Wow. The Q&A portion became surprisingly political. Too political even. As many skeptics (Shermer, Penn and Teller, etc.) have shown skepticism and liberal statism do NOT necessarily go hand in hand. Why the hell were the Koch brothers brought up in a symposium about modern day atheism? There are appropriate outlets for political statements and debate. Use them!
The 13 year old kid toward the end of the video makes a good point. There's not enough science education and interest in public schools. Our young people need to be exposed to science and skepticism at this critical age.
Who's this Don Prothero? I really couldn't waste my time to listen through his rhetoric before he got to the meat of what he wanted to say. However, it's interesting that he feels that it is necessary to convert people who don't know what they think.
And by the way, what's that crap at 35:00 about someone needing to be 'qualified' to argue for something? A fact is a fact and a lie is a lie.The qualifications of person are totally *irrelevant*. That guy makes me so angry, because he's arguing exactly like the quacks that the sceptics usually fight.
Why is there always a guy in the audience like at 28:00 that keeps on rattling about nothing in particular? Schermer should have cut him off after 10 seconds...
If people find value in holding onto the presuppositions of their faith, they will not be easily converted to a non-belief irregardless of their inability to provide empirical evidence. The experienced value of their faith becomes evidence enough. Skepticism fails to satisfy the needs of the human condition.
Countries with religious pasts that are currently predominantly secular point out the possibility and overall benefits of shedding superstition. I guess the "experienced value of their faith" over generations was not enough for them. I know it was not enough for me.
"Skepticism fails to satisfy the needs of the human condition."
Such generalized assertions may come from your personal experience, but reveal the empty appeal to tradition for tradition's sake. Change is happening.
@infideluxe There is definitely a strong push by evangelical atheists to abandon traditional values and beliefs. However the solution being provided to fill the void created by this abandonment is a failure. There is a place for faith that science does not satisfy. This is especially evident in times of trouble and crisis. The unseen world of our thought life is critical. Although approaches to faith will change, faith itself will flourish.
"evangelical atheists" is a term theists invented to insult skeptics, but which only back upon and insults the theists themselves. Doubting and holding theists accountable for their claims is a process that shatters what turns out to be a very fragile belief system. The only recourse is name-calling, and much of that name-calling, ironically, reveals that theists actually know what a farce their worldview is. Here are a few:
@infideluxe I never knew the term "evangelical" was considered by some to be insulting. I find the term evangelical to be complimentary since it is purposeful. What would be a better term to describe the deliberate propagation of the atheistic belief system? If theistic belief systems are fragile, they will crumble on their own accord.
"What would be a better term to describe the deliberate propagation of the atheistic belief system?"
Your question itself is meaningless. A-theism = without god. That is not a belief system. This is another projection of your religious worldview onto those who doubt you. It falls in line with the burden of proof argument. Simply saying that those who doubt your claims have a belief system defined solely by those doubts is absurd. You may call them skeptics if you wish, however.
@infideluxe "I don't believe there is a God; but that instead the Universe was created by a Vacuum that somehow behaved precisely as if it were God", is a belief. Speaking up about it instead of simply being silent about it, as in this video, is being an "evangelical atheist".
" "I don't believe there is a God; but that instead the Universe was created by a Vacuum that somehow behaved precisely as if it were God", is a belief. "
Your need for that to work as a belief is evident in your wording, which is foolish and intentionally obscurantist. I could as easily make an unfalsifiable claim about your a-leprchaunism as a belief: "I don't believe in leprechauns, but instead the universe was created by a vacuum that somehow behaved just like leprechauns." See?
@infideluxe Replacing the word "God" with "leprechauns" is meaningless. Leprechauns have no known ability or desire to create universes; they do not exist, nor do they have to, for the Universe to exist.
Vacuum has no such abilities either. Yet the universe *does* exist, and possesses order that a vacuum cannot create. The Creation proves the Creator. If you are reading this, you exist, and no vacuum could have caused it. The silly, sudden abandonment of logic when atheists get to this point!
"Leprechauns...do not exist, nor do they have to, for the Universe to exist."
Replace leprechauns with "gods." Do you believe you've met any burden of proof? You have not. Simply because the universe exists does not permit you or any any other theist proclaim a god. Simply asserting the universe as a "creation" does not make it such.
Can you prove that Leprechauns don't exist or that they didn't create the universe?
Does the creator prove that there's a second creator who created the first creator? If not, then your silly argument is a self-refuting contradiction. A complex creator doesn't need creating, but a less complex universe does? That's a severe case of special pleading. You can't have it both ways. Either complexity requires a creator or doesn't. It clearly doesn't.
@dudev Okay, go ahead and rename God "Leprechaun" if you like, for the purpose of this conversation. Some people even pronounce it "Allah", which to me sounds like abusing the privilege of being wrong. Any spurious argument about God needing a second Creator, applies just as strongly to your fictional "Vacuum Indistinguishable from God". The difference is that a Creator creates, and a Creation was made. Your VIFG has neither reason nor ability to create... and yet we are here.
Go ahead and use special pleading. It only makes you sound like a walking talking contradiction. You want god to exist beyond space and time, but at the same time to be personal and to have the power to answer prayers. Your god, by your very argument, must be more complex than the universe. But your argument centers around all complex things coming about by design. You can't have it both ways, slick. In nature, patterns do arise all by themselves. There's no need for an outside force.
@dudev Then what made your "Vacuum Indistinguishable from God" any different than regular ol' Emptiness that does nothing? How can nothing, have a pattern? How can it have content to explode into a Big Bang? It all has to come from somewhere... and vacuum simply isn't up to the job.
Space isn't empty. It's not nothing. That's a misunderstanding of the
Big Bang on your part. And you're assuming that the default state of things was zero, or nothing. I say the universe has always existed in one state or another. And you say god, the creator, has always existed. The difference is that we know the universe exists. But there's no evidence for a god. And I already demonstrated why your hypocritical argument fails. It's a case of special pleading.
"Speaking up about it instead of simply being silent about it, as in this video, is being an "evangelical atheist"."
And wouldn't theists just love it if those who vociferously scrutinized and doubted their claims went silent? Zealously advocating critical reasoning does not equate to "evangelical atheism," which would be advocating that everybody stop believing in their god(s). Can you see the difference?
@infideluxe I was not addressing any advocacy of critical thought; I just made a post pointing out the atheistic abandonment of that. My post was purely intended at that branch of prereligious peoples who loudly spout and promote their (obviously) wrong and illogical thought. If you can't understand God well enough, yet, to understand He exists, you can at least be silent about your lapse, not promote it. "It is better to be silent and be thought a fool, than speak and remove all doubt".
"I just made a post pointing out the atheistic abandonment of that."
And you were wrong in that assumption.
"If you can't understand God well enough."
Nor can you understand. It is a "supernatural" construct conveniently designed by humans as a repository for their ignorance regarding matters that test their patience. I'm sorry you're probably going to die without having the answers, as am I. Tough.
""It is better to be silent and be thought a fool, than speak and remove all doubt". "
And on this, you should take your own advice.There is nothing quite so egotistical and ignorant as the assertions of supernatural overseers, and all because so many people have not yet learned to cope with their own demise. Toughen up.
When atheists have their own TV and radio stations, houses of non-worship scattered across the country, billions of dollars to spend on proselytizing, and politicians pandering to them en masse, then you can call their speaking out evangelical. Until then, the comparison is idiotic.
"However the solution being provided to fill the void created by this abandonment is a failure."
You are not owed a "solution" by your doubters to fill a void currently occupied by fairy tales. There are thousands of ways to live a productive, meaningful, compassionate, happy life.
Delirium tremens from a lifetime of self-consolation via mythology is simply going to hurt for a while. Tough.
"There is a place for faith that science does not satisfy."
This is religion attempting to co-opt the vast richness of human experience with superstitious adherence. Enriched lives require no subscription to nonsense to be meaningful.
Your claim is a straw man anyhow. Integrity forbids us from fabricating facts simply because "science" may not satisfy all our cravings all the time.
"The unseen world of our thought life is critical."
Every tiny event of our thought life can be linked to neural activity in our brains, recorded, measured, explained. It's unseen-ness does not make it magical. Nor does an explanation take anything away from life's experience.
"Although approaches to faith will change, faith itself will flourish."
This sounds more like wishful thinking than any type of logical conclusion.
@shlunko James Randi has himself mentioned that similarity several times in the past. Indeed i personally think he purposefully is imitating Darwins look as if he is trying to get in to that league of great thinkers. Not saying he doesnt belong in that league, but there is only one James Randi, and we need him.
LMAO randi looks like he is sleeping hahaha. they all look soo bored cuz that guy keep talking hahah
LidiaJanklyTube 2 months ago
WHAT!?? I MISSSED THIS EVENT?
LidiaJanklyTube 2 months ago
Bill Nye 2012
two0sixTay 2 months ago
Wow. The Q&A portion became surprisingly political. Too political even. As many skeptics (Shermer, Penn and Teller, etc.) have shown skepticism and liberal statism do NOT necessarily go hand in hand. Why the hell were the Koch brothers brought up in a symposium about modern day atheism? There are appropriate outlets for political statements and debate. Use them!
mlicavoli71 4 months ago
It is sad that many who accept bottom up evolution do not accept, and indeed strongly oppose, bottom up economics.
kev3d 4 months ago
I like the mid-90s public access TV production values of the intro.
nosensetoitatall 4 months ago
Shermer believes that the Vatican holds the patent on Rogaine.
matt605 4 months ago
i was asking a question, i'm glad they didn't show me -__-
RustyPandaReview 4 months ago
9:06 - was that Don Baker from the Atheist Experience laughing? I swear I could recognize that laugh anywhere, lol.
mindsmirror 4 months ago
I,m soo glad the Founding forefathers , included that religious/religon NOT to be included in schools education etc..
rhyseenz69 4 months ago
I,m soo glad the Founding forefathers , included that religious/religon to be to be schools education etc..
rhyseenz69 4 months ago
Holy shit Darwin is there!
oneznzeroz 4 months ago
The 13 year old kid toward the end of the video makes a good point. There's not enough science education and interest in public schools. Our young people need to be exposed to science and skepticism at this critical age.
TheSageman3 4 months ago 4
Who's this Don Prothero? I really couldn't waste my time to listen through his rhetoric before he got to the meat of what he wanted to say. However, it's interesting that he feels that it is necessary to convert people who don't know what they think.
MrItchyElbow 4 months ago
DAMNIT Shermer! Yes, you indeed DO have to come to Vegas. We need the revenue.
exconguitar 4 months ago
It's amazing how human Mr Deity looks.
strubinator 4 months ago
The woman who spoke of her sister made a great point: Science-talk can be overwhelming and cold compared to the world of fantasy and emotion.
dgb751 4 months ago
How did they get Darwin and Lincoln on the stage at the same time? Have I stepped into an H.G. Wells time machine and traveled back to 1859?
lambent77777 4 months ago
And by the way, what's that crap at 35:00 about someone needing to be 'qualified' to argue for something? A fact is a fact and a lie is a lie.The qualifications of person are totally *irrelevant*. That guy makes me so angry, because he's arguing exactly like the quacks that the sceptics usually fight.
henkvanderlaak 4 months ago
Why is there always a guy in the audience like at 28:00 that keeps on rattling about nothing in particular? Schermer should have cut him off after 10 seconds...
henkvanderlaak 4 months ago
I didn't know Brian Dalton also is a diet-guru.
Andretampeloer 4 months ago
Is that Tracie Harris at 51:xx minutes?
DestructionPro 4 months ago
Four power houses on a stage sitting on uncomfortable folding chairs. What's up Mike?
Nejedj71 4 months ago
The intro is stolen from every single Cable Access show :)
UrinationNation 4 months ago
"You are welcome!". Hahaha
willquestion 4 months ago
If people find value in holding onto the presuppositions of their faith, they will not be easily converted to a non-belief irregardless of their inability to provide empirical evidence. The experienced value of their faith becomes evidence enough. Skepticism fails to satisfy the needs of the human condition.
gashyna 4 months ago
@gashyna
Countries with religious pasts that are currently predominantly secular point out the possibility and overall benefits of shedding superstition. I guess the "experienced value of their faith" over generations was not enough for them. I know it was not enough for me.
"Skepticism fails to satisfy the needs of the human condition."
Such generalized assertions may come from your personal experience, but reveal the empty appeal to tradition for tradition's sake. Change is happening.
infideluxe 4 months ago
@infideluxe There is definitely a strong push by evangelical atheists to abandon traditional values and beliefs. However the solution being provided to fill the void created by this abandonment is a failure. There is a place for faith that science does not satisfy. This is especially evident in times of trouble and crisis. The unseen world of our thought life is critical. Although approaches to faith will change, faith itself will flourish.
gashyna 4 months ago
@gashyna
"evangelical atheists" is a term theists invented to insult skeptics, but which only back upon and insults the theists themselves. Doubting and holding theists accountable for their claims is a process that shatters what turns out to be a very fragile belief system. The only recourse is name-calling, and much of that name-calling, ironically, reveals that theists actually know what a farce their worldview is. Here are a few:
Atheism is a religion
Arrogant atheists
Evangelical atheists
infideluxe 4 months ago
@infideluxe
Correction: " ...but which only reflects back upon..."
infideluxe 4 months ago
@infideluxe I never knew the term "evangelical" was considered by some to be insulting. I find the term evangelical to be complimentary since it is purposeful. What would be a better term to describe the deliberate propagation of the atheistic belief system? If theistic belief systems are fragile, they will crumble on their own accord.
gashyna 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gashyna
" I never knew the term "evangelical" was considered by some to be insulting."
Now you know.
"I find the term evangelical to be complimentary since it is purposeful."
Purposeful does not always equate to good.
infideluxe 4 months ago
@gashyna
"What would be a better term to describe the deliberate propagation of the atheistic belief system?"
Your question itself is meaningless. A-theism = without god. That is not a belief system. This is another projection of your religious worldview onto those who doubt you. It falls in line with the burden of proof argument. Simply saying that those who doubt your claims have a belief system defined solely by those doubts is absurd. You may call them skeptics if you wish, however.
infideluxe 4 months ago
@infideluxe "I don't believe there is a God; but that instead the Universe was created by a Vacuum that somehow behaved precisely as if it were God", is a belief. Speaking up about it instead of simply being silent about it, as in this video, is being an "evangelical atheist".
Pygar2 4 months ago
@Pygar2
" "I don't believe there is a God; but that instead the Universe was created by a Vacuum that somehow behaved precisely as if it were God", is a belief. "
Your need for that to work as a belief is evident in your wording, which is foolish and intentionally obscurantist. I could as easily make an unfalsifiable claim about your a-leprchaunism as a belief: "I don't believe in leprechauns, but instead the universe was created by a vacuum that somehow behaved just like leprechauns." See?
infideluxe 4 months ago 2
@infideluxe Replacing the word "God" with "leprechauns" is meaningless. Leprechauns have no known ability or desire to create universes; they do not exist, nor do they have to, for the Universe to exist.
Vacuum has no such abilities either. Yet the universe *does* exist, and possesses order that a vacuum cannot create. The Creation proves the Creator. If you are reading this, you exist, and no vacuum could have caused it. The silly, sudden abandonment of logic when atheists get to this point!
Pygar2 4 months ago
@Pygar2
"Leprechauns...do not exist, nor do they have to, for the Universe to exist."
Replace leprechauns with "gods." Do you believe you've met any burden of proof? You have not. Simply because the universe exists does not permit you or any any other theist proclaim a god. Simply asserting the universe as a "creation" does not make it such.
infideluxe 4 months ago
@Pygar2
Can you prove that Leprechauns don't exist or that they didn't create the universe?
Does the creator prove that there's a second creator who created the first creator? If not, then your silly argument is a self-refuting contradiction. A complex creator doesn't need creating, but a less complex universe does? That's a severe case of special pleading. You can't have it both ways. Either complexity requires a creator or doesn't. It clearly doesn't.
dudev 4 months ago
@dudev Okay, go ahead and rename God "Leprechaun" if you like, for the purpose of this conversation. Some people even pronounce it "Allah", which to me sounds like abusing the privilege of being wrong. Any spurious argument about God needing a second Creator, applies just as strongly to your fictional "Vacuum Indistinguishable from God". The difference is that a Creator creates, and a Creation was made. Your VIFG has neither reason nor ability to create... and yet we are here.
Pygar2 3 months ago
@Pygar2
Go ahead and use special pleading. It only makes you sound like a walking talking contradiction. You want god to exist beyond space and time, but at the same time to be personal and to have the power to answer prayers. Your god, by your very argument, must be more complex than the universe. But your argument centers around all complex things coming about by design. You can't have it both ways, slick. In nature, patterns do arise all by themselves. There's no need for an outside force.
dudev 3 months ago
@dudev Then what made your "Vacuum Indistinguishable from God" any different than regular ol' Emptiness that does nothing? How can nothing, have a pattern? How can it have content to explode into a Big Bang? It all has to come from somewhere... and vacuum simply isn't up to the job.
Pygar2 3 months ago
@Pygar2
Space isn't empty. It's not nothing. That's a misunderstanding of the
Big Bang on your part. And you're assuming that the default state of things was zero, or nothing. I say the universe has always existed in one state or another. And you say god, the creator, has always existed. The difference is that we know the universe exists. But there's no evidence for a god. And I already demonstrated why your hypocritical argument fails. It's a case of special pleading.
dudev 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pygar2
"Speaking up about it instead of simply being silent about it, as in this video, is being an "evangelical atheist"."
And wouldn't theists just love it if those who vociferously scrutinized and doubted their claims went silent? Zealously advocating critical reasoning does not equate to "evangelical atheism," which would be advocating that everybody stop believing in their god(s). Can you see the difference?
infideluxe 4 months ago
@infideluxe I was not addressing any advocacy of critical thought; I just made a post pointing out the atheistic abandonment of that. My post was purely intended at that branch of prereligious peoples who loudly spout and promote their (obviously) wrong and illogical thought. If you can't understand God well enough, yet, to understand He exists, you can at least be silent about your lapse, not promote it. "It is better to be silent and be thought a fool, than speak and remove all doubt".
Pygar2 4 months ago
@Pygar2
" I was not addressing any advocacy of critical thought;"
Well, then you'd better start, because you're lacking it in spades.
infideluxe 4 months ago
@Pygar2
"I just made a post pointing out the atheistic abandonment of that."
And you were wrong in that assumption.
"If you can't understand God well enough."
Nor can you understand. It is a "supernatural" construct conveniently designed by humans as a repository for their ignorance regarding matters that test their patience. I'm sorry you're probably going to die without having the answers, as am I. Tough.
infideluxe 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pygar2
""It is better to be silent and be thought a fool, than speak and remove all doubt". "
And on this, you should take your own advice.There is nothing quite so egotistical and ignorant as the assertions of supernatural overseers, and all because so many people have not yet learned to cope with their own demise. Toughen up.
infideluxe 4 months ago
@Pygar2
When atheists have their own TV and radio stations, houses of non-worship scattered across the country, billions of dollars to spend on proselytizing, and politicians pandering to them en masse, then you can call their speaking out evangelical. Until then, the comparison is idiotic.
dudev 4 months ago
@gashyna
"However the solution being provided to fill the void created by this abandonment is a failure."
You are not owed a "solution" by your doubters to fill a void currently occupied by fairy tales. There are thousands of ways to live a productive, meaningful, compassionate, happy life.
Delirium tremens from a lifetime of self-consolation via mythology is simply going to hurt for a while. Tough.
infideluxe 4 months ago
@gashyna
"There is a place for faith that science does not satisfy."
This is religion attempting to co-opt the vast richness of human experience with superstitious adherence. Enriched lives require no subscription to nonsense to be meaningful.
Your claim is a straw man anyhow. Integrity forbids us from fabricating facts simply because "science" may not satisfy all our cravings all the time.
infideluxe 4 months ago
@gashyna
"The unseen world of our thought life is critical."
Every tiny event of our thought life can be linked to neural activity in our brains, recorded, measured, explained. It's unseen-ness does not make it magical. Nor does an explanation take anything away from life's experience.
"Although approaches to faith will change, faith itself will flourish."
This sounds more like wishful thinking than any type of logical conclusion.
infideluxe 4 months ago
MAN!!! Get an audio engineer that can ring out lavalier microphones.
ScottJanssen 4 months ago
the audience is told to keep questions/comments short and listen to the first guy rambling on!!
sqazsquat 4 months ago
If Bill Nye grew a beard, do you think he'd look just like Abraham Lincoln?
sqazsquat 4 months ago 31
Haha irony, the ad on the side of this video: "Your 2012 Psychic Reading for FREE, click here!"
Yourveryking 4 months ago
Funny, I was just on Caltech's website...
BlodhArget 4 months ago
Is it just me or is James Randi looking more and more like Darwin?..
Love the video!!
shlunko 4 months ago 44
@shlunko
Interestingly, both Randi and Dan Dennett look like Darwin, but Randi and Dennett don't look like each other.
dgdfhfghgfhgfgffjhj 4 months ago
@shlunko
I was thinking he's looking more like Santa. Old man, white beard.
Textra1 4 months ago
@shlunko James Randi has himself mentioned that similarity several times in the past. Indeed i personally think he purposefully is imitating Darwins look as if he is trying to get in to that league of great thinkers. Not saying he doesnt belong in that league, but there is only one James Randi, and we need him.
ragnarlava 1 month ago
Amazing, I love it!
tehjow 4 months ago