocities that are/have been commited in the name of a god, to please a god, to prove faith, etc.
cafecubita 3 years ago
Do some research on the soviet union during joseph stalins rule and you will find out how much atrocities were commited by a atheist dictator....he ordered the execution of many of his own people the soviets...think on that.
rictenwheel25 3 years ago
If you truly accept this argument, then your religious belief hangs on my ability to name a murderous Christian leader.
George Bush.
Poof! You're an atheist.
rawitten 3 years ago
he did not commit those crimes because he was an atheist.
i'll explain
1 religious person kills another person, because he just didn't like him.
2 religious person kills another person
because he thought god told him to do it.
3 non-religious person kills another person because he just didn't like him.
4 non-religious person kills another person because he is religious and wont disown god.
these are 4 DIFFERENT situations
atheists dont blame religion for 1, so dont blame atheism for 3
beebobox 3 years ago
the use of numbers in the 20th century for atheists killing people is so fallacious. if the spanish inquisition, crusades etc had the technology of gas chambers, bombs, guns and tanks, religion would have been responsible for millions more deaths. ooh, that annoys me...
johnnyp76 3 years ago 2
Stalin had a mustache=murderer
Saddam Hussein had a mustache=murderer
Adolf Hitler had a mustache=murderer
Burt Reynolds=?
Your logic is flawed. These guys were dictators and they assumed that they were a form of a deity in the respect that they decided who lived and who died. Hitler was a Catholic and he was pretty good at the killing game but nothing compared to the greatest mass murderer of all time....
God himself.
(was God an atheist?)
kitepilot 3 years ago 2
you dont understand the implication nor the sense of whats been discussed. It isnt about traits, to comment you need to understand secularism and Doctrine. Politics kills, its just a plain fact, if a doctrine intermerge with the institution then yes, ud say religion kills. Purpose of religion however is totally unrelated to political outcomes or world institutinalism. It does not care nor should it. Politics is secular, things done for a country is secular. no matter why you do it.
warallied 2 years ago
Jacoby just kept beating around the bush on all of Shermer's questions. Shermer gave straight answers to all the questions from Jacoby. Jacoby has his one point, complexity suggests god. That is not any kind of logical statement, its just some fallacious claim. Shermer's position holds itself much stronger than Jacoby's position.
ogo08 3 years ago
Where does scripture "teach us to be skeptical"? can anyone show me that one?
analubalitious 3 years ago
nowhere, beceuse it's not good for clergy, and other parasitic groups
jarosp 3 years ago
1 Thessalonians 5:21
Test everything; hold on to the good.
clt1113 3 years ago
@ analubalitious
clt1113 3 years ago
Why not 'test everything and hold onto to the correct'?
Kublai2000 3 years ago
Truth is a kind of goodness.
I agree with you, though. Perhaps the writer was more concerned with moral rightness than with factual rightness. I posted this merely to point out a place in the scriptures where readers are encouraged to be skeptical.
clt1113 3 years ago
I wish I could get paid for saying "I don't know".
lampbrain 3 years ago
Jacoby should have debated Dawkins or Hitchens
bdcarlitosway 3 years ago
there'd be little to debate it'd be more of a mutual discussion resulting in little differing conclusions
GSUS52 3 years ago
as shermer said, "why do we have to believe?" if there is a god, so what?. i dont have to believe in god to know if im doing good or bad, i just know. how many millions have died on battlefields with the bible in their right hand, and a sword in their left?....it seems "thou shalt not kill" is just ONE of the commandments the BELIEVERS dont have to believe in! . . .now im taking my doggy for walkies.
euroman32589 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Damn Jacoby thrased Shermer in this debate. Shermer isn't a great speaker and I don't fault him for that but credit is due for Mr. Jacoby.
spheresus 4 years ago
@Spheresus
Let me preface this by saying that I am a theist.
I really don't see Jacoby thrashing Shermer here. Both speakers did very well. That's not to say that they both didn't miss points and stutter, but the arguments were, for the most part, coherent and well defined.
All in all, this was a very interesting debate.
Falcrist 3 years ago
probability is greater that there is a god? Which study confirmed that?
dreaminginnoother 4 years ago
Maybe you didn't see the entire debate, pay more attention.
spheresus 4 years ago
the teaching of Jesus in his life. Jesus defines being his disciple as following his teachings in John 8:31-32. Jesus teaches that we should not hate our enemies, but love them in Matthew 5. Do you think Hitler did this? Just because someone goes to church or says they're a Christian, they are not necessarily a Christian in their lifestyle. An individual or saying they are a Christian doesn't make them a Christian any more than sitting in a garage and saying "I am a car" makes them a car.
bethahop 4 years ago
Hitler was a Christian? Please provide support for your assertion. Even if Hitler said he was a Christian and you had some kind of record of him making the statement, or attending church, to say that he was a Christian would be insupportable. Simply look at what a Christian is: the original Christians or "little Christs" were just that, people who earned the derogatory name because they imitated Jesus and followed his teachings. You would be hard pressed to find evidence of Hitler following
bethahop 4 years ago
I'd like to find out how the 100 million figure was estimated, for instance Hitler was actually Christian and not as widely believed an atheist.
IMakeSomethingUpHere 4 years ago
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[c] 20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
bdigital3085 4 years ago
"Jesus would be crucified today", hillarious. Because we really see a lot of cruxifictions going down today. Last week I drove by three on my way to work. I can't believe people are convinced by this guy.
Lemminkainnen 4 years ago
Are you stupid, he doesnt mean in like a real cruxifiction, he is not being literal. He just means that if jesus was here today he would be assassinated or killed by somebody who didnt believe.
281clo 4 years ago
At least Jacoby makes one good point.
"Don't hate science."
nxzo2 4 years ago
No one has ever been killed, tortured, or enslaved in the name of Atheism, unlike most religions.
kilroy1964 4 years ago
What is your response to "institutionalized atheism" like the government in China, etc. per the discussion. It seems like both athiesm and theism have done lots of harm to lots of people when misapplied through violence and force.
bethahop 4 years ago
I like the way he left it til Shermer couldn't respond to drop in the Communism/Facism fallacy. I think Sam Harris puts it best: "The problem with North Korea is not too much skeptical enquiry." Replacing one dogma with another doesn't work.
AdamCopley1 4 years ago
Perhaps, then, Sam Harris can back off of the Crusades/Inquisition fallacy. The problem with the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages was not that they relied too heavily on the actual teachings of Christ.
ptotheu 4 years ago
Sort of. No-one holds all religious people accountable for Inquisition/Crusades/etc (I think Sam stresses this quite heavily), only that it is important to distinguish between atheism and evil facist dictators, and the same for religion.
AdamCopley1 4 years ago
My issue, and this goes for most atheists who have a viewpoint on the topic, is that when faith is not only allowed but encouraged and valued ahead of reason then you get the situation where terrible crimes can become acceptable to a great many people. 1 billion Christians (less Catholics, true) seem oblivious to the Church's role in the AIDs crisis.
AdamCopley1 4 years ago
In short, I put Stalin and Hitler in the same camp as the inquisitions, and good religious people in the same group as the good atheists. I am against "evil" and it seems to me that it follows from a suspension of reason. The only problem I have with religion and the religious, therefore, is that it can provide a framework for that. But it certainly isn't alone. I also have a great deal more objections to Islam, but thats another story =)
Pleasure talking with you.
AdamCopley1 4 years ago
We would agree on putting Stalin/Hitler in the same camp as the Inquisitors. ALthough I would argue that the atrocities committed by the Church are more of an outright blatant betrayal of Christian ideals, given Christ's clear non-violent message. I wouldn't necessarily say the same about Marxist dictators since the Marxist communist ideal doesn't teach the same kind of non-violence. It does in fact advocate a form of "revolution" in a way that suggests force.
ptotheu 4 years ago
I'd be interested in knowing more about how you derive the concept of "evil" (or "good") based on a suspension of reason. Pity you are in the UK and I am in Washington D.C., otherwise you seem like the type of guy I'd really enjoy to converse with over a coffee or something...
Cheers!
ptotheu 4 years ago