I was totally down with what McGrath was saying... until he added the petty stuff about the lawsuit, which didn't speak at all to the vitriol of the New Atheism, but was just reminding his reader of a scandal that made his "enemies" look bad. That's cheap. Still, I think McGrath's main point is correct. (I suppose that makes me an Old Atheist).
Aside #1: I think Baggini is the author of "Atheism: A Very Short Introduction", which is an excellent book.
Aside #2: Anyone who would go around declaring themselves to be a "bright"... isn't.
Aside #3: Nice editing and timing on the vid. I only had to pause once to continue reading, which is unusally good given how many pages of text were in this vid.
If there is a positive correlation between religion and crime, it is either due to:
1. Error: chance or bias
2. Confounders
3. Causal relationship: unilateral, reverse or reciprocal
Out of all of these categories, only proof of a unilateral causal relationship is sufficient in refuting the argument that "religion reduces crime." If the correlation is due to errors, confounders or reverse/reciprocal causation it is clearly insufficient to do so.
Basic error no. 3: Because of these problems your reasoning collapses:
Notably, you ARE in fact assuming a positive CAUSAL correlation between "religion" and "crime" when you state: "I go for 'causal association' personally"; "So two things can be inferred if the data is universal ... religion is not good for society"
In direct contradiction to your claim that: "I have made a non hypothesis [sic] driven suggestion"; "I never claimed religion is harmful"
Basic error no. 2: You don't understand the term "correlation does not imply causation"
Causality, in this context, refers to whether that correlation is causal in and of itself ("is the independent variable causally affecting the dependent variable?")
NOT whether there is a scientifically justification for that correlation to have arisen ("why is there a correlation between the dependent and independent variables?")
In both cases, you were remarking on the implications of the findings of an alleged correlation between religious belief and increased levels of crime.
Your "punching" analogy is a straw man argument because:
1. Noone has claimed that religion decreases crime so you are not "refuting" anything. You are therefore trying to prove that religion increases crime as an opening argumentative position.
2. A correlation can be refuted if a contrary correlation can be evidenced. However, you need more than the latter to refute a causal relationship. For example, proving a contrary correlation to be causal.
@JCrownwell As I'm feeling violent now ill use an analogy. If you suggested that being punched is pleasurable, and I had data showing that being punched is correlated with pain, then I have refuted to a reasonable degree of certainty your hypothesis.
but for me to claim being punched CAUSED the pain, I would need a theory or hypothesis to explain that. I could say that being punched activates pain receptors, and I would need to do further testing as the correlation is NOT necessarily causation.
"The two interests [learning and being a theist] would appear to be contradictory."
Perhaps you would like to write to Oxford, Cambridge, London, Yale, Harvard et. al. and inform them of the contradiction since all of them have theists on their faculties.
This video is garbage. It makes endless false claims about atheists through constant use of "Some atheists think..." and "Many of them think..." when in fact it misses the point entirely.
Wow..just...wow! "Lame response", "No wonder no-one bothers looking at your profile!" What age are you?
You're a professor in a top UK uni? Which one may I ask and in what field?
I happen to generally agree with riffrafferty13. To call New Atheism a religion....? I get your thinking behind it, it's logical, but I think it's flawed logic. I simply do not believe a supernatural entity exists. Often I wish I could believe, it would make life an awful lot easier.
Spot on - good video CT! I would also add one more category, being the atheists who blindly jump on the ''skeptical'' bandwagon without giving Christianity a serious thought. Mainly because of the faux societal stereotype that atheists are much more intelligent than theists or people of religious beliefs.
I used to "talk" to jesus in my head when I was young, genuinely thinking I was a conduit with god. How wrong i was, he never answered any of my questions...Thats when I stopped believing. Bandwagon my ass, it was a lack of ANY evidence that made me an atheist.
"Jesus healed me from severe depression" Oh ok, I believe you...gonna assume you've no proof of this divine intervention??
Seriously tho, I have no issue believing that your 'faith' in jesus may have given u hope and hence made u happier. I cannot lie to myself, I cannot rationally believe in which no evidence exists. I bet u don't believe in the invisible dragoon that lives up my butt?
@RA30st08 There is plenty of evidence you just don't want to accept it. Speaking in tongues or (glossalia) is one example. People around the world who are filled with God's spirit will speak in an unknown tongue which cannot be deciphered by any linguist. This is because it is God directly interceding for that person. A scientist did a test scanning a mans brain (MRI) whilst speaking in tongues. The part of the brain that should have been activated if it was HIM praying, wasn't.
For arguments sake, let me assume this people are speaking in 'tongues' and not just gibberish, ok? How can you then directly infer that speaking tongues is because of god? There's no way to prove that, MRIs only show brain activity. No matter which area was light up, normal or not, does not prove it must be god. Otherwise I'd believe.
There's as much evidence to suggest my invisible dragon intercedes people's minds to make them talk shit!
@RA30st08 It's not gibberish because people all over the world, young and old, big and small, rich and poor speak in the same tongues without any way to orchestrate such a coincidental scheme. And it does prove its God because in the book of acts in the scriptures it talks of this phenomenon repeatedly!
You've actually proved me right by directing me to that video, have you actually watched it all the way through. The scientist you speak of, Dr. Andrew Newberg, actually states his study neither proves nor disproves that it is god!!
The frontal lobe seems to light up more as more concentration is used. I'm pretty sure I could speak in 'tongues'/just randomly repeat gibberish and my frontal lobe would probably have diminished activity.
@RA30st08 That doesn't prove you right in any way. The scientist just wanted to stay neutral and not jump to any assumptions. Watch videos of people speaking in tongues from all over the world and notice it sounds identical. How could they produce gibberish that is so precise? Mate c'mon...
You just said the scientist didn't want to jump to any assumptions - EXACTLY MY POINT! Yet you are doing what the scientist didn't, and all because a book talks about it. These people that think they speak in tongues, I honestly think they're talking gibberish and on some level they actually know it. of course whether or not they all are out to deceive us i can't say.
As I said before, I could mumble incoherent gibberish too.
@RA30st08 My second point addressed specifically why for anyone with biblical knowledge, it isn't jumping to assumptions. You'd have to have more faith to believe that everyone around the world could mumble the same incoherent tongues and yet be making it all up at the same time. Would that not constitute a miracle? Anyway, good talkin with ya, I've made my points. I hope that you will eventually come to Christ!
@RA30st08 If you humble yourself and call out to Jesus, he will reveal himself to you. It will be an inner change you will begin to notice, and new found spiritual discernment about many things.
@xCrucifyTheFleshx And to be honest, I think the stereotype of atheists being more intelligent is just based on truth. Im not talking IQ, im talking more knowledge. People with more education tend to be more atheist, and this probably comes about whereby complex concepts, such as evolution are more readily understood.
Evolution is obviously a problem for religion, and I would say a large number of atheists are so, because of the fact that animals evolve meaning genesis is wrong.
The only commonality that "New Atheists" seem to have is a tendency to be more vocal on issues where silence was formally the general case. I don't see that any other commonality can be claimed. So, the unsavory individuals are just unsavory individuals no more representative of any group than any believer of any faith, unless it is clear that the individual is actually representative of the group. It's a bad linkage...about as bad as linkage as pedophile priests to all priests.
@MyContext I am getting better at sticking to the issues as opposed to whatever else that I may feel. Since, the other is generally unproductive and irrelevant. So, if you are suggesting that EVERYONE could benefit from being civil - I agree in large part. I wish I could agree categorically, unfortunately, I can only agree in general, since, all interactions do not allow for civility....:(
1. The IQ analysis has an important confounder: Intelligent people are more like to exceed academically, increasing their educational exposure to secular world views.
2. You judge cultural progress according to humanist values, which are essentially relativistic moral systems.
3. Both atheistic despotic and humanistic cultures differ fundamentally from religion in terms of the absence of truly foundational morals.
@JCrownwell I disagree. Liberal legal systems of the west are secular, and whilst they may have had some basis in christian thought, they are now established and means the religion itself is no longer needed for them to be implemented. They are codified systems of morality.The politicians who make the laws want to win power, and in a democracy power comes by pleasing people more than the other guy
This means that morality is dictated by the people through law, and 99% of the time it works well
"[moral codes] are now established and means the religion itself is no longer needed"
This is sloppy epistemology - somewhat akin to claiming that, because the scientific method is now established, the philosophical formulations of empiricism and rationalism which undergird science are now irrelevant.
Note Craig's arguments: Removing genetic religious standards does not abrogate the objective appreciation of morals, only their epistemic justification.
@JCrownwell Morality does not come from religion. Thats a common myth.
This is easily demonstrated by considering the bible. Christians have decided themselves which parts of the bible they take seriously, and which they reject. Has it ever occurred to you why is Jesus the good one, and the devil the bad one. Its because you decided you liked the behaviour of Jesus based on a moral code that is within you before you picked the bible up.
"Morality does not come from religion ... This is easily demonstrated by considering the bible"
Your first statement also supports theistic arguments for an objective morality.
The idea that Christian hermeneutics is open to idiosyncratic interpretations is a direct index of incompetent, morally relativistic interpretations of the bible - effectively liberalist revisionism. Among the scripturally literate, moral issues are not as labile as you claim.
This internal altruism can be explained by evolution. The act of propagating your genes requires the careful care given to a pregnant mate, and then for the child. Also, by cooperating with other humans we benefit ourselves (i.e. building a house), so selection can prefer people with altruistic tendencies.
Of course, there is room for selfishness to evolve also, and probably explains how we can be selfish, but altruistic at the same time.
The moral language hypothesis has had considerable problems trying to harmonize with neurobiological models of learning and social behavior.
What we know is that congenital neurobiological factors CAN accommodate for simple innate, instinctive behavioral responses, such as in olfaction and nociception; but anything more complex always requires a considerable learning/adaptive component.
see the article by Daniel Came (an atheist philosopher) in the Guardian titled "Richard Dawkins's refusal to debate is cynical and anti-intellectualist" for an example of how the new atheist movement hatefully and vitriolically vilifies anyone, even among atheist ranks, who dare break from the mould and apply balanced critical feedback of their methods
He made a very common mistake - he forgot about those atheists who do not reject god.... BUT SIMPLY DON'T BELIEVE IT EXISTS!!! :D God you folks never learn... oh, heard of nonstampcollector? Well that probably answers the rest of the video :) Failure failure failure... to conclude, god can't go away - he was never there.
I would say you have ROUNDLY failed to read the title of the video I'm afraid. I could ask why you atheists never learn equally. The video is about the "New Atheists" - the clue is very much in the title. I mean, you didn't even have to watch the video to spot the video is not about all kinds of atheists out there! But still you got it wrong. The new atheists are anti-theists and this is what the video is addressing.
@TheCartesianTheist Nevermind, i only addressed the book and those false assertions in it ;)
But i'd agree with you on the "new atheists", i don't like it if they can't prove any points and can always resort to insults. Sure doesn't help atheism in general. But if it puts some kids off from religion... makes them afraid they'd get bullied... meh, i guess they serve a purpose.
So that's a roundabout way of taking back your supposed criticism? Boy you sure don't like backing down do you?
So you don't mind a bit of false propaganda so long as it pushes people your way? Brilliant!! Thanks for telling us that. That tells us a lot about the integrity of the atheist before us.
Irony is that I've met loads of ex-atheists who became theists due to New Atheism but I'm yet to talk to one theist who abandoned theism due to New Atheism!!
@TheCartesianTheist Well why do you think you call them "new" atheists? Probably people who don't reject god but don't believe in it, not that you could understand the concept... About backing down, i'm a bit like you here ;)
"Sure doesn't help atheism in general. But if it puts some kids off from religion... makes them afraid they'd get bullied... meh, i guess they serve a purpose."
So might makes right?
Also you do realize one can be part of a religion and still be an atheist, hence Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism etc. You are better off saying "belief in God" which is *Theism*
Now do you think people who believe in God should be bullied?
@TimelessApologist Might doesn't make right, but can serve a purpose. STILL you made good points here, touche. And it's definitely not right to convert people by bullying or fearmongering or threats.
"God wont go away" it was never here in the first place, an assumption yet to be proved, and atheism and anti-theist are two completely different things, I am an atheist but I am not an anti-theist, I believe you have a right to believe what you want so long it does not interfere, with me or my life and the way I live.
Im mean really it almost seems like your saying that atheists can be mean to theists and to each other therefore god exists. Correct me if I am wrong.
How does needing an enemy to derive our identity mean we are wrong? Like, whats the point here? Surly you are not saying that once religion is gone we wont have anything to do and so we are just stupid for trying to enlighten people? How does that even remotely come to bear on the value of evidence and reasoned logic?
Well, I can say I'm a new Atheist than. I'm an anti-theist, all religions are dogmas and delusions of the brain. Check out the channel of Calpurnpiso to find more facts and evidence that all religions of the world are charismatic brain washing dogmas of complete lies and false stories. I am one that hates religions and don't want to be around religious people, they are sick and idiotic for even considering the idea that an imaginary man watches over them or a man died for sins.
@ViciousDave4Life So William of Ockham, Nicolaus Copernicus, John Napier, Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Gottfried Leibniz, Isaac Newton, Leonhard Euler, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Georg Cantor, Max Planck, Freeman Dyson, John Lennox, Francis Collins, to name a few, are all 'sick and idiotic'?
So basically this whole video amounts to something like
"The New Atheists are frustrated and alot of them are bitter that bronze age mythologies are often the main causes of suffering in the world, therefore, they are wrong."
Cool story bro.
By the way, "I think, therefore I cannot be an atheist"? Try thinking harder.
@TheCartesianTheist Here's what isn't fair. Writing off an entire movement because some atheists are virulent, when this kind of behavior is par for the course in religious ideologies. It's like a child being bullied at school for years, then the second he begins to retaliate, he's asked "What are you so upset about?"
Not "some athiests" but specifically those atheists (especially the "high ranking" ones, like Dawkins) involved in the movement. Although certainly organizations can have ups and downs, the New Atheists appear to only be going down the hill so yes I think people can be justified in writing it off.
@TheCartesianTheist In my opinion, I think that the only thing that coherently exists is skepticism. Atheism, is not a position that is really consistent, much less, untenable.
@OpethNation Well, I can only give a third hand account as I haven't encountered a professing one. Maybe someone will pitch in with more detail.
The 'New Atheists' are a group of naturalistic intellectuals and those who follow them that have a firm belief that religion is defunct and needs to be removed. They are often humanists, over all good acting people, but their message is usually filled with the kind of venom one hears in the most vicious of feuds.
@AMWOODco The major problem many have with the New Atheists is that they profess their expertise in one area and then engage in others with novice level ability: eg. Peter Atkins, a professor of chemistry, debating philosophy. This gives a false impression that their words are meaningful in these categories. Negative press is pushed aside as media loves controversy, but doesn't care so much when it's closed up.
Note, this generalization doesn't cover all New Atheists, simply those I've seen.
If it's as bad as you claim then you need to give the reason it is logically flawed. If you merely assert it to be so then you are, in fact, committing a logical fallacy yourself.
@TheCartesianTheist Assertions are not worth much when we discuss things. I am however making not discussing things in sted I make assertions like ,, Iceland is an awsome country,,. It´s very common for us to make these statment and then we look at the person that criticase us for making Iogical fallacy with WTF expression on our faces.
Alister McGrath is one of the most gentlemanly, civil, eloquent and intelligent people in the community. I am heart broken that even he has to deal routinely with personal attacks and hand waving criticism from the New Atheist brigade.
I watched part of a debate earlier today with Dr. Antony Flew. When comparing him with the Neo-Atheists, well, talk about apples and oranges! He was knowledgeable, erudite, respectful, sophisticated... Those kinds of atheists I love listening to and reading. These New Atheists, though, are absolutely uninformed and uneducated in the matters on which they speak (namely, philosophy and theology).
On another note, at which McDonald's is the next ''Brights'' meeting? ;D
So your overall message in this video is extremism is bad, atheists need a religion to bash, and " new atheism" is similar to a religion? Yet this stuff can be applied to christians as well. Religious extremism can lead to out right holy war, and it's not like christians don't bash other beliefs as well, and of course its a religion. I guess one shouldn't stare too long at the abyss, before it stares back at them.
Another horrible argument from the so called free-thinkers that I always thought was hilarious, and I'm dead serious, the new atheists really use this garbage.
God does not personally show himself to me, so this is why I cannot believe in him.
If I had a nickel for every video on youtube video that describes atheism as some kind of fad or identity crisis, the solar system would collapse into a black hole because of how many nickels I had.
Most anti-theists imagine a future without religion as resembling something like the Federation in Gene Rodenberry's Star Trek. We have a surplus of energy to explore and create rather than wasting it on mindless rituals and superstition. In any case, this video makes(continued)
You said "no argument against atheism (except for maybe discounting atheism as nothing more than a fad or identity crisis) or for theism."
Deimos what you stated doesn't make an argument against theism, therefore you just contributed to your atheistic identity crisis and failed to do any criticism to theism.
^^^^ Just using your pop-philosophy against you ^^^ ^
@JCrownwell Ah yes because if we look at countries like Liberia where 99% of the population believes in Jesus and the bible they have almost no crime, almost drug addiction, almost no homeless people, perfectly functioning sewage treatment and waste management, and they are a thriving metropolitan global super power. Oh wait...
@JCrownwell Let's apply that same appraisal to YOUR statement that the world would resemble something that looks like Mad Max 2 or as American's know it "The Road Warrior" first. Sweden, a nation with a MAJORITY population of organic atheists (atheists of their own volition, not being forced to renounce any religious beliefs for fear of state prosecution) of at least 60% has the lowest crime rates, lowest rates of drug addicts, lowest rates of abortion, and almost no poverty. (cont.)
Sweden being the only country where we know the population is organically atheistic just happens to also completely contradict your prediction that their country should resemble something like Liberia or The Road Warrior. In fact, when we look at countries that have the smallest population of organic atheists, we see rampant criminality, chaos, and an apocalyptic surrender of all humanist values. (cont.)
Now let's look at nations or groups that have moderate percentage of atheists. The Prison population is less than 1% atheist (that either means the atheists are pretending to be christians to get paroled or atheists are better at not getting caught doing their crimes or atheists just don't commit as much crime as theists). If it's the case that these atheist criminals are pretending to be christian for some sort of leniency then it's unconstitutional for the parol
board to have a religious test never mind the bias and prejudice that exists among theists against atheists (the same prejudice that you seem to have). Whereas, the free population of atheists is somewhere around 10% (more than jews) in the US. Atheists also average higher I.Q.s, are less likely to get divorced, and make up the overwhelming majority of the Scientists with degrees.
Now, you could say Pol Pot, Mao, Kim Jong Il, Stalin, etc. were atheists but I
would argue that they saw/see themselves (as did their political followers) as gods who were worshipped and obeyed dogmatically, in much the same way religion operates. Being free-thinker is the emphasis of the "new atheist" movement, not so much that rejection of god. We aren't starting with a conclusion and try to bend our minds into pretzels to make the evidence fit. We see the evidence then come to a theory.
If we look at the histories of atheistic regimes like the Cult of Mao or the Cult of Kim Jong Il or the Cult of Stalin, we see them all persecuting intellectuals, burning books, and consuming huge amounts of state propaganda. Is that the behavior we see from the "new atheists" here in the US or the UK? No, we see young people on the internet challenging the christian apologist's hollow arguments in an open marketplace of ideas.
I am not arguing that being an atheists makes you a better person, but YOU are arguing that a world without a foundational moral system would resemble The Road Warrior when in fact the only example of an atheist majority population that we have is actually more prosperous and peaceful and generally well-behaved than even the US. You will likely try to point out that Sweden has a state-sponsored religion but if you observe what kinds of statements Sweden's politicians make
they will go out of their way to avoid any mention of god, jesus, prayer, the ten commandments, or references to the bible. Do you want to know why? Because their population sees religiosity as superstitious, backward, simplistic, and weird. In a word, they see it as acting American.
"young people on the internet challenging the christian apologist's hollow arguments in an open marketplace of ideas"
As an ex-atheist, I can speak from personal experience.
Atheists have a deeply irrational, closed-minded and fundamental hatred of all things theistic; a burden which fosters more hatred via a positive feedback cycle. Their bitterness drives them into a form of pseudodementia, preventing them from evaluating arguments in a rational, balanced manner.
@JCrownwell "As an ex-atheist, I can speak from personal experience. Atheists have a deeply irrational, closed-minded and fundamental hatred of all things theistic"
Your personal experience is ALL you can speak for because otherwise it sounds like you are making a blanket statement. You are making a generalization about your opponent's ability to debate, you're refusing to debate the argument and are instead attacking/critiquing the opponent's personality. That's bush league.
The online "new atheistic" communities are rife with philosophical incompetence, dishonesty, selective perception, sophistry, in-fighting and a cognitive phenomenon referred to as the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Though there are some atheist-agnostics who are willing to honestly evaluate both sides of the discussions in this arena, they are a vanishing minority, and usually much older than the young adults who comprise the vast majority of the 'new wave' of atheism.
@JCrownwell It seems to me like all you're doing is taking the description of theists and trying to "i'm rubber and you're glue" deflect it back on to the atheists. It might be your opinion that youtube atheism is rife with 'philosophical incompetence' but I've seen far too many atheist channels that show dizzying sophistication in the arena of debate and logic to even entertain your critique. It's easy to tell yourself that your opponent is weak, showing it is a different story.
With regard to Sweden, the Eurobarometer poll in 2005 found that the majority of the population do actually believe in supernatural causes - just not in the traditional judeochristian sense, and many professing beliefs resembling (often idiosyncratic) new age panentheistic belief systems.
@JCrownwell Whatever you think "supernatural causes" are, they aren't your ten commandments, they aren't your god-fearing sentiments, they aren't your homophobic biblical rage. Your original point was "I imagine a world without a foundational moral system as resembling something like that in Mad Max 2." The fact is, Sweden is a better country than the US and UK and not because they are more moralistic or biblical. Can you at least acknowledge this point?
Funny how you bring up Sweden which is a small country and slowly being populated by Islam, but fail to bring up countries like North Korea or Cuba, which have....well.......0 Religion, 0 belief in God.
I guess cherry-picking is your sport.
Why don't you just act consistent with your logic and move on over to North Korea?
Swedes demonstrate wildly diverse, idiosyncratic supernatural beliefs, from pantheistic/eastern mystical traditions, to Old Norse mythology, to traditionally occultic practices. This simply disqualifies the majority population from being 'atheistic' in the typical naturalistic sense.
Sweden is a country which is superficially sound, at least according to humanist precepts, but is essentially corroding from within like every other liberalist country on this planet.
@JCrownwell Okay so basically what you are saying is that our one example of the most ORGANICALLY (I have to place the emphasis on that word because someone brought up North Korea as being omitted from my example of an atheistic state even though I mentioned that they worship Kim Jong Il as a god) atheistic nation state just doesn't count because of your ad hoc rationalization. I would really like to see YOUR statistics.
For example, 2007 figures recorded more than 6000 cases of child abuse, increasing rates of homophobic violence, tens of thousands of cases of sexual and domestic violence - more than would be expected for a small population.
For those who may understand something about gender psychometry, these would be recognisable as social problems deriving from pervasive cultural gender dysfunction (deviation away from biology), evident in progressive or feminist ideology.
@JCrownwell I suppose what you are getting at is that because Sweden Legalized gay marriage and enabling sodomy, this leads to a collapse of society. Despite the fact that Iceland was the first nation state to legalize gay marriage and it is far from resembling The Road Warrior or Somalia (99% theist). The point you keep failing to acknowledge is that if your logic is right, then Somalia should look like Sweden and Sweden should look like Somalia.
@JCrownwell Yes Sweden has crime, like every country but the point is it has less crime then religious countries. There is a clear and well established correlation between religion and crime, most notably violence.
I wouldn't be so simplistic to say religion causes the crime, maybe crime causes more religion? but the correlation itself debunks any notion that religious societies are somehow more moral, or crime free, meaning that religion has no utility for society regardless of its veracity.
"the CORRELATION ITSELF debunks any notion that religious societies are somehow more moral" (emphasis added)
This is sloppy reasoning.
You need to familiarize yourself with the following terms:
1. Bradford-Hill criteria.
2. Confounding variables.
You also did a good job of refuting your own argument through your understanding of reversal of causality: "I wouldn't be so simplistic to say religion causes the crime, maybe crime causes more religion?"
The link is established, but causality isn't, but that doesn't matter as I never claimed religion is harmful, as I don't need to.
As I said, this means that the notion religion is good for society is wrong as a positive correlation between religion and low crime would be present but we see the exact opposite
I accept there could be variables, but the data has been amassed over many countries, and individual US states, all with broadly the same results.
1. You claim a correlation exists, but no proof of causality. ("The link is established but causality isn't")
2. Then you claim that a causal association doesn't need to be shown. ("I don't need to.")
3. And your argument for this is that: a correlation exists (!). ("the notion religion is good for society is wrong as a positive correlation between religion and low crime would be present but we see the exact opposite")
@JCrownwell So two things can be inferred if the data is universal: 1) religion is not good for society 2) but secondly, the reason why religion is not goof for society is less clear, as correlation isnt causation.
I hope you see what I mean now. Im saying that you have provided a hypothesis, I have countered it with the data, but gave no explanation to why the correlation exists (i.e. I have not provided a hypothesis in return, I am merely responding to yours)
"So two things can be inferred if the data is universal: 1) religion is not good for society 2) but secondly, the reason why religion is not goof for society is less clear, as correlation isnt causation."
The term "correlation does not imply causation" does not refer to the rationale as to why a correlation exists between the dependent and independent variables, it refers to whether the correlation itself is due to a causal relationship.
@JCrownwell You really don't understand it do you? Im not being rude but your missing my point entirely. Maybe I'm not being clear, ill try again and I pray someone else can help
For arguments sake lets assume the data is accurate. The correlation between religion and crime tells us that the statement 'religion makes society have less crime' is a inaccurate statement. It is not true.
However, the claim that 'religion causes crime' is not necessarily true (but it might be)
@JCrownwell Conversations like this turn people to god.
If someone claimed 'religion makes society better', then this is easily refuted by the amassed statistical evidence showing an inverse correlation between religion and social outcomes.
It is common sense, I do not need to pick up a textbook on statistics.
Each time the 'experiment' is repeated (which has been done many times) then bias and confounding factors become less relevant.
@JCrownwell In my field If a medical researcher suggested that a drug reduced cell growth, but the data consistently showed the opposite correlation, I can safely say the drug did not reduce cell growth at all. I do not however need to understand why, or provide an explanation to why it wasn't true, I am just debunking an idea based on the data.
If I wanted to suggest that the drug enhances cell growth instead, I can do, but you cant automatically infer that based on the above experiment.
"I accept there could be variables, but the data has been amassed over many countries, and individual US states, all with broadly the same results."
Increasing sample size corrects for random error, but not for bias or confounding variables. Any basic textbook in statistics can help you to understand this idea.
@JCrownwell Sweden is famous for being isolationist, so your first point is completely and flatly false. As for them being prosaic intellectually and in innovation, if it is true, then what a wonderful problem to have compared to the atmosphere of US America, hypermaterialist, shallow, celebrity worshipping, vacuous, illiterate, trust-fund hipsters. The land of megachurches, McDonalds, and scripted reality shows about sorting through garbage.
@TimelessApologist Actually, I do bring up Kim Jong Il among one of my comments, but it's not like facts or reality have ever mattered to you apologists.
And Sweden is bad because it's not as xenophobic as you would like them to be? What a hypocrite indeed.
1. The IQ analysis has an important confounder: Intelligent people are more like to exceed academically, increasing their educational exposure to secular world views.
2. You judge cultural progress according to humanist values, which are essentially relativistic moral systems.
3. Both atheistic despotic and humanistic cultures differ fundamentally from religion in terms of the absence of truly foundational morals.
@JCrownwell 1. That is the most obvious ad hoc I've ever seen. I was not trying to make a correlation causation argument in the first place, I was merely pointing out that Sweden is supposed to resemble a third world hell hole if your logic were correct, it is instead a paradise.
2. No, I judge cultural progress based on the same values you do: crime rates, literacy, GDP, internet accessibility, etc.
3. Morals like the Writ of Habeas Corpus, nowhere to be found in the bible?
What about morals like Thou Shalt keep the sabbath holy? People violate commandment all the time, and yet we are supposed to believe that our laws are based on the bible? You honestly believe that society segregates proven murderers from the law abiding population because the bible says so? It is astonishing that you seriously think we have our civilized society thanks to strict adherence to the bible. We have civilization IN SPITE of your bible.
@CarlosMarti123 What IS the purpose of the video? My point was that no real point is being made, just some conjecture that this whole atheism thing is going to blow over once the next big thing that draws their ire comes around.
I was totally down with what McGrath was saying... until he added the petty stuff about the lawsuit, which didn't speak at all to the vitriol of the New Atheism, but was just reminding his reader of a scandal that made his "enemies" look bad. That's cheap. Still, I think McGrath's main point is correct. (I suppose that makes me an Old Atheist).
Aside #1: I think Baggini is the author of "Atheism: A Very Short Introduction", which is an excellent book.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
(cont)
Aside #2: Anyone who would go around declaring themselves to be a "bright"... isn't.
Aside #3: Nice editing and timing on the vid. I only had to pause once to continue reading, which is unusally good given how many pages of text were in this vid.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
How wonderful to hear someone calling themselves an 'old atheist'!
I'm glad you found the timing okay. Thanks for the feedback.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 1 month ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@JCrownwell So you think the data is inaccurate?
TheSelfishAltruist 1 month ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 1 month ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 1 month ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@TheSelfishAltruist
If there is a positive correlation between religion and crime, it is either due to:
1. Error: chance or bias
2. Confounders
3. Causal relationship: unilateral, reverse or reciprocal
Out of all of these categories, only proof of a unilateral causal relationship is sufficient in refuting the argument that "religion reduces crime." If the correlation is due to errors, confounders or reverse/reciprocal causation it is clearly insufficient to do so.
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@JCrownwell cumon buddy think about it. Its so simple.
TheSelfishAltruist 1 month ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@JCrownwell I think you are suggesting that the relationship might be unrelated? Is that what you are getting at?
TheSelfishAltruist 1 month ago
@TheSelfishAltruist
Basic error no. 3: Because of these problems your reasoning collapses:
Notably, you ARE in fact assuming a positive CAUSAL correlation between "religion" and "crime" when you state: "I go for 'causal association' personally"; "So two things can be inferred if the data is universal ... religion is not good for society"
In direct contradiction to your claim that: "I have made a non hypothesis [sic] driven suggestion"; "I never claimed religion is harmful"
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@TheSelfishAltruist
Basic error no. 2: You don't understand the term "correlation does not imply causation"
Causality, in this context, refers to whether that correlation is causal in and of itself ("is the independent variable causally affecting the dependent variable?")
NOT whether there is a scientifically justification for that correlation to have arisen ("why is there a correlation between the dependent and independent variables?")
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@TheSelfishAltruist
Let me outline, again, where you're going wrong:
Basic error number 1: Increasing sample size does NOT correct for bias and confounding.
You claim: "Each time the experiment is repeated ... bias and confounding factors become less relevant"
This is wrong: Sample size only attenuates the effect of chance (random error).
Confounding and bias IS affected by measures such as: double blind protocols (in observational studies), randomisation, stratification
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@JCrownwell So are you claiming that all of the data is wrong due to bias?
TheSelfishAltruist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSelfishAltruist
"So are you claiming that all of the data is wrong due to bias?"
You need to show that the correlation is free of error and confounders, and that it is not a "reverse causal" relationship.
Error and confounding variables can be reasonably excluded by demonstrating data gathering methods and analysis which minimise them.
Standardised criteria for causality, such as Bradford-Hill, also address reverse/reciprocal causation in addition to these problems.
JCrownwell 1 month ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSelfishAltruist
"I never said religion caused crime"
Oh really? You've stated explicitly:
"religion is not good for society"
"I go for 'causal association' personally."
In both cases, you were remarking on the implications of the findings of an alleged correlation between religious belief and increased levels of crime.
JCrownwell 1 month ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 1 month ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 1 month ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSelfishAltruist
Your "punching" analogy is a straw man argument because:
1. Noone has claimed that religion decreases crime so you are not "refuting" anything. You are therefore trying to prove that religion increases crime as an opening argumentative position.
2. A correlation can be refuted if a contrary correlation can be evidenced. However, you need more than the latter to refute a causal relationship. For example, proving a contrary correlation to be causal.
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@JCrownwell As I'm feeling violent now ill use an analogy. If you suggested that being punched is pleasurable, and I had data showing that being punched is correlated with pain, then I have refuted to a reasonable degree of certainty your hypothesis.
but for me to claim being punched CAUSED the pain, I would need a theory or hypothesis to explain that. I could say that being punched activates pain receptors, and I would need to do further testing as the correlation is NOT necessarily causation.
TheSelfishAltruist 1 month ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 1 month ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@TheEmperorGulcasa
"The two interests [learning and being a theist] would appear to be contradictory."
Perhaps you would like to write to Oxford, Cambridge, London, Yale, Harvard et. al. and inform them of the contradiction since all of them have theists on their faculties.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
This video is garbage. It makes endless false claims about atheists through constant use of "Some atheists think..." and "Many of them think..." when in fact it misses the point entirely.
Another 12 minutes of religious propaganda.
riffrafferty13 2 months ago
@riffrafferty13
Lame response. You fail to interact with the material and simply assert. No wonder no-one bothers looking at your profile!
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist
Wow..just...wow! "Lame response", "No wonder no-one bothers looking at your profile!" What age are you?
You're a professor in a top UK uni? Which one may I ask and in what field?
I happen to generally agree with riffrafferty13. To call New Atheism a religion....? I get your thinking behind it, it's logical, but I think it's flawed logic. I simply do not believe a supernatural entity exists. Often I wish I could believe, it would make life an awful lot easier.
RA30st08 1 month ago
@RA30st08
I think you have confused the fact that I'm reading from McGrath.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist By the same logic, the Christian Disaster are prosyletizing Christians.
atheistram 3 weeks ago
@atheistram
Explain please?
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
IsaacBG84 3 weeks ago
Spot on - good video CT! I would also add one more category, being the atheists who blindly jump on the ''skeptical'' bandwagon without giving Christianity a serious thought. Mainly because of the faux societal stereotype that atheists are much more intelligent than theists or people of religious beliefs.
xCrucifyTheFleshx 2 months ago
@xCrucifyTheFleshx
I used to "talk" to jesus in my head when I was young, genuinely thinking I was a conduit with god. How wrong i was, he never answered any of my questions...Thats when I stopped believing. Bandwagon my ass, it was a lack of ANY evidence that made me an atheist.
RA30st08 1 month ago
@RA30st08 Jesus will only speak to you in your mind if you've been baptized with the Holy spirit my friend.
xCrucifyTheFleshx 1 month ago
@xCrucifyTheFleshx
I do believe I was baptized, with the 'holy spirit', I very much doubt...
RA30st08 1 month ago
@RA30st08 Seek it mate. It would be the best decision you could ever make. Jesus healed me from severe depression.
xCrucifyTheFleshx 1 month ago
@xCrucifyTheFleshx
"Jesus healed me from severe depression" Oh ok, I believe you...gonna assume you've no proof of this divine intervention??
Seriously tho, I have no issue believing that your 'faith' in jesus may have given u hope and hence made u happier. I cannot lie to myself, I cannot rationally believe in which no evidence exists. I bet u don't believe in the invisible dragoon that lives up my butt?
RA30st08 1 month ago
@RA30st08 There is plenty of evidence you just don't want to accept it. Speaking in tongues or (glossalia) is one example. People around the world who are filled with God's spirit will speak in an unknown tongue which cannot be deciphered by any linguist. This is because it is God directly interceding for that person. A scientist did a test scanning a mans brain (MRI) whilst speaking in tongues. The part of the brain that should have been activated if it was HIM praying, wasn't.
xCrucifyTheFleshx 1 month ago
@xCrucifyTheFleshx
For arguments sake, let me assume this people are speaking in 'tongues' and not just gibberish, ok? How can you then directly infer that speaking tongues is because of god? There's no way to prove that, MRIs only show brain activity. No matter which area was light up, normal or not, does not prove it must be god. Otherwise I'd believe.
There's as much evidence to suggest my invisible dragon intercedes people's minds to make them talk shit!
RA30st08 1 month ago
@RA30st08 It's not gibberish because people all over the world, young and old, big and small, rich and poor speak in the same tongues without any way to orchestrate such a coincidental scheme. And it does prove its God because in the book of acts in the scriptures it talks of this phenomenon repeatedly!
xCrucifyTheFleshx 1 month ago
@RA30st08 Go to my playlist ''proof of God'' and you will see the vid.
xCrucifyTheFleshx 1 month ago
@xCrucifyTheFleshx
You've actually proved me right by directing me to that video, have you actually watched it all the way through. The scientist you speak of, Dr. Andrew Newberg, actually states his study neither proves nor disproves that it is god!!
The frontal lobe seems to light up more as more concentration is used. I'm pretty sure I could speak in 'tongues'/just randomly repeat gibberish and my frontal lobe would probably have diminished activity.
RA30st08 1 month ago
@RA30st08 That doesn't prove you right in any way. The scientist just wanted to stay neutral and not jump to any assumptions. Watch videos of people speaking in tongues from all over the world and notice it sounds identical. How could they produce gibberish that is so precise? Mate c'mon...
xCrucifyTheFleshx 1 month ago
@xCrucifyTheFleshx
"Mate c'mon..." - Are you serious?
You just said the scientist didn't want to jump to any assumptions - EXACTLY MY POINT! Yet you are doing what the scientist didn't, and all because a book talks about it. These people that think they speak in tongues, I honestly think they're talking gibberish and on some level they actually know it. of course whether or not they all are out to deceive us i can't say.
As I said before, I could mumble incoherent gibberish too.
RA30st08 1 month ago
@RA30st08 My second point addressed specifically why for anyone with biblical knowledge, it isn't jumping to assumptions. You'd have to have more faith to believe that everyone around the world could mumble the same incoherent tongues and yet be making it all up at the same time. Would that not constitute a miracle? Anyway, good talkin with ya, I've made my points. I hope that you will eventually come to Christ!
xCrucifyTheFleshx 1 month ago
@xCrucifyTheFleshx Hello - people talking in tongues, just proves people talk in tongues, and nothing else.
To use this as evidence for god, and more specifically the hebrew god Yahweh is a very problematic jump.
Do you have any other evidence to present?
TheSelfishAltruist 1 month ago
@RA30st08 If you humble yourself and call out to Jesus, he will reveal himself to you. It will be an inner change you will begin to notice, and new found spiritual discernment about many things.
xCrucifyTheFleshx 1 month ago
@xCrucifyTheFleshx And to be honest, I think the stereotype of atheists being more intelligent is just based on truth. Im not talking IQ, im talking more knowledge. People with more education tend to be more atheist, and this probably comes about whereby complex concepts, such as evolution are more readily understood.
Evolution is obviously a problem for religion, and I would say a large number of atheists are so, because of the fact that animals evolve meaning genesis is wrong.
TheSelfishAltruist 1 month ago
The only commonality that "New Atheists" seem to have is a tendency to be more vocal on issues where silence was formally the general case. I don't see that any other commonality can be claimed. So, the unsavory individuals are just unsavory individuals no more representative of any group than any believer of any faith, unless it is clear that the individual is actually representative of the group. It's a bad linkage...about as bad as linkage as pedophile priests to all priests.
MyContext 2 months ago in playlist More videos from TheCartesianTheist
@MyContext I am getting better at sticking to the issues as opposed to whatever else that I may feel. Since, the other is generally unproductive and irrelevant. So, if you are suggesting that EVERYONE could benefit from being civil - I agree in large part. I wish I could agree categorically, unfortunately, I can only agree in general, since, all interactions do not allow for civility....:(
MyContext 2 months ago in playlist More videos from TheCartesianTheist
anyone reminded of the verse "a kingdom divided cannot stand?"
dopplerking91 2 months ago
fantastic video
gogolplex74 2 months ago
RIP Christopher Hitchens
bluemoonrising26 2 months ago
This was also caught under the spam filter:
1. The IQ analysis has an important confounder: Intelligent people are more like to exceed academically, increasing their educational exposure to secular world views.
2. You judge cultural progress according to humanist values, which are essentially relativistic moral systems.
3. Both atheistic despotic and humanistic cultures differ fundamentally from religion in terms of the absence of truly foundational morals.
JCrownwell 2 months ago
@JCrownwell I disagree. Liberal legal systems of the west are secular, and whilst they may have had some basis in christian thought, they are now established and means the religion itself is no longer needed for them to be implemented. They are codified systems of morality.The politicians who make the laws want to win power, and in a democracy power comes by pleasing people more than the other guy
This means that morality is dictated by the people through law, and 99% of the time it works well
TheSelfishAltruist 1 month ago
@TheSelfishAltruist
"[moral codes] are now established and means the religion itself is no longer needed"
This is sloppy epistemology - somewhat akin to claiming that, because the scientific method is now established, the philosophical formulations of empiricism and rationalism which undergird science are now irrelevant.
Note Craig's arguments: Removing genetic religious standards does not abrogate the objective appreciation of morals, only their epistemic justification.
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@JCrownwell Morality does not come from religion. Thats a common myth.
This is easily demonstrated by considering the bible. Christians have decided themselves which parts of the bible they take seriously, and which they reject. Has it ever occurred to you why is Jesus the good one, and the devil the bad one. Its because you decided you liked the behaviour of Jesus based on a moral code that is within you before you picked the bible up.
TheSelfishAltruist 1 month ago
@TheSelfishAltruist
"Morality does not come from religion ... This is easily demonstrated by considering the bible"
Your first statement also supports theistic arguments for an objective morality.
The idea that Christian hermeneutics is open to idiosyncratic interpretations is a direct index of incompetent, morally relativistic interpretations of the bible - effectively liberalist revisionism. Among the scripturally literate, moral issues are not as labile as you claim.
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@JCrownwell
This internal altruism can be explained by evolution. The act of propagating your genes requires the careful care given to a pregnant mate, and then for the child. Also, by cooperating with other humans we benefit ourselves (i.e. building a house), so selection can prefer people with altruistic tendencies.
Of course, there is room for selfishness to evolve also, and probably explains how we can be selfish, but altruistic at the same time.
My u tube name is a coincidence.
TheSelfishAltruist 1 month ago
@TheSelfishAltruist
"Morality does not come from religion"
"... explained by evolution"
The moral language hypothesis has had considerable problems trying to harmonize with neurobiological models of learning and social behavior.
What we know is that congenital neurobiological factors CAN accommodate for simple innate, instinctive behavioral responses, such as in olfaction and nociception; but anything more complex always requires a considerable learning/adaptive component.
JCrownwell 1 month ago
Sorry about the reposts, my mobile browser is having trouble today.
JCrownwell 2 months ago
see the article by Daniel Came (an atheist philosopher) in the Guardian titled "Richard Dawkins's refusal to debate is cynical and anti-intellectualist" for an example of how the new atheist movement hatefully and vitriolically vilifies anyone, even among atheist ranks, who dare break from the mould and apply balanced critical feedback of their methods
Agrippa521 2 months ago
He made a very common mistake - he forgot about those atheists who do not reject god.... BUT SIMPLY DON'T BELIEVE IT EXISTS!!! :D God you folks never learn... oh, heard of nonstampcollector? Well that probably answers the rest of the video :) Failure failure failure... to conclude, god can't go away - he was never there.
Anonymous247n 2 months ago
@Anonymous247n
I would say you have ROUNDLY failed to read the title of the video I'm afraid. I could ask why you atheists never learn equally. The video is about the "New Atheists" - the clue is very much in the title. I mean, you didn't even have to watch the video to spot the video is not about all kinds of atheists out there! But still you got it wrong. The new atheists are anti-theists and this is what the video is addressing.
Worst comment yet Anonymous! :(
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago 9
@TheCartesianTheist Nevermind, i only addressed the book and those false assertions in it ;)
But i'd agree with you on the "new atheists", i don't like it if they can't prove any points and can always resort to insults. Sure doesn't help atheism in general. But if it puts some kids off from religion... makes them afraid they'd get bullied... meh, i guess they serve a purpose.
Anonymous247n 2 months ago
@Anonymous247n
So that's a roundabout way of taking back your supposed criticism? Boy you sure don't like backing down do you?
So you don't mind a bit of false propaganda so long as it pushes people your way? Brilliant!! Thanks for telling us that. That tells us a lot about the integrity of the atheist before us.
Irony is that I've met loads of ex-atheists who became theists due to New Atheism but I'm yet to talk to one theist who abandoned theism due to New Atheism!!
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago 9
@TheCartesianTheist Well why do you think you call them "new" atheists? Probably people who don't reject god but don't believe in it, not that you could understand the concept... About backing down, i'm a bit like you here ;)
Anonymous247n 2 months ago
@Anonymous247n
"Sure doesn't help atheism in general. But if it puts some kids off from religion... makes them afraid they'd get bullied... meh, i guess they serve a purpose."
So might makes right?
Also you do realize one can be part of a religion and still be an atheist, hence Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism etc. You are better off saying "belief in God" which is *Theism*
Now do you think people who believe in God should be bullied?
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@TimelessApologist Might doesn't make right, but can serve a purpose. STILL you made good points here, touche. And it's definitely not right to convert people by bullying or fearmongering or threats.
Anonymous247n 2 months ago
And as an atheist there is no rejection of "god" because how can you reject something that never existed ?
VindicatorReturns 2 months ago
"God wont go away" it was never here in the first place, an assumption yet to be proved, and atheism and anti-theist are two completely different things, I am an atheist but I am not an anti-theist, I believe you have a right to believe what you want so long it does not interfere, with me or my life and the way I live.
VindicatorReturns 2 months ago
Im mean really it almost seems like your saying that atheists can be mean to theists and to each other therefore god exists. Correct me if I am wrong.
AgeOfScience 2 months ago
How does needing an enemy to derive our identity mean we are wrong? Like, whats the point here? Surly you are not saying that once religion is gone we wont have anything to do and so we are just stupid for trying to enlighten people? How does that even remotely come to bear on the value of evidence and reasoned logic?
AgeOfScience 2 months ago
Well, I can say I'm a new Atheist than. I'm an anti-theist, all religions are dogmas and delusions of the brain. Check out the channel of Calpurnpiso to find more facts and evidence that all religions of the world are charismatic brain washing dogmas of complete lies and false stories. I am one that hates religions and don't want to be around religious people, they are sick and idiotic for even considering the idea that an imaginary man watches over them or a man died for sins.
ViciousDave4Life 2 months ago
@ViciousDave4Life So William of Ockham, Nicolaus Copernicus, John Napier, Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Gottfried Leibniz, Isaac Newton, Leonhard Euler, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Georg Cantor, Max Planck, Freeman Dyson, John Lennox, Francis Collins, to name a few, are all 'sick and idiotic'?
No, I just think you're retarded.
CarlosMarti123 2 months ago
So basically this whole video amounts to something like
"The New Atheists are frustrated and alot of them are bitter that bronze age mythologies are often the main causes of suffering in the world, therefore, they are wrong."
Cool story bro.
By the way, "I think, therefore I cannot be an atheist"? Try thinking harder.
TheBowsersMario 2 months ago
@TheBowsersMario
No, that's not really a fair summary at all. I would tend to think you didn't even take the time to read it.
I would be willing to bet I've given it a good deal more thought than you.
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago 5
@TheCartesianTheist Here's what isn't fair. Writing off an entire movement because some atheists are virulent, when this kind of behavior is par for the course in religious ideologies. It's like a child being bullied at school for years, then the second he begins to retaliate, he's asked "What are you so upset about?"
TheBowsersMario 2 months ago
@TheBowsersMario
Not "some athiests" but specifically those atheists (especially the "high ranking" ones, like Dawkins) involved in the movement. Although certainly organizations can have ups and downs, the New Atheists appear to only be going down the hill so yes I think people can be justified in writing it off.
UncannyRicardo 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist In my opinion, I think that the only thing that coherently exists is skepticism. Atheism, is not a position that is really consistent, much less, untenable.
07Aristotle 2 months ago
Comment removed
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheBowsersMario
"By the way, "I think, therefore I cannot be an atheist"? Try thinking harder"
TheBowsersMario .....The Bowsers Mario???? Wow so what's your girlfriends name, The Bowsers Peach??? and you are telling him to think harder?
By the way Saying "Cool story bro" was funny about 5 years ago...
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
"The new atheists", a commonly used phrase. Would someone mind telling me precisely what a "new atheist" is and what being one entails?
OpethNation 2 months ago
@OpethNation Well, I can only give a third hand account as I haven't encountered a professing one. Maybe someone will pitch in with more detail.
The 'New Atheists' are a group of naturalistic intellectuals and those who follow them that have a firm belief that religion is defunct and needs to be removed. They are often humanists, over all good acting people, but their message is usually filled with the kind of venom one hears in the most vicious of feuds.
AMWOODco 2 months ago
@AMWOODco The major problem many have with the New Atheists is that they profess their expertise in one area and then engage in others with novice level ability: eg. Peter Atkins, a professor of chemistry, debating philosophy. This gives a false impression that their words are meaningful in these categories. Negative press is pushed aside as media loves controversy, but doesn't care so much when it's closed up.
Note, this generalization doesn't cover all New Atheists, simply those I've seen.
AMWOODco 2 months ago
Another thing I would like to add. These New Atheists don't actually like each other very much.
Might explain why they spend so much time spamming Christian videos. They like talking to us more than each other.
Lawborn 2 months ago
A video so logical fucked up that it wasn't funny when I was watching it, but now looking back I find it fucking hilerious.
karikon11 2 months ago
@karikon11
If it's as bad as you claim then you need to give the reason it is logically flawed. If you merely assert it to be so then you are, in fact, committing a logical fallacy yourself.
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago 14
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheCartesianTheist Assertions are not worth much when we discuss things. I am however making not discussing things in sted I make assertions like ,, Iceland is an awsome country,,. It´s very common for us to make these statment and then we look at the person that criticase us for making Iogical fallacy with WTF expression on our faces.
karikon11 2 months ago
Alister McGrath is one of the most gentlemanly, civil, eloquent and intelligent people in the community. I am heart broken that even he has to deal routinely with personal attacks and hand waving criticism from the New Atheist brigade.
Calenfeyn41 2 months ago 18
@Calenfeyn41
Well said.
DastardlyDawkins 2 months ago
@Calenfeyn41
Well said. I second that.
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
Great work as always CT.
wolffmagic72 2 months ago
I watched part of a debate earlier today with Dr. Antony Flew. When comparing him with the Neo-Atheists, well, talk about apples and oranges! He was knowledgeable, erudite, respectful, sophisticated... Those kinds of atheists I love listening to and reading. These New Atheists, though, are absolutely uninformed and uneducated in the matters on which they speak (namely, philosophy and theology).
On another note, at which McDonald's is the next ''Brights'' meeting? ;D
AgApE010 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So your overall message in this video is extremism is bad, atheists need a religion to bash, and " new atheism" is similar to a religion? Yet this stuff can be applied to christians as well. Religious extremism can lead to out right holy war, and it's not like christians don't bash other beliefs as well, and of course its a religion. I guess one shouldn't stare too long at the abyss, before it stares back at them.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 2 months ago
Another horrible argument from the so called free-thinkers that I always thought was hilarious, and I'm dead serious, the new atheists really use this garbage.
God does not personally show himself to me, so this is why I cannot believe in him.
it makes me
/facepalm
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@TimelessApologist they want God to be their personal butler..
lovellespice 2 months ago
Bullshit.
0gods 2 months ago
Here is some horrible, illogical new atheist drivel that I hear:
There are many different denominations in Christianity, therefore God does not exist.
Jesus did not exist, but if he did he was either a lunatic or he went and studied Buddhism, therefore Christianity is false.
I'm serious too, this is the garbage I have to listen to lol
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@TimelessApologist Gotta love these, eh?
The first I've heard and have explained a few times to people, though it seems like such a waste doing so.
The second... it's like someone's satiring Mere Christianity. Haven't seen that one before.
Your third (on the other post), I've seen that. "See no God. Hear no God. Is no God." Unfortunately, not all of us get to be Samuel.
AMWOODco 2 months ago
@AFrightfulDream
Haha. You are right. We may have judged them prematurely.
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
Great video to a great book.
Atheist arguments are becoming such a joke, this is the most common objection and I'm not kidding:
There were other religions written about in the past, therefore God does not exist.
I guess it's hard for them to notice the false dichotomy they assert to.
AngelicHeretic1 2 months ago
I agree with a lot of the comments here.
If there's one thing that the New Atheistic 'Movement' does very effectively, it is in garnering contrarian support.
JCrownwell 2 months ago
If I had a nickel for every video on youtube video that describes atheism as some kind of fad or identity crisis, the solar system would collapse into a black hole because of how many nickels I had.
Most anti-theists imagine a future without religion as resembling something like the Federation in Gene Rodenberry's Star Trek. We have a surplus of energy to explore and create rather than wasting it on mindless rituals and superstition. In any case, this video makes(continued)
DeimosSaturn 2 months ago
no argument against atheism (except for maybe discounting atheism as nothing more than a fad or identity crisis) or for theism.
DeimosSaturn 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeimosSaturn
This video isn't making an argument for atheism
However I can just turn the tables on you
You said "no argument against atheism (except for maybe discounting atheism as nothing more than a fad or identity crisis) or for theism."
Deimos what you stated doesn't make an argument against theism, therefore you just contributed to your atheistic identity crisis and failed to do any criticism to theism.
^^^^ Just using your pop-philosophy against you ^^^ ^
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@DeimosSaturn
"Most anti-theists imagine a future without religion as resembling something like the Federation in Gene Rodenberry's Star Trek"
I imagine a world without a foundational moral system as resembling something like that in Mad Max 2.
JCrownwell 2 months ago
@JCrownwell Ah yes because if we look at countries like Liberia where 99% of the population believes in Jesus and the bible they have almost no crime, almost drug addiction, almost no homeless people, perfectly functioning sewage treatment and waste management, and they are a thriving metropolitan global super power. Oh wait...
DeimosSaturn 2 months ago
@DeimosSaturn
Look up the terms.
1. Bradford-Hill criteria.
2. Confounding factors.
Then apply a systematic critical appraisal of your newfound knowledge to the sociocultural history of Liberia.
JCrownwell 2 months ago
@JCrownwell Let's apply that same appraisal to YOUR statement that the world would resemble something that looks like Mad Max 2 or as American's know it "The Road Warrior" first. Sweden, a nation with a MAJORITY population of organic atheists (atheists of their own volition, not being forced to renounce any religious beliefs for fear of state prosecution) of at least 60% has the lowest crime rates, lowest rates of drug addicts, lowest rates of abortion, and almost no poverty. (cont.)
DeimosSaturn 2 months ago
Sweden being the only country where we know the population is organically atheistic just happens to also completely contradict your prediction that their country should resemble something like Liberia or The Road Warrior. In fact, when we look at countries that have the smallest population of organic atheists, we see rampant criminality, chaos, and an apocalyptic surrender of all humanist values. (cont.)
DeimosSaturn 2 months ago
Now let's look at nations or groups that have moderate percentage of atheists. The Prison population is less than 1% atheist (that either means the atheists are pretending to be christians to get paroled or atheists are better at not getting caught doing their crimes or atheists just don't commit as much crime as theists). If it's the case that these atheist criminals are pretending to be christian for some sort of leniency then it's unconstitutional for the parol
DeimosSaturn 2 months ago
board to have a religious test never mind the bias and prejudice that exists among theists against atheists (the same prejudice that you seem to have). Whereas, the free population of atheists is somewhere around 10% (more than jews) in the US. Atheists also average higher I.Q.s, are less likely to get divorced, and make up the overwhelming majority of the Scientists with degrees.
Now, you could say Pol Pot, Mao, Kim Jong Il, Stalin, etc. were atheists but I
DeimosSaturn 2 months ago
would argue that they saw/see themselves (as did their political followers) as gods who were worshipped and obeyed dogmatically, in much the same way religion operates. Being free-thinker is the emphasis of the "new atheist" movement, not so much that rejection of god. We aren't starting with a conclusion and try to bend our minds into pretzels to make the evidence fit. We see the evidence then come to a theory.
DeimosSaturn 2 months ago
If we look at the histories of atheistic regimes like the Cult of Mao or the Cult of Kim Jong Il or the Cult of Stalin, we see them all persecuting intellectuals, burning books, and consuming huge amounts of state propaganda. Is that the behavior we see from the "new atheists" here in the US or the UK? No, we see young people on the internet challenging the christian apologist's hollow arguments in an open marketplace of ideas.
DeimosSaturn 2 months ago
I am not arguing that being an atheists makes you a better person, but YOU are arguing that a world without a foundational moral system would resemble The Road Warrior when in fact the only example of an atheist majority population that we have is actually more prosperous and peaceful and generally well-behaved than even the US. You will likely try to point out that Sweden has a state-sponsored religion but if you observe what kinds of statements Sweden's politicians make
DeimosSaturn 2 months ago
they will go out of their way to avoid any mention of god, jesus, prayer, the ten commandments, or references to the bible. Do you want to know why? Because their population sees religiosity as superstitious, backward, simplistic, and weird. In a word, they see it as acting American.
DeimosSaturn 2 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 2 months ago
@DeimosSaturn
"young people on the internet challenging the christian apologist's hollow arguments in an open marketplace of ideas"
As an ex-atheist, I can speak from personal experience.
Atheists have a deeply irrational, closed-minded and fundamental hatred of all things theistic; a burden which fosters more hatred via a positive feedback cycle. Their bitterness drives them into a form of pseudodementia, preventing them from evaluating arguments in a rational, balanced manner.
JCrownwell 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JCrownwell "As an ex-atheist, I can speak from personal experience. Atheists have a deeply irrational, closed-minded and fundamental hatred of all things theistic"
Your personal experience is ALL you can speak for because otherwise it sounds like you are making a blanket statement. You are making a generalization about your opponent's ability to debate, you're refusing to debate the argument and are instead attacking/critiquing the opponent's personality. That's bush league.
DeimosSaturn 2 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 2 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 2 months ago
@DeimosSaturn
The online "new atheistic" communities are rife with philosophical incompetence, dishonesty, selective perception, sophistry, in-fighting and a cognitive phenomenon referred to as the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Though there are some atheist-agnostics who are willing to honestly evaluate both sides of the discussions in this arena, they are a vanishing minority, and usually much older than the young adults who comprise the vast majority of the 'new wave' of atheism.
JCrownwell 2 months ago
@JCrownwell It seems to me like all you're doing is taking the description of theists and trying to "i'm rubber and you're glue" deflect it back on to the atheists. It might be your opinion that youtube atheism is rife with 'philosophical incompetence' but I've seen far too many atheist channels that show dizzying sophistication in the arena of debate and logic to even entertain your critique. It's easy to tell yourself that your opponent is weak, showing it is a different story.
DeimosSaturn 2 months ago
@DeimosSaturn
With regard to Sweden, the Eurobarometer poll in 2005 found that the majority of the population do actually believe in supernatural causes - just not in the traditional judeochristian sense, and many professing beliefs resembling (often idiosyncratic) new age panentheistic belief systems.
JCrownwell 2 months ago
@JCrownwell Whatever you think "supernatural causes" are, they aren't your ten commandments, they aren't your god-fearing sentiments, they aren't your homophobic biblical rage. Your original point was "I imagine a world without a foundational moral system as resembling something like that in Mad Max 2." The fact is, Sweden is a better country than the US and UK and not because they are more moralistic or biblical. Can you at least acknowledge this point?
DeimosSaturn 2 months ago
@DeimosSaturn
Funny how you bring up Sweden which is a small country and slowly being populated by Islam, but fail to bring up countries like North Korea or Cuba, which have....well.......0 Religion, 0 belief in God.
I guess cherry-picking is your sport.
Why don't you just act consistent with your logic and move on over to North Korea?
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 2 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 2 months ago
@DeimosSaturn
Swedes demonstrate wildly diverse, idiosyncratic supernatural beliefs, from pantheistic/eastern mystical traditions, to Old Norse mythology, to traditionally occultic practices. This simply disqualifies the majority population from being 'atheistic' in the typical naturalistic sense.
Sweden is a country which is superficially sound, at least according to humanist precepts, but is essentially corroding from within like every other liberalist country on this planet.
JCrownwell 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JCrownwell Okay so basically what you are saying is that our one example of the most ORGANICALLY (I have to place the emphasis on that word because someone brought up North Korea as being omitted from my example of an atheistic state even though I mentioned that they worship Kim Jong Il as a god) atheistic nation state just doesn't count because of your ad hoc rationalization. I would really like to see YOUR statistics.
DeimosSaturn 2 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 2 months ago
@DeimosSaturn
For example, 2007 figures recorded more than 6000 cases of child abuse, increasing rates of homophobic violence, tens of thousands of cases of sexual and domestic violence - more than would be expected for a small population.
For those who may understand something about gender psychometry, these would be recognisable as social problems deriving from pervasive cultural gender dysfunction (deviation away from biology), evident in progressive or feminist ideology.
JCrownwell 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JCrownwell I suppose what you are getting at is that because Sweden Legalized gay marriage and enabling sodomy, this leads to a collapse of society. Despite the fact that Iceland was the first nation state to legalize gay marriage and it is far from resembling The Road Warrior or Somalia (99% theist). The point you keep failing to acknowledge is that if your logic is right, then Somalia should look like Sweden and Sweden should look like Somalia.
DeimosSaturn 2 months ago
@JCrownwell Yes Sweden has crime, like every country but the point is it has less crime then religious countries. There is a clear and well established correlation between religion and crime, most notably violence.
I wouldn't be so simplistic to say religion causes the crime, maybe crime causes more religion? but the correlation itself debunks any notion that religious societies are somehow more moral, or crime free, meaning that religion has no utility for society regardless of its veracity.
TheSelfishAltruist 1 month ago
@TheSelfishAltruist
"the CORRELATION ITSELF debunks any notion that religious societies are somehow more moral" (emphasis added)
This is sloppy reasoning.
You need to familiarize yourself with the following terms:
1. Bradford-Hill criteria.
2. Confounding variables.
You also did a good job of refuting your own argument through your understanding of reversal of causality: "I wouldn't be so simplistic to say religion causes the crime, maybe crime causes more religion?"
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@JCrownwell I think you missed my point.
The link is established, but causality isn't, but that doesn't matter as I never claimed religion is harmful, as I don't need to.
As I said, this means that the notion religion is good for society is wrong as a positive correlation between religion and low crime would be present but we see the exact opposite
I accept there could be variables, but the data has been amassed over many countries, and individual US states, all with broadly the same results.
TheSelfishAltruist 1 month ago
@TheSelfishAltruist
To sum up your reasoning:
1. You claim a correlation exists, but no proof of causality. ("The link is established but causality isn't")
2. Then you claim that a causal association doesn't need to be shown. ("I don't need to.")
3. And your argument for this is that: a correlation exists (!). ("the notion religion is good for society is wrong as a positive correlation between religion and low crime would be present but we see the exact opposite")
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@JCrownwell So two things can be inferred if the data is universal: 1) religion is not good for society 2) but secondly, the reason why religion is not goof for society is less clear, as correlation isnt causation.
I hope you see what I mean now. Im saying that you have provided a hypothesis, I have countered it with the data, but gave no explanation to why the correlation exists (i.e. I have not provided a hypothesis in return, I am merely responding to yours)
TheSelfishAltruist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSelfishAltruist
"So two things can be inferred if the data is universal: 1) religion is not good for society 2) but secondly, the reason why religion is not goof for society is less clear, as correlation isnt causation."
The term "correlation does not imply causation" does not refer to the rationale as to why a correlation exists between the dependent and independent variables, it refers to whether the correlation itself is due to a causal relationship.
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@JCrownwell You really don't understand it do you? Im not being rude but your missing my point entirely. Maybe I'm not being clear, ill try again and I pray someone else can help
For arguments sake lets assume the data is accurate. The correlation between religion and crime tells us that the statement 'religion makes society have less crime' is a inaccurate statement. It is not true.
However, the claim that 'religion causes crime' is not necessarily true (but it might be)
Do you understand?
TheSelfishAltruist 1 month ago
@TheSelfishAltruist
"So two things can be inferred if the data is universal [sic]"
If the sample size is large, it means one of three possibilities. The correlation is either due to:
1. Causal association.
2. Confounding factors.
3. Bias.
Until you refute points 2 and 3, anything else you say is arbitrary. Really, is it that difficult to pick up a basic textbook in statistics?
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@JCrownwell Conversations like this turn people to god.
If someone claimed 'religion makes society better', then this is easily refuted by the amassed statistical evidence showing an inverse correlation between religion and social outcomes.
It is common sense, I do not need to pick up a textbook on statistics.
Each time the 'experiment' is repeated (which has been done many times) then bias and confounding factors become less relevant.
I go for 'causal association' personally.
TheSelfishAltruist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSelfishAltruist
"Each time the 'experiment' is repeated (which has been done many times) then bias and confounding factors become less relevant."
We've gone over this point before. Increasing a sample size does NOT correct for confounders and bias. THAT is simple common sense.
"I do not need to pick up a textbook on statistics"
It's your choice, if you wish to continue to embarrass yourself on these ideas then. These are not difficult concepts for laymen to grasp.
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@JCrownwell In my field If a medical researcher suggested that a drug reduced cell growth, but the data consistently showed the opposite correlation, I can safely say the drug did not reduce cell growth at all. I do not however need to understand why, or provide an explanation to why it wasn't true, I am just debunking an idea based on the data.
If I wanted to suggest that the drug enhances cell growth instead, I can do, but you cant automatically infer that based on the above experiment.
TheSelfishAltruist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSelfishAltruist
"I accept there could be variables, but the data has been amassed over many countries, and individual US states, all with broadly the same results."
Increasing sample size corrects for random error, but not for bias or confounding variables. Any basic textbook in statistics can help you to understand this idea.
JCrownwell 1 month ago
@JCrownwell
Notice how he doesn't bring up the atheist state in North Korea LOL
What a hypocrite
He brings up Sweden when they are in fact having immigration problems due to being such pushovers.
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@TimelessApologist
With regard to Sweden I can't speak from direct experience, but those who have been to the country report a number of consistent anecdotes;-
1. That it operates like a closed/isolated society, unlike its popular image.
2. That the atmosphere is stiflingly prosaic, intellectually and in terms of innovation.
3. That it does have a somewhat stolid and archaic system of traditional values, which swedes are increasingly defensive of, in context.
JCrownwell 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JCrownwell Sweden is famous for being isolationist, so your first point is completely and flatly false. As for them being prosaic intellectually and in innovation, if it is true, then what a wonderful problem to have compared to the atmosphere of US America, hypermaterialist, shallow, celebrity worshipping, vacuous, illiterate, trust-fund hipsters. The land of megachurches, McDonalds, and scripted reality shows about sorting through garbage.
DeimosSaturn 2 months ago
@JCrownwell You forgot to mention that swedish women are smoking hot.
TheSelfishAltruist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TimelessApologist Actually, I do bring up Kim Jong Il among one of my comments, but it's not like facts or reality have ever mattered to you apologists.
And Sweden is bad because it's not as xenophobic as you would like them to be? What a hypocrite indeed.
DeimosSaturn 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeimosSaturn
A number of other problems with your reasoning:
1. The IQ analysis has an important confounder: Intelligent people are more like to exceed academically, increasing their educational exposure to secular world views.
2. You judge cultural progress according to humanist values, which are essentially relativistic moral systems.
3. Both atheistic despotic and humanistic cultures differ fundamentally from religion in terms of the absence of truly foundational morals.
JCrownwell 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JCrownwell 1. That is the most obvious ad hoc I've ever seen. I was not trying to make a correlation causation argument in the first place, I was merely pointing out that Sweden is supposed to resemble a third world hell hole if your logic were correct, it is instead a paradise.
2. No, I judge cultural progress based on the same values you do: crime rates, literacy, GDP, internet accessibility, etc.
3. Morals like the Writ of Habeas Corpus, nowhere to be found in the bible?
DeimosSaturn 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What about morals like Thou Shalt keep the sabbath holy? People violate commandment all the time, and yet we are supposed to believe that our laws are based on the bible? You honestly believe that society segregates proven murderers from the law abiding population because the bible says so? It is astonishing that you seriously think we have our civilized society thanks to strict adherence to the bible. We have civilization IN SPITE of your bible.
DeimosSaturn 2 months ago
@DeimosSaturn Since when was the purpose of this video to argue against atheism or to argue for theism? Perhaps you need to watch it again?
Atheists, always making irrelevant comments.
CarlosMarti123 2 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 What IS the purpose of the video? My point was that no real point is being made, just some conjecture that this whole atheism thing is going to blow over once the next big thing that draws their ire comes around.
DeimosSaturn 2 months ago