Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
The Original Four Horsemen failed Saviors in 70AD were like Bible Judges 4 Armageddon hero.
He too probably indulged the so-called Naturalistic Fallacy of taking IS as OUGHTs, as is inherently characteristic of all mental materialists, though a 7-fold categorical error. They take selected Facts (whats) as instrumental OUGHTs (whys) as though mysticly deifying them for blind trust one-sided use, always failing to cognize higher order homeodynamic system of emergent properties and control feedback
I wouldn't go as far to call these guys genius, because I think the true genius of science are pushing boundaries of mathematics, physics and chem like you wouldn't believe, but they are incredibly intelligent. It's interesting to see 4 people who can agree on so many different things yet each bring their own to the table. Each of them excel in reason and logic though, far far beyond most. Especially, in my opinion, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.
I sorta disagree with Hitchens' example at the end, I don't really think it's a case of self-delusion or "brain-split" - more like pragmatism.
These people express their views on the American government, possibly in hopes of convincing others and change it, but they realize if they're not gonna pay their taxes, this evil government that tolerates their free speech, is gonna come after them and cause problems.
So they just kinda swallow the bitter pill, because it's necessary for their cause.
@zarthered I wrote that comment in reference to the idea that religious scientists must hold two conflicting ideas at the same time. Dennett actually said, "What I would love to do is come up with a memorable catch phrase or term [to describe it]." Well, Orwell already has.
@corr14 That does fit perfectly...I think philosophers, specifically scientific philosophers, have a bad habit of downplaying fictional literature; possibly because they dedicate so much of their lives to debunking the greatest fictional literature in human history.
Even though some are not at a point to understand and admit it, we all have beliefs we say we believe but deep down we really do not. They are more like things we would "like to believe".
of evil. Some people understand when it's pointed out to them that there is a contradiction in their 2 mind sets and ponder it sincerely while others practice cognitive dissonance and repel the logic of it's fallacy.
Hm, that would rather be a case of thoughtless hypocrisy, or maybe habit vs. intellectual opinion. Maybe he realizes that he has to use this technology in this everyday life he's found himself into, but thinks the world would be a better place had we not progressed past ancient tribal life?
It's a bit like the Avatards :PP
Either that, or straight down the line hypocrisy - he thinks he's cool for bashing evil science, but can't give up his daily pleasures.
So what, we've got homophobic preachers caught in gay sex scandals, as well - plain ol' hypocrisy that is.
I think this "two sets of books" mentality they talk about, is different from conventional hypocrisy of saying one thing and doing another, ESPECIALLY if the person is aware of the paradox.
I like the paradox they discuss about the 2 separate mind sets that completely contradict each other. Some people have this problem where the 2 mind sets are vastly different as they gave examples for while some are less obvious. I have a friend who I have small debates with about science, he says science hasn't done anything for the world but he's guilty of using technology everyday of his life, dare I say depends on it but continues to deny that it works. Science has done evil but in the hands
Particularly Hitchens and Harris. It's sad actually. Don't blame Islam, blame American Policy. If we can't recognize that it is OUR actions that are creating jihadists, we will only perpetuate the problem. Religion will fade away eventually. Let's re-enfranchise the people in the middle east so they will have no reason to crash planes into our buildings.
@PapaWilk Masochist or just taking responsibility for our actions? If jihadists all lived in white picket fenced houses in middle america then they wouldn't feel the need to crash planes into buildings. How can you even disagree with that?
@johnpotter26 the jihadists do not want to live in white picket fenced houses in middle america. If they lived there, they would still plot against the US. They are against the Western way of life. They disagree fundamentally with our project of democracy, equality for women and tolerance of religious differences, among others things. I've been having a conversation with a radical Islamist on another board and he genuinely thinks America's evil and must be invaded and destroyed.
@PapaWilk lmao ok well lets take a moral high ground for one second. The situation MIGHT have something to do with us (maybe?). I mean, its not like they're pissed off at Mongolia. They have LEGITIMATE reason to hate America. I mean, we basically support every regime that fucks them. Do you at least agree with that?
@johnpotter26 The problem is that the U.S. and al-Qaeda have fundamentally irreconcilable outlooks on what comprises the good life. They think we are hopelessly misguided to be behaving in ways that aren't in accordance with the prescriptions in the Qu'ran. They get very annoyed when we admonish them for splashing acid in the faces of their women who dare to learn to read. Or to reprove a father for slaying his homosexual son. Or to draw a satirical cartoon portrayal of Mohammed. It is barbarism
Many people contradict their beliefs in daily life, but what makes Hitchens think this is necessary? His examples do nothing toward advancing this thesis.
I have to say, I have much respect and admiration for all four of the men at that table. More so even than some people I'm actually related to, but Hitchens' take on MoveOn.org is absolutely idiotic.
They're simply a politically progressive advocacy group, but he takes an unnecessary sideswipe at them that is similar to the way moronic right-wingers caricature a group like ACORN.
It makes me uncomfortable, like hearing your favorite uncle make racist comments about black people.
I don't know if the global, generational war of ideas can be won, but battles can be won. The battle was won over me--thank goodness and all things rational.
I do wonder, though I don't know much about quantum physics, whether the phenomenon of the type seen in Schroedinger's cat example could give one a reason to believe in a higher power. Why should a conscious being's presence change the truth of a proposition? Is there some being constantly trying to update the world before we see it, and where no-one is present he isn't bothering to update the world? Did he underestimate humanity and not expect us to see this sleight of hand through q theory? :P
@dracpcpp He's either stoned or he's just bored. I'll venture e's bored. Who wouldn't be at this conversation where absolutely nothing new is being proposed. The arguments they make have been proposed for thousands of years. And guess what clones: it hasn't changed a thing. Ninety percent of people believe in God. Its the 10 percent that are caught in the superstious world of self ignorance. For when you know yourself properly it leads you straight to God. Bona fortuna.
@Marxisto1 that you could stand to get to know yourself impresses me. (and that by knowing yourself you are led to knowing god seems INCREDIBLY egotistical... and boring... keep eatin' those wafers, ya big mook!)
@Marxisto1 Let me make sure I've got this right: you're claiming the 10% who don't believe in a god are the superstitious clones making arguments thousands of years old?
If science was your gods creation, explain to me why nobody back in the early years of historical record did anyone create all that we see here today genius? Those clowns thought as the bible stated that the earth was flat, and it also rested upon pillars. Not to mention the fact they also believed the bible accurately portrayed the story of creation. Which 99.9% of life was completely brought into existence before the sun, I mean come on how silly of you to believe that to be true. VERSGOLEM
Religious people are better at cognitive dissonance (saying you believe in god, but that you are logical in your thinking) than the non-religious because that type of contradictory thinking is built into religion. You have to practice a certain duality to accept scriptures that are completely contradictory. For example, "thou shalt not kill" is in the same book with "stone your neighbor to death if he works on Sunday". You have to be able to "split your mind" to accept any religion.
I was shown the contradictions and I am now a non-believer. It can happen. The problem is thayou have to search out for evidence and fact. It's really quite simple once you change you biased point of view (and education never hurts either, ha ha)
A comment on Hitchen's mentioning beliefs in Djinn's. It does not fly in the face of sobriety or reason, that something like a Djinn, spirit, ghost, or even a UFO, is a manifestation of an entity/entities our reason does not have the devices to understand. If the universe is indeed so vast such things should be, and are, commonplace.
Religion has necessarily evolved to be dependent on blind faith and unanswerable concepts surrounding life after death. Since science began to probe cosmological and the origins of species, the once 'unanswerable questions', the religious argument is becoming thinner and ever more reliant on faith. Doctrines are becoming metaphors in an attempt to survive scrutiny.
@JT826. What I mean by my affirmation is that science is on the horizontal explanation of the universe. Faith on the vertical. Science does not give man a moral, spiritual and interior compass. Religion doesn't explain DNA. For me, one does not go without the other. If the truth exists on the horizontal, it also exists on the vertical. The problem is, we're so disconnected from God, we can't possibly agree on everthing, evertime. Which is also good in a way. Cheers.
@Versgolem How can you say we're disconnected from something you haven't defined or proven? This is the problem with theists - there are too many assertions. I could make thousands of assertions if I wanted to and then used them as my explanation for the universe. All that's required is a creative mind. Morality is innate in all of us - it's hard-wired into our brains. There's no reason whatsoever to think it's divine. If morality was given to us by some God, it would mean it wasn't moral.
I get so pissed off at this notion that religion and science are not compatible. What is difficult to accept ? Is a painter incompatible with his work ? Are we so proudful as to not accept being creatures of a divine being ? Is this such a violation of the human mind ? Why are they always turning around in circles, and then accusing theism of doing the same thing ? If they ever meet God, they will have the choc of their lives.
I completely respect your opinion, and yes I do wish that science and religion were compatible, it would save all of us a great deal of time, money, and effort. But the fact of the matter cannot be changed. See, science strives to pursue truth, intellectually and honestly. Faith, and religion claims to already know the truth, thereby making investigation obsolete. In order to know the truth, we must abandon the poetry of faith. That's the bottom line.
@Versgolem You're asserting that science is God's creation. It's difficult to accept because there's no evidence for it. That's all it is. You know what it's like to have difficulty accepting divinity because you don't believe in the tooth fairy, you don't believe in leprechauns, you don't believe in Apollo, Zeus, Krishna or Thor (I'm assuming you're Christian). Atheists don't believe in ANY divine creatures for EXACTLY the same reasons you don't believe in the entities I just mentioned.
@Versgolem Christians and Atheists have something in common - all the Gods Christians don't believe in, Atheists don't believe in either. The only difference is that Atheists go one God further and throw Yahweh into the group too, because to us, Yahweh doesn't offer anything unique or more plausible. He's simply another God along with the thousands of others that 'exist' throughout the world. The trick to disposing religion is to teach people how to feel good without the irrational beliefs.
All humans are Atheists: Some are Atheists about all Gods, while most are Atheists about most Gods.
All humans know that humans can easily be deceived: Religious people say that people of a different faith have been deceived while Atheists say that all religious people have been deceived without exception.
@420HashSmoker I'm sorry, I don't know why I said that. How rude of me, to think that pot smokers cannot be smart. They are certainly more open minded, and more inclined to accept truth, because when you're high you can't hide the truth from yourself, like , I think, religious people do.
I smoke pot, but not religiously; I have a bad association with stoners that have to constantly be high, I think I took you to be one.
I'm sorry, an utterly dickish thing for me to say.
You don't need to apoligize, I just think it should be noted that coming to a subjective conclusion about someone based on something so trivial is, for lack of a better term, foolish. I'm a pot head, but that doesn't mean that I'm incapable of actually thinking and using my brain, although you do make a good point. The smokers who do nothing but smoke dank all day every day are pathetic, but I'm not one of them. I love weed, but I love intellectual conversation and knowledge even more.
Your post beginning "Firstly..." Time and existence ARE concommitant where existence is in the changing mode. I think we both agree there. I do not apply time to the singularity. And I agree that Existence out of time would be unchanging. I think we are getting our wires crossed. HOWEVER, there still remains the problem of why the singularity or HOW the singularity?
The perfect memorable term for the cognitive dissonance the religious frequently use could come from Orwell: "Crimestop" or "Doublethink" would describe the process perfectly.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
People need to believe.
If you remove religion you need to present alternative. 7 day week idea is based on religious believes. Work-rest periods are religiously based. Many public holidays have religious origin. What would replace all this. Don't just criticize but present alternatives. How to have a life without any form of worship. Even company bosses want their employees to worship them or the company. Dogma is about controlling the minds of people and obedience. How do you fight this?
I don't think you would need to replace all that stuff, just take out the supernatural aspect of it all. I'm an atheist and I still celebrate Christmas. I give presents, put up lights, etc. I don't have a nativity scene in my house, but Christmas manages to go on without major catastrophe.
Do you honor the moon on Mondays, or Thor on Thursdays? No.
I can even appreciate the beauty of places like the Sistine Chapel, but I admire the work of Michelangelo, not some vague divine presence there.
to whiterat83:If you take the supernatural aspect out of it you would be left with the void that needs to be filled with the answer to the questions, "Why we do those rituals the way we do them and not in any other different way.What is the meaning and why should we do it at all?"
If life IS because it could be then any ritual expressing hope or wish of any kind is meaningless because what could be would be regardless of if there is or isn't a ritual to symbolise our hopes/wishes about reality.
@whiterat83 christmas actually originated as a pegan celebration of the winter solstice that was highjacked by christianity, that would explain why it doesnt suck ass but is absurd at the same time, thats what iv heard anyway
@whiterat83 You're a culturural Christian, like me and many of us.. I love Christmas because I grew up with my parents version of it, and I've since made my own non religous version. I have an Xmas tree, but no angles or nativity scene. I put lights up because they look cool in the snow and it's an excuse to celebrate, but there is zero "Christianity" in it for me...
@whiterat83 We are all TRADITIONAL christians, or most of us atleast. If it would be proven that christianity is totally false just for the sake for argument, we would still celebrate christmas. This is actually a pretty important topic you brought up. And the most important thing is that you get a free day off work, rite? ^.^
@Albinnaab If the exaggeration of religion was never created we would not celebrate "Christmas" simply because there would be no basis to. The World would be a drastically better place. There would be no Holocaust to remember or holidays like Valentines, St. Patrick, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Easter or Veterans Day. Many holidays were born of religion to praise wackos of religion or violance against humanity in the name of religion. The US was born of those trying to escape religious persecution.
I find it odd that there was such a negative reaction to what you have said, gespilk. I imagine that such suppression of free speech would be the norm under atheist rule even as we have seen in all countries under atheist ideology. We have also seen it under regimes that are dominated by 'religious' people. Apart from the TRUTH of the matter, your question is valid. What would replace the infrastructures inculcated throughout man's 'theistically-oriented' history?
Did you know that if the first 2 letters of your nick name are phonetically read as in Cyrillic alphabet thеn it sounds like the name of Christ in the Eastern Orthodox Church? [Hristos2] {Христос}
Most People, on both sides of the "god argument", do not completely understand the consequences of their beliefs. Therefore we often see hypocritical behaviours in life and people in denial of their hypocrisy.
Gespilk's comments were negatively reviewed because he basically said non-Christians wouldn't know how to live in a society based on Christian rituals and dogma.
Whiterat83 succintly explained why this view is plain wrong, which is why his rating is so high.
And free speech does not mean listening to all ideas equally, in fact it rather works because the crazy stupid ideas (generally) get ignored.
Whiterat83 did not explain anything;he did not really deal with gespilk's comments. He gave his personal anecdote of celebrating "Christmas" without the supernatural, of enjoying Michelangelo without any reverance for the Divine. This is not gespilk's point. If religion was utterly rejected by mankind and we lived in an atheistic world, the forms left over from religion would disappear or people would be living according to one state of mind but maintaining forms that lack meaning.
@gespilk I have one caveat. " Dogma is about controlling the minds of people and obedience. How do you fight this? " While often, nearly always, true, it isn't necessarily Always so.
Dennett in his book on Darwin's idea says that the question Why are there things rather than nothing? is not a real question and he would show why. But he never did show why in that entire book. It has the form of a question and looks like a question. I say it is a question.
@PlaceOfOrigin Says who? And how is it an equation? It is an either or question. It has the form of a question and is in fact a question. How (why) is there anything rather than nothing?
"Non-existence" is not the name of something. "Existence" is the name we give to the totality of all that there is. "Non-existence" is a concept that doesnt refer to anything; it can be validly used only as an abstraction stating negative propositions (as in "God does not exist")
@PlaceOfOrigin "God does not exist," is a supposition. Non-existence, while unimaginable, must be held, albeit unknowable for the only other alternative is that something always was and if something always was, how did we arrive at the present moment?
This is exactly why i dont (or shouldnt) get involved with debates in such a limited forum. I find that religious people go round and round and round in their reasoning. Every word uttered by a religious person should be taken as arbitrary, until you can clarify exactly what you mean by "God" which of course, by its very definition, nobody can. Sorry to duck out of the debate but the burden of proof lies with you. Until that time..............
@PlaceOfOrigin I was quoting you. I said nothing about God myself. I was talking about non-existence and existence and how the latter must have a real beginning. But I understand that you can not answer because science doesn't have an answer except some suggest that even vaccums are full!!!
Who says existence has to have a beggining? A strong case can be made for the opposite. What exists exists. Go right back to the "start" of our known existence and what came before? Whatever it was it still existed, hence still a part of existence. I cant see the problem with that myself. But to use your own argument (knowing that you are a Christian who believes and defends his belief in God) who created God? Talking of "real beginnings" surely that needs to be answered?
@PlaceOfOrigin Precind from the issue of God for the time being. Let's just look at the idea of existence of matter/energy always being. If there has always been matter/energy, how would we have arrived at the present moment?
I really dont understand the question. Could you elaborate please? I dont want to interpret your position incorrectly but it sounds like your saying that if matter/energy has always existed then living in this precise moment would be impossible.
"...then living in this precise moment would be impossible." Yes that is to be inferred. What I asked, though, was how do we arrive at the present moment if matter/energy has always existed.
Evolution. And i dont just mean in the animal kingdom. Space itself is continuously evolving. Stars (which are ultimately the foundations of life) are dying and simultaneously being born throughout the universe, which in turn leads to the creation of and destruction of galaxies. There is a subject called Cosmology dont you know?
Can you tell me why we couldnt be here right now if matter/energy hadnt always existed?
Suppose that this universe as we see it began from an atomic sized singularity (the Big bang), we have then preceeding the universe, a singularity which, let's say, always existed, or, at least, came from something else, ad infinitum... either/or, makes no difference. All that is always was in some sort of configuration. Now, as a thought exercise, go back, back, back, back, ad infinitum...you never arrive at a REAL beginning of it all. Therefore there is no starting point to arrive at now.
(1/2)Correction duly noted. Yes that is what i meant.
You are using logic in a very improper way. Time is a measurement of change; it is the relationship of change occurring in different existents (e.g when you measure an event, say Lent, in days, hours, minutes or seconds, you are relating it to the circular revolution of the earth) Time therefore depends on the existence of entities that change; it is time that is within existence, not the other way round. The idea of existence.........
(2/2)....as a whole starting at some point in time is self-contradictory, because it requires there to be time before existence, i.e time without any entities that change. I regard Existence as eternal i.e outside of time.
Your argument goes right back to the Ancient Greeks. Zeno or Diogenes if im not mistaken? Or Augustine?
Of course, I agree, that time 'happens' due to changes in matter/energy configuration. That existence of matter/energy began at some point is not self-contradictory since the beginning of existence and time are concommitant. Now, so suggest that it makes no sense to speak of time when referencing the singularity that is supposed to have preceeded the Big Bang. I am not educated enough yet to discuss that.
Firstly, time and existence are not necessarily concommitants, or at least existence takes precedence over time. The advances in Physics (particularly Quantum Mechanics) have shown that at some point time breaks down and virtual stops. Its a self-contradictory position to ask for a "beginning" because you're using the concept of "time" out of context by applying it to the universe as a whole.
Secondly (and i have to admontion you severely here!) "Existence out of time would be unchanging".....
...I never said anything of the sort. Whether you done that knowing or not (i dont know which is worse) its totally wrong.
Thirdly, so now your question about "unchanging existence popping in the Big Bang" is now unanswerable because of your previous false assumption. Its not true that the BB theory holds that existence began at some point in time, or that existence emerged out of non-existence. Rather, it holds that something very different from matter as exists today, and perhaps operating...
....By different physical laws that operate today, existed before the BB, and caused the BB (this pre BB existence is usually called "the Primeval Atom")
Fourthly the capital E was just an emphasis, nothing more.
If the Primeval Atom "caused" the BB, how? We don't know that either. It is getting curiouser and curiouser. The epressed 'hope' that science will arrive at the truth of it is wistful.
There was a time when we thought the sun revolved around the earth. There was a time when polio devastated certain populations. There was a time when travelling into space was considered foolish. There was a time when........example after example. There a countless istances where science was deemed impotent in the face of such problems. Science needs time. Will you answer my question about your belief, if you received it.
Your regarding of Existence as eternal, ie outside of time is fine with me :-) But by your own words that Existence out of time would be unchanging. Now, in your opinion, if that Existence is the precursor of these existent entities and energy of our universe, how is it that that unchanging Existence POP'D in the Big Bang, causing time and matter/energy changing? So far Science has not answered that question and even some imply it can not be answered.
I have emails showing two recent posts by you but for the life of me I can't find them on the site of the video and I want to respond to them. I think you are misunderstanding me at this point.. Without my posts and yours following it is hard to respond. But, one thing, I did not suppose that the BB holds that existence began at some point in time or that the BB holds that existence emerged out of nothing. Where are the posts?? :) I can't find them.
I can view all of our posts by clicking the 'view all comments' button. Its a very complex issue and we are in a limited forum. My stance against religion is not based on any of the issues we have discussed, because i dont think its a sophisticated enough system it deal with these problems. Science does have a lot to say and will eventually have all the relevant evidence. When that day does come it makes no difference, philosophically, because whatever existed pre BB the fact still remains......
"because whatever existed pre BB the fact still remains....that we ARE here."
Well, aren't there problems we saying "pre BB?" Pre implies time. I want to know how it is that we are HERE and NOW if existence is eternal. I think it is a demanding question. How can any thing begin changing and be in time from that which is eternal? I think there are serious problems in postulating an eternal non-intelligent existence.
I thought you had said existence out of time would be unchanging. If existence out of time is NOT unchanging then it could not be out of time. If change occurs in the Singularity, time as we know it might not be the same...whatever that could mean...but if there are changes...then there is time. How could there NOT be time if there are changes? Clearly, if the BB is true, then a change occurred from the Singularity to the Explosive expanding universe? I don't have your whole post. :(
We talk all the time. I don't suppose I could explain an unidentifiable "God" anymore than you can explain an unidentifiable Singularity. Oddly though God is One. The idea of a Singularity is also Singular or One...I guess. I applaude physics and the effort to understand reality and how this universe came to be as it is. I think that the pursuit of truth is a good thing. I think when the physicists reach the top of the mountain, the theologians will welcome them. :-)
"god is one". "the pursuit of truth". "top of the mountain" are ultimately meaningless bromides. Do you actually believe in the virgin birth, talking snakes or died people coming back to the life? (to name just a few)
Not just bromides. Afterall, you have talked about the progress of science (pursuit of truth) and the Singularity (which means all was once kindof one) and the top of the mountain (of reality) is a poetic image as good as your "Science is where the answers lie.." You know science is a way that man uses to analyze the world of matter/energy using ultimately his data attainted through his senses. He apprehends models of the world, tests them, uses the results in many wonderful or deadly ways.
To be honest i dont want to get into the way a religious person alternates between taking the bible figuratively in the places where it becomes rationally untenable and literally in the places where they want people to toe the line.
Where does Islam Hiduism Buddism et al come into it? (let alone the rifts in your own denomination)
Science doesnt set up restrictions or boundries. Whats true in the U.K is true in timbuktu.
@PlaceOfOrigin This is me...a bit of a mix up on my ID...Xpistos2 here..........................
Since you felt free, as you ought to admonish me. let me return the favor. "To be honest" I always expect that you are honest :-). Your idea that a religious person alternates from figurative to literal to protect themselves in areas of so-called untenableness etc. is merely an expression of your prejudice, your bias, your discount of any validity to any religious person's belief.
I do not discuss my religious beliefs with unbelievers. But as for a talking snake, I will say this...it is a motif, a mythos, to relate a truth. As for people coming back to life, if Christ is NOT Risen, my faith is in vain and I am, of all men the most to be pitied.
@PlaceOfOrigin Yo, if you're gonna champion the cause (long live atheism comrade), don't say died people. That, or you're a step ahead of us saying "do you believe that dyed people came back to life?". After all, big JC was a total hippie. Nootch.
@olafsirpab It was only a grammatical error. I type fast and don't spell check before i post. Surely the same can't be said for your use of "gonna" which is just plain sloppy.
What are the 'facts' on board? There is so much unanswered. If you want to attack the Bible and fundy religion, how easy is that? Very. But you guys have no answers for ultimate questions and my religion provides that.
@Xpistos2, What is your religion? Tell us in detail what you believe and I promise either it is so vague as to have no bearing on any action in this world or it is flat out false.
Of course, millions may follow you. Millions will follow anybody. Millions follow this one and that one. Can you reasonably hope to win a war of ideas?
You know what I agree by spreading the knowledge of atheism I feel that he has saved many lives from radical fundamentalist and terrorists right now and in the future. Not to mention he's helping out with discrimination, and the teaching of falsehoods such as creationism. Not to mention it would give atheists a better reputation.
When one combines the wide spectrum of knowledge from all ancient spiritual traditions with the evidence modern science produces, one may have a deeper understanding of what is, while affirming what is already intuitively known. This not only increases IQ, but also removes fear based philosophy & superstition. Experiencing truth is power & freedom; for then, ridiculous beliefs need not be chosen.
I recommend the "theduderinok" youtube channel for open minded beings who want to learn & grow.
i think most people are just retareded to the main facts and tedius rules that religion has mainly christians casue i know my fellow americans or most just go to go or just plain lazy to read the bible over and over to understand it...but then when we attack them or they get all ryeld up from a preist it just hits mob mentality and then you see anger taking over not the smarts so we can get these fukers on board its just we have to really educate them reall good first lol....
Hour 2. - Love it. All glasses filled with scotch, or martinis. so refreshing to have an honest discussion among thoughtful people who have the god-blessed ( ;-) attribute of free thought.
The idea of a loving God is very comfortable to many people - which can be especially consoling in troubled times (i.e. everything happens for a reason). Unfortunately many people are feeble and cannot deal with the fact that their lives have no meaning.
It's not a deterministic fact in need of dealing with in the first place.The existence of some deity,or absence of same need not be the linchpin on which turns fulfillment of desired secular purpose in ANY given Life.
I was referring to a supernatural purpose in my last comment. Of course people have earthly purposes: the purpose of brushing your teeth is to avoid cavities, etc. Where I disagree is when people say they were "put on earth for a purpose/reason"; which implies their actions while on Earth serve a higher power.
Supernature being a fiction,there can be no other purpose(s) than those chosen by a sentient adult.The Genesis edict 'to multiply,be fruitful and become many'is but the biological directive of all organic Life,certainly not restricted to humans.
that could be considered the definition of addiction. a mental or physical need to cope with life. religion falls under that just as much as drugs or love or whatever you want to put there that people are addicted to. to me religion is a drug that people are addicted to. the troubling fact of this is only about 5 to 10 percent of people recover from there addictions.
I think people can live with religious contradictions in the same fashion as anti-abortionist can also support the death penalty. People can easily be contradictory, especially since we travel with and in many different groups and types of people.
Giving up one's former faith isn't as easy as it might seem that it should be. There are all sorts of interwoven entangled tendrils that are attached to that "faith" that, but it can be done... it just takes time, and I am a testament to that fact.
I think even if Im wrong and there is a hell and heaven, i doubt that the devil would want to cause up perminment harm, as surely the reason for is explustion from heaven was because he wanted to be loved the most, so i can imagine he'd be a rock-star and we the groupies!
*muses* Hmmm...if I were in the room, I'd ask Santa for a bigger table and an extra-long table clothe. }^D
TomVodkaCollins 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from PiroNiro
Santa is drinking a fuckin Martini.
maulzor 2 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
they gots a cameras mans
ThanksDoctorThoctor 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hitchens has to be tipsy by now lol thats 2 glasses so far- love the man.
Killerjosh89 5 months ago
Comment removed
Killerjosh89 5 months ago
The Original Four Horsemen failed Saviors in 70AD were like Bible Judges 4 Armageddon hero.
He too probably indulged the so-called Naturalistic Fallacy of taking IS as OUGHTs, as is inherently characteristic of all mental materialists, though a 7-fold categorical error. They take selected Facts (whats) as instrumental OUGHTs (whys) as though mysticly deifying them for blind trust one-sided use, always failing to cognize higher order homeodynamic system of emergent properties and control feedback
cloudbusterman 5 months ago
Hitchens has a buzzon by now haha.
Propagandhi900 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
Comment removed
pensivebosom 7 months ago
I wouldn't go as far to call these guys genius, because I think the true genius of science are pushing boundaries of mathematics, physics and chem like you wouldn't believe, but they are incredibly intelligent. It's interesting to see 4 people who can agree on so many different things yet each bring their own to the table. Each of them excel in reason and logic though, far far beyond most. Especially, in my opinion, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.
TheBiddleMan 8 months ago
I sorta disagree with Hitchens' example at the end, I don't really think it's a case of self-delusion or "brain-split" - more like pragmatism.
These people express their views on the American government, possibly in hopes of convincing others and change it, but they realize if they're not gonna pay their taxes, this evil government that tolerates their free speech, is gonna come after them and cause problems.
So they just kinda swallow the bitter pill, because it's necessary for their cause.
twooffour 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I love listening to them talk.
watermelonygoodness 10 months ago
I'm quite surprised that and a bit let down that none of them brought up 'double-think' from Orwell's masterpiece '1984'.
corr14 10 months ago
@corr14 In what context?
zarthered 9 months ago
@zarthered I wrote that comment in reference to the idea that religious scientists must hold two conflicting ideas at the same time. Dennett actually said, "What I would love to do is come up with a memorable catch phrase or term [to describe it]." Well, Orwell already has.
corr14 9 months ago
@corr14 That does fit perfectly...I think philosophers, specifically scientific philosophers, have a bad habit of downplaying fictional literature; possibly because they dedicate so much of their lives to debunking the greatest fictional literature in human history.
zarthered 9 months ago
@corr14 Well, I'm surprised that Christopher Hitchens didn't mention the term, given that he wrote a defense of George Orwell.
writersblock26 9 months ago
@writersblock26 Yeah I spent most of the video waiting for Hitchens to mention it.
corr14 9 months ago
Even though some are not at a point to understand and admit it, we all have beliefs we say we believe but deep down we really do not. They are more like things we would "like to believe".
kenseavert 10 months ago
of evil. Some people understand when it's pointed out to them that there is a contradiction in their 2 mind sets and ponder it sincerely while others practice cognitive dissonance and repel the logic of it's fallacy.
Antimidation 10 months ago
@Antimidation
Hm, that would rather be a case of thoughtless hypocrisy, or maybe habit vs. intellectual opinion. Maybe he realizes that he has to use this technology in this everyday life he's found himself into, but thinks the world would be a better place had we not progressed past ancient tribal life?
It's a bit like the Avatards :PP
Either that, or straight down the line hypocrisy - he thinks he's cool for bashing evil science, but can't give up his daily pleasures.
twooffour 9 months ago
@Antimidation
So what, we've got homophobic preachers caught in gay sex scandals, as well - plain ol' hypocrisy that is.
I think this "two sets of books" mentality they talk about, is different from conventional hypocrisy of saying one thing and doing another, ESPECIALLY if the person is aware of the paradox.
twooffour 9 months ago
I like the paradox they discuss about the 2 separate mind sets that completely contradict each other. Some people have this problem where the 2 mind sets are vastly different as they gave examples for while some are less obvious. I have a friend who I have small debates with about science, he says science hasn't done anything for the world but he's guilty of using technology everyday of his life, dare I say depends on it but continues to deny that it works. Science has done evil but in the hands
Antimidation 10 months ago
Particularly Hitchens and Harris. It's sad actually. Don't blame Islam, blame American Policy. If we can't recognize that it is OUR actions that are creating jihadists, we will only perpetuate the problem. Religion will fade away eventually. Let's re-enfranchise the people in the middle east so they will have no reason to crash planes into our buildings.
johnpotter26 11 months ago
@johnpotter26 that's ludicrous. You are a masochist if you believe that.
PapaWilk 11 months ago
@PapaWilk Masochist or just taking responsibility for our actions? If jihadists all lived in white picket fenced houses in middle america then they wouldn't feel the need to crash planes into buildings. How can you even disagree with that?
johnpotter26 11 months ago
@johnpotter26 the jihadists do not want to live in white picket fenced houses in middle america. If they lived there, they would still plot against the US. They are against the Western way of life. They disagree fundamentally with our project of democracy, equality for women and tolerance of religious differences, among others things. I've been having a conversation with a radical Islamist on another board and he genuinely thinks America's evil and must be invaded and destroyed.
PapaWilk 11 months ago
@PapaWilk lmao ok well lets take a moral high ground for one second. The situation MIGHT have something to do with us (maybe?). I mean, its not like they're pissed off at Mongolia. They have LEGITIMATE reason to hate America. I mean, we basically support every regime that fucks them. Do you at least agree with that?
johnpotter26 11 months ago
@johnpotter26 The problem is that the U.S. and al-Qaeda have fundamentally irreconcilable outlooks on what comprises the good life. They think we are hopelessly misguided to be behaving in ways that aren't in accordance with the prescriptions in the Qu'ran. They get very annoyed when we admonish them for splashing acid in the faces of their women who dare to learn to read. Or to reprove a father for slaying his homosexual son. Or to draw a satirical cartoon portrayal of Mohammed. It is barbarism
PapaWilk 11 months ago
These guys are awesome but their ideas on Iraq and politics in the Middle East are a bit misguided
johnpotter26 11 months ago
Many people contradict their beliefs in daily life, but what makes Hitchens think this is necessary? His examples do nothing toward advancing this thesis.
drunkagnostic 1 year ago
Hour two means refill for Hitchens.
da0217 1 year ago 5
thumbs up if you wish you could be there drinking with the 4 KINGS.
Wmagic1990 1 year ago 24
I'm surprised Hitchens didn't bring up doublethink at 6:49
AnonymousComrade 1 year ago
Comment removed
AnonymousComrade 1 year ago
When Dawkins talks about the 'brilliant biologist' who's also a believer, I think he's talking of Professor Lord Robert Winston
miahk2 1 year ago
I have to say, I have much respect and admiration for all four of the men at that table. More so even than some people I'm actually related to, but Hitchens' take on MoveOn.org is absolutely idiotic.
They're simply a politically progressive advocacy group, but he takes an unnecessary sideswipe at them that is similar to the way moronic right-wingers caricature a group like ACORN.
It makes me uncomfortable, like hearing your favorite uncle make racist comments about black people.
dgumbrecht 1 year ago
We've got fossils! [high five]
auggiedoggy 1 year ago 42
@auggiedoggy What?
writersblock26 5 months ago
@auggiedoggy We do? Oh shit. Well pack it up scientists and logical people. War's over!
hbknutjack 3 weeks ago
I don't know if the global, generational war of ideas can be won, but battles can be won. The battle was won over me--thank goodness and all things rational.
gethegrace 1 year ago
I wonder what Sam harris's IQ is......he should join the prometheus society.
Whyisthat101 1 year ago
Dennett looks like Darwin, AND he's drinking a martini...case closed.
jazz4 1 year ago
There is a term perfectly defining the difference between skepticism and faith that springs unbidden to mind: wishful thinking.
darkmiles22 1 year ago
I do wonder, though I don't know much about quantum physics, whether the phenomenon of the type seen in Schroedinger's cat example could give one a reason to believe in a higher power. Why should a conscious being's presence change the truth of a proposition? Is there some being constantly trying to update the world before we see it, and where no-one is present he isn't bothering to update the world? Did he underestimate humanity and not expect us to see this sleight of hand through q theory? :P
BrosoKintobor 1 year ago
Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and oh my god Dan Dennett.... Make sure you grab a towel!
diceyLee 1 year ago
Awwww how sweet changing the world one non believer at a time
MrCuntyballs2U 1 year ago
7:17 for some reason, hitchens realises he's been caught not entirely paying attention.
dracpcpp 1 year ago
@dracpcpp He's either stoned or he's just bored. I'll venture e's bored. Who wouldn't be at this conversation where absolutely nothing new is being proposed. The arguments they make have been proposed for thousands of years. And guess what clones: it hasn't changed a thing. Ninety percent of people believe in God. Its the 10 percent that are caught in the superstious world of self ignorance. For when you know yourself properly it leads you straight to God. Bona fortuna.
Marxisto1 1 year ago
@Marxisto1 that you could stand to get to know yourself impresses me. (and that by knowing yourself you are led to knowing god seems INCREDIBLY egotistical... and boring... keep eatin' those wafers, ya big mook!)
MrTonyInchpractice 1 year ago
@Marxisto1 Let me make sure I've got this right: you're claiming the 10% who don't believe in a god are the superstitious clones making arguments thousands of years old?
dracpcpp 1 year ago 3
@Marxisto1 Marxisto, you sir are an undeniable derp.
PopeSnowball 1 year ago
If science was your gods creation, explain to me why nobody back in the early years of historical record did anyone create all that we see here today genius? Those clowns thought as the bible stated that the earth was flat, and it also rested upon pillars. Not to mention the fact they also believed the bible accurately portrayed the story of creation. Which 99.9% of life was completely brought into existence before the sun, I mean come on how silly of you to believe that to be true. VERSGOLEM
kaiyeem 1 year ago
i always love when hitchens says "at all"
^^
Azatoten 1 year ago
Religious people are better at cognitive dissonance (saying you believe in god, but that you are logical in your thinking) than the non-religious because that type of contradictory thinking is built into religion. You have to practice a certain duality to accept scriptures that are completely contradictory. For example, "thou shalt not kill" is in the same book with "stone your neighbor to death if he works on Sunday". You have to be able to "split your mind" to accept any religion.
drgregsgurl 1 year ago
I was shown the contradictions and I am now a non-believer. It can happen. The problem is thayou have to search out for evidence and fact. It's really quite simple once you change you biased point of view (and education never hurts either, ha ha)
gary031183 1 year ago
A comment on Hitchen's mentioning beliefs in Djinn's. It does not fly in the face of sobriety or reason, that something like a Djinn, spirit, ghost, or even a UFO, is a manifestation of an entity/entities our reason does not have the devices to understand. If the universe is indeed so vast such things should be, and are, commonplace.
gugeyewalker 1 year ago
Religion has necessarily evolved to be dependent on blind faith and unanswerable concepts surrounding life after death. Since science began to probe cosmological and the origins of species, the once 'unanswerable questions', the religious argument is becoming thinner and ever more reliant on faith. Doctrines are becoming metaphors in an attempt to survive scrutiny.
foxymrfox 1 year ago
Ginns are Muslim's version of Demons ;)
unicorn187 1 year ago
@JT826. What I mean by my affirmation is that science is on the horizontal explanation of the universe. Faith on the vertical. Science does not give man a moral, spiritual and interior compass. Religion doesn't explain DNA. For me, one does not go without the other. If the truth exists on the horizontal, it also exists on the vertical. The problem is, we're so disconnected from God, we can't possibly agree on everthing, evertime. Which is also good in a way. Cheers.
Versgolem 1 year ago
@Versgolem How can you say we're disconnected from something you haven't defined or proven? This is the problem with theists - there are too many assertions. I could make thousands of assertions if I wanted to and then used them as my explanation for the universe. All that's required is a creative mind. Morality is innate in all of us - it's hard-wired into our brains. There's no reason whatsoever to think it's divine. If morality was given to us by some God, it would mean it wasn't moral.
controllerbrain 1 year ago
I would LOVE to sit and eat any meal with these men. Pure genius!
JT826 1 year ago
I get so pissed off at this notion that religion and science are not compatible. What is difficult to accept ? Is a painter incompatible with his work ? Are we so proudful as to not accept being creatures of a divine being ? Is this such a violation of the human mind ? Why are they always turning around in circles, and then accusing theism of doing the same thing ? If they ever meet God, they will have the choc of their lives.
Versgolem 1 year ago
@Versgolem
I completely respect your opinion, and yes I do wish that science and religion were compatible, it would save all of us a great deal of time, money, and effort. But the fact of the matter cannot be changed. See, science strives to pursue truth, intellectually and honestly. Faith, and religion claims to already know the truth, thereby making investigation obsolete. In order to know the truth, we must abandon the poetry of faith. That's the bottom line.
JT826 1 year ago
@Versgolem You're asserting that science is God's creation. It's difficult to accept because there's no evidence for it. That's all it is. You know what it's like to have difficulty accepting divinity because you don't believe in the tooth fairy, you don't believe in leprechauns, you don't believe in Apollo, Zeus, Krishna or Thor (I'm assuming you're Christian). Atheists don't believe in ANY divine creatures for EXACTLY the same reasons you don't believe in the entities I just mentioned.
controllerbrain 1 year ago
@Versgolem Christians and Atheists have something in common - all the Gods Christians don't believe in, Atheists don't believe in either. The only difference is that Atheists go one God further and throw Yahweh into the group too, because to us, Yahweh doesn't offer anything unique or more plausible. He's simply another God along with the thousands of others that 'exist' throughout the world. The trick to disposing religion is to teach people how to feel good without the irrational beliefs.
controllerbrain 1 year ago
All humans are Atheists: Some are Atheists about all Gods, while most are Atheists about most Gods.
All humans know that humans can easily be deceived: Religious people say that people of a different faith have been deceived while Atheists say that all religious people have been deceived without exception.
ruirodtube 1 year ago
I completely admire and respect each and every one of these four men. They're my intellectual heros.
420HashSmoker 1 year ago 121
LOL toke toke
rcote22401 1 year ago
@420HashSmoker I'm not sure that's a compliment when it comes from the 420 hashsmoker.
jerryhello100 1 year ago
@jerryhello100 Right, because a persons' username is a defninitive representation of who they are.
420HashSmoker 1 year ago
@420HashSmoker I'm sorry, I don't know why I said that. How rude of me, to think that pot smokers cannot be smart. They are certainly more open minded, and more inclined to accept truth, because when you're high you can't hide the truth from yourself, like , I think, religious people do.
I smoke pot, but not religiously; I have a bad association with stoners that have to constantly be high, I think I took you to be one.
I'm sorry, an utterly dickish thing for me to say.
jerryhello100 1 year ago
You don't need to apoligize, I just think it should be noted that coming to a subjective conclusion about someone based on something so trivial is, for lack of a better term, foolish. I'm a pot head, but that doesn't mean that I'm incapable of actually thinking and using my brain, although you do make a good point. The smokers who do nothing but smoke dank all day every day are pathetic, but I'm not one of them. I love weed, but I love intellectual conversation and knowledge even more.
420HashSmoker 1 year ago
@420HashSmoker i gave you the thumbs up mainly for your username
scamerican16 1 year ago
Is this at Dawkins house?
Germanator93 1 year ago
Your post beginning "Firstly..." Time and existence ARE concommitant where existence is in the changing mode. I think we both agree there. I do not apply time to the singularity. And I agree that Existence out of time would be unchanging. I think we are getting our wires crossed. HOWEVER, there still remains the problem of why the singularity or HOW the singularity?
Xpistos2 1 year ago
The camera loves Hitchens at 7:20.
esserjk 1 year ago
hear here
"OH MY GOD" - a secular song
astrologysongs 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I'm an atheist with respect to the Judeo-Christian God, because there is not a shred of EVIDENCE in favor of the Judeo-Christian God."
~ Richard Dawkins
...Dawkins, that's because you have not visited my channel.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
The perfect memorable term for the cognitive dissonance the religious frequently use could come from Orwell: "Crimestop" or "Doublethink" would describe the process perfectly.
Skillbus 2 years ago
This is at a dangerous level of knowledge. I think i'm overdosing on thier intelligence.
AnotherMasterMind 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
People need to believe.
If you remove religion you need to present alternative. 7 day week idea is based on religious believes. Work-rest periods are religiously based. Many public holidays have religious origin. What would replace all this. Don't just criticize but present alternatives. How to have a life without any form of worship. Even company bosses want their employees to worship them or the company. Dogma is about controlling the minds of people and obedience. How do you fight this?
gespilk 2 years ago
I don't think you would need to replace all that stuff, just take out the supernatural aspect of it all. I'm an atheist and I still celebrate Christmas. I give presents, put up lights, etc. I don't have a nativity scene in my house, but Christmas manages to go on without major catastrophe.
Do you honor the moon on Mondays, or Thor on Thursdays? No.
I can even appreciate the beauty of places like the Sistine Chapel, but I admire the work of Michelangelo, not some vague divine presence there.
whiterat83 2 years ago 25
Comment removed
gespilk 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
to whiterat83:If you take the supernatural aspect out of it you would be left with the void that needs to be filled with the answer to the questions, "Why we do those rituals the way we do them and not in any other different way.What is the meaning and why should we do it at all?"
If life IS because it could be then any ritual expressing hope or wish of any kind is meaningless because what could be would be regardless of if there is or isn't a ritual to symbolise our hopes/wishes about reality.
gespilk 2 years ago
@whiterat83 christmas actually originated as a pegan celebration of the winter solstice that was highjacked by christianity, that would explain why it doesnt suck ass but is absurd at the same time, thats what iv heard anyway
gta747 1 year ago
@whiterat83 You're a culturural Christian, like me and many of us.. I love Christmas because I grew up with my parents version of it, and I've since made my own non religous version. I have an Xmas tree, but no angles or nativity scene. I put lights up because they look cool in the snow and it's an excuse to celebrate, but there is zero "Christianity" in it for me...
nogodformethankyou 1 year ago 2
@whiterat83 We are all TRADITIONAL christians, or most of us atleast. If it would be proven that christianity is totally false just for the sake for argument, we would still celebrate christmas. This is actually a pretty important topic you brought up. And the most important thing is that you get a free day off work, rite? ^.^
Albinnaab 1 year ago
@Albinnaab If the exaggeration of religion was never created we would not celebrate "Christmas" simply because there would be no basis to. The World would be a drastically better place. There would be no Holocaust to remember or holidays like Valentines, St. Patrick, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Easter or Veterans Day. Many holidays were born of religion to praise wackos of religion or violance against humanity in the name of religion. The US was born of those trying to escape religious persecution.
AcaiAdvantage 1 year ago
you are dumb
F1REbomb 2 years ago
I find it odd that there was such a negative reaction to what you have said, gespilk. I imagine that such suppression of free speech would be the norm under atheist rule even as we have seen in all countries under atheist ideology. We have also seen it under regimes that are dominated by 'religious' people. Apart from the TRUTH of the matter, your question is valid. What would replace the infrastructures inculcated throughout man's 'theistically-oriented' history?
Xpistos2 2 years ago
Comment removed
gespilk 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
to Xpistos2
Did you know that if the first 2 letters of your nick name are phonetically read as in Cyrillic alphabet thеn it sounds like the name of Christ in the Eastern Orthodox Church? [Hristos2] {Христос}
Most People, on both sides of the "god argument", do not completely understand the consequences of their beliefs. Therefore we often see hypocritical behaviours in life and people in denial of their hypocrisy.
gespilk 2 years ago
@Xpistos2
Gespilk's comments were negatively reviewed because he basically said non-Christians wouldn't know how to live in a society based on Christian rituals and dogma.
Whiterat83 succintly explained why this view is plain wrong, which is why his rating is so high.
And free speech does not mean listening to all ideas equally, in fact it rather works because the crazy stupid ideas (generally) get ignored.
darkmiles22 2 years ago
I don't think your posting makes sense. "crazy stupid ideas (generally) get ignored?" That makes 'free speech' work?
Xpistos2 2 years ago
Whiterat83 did not explain anything;he did not really deal with gespilk's comments. He gave his personal anecdote of celebrating "Christmas" without the supernatural, of enjoying Michelangelo without any reverance for the Divine. This is not gespilk's point. If religion was utterly rejected by mankind and we lived in an atheistic world, the forms left over from religion would disappear or people would be living according to one state of mind but maintaining forms that lack meaning.
Xpistos2 2 years ago
@gespilk I have one caveat. " Dogma is about controlling the minds of people and obedience. How do you fight this? " While often, nearly always, true, it isn't necessarily Always so.
Xpistos2 2 years ago
Dennett in his book on Darwin's idea says that the question Why are there things rather than nothing? is not a real question and he would show why. But he never did show why in that entire book. It has the form of a question and looks like a question. I say it is a question.
Xpistos2 2 years ago
Its not a question because you cant equate the real (things) with the non-existent (nothing), as if both were of equal merit.
PlaceOfOrigin 1 year ago
@PlaceOfOrigin Says who? And how is it an equation? It is an either or question. It has the form of a question and is in fact a question. How (why) is there anything rather than nothing?
Xpistos2 1 year ago
"Non-existence" is not the name of something. "Existence" is the name we give to the totality of all that there is. "Non-existence" is a concept that doesnt refer to anything; it can be validly used only as an abstraction stating negative propositions (as in "God does not exist")
PlaceOfOrigin 1 year ago
@PlaceOfOrigin "God does not exist," is a supposition. Non-existence, while unimaginable, must be held, albeit unknowable for the only other alternative is that something always was and if something always was, how did we arrive at the present moment?
Xpistos2 1 year ago
This is exactly why i dont (or shouldnt) get involved with debates in such a limited forum. I find that religious people go round and round and round in their reasoning. Every word uttered by a religious person should be taken as arbitrary, until you can clarify exactly what you mean by "God" which of course, by its very definition, nobody can. Sorry to duck out of the debate but the burden of proof lies with you. Until that time..............
PlaceOfOrigin 1 year ago
@PlaceOfOrigin I was quoting you. I said nothing about God myself. I was talking about non-existence and existence and how the latter must have a real beginning. But I understand that you can not answer because science doesn't have an answer except some suggest that even vaccums are full!!!
Xpistos2 1 year ago
Who says existence has to have a beggining? A strong case can be made for the opposite. What exists exists. Go right back to the "start" of our known existence and what came before? Whatever it was it still existed, hence still a part of existence. I cant see the problem with that myself. But to use your own argument (knowing that you are a Christian who believes and defends his belief in God) who created God? Talking of "real beginnings" surely that needs to be answered?
PlaceOfOrigin 1 year ago
@PlaceOfOrigin Precind from the issue of God for the time being. Let's just look at the idea of existence of matter/energy always being. If there has always been matter/energy, how would we have arrived at the present moment?
Xpistos2 1 year ago
I really dont understand the question. Could you elaborate please? I dont want to interpret your position incorrectly but it sounds like your saying that if matter/energy has always existed then living in this precise moment would be impossible.
PlaceOfOrigin 1 year ago
"...then living in this precise moment would be impossible." Yes that is to be inferred. What I asked, though, was how do we arrive at the present moment if matter/energy has always existed.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
Evolution. And i dont just mean in the animal kingdom. Space itself is continuously evolving. Stars (which are ultimately the foundations of life) are dying and simultaneously being born throughout the universe, which in turn leads to the creation of and destruction of galaxies. There is a subject called Cosmology dont you know?
Can you tell me why we couldnt be here right now if matter/energy hadnt always existed?
PlaceOfOrigin 1 year ago
Suppose that this universe as we see it began from an atomic sized singularity (the Big bang), we have then preceeding the universe, a singularity which, let's say, always existed, or, at least, came from something else, ad infinitum... either/or, makes no difference. All that is always was in some sort of configuration. Now, as a thought exercise, go back, back, back, back, ad infinitum...you never arrive at a REAL beginning of it all. Therefore there is no starting point to arrive at now.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
I think you meant to phrase your question at the end of your post as follows:
"Can you tell me why we couldn't be here right now if matter/energy has always existed?" Correct?
Xpistos2 1 year ago
(1/2)Correction duly noted. Yes that is what i meant.
You are using logic in a very improper way. Time is a measurement of change; it is the relationship of change occurring in different existents (e.g when you measure an event, say Lent, in days, hours, minutes or seconds, you are relating it to the circular revolution of the earth) Time therefore depends on the existence of entities that change; it is time that is within existence, not the other way round. The idea of existence.........
PlaceOfOrigin 1 year ago
(2/2)....as a whole starting at some point in time is self-contradictory, because it requires there to be time before existence, i.e time without any entities that change. I regard Existence as eternal i.e outside of time.
Your argument goes right back to the Ancient Greeks. Zeno or Diogenes if im not mistaken? Or Augustine?
(Great debate by the way!)
PlaceOfOrigin 1 year ago
Of course, I agree, that time 'happens' due to changes in matter/energy configuration. That existence of matter/energy began at some point is not self-contradictory since the beginning of existence and time are concommitant. Now, so suggest that it makes no sense to speak of time when referencing the singularity that is supposed to have preceeded the Big Bang. I am not educated enough yet to discuss that.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
Firstly, time and existence are not necessarily concommitants, or at least existence takes precedence over time. The advances in Physics (particularly Quantum Mechanics) have shown that at some point time breaks down and virtual stops. Its a self-contradictory position to ask for a "beginning" because you're using the concept of "time" out of context by applying it to the universe as a whole.
Secondly (and i have to admontion you severely here!) "Existence out of time would be unchanging".....
PlaceOfOrigin 1 year ago
I meant "admonish"
PlaceOfOrigin 1 year ago
...I never said anything of the sort. Whether you done that knowing or not (i dont know which is worse) its totally wrong.
Thirdly, so now your question about "unchanging existence popping in the Big Bang" is now unanswerable because of your previous false assumption. Its not true that the BB theory holds that existence began at some point in time, or that existence emerged out of non-existence. Rather, it holds that something very different from matter as exists today, and perhaps operating...
PlaceOfOrigin 1 year ago
....By different physical laws that operate today, existed before the BB, and caused the BB (this pre BB existence is usually called "the Primeval Atom")
Fourthly the capital E was just an emphasis, nothing more.
PlaceOfOrigin 1 year ago
So the Primeval Atom is a supposition about which we know basically nothing?
Xpistos2 1 year ago
If the Primeval Atom "caused" the BB, how? We don't know that either. It is getting curiouser and curiouser. The epressed 'hope' that science will arrive at the truth of it is wistful.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
There was a time when we thought the sun revolved around the earth. There was a time when polio devastated certain populations. There was a time when travelling into space was considered foolish. There was a time when........example after example. There a countless istances where science was deemed impotent in the face of such problems. Science needs time. Will you answer my question about your belief, if you received it.
PlaceOfOrigin 1 year ago
Your regarding of Existence as eternal, ie outside of time is fine with me :-) But by your own words that Existence out of time would be unchanging. Now, in your opinion, if that Existence is the precursor of these existent entities and energy of our universe, how is it that that unchanging Existence POP'D in the Big Bang, causing time and matter/energy changing? So far Science has not answered that question and even some imply it can not be answered.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
What does it mean for you to say that Existence (I notice the capital letter E) is eternal meaning outside of time?
Xpistos2 1 year ago
I have emails showing two recent posts by you but for the life of me I can't find them on the site of the video and I want to respond to them. I think you are misunderstanding me at this point.. Without my posts and yours following it is hard to respond. But, one thing, I did not suppose that the BB holds that existence began at some point in time or that the BB holds that existence emerged out of nothing. Where are the posts?? :) I can't find them.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
I can view all of our posts by clicking the 'view all comments' button. Its a very complex issue and we are in a limited forum. My stance against religion is not based on any of the issues we have discussed, because i dont think its a sophisticated enough system it deal with these problems. Science does have a lot to say and will eventually have all the relevant evidence. When that day does come it makes no difference, philosophically, because whatever existed pre BB the fact still remains......
PlaceOfOrigin 1 year ago
"because whatever existed pre BB the fact still remains....that we ARE here."
Well, aren't there problems we saying "pre BB?" Pre implies time. I want to know how it is that we are HERE and NOW if existence is eternal. I think it is a demanding question. How can any thing begin changing and be in time from that which is eternal? I think there are serious problems in postulating an eternal non-intelligent existence.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
...that we ARE here. There just technical details that will be fleshed out in time.
Science is where the answers lie, not in religion. Shall we turn to the of "God"?
PlaceOfOrigin 1 year ago
I thought you had said existence out of time would be unchanging. If existence out of time is NOT unchanging then it could not be out of time. If change occurs in the Singularity, time as we know it might not be the same...whatever that could mean...but if there are changes...then there is time. How could there NOT be time if there are changes? Clearly, if the BB is true, then a change occurred from the Singularity to the Explosive expanding universe? I don't have your whole post. :(
Xpistos2 1 year ago
You seem like an intelligent person. Could you explain your belief in an unidentifiable "God"
PlaceOfOrigin 1 year ago
We talk all the time. I don't suppose I could explain an unidentifiable "God" anymore than you can explain an unidentifiable Singularity. Oddly though God is One. The idea of a Singularity is also Singular or One...I guess. I applaude physics and the effort to understand reality and how this universe came to be as it is. I think that the pursuit of truth is a good thing. I think when the physicists reach the top of the mountain, the theologians will welcome them. :-)
Xpistos2 1 year ago
"god is one". "the pursuit of truth". "top of the mountain" are ultimately meaningless bromides. Do you actually believe in the virgin birth, talking snakes or died people coming back to the life? (to name just a few)
PlaceOfOrigin 1 year ago 3
Not just bromides. Afterall, you have talked about the progress of science (pursuit of truth) and the Singularity (which means all was once kindof one) and the top of the mountain (of reality) is a poetic image as good as your "Science is where the answers lie.." You know science is a way that man uses to analyze the world of matter/energy using ultimately his data attainted through his senses. He apprehends models of the world, tests them, uses the results in many wonderful or deadly ways.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
To be honest i dont want to get into the way a religious person alternates between taking the bible figuratively in the places where it becomes rationally untenable and literally in the places where they want people to toe the line.
Where does Islam Hiduism Buddism et al come into it? (let alone the rifts in your own denomination)
Science doesnt set up restrictions or boundries. Whats true in the U.K is true in timbuktu.
PlaceOfOrigin 1 year ago
@PlaceOfOrigin This is me...a bit of a mix up on my ID...Xpistos2 here..........................
Since you felt free, as you ought to admonish me. let me return the favor. "To be honest" I always expect that you are honest :-). Your idea that a religious person alternates from figurative to literal to protect themselves in areas of so-called untenableness etc. is merely an expression of your prejudice, your bias, your discount of any validity to any religious person's belief.
rcote22401 1 year ago
I do not discuss my religious beliefs with unbelievers. But as for a talking snake, I will say this...it is a motif, a mythos, to relate a truth. As for people coming back to life, if Christ is NOT Risen, my faith is in vain and I am, of all men the most to be pitied.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
I pity you...
420HashSmoker 1 year ago
LOL
rcote22401 1 year ago
Comment removed
DonAliBaba 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xpistos2 I deeply and honoustly feel for you, good luck with your struggle
DonAliBaba 1 year ago
@PlaceOfOrigin Yo, if you're gonna champion the cause (long live atheism comrade), don't say died people. That, or you're a step ahead of us saying "do you believe that dyed people came back to life?". After all, big JC was a total hippie. Nootch.
olafsirpab 1 year ago
@olafsirpab It was only a grammatical error. I type fast and don't spell check before i post. Surely the same can't be said for your use of "gonna" which is just plain sloppy.
PlaceOfOrigin 1 year ago
@PlaceOfOrigin I'm just teasing ya buddy
olafsirpab 1 year ago
i meant "dead". Sorry
PlaceOfOrigin 1 year ago
What are the 'facts' on board? There is so much unanswered. If you want to attack the Bible and fundy religion, how easy is that? Very. But you guys have no answers for ultimate questions and my religion provides that.
Xpistos2 2 years ago
@Xpistos2, What is your religion? Tell us in detail what you believe and I promise either it is so vague as to have no bearing on any action in this world or it is flat out false.
darkmiles22 2 years ago 14
@darkmiles22 I am a Catholic. You want details, google the Cathechism of the Catholic Church and read.
Xpistos2 2 years ago
Of course, millions may follow you. Millions will follow anybody. Millions follow this one and that one. Can you reasonably hope to win a war of ideas?
The answer to that question is up in the air.
Xpistos2 2 years ago
Dawkins for the Peace prize next year!!
Gymbruden 2 years ago 5
You know what I agree by spreading the knowledge of atheism I feel that he has saved many lives from radical fundamentalist and terrorists right now and in the future. Not to mention he's helping out with discrimination, and the teaching of falsehoods such as creationism. Not to mention it would give atheists a better reputation.
4everkeim 2 years ago 2
When one combines the wide spectrum of knowledge from all ancient spiritual traditions with the evidence modern science produces, one may have a deeper understanding of what is, while affirming what is already intuitively known. This not only increases IQ, but also removes fear based philosophy & superstition. Experiencing truth is power & freedom; for then, ridiculous beliefs need not be chosen.
I recommend the "theduderinok" youtube channel for open minded beings who want to learn & grow.
SofaKingAbsent 2 years ago
It's fuuny to see richards hand moving arcoss the camera reaching over for his wiskey!
mrmcnasty85 2 years ago
Well, George Orwell already came up with the perfect catchphrase for what... The old beardy guy was talking about.
It's called Doublethink.
Unwardil 2 years ago 5
i think most people are just retareded to the main facts and tedius rules that religion has mainly christians casue i know my fellow americans or most just go to go or just plain lazy to read the bible over and over to understand it...but then when we attack them or they get all ryeld up from a preist it just hits mob mentality and then you see anger taking over not the smarts so we can get these fukers on board its just we have to really educate them reall good first lol....
fattkattz55 2 years ago
Hour 2. - Love it. All glasses filled with scotch, or martinis. so refreshing to have an honest discussion among thoughtful people who have the god-blessed ( ;-) attribute of free thought.
Smeldrum1 2 years ago 5
The idea of a loving God is very comfortable to many people - which can be especially consoling in troubled times (i.e. everything happens for a reason). Unfortunately many people are feeble and cannot deal with the fact that their lives have no meaning.
LeadOnWiseMan 2 years ago 3
It's not a deterministic fact in need of dealing with in the first place.The existence of some deity,or absence of same need not be the linchpin on which turns fulfillment of desired secular purpose in ANY given Life.
djnross 2 years ago
djnross:
I was referring to a supernatural purpose in my last comment. Of course people have earthly purposes: the purpose of brushing your teeth is to avoid cavities, etc. Where I disagree is when people say they were "put on earth for a purpose/reason"; which implies their actions while on Earth serve a higher power.
LeadOnWiseMan 2 years ago
Supernature being a fiction,there can be no other purpose(s) than those chosen by a sentient adult.The Genesis edict 'to multiply,be fruitful and become many'is but the biological directive of all organic Life,certainly not restricted to humans.
djnross 2 years ago
that could be considered the definition of addiction. a mental or physical need to cope with life. religion falls under that just as much as drugs or love or whatever you want to put there that people are addicted to. to me religion is a drug that people are addicted to. the troubling fact of this is only about 5 to 10 percent of people recover from there addictions.
Nibielari 2 years ago
I think people can live with religious contradictions in the same fashion as anti-abortionist can also support the death penalty. People can easily be contradictory, especially since we travel with and in many different groups and types of people.
TheFortressMaximus 2 years ago 2
Giving up one's former faith isn't as easy as it might seem that it should be. There are all sorts of interwoven entangled tendrils that are attached to that "faith" that, but it can be done... it just takes time, and I am a testament to that fact.
xephyr1000 2 years ago 4
me too. fear of eternal damnation is a bitch, but getting over it is liberation.
SofaKingAbsent 2 years ago 4
I think even if Im wrong and there is a hell and heaven, i doubt that the devil would want to cause up perminment harm, as surely the reason for is explustion from heaven was because he wanted to be loved the most, so i can imagine he'd be a rock-star and we the groupies!
mrmcnasty85 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out this interview- com/watch?v=LanURyWHKyA
SofaKingAbsent 2 years ago
hitchens's glass of scotch looks refilled after the break
gondor420 2 years ago 3
It will be a miracle if his glass stays empty
harrywsu 2 years ago
It would also be a miracle if it stayed full ;)
MiracleOfRealism 2 years ago
They should make this a series.
Showmeyourtitties 2 years ago 2
Hour 2..... and Christopher's scotch has been replenished. HA
dudefacemcgee 2 years ago 2
they should do more of these
CheekyVimto08 2 years ago 5
Dennett at