IQ2 Debate- "Atheism is the new fundamentalism" (1 of 12)

[sdrawkcabgnipytmi]

"Where was God in Auschwitz?"

How ironic. The kind of non-thinking, non-questioning required to believe in any God is the same kind that is required to believe that other races are inferior and must be wiped off the face of the Earth. ... It is the belief in something for which there is no real evidence.

[Laxlovell]

Anthony Seldon? The mind boggles

[DavidMTRutten]

"Where was man in Aushwitz?" Seriously? Man was everywhere in Aushwitz. Man build Aushwitz and tortured and killed others in Aushwitz. Aushwitz was a creation of Man.

We are so quick to label our most base behaviour as godless or animalistic. Heaven forbid we label is as human and take some bloody responsibility for what we are as a species.

[supremeedible]

@DavidMTRutten Hi, David. This is a rather entertaining comment as you seem to have completely reversed the meaning of the phrase as quoted -- people who ask "where was God in Auschwitz?" are really asking why God didn't step in and put an end to it. The answer -- "where was man in Auschwitz?" -- puts the onus on man quite instead of acquitting him, for indeed, God has provided him with all the materials to stop such corruption from happening.

[DavidMTRutten]

@supremeedible "people who ask "where was God in Auschwitz?" are really asking why God didn't step in and put an end to it."

I disagree. I think quite a lot of people who ask about the whereabouts of God, in fact seem to imply that the absence of God at Auschwitz can only be satisfactorily explained by an absence of God everywhere.

[Segepop]

I actually liked the way he spoke. I think he would be a man with whom you could and would have a nice conversation.

On the other hand, his facts were grossly off... he describes an atheism I have never heard of and, shocking enough now that I think about it, there seams to be more ways to not believe in a deity... I guess there are those who don't collect stamps, those who are against collecting stamps and those who have other activities to replace their former stamp collecting. No idea!

[speedygonzales1313]

Rabbi Hugo Gryn, once asked where was God in Aushwitz replied - The question is - where was humanity, where was man..?

[BillKiernan]

if god was there at aushwitz, then god is irrelevant.

[chris7777777777777]

Sometimes I wonder. If God does exist, maybe he is just the Great Observer.

[VarykGerai]

what a lying piece of crap. There were numbers of greek philosophers whos works werent pointing towards religion. Who were the great philosophers? Great meant those who supported religion. Im pretty sure lots of philosophers were just putting the twist of religion to not get accused of blasphemy. What a cunt.

[anthonzi]

7:14 Got positive evidence?

[anthonzi]

4:12 Bollocks. Christianity has simply behaved like every other religion and hitched a ride on the artistic talents of its subjects.

[jburrell100]

This site has unfairly deleted my comments which show it is being used as pro atheistic propoganda site and not a honest educational delivery system.

[cacahahacaca]

Could you please upload a higher resolution video of the debate? Thanks

[cartmanSPP]

The 'evils' of religion outweigh the 'good'. Simple. Illegal drugs may make you feel better momentarily, but in the long run, it is detrimental to your life history. In the case of religion, it may very well spell the doom of humanity, as it not only normalizes baseless assertions (faith), it glorifies, perpetuates, and encourages these pathological lies to greater degrees (irrationality).

Religion desensitizes us to lies and liars that sneak in the word 'god'.

==============> G.W.Bush

[torresut]

This is laughable! Who is saying Atheism is a new fundamentalism?" The guy speaking is a fundamentalist and all he is trying to do is to label his opponents; it is what is called an attack to the opponent rather than the idea itself. Overall, what this man says is nothing but bull-shit.

[jburrell100]

Dawkins is the Jerry Falwell of atheism. He chooses who he wants to debate based on how much book sales will result. Driving ideas forward by raising money from bias crowds equals fundamentalism. If he was not this way he would challenge better debaters like a leading Christian philosopher in America, William Lane Craig. Many have request this matchup for along time.

[BooMeRLiNSKi]

I suspect the reason Dawkins doesn't debate William Lane Craig is very simple in reality.

It's because William Lane Craig is a feckin idiot and Dawkins has far better things to do with his time.

[guidobambino]

@BooMeRLiNSKi lol then how come dr. craig's books and material are constantly praised, but the god delusion was complete trash, as indicated by the majority of professional criticism? since dr. craig is not only one of the most eminent christian apologists, but also completely destroyed rich dawkin's colleague in debate and embarrassed dawkin's "central argument," wouldnt you think a real man would step up to the challenge??

[BooMeRLiNSKi]

You're speaking nonsense quite frankly, just bald assertions with no basis in reality.

William Lane Craig is a joke who has never "destroyed" anyone in a debate.

You couldn't even tell me what Richard Dawkins "central argument" is.

I applaud Richard's decision not to give this charlatan any credence or any time in the limelight.

[guidobambino]

@BooMeRLiNSKi lol never destroyed anyone? excuse me, but maybe you havent seen the debate btwn dr craig and peter atkins. ill show you the hilight here:

/watch?v=3vnjNbe5lyE

richard dawkins central argument is long and, quite dumb. if you really believe THAT, then youve been brainwashed to the highest order. even some atheist philosophers admit that it sucks. you would appreciate this video also:

/watch?v=KfDKhDUWBWE

[BooMeRLiNSKi]

Watched it, first clip you send me is an edited chunk made to show WLC in the best light and yet... it totally fails even to do that.

You see ownage, I see a man blabbering on about stuff that he clearly doesn't fully understand.

I think anybody who pays any credence to William Lane Craig is borderline retarded.

[guidobambino]

@BooMeRLiNSKi you see the problem is that you dont want to admit anything. i understand why. you know it too. you have an adversity towards the establishment coupled with a deep seated inferiority complex. so you'll do anything to show you know more than the establishment, even though on this topic youre completely wrong. why?

first, the clip is basically 2 large clips lumped together to make an even larger clip. if theres anything special that was missed in btwn, why dont u show it to me?

[BooMeRLiNSKi]

No, the reality is I can spot sophism.

Also, please stop your laughable attempts at analysis, if you want to insult me just have a crack at it and I'll proceed to fashion you a whole set of brand new rectums, no need to be disingenuous about it.

[guidobambino]

@BooMeRLiNSKi (cont) secondly, dont you find it embarrassing that you say dr craig doesnt fully understand these things and that people who are convinced by him are borderline retarded, but yet your wise ass had NOTHING to comment on what he said in the video? you know that's insulting..its like when children say 'no youre wrong!..no youre wrong!' but never giving reason, because their reasoning faculties are under-developed. so if anyone here is borderline retarded...heh...well...

[BooMeRLiNSKi]

Please, list WLC's qualifications in science and mathmatics.

[guidobambino]

@BooMeRLiNSKi now wait a minute. why would you think that just because someone has qualifications or not, that therefore that lends that person more or less credence? in other words, why not debate his argument, not his credentials. i choose to take in information that is true, whereas you seem to suggest that you take in information from someone with qualifications.

of course, youre being hypocritical though! what are dawkins credentials in philosophy or theology? none! but so what? that

[BooMeRLiNSKi]

Philosophy is intuitive to humanity, the same can not be said of Physics.

You don't need to be a fairyologist to disabuse yourself of a belief in fairies.

WLC is totally unqualified to bring up complex physics in a debate and it is clearly sophism.

[guidobambino]

@BooMeRLiNSKi "You don't need to be a fairyologist to disabuse yourself of a belief in fairies."

That's exactly my point. just bcz you arent an "expert" at something, i.e. "expert" = with a degree, that doesnt mean you therefore cant comprehend the material. thats like saying 'oh, well, once they hand me the paper diploma then ill know all the data!' lmao...it isnt the title its what you know and dont know. knowledge is king, not title, my friend

[BooMeRLiNSKi]

But that wasn't my point.

My point was that theology isn't comparable to physics; in fact for the most part I don't see theology as a serious field of study.

The only type of theologian I would respect in an academic sense is an atheistic one and if that were the case their field is called religious studies or philosophy of religion etc.

[guidobambino]

@BooMeRLiNSKi perfect, I'm fully confident that you've passed the first grade based on your point by point response. Unfortunately, since it lacked any hint of cognitive development and reasoning, I'm not so sure you progressed from the second grade on.

I understand now that you cannot reason on the order of men, but only as a boy. In which case I have to apologize. I treated you as if you were a man, but youre still a cowardly child. As such, you'll do anything to deny the refutation of

[guidobambino]

@BooMeRLiNSKi Oh I understand that physics and theology are two different fields, of course, but who cares? You're trying to tell me that just because you have a degree in theology that therefore you're incapable of learning anything else. This is what I mean...what grown man with any sense of rationality would say that?? Are you a grown man??

The bottom line is you let the facts speak for themselves. If Dr. Craig misrepresented things about physics, then you show them to me. You have the b.o.p

[claschxtreme]

@guidobambino : I haven't watched this particular video , yet .. but .. speaking of Craig, i you can't see the problem with his views in physics (sorry i can't say knowledge) or you lack the necessary basic knowledge to see it, well then good luck.

If you read about causality, virtual particles, beta-decay and time having an origin as a spatial dimension you could perhaps begin to undestand the problem with his first cause argument ...

[guidobambino]

@claschxtreme dr craig has already addressed those issues. the existence of virtual particles does not, in any way, undermine the basic metaphysical truth that something cannot come from nothing. he also discusses time..in fact he wrote at least two books dedicated to time. a big point he makes is that an effect in time must require a timeless, though personal causal agent.

it seems you havent done your homework on dr craig, my friend!

[86adamleon]

"time must require a timeless, though personal causal agent."

What the hell is that even supposed to mean?

Time is a metaphysical property we assign to the duration during a CHANGE.

If any agent is causal, it changes, and is thereby effected by time;

especially an agent, since this would imply that such an entity has intent.

If God were truly timeless, and outside of the universe, he would be Eternally actionless, and I fail to see how anyone could know anything about such a being.

[guidobambino]

@86adamleon it means that if time (change) had a beginning a finite "time" ago, as implied by modern cosmology, then its cause (whatever that may be) must by definition be timeless. in other words, that which created time must be outside of time.

you ask how could God (or whatever the cause of time is) perform an act which would require change when, prior to time's existence, there was no potential for change. the answer is that a personal agent (which I call God) freely chose to create an

[86adamleon]

I'm not sure that there is anything in cosmology which states that the chain of cause and effect ever had a beginning; that time had a start.

The creator of this chain couldn't be considered timeless, since there was a point in which it supposedly created everything;

at the start.

In order for time to be created, the agent creating it would become part of the chain of

cause and effect.

Do you have any solid evidence to back up your asserts about this agent, or is it conjecture?

[guidobambino]

@86adamleon (cont) effect in time, and God's willingness to create time was NOT prior to, but rather simultaneous with time's beginning. in short, it is known as simultaneous causation my friend

[86adamleon]

Time is a metaphysical property we use to measure and quantify change.

A timeless entity can never effect any part of the the universe, simply because of it's own definition, even if it were via simultaneous causation.

Asserting that time was created, is almost equivalent to saying that love was created;

does that mean whatever created love must by a loveless entity?

I think it's total nonsense, that only serves to avoid providing evidence for a claim.

-Peace!

[Boadeciia]

@guidobambino And who/what caused him? And more to the point WTF for?

[guidobambino]

@Boadeciia who/what caused whom..God? if God existed outside the universe causally prior to the creation of the universe, wouldn't that mean He is by definition uncaused

[Boadeciia]

@guidobambino Who told you it's a 'he?' Or any human-like imagined entity? Why would it be some chimp lookalike, or have any gender? Do you have a private line to this deity you claim exists, that informs you specifically, and no other chimp? If you do, show the evidence of such.

[guidobambino]

@Boadeciia i adhere to the christian doctrine, so while God is for us our creator and 'father,' i wouldnt attribute a gender or certain human characteristics to 'him.' Its just anthropomorphism. of course, i also believe in Jesus Christ on the basis of personal revelation, and Jesus was certainly a man.

[Boadeciia]

@guidobambino And I adhere to the rationalist view that nothing has ever shown me any reason to believe in any god/s, or any other supernatural claims, and certainly not one that's obviously invented by men. No woman has anything to thank any religion for. We'll assume we have we probably have different minds. If Jesus existed, he was probably just a nice guy.

[guidobambino]

@BooMeRLiNSKi (cont) means nothing. he could make the greatest argument against God and regardless of his credentials it'd still be great. granted, having credentials generally tends to indicate the quality of one's work, but it shouldnt be the end-all.

so i look at things like dawkin's "central argument" and it just sucks. i mean, what a disgrace to his credibility. you want to tell me you honestly respect someone who talks a big game, then produces Crayola-caliber crap like that??

[BooMeRLiNSKi]

Please explain to me what you think Richard Dawkins "central argument" is.

[guidobambino]

@BooMeRLiNSKi how about the argument he calls "the central argument?"

w w w .reasonablefaith . o r g/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&­id=5493

ill examine the argument premise by premise.

1) this is stupid and totally irrelevent

2) same as 1

3) glaringly untrue. you dont need an explanation of the explanation to show that that explanation is best. doing so would destroy reason and science

[BooMeRLiNSKi]

You've failed to make any sense here and just presented me with more babbling.

I asked you what you thought Richard Dawkins central argument is, you haven't done so.

[guidobambino]

@BooMeRLiNSKi That is Rich Dawkins central argument. That's what I think it is. Maybe you want to say what do u THINK of Rich Dawkins central argument. I already explained that too, every single premise fails.

I gave an entire explanation, and u havent responded to any of it. Instead u think its "babbling." Well, I guess I know now why they say America has the best universities in the world. In America, we debate and respond to argument. I guess in the UK you just say the other guy is babbling

[BooMeRLiNSKi]

Yes when they are babbling, we don't waste our time.

You're suffering under the woeful delusion that you have anything intelligent to say; thus far I have seen no evidence of it.

When I see a lump of shit I don't need to put my face in it and smear it across my cheeks to ascertain its full qualities.

[BooMeRLiNSKi]

Actually I'll respond in kind...

1: No it isn't.

2: Same as 1

3: Yes you do

3,4,6: No they aren't.

Wonderful, now I have also responed "point by point".

[guidobambino]

@BooMeRLiNSKi (cont) deep seated nonsense beliefs. You know they're nonsense, but you choose to believe them anyway by faith and faith alone. If I'm wrong, then you give me a detailed defense of Rich Dawkin's Central Argument, which was the original subject. If you don't, it's safe to assume you can't. It really isn't that difficult let's be honest..

[guidobambino]

@BooMeRLiNSKi (cont)

4, 5, 6) same as 1 (it's all opinions)

then, the conclusion comes out of nowhere. which is evidence of my original comment, how much of a scam this guy is. its completely fine print. in other words, he gives his opinion for 5 out of 6 premises, then throws in a completely uninvited conclusion. do you honestly buy that? if 'yes,' then read below...otherwise dont.

im not going to try to sound like a dick, but did you ever go to college? if so...where and with what degree?

[BooMeRLiNSKi]

I'm in the UK dumbarse, we do college and then we do University. You can try and insult me academically if you like... I would advise you not to try that tack though.

Also regarding your last, bit late for that.

[guidobambino]

@BooMeRLiNSKi I asked for your academic record because I just responded point by point to an argument. In the academic field, normally you, being the defense, would defend the original argument against my criticism. But you cant do it. Its sort of embarrassing because I know you believe in Rich Dawkins based on faith and vulnerability. So if he became a theist today, so would you. Why should I expect anything else, you cant even defend his central argument??

[BooMeRLiNSKi]

Have you watched "deliver us from evil" yet?

[BooMeRLiNSKi]

There is nothing worth commenting on, he's a joke.

Now if YOU would actually like to make some form of point I will quite happily answer that, thus far you haven't done so.

[Pottsdie]

William Lane Craig? You mean the guy who reworded and repackaged the long debunked "God of the gaps" argument and dubbed it "Kalam cosmological argument"?

That idiot is the best example you can come up with for "leading Christian philosopher in America"?

lolwut.

[jburrell100]

Are ad hominem attacks popular with all fundamentalist atheists or just a select few? Also, 99% of Dawkins arguments are just repackaged and were debunked during the Bertrand Russell days.

[guidobambino]

@Pottsdie how is his argument bad? what part(s) of the argument do you disagree with. i find it overwhelmingly convincing

[BooMeRLiNSKi]

Anybody who believes in any religion is clearly very easily convinced.

Honestly, I'm astonished how anybody can be taken in by it.

[Pottsdie]

@guido

Kalam has been proven to commit the fallacies of circular reasoning, shifting the burden of proof, special pleading, false dichotomy, and many many more. A simple google search on arguments against Kalam can reveal this.

The reality is that there is only one kind of person who thinks Kalam is convincing...people who WANT it to be convincing and are too intellectually dishonest to accept the fact that it is a dead horse.

[guidobambino]

@Pottsdie okay, so suppose i were to hypothetically reproduce the argument to you, give me your objections. not talkorigins. org objections, not the atheist experience objections, but yours.

[MrFacet]

@jburrell100 : Craig has admitted that whenever logic would go against god, he puts away logic and listens to the voices in his head that claim that he is right.

There is no point in discussing with somebody who siply does not accept arguments.

[dblood804]

this video won't play.....what's up?

[jacopomoro]

i belive in Merlin the wizard..

i love him, he loves me.. pretty much like brney the purple t-rex..

or like jesus the almighty carpenter..

[OriginalSupersod]

DURR

[jacopomoro]

OCID

[axxeman666]

The greatest philosopher who ever lived does not stand close to any of the men and women who contribute to science. All philosophers do is stir words and imaginations where scientists answer questions and make sense of reality.

[seeingglass86]

I love these things! We need these debates in America Something Bad! Go Dawkins!

[jburrell100]

Dawkins is indeed a fundamentalist. He uses his pulpit to preach his ideas where he can only be challenged by those he has already defeated. He refuses to debate one of the top Christian philosophers in the field, William Lane Craig. Dawkins has had at least the same number of debates, but is scared of Craig as he calls him a professional debater. That kind of talk sure sounds like a fundamentalist to me.

[AMordaciousGoat]

Dawkins is not a fundamentalists because he is open to changing his mind. He has stated as such. Fundamentalists don't need evidence and won't accept it. They know they are right before they begin.

[FadingEternity121]

And there arn't any tenants or fundamentals of atheism. It's just a response to the unsupported assertion of the supernatural.

[SynesthesianDreamer]

God was in Auschwitz? Wow... what a deluded idiot.

[Gordonisgreat]

Also, dont just complain "you never attack our strong arguments" - present them.

Where are these strong arguments?

It is more likely that the "weak" arguments are presented in the belief that they are strong, and when they fall flat believers say

"oh well yes, you can defeat that weak argument, but try challenging our strong ones"

But the strong argument, like tomorrow, never comes. It is always on the horizon, where it is safe from challenge.

[Gordonisgreat]

Daniel Dennett an attack dog? He's practically the atheist Santa Claus he is so nice!

and he bent over backwards to be respectful in Breaking the Spell

[MrFacet]

@Gordonisgreat

yeah it was almost embarrasing, he bent over forward for them. And what does he get back? Hate.