Would we better off without religion? - (Part 5of7)

[NickPaulOates]

How can there be a three against none 'debate'...how did they think this would end?

[QuarterHater9]

fuckin religious losers. denial.

[irtehpwn09]

You need the old testament for genesis, but in needing that you see the display of a genecidal monster, who messes up so often its funny, created everyone ,they became bad, worldwide flood an apocalyptic genocide was the cure, he orders genocides all over egypt , slavery, rape ,pillaging and then when all that didnt work he "sent down" his son and through human sacrifice acted as a loophole to fix what he created. Then his "son" rose from the dead and accended into the "heavens", its laughable.

[irtehpwn09]

few things to add, we are not controlled by our dna , our mentality is designed by our memories and reflections and experiences in life, which is influenced by genetics but not controlled. i dont know of any atheist that distances themselfs from dawkins id like you to point some out @steelyman40 .

[darkfur35]

dawkins has no idea what he is talking about.

[steelyman40]

Look Peterson is no fool--and the arguments that Dawkins makes in God Delusion are amazingly bad. Other atheists have distanced themselves from Dawkins because he's as much of a fundamentalist as any Bible thumper. Any atheist who wants to engage in this debate seriously--and not just play around with straw men--should read Alister McGrath's "Dawkins Delusion" and watch some more Peterson.

[imcrazy85]

if one believes they loose nothing?????????? how about thier entire life on earth lol living as a salve to some fake god

[imcrazy85]

@imcrazy85 slave

[hznfrst]

There's so much spin going on here I'm getting dizzy sitting still!

[ProdigyBigBoss89]

The same research could be said for religious people about those 3%. But has anyone done a similar search on them. No.

Besides, the Imam speaks of procentage that those 3% breaks Dawkins moral values. Well, has anyone really asked the Imam about those Muslims % that becomes suicide bombers? No. That's religion. Just as Dawkins said, It has some profound and invisible wall that protects it.

A religious person that hasn't studied genetics should't really claim to know anything about it as well.

[Reip187]

Oh wait...this is an all religious panel. Fuck this. Cowards.

[Reip187]

How thick would the Bible actually be if ONLY the passages that Christians adhered to were left in? 10? 20 pages? The Old Testament not being followed is the most illogical argument they make and they make a lot of them. Mainly because one of their biggest beliefs is the first book of Genesis. Many believe other nonsense like Noah, Burning Bush, etc. too, but when called on it the New Testament "changed all that" LOL

[leopoldleoleo]

"you need religion to avoid self-delusion" HA

[leopoldleoleo]

dawkins blows them all out of the water

[wondergundy]

Couldn't have one atheist on the panel. That is how underhanded religion is.

[shelleybelley682]

I am sick to death of Christians, Jews,and Muslims saying "I agree with Dawkins because I don't believe in that God either" Yeah, ya do...you're just too ignorant to know it!

[ziatco]

OMFG ... IT"S BATMAN....

[twooffour]

7:30 what the FUCK is he saying?? the God of the OT isn't a "force of nature", he's a totalitarian commander and smiter, and commands the genocide the Hebrews may have committed... so that's honesty and accuracy outta the window.

Then, Dawkins criticizes the GOD of that book, the God Christians (or most of them) profess to BELIEVE IN as a moral authority... not the people for writing it down.

Typical example of pure idiocy sounding intelligent and profound.

[MrDasmaster]

the 3 percent would have been religious fundamentalists!

[KaratekaKid]

All three agree that Religion is a force for good in the world, because all three are Religious elites. If all three agreed that Religion was evil, then all three would be out of a job. And if all three were out of a job, then all three would have to go and find real jobs.

[Balthazzarr]

There are so many problems with the arguments they all make that it is rather irritating that Dawkins can't respond,especially since he would probably just destroy their arguments.The third guy that talks about how Dawkins criticizes the writers of the old testament stood out a bit.His argument was so ludicrous,it delves into the outright nonsensical.The lady basically agrees with Dawkins and then turns it around at the end,and it's flat out ridiculous listening to a muslim talk about morality.

[jimmy1986boco]

This is pointless task. First of all you have Richard Dawkins giving his opinions (all of which are spot on) and then they are picked apart by a panel of three critics and a very weak host. This offers the viewer and indeed Prof. Dawkins any chance for a rebuttal, and leaves the viewer with unchallenged opinions of three people with agendas.

[CharlieGMusic]

Does anybody else notice how under-handed, sneaky and deceitful christian shows like this are? They always move under the guise of searching for truth, but not only never change their views at all, but also do little inserts like the Pascal's Wager after Dawkin's interview had finished which essentially calls all the atheist authors mentioned fools. Of course, it's not said that way - it's only implied.

[MarkRosengarten]

The Imam is full of shit. I know LOTS of religious people that wouldn't lift a finger to help another person in need. The counselor is ignoring the majority of the Bible, where God is indeed a nasty, vicious and horrid being. The psychologist just admitted that the Bible is NOT the direct work of God, but an interpretation, an allegory, of the world around them and is NOT evidence of the existence of God beyond it being a metaphor for cruelty and natural disasters.

[MarkRosengarten]

Pascal's wager is bullshit. If you are wrong, you have wasted an entire lifetime in pursuit of a fairy tale.

[TheSjaan105]

women stop useing LCD! Seriously you are not making sense what so ever!!

[Daverdare]

force of nature?When was the last time a thunderstorm selled childs into slavery?This guy is making up shit.

[DonJuanV8]

The imam cant really talk about morals, his religion stones women to death, (it takes about 3 hours to do this). WTF?

[Dpesh7]

what if those 3% didnt save the child on religous grounds?

[kafata1]

Bullshit. The first guy did not pay careful attention to Dawkins' writing on morals and genes, or he's intentionally misinterpreting it...

[din80s]

secular moral values is not a bad idea. why should anyone believe in a supernatural exixtance of any sort, in order to behave? people can be free from fear of eternal punishment and still be good to each other! our species has outgrown the need for religion.

Imam reffers to genome-based behaviour that was nessesary to early groups in order to survive but that cause is so much more archaic and obsolete than religion. there is no biological need for that today except when we go against each other

[OrionVulcan]

Pascals wager is a theists wet dream. I should believe because then I am secure? If this is the reason why you believe, I really don't think god would take you in, at least not the Abrahamic god.

[Pomme843]

7:01 Nature impels people to commit genocidal atrocities?

Wow.

[osgeek]

Islamic guy - Doesn't understand what a meme is, obviously.

Lady - Said, "yes, I agree with what he was saying, but if we add a whole new layer of delusion to religion, then it starts to make sense." LOL wut?

Psychologist - Yes, the old testament is awful... but the old testament authors told about it - not because they were primitive, which they were - but because they were so damned honest.

Wtf is he even trying to say?

What a bunch of mental midgets to put on after Dawkins?



[Darkvaynes]

Ok the imam is spouting bullshit

the spiritual lady is spouting bullshit

and the other bloke is spouting bullshit.

Why did they pick idiots to respond to dawkins?

none of these arguments are coherant.

[RayKalmNiam]

@Darkvaynes ah. Typical ignoring atheists.

[nujivaa]

@RayKalmNiam "ignoring atheists." explain.

[RayKalmNiam]

@nujivaa No need to.

"Ignoring atheists. explain." Explain.

[nujivaa]

@RayKalmNiam oh really? why is that?

[ScottWaltA]

wELL....

"Ok the imam is spouting bullshit

the spiritual lady is spouting bullshit"

That is a a real fact-based arguement !

[Darkvaynes]

@ScottWaltA not really, this post/rhetorical question was meant for fellow atheists. If you wish me to debunk the nonsense they are sprouting then I'll be happy to oblige.

[ridgetownpimp]

I don't think thats how Pascel's Wager goes, I thought is was more like this:

"Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists".

Non of this 50/50 bullshit. but I could be wrong....

[chebob2009]

That crazy spiritual lady just spewed the biggest loada bullshit I've ever heard. She basically just said the good old "if one person is delusional, we call them crazy. if everyone is delusional, we call it religion" but she said it as though that was a good thing. What a tragic lack of logic for a human being.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

Wow, what a cold shower, hopping from Dawkins to a discussion between these delusional nutcases.

[McAnkkuli]

The big fault in Pascal's wager is to think the chance is 50%. And that the god would be christian.

[downyearth]

Could it be that the three percent, who would save their pants, are Christians?

[luciferiexcelsil]

I hate when you tell a christian your contextual point of view of god from the bible, but then they tell you, "no, this is not to be interpreted this way, this is means _____" by saying that, then it's technically saying that i can give it my own meaning to it, therefore i could say that it's just an archaic explanation to existence (probably the best description of the bible).

[luciferiexcelsil]

well, I believe that religion was necessary to get people together and form civilizations and such. but religion is like a diaper, you will need it at first, but then it will just become useless when you learn to have control of yourself with nothing else but your own. and I think we are right now in the time where the diaper is useless, if not stopping us as humanity to go forward to completely control ourselves.

[Gwisss]

The imam has very little understanding of the topic he attempted to discuss, nor does he seem to understand arguments of his opponents.

[phoboskitty]

"spirituality" out dates all religion and all dogma...

[CamAtheist]

Bearded freak is full of shit as is Jesuit Lady and Professor Numb-Nuts....The question is still unanswered...Is there a God who talks to people in the way religions say.....if so...who the fuck does he talk to and what does he want...I want in on the racket...

[mutabrev]

Ask then listen, seek without ceasing,knock and the door will opened to you. God will talk to you, he wants you, and he will hold back nothing from you that is his to give.

[CamAtheist]

I know right! Like the 150, 000 Haitians who were praying for their lives or maybe those hundreds of thousands of Muslims killed in Bangladesh by hurricanes. But then it wouldnt matter because the Theist like you need me to believe in your version of GOD and what your GOD supposedly say. Even if there was a GOD I think he is a schlemiel and a putz...peace

[mutabrev]

I don't need you to believe anything. You and i have to live in our own shoes. I was just trying to answer your question the best way i know how. Don't wait for a bunch or schmucks to make disclosures about God tor you, find out first hand. Fair enough?

[CamAtheist]

See there you go again speculating that there is a GOD which was your first mistake. I am glad that you dont need me to believe anything, thats certainly a relief because we have millions of people wanting to kill all the people on the planet to help Jesus along or to carry out Allah's will...So you can keep your speculations and I will try to avoid GOD, even if it did exist..peace

[mutabrev]

How is it a mistake to honour the convictions of your heart and mind that there is a father of man who created this realm and us. The alternative is pretty bleak. Why ask the question if you've already reserved judgement ? You may find that God is very different to what you have imagined him to be. Prejudice is an ugly thing. Please, won't you give peace a chance?:)

[CamAtheist]

So I am prejudiced because I do not buy into someone's unprovable claims? Really? You are free to want and believe in your father from another dimension who created all this as everyone is free to believe whatever makes them feel better. Give peace a chance? Its theists who want to do the world in so that they can have their magic man. Its pure nonsense but have that. When there is evidence that this GOD is real like him showing up and doing something..then you have me. Until then..have at it

[mutabrev]

I was trying to make a funny, "all we are saying is give peace a chance"ha haha ah ha

[CamAtheist]

but its cool. oddly there are millions fighting in the name of their peaceful religion. I am simple really..If there is a GOD as theists claim then he/it/she is a dictatorial asshole or childish or just incompetent..nothing else can explain the position of the world if such an entiry did exist. Now forces that we, as humans, choose to call GOD, that I buy. I accept that my ancestors needed explanations for things they could not understand so they made shit up but in 2010 why do we cling to them?

[mutabrev]

Muslims are fighting or threatening in the name of their Allah. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Christianity has brought us a long way, and given us a fair peaceful and relatively free society. you have to admit the west has something the east doesn't, and it didn't just happen spontaneously. we are no more sophisticated than our ancestors 2-3 thousand years ago, we are just more complacent and we drive better cars.

[CamAtheist]

Now you can not be serious. Christians in the USA, 50 million strong, support the idea of giving money and unconditionally supporting Zionists which could lead us to a great war of the ignorant. I agree that Christianity has brought us far but remember what Rome gave us as Christianity and the Greek and Armenian is largely based on Greek ideas not those of sell everything and forget your disbelieving family and follow me. And it was secularists and deist who built the liberal West. peace

[mutabrev]

I'm serious, this is my serious face;0! Secularism is great, it helps with the freedom. I wouldn't want to live in an Amish community or some other puritanical situation. I think we tend to forget or a lot of us do that even in secular circles judo-christian values still play a large but maybe subconscious role. hi-yah!

[CamAtheist]

I hate living in a society with too many religious people..its a bastian of stupidity and ignorance. In the Caribbean HIV/AIDS is rampant among the religious minded because they "believe" that special prayers can both prevent and cure AIDS. For my information tell me what Judeo-Christian values play a large part in Western Culture. I am intrigued because I am almost certain you will either go to the GOLDEN RULE which is universal of some of the commanments which are also universal, about 6

[LuckyLukeNZ]

these people are painfull... bring back dawkins to school these fools!

[TenkiXXX]

i agree if he was on he would shut them down i think it is shady what they did

[DSAhmed]

how is having spirituality without religion dangerous? What's the difference between self delusion and group delusion?

I think i'll go burn some witches...

[QuadError]

I particularly enjoyed the Jesuit counsellor and Imam agreeing that practising spirituality on your own is prone to becoming self-delusional, as if doing it in a group makes it any less so.

It's not like they both have a vested interest in large groups believing what they say at all!

[binary78]

Too bad Dawkins wasn't there to answer their arguments. I believe he would have crushed them in their boots.

[IcyIconoclast]

that white dude didnt say a fucking thing

[SourcesAreEverything]

This panel is all very clearly biased towards religious institutions.

[thegoochieguy]

she clearly has never read the bible.

i've read the bible, that is why i don't follow it.

[glassbrain]

Whenever there is a panel of religous people, there must be someone to hold what they say accountable, otherwise they are left to prattle like this.

[NegativeNick]

do they ever not prattle? they don't need a passive host to allow them to talk on and on about nothing

[Feldmm1]

If they kept Dawkins there, I think he would destroy these guys' arguments.

[mutabrev]

Dawkins can't create or destroy anything. I keep telling you people he is not God!

[CamAtheist]

The modern tolerant society we have came out of secularists fighting for a society where no religion would make laws. A lot were Christians including Quakers but even they saw that monotheistic religion was inherently flawed but could not yield to polytheism hence they opted for secualrism as they were part of the oppressed. they were quite ok with Catholic oppression. I through out the bath water and keep the child, his mind can be molded to see sensibly. Secularism is the key.

[werterr3]

Jordon Peterson; says that the writers of the old testament wrote about natural selection and nature. That is wasn't so much about God but more about how life worked at the time.

Then Nada Comic starts with the hole thing where believe alone is dangerous but in a group it's not.. That personal believe/spirituality without another human telling you who/what that believe is has many dangers.

WoW... I'm stunned...

[jakethegent]

This must be pretty old because the other writers like Hitchens did take on pascals wager. Very easy to respond too btw.

[pat171985]

I'm an atheist, but i must say, people like andron have issues much worse than religious people

[philster61]

if todays religions are the best representatives that God has or can even choose ,then that really doesnt say much for him/her/it. Islam,Christianity and Hebrews are among the sorriest people on this planet and if I was a God,Id be embarrassed to have them represent me.

[puzokutya]

Hahaha, my thoughts exactly.

Don't forget the funny clothes he/she/it makes them wear. For example, wearing a kaftan in 35 degrees centigrade? Sheeeeeeet.

[CamAtheist]

how does believing in the skyman make you moral..how does growing a beard and not eating particular meats...this imam is an asshole...pure stupidity..all these God people are moronic..why should we respect GOD..if GOD exists he is a schlemiel...an underachiever, an ignoramous and a putz....all these God people are delusional and selective.. Jordan Peterson is the biggest Schmuck ever, UofT should be ashamed..he is the real McCoy, a genuine idiot....

[andron333]

FUCK ISLAM, FUCK CHRISTIANITY, FUCK JEWDIISM, and all the other b.s being fed to the young children

[CiscoExAnimo]

@andron333 Amen... sarcastically speaking or using the word Amen that is... ;)

[MrHelviti]

@andron333 A bit loud with the profanity there but yes I agree. We must protect our children from these, not depicted, but true evils of the real world

[shubidubar]

That Imam said he read Dawkins' book

If he had read and had a brain, he would remember that Dawkins said that he's a passionate Darwinian to explain the natural world, and anti-Dawinian in organizing society.

[scorpdan]

Dawkins NEVER said that your moral com from your genes. Morals have changed dramatically in just the past 100 years. Beard Face warped Dawkins argument to suit his own.

[blacker13]

he did say tht if u read god delusion i agree with both

[acceptanceisbliss]

i read the God Delusion and do not recall anything at all about Dawkins saying that morals come from your genes. He talked a great deal about Meme's with regards to morality, and a great deal about the evolution of the memes from culture to culture, which results in the change of morals throughout the years, but i do not recall him saying that you had certain morals because of your parental genes.

[isylvan]

I agree, I think the good imam either over-read or is mixing it up with The Selfish Gene. I also think he severely missed the point with the 97% vs. 3% example. Those 3% would have to face the scorn of the 97%, despite of them not having a holy book to thump and say "Here, it says right here you have to save the girl, you pants-loving heathen!". Which part of "shifting moral zeitgeist" did you not understand there, Ally?

[robertorgan]

"The fool says in his heart there is no God."(Psalm 14:1)

[davidatheist]

The fool quotes biblical text as if they are truth (me)

[krystallen714]

"the foor agrees with the former fool who quotes biblical texts" (me)

Good comment :-p

[jailarson]

What if you acknowledge the God, but not the books?

[shubidubar]

Put the cake and the pot of butter on the shelf, and then make haste and come to bed, for it is very late.

Little Red Riding Hood(Psalm 1:11)

[HEATHEN316]

Pascal's wager is too wordy. It can be condensed. The simple version, which retains all of the philosophical gravity and wisdom of the original is this - "The Bogeyman will get you!"

[nobagav]

Wow, starting the segue with one of the most famously wrong arguments for belief in God. How shallow can you get?

[threewiseman1]

These people are idiots. The worst part is when they talk about spirituality or god without religion in a negative sense. If you must be spiritual, if you must believe in god, that is the way to do it. Religion is what distorts and deludes precisely because you have other poeple egging you on, so to speak. This is why religious atrocity occurs, people no longer need to think for themselves as they gain a herd mentality. Why do so many people not realise this?

[eatgrapes9]

It is people who distort religion, not religion which distorts people.

[threewiseman1]

Personally, I don't see the difference. Religion is not a seperate entity to the people that adhere to it. They are one and the same. Thus, the religious mindset, the herd mentality, allows the inevitable distortions to gain strength and replace the concepts that preceded them. Though these days, it is merely a distortion of a distortion.

[eatgrapes9]

That may be the case, or ambiguously so, in certain religions, for a lack of immutable doctrine--but in what I believe to be the one true religion, Catholicism, that isn't the case--dogmatic matters have never changed. So in that case the people are separate from the religion (hence excommunication, schisms, etc) It is a weakness of other religions that they can become distorted--or perhaps were not clearly defined in the first place.

[threewiseman1]

Catholicism is the religion I am most familiar with, having attended a Catholic school, and I agree with you that its doctine is quite clear cut. There certainly is little ambiguity, and though I disagree with many of its tenets I can respect it for standing by its guns, albeit foolishly so. But who knows, perhaps the clergy felt that sticking to tradition was better than losing sight of what they stood for and becoming something worse?

The problem they face now is fading into antiquity.

[eatgrapes9]

losing sight of what they stood for...?

I hope that you thoroughly understand the reasoning behind all the Catholic doctrines you dismiss, which so few people care to do.

[threewiseman1]

I'm not sure I follow you. I'm saying they HAVE remained true to the traditions they originally stood for. Have they not? My point was that they have stuck by them so firmly that they are losing adherents. Many of their stances are just too incompatible for many people in this day and age. At least, that is the general feeling from the Catholics I know personally. If I'm flat out wrong about something please let me know, because your last comment confused me a bit.

[eatgrapes9]

I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. I'm glad you acknowledge that they have, and yes they are losing adherents because of it. However what people need to understand, if they believe in the central tenets of the faith, is that morality does not change over time. What it is in fact is a lack of faith, faith that Christ is guiding His Church (if u are a practicing Catholic) in its essential respects.

[m2sbsahib]

lol @8:11 "dangerous too!!!". These guys are sooo funy and entertaining!

[pilgrimpater]

Well Jordon Peterson, you CAN have it both ways. Those goatherders did not portray "natures bloody aspect" as down to Mother Earth but they put it firmly in god's court. After all the OT is actually full of "quotes" from god. It is the inability to explain natural events that leads to the formation of all religions and it is only the fact that we still don't know everything that allows the religious to hang on to the concept of a god or gods.

[DefaultPosition]

I absolutely and totally agree with you.

It REALLY frustrates me. They are the polar opposite to Dawkins.

[m2sbsahib]

I think the best way is to stop thinking about it.

[dragoonthief]

LOL @ muslim By the JEW Did you see his face he almost pulled his knife out.

[freedom0f5peech]

Why don't they let Dawkins stay and defend himself?????

[ribosoma]

dawkins had his chance to talk, now let them talk...  quit licking dawkins' ass

[gbcharlie]

What a lovely kind hearted Christian you are.

[godlessTV]

This doesnt seem very fair.. They give time to ONE atheist, then kick him off and let three theists gang up on him!

[clray123]

It's actually quite fair given that their arguments are so crap. They need quantity to offset lack of quality.

[jadegreenall]

i hate the fact that Dawkins isn't able to respond to these idiots.

[garouHH]

It'd be fun seeing Dawkins destroy their arguments as he does with so many other arguments on a regular basis, but I doubt that there could be an ordered discussion with these people. It'd end up in people cutting into each others sentences and lines of argument and would end in a screaming match. That'd be no fun at all.