Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. -- Richard Dawkins, Untitled Lecture, Edinburgh Science Festival (1992)
The man seated on the right seems to be very snobby, stuffy and rigid--ditto in regard to his thinking. None of his arguments were profound, though-provoking or convincing. If anything, he just about put me to sleep. Lennox won that debate, no questions asked.
Lennox continually refutes himself, alternately saying it's okay if science tries to find naturalistic explanations, and then saying that this or that can't possibly have a naturalistic explanation. He never once responds to the demand for evidence for the existence of god other than helplessly pointing to complexity. Complexity only establishes that the universe is currently complex; it has nothing to do with any support for any kind of god.
Lennox is your typical ignorant creationist using the same pathetic arguments as all other religious morons. Props to Atkins for putting up with Lennox. The god hypothesis is a very lazy answer to a very intriguing question. These believers value faith over reason. Just because every answer isn't known yet doesn't mean you can fill in the blanks with god. This is beyond annoying to witness. Where would this god have come from? Why would you assume a soul exists? Why subscribe to a specific dogma
Atkins kept repeating the same lines: "You say 'we dont know how it happened, therefore God did it'" and "There is no evidence for the existance of God", even though Lennox reffuted BOTH of those objections. Not to mention that Lennox reffuted most of Atkins comments. Atkins seems like a smart guy, but Lennox totally won this Debate hands-down.
how can anyone, from any viewpoint, say lennox won this debate...? Atkins is a polished, erudite and a fine speaker. I also like lennox but you cannot say he beat atkins on oratory grounds. As for the argument itself, its reasoning, logic and humility against the "institutionalised tooth fairy"...
I did not watch this debate yet, but I have watched Lennox vs Dawkins and I will say Lennox won the DEBATE. I still think he is wrong. Channel owner, would you have the guts to say if any atheist won a debate? For example, in the debates between Hitchens and Turek, Turek was greatly overmatched. Are you willing to say so?
Even if John Lennox was wrong, he won the debate on the grounds of him being a highly articulate, charismatic and eloquent speaker, something which Atkins clearly is not.
I'm looking forward to the day chemists are able to create self-replicating molecules. I bet creationists will still argue that because we created it, it has to be created, and thus god must have created it. But that would mean that we have the same abilities as god.
It appears to me that both sides have valid points, but the blurb below is truly degrading. We must be civil in all debates and never insult others of different opinion.
It seems to me that Atkins' attitude towards philosophy is foolish. Science can not take over the discipline of philosophy and holding philosophy in contempt does nothing more than cripple and over simplify your argument.
@ThePhilfromaccountin Science cannot take over philosophy but it can adjust it. For instance, since the dawn of human intelligence people have been wondering about the mind/soul. Science has proven that most properties that were accredited to the soul are functions of the brain. If the soul truly does exist then it seems that the soul provides us with nothing more than consciousness. So buhddists were right all along or at least untill we find a brainregion for consciousness.
@blackman6270 You have made an assertion, "science cannot take over philosophy". Consciousness seems to be an intractable problem, but just like thunder and lightning, rainbows, madness etc science has given us explanations of these phenomena, are you sure science can't (EVER!) explain consciousness?
"So buhddists were right all along or at least untill we find a brainregion for consciousness."
It might very well be possible that consciousness is related to some part of the brain, but untill that day we have to assume that all religions were wrong about the soul.......except buhddists (yeah, they are awesome).
into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God
16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews
All have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then hell. That's not Gods will. He suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His life's blood so He could legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from your sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your salvation.
@mamainmancj Eternal torment & loving god do not go hand in hand! Even Ted Bundy stopped torchering his victims after they died!
Believe & trust in me or burn in hell forever with no relief ever is no different than me going up to somebody with a gun & saying give me all you're money or I will shoot you! Of course they would not have to give me their money they could indeed say no if they wanted to but if they refuse they will get shot & killed.
What is scary and difficult to comprehend is that someone like Lennox, a mathematician, can at the same time have these wild unfounded beliefs. How often in school would the (maths) teacher say, 'now let's go back and prove that' (equation for example)... but when it comes to godly matters, this insistence is somehow just waved, and pure faith kicks in again. How bizarre.
Quote: "Dr. Lennox has soundly defeated atheist Richard Dawkins in three debates, and was voted a winner against his debate with Christopher Hitchens."
I've watched two of the Dawkins/Lennox debates, "The God Delusion" and "Has science Buried God". Only a blinkered Christian could make that statement.
I'll give you my views on this one after I've watched it.
By the way, which was the 3rd Dawkins/Lennox Debate areyou talking about?
Peter atkins declares that a belief in God stops the pursuit of science, yet he agrees that Galileo and others who believed in God were inspired to search the world and universe around them. What a hypocryte! He is just too afraid to dare to look beyond the immediatly observable. It's like a baby in the womb saying there is no life outside the womb.
folgermichael, if Atkins is so confident that his position is right, he could tolerate it being tested against other points of view. His American-Republican tactics are designed to prevent that happening. I've heard his "debates" with other, more aggressive opponents and he doesn't hold his own in an even-handed argument. There's a reason that even among the new atheists who don't care about reason he's not a major figure. It's because he's got condescension and not more.
@destituteneedsjob Well I will agree with you that Dr. Atkins is totally intolerant of the theistic view, or any view that surrenders science to anything ethereal, unobserved, or omnipotent. He is a pure scientist--not a rhetorician or philosopher, and I agree with you: he probably should avoid religious debates. I rather like Dr. Atkins's narrowness--it's uncommon to come across someone so consistently devoted to one mode of thinking. I think he is totally right, but he is not too kind.
@destituteneedsjob You can sense a nasty undertone from Dr. Atkins that you don't get from Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, or Dawkins. Debates with those other guys tend to be more jocular and frivolous. Hitchens will digress for 10 minutes and attack from 50 different angles, Dawkins and Dennett are always very cordial. Harris is closest to Atkins in terms of style, but he still doesn't interrupt the other speaker. In the midst of my criticism, however, it must be noted that Dr. Atkins is right.
Atkins is the most religious sounding atheist I have heard yet. Well no no I can't explain that but don't worry Science (praise its name) will reveal eventually reveal all knowledge. The root of his foundational system (evolution) is CHANCE!! haha What a leap of faith.
@ambassadorinchainz That isn't what Peter [or John] said at all. Both of them refer to evolution as the combination of random genetic mutation and natural selection. It's rather unfortunately that Peter used the word "chance" at all because it ends up being the only word among paragraphs of explanation that religious people seize upon. That said, I am not a scientist. I am, however, able of listening to these two men talk without willfully cherry-picking and distorting their thoughts. Good luck.
sorry folgermichael I was just a little bothered by Atkins' tone throughout the discussion. I found him quite arrogant and disrespectful of John and the moderator that's all. And yes I do think chance is the correct word. I have listened to many atheists use this word and explain this word. I know what they mean when they use it even though they want to pretend its more complex than it is.
@ambassadorinchainz One thing we might both agree on: Peter Atkins has no patience for religious people. Even though I share Dr. Atkins' view, Dr. Lennox seems like a very smart, reserved, cheerful man. He is always thoughtful and respectful, even when being publicly derided. More broadly, I think pitting a truly religious person against a truly scientific person is and enterprise ultimately destined to fail. Dr. Atkins is an unapologetic physicalist, a view totally antithetical to Dr. Lennox's.
I do agree on that with you. And their are theists who are obnoxious as well. I just like when people are more cordial when debating because it allows for better discussion. And it is true that materialists and theists come from completely different presuppositions rendering it impossible for them to get beyond a certain point when speaking with one another.
@ambassadorinchainz Well, I mostly agree with that. I think both sides have become terrified of being too kind of the other viewpoint because the dogmatists on both sides are always waiting in the wings to seize upon any concession as evidence of victory. When Dr. Atkins mistakenly says "chance" instead of "random mutation" he is not given the benefit of the doubt. Likewise, when a theologian concedes evolution, the scientist won't let him maintain a dual belief in the supernatural. It sucks.
@ambassadorinchainz It is a personal weakness of mine to allow an online debate denigrate into an openly hostile flame war. I can understand how Dr. Atkins can become flustered or enraged, but neither he nor I have any real cause to interrupt others or become visibly angry, if not but for the very triviality of the topic. We see the issue as total nonsense: the physical world is all there is, and as such, we scientists should simply let religious topics roll off our collective backs.
That is an interesting thing to me as to why Atheists get so bothered about it. From a Christian worldview it does not surprise me because Paul says that nonbelievers suppress the truth. This comes from idolatry. In atheism it is selfworship/human worship (enlightenment religion, basically). But from your perspective their is no real reason to get so bothered if it's as much of a trivial topic as many atheists claim.
@ambassadorinchainz It is not the belief, it is the consequence of the belief. If christianity, Islam etc., were something you kept to yourself, didn't try to impose on others, didn't start wars, didn't cause people spew ignorant nonsense like Dr. Lennox, we wouldn't be bothered.
haha yes there are no atheists who started wars (real or intellectual)...oh wait yup there are on both sides. But that does not account for what I said. It is incompatible with an atheist worldview. ...try again
@ambassadorinchainz The first part of your comment does not dignify a response. Get some more straw and maybe it will at least resemble my position.
I think it does and I told you why. If you think this is the only life you have and you think that this makes it meaningful and would like to enjoy, you would be upset be people running around saying that this is just the shit stop on the way to the good stuff and convincing other to live as if this were true. Repeating yourself isn't helpful
If this life is it and there is nothing to hold you accountable then logically you are right that you should want to have as much fun as possible. Unfortunately I don't think your happy go lucky view of man is realistic. Some people with that worldview become depressed while others do become gluttons for pleasure which leads to immorality. And yes some maintain this worldview and inconsistently live a decent life(according to society). Though you have no foundation for universal morality.
I've known atheists who weren't conceited asses but, since going online about ten years ago, the vast majority of atheists I've encountered have been. If other atheists don't want that to come off on them they've got their work cut out for them.
Nathanmarto, who died and made you the judge of the dictionary? You know you just dissed one of the great heroes of the anti-religion cause, Thomas Huxley, who invented the word. Only, I'm prepared to believe you have no idea who Thomas Huxley was.
If you can't know something you can't objectively know it. That's the agnostic position. Atheism is illogical faith in theability to objectively know something that can't be objectively known. The new atheism is a fundamentalist faith.
So now i believe in Mithra, Apollo, Diana Apollo´s sister, Zeus, Thor, Amon Ra, the great yuyu of the mountain, Wicca, Nuth, gamesh, ahura mazda, Anat, Amaterasu, Atlas, Ba Xian, Dagon, Horus, Isis, Juturna, Odin, Tyr, Shen yi, Shiva, Atlon and Ares.
The universe is too complex to be just one designer and the universe cant come only from one god. Monotheism is nonsense.
Besides, no one can disprove all those gods exist. So that proves they exist.
In 2012 atheists have made it permissible to disavow them because of their obnoxious dishonesty. Online atheists are a bunch of conceited idiots who flash a bunch of long words to impress other idiots. Like Atkins, they substitute Republican style media tactics for logical arguments supported by evidence. I'm fed up with them. It's agnostics, not atheists who care about honest, logical thinking.
@destituteneedsjob I disagree with you on that, in my opinion, being an agnostic is almost as lazy as believing in religion. When asked questions that require any kind of argument or debate that might 'offend' either side they chose to turn to the 'grey area'. Choosing to sit on the fence and say 'I don't know'.
@destituteneedsjob Agnostic is not a valid class...it's an empty word. It's either you have evidence based reasoning or faith based reasoning. It really is one or the other. If you are agnostic, you are simply not being true in making a decision. Again, being an atheist does not stipulate there is NO higher power, it's just saying all the claims to truth are false. Anyway, you are making this stale by your refusal to provide any evidence and facts. I get the sense you have none.
@destituteneedsjob Some atheists are like that, some are not. The younger teenaged atheists who are overcoming religious indoctorination tend to be very arrogant and know-it-alls. It may also be useful to point out that the majority of eminent scientists are atheists.
@destituteneedsjob since before 1000AD Christians have made it permissible to disavow them because of their obnoxious dishonesty. Online Christians are a bunch of conceited idiots who flash a bunch of long words to impress other idiots. Like Lennox, they substitute Ted Haggard style media tactics for logical arguments supported by evidence. I'm fed up with them. It's Atheists not Christians who care about honest, logical thinking.
@destituteneedsjob there isn't a great deal of difference between those who consider themselves atheist or agnostic, the latter merely leave open the possibility of something else involved, but they typically still do not accept the wild purely fictitious stories of those who insist on any seemingly good answer from savage times without evidence. "Obnoxious dishonesty" is firmly part of faith based "idiots" who simply expect others to swallow their wild ideas less any evidence
I really don't like how atheists get off track when debating the incompatibility of science and religion. They straw man God or gods to being an explanation for what science can't explain. Even if science could explain "everything" (whatever that would mean), it doesn't mean a deity can not exist or religion is nonsense. My religion teaches to be fair, responsible, and reasonable, but when atheist teaches to do those things, it seems to stem from emotion rather than actual reason.
Nathanmarto, the new atheists are Chatty Cathy dolls who don't do anything but say the same things over and over again, no matter how many times they are refuted with facts and evidence. The best thing for the rest of us to do is to point that out as often as necessary and to make disavowing them permissible and popular. I've known several people who used to call themselves atheists who now call themselves agnostics because of they don't want anyone to mistake them for new atheists.
@destituteneedsjob I don't mind being predictable, as reality and truth do require predictable responses. Please give me something solid to refute, so far you have given nothing. Christians have made it their mission for hundreds of years to make disavowing atheists permissible and popular, so you can't introduce any new force there! Atheism is the counter force to religion, and it's about time. So, hit me with some "facts" and "evidence"...point form if you want, make it direct and clear.
nathanmarto, all you're doing is churning the same old new atheist clap trap. And Christianity was not originated in the "bronze age", despite what you read in Dawkins or some other ahistorical atheist polemic. Your statement is anti-semetic to its core.
Mathematics originated in the "bronze age" and before. While I've seldom met an online atheist who wasn't quite ignorant of mathematics and science, I doubt you'd hold its age against math or science, which depends on it.
@destituteneedsjob Forget Christianity. From the birth of human conciseness, the desire to understand our universe has teased us. Thus, various Gods have followed. To equate Christianity to God I find terribly narrow minded. The bronze age (3300-1200 BC for the middle east) is a fair call for the roots of Christianity (i.e. Judaism). Shame on you for misusing the term "Anti-Semitism" in such a frivolous way. Let me restate, it's bronze age "philosophy". I respect any accurate math and science.
Peter Atkins doesn't have anything except bigotry and arrogance, he doesn't make arguments and he purposely talks over Lennox when Lennox is making an argument. His assertions aren't supported. The belligerence is an obvious dodge to mask that he can't answer Lennox, I hadn't realized that was why the new atheists are so obnoxious until, watching him, I understood that. There's a reason that the new atheists DON'T promote Atkins like they do their heroes, all he is is rude and obnoxious.
@destituteneedsjob Perhaps all you see is arrogance, but so what! Lennox is churning that same old bronze age dessert dish of philosophy, without adding much to the recipe. The popularity of Atkins within the new atheists is completely irrelevant. We are debating here, not consoling or giving pleasantries. Atkins is fighting a straw man argument and hardly knows where to start in the unsubstantiated claims. Hero or not, rude or not, we are addressing the obvious falsehood of religions...agree?
@jhweh2007 Why, so we can hear more babble from the stream of philosophy from beyond 6000 years ago? As if we have not heard enough of this talk, this pure wishful thinking. There will always be that bigger question, but why are we so obsessed with finding an absolute. Are our minds a dial on a magnetic compass with God and rationality our only two bearings? Wishing there is a God will not make a God. We just need to accept humans are inherently bad at evaluating facts, so let's be more humble.
Dr. Atkins: "we are not arrogant" ... what? Calling other scientists, also Nobel Prize decorated scientists, lazy, incomplete scientists, senile, vasted minds, ... is not arrogant?
Dr. Atkins seems attack the God of the Gaps, and he would be right to do so if it was Dr. Lennox view. But he totally misses the fact, that this is not Dr. Lennox' god.
Dr. Atkins: "If science came to the result, that there is a God, we would have to accept that." Next sentence: "I will never accept that."
Nathanmarto, this has nothing to do with evolution, it has to do with Peter Atkins being a time hogging bigot with nothing to bring to the discussion and the moderator being incompetent at making sure that both sides get a chance to present their argument. Lennox presents arguments, Atkins presents derision and baseless insults.
If we get into what you don't know this is going to have to go on for at least 1,547 more comments.
@destituteneedsjob A bigot he is not, just someone that has a penchant for truth and attacking non-evidence based claims. On the charge of being a time hogger, seems I need to watch again with a stopwatch. If you can not offer a fact based defense, you must have a weak position of rambling philosophy. Who argues "you don't know, so I win"...pathetic. Just identify a single fact which is in dispute, just one! Please do not get your defense from scripture, you have no idea how foolish you sound.
John Lennox is a nice gentleman. He gives good rational arguments. William Lane Craig on the other hand is not so nice to Atkins. He just mauls Atkins.
@IntrepidJss Lennox is indeed a gentleman, a quality I admire. However, sadly, his arguments are the same old bronze age philosophical thought soup which was churning thousands and thousands of years ago. This line of thought is the same odd primitive, non-evidence based, philosophical, self-serving, immodest, wishful thinking, theology based mindset our ignorant ancestry carried. Humans are bad at making conclusions in our world. By nature, we have only instincts, emotions and curiosity.
If I put aside my belief while watching this video...John Lennox gives extremely good arguments. Arguments not from faith, but intelligent arguments based on rationality and logic. I think that Atkins is extremely emotional and cannot grasp the fact that a lot of his own arguments are based in a deep faith of a 'godless' universe. He also rambles on a lot of the time and at the end, he hasn't really answered anything.
@seanabmoore If you do not value understanding and science, then I'm sure it would seem like rambling to you. You probably are the sort to day dream in lectures or in the class room. Rationality and logic are based on evidence, of which there is zero. What do you define as God? Atkins is perhaps emotional compared to Lennox, a cute shaved Santa Clause character, but when an atheist is trying to argue with something that has not been demonstrated, a straw man, I hardly blame him.
As to there being stupid Christians, having read a lot of the new atheist blog blather, that's hardly an attribute of Christianity. The new atheists are about as ignorant a cult as any that has existed. They are a mirror image of fundamentalist Christianity. Just a rearrangement of the ignorance and bigotry in each image.
As to there being stupid Christians, having read a lot of the new atheist blog blather, that's hardly an attribute of Christianity. The new atheists are about as ignorant a cult as any that has existed. They are a mirror image of fundamentalist Christianity. Just a rearrangement of the ignorance and bigotry in each image.
nathanmarto, the 20th century is full to overflowing with atheist massacres, like those that atheists lay on religion. Only hardly as often since the 18th century, especially in the west. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the North Koreans Reign of Terror in France after the revolution, the history of officially atheist-anti-religious government is a history of mass murder.
You are entirely ignorant of the history of science, as most new atheists are. Science was invented by Christians.
These Anti-Theists (They're not even worthy of the name Atheists), are out to take away the religious rights from others, yet scream and howel when anyone decides to give them a taste of their own medicine. They are immature, naive and illogical and base all of their actions on emotion and feeling rather than true logic.
@AdmRomulus Immature and naive, that's not me. Such words in this debate can only be reserved for those that use faith based logic and rationale. Personally, I'm not screaming or howling, nope not me. Regarding my logic, I invite you to show me where it fails. Anti-Theist, maybe sometimes, but dare I say you consider all non-silent atheists as anti-theist and never consider the very large pink elegant in the room called evidence.
@destituteneedsjob Firstly, I've heard the "Stalin, Mao, etc" argument enough now for it to loose any real punch. An atheist leader you need not fear, only a dictatorship or theocracy. These people inserted themselves as a living God using the same framework as religion. To say science was created by Christians is fantastic. Secondly, my examples were clear topic based issues where religion clearly took supernatural and unscientific explanations. Maybe stay on topic in future replies.
@destituteneedsjob PS. I'm so happy you left out A. Hitler in your roll call, for which 6 million Jews where tortured and killed, seems we finally all got that one straight.
How dare Lennox suggest that Atkins takes the path of atheism so that he can avoid thoughts of being judged by a God, for which the existence of is being debated. The only real sin Peter has committed, I'm sure, is the refusal to accept Jesus as his savior. Oh no, what an injustice to humanity. The threads of non-sense put into this reply almost gives me a headache.
That moderator is sitting there like a dummy while Atkins hogs time by interrupting whenever Lennox says something. And it's not because what Atkins says is supported with evidence or particularly rational, it's just one assertion after another without any kind of support but his preferred assumptions. Fire the moderator and get someone who knows how to shut up a time hog. Maybe he's hoping to get a job on FOX or CNN in the US, to let Republicans do the same thing.
@destituteneedsjob Did you just take the truth and twist it completely around? What assertions? What is not supported by evidence? Atkins, like many in his field, always use evidence and rationality before speaking, writing, teaching and reading. If you suspect something is wrong, I suggest you do your research first before simply saying it's asserted. If he asserts, I'm highly confident it's correct. But since you reference no specific arguments, you are difficult to rebutt.
"The musings of a senile philosopher", that's not an argument, it's the hectoring of an arrogant snob for the consumption of other snobs of his own persuasion.
@destituteneedsjob It amazes me how so many atheist debators use the example of "emotions trumping reason" and that the atheist argument is logical and not emotional, accusing theists of attempting to pass off emotion as truth by pulling on the heart strings, yet here he is saying such insulting things about some of the greatest minds of our history. Unbelievably rude statements are made by Atkins including senility and laziness. What a cock.
@bubbyj Your faith is getting in way of your reason. He is hardly insulting these great historical figures, he is only suggesting they had so much more potential given different circumstances. Personally I don't discredit such figures, as Atkins would not, as Darwin himself was a Christian and struggled with this for a long time (there was no alternative theory). Atkins gives a fair response to Lennox, whom was throwing credits points to Christianity for note worthy scientists being Christian.
@nathanmarto Lol my faith is getting in way of my reason? What does reason have to do with what was heard? Please. You've been trolling this page for some time. Give up.
"Senile old men" hahaha ok yeah that isn't insulting whatsoever.
@bubbyj Not trolling, just rebutting comments in the most clear and honest way I can. Given I have posted many more arguments than yourself, exposing my position greatly, maybe you might like to dispute something instead of employing a lazy approach by saying I am trolling and something about what was heard is reason, or what is reason is heard...what the? Regarding the "Senile old men" quote, that was not me. I shall not be giving up Sir/Madam.
@nathanmarto I quoted the VIDEO insulting great minds throughout history, writing off their findings and beliefs as senility, then you mention something about my reasoning skills? You are either trolling or have mistaken me for someone else. You are in the wrong entirely.
@bubbyj Let's not get too emotionally invested in the potential offense historical figures may have taken hundreds of years ago. Atkins was not insulting their great minds, I'm sure he values all the non-faith bits. He was suggesting that in retrospect, they would have perhaps been disappointed at some of their conclusions. I know I look back at my thinking 10 years ago and feel disappointed it was based on information I never had...humility! Granted the word "senility" was not appropriate.
Atkins' arguments are banal and all seem to center on unfounded assertions of laziness, weakness, etc. in his opponents. Considering his intellectual achievements accusing Lennox of laziness or weakness is pretty silly. Lennox presents arguments, whether or not they're persuasive to any particular hearer is probably based in their preferences, but at least he's putting out a real effort. I will have to agree with the idea that Atkins is arrogant and bigoted. And I'm an agnostic.
@destituteneedsjob "unfounded assertions", you barely have to bruise the surface of history to see that when religion is embraced, you get ignorance and inaccurate explanations. Religion claims to know everything. Thus, religion creates lazy minds, little doubt. Just look at historical (and some modern) Christian views on germs, our galaxy, earthquakes and our own existence! Lennox is a Christian, denies evolution, and is simply reverse engineering arguments from Christianity to support a deity.
@nathanmarto When Jesus said "be wise as serpents and innocent as doves" I don't think he meant for us to be ignorant, thoughtless beings. The fact that people use religion as comfort has nothing to do with whether or not the religion is valid. I think that is called the "Genetic Fallacy". And John Lennox actually doesn't deny evolution. He supports theistic evolution.
@TheAxis456 Anyone interested in virtue and peace could utter words to the affect of "try to use your brains and learn". Let's get something straight here, John Lennox denies evolution. It is very simple. Theistic evolution = intelligent design = creationism = Religion = Christianity. Let's repeat that one more time for the people at the back. He is a Christian, believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and Adam&Eve are all our great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents. Yea!
@nathanmarto Okay, you obviously don't know what you're talking about! Show me where he states that! John Lennox does not deny evolution, nor does he think the earth is 6,000 years old. All of the leading, great Christian minds, all believe in evolution and an old earth: Francis Collins, William Lane Craig, C.S. Lewis (deceased). They understand what is metaphor in the Bible and what is literal.
@TheAxis456 I've read the pains of F. Collins to reconcile his Christianity with his DNA research and the 3 part waterfall story does not impress me. Lennox is secretive with his evolutionary thoughts. 58:30, he says "evolution and natural selection do something" and it "accounts for variation", barely conceding basic facts! Lennox does not see any room for human evolution in the Biblical account as stated in his book "Seven Days That Divide The World". He is reconciling scripture with science.
@nathanmarto Once again, you are misinterpreting what he's saying so you can use it in favor of atheism, which is intellectually dishonest. He's saying evolution does something, but it is not accountable for everything. It does not have the answers of existence. It may show how organisms change over a large period of time, but that's all. Why do you feel the need to alter facts just to prove your point? We should be honest in our search for truth, not biased.
@TheAxis456 Maybe it seems that way for a theologian, but let me make myself very clear, evolution is irrelevant to atheism, it's just a great supporting argument in the year 2012. Atheism purely comes from the fact that religion is entirely faith based and a Christian can demonstrate no more evidence than a Muslim, Hindu or Jew. They can not all be right, but they can all be wrong. So let's cut to the chase...humans and apes share a common ancestor, do you think Lennox agrees? I think not.
what at cold and gloomy existence it would be in this world if we we're all atheists it is so immensely fortunate that we are not and that there is another dimension called love and hope which science cannot fit into a cold calculation.
@jlhofer1 Play me the worlds smallest violin. Atheism is simply the rejection of the supernatural. Love, music, landscape, language and hope are all perfectly well understood experiences which don't require the supernatural to be invoked.
@nathanmarto it seems to me atheism cannot stand on its own 2 feet why do atheists even bother to dress in the morning if we are nothing but animals? modesty and such, among others, are categories borrowed from theism i think if the faith was fully practiced in all its implications it would soon be realized the in-sustainability
@jlhofer1 Wow. What an incredibly ignorant question. Firstly, there is no 'if' - we are, in fact, animals. And secondly: You seem to believe that 'Theism' has one set of ideas of what modesty actually is. This differs from culture to culture. Ultimately, other factors influence cultural norms than just a belief that God wants them to dress in a particular way. Are you now going to respond with that disgusting rebuttal, "Why have morals? Lets just kill each other if God's not watching"
@jlhofer1 Personally, I feel great modesty when thinking of the vast quantities of time that has come before me, when looking at our galaxy contemplating infinity, when considering all the less fortunate than I. Sure, good ideas get into religious texts and I would never suggest throwing them away based on their source. Keep the good where ever you find it. We are animals and my reasons for dressing are usually related to the weather, plus others really don't want to see my pale white body.
No offence taken, just the English language cringed. If you are going to uphold common knowledge, you should be attacking your fellow Christians for their beliefs. Two quaint verses, diluted in the mass of condemnation, results in a negligible impact. Nonetheless, Acts 24:15 boldly refers to the "wicked", how flattering for a moral non-Christian. This can easily be taken as resurrection into hell. Romans 3:23, your sins are forgiven if you accept Jesus as your savior, but non-Christians DO NOT!
Sorry I have to go back to study for now. But I will respond. It would be nice of you so remind me just in case I forget. I've already written down part of my response but it would make sense only posting this part. Also sorry for my language I nedd to improve my english. It would be easier for me to talk in german or french. Consider this a suggestion.
@franciso7 Your language is fine, if almost excellent. Just "dude" is so American and worse, teenage. Take your time in constituting a reply, but please don't expect me to remind you ;)
I guess it's laziness to believe that the Occam's Razor theorem, or any other theorem for that matter, is correct. Because you cannot prove any theorem to an absolute degree, you can only measure it statistically. And in many situations, Occam's Razor is wrong - because it is often through assumptions and extrapolations that new experience springs forth.
@smhussain62 Although, I suspect Lennox is right in saying that Atkins is being too critical of philosophers. To my mind there is a useful distinction to be made between poet philosophers, who write philosophy fiction, and scientist philosophers who impartially investigate their subject aiming for a fuller understanding. My sense is that more and more professional philosophers are scientist philosophers.
Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.' John 14:6. Jesus said He is 'the' way, not 'a' way which means that Jesus is the only way, there is no other way to the Father. What could be clearer?
John Lennox, is a very intelligent person, I think. However, he still doesn't seem to grasp the very concept of the meaning of Atheistm. He keeps insisting it's a belief. Someone get him a dictionary for once, please.
@skaruts Obviously atheism is a belief -- and it's a firm belief at that. If you'd like to argue this, I would suggest you look up "agnosticism" instead of "atheism".
I'd even go as far as to say atheism is a belief system akin to religion (this is especially poignant the way people follow Richard Dawkins and the new militant stream of anti-religion, anti-spirituality, anti-everything except for 100% materialism). For a group that champions 'rationality', this hardly seems rational to me.
@teahouse100 Atheism = Lack of belief in a divine being.
Now, what part of "lack of belief" do you and J. Lennox not undestand?
Following Dawkins (if you can call it that) is very different from following god or Jesus. Dawkins exists and there's no dispute about it, he's a scientist with credentials, he thinks logicaly and humanely, he doesn't blackmail people to love him or else die in a furnace. And most people don't worship him, they admire his work and his competence.
@skaruts I'm sorry, it's a contradiction because there is no such thing as a lack of a belief. A negative belief is still a belief. When you claim you 'lack belief in God' it is the same as you believe there is no God. I'm a philosophy graduate, so believe me when I say it's a major logical fallacy to say atheism is not a belief.
What you are talking about is agnosticism - a suspension of belief - this is the closest you will come to non-belief.
@skaruts As for Dawkins: he's a materialist, exactly! I respect that. However, he is not a theologian, not a philosopher, not a social scientist or expert in religious studies. It's not hard to see how badly informed and arrogant he is outside of his own area of expertise. I'm sorry, but Dawkins is certainly not someone who should be making sweeping public claims on religion or religious convictions. Not only this, but his messages are extremely intolerant and hateful.
@teahouse100 As for Dawkins, I really don't remember hearing any hateful messages coming out of his mouth. I wonder what are good messages in your point of view.
@skaruts As someone who calls himself a "cultural Christian", I find it strange that he recently said his mission was to eliminate Christianity: which is, obviously, absurd. I've also heard him say countless times that religion is a mental illness, that religious people are all delusional, stupid, etc.,.. this, in addition to his countless analogies about fairies and spaghetti monsters that trivializes others faith and reasons for faith..
@teahouse100 If you stop to consider the reasons behind those claims about religion, then you might understand why they're not so unnapropriate and not at all untrue. I'm quite anti-religion myself, but impartial in discussions. I won't say I agree with 100% of what he sais, or especialy how he sais, but I can't blame him either. I feel sad for religious ppl just like he does, and it irritates me when they deliberately dodge logic and reason by misinterpreting and distorting words.
@skaruts I'm a Christian and I am not ashamed of my faith. I can also tell you that it's not about dodging logic - Christians I know are logical and rational people - that is, they have thought out reasons for believing in Christ and faith in God is not based on blind faith.
And I'm not saying IT is about dodging logic. I'm saying it's what most of them do when confronted with questions or concepts to which they instinctively perceive logic, but at the same time contradicts what they believe, and that immediately compells them to find a way to work around it because they can't really question their current convictions. To that end most of them go with (delibrate?) misinterpretations and misrepresentations.
@skaruts Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
@skaruts I'm not sure about that. Some probably do (the fundies), but most Christians are just like you and I. It's a categorical mistake to say God and science do not go together - my Christian worldview does not interfere at all with science or logic. Remember, God created all things material, and this is what science studies. Life is meant to be explored and studied.
atkins' tie looks tight.
proximaism 1 day ago
really boring debate and discussion.
proximaism 1 day ago
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. -- Richard Dawkins, Untitled Lecture, Edinburgh Science Festival (1992)
armanduk2010 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The man seated on the right seems to be very snobby, stuffy and rigid--ditto in regard to his thinking. None of his arguments were profound, though-provoking or convincing. If anything, he just about put me to sleep. Lennox won that debate, no questions asked.
Yrhp8268 3 days ago
Comment removed
Yrhp8268 3 days ago
Lennox continually refutes himself, alternately saying it's okay if science tries to find naturalistic explanations, and then saying that this or that can't possibly have a naturalistic explanation. He never once responds to the demand for evidence for the existence of god other than helplessly pointing to complexity. Complexity only establishes that the universe is currently complex; it has nothing to do with any support for any kind of god.
Ofinfinitejest 3 days ago 2
Lennox is your typical ignorant creationist using the same pathetic arguments as all other religious morons. Props to Atkins for putting up with Lennox. The god hypothesis is a very lazy answer to a very intriguing question. These believers value faith over reason. Just because every answer isn't known yet doesn't mean you can fill in the blanks with god. This is beyond annoying to witness. Where would this god have come from? Why would you assume a soul exists? Why subscribe to a specific dogma
MrAndrewstewart7 4 days ago
@MrAndrewstewart7 If only people valued logic and learning over traditional beliefs then the world would be a better place.
Devos154 3 days ago 2
@MrAndrewstewart7 "Just because every answer isn't known yet doesn't mean you can fill in the blanks with god."
why does it mean you HAVE TO fill in the gaps with [hope for] no God [in undiscovered unknown discoveries]?
atkins - hopes science will prove exsistence etc... without God eventually, but if the answer is ultimately God, he still won't accept it???
what does that say?
dogma is on both sides.
supporting evidence on both sides, non absolute proof on both sides.
searchtheoracles 2 days ago
Atkins kept repeating the same lines: "You say 'we dont know how it happened, therefore God did it'" and "There is no evidence for the existance of God", even though Lennox reffuted BOTH of those objections. Not to mention that Lennox reffuted most of Atkins comments. Atkins seems like a smart guy, but Lennox totally won this Debate hands-down.
jonnyneo53 4 days ago
how can anyone, from any viewpoint, say lennox won this debate...? Atkins is a polished, erudite and a fine speaker. I also like lennox but you cannot say he beat atkins on oratory grounds. As for the argument itself, its reasoning, logic and humility against the "institutionalised tooth fairy"...
chitchensisgod 5 days ago
I did not watch this debate yet, but I have watched Lennox vs Dawkins and I will say Lennox won the DEBATE. I still think he is wrong. Channel owner, would you have the guts to say if any atheist won a debate? For example, in the debates between Hitchens and Turek, Turek was greatly overmatched. Are you willing to say so?
TaylorThaHick 6 days ago
you forgot to mention where those debates were held...christian universities.
dr. lennox is likeable, but wrong.
zackhanscom 6 days ago
Even if John Lennox was wrong, he won the debate on the grounds of him being a highly articulate, charismatic and eloquent speaker, something which Atkins clearly is not.
raponte1955 1 week ago
how can any one say that john lennox won this debate
yarrarat 1 week ago
@yarrarat because peter gave such pitiful arguments and has no direct answers to john lennox
peyupsgurl 1 week ago
I'm looking forward to the day chemists are able to create self-replicating molecules. I bet creationists will still argue that because we created it, it has to be created, and thus god must have created it. But that would mean that we have the same abilities as god.
astroboomboy 1 week ago 2
In this debate I learned a lot of things from Peter Atkins, and I heard the same argument repeated over and over by John Lennox.
astroboomboy 1 week ago
Science: explains what we can know
Philosophy: makes what we know muddled and unclear
Religion: gives us stories about how sick individuals managed to fool huge groups of people
astroboomboy 1 week ago 2
Religion also teaches us how to kill each other.
rarehman 1 week ago 3
It appears to me that both sides have valid points, but the blurb below is truly degrading. We must be civil in all debates and never insult others of different opinion.
danielvillar7 1 week ago
Science: explains the creation
Philosophy: explains how the creation relates to us
Religion: explains how we relate to the creator.
NickoliLion 1 week ago
@NickoliLion More like
Science: Explains existence
Philosophy: Argues existence
Religion: Fairytales that are completely indistinguishable from eachother due to a lack of evidence.
blackman6270 1 week ago 2
@NickoliLion there is no creator. f*&%^ off
armanduk2010 2 days ago
@armanduk2010 What's with the venom my friend?
NickoliLion 1 day ago
It seems to me that Atkins' attitude towards philosophy is foolish. Science can not take over the discipline of philosophy and holding philosophy in contempt does nothing more than cripple and over simplify your argument.
ThePhilfromaccountin 1 week ago
@ThePhilfromaccountin Science cannot take over philosophy but it can adjust it. For instance, since the dawn of human intelligence people have been wondering about the mind/soul. Science has proven that most properties that were accredited to the soul are functions of the brain. If the soul truly does exist then it seems that the soul provides us with nothing more than consciousness. So buhddists were right all along or at least untill we find a brainregion for consciousness.
blackman6270 1 week ago
@blackman6270 You have made an assertion, "science cannot take over philosophy". Consciousness seems to be an intractable problem, but just like thunder and lightning, rainbows, madness etc science has given us explanations of these phenomena, are you sure science can't (EVER!) explain consciousness?
1empathy 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1empathy I'll quote my last sentence:
"So buhddists were right all along or at least untill we find a brainregion for consciousness."
It might very well be possible that consciousness is related to some part of the brain, but untill that day we have to assume that all religions were wrong about the soul.......except buhddists (yeah, they are awesome).
blackman6270 1 week ago
If a judge let a convict get away with his crimes would you call him a corrupt judge?
thap8tient 1 week ago
into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
thap8tient 1 week ago
shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God
thap8tient 1 week ago
16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath
thap8tient 1 week ago
“You will be like God” is one of the Most Wicked Lies of the Devil
ikawpipa 1 week ago
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews
mamainmancj 1 week ago
All have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then hell. That's not Gods will. He suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His life's blood so He could legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from your sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your salvation.
mamainmancj 1 week ago
@mamainmancj Eternal torment & loving god do not go hand in hand! Even Ted Bundy stopped torchering his victims after they died!
Believe & trust in me or burn in hell forever with no relief ever is no different than me going up to somebody with a gun & saying give me all you're money or I will shoot you! Of course they would not have to give me their money they could indeed say no if they wanted to but if they refuse they will get shot & killed.
fgjfdgjf 1 week ago
What is scary and difficult to comprehend is that someone like Lennox, a mathematician, can at the same time have these wild unfounded beliefs. How often in school would the (maths) teacher say, 'now let's go back and prove that' (equation for example)... but when it comes to godly matters, this insistence is somehow just waved, and pure faith kicks in again. How bizarre.
trident3b 1 week ago
Quote: "Dr. Lennox has soundly defeated atheist Richard Dawkins in three debates, and was voted a winner against his debate with Christopher Hitchens."
I've watched two of the Dawkins/Lennox debates, "The God Delusion" and "Has science Buried God". Only a blinkered Christian could make that statement.
I'll give you my views on this one after I've watched it.
By the way, which was the 3rd Dawkins/Lennox Debate areyou talking about?
Darwinsman 1 week ago
Peter atkins declares that a belief in God stops the pursuit of science, yet he agrees that Galileo and others who believed in God were inspired to search the world and universe around them. What a hypocryte! He is just too afraid to dare to look beyond the immediatly observable. It's like a baby in the womb saying there is no life outside the womb.
simkolkay 1 week ago
all lennox says is "yeah but not language like structures" what a douch. language like structures.lol
kainen789 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
folgermichael, if Atkins is so confident that his position is right, he could tolerate it being tested against other points of view. His American-Republican tactics are designed to prevent that happening. I've heard his "debates" with other, more aggressive opponents and he doesn't hold his own in an even-handed argument. There's a reason that even among the new atheists who don't care about reason he's not a major figure. It's because he's got condescension and not more.
destituteneedsjob 2 weeks ago
@destituteneedsjob Well I will agree with you that Dr. Atkins is totally intolerant of the theistic view, or any view that surrenders science to anything ethereal, unobserved, or omnipotent. He is a pure scientist--not a rhetorician or philosopher, and I agree with you: he probably should avoid religious debates. I rather like Dr. Atkins's narrowness--it's uncommon to come across someone so consistently devoted to one mode of thinking. I think he is totally right, but he is not too kind.
folgermichael 2 weeks ago
@destituteneedsjob You can sense a nasty undertone from Dr. Atkins that you don't get from Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, or Dawkins. Debates with those other guys tend to be more jocular and frivolous. Hitchens will digress for 10 minutes and attack from 50 different angles, Dawkins and Dennett are always very cordial. Harris is closest to Atkins in terms of style, but he still doesn't interrupt the other speaker. In the midst of my criticism, however, it must be noted that Dr. Atkins is right.
folgermichael 2 weeks ago
Atkins is the most religious sounding atheist I have heard yet. Well no no I can't explain that but don't worry Science (praise its name) will reveal eventually reveal all knowledge. The root of his foundational system (evolution) is CHANCE!! haha What a leap of faith.
ambassadorinchainz 2 weeks ago
@ambassadorinchainz That isn't what Peter [or John] said at all. Both of them refer to evolution as the combination of random genetic mutation and natural selection. It's rather unfortunately that Peter used the word "chance" at all because it ends up being the only word among paragraphs of explanation that religious people seize upon. That said, I am not a scientist. I am, however, able of listening to these two men talk without willfully cherry-picking and distorting their thoughts. Good luck.
folgermichael 2 weeks ago
sorry folgermichael I was just a little bothered by Atkins' tone throughout the discussion. I found him quite arrogant and disrespectful of John and the moderator that's all. And yes I do think chance is the correct word. I have listened to many atheists use this word and explain this word. I know what they mean when they use it even though they want to pretend its more complex than it is.
ambassadorinchainz 2 weeks ago
@ambassadorinchainz One thing we might both agree on: Peter Atkins has no patience for religious people. Even though I share Dr. Atkins' view, Dr. Lennox seems like a very smart, reserved, cheerful man. He is always thoughtful and respectful, even when being publicly derided. More broadly, I think pitting a truly religious person against a truly scientific person is and enterprise ultimately destined to fail. Dr. Atkins is an unapologetic physicalist, a view totally antithetical to Dr. Lennox's.
folgermichael 2 weeks ago
I do agree on that with you. And their are theists who are obnoxious as well. I just like when people are more cordial when debating because it allows for better discussion. And it is true that materialists and theists come from completely different presuppositions rendering it impossible for them to get beyond a certain point when speaking with one another.
ambassadorinchainz 2 weeks ago
@ambassadorinchainz Well, I mostly agree with that. I think both sides have become terrified of being too kind of the other viewpoint because the dogmatists on both sides are always waiting in the wings to seize upon any concession as evidence of victory. When Dr. Atkins mistakenly says "chance" instead of "random mutation" he is not given the benefit of the doubt. Likewise, when a theologian concedes evolution, the scientist won't let him maintain a dual belief in the supernatural. It sucks.
folgermichael 2 weeks ago
@ambassadorinchainz It is a personal weakness of mine to allow an online debate denigrate into an openly hostile flame war. I can understand how Dr. Atkins can become flustered or enraged, but neither he nor I have any real cause to interrupt others or become visibly angry, if not but for the very triviality of the topic. We see the issue as total nonsense: the physical world is all there is, and as such, we scientists should simply let religious topics roll off our collective backs.
folgermichael 2 weeks ago
That is an interesting thing to me as to why Atheists get so bothered about it. From a Christian worldview it does not surprise me because Paul says that nonbelievers suppress the truth. This comes from idolatry. In atheism it is selfworship/human worship (enlightenment religion, basically). But from your perspective their is no real reason to get so bothered if it's as much of a trivial topic as many atheists claim.
ambassadorinchainz 2 weeks ago 2
@ambassadorinchainz It is not the belief, it is the consequence of the belief. If christianity, Islam etc., were something you kept to yourself, didn't try to impose on others, didn't start wars, didn't cause people spew ignorant nonsense like Dr. Lennox, we wouldn't be bothered.
UpoundBUTTS 2 weeks ago
@UpoundBUTTS Yes, if only everyone could believe in something without living like it's true.
Like atheists.
newgenj 1 week ago
@newgenj Exactly. It isn't really possible. That is why atheists care.
UpoundBUTTS 1 week ago
@UpoundBUTTS I suppose I shouldn't be be surprised that irony is lost on atheists too.
newgenj 1 week ago
@newgenj I get whut u be tryin to say but it be stupid mate. I is all about irony but you not be gettin atheists right dawg.
UpoundBUTTS 1 week ago
haha yes there are no atheists who started wars (real or intellectual)...oh wait yup there are on both sides. But that does not account for what I said. It is incompatible with an atheist worldview. ...try again
ambassadorinchainz 1 day ago
@ambassadorinchainz The first part of your comment does not dignify a response. Get some more straw and maybe it will at least resemble my position.
I think it does and I told you why. If you think this is the only life you have and you think that this makes it meaningful and would like to enjoy, you would be upset be people running around saying that this is just the shit stop on the way to the good stuff and convincing other to live as if this were true. Repeating yourself isn't helpful
UpoundBUTTS 1 day ago
If this life is it and there is nothing to hold you accountable then logically you are right that you should want to have as much fun as possible. Unfortunately I don't think your happy go lucky view of man is realistic. Some people with that worldview become depressed while others do become gluttons for pleasure which leads to immorality. And yes some maintain this worldview and inconsistently live a decent life(according to society). Though you have no foundation for universal morality.
ambassadorinchainz 1 day ago
I've known atheists who weren't conceited asses but, since going online about ten years ago, the vast majority of atheists I've encountered have been. If other atheists don't want that to come off on them they've got their work cut out for them.
destituteneedsjob 2 weeks ago
Nathanmarto, who died and made you the judge of the dictionary? You know you just dissed one of the great heroes of the anti-religion cause, Thomas Huxley, who invented the word. Only, I'm prepared to believe you have no idea who Thomas Huxley was.
If you can't know something you can't objectively know it. That's the agnostic position. Atheism is illogical faith in theability to objectively know something that can't be objectively known. The new atheism is a fundamentalist faith.
destituteneedsjob 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That´s right. Atheism is irrational.
So now i believe in Mithra, Apollo, Diana Apollo´s sister, Zeus, Thor, Amon Ra, the great yuyu of the mountain, Wicca, Nuth, gamesh, ahura mazda, Anat, Amaterasu, Atlas, Ba Xian, Dagon, Horus, Isis, Juturna, Odin, Tyr, Shen yi, Shiva, Atlon and Ares.
The universe is too complex to be just one designer and the universe cant come only from one god. Monotheism is nonsense.
Besides, no one can disprove all those gods exist. So that proves they exist.
Aguijon1982 2 weeks ago
In 2012 atheists have made it permissible to disavow them because of their obnoxious dishonesty. Online atheists are a bunch of conceited idiots who flash a bunch of long words to impress other idiots. Like Atkins, they substitute Republican style media tactics for logical arguments supported by evidence. I'm fed up with them. It's agnostics, not atheists who care about honest, logical thinking.
destituteneedsjob 3 weeks ago 2
@destituteneedsjob I disagree with you on that, in my opinion, being an agnostic is almost as lazy as believing in religion. When asked questions that require any kind of argument or debate that might 'offend' either side they chose to turn to the 'grey area'. Choosing to sit on the fence and say 'I don't know'.
eithnejack 2 weeks ago
@destituteneedsjob Agnostic is not a valid class...it's an empty word. It's either you have evidence based reasoning or faith based reasoning. It really is one or the other. If you are agnostic, you are simply not being true in making a decision. Again, being an atheist does not stipulate there is NO higher power, it's just saying all the claims to truth are false. Anyway, you are making this stale by your refusal to provide any evidence and facts. I get the sense you have none.
nathanmarto 2 weeks ago
@destituteneedsjob Some atheists are like that, some are not. The younger teenaged atheists who are overcoming religious indoctorination tend to be very arrogant and know-it-alls. It may also be useful to point out that the majority of eminent scientists are atheists.
ClamCrunchy 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@destituteneedsjob since before 1000AD Christians have made it permissible to disavow them because of their obnoxious dishonesty. Online Christians are a bunch of conceited idiots who flash a bunch of long words to impress other idiots. Like Lennox, they substitute Ted Haggard style media tactics for logical arguments supported by evidence. I'm fed up with them. It's Atheists not Christians who care about honest, logical thinking.
Darwinsman 1 week ago
@destituteneedsjob there isn't a great deal of difference between those who consider themselves atheist or agnostic, the latter merely leave open the possibility of something else involved, but they typically still do not accept the wild purely fictitious stories of those who insist on any seemingly good answer from savage times without evidence. "Obnoxious dishonesty" is firmly part of faith based "idiots" who simply expect others to swallow their wild ideas less any evidence
trident3b 1 week ago
This video was a chore to watch.
Theist: “I believe there’s a God, so there is”
Atheist: “I don’t believe there’s a God, so there isn’t”
… for an hour and a half.
PrizeFighter 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
nathanmarto 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PrizeFighter Theist: “I believe there’s a God, so there is”
Atheist: “There is zero evidence, so we can't claim to know”
DEBATE OVER
nathanmarto 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I really don't like how atheists get off track when debating the incompatibility of science and religion. They straw man God or gods to being an explanation for what science can't explain. Even if science could explain "everything" (whatever that would mean), it doesn't mean a deity can not exist or religion is nonsense. My religion teaches to be fair, responsible, and reasonable, but when atheist teaches to do those things, it seems to stem from emotion rather than actual reason.
smithcm14 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
smithcm14 3 weeks ago
Nathanmarto, the new atheists are Chatty Cathy dolls who don't do anything but say the same things over and over again, no matter how many times they are refuted with facts and evidence. The best thing for the rest of us to do is to point that out as often as necessary and to make disavowing them permissible and popular. I've known several people who used to call themselves atheists who now call themselves agnostics because of they don't want anyone to mistake them for new atheists.
destituteneedsjob 3 weeks ago
@destituteneedsjob I don't mind being predictable, as reality and truth do require predictable responses. Please give me something solid to refute, so far you have given nothing. Christians have made it their mission for hundreds of years to make disavowing atheists permissible and popular, so you can't introduce any new force there! Atheism is the counter force to religion, and it's about time. So, hit me with some "facts" and "evidence"...point form if you want, make it direct and clear.
nathanmarto 3 weeks ago
nathanmarto, all you're doing is churning the same old new atheist clap trap. And Christianity was not originated in the "bronze age", despite what you read in Dawkins or some other ahistorical atheist polemic. Your statement is anti-semetic to its core.
Mathematics originated in the "bronze age" and before. While I've seldom met an online atheist who wasn't quite ignorant of mathematics and science, I doubt you'd hold its age against math or science, which depends on it.
destituteneedsjob 3 weeks ago
@destituteneedsjob Forget Christianity. From the birth of human conciseness, the desire to understand our universe has teased us. Thus, various Gods have followed. To equate Christianity to God I find terribly narrow minded. The bronze age (3300-1200 BC for the middle east) is a fair call for the roots of Christianity (i.e. Judaism). Shame on you for misusing the term "Anti-Semitism" in such a frivolous way. Let me restate, it's bronze age "philosophy". I respect any accurate math and science.
nathanmarto 3 weeks ago
John Lennox ate Peter Atkins...
jahdiel781 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jahdiel781 More like, John Lennox ate Peter Atkins' lunch.
nathanmarto 3 weeks ago
Peter Atkins doesn't have anything except bigotry and arrogance, he doesn't make arguments and he purposely talks over Lennox when Lennox is making an argument. His assertions aren't supported. The belligerence is an obvious dodge to mask that he can't answer Lennox, I hadn't realized that was why the new atheists are so obnoxious until, watching him, I understood that. There's a reason that the new atheists DON'T promote Atkins like they do their heroes, all he is is rude and obnoxious.
destituteneedsjob 3 weeks ago
@destituteneedsjob Perhaps all you see is arrogance, but so what! Lennox is churning that same old bronze age dessert dish of philosophy, without adding much to the recipe. The popularity of Atkins within the new atheists is completely irrelevant. We are debating here, not consoling or giving pleasantries. Atkins is fighting a straw man argument and hardly knows where to start in the unsubstantiated claims. Hero or not, rude or not, we are addressing the obvious falsehood of religions...agree?
nathanmarto 3 weeks ago
he said happy axcident
jhweh2007 3 weeks ago
is peter going to shutup
jhweh2007 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
nathanmarto 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jhweh2007 Why, so we can hear more babble from the stream of philosophy from beyond 6000 years ago? As if we have not heard enough of this talk, this pure wishful thinking. There will always be that bigger question, but why are we so obsessed with finding an absolute. Are our minds a dial on a magnetic compass with God and rationality our only two bearings? Wishing there is a God will not make a God. We just need to accept humans are inherently bad at evaluating facts, so let's be more humble.
nathanmarto 3 weeks ago
Dr. Atkins: "we are not arrogant" ... what? Calling other scientists, also Nobel Prize decorated scientists, lazy, incomplete scientists, senile, vasted minds, ... is not arrogant?
Dr. Atkins seems attack the God of the Gaps, and he would be right to do so if it was Dr. Lennox view. But he totally misses the fact, that this is not Dr. Lennox' god.
Dr. Atkins: "If science came to the result, that there is a God, we would have to accept that." Next sentence: "I will never accept that."
dLichti 3 weeks ago
Nathanmarto, this has nothing to do with evolution, it has to do with Peter Atkins being a time hogging bigot with nothing to bring to the discussion and the moderator being incompetent at making sure that both sides get a chance to present their argument. Lennox presents arguments, Atkins presents derision and baseless insults.
If we get into what you don't know this is going to have to go on for at least 1,547 more comments.
destituteneedsjob 3 weeks ago
@destituteneedsjob A bigot he is not, just someone that has a penchant for truth and attacking non-evidence based claims. On the charge of being a time hogger, seems I need to watch again with a stopwatch. If you can not offer a fact based defense, you must have a weak position of rambling philosophy. Who argues "you don't know, so I win"...pathetic. Just identify a single fact which is in dispute, just one! Please do not get your defense from scripture, you have no idea how foolish you sound.
nathanmarto 3 weeks ago
John Lennox is a nice gentleman. He gives good rational arguments. William Lane Craig on the other hand is not so nice to Atkins. He just mauls Atkins.
IntrepidJss 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
nathanmarto 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
nathanmarto 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IntrepidJss Lennox is indeed a gentleman, a quality I admire. However, sadly, his arguments are the same old bronze age philosophical thought soup which was churning thousands and thousands of years ago. This line of thought is the same odd primitive, non-evidence based, philosophical, self-serving, immodest, wishful thinking, theology based mindset our ignorant ancestry carried. Humans are bad at making conclusions in our world. By nature, we have only instincts, emotions and curiosity.
nathanmarto 3 weeks ago
If I put aside my belief while watching this video...John Lennox gives extremely good arguments. Arguments not from faith, but intelligent arguments based on rationality and logic. I think that Atkins is extremely emotional and cannot grasp the fact that a lot of his own arguments are based in a deep faith of a 'godless' universe. He also rambles on a lot of the time and at the end, he hasn't really answered anything.
seanabmoore 3 weeks ago
@seanabmoore If you do not value understanding and science, then I'm sure it would seem like rambling to you. You probably are the sort to day dream in lectures or in the class room. Rationality and logic are based on evidence, of which there is zero. What do you define as God? Atkins is perhaps emotional compared to Lennox, a cute shaved Santa Clause character, but when an atheist is trying to argue with something that has not been demonstrated, a straw man, I hardly blame him.
nathanmarto 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As to there being stupid Christians, having read a lot of the new atheist blog blather, that's hardly an attribute of Christianity. The new atheists are about as ignorant a cult as any that has existed. They are a mirror image of fundamentalist Christianity. Just a rearrangement of the ignorance and bigotry in each image.
destituteneedsjob 3 weeks ago
@destituteneedsjob Please give exact points, for all I know, you might think human evolution is ignorant and bigotry.
nathanmarto 3 weeks ago
As to there being stupid Christians, having read a lot of the new atheist blog blather, that's hardly an attribute of Christianity. The new atheists are about as ignorant a cult as any that has existed. They are a mirror image of fundamentalist Christianity. Just a rearrangement of the ignorance and bigotry in each image.
destituteneedsjob 3 weeks ago
nathanmarto, the 20th century is full to overflowing with atheist massacres, like those that atheists lay on religion. Only hardly as often since the 18th century, especially in the west. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the North Koreans Reign of Terror in France after the revolution, the history of officially atheist-anti-religious government is a history of mass murder.
You are entirely ignorant of the history of science, as most new atheists are. Science was invented by Christians.
destituteneedsjob 3 weeks ago
@destituteneedsjob Very true.
These Anti-Theists (They're not even worthy of the name Atheists), are out to take away the religious rights from others, yet scream and howel when anyone decides to give them a taste of their own medicine. They are immature, naive and illogical and base all of their actions on emotion and feeling rather than true logic.
AdmRomulus 3 weeks ago
@AdmRomulus Immature and naive, that's not me. Such words in this debate can only be reserved for those that use faith based logic and rationale. Personally, I'm not screaming or howling, nope not me. Regarding my logic, I invite you to show me where it fails. Anti-Theist, maybe sometimes, but dare I say you consider all non-silent atheists as anti-theist and never consider the very large pink elegant in the room called evidence.
nathanmarto 3 weeks ago
@destituteneedsjob Firstly, I've heard the "Stalin, Mao, etc" argument enough now for it to loose any real punch. An atheist leader you need not fear, only a dictatorship or theocracy. These people inserted themselves as a living God using the same framework as religion. To say science was created by Christians is fantastic. Secondly, my examples were clear topic based issues where religion clearly took supernatural and unscientific explanations. Maybe stay on topic in future replies.
nathanmarto 3 weeks ago
@destituteneedsjob PS. I'm so happy you left out A. Hitler in your roll call, for which 6 million Jews where tortured and killed, seems we finally all got that one straight.
nathanmarto 3 weeks ago
How dare Lennox suggest that Atkins takes the path of atheism so that he can avoid thoughts of being judged by a God, for which the existence of is being debated. The only real sin Peter has committed, I'm sure, is the refusal to accept Jesus as his savior. Oh no, what an injustice to humanity. The threads of non-sense put into this reply almost gives me a headache.
nathanmarto 3 weeks ago
That moderator is sitting there like a dummy while Atkins hogs time by interrupting whenever Lennox says something. And it's not because what Atkins says is supported with evidence or particularly rational, it's just one assertion after another without any kind of support but his preferred assumptions. Fire the moderator and get someone who knows how to shut up a time hog. Maybe he's hoping to get a job on FOX or CNN in the US, to let Republicans do the same thing.
destituteneedsjob 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@destituteneedsjob Did you just take the truth and twist it completely around? What assertions? What is not supported by evidence? Atkins, like many in his field, always use evidence and rationality before speaking, writing, teaching and reading. If you suspect something is wrong, I suggest you do your research first before simply saying it's asserted. If he asserts, I'm highly confident it's correct. But since you reference no specific arguments, you are difficult to rebutt.
nathanmarto 3 weeks ago
"The musings of a senile philosopher", that's not an argument, it's the hectoring of an arrogant snob for the consumption of other snobs of his own persuasion.
destituteneedsjob 3 weeks ago 2
@destituteneedsjob It amazes me how so many atheist debators use the example of "emotions trumping reason" and that the atheist argument is logical and not emotional, accusing theists of attempting to pass off emotion as truth by pulling on the heart strings, yet here he is saying such insulting things about some of the greatest minds of our history. Unbelievably rude statements are made by Atkins including senility and laziness. What a cock.
bubbyj 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@bubbyj Your faith is getting in way of your reason. He is hardly insulting these great historical figures, he is only suggesting they had so much more potential given different circumstances. Personally I don't discredit such figures, as Atkins would not, as Darwin himself was a Christian and struggled with this for a long time (there was no alternative theory). Atkins gives a fair response to Lennox, whom was throwing credits points to Christianity for note worthy scientists being Christian.
nathanmarto 3 weeks ago
@nathanmarto Lol my faith is getting in way of my reason? What does reason have to do with what was heard? Please. You've been trolling this page for some time. Give up.
"Senile old men" hahaha ok yeah that isn't insulting whatsoever.
bubbyj 3 weeks ago
@bubbyj Not trolling, just rebutting comments in the most clear and honest way I can. Given I have posted many more arguments than yourself, exposing my position greatly, maybe you might like to dispute something instead of employing a lazy approach by saying I am trolling and something about what was heard is reason, or what is reason is heard...what the? Regarding the "Senile old men" quote, that was not me. I shall not be giving up Sir/Madam.
nathanmarto 3 weeks ago
@nathanmarto I quoted the VIDEO insulting great minds throughout history, writing off their findings and beliefs as senility, then you mention something about my reasoning skills? You are either trolling or have mistaken me for someone else. You are in the wrong entirely.
bubbyj 3 weeks ago
@bubbyj Let's not get too emotionally invested in the potential offense historical figures may have taken hundreds of years ago. Atkins was not insulting their great minds, I'm sure he values all the non-faith bits. He was suggesting that in retrospect, they would have perhaps been disappointed at some of their conclusions. I know I look back at my thinking 10 years ago and feel disappointed it was based on information I never had...humility! Granted the word "senility" was not appropriate.
nathanmarto 3 weeks ago
Atkins' arguments are banal and all seem to center on unfounded assertions of laziness, weakness, etc. in his opponents. Considering his intellectual achievements accusing Lennox of laziness or weakness is pretty silly. Lennox presents arguments, whether or not they're persuasive to any particular hearer is probably based in their preferences, but at least he's putting out a real effort. I will have to agree with the idea that Atkins is arrogant and bigoted. And I'm an agnostic.
destituteneedsjob 3 weeks ago
@destituteneedsjob "unfounded assertions", you barely have to bruise the surface of history to see that when religion is embraced, you get ignorance and inaccurate explanations. Religion claims to know everything. Thus, religion creates lazy minds, little doubt. Just look at historical (and some modern) Christian views on germs, our galaxy, earthquakes and our own existence! Lennox is a Christian, denies evolution, and is simply reverse engineering arguments from Christianity to support a deity.
nathanmarto 3 weeks ago
@nathanmarto When Jesus said "be wise as serpents and innocent as doves" I don't think he meant for us to be ignorant, thoughtless beings. The fact that people use religion as comfort has nothing to do with whether or not the religion is valid. I think that is called the "Genetic Fallacy". And John Lennox actually doesn't deny evolution. He supports theistic evolution.
TheAxis456 3 weeks ago
@TheAxis456 Anyone interested in virtue and peace could utter words to the affect of "try to use your brains and learn". Let's get something straight here, John Lennox denies evolution. It is very simple. Theistic evolution = intelligent design = creationism = Religion = Christianity. Let's repeat that one more time for the people at the back. He is a Christian, believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and Adam&Eve are all our great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents. Yea!
nathanmarto 3 weeks ago
@nathanmarto Okay, you obviously don't know what you're talking about! Show me where he states that! John Lennox does not deny evolution, nor does he think the earth is 6,000 years old. All of the leading, great Christian minds, all believe in evolution and an old earth: Francis Collins, William Lane Craig, C.S. Lewis (deceased). They understand what is metaphor in the Bible and what is literal.
TheAxis456 3 weeks ago
@TheAxis456 I've read the pains of F. Collins to reconcile his Christianity with his DNA research and the 3 part waterfall story does not impress me. Lennox is secretive with his evolutionary thoughts. 58:30, he says "evolution and natural selection do something" and it "accounts for variation", barely conceding basic facts! Lennox does not see any room for human evolution in the Biblical account as stated in his book "Seven Days That Divide The World". He is reconciling scripture with science.
nathanmarto 3 weeks ago
@nathanmarto Once again, you are misinterpreting what he's saying so you can use it in favor of atheism, which is intellectually dishonest. He's saying evolution does something, but it is not accountable for everything. It does not have the answers of existence. It may show how organisms change over a large period of time, but that's all. Why do you feel the need to alter facts just to prove your point? We should be honest in our search for truth, not biased.
TheAxis456 3 weeks ago
@TheAxis456 Maybe it seems that way for a theologian, but let me make myself very clear, evolution is irrelevant to atheism, it's just a great supporting argument in the year 2012. Atheism purely comes from the fact that religion is entirely faith based and a Christian can demonstrate no more evidence than a Muslim, Hindu or Jew. They can not all be right, but they can all be wrong. So let's cut to the chase...humans and apes share a common ancestor, do you think Lennox agrees? I think not.
nathanmarto 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheAxis456 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nathanmarto Take a basic philosophy class and you will see religion is not purely "faith" based.
TheAxis456 3 weeks ago
how many atheists are there?
Tanklovaaa 3 weeks ago
2 + 2 = 4 but that never put £4 in my pocket! lool
davidfalola 4 weeks ago
john lennox: "science doesn't know everything"..."therefore god exists"
gerhitchman 4 weeks ago
how can one watch this and not see hoe Dr atkins owned the debate.
DonRico333 4 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
lol " but it takes a creative mind to develop the mathematics out of absolutely nothing" owned.
satch1098 1 month ago 2
why did the interviewer give his stance?
dawtchins 1 month ago
what at cold and gloomy existence it would be in this world if we we're all atheists it is so immensely fortunate that we are not and that there is another dimension called love and hope which science cannot fit into a cold calculation.
jlhofer1 1 month ago
@jlhofer1 Play me the worlds smallest violin. Atheism is simply the rejection of the supernatural. Love, music, landscape, language and hope are all perfectly well understood experiences which don't require the supernatural to be invoked.
nathanmarto 1 month ago
@nathanmarto it seems to me atheism cannot stand on its own 2 feet why do atheists even bother to dress in the morning if we are nothing but animals? modesty and such, among others, are categories borrowed from theism i think if the faith was fully practiced in all its implications it would soon be realized the in-sustainability
jlhofer1 1 month ago
@jlhofer1 Wow. What an incredibly ignorant question. Firstly, there is no 'if' - we are, in fact, animals. And secondly: You seem to believe that 'Theism' has one set of ideas of what modesty actually is. This differs from culture to culture. Ultimately, other factors influence cultural norms than just a belief that God wants them to dress in a particular way. Are you now going to respond with that disgusting rebuttal, "Why have morals? Lets just kill each other if God's not watching"
EllyMcCormack 1 month ago
@jlhofer1 Personally, I feel great modesty when thinking of the vast quantities of time that has come before me, when looking at our galaxy contemplating infinity, when considering all the less fortunate than I. Sure, good ideas get into religious texts and I would never suggest throwing them away based on their source. Keep the good where ever you find it. We are animals and my reasons for dressing are usually related to the weather, plus others really don't want to see my pale white body.
nathanmarto 4 weeks ago
@nathanmarto exactly
jlhofer1 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
nathanmarto 1 month ago
No offence taken, just the English language cringed. If you are going to uphold common knowledge, you should be attacking your fellow Christians for their beliefs. Two quaint verses, diluted in the mass of condemnation, results in a negligible impact. Nonetheless, Acts 24:15 boldly refers to the "wicked", how flattering for a moral non-Christian. This can easily be taken as resurrection into hell. Romans 3:23, your sins are forgiven if you accept Jesus as your savior, but non-Christians DO NOT!
nathanmarto 1 month ago
@nathanmarto
Sorry I have to go back to study for now. But I will respond. It would be nice of you so remind me just in case I forget. I've already written down part of my response but it would make sense only posting this part. Also sorry for my language I nedd to improve my english. It would be easier for me to talk in german or french. Consider this a suggestion.
franciso7 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@franciso7 Your language is fine, if almost excellent. Just "dude" is so American and worse, teenage. Take your time in constituting a reply, but please don't expect me to remind you ;)
nathanmarto 1 month ago
This is a great debate with two great professors and probably the best mediator I've seen.
zeppelinman1685 1 month ago
Lennox is totally right! There is a mind behind science and mathematics. That is HUMAN mind, not "god`s"!
Aguijon1982 1 month ago
derp derp derp derp derp
DeathrowRecords1995 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I guess it's laziness to believe that the Occam's Razor theorem, or any other theorem for that matter, is correct. Because you cannot prove any theorem to an absolute degree, you can only measure it statistically. And in many situations, Occam's Razor is wrong - because it is often through assumptions and extrapolations that new experience springs forth.
DrMadolite 1 month ago
Comment removed
DrMadolite 1 month ago
"Dr. Atkins gives an emotional, arrogant, and bigoted presentation, while Dr. Lennox responds rationally and analytically" - Hahahahha
foroparapente 1 month ago
14:33 Is this one of Atkins' best analysis of Scientists, Philosophers and Theologians?
smhussain62 1 month ago
@smhussain62 Although, I suspect Lennox is right in saying that Atkins is being too critical of philosophers. To my mind there is a useful distinction to be made between poet philosophers, who write philosophy fiction, and scientist philosophers who impartially investigate their subject aiming for a fuller understanding. My sense is that more and more professional philosophers are scientist philosophers.
smhussain62 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.' John 14:6. Jesus said He is 'the' way, not 'a' way which means that Jesus is the only way, there is no other way to the Father. What could be clearer?
KingdomSeeker2012 1 month ago in playlist Christian vs Atheist Debates
John Lennox, is a very intelligent person, I think. However, he still doesn't seem to grasp the very concept of the meaning of Atheistm. He keeps insisting it's a belief. Someone get him a dictionary for once, please.
skaruts 1 month ago
@skaruts Obviously atheism is a belief -- and it's a firm belief at that. If you'd like to argue this, I would suggest you look up "agnosticism" instead of "atheism".
I'd even go as far as to say atheism is a belief system akin to religion (this is especially poignant the way people follow Richard Dawkins and the new militant stream of anti-religion, anti-spirituality, anti-everything except for 100% materialism). For a group that champions 'rationality', this hardly seems rational to me.
teahouse100 1 month ago
@teahouse100 Atheism = Lack of belief in a divine being.
Now, what part of "lack of belief" do you and J. Lennox not undestand?
Following Dawkins (if you can call it that) is very different from following god or Jesus. Dawkins exists and there's no dispute about it, he's a scientist with credentials, he thinks logicaly and humanely, he doesn't blackmail people to love him or else die in a furnace. And most people don't worship him, they admire his work and his competence.
skaruts 1 month ago
@skaruts I'm sorry, it's a contradiction because there is no such thing as a lack of a belief. A negative belief is still a belief. When you claim you 'lack belief in God' it is the same as you believe there is no God. I'm a philosophy graduate, so believe me when I say it's a major logical fallacy to say atheism is not a belief.
What you are talking about is agnosticism - a suspension of belief - this is the closest you will come to non-belief.
teahouse100 1 month ago
@teahouse100 I wonder how you even graduated...
skaruts 1 month ago
@skaruts As for Dawkins: he's a materialist, exactly! I respect that. However, he is not a theologian, not a philosopher, not a social scientist or expert in religious studies. It's not hard to see how badly informed and arrogant he is outside of his own area of expertise. I'm sorry, but Dawkins is certainly not someone who should be making sweeping public claims on religion or religious convictions. Not only this, but his messages are extremely intolerant and hateful.
teahouse100 1 month ago
@teahouse100 As for Dawkins, I really don't remember hearing any hateful messages coming out of his mouth. I wonder what are good messages in your point of view.
skaruts 1 month ago
@skaruts As someone who calls himself a "cultural Christian", I find it strange that he recently said his mission was to eliminate Christianity: which is, obviously, absurd. I've also heard him say countless times that religion is a mental illness, that religious people are all delusional, stupid, etc.,.. this, in addition to his countless analogies about fairies and spaghetti monsters that trivializes others faith and reasons for faith..
teahouse100 1 month ago
@teahouse100 If you stop to consider the reasons behind those claims about religion, then you might understand why they're not so unnapropriate and not at all untrue. I'm quite anti-religion myself, but impartial in discussions. I won't say I agree with 100% of what he sais, or especialy how he sais, but I can't blame him either. I feel sad for religious ppl just like he does, and it irritates me when they deliberately dodge logic and reason by misinterpreting and distorting words.
skaruts 1 month ago
@skaruts I'm a Christian and I am not ashamed of my faith. I can also tell you that it's not about dodging logic - Christians I know are logical and rational people - that is, they have thought out reasons for believing in Christ and faith in God is not based on blind faith.
teahouse100 1 month ago
@teahouse100 What is it based on, then?
And I'm not saying IT is about dodging logic. I'm saying it's what most of them do when confronted with questions or concepts to which they instinctively perceive logic, but at the same time contradicts what they believe, and that immediately compells them to find a way to work around it because they can't really question their current convictions. To that end most of them go with (delibrate?) misinterpretations and misrepresentations.
skaruts 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@skaruts Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
@skaruts I'm not sure about that. Some probably do (the fundies), but most Christians are just like you and I. It's a categorical mistake to say God and science do not go together - my Christian worldview does not interfere at all with science or logic. Remember, God created all things material, and this is what science studies. Life is meant to be explored and studied.
teahouse100 1 month ago