@ph03n1xamb1t - I see, grammar is not your strong suit. Your 'You sir are a fucking idiot,' should read ,'You, sir, are a fucking idiot,' you illiterate moron. There will be no charge for the second grade punctuation lesson.
IQ is irrelevant in this discussion, lots of smart people believe stupid things. A person would have lie to themselves to believe the bible was written inerrantly. They seem to cling to fear instead of facing the truth. who could blame them? If you believe the consequences you would fear for your life after life. So why allow yourself to get so offended when someone else disagrees? Is it the first time someone has? My vote is who cares. You can talk sense into a christian as fast as a racist. T
these debates that involve religion and atheism/reason and science are like constantly having to tell an obnoxious child to stop disrupting the classroom and let the rest of the class to actually learn something usefull
@MrVirtualCoder YouTube is getting full of twats like you,when you`ve lost ground on your debate you resort to ad-hominem,but even werse you resort to pointing out grammar errors...lol. Your right up there with the great religious debaters...lol.
@PAULOcbi I will list all the fallacies your made in your statement(s):
"YouTube", "is getting", (missing punctuation mark here, instead there is a comma), 'improper use of "ad-hominem"', "werse", ( - both spelling AND grammar errors, that you have made), ("Your" is used in the wrong context here).
Grammar says a lot, spelling says even more. One that wants to argue trough the use of textual-words, surely needs to be able to use them correctly.
@MrVirtualCoder "wants to argue trough the use..".....'trough' what is this nonsense?? oh I see,your not just an idiot,your the kind of idiot that throws stones when he lives in a glass house...YouTube is getting full of twats like you...roflcopter
@MrVirtualCoder "Grammar says a lot, spelling says even more"
It doesnt say anything. Its a weak attempt to make yourself look intelligent, and it bit you in the ass with "trough". I read what the guy said, i understood it fine. No need to scrutinize every letter. No one is perfect, and that includes you. Grammar Nazis are a dying breed because eventually, they screw up and humiliate themselves.
I've watched intelligence squared debate with Fry and Hitchens about the Catholic Church. It was a very good debate, but as a rather experienced debater myself, i can tell that these debates are terrific and style and content, but absolutely abysmally horrible in terms of strategy. Richard Harris set up the debate like any first speaker. But mr. speaker here has completely gone off topic. I like his speech, but not a single word there disproves the motion. :-(
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE. Read this popular Internet article published in Russia's English Pravda. In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (becoming meteors in outer space). Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil. Read the fantastic book (free to read on the Internet), IN THE BEGINNING by MIT scientist Dr. Walt Brown.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON ANOTHER PLANET? Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed to make other robots just like themselves from raw materials. Now, imagine an alien scientist visiting the planet and, after studying these robots, comes to the conclusion that because science can explain how these robots work, function, and reproduce there's no reason to believe there was an intelligent designer behind them! Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
@sergio311 It is, actually, in a way. "Atheism" literally means "Without God". Since it directly relates to the existence or lack thereof of God, it could easily be seen as a religious term. Just what I think.
@trailblazer225 its greek, from the people who used to worship the ancient Gods like zeus and all them others, but w.e idc, what happens to atheist when they die ? idk do the even have a soul ?
@sergio311 I'm not sure if I understand what you mean, but even if the term IS Greek, it is still religious in nature. And... I'm an agnostic myself, but honestly, I don't quite care what happens to my soul after I die. I live as a decent human being to the best of my abilities, and that's all that matters to me. Living for the afterlife is like thinking about how good the second doughnut's going to taste before you eat the first one. Of course, these are just my beliefs.
@sergio311 Here we go again, a theist on his high horses, thinking he is special and more moral because he publicly announces he will believe anything. What happens to atheists when they die? Well, same as you pal, we die...and we rot. Sound dull and depressing? Yes it may well do, but tell me, what on Earth makes you think in any sort of afterlife, other than the wish not to die? As we're at it, what makes you so sure a soul exists? Let me guess, an arrogant inner feeling.
@russellrummage yup,strange evolution when people have come to believe,thru religion,that they are the Universes`greatest collusion, when really were just a collection of cells,overrating themselves with "hello god?!" and avoiding the truth.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
@R2rGangstaFC As you can see from the other comments here, a lot of people don't hate Marxism or Marx. If you are really looking for an idea & person that is hated by all sides, unconditionally, just because everybody hates it is: [drumroll] Objectivism & Ayn Rand. It is hated by all sides. Anarchists hate it because it advocates govt. Minarchists hate it because of its views on copyright law. Centrists hate it because it is too extreme. Conservatives hate it because it is atheistic & so on.
@AbstractReaIity marx was actually the first dude to ever create a social theory that made any sense. his economics is very strong, but a bit outdated, but hey, in Newton way outdated, there just havent been an Einstein for marxism
A shame this debate is rather poorly put together, at least in the quality of the moderation and general presentation. Still, the points are all fascinating!
atheism is simply non belief. i'm an atheist when it comes to david hasselhoff being on the same level as al pacino as an actor. i'm an atheist when it comes to an absolute moral law. there is no moral law that you can apply to every situation. david hasselhoff did a far better job than al pacino would have done on baywatch and knight rider because al pacino wouldn't have been happy doing those projects. bah i'm just rambling.
I have never, ever seen a debate or read a book where the believer's point of view came out as a winner, or even as simply acceptable. And I've been at it since age 10 & 1/2... I'm now pushing 50.
@MrVirtualCoder I don't agree. Religious believers always try to make this point in order to point our own valid criticism or religion back at ourselves. This doesn't work. Atheism has no buildings for atheists to attend at certain times. It has no conceptual entities to believe in. It accepts that there are things that we (humans) do not understand. Atheists, including Stalin, do not and did not kill in the name of atheism. Atheism makes no promise of salvation or threat of eternal hell.
Look, i will go on the streets and kill people in the name of Atheism, problem solved?
Now Atheism looks bad.
It is what their IDEOLOGY follows, not what they CLAIM to be doing it for/in the name of. Stalin, Hitler, and whom ever you might use to propagate your view with, did it in an New-Atheist FASHION. The ideology: Materialism, and that their actions will NOT be punished by a greater force.
Atheism is a religion, and it even has its own practices and belief sets.
@MrVirtualCoder So I suppose that an ideology that is predicated on a verifiable truth, an acknowledgement of the fact that we humans don't know all the answers, an ideology based upon mutual respect, empathy, honesty and sincerity is a bad ideology. Everyone is an atheist with respect to a good many of histories Gods. Are you honestly going to tell me that all the "on your knees praying", "wall pecking", "dress up in strange outfits", "talking in tongues", genital mutilating doctrines are good?
@MrVirtualCoder I think it can be explained more simply. Atheists have no faith. (Faith is trust, hope and belief in the goodness, trustworthiness or reliability of a person, concept or entity. It can also refer to beliefs that are not based on proof) Atheists need proof and if they don't have it, they remain skeptical and make no attempt to insert unverified, implausible explanations, however warm and fuzzy it may make them feel. Virgin Mary, mother of God is an oxymoron. It's time to think.
@RATIONALMIND001 This is exactly why people JOIN Atheism in the first place!!! They think it is a placeholder for thinkers, when infact IT IS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Those people whom may join the new-Atheism, are Idiots, Morons. They wouldn't know if they were being brainwashed by the Media, as so clearly you have shown. Faith is belief in divine, that CANNOT be explained by Materialism. IT IS NOT DISCARDING PROOF. Proof is Subjective, UNLESS YOU BELIEVE IN DIVINE KNOWLEDGE.
@CynicalSkeptic1 "inversely correlated." makes no sense in the same context. But i can see what you are implying, and it proves you are a mentally disabled Youtuber. It must feel great to think you know a great deal about nothing, from watching videos; perhaps, little kid, it is time to go back to Elementary school.
Religion is organized belief, with its own idealism; Hence Materialism and idolization of Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawkins.
@MrVirtualCoder Apparently you insist on exhibitng your ignorance for all Youtube viewers. Ironically, your edification would have been easily obtained by simply doing an internet search for "inversely correlated definition". Obviously you would rather espouse effluvium instead of doing actual investigation. Here is an example of using 'inversely correlated' in a sentence: The CpG island methylator phenotype and chromosomal instability are inversely correlated in sporadic colorectal cancer.
@CynicalSkeptic1 Hey I am on your side, but please you are just trying to lose him with your example of inverse correlation. He has been drinking the kool-aid for a long time, Gravity is a perfectly good example inversely proportional to the distance. I find that religiosity is not inversely correlated to intelligence as your insult suggested but by education.
@MrVirtualCoder Since you referred to me as "mentally disabled"....my IQ is 143 (Genius being 140+) and I was tested for MGM (Mentally Gifted Minds) twice when I was a child. Since you didn't even realize that "inversely correlated" was an actual term and most certainly 'makes sense' then it would be readily apparent to anyone which of us might be "mentally disabled". You didn't even attempt to educate yourself before making your ridiculous comment. This would be typical of a religious believer.
@MrVirtualCoder Lastly, since you were quite obviously incorrect about the validity of "inversely correlated" and have confirmed your ignorance in a public forum....there is no need to expound on the fact that Atheism is not a religion. You see, I actually KNOW the definition of religion, unlike yourself, and any of the Youtube viewers perusing these comments will be able to do a simple internet search to determine which of us actually KNOWS what they are talking about....
@PAULOcbi Listen, little child. For every word and term, there follows a definition.
For religion it is "Mass belief". When people join the belief in the non existence of a deity, it is INDEED a religious position - furthermore it is mass belief -- hence religion.
Now, go back to elementary school and learn some English spelling.
@MrVirtualCoder Gimme a break... 'Mass belief' ?/ There is 'mass belief' ...lol..in LunarLandings,GlobalWarming,Holocaust...does that make GlobalWarming believers religious too.???..like I said your an idgit,you can always spot the idgit `cos his stupid comments litter the whole page with nonsense.and ad-hominem hey thats you!!..lol
@RATIONALMIND001 EVERY SINGLE PART you use to "JUDGE" Theism with, is FROM Theism. Your kind disgust me. I could throw names around, but little sense would it make when already your Brain has been fried by too much T.V watching. Clearly, you are an Idiot. I am sorry, but this is so evident. Not that you disagree with me, but that you CANNOT see the bloody OBVIOUS...
@MrVirtualCoder Your ignorance only builds more on the correlation of religiosity / lack of knowledge.
Your addiction to the "God" feeling, coupled with your religious indoctrination , coupled with your own solipsism is dismantling what under diffident circumstances would be a perfectly rational mind. Congratulations my dear lunatic devote, maybe one of this days you'll get the chance to enjoy a good witch-hunt adventure and torture an old lady for days till she confess she's Satan's lover.
@rosmer00 That's great. Though, take in account that you are an unreasonable Dumbass who hold no degree nor knowledge in Science, whatsoever. And that 'free-will' and 'random processes' does not exist within Mathematics, hence you cannot program an AI that truly is AI, within Computer Science.
@MrVirtualCoder And your actions will be punished by a greater force? The vicarious redemption of Jesus is intentioned with the notion to thwart this accountability and personal responsibility for actions. 'Atheism is a religion and it even has its own practices and belief sets'. Ok, what are these 'practices and belief sets' might I ask?
its refreshing to hear intellects like grayling, dawkins and hitchens (not present) speaking with such clarity. i feel sorry for them having to listen to religious retards. the religious are like gullible children.
Al-Quran has 1400 years ago and Muslim Scientists has been declared "He (God) makes you (human), in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness".
Al Quran sura Az Zumar;6
".....He (God) makes you, in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness. . . ."
Have the Bible and scientists states "He (God ) makes you (human), in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness"?
If a non stamp collector calls all stamp collectors idiots because they collect stampts he proves himself to be a bigot. It is simple. Einstein said: The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer.
Grayling is right--there's a great asymmetry between the understandings of theists and atheists. Most atheists used to be believers, at least in western society, but the contrary is not true.
A great example of the poverty in new Atheism. The non-stamp collector is not going to run around shouting about 9/11 or lumping all religious views into a pluralist monolith. The atheist fundamentalism is quite evident for those who have ears to hear it.
Prof. Grayling misses an even more egregious example of religion in the health care issue. The Church opposing abortion is small compared to those who pushed the House to include FAITH HEALING as a valid form of medical coverage. FAITH healing people !!!
The House removed that portion but senators wanted to reintroduce it in the Senate. FAITH healing ! GAH!!!!!!!
I think A C Grayling is a wonderfully succint and polite speaker, able to put his point across with out any show of arrogance or holier than thou attitude. I hope to hear more from him on these matters.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Atheism and humanism are both Marxist constructs; all properly educated moral people know that both of these belief systems are intellectually bankrupt and lead to totalitarianism and genocide.
You're just full of shit. Atheism and humanism have nothing to do with marxism. The only thing they have in common is that they aren't based on religion doctrine.
@Queequel You've begged the question, the parallel drawn between Marxism and humanism is that they both claimed to be based on non-religious doctrines, but actually are. Unfortunately you are not going to debunk the argument by just denying that. Marxism in based on a conviction (that I would personally call religious being that it has no empirical basis) that humanity's nature is fulfilled by partaking in co-operative production - so it imposes an absolute conception of the good-life upon all.
@VianessIndependant EXACTLY! Finally someone who gets it. Everyone trying to blemish atheism by touching upon the atrocities of Pol Pot or Stalin, etc.. is just hurting their own argument because they don't seem to realize the problem of those regimes and religion is one and the same: ABSOLUTISM. But most theists reject that because they feel emotionally assaulted by the equation, but deep down absolutism = absolutism and is always, always bad. You explained it much more eloquently, however!
@Queequel Part 2, sorry to go on, and humanism appears to me to based upon the idea that if we cast religion aside and embrace science, and allow science to be the basis of how we organise our society, humanity's greatest problems will diminish, this is what John Gray calls the humanists' 'myth of progress'. Neither he nor I are theists so don't reject it with prejudice.
No, that is not all that humanism is about as we have rich traditions in philosophy, art, and literature as well as the social sciences which can help us, indeed enable us to get on in the future with more hope, less conflict, and a deeper understanding of life without religion. Religion has exhausted itself and furnishes us with nothing new, nothing unique, and we can make much progress without it, John blowhard Gray to the contrary notwithstanding.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Gosh these guys are wise! And they know it, they say how wise they are. I read something somewhere about men calling themselves wise, oh well, it's probably not important.
Thank you Stephen. The dynamic between religion and atheism has been a tough one for me to learn. I have learned some, but I still have much to learn.
The main problem I have with people saying atheists are fundamental ones, is that when you say someone has fundamental beliefs, I associate that with a fixed set of rules. Rules that must be adhered to matter what evidence there is to the contrary. Yet all atheism really means is that you don't believe in god(s). There are no rules otherwise.
In the English language, that is exactly what fundamentalism means. And while there may be fundamentalist atheists, it'd mean they'd have to believe no gods exist, as a dogma.
And while the atheist position, to the religious, may seem this way, it generally is not. The bulk of the atheists arrived at where they are now through knowledge. It's not so much a dogma as it is a result.
It's not: there are no gods, so evolution is true, but: evolution is true, so no gods are necessary.
Not collecting stamp is my hobby. I'm a hardcore non-stamp collector. And my favorite sport is not playing tennis. I'm a big not playing tennis fan. And I'm also a fundamentalist atheist. :)
@ganibc your analogy is all wrong, I'm sure you spend no time giving thought to stamp collecting, I'm sure you spend no time giving thought to tennis, however if you are a 'fundamentalist atheist" I'm sure you spend much time and energy, giving thought to religion. To be an atheist is a real "thing" as you know, in that its a very active process of not being religious rather than some passive thing your describing so your kinda off base bub.
The analogy is quite accurate, but the situation of course is different.
The tennis fans never try to kill non-tennis fans. Or the stamp collectors never try to kill the non stamp collectors. The tennis fans never try to force their sport to other people. The stamp collectors never try to force their hobby to other people.
If all the tennis fans and stam collectors behaving the same way like the religion freak, then "non-stamp collecting" will be a real "thing" also.
@ganibc Except most religious people are moderate and sensible, your little us vs them world is false, and your atypical rhetoric calling religious people freaks continues to add to the fact that fundamentalists on both sides feed off each other.
I'm not accusing most religious people being radical. Most of my friends are religious people, and I don't have any problem with them nor I ever discussed anything about religion.
If you prefer I correct my statement, then I will.
If some (even minority) of the stamp collectors forcing their hobby to other people, then non-stamp collecting will also be a real "thing".
And btw, I don't understand your definition of "fundamentalists". Can you explain your definition?
You seems confused with the word "fundamentalism".
To become fundamentalist, you need to have a belief.
But atheist is "lack of belief", so when you said "fundamentalist atheist" actually that 2 words are oxymoron.
An atheist can be a fundamentalist (for example, become a left wing fundamentalist), but you simply can't have fundamentalist atheist, because atheist doesn't have sets of belief. Atheism is "lack of belief".
@bukakeeblakbelt If -1 is a belief that god doesn't exist, and 1 is a belief that god exists, atheism is 0 - lack of belief of any kind. When a child is born - by definition it's an atheist - it has got no belief that god exists, but it doesn't believe that god doesn't exist either. Everything else is just a matter of probability.
The world just seems to work without a god assumption, to paraphrase a famous quotation.
@bukakeeblakbelt Agnosticism is a belief that this problem cannot be solved so we'll never get an answer. Atheism is lack of belief in god, not a belief that god doesn't exists as they try to tell you.
@bukakeeblakbelt The analogy of stamp collecting would be more apt if we lived in a world where everyone was expected to be a stamp collector, looked on with suspicion if they weren't, could never admit they didn't collect stamps if they ran for public office, and if stamp collecting organizations had undue influence in our society. In that case, someone simply wanting to be a 'non-stamp collector' would have little choice but to think about it more and protest to others about all the inequity.
I think it might also be prudent to remember that theists seem to have a great deal of difficulty of understanding atheism. For example, they don't seem to realize that "fundamental atheist" is simply a silly thing to say, it's practically an oxymoron.
Interesting statement EdMcStinko. Actually, 'fundamental atheism' is an apt moniker for a brand of atheism that is rigid in its thinking, and unwavering - types such as are championed by the 'great minds of science' who still can't seem to fathom that atheism is unscientific. Does it make sense to say that something doesn't exist until it is discovered? Empiricism, and hard science teeter on that very concept. -SRW
Atheism means the disbelief or denial of the existance of diety. Just because I do not believe there is a diety does not mean I say there is not one. It's called agnostic atheism, which is what most atheists are.
This is the scientific position, that is, we do not believe in anything until we are given a reasonable amount of positive evidence that it exists.
Yes, that is right. I agree with your statement, however; your usage of 'agnostic atheism' translates to 'not knowing god doesn't exist.' I know its an english trainwreck, but so is the idea. Science can not prove a negative - I do beleive that your atheism is the result of falisfying those other religious concepts held by others.
I agree, but your wording is a bit off. Your use of the word "denial" implies actual existence, and that we simply, through cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization, deny the existence of a god.
I'd prefer the phrase: "Atheism is to not believe in gods"
I checked with the Oxford dict, and even that has it horrible wrong:
"noun -the belief that God does not exist."
With capital "G" and all. It's not a positive belief; it's the rejection of a claim. Funny how even Oxford can mess that up.
No, atheism is the absence of believe (in any god).
And we simply won't accept random claims of invisible undetectable madness until someone deposits some evidence to go with it, but this is has nothing to do with agnosticism.
Agnosticism is the view that you can't learn the 100% truth about claims, in specific retardedly applied to unverifiable claims that shouldn't have been posited in the first place. It's the unrealistic idea that because we don't know for certain, the option is acceptable
Comment removed
borednerd74 3 months ago
I don't know what all the hoopla is about. Jesus died for my sins, so I can do anything I want.
JDBishop5 3 months ago
@JDBishop5
You sir are a fucking idiot
ph03n1xamb1t 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ph03n1xamb1t - I see, grammar is not your strong suit. Your 'You sir are a fucking idiot,' should read ,'You, sir, are a fucking idiot,' you illiterate moron. There will be no charge for the second grade punctuation lesson.
JDBishop5 3 months ago
IQ is irrelevant in this discussion, lots of smart people believe stupid things. A person would have lie to themselves to believe the bible was written inerrantly. They seem to cling to fear instead of facing the truth. who could blame them? If you believe the consequences you would fear for your life after life. So why allow yourself to get so offended when someone else disagrees? Is it the first time someone has? My vote is who cares. You can talk sense into a christian as fast as a racist. T
sarainreno30 4 months ago
these debates that involve religion and atheism/reason and science are like constantly having to tell an obnoxious child to stop disrupting the classroom and let the rest of the class to actually learn something usefull
MilitantOldLady 4 months ago
@MilitantOldLady Eh. As i always say: before you attempt your insults, at least use proper grammar and spelling.
MrVirtualCoder 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder
well excuse me i didnt know 90% of the internet are english teachers
MilitantOldLady 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder YouTube is getting full of twats like you,when you`ve lost ground on your debate you resort to ad-hominem,but even werse you resort to pointing out grammar errors...lol. Your right up there with the great religious debaters...lol.
PAULOcbi 2 months ago
@PAULOcbi I will list all the fallacies your made in your statement(s):
"YouTube", "is getting", (missing punctuation mark here, instead there is a comma), 'improper use of "ad-hominem"', "werse", ( - both spelling AND grammar errors, that you have made), ("Your" is used in the wrong context here).
Grammar says a lot, spelling says even more. One that wants to argue trough the use of textual-words, surely needs to be able to use them correctly.
MrVirtualCoder 2 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder "wants to argue trough the use..".....'trough' what is this nonsense?? oh I see,your not just an idiot,your the kind of idiot that throws stones when he lives in a glass house...YouTube is getting full of twats like you...roflcopter
PAULOcbi 2 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder "Grammar says a lot, spelling says even more"
It doesnt say anything. Its a weak attempt to make yourself look intelligent, and it bit you in the ass with "trough". I read what the guy said, i understood it fine. No need to scrutinize every letter. No one is perfect, and that includes you. Grammar Nazis are a dying breed because eventually, they screw up and humiliate themselves.
JabberCT 2 months ago
I've watched intelligence squared debate with Fry and Hitchens about the Catholic Church. It was a very good debate, but as a rather experienced debater myself, i can tell that these debates are terrific and style and content, but absolutely abysmally horrible in terms of strategy. Richard Harris set up the debate like any first speaker. But mr. speaker here has completely gone off topic. I like his speech, but not a single word there disproves the motion. :-(
thewhatever379only 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE. Read this popular Internet article published in Russia's English Pravda. In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (becoming meteors in outer space). Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil. Read the fantastic book (free to read on the Internet), IN THE BEGINNING by MIT scientist Dr. Walt Brown.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON ANOTHER PLANET? Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed to make other robots just like themselves from raw materials. Now, imagine an alien scientist visiting the planet and, after studying these robots, comes to the conclusion that because science can explain how these robots work, function, and reproduce there's no reason to believe there was an intelligent designer behind them! Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
Mogley52 5 months ago
Grayling is such a gentle man.
gwcstudio 5 months ago
wow he's so strident! :lol: sarcasm, of course XD
freiheitsalv 6 months ago
3:55 "Atheism is a religious term" haha wow this nerd doesnt know what hes talking about haha
sergio311 6 months ago
@sergio311 It is, actually, in a way. "Atheism" literally means "Without God". Since it directly relates to the existence or lack thereof of God, it could easily be seen as a religious term. Just what I think.
trailblazer225 6 months ago
@trailblazer225 its greek, from the people who used to worship the ancient Gods like zeus and all them others, but w.e idc, what happens to atheist when they die ? idk do the even have a soul ?
sergio311 6 months ago
@sergio311 I'm not sure if I understand what you mean, but even if the term IS Greek, it is still religious in nature. And... I'm an agnostic myself, but honestly, I don't quite care what happens to my soul after I die. I live as a decent human being to the best of my abilities, and that's all that matters to me. Living for the afterlife is like thinking about how good the second doughnut's going to taste before you eat the first one. Of course, these are just my beliefs.
trailblazer225 6 months ago
@sergio311 Here we go again, a theist on his high horses, thinking he is special and more moral because he publicly announces he will believe anything. What happens to atheists when they die? Well, same as you pal, we die...and we rot. Sound dull and depressing? Yes it may well do, but tell me, what on Earth makes you think in any sort of afterlife, other than the wish not to die? As we're at it, what makes you so sure a soul exists? Let me guess, an arrogant inner feeling.
russellrummage 5 months ago 16
@russellrummage yup,strange evolution when people have come to believe,thru religion,that they are the Universes`greatest collusion, when really were just a collection of cells,overrating themselves with "hello god?!" and avoiding the truth.
PAULOcbi 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
@R2rGangstaFC As you can see from the other comments here, a lot of people don't hate Marxism or Marx. If you are really looking for an idea & person that is hated by all sides, unconditionally, just because everybody hates it is: [drumroll] Objectivism & Ayn Rand. It is hated by all sides. Anarchists hate it because it advocates govt. Minarchists hate it because of its views on copyright law. Centrists hate it because it is too extreme. Conservatives hate it because it is atheistic & so on.
antinominianist 9 months ago
Comment removed
antinominianist 9 months ago
No fairys? I shall hijack a butterfly and fly it into Greyling's house.
gamesbok 9 months ago
why everyone hates marxism so much?
R2rGangstaFC 9 months ago
@R2rGangstaFC I agree, whether you agree with Marx or not, his ideas are worth discussing, not slandering.
AbstractReaIity 9 months ago
@AbstractReaIity marx was actually the first dude to ever create a social theory that made any sense. his economics is very strong, but a bit outdated, but hey, in Newton way outdated, there just havent been an Einstein for marxism
R2rGangstaFC 9 months ago
Comment removed
911BeganTheEndOfGod 9 months ago
A shame this debate is rather poorly put together, at least in the quality of the moderation and general presentation. Still, the points are all fascinating!
Motor42CD 10 months ago
I've never heard it summed up so perfectly.
justinsgil185 10 months ago
I'm a non-unicorn, non-fairy, non-vampire fundamentalist.
ahmedeox 11 months ago 18
We do not know what 97% of the universe is made up off but im scientifically positive there is no God.
1parko 11 months ago 2
@1parko - Science isn't scientifically positive there is no God. It doesn't have an opinion on that matter currently.
A86 10 months ago 2
Is it wrong that I am developing a crush on Mr. Grayling?
Tyschaker 11 months ago 3
@Tyschaker He's my professor.
LongliveSnak2e 10 months ago
his hair is mesmerising
Frikkn 1 year ago
Grayling makes very easy points to understand which is good for dumb fuck christians.
benaberry 1 year ago 7
A.C. Grayling. Good night religion, I have spoken.
alexandermccarthy 1 year ago 6
lol is it just me or do grayling and dawkins sorta resemble each other? :P
nj09w 1 year ago
atheism is simply non belief. i'm an atheist when it comes to david hasselhoff being on the same level as al pacino as an actor. i'm an atheist when it comes to an absolute moral law. there is no moral law that you can apply to every situation. david hasselhoff did a far better job than al pacino would have done on baywatch and knight rider because al pacino wouldn't have been happy doing those projects. bah i'm just rambling.
brodymachado 1 year ago
@brodymachado I enjoyed your ramblings :)
michaelash100 1 year ago
@brodymachado no, atheism is not believing in god(s).
doaftheloaf 1 year ago
I have never, ever seen a debate or read a book where the believer's point of view came out as a winner, or even as simply acceptable. And I've been at it since age 10 & 1/2... I'm now pushing 50.
bersa888 1 year ago 5
Grayling just obliterated any hope religion has of trying to attack atheism. What an orator!
semasiologistics 1 year ago 7
Long forehead is long... Well spoken person though.
ssnatcherss 1 year ago 4
@ssnatcherss well, I'm glad to see that his forehead did not disqualify him. lol
Ematched 1 year ago
Religion should NOT have a place in government because it cannot be validated.
RATIONALMIND001 1 year ago 22
@RATIONALMIND001 Atheism is religion.
MrVirtualCoder 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder I don't agree. Religious believers always try to make this point in order to point our own valid criticism or religion back at ourselves. This doesn't work. Atheism has no buildings for atheists to attend at certain times. It has no conceptual entities to believe in. It accepts that there are things that we (humans) do not understand. Atheists, including Stalin, do not and did not kill in the name of atheism. Atheism makes no promise of salvation or threat of eternal hell.
RATIONALMIND001 4 months ago
@RATIONALMIND001
Look, i will go on the streets and kill people in the name of Atheism, problem solved?
Now Atheism looks bad.
It is what their IDEOLOGY follows, not what they CLAIM to be doing it for/in the name of. Stalin, Hitler, and whom ever you might use to propagate your view with, did it in an New-Atheist FASHION. The ideology: Materialism, and that their actions will NOT be punished by a greater force.
Atheism is a religion, and it even has its own practices and belief sets.
MrVirtualCoder 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder So I suppose that an ideology that is predicated on a verifiable truth, an acknowledgement of the fact that we humans don't know all the answers, an ideology based upon mutual respect, empathy, honesty and sincerity is a bad ideology. Everyone is an atheist with respect to a good many of histories Gods. Are you honestly going to tell me that all the "on your knees praying", "wall pecking", "dress up in strange outfits", "talking in tongues", genital mutilating doctrines are good?
RATIONALMIND001 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder I think it can be explained more simply. Atheists have no faith. (Faith is trust, hope and belief in the goodness, trustworthiness or reliability of a person, concept or entity. It can also refer to beliefs that are not based on proof) Atheists need proof and if they don't have it, they remain skeptical and make no attempt to insert unverified, implausible explanations, however warm and fuzzy it may make them feel. Virgin Mary, mother of God is an oxymoron. It's time to think.
RATIONALMIND001 4 months ago
@RATIONALMIND001 This is exactly why people JOIN Atheism in the first place!!! They think it is a placeholder for thinkers, when infact IT IS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Those people whom may join the new-Atheism, are Idiots, Morons. They wouldn't know if they were being brainwashed by the Media, as so clearly you have shown. Faith is belief in divine, that CANNOT be explained by Materialism. IT IS NOT DISCARDING PROOF. Proof is Subjective, UNLESS YOU BELIEVE IN DIVINE KNOWLEDGE.
MrVirtualCoder 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder You said "Those people whom may join the new-Atheism, are Idiots, Morons."
Actually, religiosity and intellect are inversely correlated.
You also said "Atheism is a religion."
The definition of religion is "the service or worship of a god or supernatural entity".
So, again, you are incorrect since atheists worship nothing.
CynicalSkeptic1 4 months ago 37
@CynicalSkeptic1 "inversely correlated." makes no sense in the same context. But i can see what you are implying, and it proves you are a mentally disabled Youtuber. It must feel great to think you know a great deal about nothing, from watching videos; perhaps, little kid, it is time to go back to Elementary school.
Religion is organized belief, with its own idealism; Hence Materialism and idolization of Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawkins.
Atheism indeed is a religion;
MrVirtualCoder 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder Apparently you insist on exhibitng your ignorance for all Youtube viewers. Ironically, your edification would have been easily obtained by simply doing an internet search for "inversely correlated definition". Obviously you would rather espouse effluvium instead of doing actual investigation. Here is an example of using 'inversely correlated' in a sentence: The CpG island methylator phenotype and chromosomal instability are inversely correlated in sporadic colorectal cancer.
CynicalSkeptic1 4 months ago
Comment removed
davidthecook 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CynicalSkeptic1 Hey I am on your side, but please you are just trying to lose him with your example of inverse correlation. He has been drinking the kool-aid for a long time, Gravity is a perfectly good example inversely proportional to the distance. I find that religiosity is not inversely correlated to intelligence as your insult suggested but by education.
davidthecook 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder Since you referred to me as "mentally disabled"....my IQ is 143 (Genius being 140+) and I was tested for MGM (Mentally Gifted Minds) twice when I was a child. Since you didn't even realize that "inversely correlated" was an actual term and most certainly 'makes sense' then it would be readily apparent to anyone which of us might be "mentally disabled". You didn't even attempt to educate yourself before making your ridiculous comment. This would be typical of a religious believer.
CynicalSkeptic1 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder Lastly, since you were quite obviously incorrect about the validity of "inversely correlated" and have confirmed your ignorance in a public forum....there is no need to expound on the fact that Atheism is not a religion. You see, I actually KNOW the definition of religion, unlike yourself, and any of the Youtube viewers perusing these comments will be able to do a simple internet search to determine which of us actually KNOWS what they are talking about....
CynicalSkeptic1 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder Atheism is the lack of a belief, not a belief in its own right. Drink paraquat.
fragman08 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder if Atheism is a religion then OFF is a t.v. channel...think again dumbass.
PAULOcbi 2 months ago
@PAULOcbi Listen, little child. For every word and term, there follows a definition.
For religion it is "Mass belief". When people join the belief in the non existence of a deity, it is INDEED a religious position - furthermore it is mass belief -- hence religion.
Now, go back to elementary school and learn some English spelling.
MrVirtualCoder 2 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder Gimme a break... 'Mass belief' ?/ There is 'mass belief' ...lol..in LunarLandings,GlobalWarming,Holocaust...does that make GlobalWarming believers religious too.???..like I said your an idgit,you can always spot the idgit `cos his stupid comments litter the whole page with nonsense.and ad-hominem hey thats you!!..lol
PAULOcbi 2 months ago
@PAULOcbi Still haven't picked up on the spelling, i see?
MrVirtualCoder 2 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 they worship rationality and critical thought
MrGidderz 2 months ago
@MrGidderz I worship nothing.
reznor12 3 weeks ago in playlist Intelligence Squared Debate #2
@reznor12 join the club ;)
MrGidderz 3 weeks ago
@RATIONALMIND001 EVERY SINGLE PART you use to "JUDGE" Theism with, is FROM Theism. Your kind disgust me. I could throw names around, but little sense would it make when already your Brain has been fried by too much T.V watching. Clearly, you are an Idiot. I am sorry, but this is so evident. Not that you disagree with me, but that you CANNOT see the bloody OBVIOUS...
MrVirtualCoder 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder You are clearly a "Religious alcoholic". Get help..........
RATIONALMIND001 4 months ago
@RATIONALMIND001 And you are clearly a brainwashed idiot, who're doomed to ruin society more than it already is.
MrVirtualCoder 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder Your ignorance only builds more on the correlation of religiosity / lack of knowledge.
Your addiction to the "God" feeling, coupled with your religious indoctrination , coupled with your own solipsism is dismantling what under diffident circumstances would be a perfectly rational mind. Congratulations my dear lunatic devote, maybe one of this days you'll get the chance to enjoy a good witch-hunt adventure and torture an old lady for days till she confess she's Satan's lover.
rosmer00 4 months ago
@rosmer00 That's great. Though, take in account that you are an unreasonable Dumbass who hold no degree nor knowledge in Science, whatsoever. And that 'free-will' and 'random processes' does not exist within Mathematics, hence you cannot program an AI that truly is AI, within Computer Science.
MrVirtualCoder 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder Not even an answer, out of context intelligible babbling trying to pass as a smart ass beyond pathetic.
rosmer00 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder And your actions will be punished by a greater force? The vicarious redemption of Jesus is intentioned with the notion to thwart this accountability and personal responsibility for actions. 'Atheism is a religion and it even has its own practices and belief sets'. Ok, what are these 'practices and belief sets' might I ask?
FryderykFChopin 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder keep building on your already astonishing ignorance.
rosmer00 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What about the baby?
joesim12 1 year ago
Grayling is as brilliant and eloquent as usual...
Roaddogg666 1 year ago
<3<3<3<3
runi8 1 year ago
its refreshing to hear intellects like grayling, dawkins and hitchens (not present) speaking with such clarity. i feel sorry for them having to listen to religious retards. the religious are like gullible children.
faustus999 1 year ago 2
A.C. Grayling > A.C. Slater
turbozed 1 year ago 8
I had the picture that Mr Grayling talked about as my facebook profile picture for a while
AppleMaster1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Al-Quran has 1400 years ago and Muslim Scientists has been declared "He (God) makes you (human), in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness".
Al Quran sura Az Zumar;6
".....He (God) makes you, in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness. . . ."
Have the Bible and scientists states "He (God ) makes you (human), in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness"?
mollenth 1 year ago
If a non stamp collector calls all stamp collectors idiots because they collect stampts he proves himself to be a bigot. It is simple. Einstein said: The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer.
VictorScotland 1 year ago
Stalin wasn't a dick...he was a not 'not a dick'....yay atheism ;)
Fike2308 1 year ago
Comment removed
MentalSentinel 1 year ago
Every person on earth today is an atheist. Not one person believes in Theos anymore. The term should be "Agodist" or "AYahwist" or "Adeist"
LeadRat 1 year ago
When did this take place?
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
that moderator is a twat
alectric230 1 year ago 5
TEA TIME, TEA TIME! did you want a cookie?
LOL @ the tapping glass
HugNow 1 year ago
Grayling is right--there's a great asymmetry between the understandings of theists and atheists. Most atheists used to be believers, at least in western society, but the contrary is not true.
juliuschas 1 year ago
google Doe's Account
4Wammer 1 year ago
@4Wammer Wow, that was a colossal waste of time. What a POS website.
lexave 1 year ago
tis man talks well.. im an ateist an i m not against beleave in good bible is a good book and som people feel safer living as bible says.
but like i have sayd before in the beleave of good dosent mean that you kan kill others and make beleave..
p.s too muts preasts has just children for they oun good.. sheme on your shelves...
tonilainen800 1 year ago
anyone know where to find that cartoon he is talking about?
AR333 1 year ago
@AR333 yes google 'don addis'. I think its called 'lack of respect' (lol).
Grayling has generalised it to other religions, but it looks like the one hes on about.
intermender 1 year ago
@intermender
thanks!
AR333 1 year ago
A great example of the poverty in new Atheism. The non-stamp collector is not going to run around shouting about 9/11 or lumping all religious views into a pluralist monolith. The atheist fundamentalism is quite evident for those who have ears to hear it.
rusty2029 1 year ago
Excellent upload, much appreciated :)
DaJonas 2 years ago
Prof. Grayling misses an even more egregious example of religion in the health care issue. The Church opposing abortion is small compared to those who pushed the House to include FAITH HEALING as a valid form of medical coverage. FAITH healing people !!!
The House removed that portion but senators wanted to reintroduce it in the Senate. FAITH healing ! GAH!!!!!!!
aeroldoth 2 years ago 3
In my thirty years in a pentecostal church, I have heard alot about healing.........And I still have not witnessed one with my own eyes. lol
chris7777777777777 1 year ago 2
@aeroldoth really?!?(I'm not denying your claim), but are you talking about the US HealthCare reform?
janjust 1 year ago
Yes, I'm talking about the US health care debate, as that was the issue in the discussion. Google it and you'll see.
aeroldoth 1 year ago
I think A C Grayling is a wonderfully succint and polite speaker, able to put his point across with out any show of arrogance or holier than thou attitude. I hope to hear more from him on these matters.
BlankVellum 2 years ago 5
A.C.Grayling FTW!
temporaldisplacement 2 years ago 2
Grayling makes his points in such a clinical, yet gentle way.
Wonderful. Love his debating style.
jhnt34 2 years ago 4
All points are so beautifully made.
stratocaster539 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Atheism and humanism are both Marxist constructs; all properly educated moral people know that both of these belief systems are intellectually bankrupt and lead to totalitarianism and genocide.
JohnQPublic11 2 years ago
You forgot that they turn people into reptilian homosexual flesh eating zombie monsters.
NearVSMello 2 years ago 6
You're just full of shit. Atheism and humanism have nothing to do with marxism. The only thing they have in common is that they aren't based on religion doctrine.
Queequel 2 years ago 24
@Queequel You've begged the question, the parallel drawn between Marxism and humanism is that they both claimed to be based on non-religious doctrines, but actually are. Unfortunately you are not going to debunk the argument by just denying that. Marxism in based on a conviction (that I would personally call religious being that it has no empirical basis) that humanity's nature is fulfilled by partaking in co-operative production - so it imposes an absolute conception of the good-life upon all.
VianessIndependant 9 months ago
@VianessIndependant EXACTLY! Finally someone who gets it. Everyone trying to blemish atheism by touching upon the atrocities of Pol Pot or Stalin, etc.. is just hurting their own argument because they don't seem to realize the problem of those regimes and religion is one and the same: ABSOLUTISM. But most theists reject that because they feel emotionally assaulted by the equation, but deep down absolutism = absolutism and is always, always bad. You explained it much more eloquently, however!
lebannerfan65 7 months ago
@Queequel Part 2, sorry to go on, and humanism appears to me to based upon the idea that if we cast religion aside and embrace science, and allow science to be the basis of how we organise our society, humanity's greatest problems will diminish, this is what John Gray calls the humanists' 'myth of progress'. Neither he nor I are theists so don't reject it with prejudice.
VianessIndependant 9 months ago
@VianessIndependant
No, that is not all that humanism is about as we have rich traditions in philosophy, art, and literature as well as the social sciences which can help us, indeed enable us to get on in the future with more hope, less conflict, and a deeper understanding of life without religion. Religion has exhausted itself and furnishes us with nothing new, nothing unique, and we can make much progress without it, John blowhard Gray to the contrary notwithstanding.
Hume77 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Gosh these guys are wise! And they know it, they say how wise they are. I read something somewhere about men calling themselves wise, oh well, it's probably not important.
bjrathburn 2 years ago
Thank you Stephen. The dynamic between religion and atheism has been a tough one for me to learn. I have learned some, but I still have much to learn.
The main problem I have with people saying atheists are fundamental ones, is that when you say someone has fundamental beliefs, I associate that with a fixed set of rules. Rules that must be adhered to matter what evidence there is to the contrary. Yet all atheism really means is that you don't believe in god(s). There are no rules otherwise.
EdMcStinko 2 years ago 2
@EdMcStinko
In the English language, that is exactly what fundamentalism means. And while there may be fundamentalist atheists, it'd mean they'd have to believe no gods exist, as a dogma.
And while the atheist position, to the religious, may seem this way, it generally is not. The bulk of the atheists arrived at where they are now through knowledge. It's not so much a dogma as it is a result.
It's not: there are no gods, so evolution is true, but: evolution is true, so no gods are necessary.
Nerusai 2 years ago
Not collecting stamp is my hobby. I'm a hardcore non-stamp collector. And my favorite sport is not playing tennis. I'm a big not playing tennis fan. And I'm also a fundamentalist atheist. :)
ganibc 2 years ago 193
hear hear :P
richmeister4eva 2 years ago
@ganibc
Why are you copying NonStampCollectors line?
Mug.
yington 1 year ago
@yington
Because I like his analogy.
ganibc 1 year ago
@yington nonstampcollector is not original by him BTW
jayfunk13 1 year ago
@ganibc your analogy is all wrong, I'm sure you spend no time giving thought to stamp collecting, I'm sure you spend no time giving thought to tennis, however if you are a 'fundamentalist atheist" I'm sure you spend much time and energy, giving thought to religion. To be an atheist is a real "thing" as you know, in that its a very active process of not being religious rather than some passive thing your describing so your kinda off base bub.
bukakeeblakbelt 1 year ago
@bukakeeblakbelt
The analogy is quite accurate, but the situation of course is different.
The tennis fans never try to kill non-tennis fans. Or the stamp collectors never try to kill the non stamp collectors. The tennis fans never try to force their sport to other people. The stamp collectors never try to force their hobby to other people.
If all the tennis fans and stam collectors behaving the same way like the religion freak, then "non-stamp collecting" will be a real "thing" also.
ganibc 1 year ago
@ganibc Except most religious people are moderate and sensible, your little us vs them world is false, and your atypical rhetoric calling religious people freaks continues to add to the fact that fundamentalists on both sides feed off each other.
bukakeeblakbelt 1 year ago
@bukakeeblakbelt
I'm not accusing most religious people being radical. Most of my friends are religious people, and I don't have any problem with them nor I ever discussed anything about religion.
If you prefer I correct my statement, then I will.
If some (even minority) of the stamp collectors forcing their hobby to other people, then non-stamp collecting will also be a real "thing".
And btw, I don't understand your definition of "fundamentalists". Can you explain your definition?
ganibc 1 year ago
@bukakeeblakbelt
You seems confused with the word "fundamentalism".
To become fundamentalist, you need to have a belief.
But atheist is "lack of belief", so when you said "fundamentalist atheist" actually that 2 words are oxymoron.
An atheist can be a fundamentalist (for example, become a left wing fundamentalist), but you simply can't have fundamentalist atheist, because atheist doesn't have sets of belief. Atheism is "lack of belief".
ganibc 1 year ago
@bukakeeblakbelt If -1 is a belief that god doesn't exist, and 1 is a belief that god exists, atheism is 0 - lack of belief of any kind. When a child is born - by definition it's an atheist - it has got no belief that god exists, but it doesn't believe that god doesn't exist either. Everything else is just a matter of probability.
The world just seems to work without a god assumption, to paraphrase a famous quotation.
mastakam92 1 year ago
@mastakam92 um no, -1 is atheism, 0 is agnostic, 1 is faith.
bukakeeblakbelt 1 year ago
@bukakeeblakbelt Agnosticism is a belief that this problem cannot be solved so we'll never get an answer. Atheism is lack of belief in god, not a belief that god doesn't exists as they try to tell you.
mastakam92 1 year ago 4
@bukakeeblakbelt The analogy of stamp collecting would be more apt if we lived in a world where everyone was expected to be a stamp collector, looked on with suspicion if they weren't, could never admit they didn't collect stamps if they ran for public office, and if stamp collecting organizations had undue influence in our society. In that case, someone simply wanting to be a 'non-stamp collector' would have little choice but to think about it more and protest to others about all the inequity.
dtstrain 1 year ago 2
@ganibc A NON STAMP COLLECTOR!?? OFF TO PHILATELIST HELL WITH YOU!!!!!!
tommos1 1 year ago 27
Religious people are dumb.
BrideAndGroomFilmsHD 2 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
haha may be religious people think your dumb.
ekisaboer 2 years ago
So what?
BrideAndGroomFilmsHD 2 years ago
not every religion acts the way he claims they do
samstterhamstteer 2 years ago
I think it might also be prudent to remember that theists seem to have a great deal of difficulty of understanding atheism. For example, they don't seem to realize that "fundamental atheist" is simply a silly thing to say, it's practically an oxymoron.
EdMcStinko 2 years ago 108
Interesting statement EdMcStinko. Actually, 'fundamental atheism' is an apt moniker for a brand of atheism that is rigid in its thinking, and unwavering - types such as are championed by the 'great minds of science' who still can't seem to fathom that atheism is unscientific. Does it make sense to say that something doesn't exist until it is discovered? Empiricism, and hard science teeter on that very concept. -SRW
StephenWebb1980 2 years ago
Atheism means the disbelief or denial of the existance of diety. Just because I do not believe there is a diety does not mean I say there is not one. It's called agnostic atheism, which is what most atheists are.
This is the scientific position, that is, we do not believe in anything until we are given a reasonable amount of positive evidence that it exists.
Irbubble 2 years ago 5
Yes, that is right. I agree with your statement, however; your usage of 'agnostic atheism' translates to 'not knowing god doesn't exist.' I know its an english trainwreck, but so is the idea. Science can not prove a negative - I do beleive that your atheism is the result of falisfying those other religious concepts held by others.
StephenWebb1980 2 years ago
I agree, but your wording is a bit off. Your use of the word "denial" implies actual existence, and that we simply, through cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization, deny the existence of a god.
I'd prefer the phrase: "Atheism is to not believe in gods"
I checked with the Oxford dict, and even that has it horrible wrong:
"noun -the belief that God does not exist."
With capital "G" and all. It's not a positive belief; it's the rejection of a claim. Funny how even Oxford can mess that up.
Aaberg123 2 years ago
No, atheism is the absence of believe (in any god).
And we simply won't accept random claims of invisible undetectable madness until someone deposits some evidence to go with it, but this is has nothing to do with agnosticism.
Agnosticism is the view that you can't learn the 100% truth about claims, in specific retardedly applied to unverifiable claims that shouldn't have been posited in the first place. It's the unrealistic idea that because we don't know for certain, the option is acceptable
Nerusai 2 years ago