Grayling thinks CO2 is bad and he thinks we should reduce CO2 emissions - yet he apparently thinks nothing of jetting to Australia, the other side of the planet.
@dead0piggy I too thought of Pascal, but in thinking account the comment, it serena to be a matter of giving too short an answer. He was referring to elements of the debate that have a direct impact on human life: diminishing forests and animal life, increasing energy consumption, rapidly rising population, among other environmental concerns. He wasn't really giving the "what have you got to lose" ploy religionists use. He was referring to continued use of evidence.
@Ematched Yes, there are differences between "planet stewardship" and "Pascal's wager." There are very real, physical consequences to our choices about the planet. In Pascal's wager, there are only imaginary consequences (no one has ever shown that the claimed consequences can "ever" occur under any circumstance). We may lose money by caring for the planet, where the idea is "be prepared for reality," but we lose our minds by accepting Pascal's wager. Pascal's wager has an unacceptable cost.
@alexhamster1134 Yeah, I hadn't gotten used to my new Droid at the time I posted my comment. The text box on smartphones is ridiculously small, not allowing for a full view of the keyed text. And I didn't have sufficient time to review my comment before hitting post, seeing as I was on break at work and all.
I still should've proofread. But, eh, the meaning still slipped in.
I'm afraid that his last comment on climate change is where he lost me. That sounds far too much like Pascal's Wager to me. 'If you believe in God you have nothing to lose, even if you are wrong'.
If evidence didn't support the claim that climate change is due to acts of man, than it would be best not to fund those kinds of investigations, even if it 'does no harm'. If that were the case than there would be far better things to put money into.
In order to pursue any line of enquiry it is a necessary prerequisite to make assumptions. However it is misleading to then suggest that any fruits of that enquiry are 'based' on assumptions. The fallacy lies in stretching too broadly the definition of 'based'
Philosophy is only valid if it regularly grounds itself in data from the real world, otherwise it runs the risk of being merely internally logical and getting lost up it's own arse
The making of 'assumptions' as a hypothetical *starting* point is entirely valid, science then goes on to test those assumptions, when there is enough corroborating evidence and failure to falsify then we know that the assumptions are no longer tenuous but in some way approximate reality
Both are claims about what is the case. Neither claim can be proved true. So both theism and atheism are beliefs about what is in fact the case. Which is fine, you're allowed to believe what you like. What you are not allowed is to claim that you have no beliefs when you clearly do.
@1noen1 You make a common mistake made by theists and people learning opposing positions against theism from theist web sites and literature: atheism isn't "not the case that god" as you put it: it is the case that there is insufficient evidence for god. Atheism doesn't make a catagorical claim about the existence of god, but theists do. So theists have the burden of proof, but can't provide it, so theirs is solely the belief position. Best to read opposition literature for opposition views.
@1noen1 You're confusing the word 'Atheism' for what atheism actually is in the same way an egocentric marshan might decide it knows earthers by calling them 'non-marshans'. This is what is confusing you, and gives a clue to who invented the word Atheist to describe an Atheist - a word that carries nothing about the use of evidence in differentiating between belief and knowledge. The preceeding short clause to the quote explained this, why did you miss it out like a troll? Just use less HA's.
@intermender --Whew!! Now THAT is what I call comedy. More seriously though, if you are unwilling to make a claim about god's existence then you are not an atheist.
"theists have the burden of proof" -- Not really. Religious faith is not a scientific or empirical matter. World views are not subject to empirical tests because empiricism is itself a worldview. You can't prove any one worldview is true. I believe in the scientific worldview but that is my belief. I cannot prove science is true.
@1noen1 what you choose to call things is irrelevant. The burden of proof is on religion if it seeks to involve itself in political matters or matters of public morality and society which is the only reason we give it any attention: do you really think we'd be having this conversation if religions admitted they were merely a private lifestyle choice like a taste in music? Its ingenuous to deny the burden when religion imposes itself upon humanity both materially and psychologically.
@1noen1 "You can't prove any one worldview is true. I believe in the scientific worldview but that is my belief. I cannot prove science is true." - this is a ridiculous statement: you're actually implying someone who believes in a worldview that the world is made entierely of cheese is equivalent to a worldview that is contingent upon what science reveals about nature. Again you conflate belief with knowledge and disregard contingent evidence. You really need to get out more.
@intermender -- No, actually, it isn't ridiculous, it's philosophy 101. A world view is the set of metaphysical presumptions we have that precede ratiocination. You can't even GET to science unless you make assumptions. Which constitute your worldview.
BTW, science says the world IS made entirely of cheese. That is, science says that there is only one substance, you call them particles, I call them bits of the universal cheese. Descartes used the metaphor of wax. That's what Materialism just IS
An easy analogy to explain what I mean (as I realise you didn't understand my first coment) is this:
My brother calls me on his phone claiming that he has won $50 milion in a lottery. I reject his claim, it's an extraordinary claim, he could be playing a prank (which he does often), my rejection is not the equivalent to claiming to KNOW he hasn't won the lottery...My mind is open to a claim if good evidence is given. Or am I being dogmatic merely because I demand good evidence for big claims?
"By denying that fairies exist without evidence for them really does amount to adopting a metaphysical position about what can or cannot exist."
I don't need evidence to reject or "deny" the existence of fairies. The lack of evidence supporting the existence of fairies alone is justification for me to reject claims of their existence. This reasoning can also be applied to the biblical/koranic god.
@TurboDally -- That's not reasoning. "I don't need evidence to reject or "deny" the existence of fairies." This is called dogma. Whenever you accept OR REJECT a proposition without evidence you are being dogmatic. You might feel justified in your belief system and maybe you are, but that doesn't change the fact that your belief you can KNOW something does not exist without any evidence to back your claim is dogmatism.
It's not dogmatic to reject the existence of X, when the evidence for the existence of X is extremely poor or non-existent. I do not need evidence to reject claims of the existence of fairies, when the evidence for the existence of fairies is v.poor at best.
Also, I do not claim to KNOW fairies do not exist, I merely reject claims of their existence.
@1noen1 FYI: agnostisism/gnostisism and theism/atheism are seperate issues. The latter deal with the question of belief. The former deals with what you claim to have knowledge of. If you don't believe that a god exists but you don't claim to know that for sure either, then you are pr. def. an agnostic atheist. agnostisim is not some middle position between theism and atheism. You can have agnostic theists (a lot of theists fall under this vategory BTW) and agnostic atheists.
@TheStigma -- "agnostisim is not some middle position" Yes, actually, it is a middle position. Atheism is the denial of god's existence, theism is the assertion of god's existence and agnosticism is skepticism about either claim. Skepticism is the default position, not atheism.
Atheism is NOT science nor is it a scientific theory. Atheism is the unfalsifiable belief that god does not exist which makes it a belief system.
@1noen1 Well, I obviously can't stop you from using whatever definitions of words that you feel like - however just be aware that when you use this kind of definition of atheism and agnosticism then you are not using the same definiton that nearly all atheists use. I have to ask - what is the point of defining "atheist" as a term that no actual atheists agree to be accurate? At that point it just becomes a semantics wordgame rahter than an actual exchange of ideas and concepts.
@TheStigma -- "what is the point of defining "atheist" as a term that no actual atheists agree to be accurate?" -- I am using the standard accepted philosophical definition. Atheists came up with this BS definition that it is a "lack of belief" because of all the butthurt they suffered pre 1980 (before you were born). In 1980 G. Smith came out with his book in which he re-defined atheism and he did so in a way so as to convert agnostics into atheists. George Smith is a Randian Objectivist nutjob
@1noen1 As for atheism being unfalsifiable - thats kind of rich :P Project much?
Obviously the belief that X does not exist will allways be falsifiable - because all you have to show to falsify it is show that X exists. Demonstrating nonexistence is a fundamentally different problem alltogether - sorry buddy.
@TheStigma -- The claim that god does not exist is unfalsifiable because you cannot prove a negative. Any sophomore text in logic will tell you that. "Demonstrating nonexistence is a fundamentally different problem alltogether" My god you are stupid aren't you? So you are saying that the claim that god does not exist does not demand that you demonstrate god does not exist?
@1noen1 If someone makes that positive claim - then that requires evidence yes, but I am not of that position (nor did I ever indicate otherwise). Neither are the vast vast majority of those that call themselves atheists. All this is just projecting on your part. As for those relative few to hold to that position, they do that relative to a particular god concept because they make good arguments for internal contradictions within that god concept.
@TheStigma -- "I am not of that position" - If you don't believe that god does not exist you are not an atheist. How hard is that to understand? Nor is atheism a rejection of any particular god concept, it is the categorical rejection of all god concepts. I don't believe in Zeus but that fact doesn't make me an atheist.
@1noen1 As for defining atheism, the meaning of words are refined and changed with time. Personally I dont really care what name you use, as long as the terms are clear - and most atheists today clearly don't identify with the ye-olde definition of agnostisicm (if you prefer to use the oldest definitions) which is why people now generally use a more neuanced classification to describe their views, and trying to cram people into that category really dosn't change their views either.
@TheStigma -- "the meaning of words are refined and changed with time" -- Sure but if we are going to be rational about it then our words need to be precise and consistent. A means not, theism means belief in god, so atheism means the rejection of belief in god. Again, atheism is NOT the set of all things which are not theists. It is the set of all people who reject theism. My table is not an atheist, neither is my cat nor my 2 year old.
@TheStigma -- The requirement for membership in the set of atheists is rejection of the existence of god. The requirement for membership in the set of theists is the acceptance of the existence of god. The requirement for membership in the set of agnostics is skepticism of both atheism and theism.
But agnosticism is a statement of knowledge, atheism/theism is a statement of belief, there is a difference. For example the pilosophically correct term for all the more famous "new" atheists and all atheists I know is "agnostic atheist" because philosophically we have to admit the possibility that fairies or gods exist. I've never met gnostic atheists i.e that they know that a god doesn't exist. However I've met a lot of gnostic theists.
@omegavalerius -- "Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge, atheism/theism is a statement of belief" Beliefs are statements of knowledge. Belief is "mental content held as true". So if I believe that god does not exist then I hold that "god does not exist" is true. There is no such thing as an agnostic atheist, that is self contradictory.
@1noen1 gnostic atheism which you claim to have an issue with (sometimes refered to as "strong atheism" for some weird reason) is for sure a much tougher position to hold, alltough not impossible. It very much depends on what spesific god concept you are refering to. If said god concept can be shown to have internal contraditions for example then such a position is defensible. The vaguer and less details the god concept the harder such a stance is defend however, so it is rarely generalized.
@TheStigma -- There is no such thing as strong atheism or weak atheism. Atheism is the denial of god, period. That's what it is and that is what the word means. The 2nd century Christians were atheists. They did not believe in souls or an immaterial God or a spiritual realm like heaven. They believed that when you died that was it, no after life, no souls rising to heaven. They were called atheists... why? because they didn't believe in the pagan gods everyone else did.
@1noen1 Again, you are using a definition of atheism that allmost no atheist would actually agree with, so what is your point? You are attacking a strawman. Atheism means simply "not theist". Thats all it is. Yet you seem very eager to lump that together with a host of other ideas and ideological stances that are wholly unreasonable to most people including the atheists. You do realize that redefining the word "atheist" into meaninglessness acomplishes nothing right? We are still here.
@TheStigma -- Atheism means simply "not theist" - No it doesn't. If that were true then my table is an atheist. Atheism is not the set of all things not theist. What is theism? Theism asserts that the proposition "God exists" is true. "A" means not and refers not to the persons who are theists but to the truth claim they assert. Therefore atheism *must* be the assertion that the proposition "God exists" is not true. But you can't prove something doesn't exist. Therefore atheism is unfalsifiable.
@1noen1 By the way, you say "Theism asserts that the proposition "God exists" is true". Where did you get this from? All common dictionary definitions I've come across defines it as belief in god, not a claim of gods existence.
Indicentally this also demonstrates why combining the terms of theism/atheism and gnostisicm/agnostisicm is useful for description - as far from all theists claim knowledge that god exists. Believing and claiming to know are very distinctly different positions.
@TheStigma -- "All common dictionary definitions I've come across defines it as belief in god, not a claim of gods existence."
Belief is defined as any mental content held as true. So if you hold a belief then at bottom there is a proposition that you are asserting as true. Disbelief is not the lack of belief, it is a contrary belief. Atheism is also a contrary belief. Contrary to theists, who belief that god exists, atheists reject the claim that god exists.
@TheStigma -- "Where did you get this from?" I cannot post links but I have already cited the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Encyclopedia Britannica. Search "atheism" in both. You could also look it up in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Or try the Online Etymology Dictionary:
Athist - "1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea)."
Notice it says "without a god" and NOT "lacking belief in god"
So this idiot wants to raise the retirement age and put children into state run schools where they are indoctrinated into his version of atheism. Good luck with that moron.
@freetheworldof -- 1. Atheism is a philosophical ideology that denies the existence of god. It is therefore just as unfalsifiable as religion. Also, it is wrong for the *state* to indoctrinate anyone. Atheism is NOT science and does not belong in the class room presented as fact, which it is not.
Atheism does not deny the existence of any god, it is simply the name given to those who agree on the statement: "I reject the claim that any deity exists". Two entirely different viewpoints. Someone who makes that statement (and that alone) is an atheist. Thats it, nothing more is required to be an atheist, other than agreeing on just that one point.
@freetheworldof -- To reject a claim is to deny that claim. Look up the entry for atheism on Britannica online to see. If theism is the claim that "god exists" is true then atheism MUST be the claim that "god exists" is false.
I did not say or even imply that it right for state run schools to indoctinate anyone, niether did I say that atheism is science (I agree, it is not). In any case, atheism could not be taught as fact to anyone, since atheism is simply a statement of rejection. Could you teach someone about your rejection of anothers claim that fairies exist? Other than by saying there is no evidence, then no of course you couldn't.
@freetheworldof -- Well AC Grayling certainly does think that it is right to indoctrinate children into atheism in state run schools. That is what he plainly says here. -- "Could you teach someone about your rejection of anothers claim that fairies exist?" Yes, of course you could. By denying that fairies exist without evidence for them really does amount to adopting a metaphysical position about what can or cannot exist.
@1noen1 An atheistic upbringing is exactly the opposite - it's a lack of indoctrination. How can you call omitting religious indoctrination from a curriculum, without replacing it with anything else, indoctrination? It's removing indoctrination, creating a lack of it.
@Alexdurrant7 -- "It's removing indoctrination, creating a lack of it." -- That is not possible and it certainly isn't an education. "Upbringing" just IS indoctrination. When I was little I was indoctrinated in the addition tables. 2 + 2 = 4 because my 3rd grade teacher said so. We call the stoplight red and not rouge because everyone else does.
Atheism is a belief system with a very clear and dogmatic set of beliefs about god and the world.
Who votes we bring AC, Dawkins and Hitchens together to Australia for a big slam dunk debate on the pros and cos of atheism and religion? I'm sure we could find some willing opponents?
I love listening to AC. He is so articulate and concise with his explanations. There is no hidden agendas and you sense that his motivations are morally inspired.
i would like to add to the "teach the controversy; its only fair" rebuttal by saying that it actually isnt fair at all for creationism to cut ahead of the line and get taught in schools without going through the same scientific rigor that evolution went through to get accepted. if they want creationism taught, let them produce evidence, get it peer reviewed and earn a concensus just like evolution did.
Okay, the question the anchor asked about the possibility of a diminished belief in god promoting more people to prolong their lives is ridiculous. If you want to prolong the life of a terminal-ill individual, not only are you selfish, but also very cruel. If the person wants to die, then you have no right to interfere.
I must also point out further evidence that proves Islam copied from the Bible, something of which is not unique to Islam though. Virtually all religions feed off the ones that stood before them and this is precisely what one would expect if religion is man-made.
I don't care if the reciting and writing down of your holly book were telvised live via sattelite to every home in the world. All that proves is what it is. Some guy reciting verses and other folks writing them down. No miracles, no proof of anything holly whatsoever! Just another lunatic with followers, like many others before him!
@actsnfacts "No miracles, no proof of anything holly whatsoever! Just another lunatic with followers, like many others before him!"
Self creating dung, no camels. Keep telling yourself that mr irrational atheist.
8:31 And when Our revelations are recited unto them they say: We have heard. If we wish we can speak the like of this. Lo! this is naught but fables of the men of old.
You haven´t answered the important questions I posed. You are putting words in my mouth, since I told you already what I think of your camel/dung riddle, and it is not what you are trying to make it seem. Anyone can go back and read it! And when you run out of answers, you refer to the book in question, in stupid circular argumentation. Now go get your doses of cortisol, and be carefull, your "open mind" may have let your brain slip out of your head....
@actsfacts, you don't have any relevant questions. You asked a stupid hypothetical what if the prophet is wrong....if the prophet was wrong on anything then it was corrected by God obviously.
Just like I expected, some more circular argumentation! So there´s no way your prophet would be wrong...Because god told him better! thus everything else has to conform with his views. And what if there´s no god? OH, it can't be so because the prophet said there is a god and he can´t be wrong, because god told him better... I´m impressed with your open mind and critical thinking!
It seems like your universe is made exclusively out of camels, dung and fake gods!
@actsnfacts, ever since I gave you that simple analogy pointing out the hypocrisy and irrationality you seem to have been driven even further mad and going on a rampage.
Making up things doesn't make you right. Now go ahead and continue to believe in self creating dung while the believer analyzes, uses critical thinking skills and studies the evidence and associates the dung with an animal. Go off your .1% of uncertainty with your ego. Peace
Is that your response, out of critical analises? Ok, I have to just give up on you. You are truely hopeless.
You should try and learn something about real critical reasoning. And it is not believing in a book and having the reality conform to it. I´m honestly wishing you peace too, and hoping, but not praying, that you get rid of your falacies someday. But before I go I'd like to ask what is it that I've made up?
I hope this logic will comfort you 1 million years from now that "at least you knew how to win you tube comment debates" despite the fact you're in that sulphur smelling place.
If gods existed at all, and hell and heaven, I doubt the real all forgiving god of love would be this vengeful towards his own creation. what do you make of such a sadistic being, who creates a Universe and beings in it that can reason with the facts that are available to them , only to later judge and throw them in sulfur burning pains, for the rest of eternity, for doing just that!?
And it is amazing that you long to "be free" as people were back in the middle ages, when catholic church did rule, just the way you propose.... and burned people for their beliefs. Or maybe you suggest something slightly more modern, like having the rules layed down by sexually repressed priest pedophiles...
You might be referring to people trying to corrupt the Qur 'an; however, if all Qur' an disappeared from earth. It is memorized by many Muslims. That is the miracle of preservation.
I wonder if the fact that you insist in switching the attributes of a believer for those of a scientifically oriented person betrays a hidden desire of viewing the universe in a more scientific fashion. I think some of the things that stop you from making that leap is your cortisol addiction and your urge to rushing back to the "burning barn" of faith. would you ever admit, even hypoteticaly, going against your prophets words were the facts to prove them wrong? I doubt it.
@actsnfacts, I see you're surprised that I exposed your kind as the ones who are actually close minded. All this time you thought you were the ones using critical thinking skills and it was the exact opposite.
Nothing to be surprised at. It's basic common sense. Intelligence is not even that important. Just an open minded capable person. That's the miracle of it all. Any capable person can understand the fundamental truth of our existence.
Sorry, pal, all you have exposed is your natural inability to think any deeper than a puddle of water. What surprises me is that you actually believe you are axposing anything different! Calling a square a circle (using your words) doesn't make it so! Besides, you haven´t answered what your attitude would be towards any proof your prophet is wrong, even if in hypotesis. Cause if you did answer that, you close mind would be revealed!
@actsnfacts 'Sorry, pal, all you have exposed is your natural inability to think any deeper than a puddle of water. "
Still think that dung came out by itself of thin air and not from the camel? It must be harsh not to use basic common sense and critical thinking skills.
I thought so... No answer whatsoever..... I pitty people like you! And by reading your silly comment here it is clear that if you read my answer to your dung/camel riddle you are pretending you didn't! You tell me, how harsh it is!
In conclusion, if a forensic scientist followed the atheist doctrine, they would simply lose their job, because it would mean ignoring the mountain of evidence (99.9%) in favor of the murder occurring, but not considering it, because of that .1 percent of uncertainty.
Are you trying to say that a beliver is the guy who bases his model of the universe on scientific fact and the atheist is the one who hangs on to a thin air, statiscally irrelevant, belief? Do you know the definition of faith? Have you ever met a man of faith who says "the scriptures say god split the moon, but there´s evidence it was just an eclipse, therefore the scriptures must be wrong" ?
Atheism is not a doctrine. And it doesn't imply believing a statistically irrelevant possibility, but rather it implies taking all possibilities into account and cheking facts to create an ever more accurate view of things, much different than a believers frozen set of values. Believers, by definition don't take things scientificaly, they just believe in some ol'mith and, just like you do, twist facts to make'em fit in such miths....
No, it's like the forensic scientist finding a body, and proclaiming that someone must have caused its death, because if something is alive, then dies, someone must have caused that death.
Even if every single piece of evidence points towards natural causes, it must by logic be someone who killed the person.
When none can be blamed, they make up an invisible man that can walk through walls to blame, because it would be impossible that someone dies otherwise.
@superslemmet " finding a body, and proclaiming that someone must have caused its death, because if something is alive, then dies, someone must have caused that death."
The more I hear from you, the more ignorant you sound.
Death by definition can have many different causes (murder, natural causes...etc).
Buy you do not know that the cause of reality is a Creator.
You know that the cause of books is an author and so on.
You are using a circular argument to prove there is a creator.
Since you believe the world to be "created", something must have created it. Hence there must be a Creator. And since there is a Creator, the world was created.
We have no information whatsoever as to how mass and energy comes into being, therefore we can't make valid claim as to its origin.
@superslemmet "Buy you do not know that the cause of reality is a Creator."
You also have no absolute proof you came from your mother, but through observation of the birth process, you use your common sense.
There is a creator no matter what, because whatever created all existence from nothing (space/time/matter..ect) "caused" it to exist and in such is Eternal (created time/space), Transcendent, All-Mighty, All-Wise (created intelligence). These are all the attributes of what we call God.
Again, it comes back to that .1% of uncertainty is filled with common sense. If we were created by The Creator, then wouldn't you expect The Creator to communicate with His creation? He has done just that through the prophets, scripture and final completion of religion (Islam) before Day of Resurrection.
Even if He didn't communicate, common sense tells you something awesome had to have created all existence from nothing.
They say some of the most famous atheists of all were seen to be in a sheer state of panic and abject fear as they passed away. Some even heard crying out to Jesus Christ for one last chance. That very record shows what they TRULY beleived no matter what they shouted or wrote all along.
Actually, I have to agree with him because after there is a great falling away from all faith in the true God, a man will appear on the scene who will have the ability to solve all of the world's ills, yet instead of bringing peace, he will bring tyranny & then world war. The Word of Jesus calls him that man of sin. He will be a man posessed of Satan himself.
OH, no!!! Another moron with messianic ideas who thinks he has some kinda revelation from above! This is getting boring! C'mon, guys! This kind of lunatic should be used as proof that god doesn´t exist...... He wouldn't have allowed for so much blah blah blah in his name....lol
its called Judment Day which we will ALL have to attend. There'll be no "no shows" for that one. No one is getting away with anything they did wrong especially in His name.
Your Sunday School mindwash will not work on the non-sheep you keep preaching to son, that kind of stupidity must be planted in an undeveloped mind to have an effect.
I love when religious nobodies have no better response than "yu'll learn better when yer ded!" Honestly now, get a clue. If your only response is that you'll gloat when everyones dead, you have no response at all.
Grayling's response to the global warming issue is very telling. "95% of serious scientists recognize that there is a man made problem." The problem is that 94% of those serious scientists were basing their conclusions on the research of the 1% that collected the data which we know now was modified to fit in to an agenda. Once a stance is taken on an issue it becomes undisputable truth never to be questioned again. We see it time after time. Now silliness like the Big Bang is rarely questioned.
The case o China, and I might add the case of the USSR in the 20th century, is frequently mentioned, but these aren't cases of atheists doing evil in atheism name, but rather of politically motivated movements that put pressure on religions out of fear of their capacity to organize people against the status quo. Not out of a healthy realization that there are no gods at all. Those were not true atheists.They went after any form of organization that wasn't their own.
Well, I would say they were atheists - their disbelief satisfies the definition I prefer. But they were no rationalists, and they were not scientifically minded critical thinkers.
I'm not so sure I agree with you there. So I'll have to refrase. They were "anti-theists", perhaps. Their actions were political. They never went much into the merit of the existence of a god but rather they fought the religous organizations. The absence of a god was never at the core of the flags they carried though it came-in handy to them at times. Crusades and islamic terrorism or the imposing armed side of zionism, all had their gods at the core of the rethoric supporting their actions.
The "harm" principle is complete hypocrisy. Atheists say that everything is random, and there is no good or bad, except for what we deem to be good or bad. Then why is ahimsa any more legitimate? You cant have good and evil if there isn't a barometer or standard for what those words mean. Just assigning non-harm to the "good" side because its excepted by the majority, isn't valid. Animals "harm" each other in nature all the time. But we wouldn't say a bear or tiger is evil.
Good and bad are labels that are relevant in human social interaction. Your example with the two animals is off the point. It gets more interesting when humans come into the mix, because humans are the ones doing the evaluation. Is it bad when a wild animal kills your pet? Almost all people would say yes. Is it evil? Most people would say no, although some people do superstitiously assign moral values by invisible guiding intelligences to nature. Bad does not equal evil. Evil entails malice.
My only point is that if a Majority of a population thinks "harm" say like killing Jews is "good" for the betterment of mankind, does that make it good. Similiarly, just because a majority of athiests believe in the "non-harm" principle, does that make it any more correct, right, true, better, than a violent one. What is the deciding factor for right or wrong? If our whims, or the majority is the only deciding factor, then the masses can be easly swayed by a majority consencess.
Im not reading all your posts, so maybe ive missed something, but the majority does not decide what is right or wrong. The words right and wrong are bullshit anyways, don't think of it in terms as right and wrong, think of it as "what is most productive for the advancement of the human race." In your example, there is no obvious benefit of genocide against jews.
People are fucking stupid, if the majority actually ruled in America we'd probably face technological regression and have a dark age
Keep thinking hard! You are almost getting it! When you say scientists disagree you are almost beginning to underestand the strength of science! We don´t want to give any different idea! We only don't disagree with facts, unlike theists. It is from a vast amount of propositions, put to the test of experiments and evidence that a truer picture of the universe will emerge.
Yes, sometimes the majority is wrong even when they think they're right and good. But a well-informed majority that doesn't ignore valid information is much less likely to come to wrong conclusions.
As you're already talking about Jews, let's go with that. Germans thought they would benefit from getting rid of all the Jews in their country. They got minor profits at first, and then got harmed big time. Seeing the results - paying attention to reality instead of dogma - they understood wrong.
Atheists do not say "everything is random." This is your own vapid assumption. Very few things are random, as most things are due to natural process, which is the OPPOSITE of random. As for good and bad, sure they exist, but nowhere near the black and white way that most religious people demand we ascribe them to.
The standard is of society, not any mystical force. That nature can be cruel to individuals does not stop it from being an efficient process on the whole.
There have been tragedies done in the name of God. There have been tragedies done in the name of atheism, also. So maybe these things are done because humans have a selfish nature, and not because they try to follow a religion or don't. And for those who think defeating the literalist believers of the bible or koran is defeating God, that is just a silly argument that has no merit. A followers inability to follow a religion is just like a scientist not being able to understand physics.....
at first. both take time, and not being able to follow or understand...doesnt make the science or religion any less true, at its core. And science and real God consciousness are not at odds...it is our own sectaranism that makes us think so.
Of course "defeating" the fundies isn't a defeat of God. Does anyone pretend it is? God only disappears if everyone stops believing, which might never happen.
the difference in the example you make, with the scientist and the believer, is that millions of believers all over the world claim to each other they are wrong, and they can't prove it, instead get violent. In science, you can show exactly why and how something is wrong, and learn from it.
In defeating the "fundies", some do believe that defeats God. Otherwise, why do authors like Sam Harris and others use the argument that because we can disprove the Genesis "timeline", that there is no God. The funny thing you and other scientists want the world to believe, (I just take it your a science believer) is that science is providing a unified front. There is many of argument between scienctists even on the issue of I.D, Global Warming, you name it.
Science does not provide a unified front because there is debate amongst scientists?
Do you understand at all how science works? Do you know that to find the correct answer, you usually have to understand why the other answers are incorrect? Contradicting evidence is what makes science interesting.
There is very little debate about global warming amongst real scientists doing real work. The only debate comes from those who are paid money to argue against anything (like fox news).
Interesting theory you have there. I guess we should also summarily dismiss Einstein and the countless other geniuses that are not vapidly shallow enough to care what you think about their appearance.
Perhaps we should only listen to guys like David Hasselhoff for answers to the toughest questions in life.
If the UK never learned a thing from the battle of Britian or the Irish troubles they don't stand chance of surviving the coming Muslim fundi troubles .
This guy has New World Order written all over him. It's people like him who also think that the world's population should be reduced to 80% of what it is. Of course, I'm sure he won't be volunteering himself. It sickens me that he believes children should be the property of the state and not of the parents. His Happiness theory is laughable . Thank God our constitution defends the individual's pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Happiness, like democracy, is not one size fits all.
to want something like that would be to want genocide and in no way would anyone who values human life do so, including Grayling who believes in helping humanity's cause
and i see his theory was a little too big for you. he is simply saying by pursueing happiness is to create unhappiness because that happiness is not reached so therefor it is better to let happiness come to you. simple
So how do you rationally handle the "problem of aging????You put flouride in the drinking water or get people to soak their teeth in poision. You give people vaccines with mercury and all kinds of bad stuff in it. You grow corn for ethanal(which uses more energy than it saves)so more people starve to death. Then they write books and brag about it. He also said "rationalized child birth"...China already has that and forced sterilaztion. So didn't Hitler. Total new world order propaganda.
Radical idea???by listening to what he says. He said, "Some other things need to be brought into the picture, that needs to be handled rationally and sensibly" end quote. He was referring to "the PROBLEM of aging"(yes he actually said that too) and he used the word "burden" 3 times in the sentence leading up to that quote and after. People are going live till 120 and only be able to work and pay taxes till their 70. That he says is going to be an even greater burden on society.
Dienlik, true but the constitution states our human "rights" come from God, not government. That is where we disagree. That is why people who think like you allow the goverment to take away your rights.
1Guitarslayer...well pip pip...lol You hit the nail square on the head. My question is if all human activity was guided by only logic, would "humanity" cease to exist??? I think so.
And since our human rights come from "God" , that means no Man or government can ever take those rights away from you. But if our "rights come from goverment, then they could be just as easily taken away by government or man. I'm not saying at all that any of you need to read the bible. You need to study human history. And not what our educational system teaches us about history because all that is just a cover up.
I'm talking about real history written by real men. Not Dr. Spock.
If they have the power, the force, they can take any right away from you they want. Saying or writing down that some rights and dignity are "unalienable" or "untouchable" is a phrase to indicate a guiding principle. As soon as someone stops caring about upholding this principle, the rights are gone. Rights do not magically exist by themselves, floating around in some sphere. They exist only as long as they are protected - by living humans, not words on paper.
@NYpatriot607 Sorry to break it to you, but no God that advocates slavery and stoning people to death can lay claim to being champion of human rights. Human rights are a product of secular thinking - check out the Enlightenment before you keep talking rubbish.
Also for hmn rights to come from God there`d have to be a God to start with.
Actually, the Constitution only mentions a *generic* Creator, not "God" as you likely see him in the likely Christian sense. It is to say, whatever "created" us, be it a god, gods, thing, or nature itself, endowed us with living rights. This does not mean "The Christian God gave me rights!" You need to learn how to read the Constitution, all these concepts are explained by the Founders own famous letters. Then, the Treaty of Tripoli makes clear none of our rights come from any specific god.
I know how to read very well. Spelling is my soft spot. Just to set the record straight, I am not a christian. I believe in freedom. Glad you can be an athiest and love the constition. Most athiest tend to be communist. Or is progressive a prettier word???
Then there are the fake athiest who belive that little ol man can ,through knowledge, become god himself. It's funny how they wish to become the very same thing they say don't exist.
I didn't say you couldn't read, I said you need to know how to read the *Constitution.* Its not whatever random translation you prefer, the Founders made their intents more than clear in their corresponding writings.
At any rate, it doesn't matter what you or I are, but it seems you rely on many bad stereotypes to fill the gaps in your own knowledge. Atheists are not "mostly communist," "progressive" is not a bad word, and no atheist is interested in becoming something they don't believe in
I find it interesting how you say you're not a Christian, yet you display very religious stereotypes in the way you speak of atheists in general. It seems you know very little about atheism when you mistake it for a governmental system (communism), and indicate the classic "atheists want to be god" nonsense most religious people toss out when they have no better argument against what a particular atheist is SAYING. Attack the atheist, not the idea... ad hominem, I believe. Do try again.
@NYpatriot607 I`m sorry I just relied to your previous comment, after reading this I realise you are either retarded or a troll. Maybe a retarded troll?
Radical idea???by listening to what he says. He said, "Some other things need to be brought into the picture, that needs to be handled rationally and sensibly" end quote. He was referring to "the PROBLEM of aging"(yes he actually said that too) and he used the word "burden" 3 times in the sentence leading up to that quote and after. People are going live till 120 and only be able to work and pay taxes till their 70. That he says is going to be an even greater burden on society.
by this he means social security is going to have to reform and society must change. with people living longer they will need more social security and the government must deal with that. also people will be retiring at older ages.
so yes it will be a greater burden obviously!
but he never said that was the solution
he does not know of a solution so he did not say one
its politics and it will come down to a tough decision
no religion would be great because there would be less wars, less or no discrimination, no predudice.. nothing for evil people to flock to to stomp on others (liek the bible is used).
and there would be no little boys getting raped by priests, no clergy trying to cover it up so the cops dont know, no congregation that puts the pedo priest above their own abused kids.
it surely would be a great world if no religion existed.
imagine a terrorist without Islam. they'd have nothing to fight for.
Grayling thinks CO2 is bad and he thinks we should reduce CO2 emissions - yet he apparently thinks nothing of jetting to Australia, the other side of the planet.
stevehayes13 5 months ago
Thank you for posting this, AtheistMediaBlog.
writersblock26 7 months ago
Rational thought FTW! All people who believe in god are broken. Get your brain repaired.
blackestjake 8 months ago
Religion is dying. YAY. I also love coming on Youtube and looking at the desperate tone with some of the believers on here.
LockardKevin 8 months ago
@dead0piggy I too thought of Pascal, but in thinking account the comment, it serena to be a matter of giving too short an answer. He was referring to elements of the debate that have a direct impact on human life: diminishing forests and animal life, increasing energy consumption, rapidly rising population, among other environmental concerns. He wasn't really giving the "what have you got to lose" ploy religionists use. He was referring to continued use of evidence.
Ematched 9 months ago
@Ematched Yes, there are differences between "planet stewardship" and "Pascal's wager." There are very real, physical consequences to our choices about the planet. In Pascal's wager, there are only imaginary consequences (no one has ever shown that the claimed consequences can "ever" occur under any circumstance). We may lose money by caring for the planet, where the idea is "be prepared for reality," but we lose our minds by accepting Pascal's wager. Pascal's wager has an unacceptable cost.
MultiNaturalist 6 months ago
@MultiNaturalist Spot on!
p.s. my Droid dictionary has greatly improved since I typed my comment into it. I can hardly recognize what I wrote as English.
Ematched 6 months ago
@Ematched thats not the english youre looking for...
alexhamster1134 2 months ago
@alexhamster1134 Yeah, I hadn't gotten used to my new Droid at the time I posted my comment. The text box on smartphones is ridiculously small, not allowing for a full view of the keyed text. And I didn't have sufficient time to review my comment before hitting post, seeing as I was on break at work and all.
I still should've proofread. But, eh, the meaning still slipped in.
Ematched 2 months ago
I haven't read his book but the chapter on Goodness and Happiness sounds like a plagarism of Philebus.
TommyMarxable 10 months ago
I'm afraid that his last comment on climate change is where he lost me. That sounds far too much like Pascal's Wager to me. 'If you believe in God you have nothing to lose, even if you are wrong'.
If evidence didn't support the claim that climate change is due to acts of man, than it would be best not to fund those kinds of investigations, even if it 'does no harm'. If that were the case than there would be far better things to put money into.
dead0piggy 10 months ago
In order to pursue any line of enquiry it is a necessary prerequisite to make assumptions. However it is misleading to then suggest that any fruits of that enquiry are 'based' on assumptions. The fallacy lies in stretching too broadly the definition of 'based'
mutbutyt 10 months ago
Philosophy is only valid if it regularly grounds itself in data from the real world, otherwise it runs the risk of being merely internally logical and getting lost up it's own arse
mutbutyt 10 months ago
@1neon1
The making of 'assumptions' as a hypothetical *starting* point is entirely valid, science then goes on to test those assumptions, when there is enough corroborating evidence and failure to falsify then we know that the assumptions are no longer tenuous but in some way approximate reality
mutbutyt 10 months ago
Theism = "It is the case that god."
Atheism = "It is not the case that god."
Both are claims about what is the case. Neither claim can be proved true. So both theism and atheism are beliefs about what is in fact the case. Which is fine, you're allowed to believe what you like. What you are not allowed is to claim that you have no beliefs when you clearly do.
1noen1 1 year ago
@1noen1 You make a common mistake made by theists and people learning opposing positions against theism from theist web sites and literature: atheism isn't "not the case that god" as you put it: it is the case that there is insufficient evidence for god. Atheism doesn't make a catagorical claim about the existence of god, but theists do. So theists have the burden of proof, but can't provide it, so theirs is solely the belief position. Best to read opposition literature for opposition views.
intermender 10 months ago
@intermender -- "Atheism doesn't make a catagorical claim about the existence of god"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
1noen1 10 months ago
@1noen1 You're confusing the word 'Atheism' for what atheism actually is in the same way an egocentric marshan might decide it knows earthers by calling them 'non-marshans'. This is what is confusing you, and gives a clue to who invented the word Atheist to describe an Atheist - a word that carries nothing about the use of evidence in differentiating between belief and knowledge. The preceeding short clause to the quote explained this, why did you miss it out like a troll? Just use less HA's.
intermender 10 months ago
@intermender --Whew!! Now THAT is what I call comedy. More seriously though, if you are unwilling to make a claim about god's existence then you are not an atheist.
"theists have the burden of proof" -- Not really. Religious faith is not a scientific or empirical matter. World views are not subject to empirical tests because empiricism is itself a worldview. You can't prove any one worldview is true. I believe in the scientific worldview but that is my belief. I cannot prove science is true.
1noen1 10 months ago
@1noen1 what you choose to call things is irrelevant. The burden of proof is on religion if it seeks to involve itself in political matters or matters of public morality and society which is the only reason we give it any attention: do you really think we'd be having this conversation if religions admitted they were merely a private lifestyle choice like a taste in music? Its ingenuous to deny the burden when religion imposes itself upon humanity both materially and psychologically.
intermender 10 months ago
@1noen1 "You can't prove any one worldview is true. I believe in the scientific worldview but that is my belief. I cannot prove science is true." - this is a ridiculous statement: you're actually implying someone who believes in a worldview that the world is made entierely of cheese is equivalent to a worldview that is contingent upon what science reveals about nature. Again you conflate belief with knowledge and disregard contingent evidence. You really need to get out more.
intermender 10 months ago
@intermender -- No, actually, it isn't ridiculous, it's philosophy 101. A world view is the set of metaphysical presumptions we have that precede ratiocination. You can't even GET to science unless you make assumptions. Which constitute your worldview.
BTW, science says the world IS made entirely of cheese. That is, science says that there is only one substance, you call them particles, I call them bits of the universal cheese. Descartes used the metaphor of wax. That's what Materialism just IS
1noen1 10 months ago
An easy analogy to explain what I mean (as I realise you didn't understand my first coment) is this:
My brother calls me on his phone claiming that he has won $50 milion in a lottery. I reject his claim, it's an extraordinary claim, he could be playing a prank (which he does often), my rejection is not the equivalent to claiming to KNOW he hasn't won the lottery...My mind is open to a claim if good evidence is given. Or am I being dogmatic merely because I demand good evidence for big claims?
TurboDally 1 year ago
@1noen1
"By denying that fairies exist without evidence for them really does amount to adopting a metaphysical position about what can or cannot exist."
I don't need evidence to reject or "deny" the existence of fairies. The lack of evidence supporting the existence of fairies alone is justification for me to reject claims of their existence. This reasoning can also be applied to the biblical/koranic god.
TurboDally 1 year ago
@TurboDally -- That's not reasoning. "I don't need evidence to reject or "deny" the existence of fairies." This is called dogma. Whenever you accept OR REJECT a proposition without evidence you are being dogmatic. You might feel justified in your belief system and maybe you are, but that doesn't change the fact that your belief you can KNOW something does not exist without any evidence to back your claim is dogmatism.
You're just a secular fundamentalist.
1noen1 1 year ago
@1noen1
It's not dogmatic to reject the existence of X, when the evidence for the existence of X is extremely poor or non-existent. I do not need evidence to reject claims of the existence of fairies, when the evidence for the existence of fairies is v.poor at best.
Also, I do not claim to KNOW fairies do not exist, I merely reject claims of their existence.
"You're just a secular fundamentalist."
Lawl.
TurboDally 1 year ago
@TurboDally -- "I do not claim to KNOW fairies do not exist" Then you are not an atheist when it comes to fairies. Welcome fellow agnostic!
1noen1 1 year ago
@1noen1 FYI: agnostisism/gnostisism and theism/atheism are seperate issues. The latter deal with the question of belief. The former deals with what you claim to have knowledge of. If you don't believe that a god exists but you don't claim to know that for sure either, then you are pr. def. an agnostic atheist. agnostisim is not some middle position between theism and atheism. You can have agnostic theists (a lot of theists fall under this vategory BTW) and agnostic atheists.
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma -- "agnostisim is not some middle position" Yes, actually, it is a middle position. Atheism is the denial of god's existence, theism is the assertion of god's existence and agnosticism is skepticism about either claim. Skepticism is the default position, not atheism.
Atheism is NOT science nor is it a scientific theory. Atheism is the unfalsifiable belief that god does not exist which makes it a belief system.
1noen1 1 year ago
@1noen1 Well, I obviously can't stop you from using whatever definitions of words that you feel like - however just be aware that when you use this kind of definition of atheism and agnosticism then you are not using the same definiton that nearly all atheists use. I have to ask - what is the point of defining "atheist" as a term that no actual atheists agree to be accurate? At that point it just becomes a semantics wordgame rahter than an actual exchange of ideas and concepts.
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma -- "what is the point of defining "atheist" as a term that no actual atheists agree to be accurate?" -- I am using the standard accepted philosophical definition. Atheists came up with this BS definition that it is a "lack of belief" because of all the butthurt they suffered pre 1980 (before you were born). In 1980 G. Smith came out with his book in which he re-defined atheism and he did so in a way so as to convert agnostics into atheists. George Smith is a Randian Objectivist nutjob
1noen1 1 year ago
@1noen1 As for atheism being unfalsifiable - thats kind of rich :P Project much?
Obviously the belief that X does not exist will allways be falsifiable - because all you have to show to falsify it is show that X exists. Demonstrating nonexistence is a fundamentally different problem alltogether - sorry buddy.
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma -- The claim that god does not exist is unfalsifiable because you cannot prove a negative. Any sophomore text in logic will tell you that. "Demonstrating nonexistence is a fundamentally different problem alltogether" My god you are stupid aren't you? So you are saying that the claim that god does not exist does not demand that you demonstrate god does not exist?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!
1noen1 1 year ago
@1noen1 If someone makes that positive claim - then that requires evidence yes, but I am not of that position (nor did I ever indicate otherwise). Neither are the vast vast majority of those that call themselves atheists. All this is just projecting on your part. As for those relative few to hold to that position, they do that relative to a particular god concept because they make good arguments for internal contradictions within that god concept.
TheStigma 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheStigma -- "I am not of that position" - If you don't believe that god does not exist you are not an atheist. How hard is that to understand? Nor is atheism a rejection of any particular god concept, it is the categorical rejection of all god concepts. I don't believe in Zeus but that fact doesn't make me an atheist.
1noen1 1 year ago
@1noen1 As for defining atheism, the meaning of words are refined and changed with time. Personally I dont really care what name you use, as long as the terms are clear - and most atheists today clearly don't identify with the ye-olde definition of agnostisicm (if you prefer to use the oldest definitions) which is why people now generally use a more neuanced classification to describe their views, and trying to cram people into that category really dosn't change their views either.
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma -- "the meaning of words are refined and changed with time" -- Sure but if we are going to be rational about it then our words need to be precise and consistent. A means not, theism means belief in god, so atheism means the rejection of belief in god. Again, atheism is NOT the set of all things which are not theists. It is the set of all people who reject theism. My table is not an atheist, neither is my cat nor my 2 year old.
1noen1 1 year ago
@TheStigma -- The requirement for membership in the set of atheists is rejection of the existence of god. The requirement for membership in the set of theists is the acceptance of the existence of god. The requirement for membership in the set of agnostics is skepticism of both atheism and theism.
1noen1 1 year ago
@1noen1
But agnosticism is a statement of knowledge, atheism/theism is a statement of belief, there is a difference. For example the pilosophically correct term for all the more famous "new" atheists and all atheists I know is "agnostic atheist" because philosophically we have to admit the possibility that fairies or gods exist. I've never met gnostic atheists i.e that they know that a god doesn't exist. However I've met a lot of gnostic theists.
omegavalerius 10 months ago
@omegavalerius -- "Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge, atheism/theism is a statement of belief" Beliefs are statements of knowledge. Belief is "mental content held as true". So if I believe that god does not exist then I hold that "god does not exist" is true. There is no such thing as an agnostic atheist, that is self contradictory.
1noen1 10 months ago
@1noen1 gnostic atheism which you claim to have an issue with (sometimes refered to as "strong atheism" for some weird reason) is for sure a much tougher position to hold, alltough not impossible. It very much depends on what spesific god concept you are refering to. If said god concept can be shown to have internal contraditions for example then such a position is defensible. The vaguer and less details the god concept the harder such a stance is defend however, so it is rarely generalized.
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma -- There is no such thing as strong atheism or weak atheism. Atheism is the denial of god, period. That's what it is and that is what the word means. The 2nd century Christians were atheists. They did not believe in souls or an immaterial God or a spiritual realm like heaven. They believed that when you died that was it, no after life, no souls rising to heaven. They were called atheists... why? because they didn't believe in the pagan gods everyone else did.
1noen1 1 year ago
@1noen1 Again, you are using a definition of atheism that allmost no atheist would actually agree with, so what is your point? You are attacking a strawman. Atheism means simply "not theist". Thats all it is. Yet you seem very eager to lump that together with a host of other ideas and ideological stances that are wholly unreasonable to most people including the atheists. You do realize that redefining the word "atheist" into meaninglessness acomplishes nothing right? We are still here.
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma -- Atheism means simply "not theist" - No it doesn't. If that were true then my table is an atheist. Atheism is not the set of all things not theist. What is theism? Theism asserts that the proposition "God exists" is true. "A" means not and refers not to the persons who are theists but to the truth claim they assert. Therefore atheism *must* be the assertion that the proposition "God exists" is not true. But you can't prove something doesn't exist. Therefore atheism is unfalsifiable.
1noen1 1 year ago
@1noen1 regarding atheist = "not theist", take a look at the words involved:
a- (Greek: prefix; no, absence of, without, lack of, not)
theist - belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism).
(dictionary definitions)
So atheist = no/absence of/without/lack of/not belief in a god or gods.
Trying to make that be identical to "the claim that no god exists" seems disingenious. Its clearly (a-) absence of (theist) belief in a god/gods.
But again semantics semantics - not important
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma -- "Its clearly (a-) absence of (theist) belief in a god/gods." So you believe my table is an atheist?
Atheism is the lack of belief in god.
My table lacks belief in god.
Therefore my table is an atheist.
Obviously there is a problem. The problem is that you can't define things through negation. An apple is not defined as a not-orange.
Apples are not oranges
This pear is not an orange
Therefore this pear is an apple.
Doesn't work does it?
1noen1 1 year ago
@1noen1 By the way, you say "Theism asserts that the proposition "God exists" is true". Where did you get this from? All common dictionary definitions I've come across defines it as belief in god, not a claim of gods existence.
Indicentally this also demonstrates why combining the terms of theism/atheism and gnostisicm/agnostisicm is useful for description - as far from all theists claim knowledge that god exists. Believing and claiming to know are very distinctly different positions.
TheStigma 1 year ago
@TheStigma -- "All common dictionary definitions I've come across defines it as belief in god, not a claim of gods existence."
Belief is defined as any mental content held as true. So if you hold a belief then at bottom there is a proposition that you are asserting as true. Disbelief is not the lack of belief, it is a contrary belief. Atheism is also a contrary belief. Contrary to theists, who belief that god exists, atheists reject the claim that god exists.
1noen1 1 year ago
@TheStigma -- "Where did you get this from?" I cannot post links but I have already cited the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Encyclopedia Britannica. Search "atheism" in both. You could also look it up in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Or try the Online Etymology Dictionary:
Athist - "1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea)."
Notice it says "without a god" and NOT "lacking belief in god"
1noen1 1 year ago
So this idiot wants to raise the retirement age and put children into state run schools where they are indoctrinated into his version of atheism. Good luck with that moron.
1noen1 1 year ago
@1noen1
"Indoctrinated into his version of atheism"
1. Atheism is not a religion, it is simply the rejection of a claim that god/gods exist. Look it up in a dictionary.
2. It is faith based schools where indoctrination takes place, not state run schools. The majority of schools here in the UK are state run.
3. He is simply saying: it is wrong to indoctrinate young people with religion, let them think for themselves & then make up their own mind.
freetheworldof 1 year ago
@freetheworldof -- 1. Atheism is a philosophical ideology that denies the existence of god. It is therefore just as unfalsifiable as religion. Also, it is wrong for the *state* to indoctrinate anyone. Atheism is NOT science and does not belong in the class room presented as fact, which it is not.
1noen1 1 year ago
@1noen1
Atheism does not deny the existence of any god, it is simply the name given to those who agree on the statement: "I reject the claim that any deity exists". Two entirely different viewpoints. Someone who makes that statement (and that alone) is an atheist. Thats it, nothing more is required to be an atheist, other than agreeing on just that one point.
freetheworldof 1 year ago
@freetheworldof -- To reject a claim is to deny that claim. Look up the entry for atheism on Britannica online to see. If theism is the claim that "god exists" is true then atheism MUST be the claim that "god exists" is false.
1noen1 1 year ago
@1noen1
I did not say or even imply that it right for state run schools to indoctinate anyone, niether did I say that atheism is science (I agree, it is not). In any case, atheism could not be taught as fact to anyone, since atheism is simply a statement of rejection. Could you teach someone about your rejection of anothers claim that fairies exist? Other than by saying there is no evidence, then no of course you couldn't.
freetheworldof 1 year ago
@freetheworldof -- Well AC Grayling certainly does think that it is right to indoctrinate children into atheism in state run schools. That is what he plainly says here. -- "Could you teach someone about your rejection of anothers claim that fairies exist?" Yes, of course you could. By denying that fairies exist without evidence for them really does amount to adopting a metaphysical position about what can or cannot exist.
1noen1 1 year ago
@1noen1 An atheistic upbringing is exactly the opposite - it's a lack of indoctrination. How can you call omitting religious indoctrination from a curriculum, without replacing it with anything else, indoctrination? It's removing indoctrination, creating a lack of it.
Alexdurrant7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Alexdurrant7 -- "It's removing indoctrination, creating a lack of it." -- That is not possible and it certainly isn't an education. "Upbringing" just IS indoctrination. When I was little I was indoctrinated in the addition tables. 2 + 2 = 4 because my 3rd grade teacher said so. We call the stoplight red and not rouge because everyone else does.
Atheism is a belief system with a very clear and dogmatic set of beliefs about god and the world.
1noen1 1 year ago
Who votes we bring AC, Dawkins and Hitchens together to Australia for a big slam dunk debate on the pros and cos of atheism and religion? I'm sure we could find some willing opponents?
sassyb0y 1 year ago
@sassyb0y i pray for this daily
Mrjkc89 1 year ago
I love listening to AC. He is so articulate and concise with his explanations. There is no hidden agendas and you sense that his motivations are morally inspired.
muzvh1 1 year ago
Wow, an interview where a person can actually talk for more than 10 second without getting interrupted. Why can't we have that here!?
OpRedDawn 1 year ago 10
I love this guy.
TheFartoholic 1 year ago 2
Excellent vid, this guy is really onto it
KrisBlueNZ 1 year ago
i would like to add to the "teach the controversy; its only fair" rebuttal by saying that it actually isnt fair at all for creationism to cut ahead of the line and get taught in schools without going through the same scientific rigor that evolution went through to get accepted. if they want creationism taught, let them produce evidence, get it peer reviewed and earn a concensus just like evolution did.
eggs764 1 year ago 17
@eggs764 I wish I could give your comment a million thumbs up! :D
cornflakeclusters 5 months ago
if you wikipedia the lifespan of ppl by country a lot of african countries have like 40 and 50 yrs :( - i wish we could fix that
robotaholic 1 year ago
if you could just make old peole healthy enough to work. then problem solved. anything to not put them on welfare.
greenghost2008 1 year ago
I love A.C Grayling's manners, he's an absolute gentleman.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago 3
@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 - yea hes awesome
beseriousplease 1 year ago
Okay, the question the anchor asked about the possibility of a diminished belief in god promoting more people to prolong their lives is ridiculous. If you want to prolong the life of a terminal-ill individual, not only are you selfish, but also very cruel. If the person wants to die, then you have no right to interfere.
frankystein12 1 year ago
I must also point out further evidence that proves Islam copied from the Bible, something of which is not unique to Islam though. Virtually all religions feed off the ones that stood before them and this is precisely what one would expect if religion is man-made.
sedatedcoho 1 year ago 2
Question:
If Christianity is in its "death throes, then WHY are so many Christian Churches popping up all over the place these days??
bullcurr 1 year ago
watch the video with attention so that you don´t need to ask questions that are allready answered in it.
actsnfacts 1 year ago
something being in its "death throes" SHOULD by definition mean that it is dwindling, not thriving.
bullcurr 1 year ago
The two are clearly entirely consistent. It's like asking, if he's dying how come he can manage to have such an energetic fit.
mrjamesgoodier 1 year ago
I don't care if the reciting and writing down of your holly book were telvised live via sattelite to every home in the world. All that proves is what it is. Some guy reciting verses and other folks writing them down. No miracles, no proof of anything holly whatsoever! Just another lunatic with followers, like many others before him!
actsnfacts 1 year ago
@actsnfacts "No miracles, no proof of anything holly whatsoever! Just another lunatic with followers, like many others before him!"
Self creating dung, no camels. Keep telling yourself that mr irrational atheist.
8:31 And when Our revelations are recited unto them they say: We have heard. If we wish we can speak the like of this. Lo! this is naught but fables of the men of old.
Peace940 1 year ago
You are hopeless!
You haven´t answered the important questions I posed. You are putting words in my mouth, since I told you already what I think of your camel/dung riddle, and it is not what you are trying to make it seem. Anyone can go back and read it! And when you run out of answers, you refer to the book in question, in stupid circular argumentation. Now go get your doses of cortisol, and be carefull, your "open mind" may have let your brain slip out of your head....
actsnfacts 1 year ago 2
@actsfacts, you don't have any relevant questions. You asked a stupid hypothetical what if the prophet is wrong....if the prophet was wrong on anything then it was corrected by God obviously.
Now go back to believing in self created dung.
Peace940 1 year ago
Just like I expected, some more circular argumentation! So there´s no way your prophet would be wrong...Because god told him better! thus everything else has to conform with his views. And what if there´s no god? OH, it can't be so because the prophet said there is a god and he can´t be wrong, because god told him better... I´m impressed with your open mind and critical thinking!
It seems like your universe is made exclusively out of camels, dung and fake gods!
actsnfacts 1 year ago 25
@actsnfacts, ever since I gave you that simple analogy pointing out the hypocrisy and irrationality you seem to have been driven even further mad and going on a rampage.
Making up things doesn't make you right. Now go ahead and continue to believe in self creating dung while the believer analyzes, uses critical thinking skills and studies the evidence and associates the dung with an animal. Go off your .1% of uncertainty with your ego. Peace
Peace940 1 year ago
Is that your response, out of critical analises? Ok, I have to just give up on you. You are truely hopeless.
You should try and learn something about real critical reasoning. And it is not believing in a book and having the reality conform to it. I´m honestly wishing you peace too, and hoping, but not praying, that you get rid of your falacies someday. But before I go I'd like to ask what is it that I've made up?
actsnfacts 1 year ago
I hope this logic will comfort you 1 million years from now that "at least you knew how to win you tube comment debates" despite the fact you're in that sulphur smelling place.
bullcurr 1 year ago
oooohhhh, I should be so affraid!
But I'm not! And that is what sets me free!
If gods existed at all, and hell and heaven, I doubt the real all forgiving god of love would be this vengeful towards his own creation. what do you make of such a sadistic being, who creates a Universe and beings in it that can reason with the facts that are available to them , only to later judge and throw them in sulfur burning pains, for the rest of eternity, for doing just that!?
actsnfacts 1 year ago 49
I ma so glad you feel you are truly free, especially in THIS modern time.
Looks as if the New World Order has another one fooled.
bullcurr 1 year ago
And it is amazing that you long to "be free" as people were back in the middle ages, when catholic church did rule, just the way you propose.... and burned people for their beliefs. Or maybe you suggest something slightly more modern, like having the rules layed down by sexually repressed priest pedophiles...
actsnfacts 1 year ago
@actsnfacts Well said :D
rawrsaidthemouse 1 year ago
You might be referring to people trying to corrupt the Qur 'an; however, if all Qur' an disappeared from earth. It is memorized by many Muslims. That is the miracle of preservation.
Peace940 1 year ago
@Peace940
I wonder if the fact that you insist in switching the attributes of a believer for those of a scientifically oriented person betrays a hidden desire of viewing the universe in a more scientific fashion. I think some of the things that stop you from making that leap is your cortisol addiction and your urge to rushing back to the "burning barn" of faith. would you ever admit, even hypoteticaly, going against your prophets words were the facts to prove them wrong? I doubt it.
actsnfacts 2 years ago
if you did you'd be just a step away from loosing your faith and regaining your sanity!
actsnfacts 2 years ago
@actsnfacts, I see you're surprised that I exposed your kind as the ones who are actually close minded. All this time you thought you were the ones using critical thinking skills and it was the exact opposite.
Nothing to be surprised at. It's basic common sense. Intelligence is not even that important. Just an open minded capable person. That's the miracle of it all. Any capable person can understand the fundamental truth of our existence.
Peace940 1 year ago
Sorry, pal, all you have exposed is your natural inability to think any deeper than a puddle of water. What surprises me is that you actually believe you are axposing anything different! Calling a square a circle (using your words) doesn't make it so! Besides, you haven´t answered what your attitude would be towards any proof your prophet is wrong, even if in hypotesis. Cause if you did answer that, you close mind would be revealed!
actsnfacts 1 year ago
@actsnfacts 'Sorry, pal, all you have exposed is your natural inability to think any deeper than a puddle of water. "
Still think that dung came out by itself of thin air and not from the camel? It must be harsh not to use basic common sense and critical thinking skills.
Peace940 1 year ago
I thought so... No answer whatsoever..... I pitty people like you! And by reading your silly comment here it is clear that if you read my answer to your dung/camel riddle you are pretending you didn't! You tell me, how harsh it is!
actsnfacts 1 year ago
In conclusion, if a forensic scientist followed the atheist doctrine, they would simply lose their job, because it would mean ignoring the mountain of evidence (99.9%) in favor of the murder occurring, but not considering it, because of that .1 percent of uncertainty.
Peace940 2 years ago
What planet do you live in?
Are you trying to say that a beliver is the guy who bases his model of the universe on scientific fact and the atheist is the one who hangs on to a thin air, statiscally irrelevant, belief? Do you know the definition of faith? Have you ever met a man of faith who says "the scriptures say god split the moon, but there´s evidence it was just an eclipse, therefore the scriptures must be wrong" ?
actsnfacts 2 years ago
Atheism is not a doctrine. And it doesn't imply believing a statistically irrelevant possibility, but rather it implies taking all possibilities into account and cheking facts to create an ever more accurate view of things, much different than a believers frozen set of values. Believers, by definition don't take things scientificaly, they just believe in some ol'mith and, just like you do, twist facts to make'em fit in such miths....
actsnfacts 2 years ago
No, it's like the forensic scientist finding a body, and proclaiming that someone must have caused its death, because if something is alive, then dies, someone must have caused that death.
Even if every single piece of evidence points towards natural causes, it must by logic be someone who killed the person.
When none can be blamed, they make up an invisible man that can walk through walls to blame, because it would be impossible that someone dies otherwise.
Superslemmet 2 years ago
@superslemmet " finding a body, and proclaiming that someone must have caused its death, because if something is alive, then dies, someone must have caused that death."
The more I hear from you, the more ignorant you sound.
Death by definition can have many different causes (murder, natural causes...etc).
Creation can only have one cause- a Creator.
Book can only have one cause-Author.
Organization can have only one cause-an organizer
As usual, not using your common sense.
Peace940 1 year ago
Buy you do not know that the cause of reality is a Creator.
You know that the cause of books is an author and so on.
You are using a circular argument to prove there is a creator.
Since you believe the world to be "created", something must have created it. Hence there must be a Creator. And since there is a Creator, the world was created.
We have no information whatsoever as to how mass and energy comes into being, therefore we can't make valid claim as to its origin.
Superslemmet 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@superslemmet "Buy you do not know that the cause of reality is a Creator."
You also have no absolute proof you came from your mother, but through observation of the birth process, you use your common sense.
There is a creator no matter what, because whatever created all existence from nothing (space/time/matter..ect) "caused" it to exist and in such is Eternal (created time/space), Transcendent, All-Mighty, All-Wise (created intelligence). These are all the attributes of what we call God.
Peace940 1 year ago
Again, it comes back to that .1% of uncertainty is filled with common sense. If we were created by The Creator, then wouldn't you expect The Creator to communicate with His creation? He has done just that through the prophets, scripture and final completion of religion (Islam) before Day of Resurrection.
Even if He didn't communicate, common sense tells you something awesome had to have created all existence from nothing.
Peace940 1 year ago
They say some of the most famous atheists of all were seen to be in a sheer state of panic and abject fear as they passed away. Some even heard crying out to Jesus Christ for one last chance. That very record shows what they TRULY beleived no matter what they shouted or wrote all along.
bullcurr 2 years ago
Bullcurr:
They who???
where do you get such nonsense information? You better start reviewing your sources....
actsnfacts 2 years ago
Is this guy supposed to be compelling?
orisikon 2 years ago
Actually, I have to agree with him because after there is a great falling away from all faith in the true God, a man will appear on the scene who will have the ability to solve all of the world's ills, yet instead of bringing peace, he will bring tyranny & then world war. The Word of Jesus calls him that man of sin. He will be a man posessed of Satan himself.
bullcurr 2 years ago
OH, no!!! Another moron with messianic ideas who thinks he has some kinda revelation from above! This is getting boring! C'mon, guys! This kind of lunatic should be used as proof that god doesn´t exist...... He wouldn't have allowed for so much blah blah blah in his name....lol
actsnfacts 2 years ago 5
its called Judment Day which we will ALL have to attend. There'll be no "no shows" for that one. No one is getting away with anything they did wrong especially in His name.
bullcurr 2 years ago
Your Sunday School mindwash will not work on the non-sheep you keep preaching to son, that kind of stupidity must be planted in an undeveloped mind to have an effect.
SwaloMyLode 2 years ago 5
I'll look over at you on that day, wink and say with a smile, "Hey just remember, none of this is real".
peace!
bullcurr 2 years ago
I love when religious nobodies have no better response than "yu'll learn better when yer ded!" Honestly now, get a clue. If your only response is that you'll gloat when everyones dead, you have no response at all.
DeadlyChinchilla 2 years ago 3
@bullcurr;
We just call him "Mr. President"; Obama works just as well! :-)) "TRUE god"? That's sounds like an oxymoron type of statement!
BTW: Jesus was just another religious conman; the Jim Jones of his era!
MsWanderer1 2 years ago
Grayling's response to the global warming issue is very telling. "95% of serious scientists recognize that there is a man made problem." The problem is that 94% of those serious scientists were basing their conclusions on the research of the 1% that collected the data which we know now was modified to fit in to an agenda. Once a stance is taken on an issue it becomes undisputable truth never to be questioned again. We see it time after time. Now silliness like the Big Bang is rarely questioned.
moosepok 2 years ago
SuperWorldwide
Display of emerging behaviour?! And then you try to make us think you know a little quantum physics... cute!
Oh, and you can also know what I have thought of yet or not, from a distance! Amazing, you must have psychic powers....
Even IF quantum particles are not able to explain all of the universe, why on earth would you infer thagt a god is the answer?
Using the word THEREFORE doesn't help when tere is no true link between things, it becomes bad rethoric, at most.
actsnfacts 2 years ago
SuperWorldwide
The case o China, and I might add the case of the USSR in the 20th century, is frequently mentioned, but these aren't cases of atheists doing evil in atheism name, but rather of politically motivated movements that put pressure on religions out of fear of their capacity to organize people against the status quo. Not out of a healthy realization that there are no gods at all. Those were not true atheists.They went after any form of organization that wasn't their own.
actsnfacts 2 years ago
Well, I would say they were atheists - their disbelief satisfies the definition I prefer. But they were no rationalists, and they were not scientifically minded critical thinkers.
blackwolf1200 2 years ago
I'm not so sure I agree with you there. So I'll have to refrase. They were "anti-theists", perhaps. Their actions were political. They never went much into the merit of the existence of a god but rather they fought the religous organizations. The absence of a god was never at the core of the flags they carried though it came-in handy to them at times. Crusades and islamic terrorism or the imposing armed side of zionism, all had their gods at the core of the rethoric supporting their actions.
actsnfacts 2 years ago
The "harm" principle is complete hypocrisy. Atheists say that everything is random, and there is no good or bad, except for what we deem to be good or bad. Then why is ahimsa any more legitimate? You cant have good and evil if there isn't a barometer or standard for what those words mean. Just assigning non-harm to the "good" side because its excepted by the majority, isn't valid. Animals "harm" each other in nature all the time. But we wouldn't say a bear or tiger is evil.
GVD108 2 years ago
Good and bad are labels that are relevant in human social interaction. Your example with the two animals is off the point. It gets more interesting when humans come into the mix, because humans are the ones doing the evaluation. Is it bad when a wild animal kills your pet? Almost all people would say yes. Is it evil? Most people would say no, although some people do superstitiously assign moral values by invisible guiding intelligences to nature. Bad does not equal evil. Evil entails malice.
blackwolf1200 2 years ago
My only point is that if a Majority of a population thinks "harm" say like killing Jews is "good" for the betterment of mankind, does that make it good. Similiarly, just because a majority of athiests believe in the "non-harm" principle, does that make it any more correct, right, true, better, than a violent one. What is the deciding factor for right or wrong? If our whims, or the majority is the only deciding factor, then the masses can be easly swayed by a majority consencess.
GVD108 2 years ago
Im not reading all your posts, so maybe ive missed something, but the majority does not decide what is right or wrong. The words right and wrong are bullshit anyways, don't think of it in terms as right and wrong, think of it as "what is most productive for the advancement of the human race." In your example, there is no obvious benefit of genocide against jews.
People are fucking stupid, if the majority actually ruled in America we'd probably face technological regression and have a dark age
RhinoAts51 2 years ago
GDV108
Keep thinking hard! You are almost getting it! When you say scientists disagree you are almost beginning to underestand the strength of science! We don´t want to give any different idea! We only don't disagree with facts, unlike theists. It is from a vast amount of propositions, put to the test of experiments and evidence that a truer picture of the universe will emerge.
actsnfacts 2 years ago
And Hey, you got it again! Wonderful!! the masses CAN be easily swayed!!! Like, into religions and other nonsense!
actsnfacts 2 years ago
Yes, sometimes the majority is wrong even when they think they're right and good. But a well-informed majority that doesn't ignore valid information is much less likely to come to wrong conclusions.
As you're already talking about Jews, let's go with that. Germans thought they would benefit from getting rid of all the Jews in their country. They got minor profits at first, and then got harmed big time. Seeing the results - paying attention to reality instead of dogma - they understood wrong.
blackwolf1200 2 years ago
Atheists do not say "everything is random." This is your own vapid assumption. Very few things are random, as most things are due to natural process, which is the OPPOSITE of random. As for good and bad, sure they exist, but nowhere near the black and white way that most religious people demand we ascribe them to.
The standard is of society, not any mystical force. That nature can be cruel to individuals does not stop it from being an efficient process on the whole.
DeadlyChinchilla 2 years ago
There have been tragedies done in the name of God. There have been tragedies done in the name of atheism, also. So maybe these things are done because humans have a selfish nature, and not because they try to follow a religion or don't. And for those who think defeating the literalist believers of the bible or koran is defeating God, that is just a silly argument that has no merit. A followers inability to follow a religion is just like a scientist not being able to understand physics.....
GVD108 2 years ago
at first. both take time, and not being able to follow or understand...doesnt make the science or religion any less true, at its core. And science and real God consciousness are not at odds...it is our own sectaranism that makes us think so.
GVD108 2 years ago
In the name of atheism? Name one. Quote please.
Of course "defeating" the fundies isn't a defeat of God. Does anyone pretend it is? God only disappears if everyone stops believing, which might never happen.
the difference in the example you make, with the scientist and the believer, is that millions of believers all over the world claim to each other they are wrong, and they can't prove it, instead get violent. In science, you can show exactly why and how something is wrong, and learn from it.
blackwolf1200 2 years ago 2
In defeating the "fundies", some do believe that defeats God. Otherwise, why do authors like Sam Harris and others use the argument that because we can disprove the Genesis "timeline", that there is no God. The funny thing you and other scientists want the world to believe, (I just take it your a science believer) is that science is providing a unified front. There is many of argument between scienctists even on the issue of I.D, Global Warming, you name it.
GVD108 2 years ago
Science does not provide a unified front because there is debate amongst scientists?
Do you understand at all how science works? Do you know that to find the correct answer, you usually have to understand why the other answers are incorrect? Contradicting evidence is what makes science interesting.
There is very little debate about global warming amongst real scientists doing real work. The only debate comes from those who are paid money to argue against anything (like fox news).
RhinoAts51 2 years ago
Aussieland's got a lot of secular/atheist stuff going on this month.
bighugejake 2 years ago
He's sooo smart. LOL
bigdogsdontbark 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
How can anyone take this guy seriously he doesn't even know he looks like an clown with that hair do.
hydin1 2 years ago
@hydin1
Interesting theory you have there. I guess we should also summarily dismiss Einstein and the countless other geniuses that are not vapidly shallow enough to care what you think about their appearance.
Perhaps we should only listen to guys like David Hasselhoff for answers to the toughest questions in life.
InternalCompass 2 years ago 3
Let me guess, your theory is that the more pleasing to the eye, the more intelligent the person is? Fail.
CertainUncertainty 2 years ago
No U.
blackwolf1200 2 years ago
saying atheism is a religion is like....
saying not collecting stamps is a hobby
both are just not anything at all
therealaug 2 years ago 2
HaHa!
If the UK never learned a thing from the battle of Britian or the Irish troubles they don't stand chance of surviving the coming Muslim fundi troubles .
Weak kneed fools.
brotherjupiter 2 years ago
This guy has New World Order written all over him. It's people like him who also think that the world's population should be reduced to 80% of what it is. Of course, I'm sure he won't be volunteering himself. It sickens me that he believes children should be the property of the state and not of the parents. His Happiness theory is laughable . Thank God our constitution defends the individual's pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Happiness, like democracy, is not one size fits all.
NYpatriot607 2 years ago
@NYpatriot
and where did you get this radical idea?
to want something like that would be to want genocide and in no way would anyone who values human life do so, including Grayling who believes in helping humanity's cause
and i see his theory was a little too big for you. he is simply saying by pursueing happiness is to create unhappiness because that happiness is not reached so therefor it is better to let happiness come to you. simple
therealaug 2 years ago
So how do you rationally handle the "problem of aging????You put flouride in the drinking water or get people to soak their teeth in poision. You give people vaccines with mercury and all kinds of bad stuff in it. You grow corn for ethanal(which uses more energy than it saves)so more people starve to death. Then they write books and brag about it. He also said "rationalized child birth"...China already has that and forced sterilaztion. So didn't Hitler. Total new world order propaganda.
NYpatriot607 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Radical idea???by listening to what he says. He said, "Some other things need to be brought into the picture, that needs to be handled rationally and sensibly" end quote. He was referring to "the PROBLEM of aging"(yes he actually said that too) and he used the word "burden" 3 times in the sentence leading up to that quote and after. People are going live till 120 and only be able to work and pay taxes till their 70. That he says is going to be an even greater burden on society.
NYpatriot607 2 years ago
@NYpatriot
and why thank god for the constitution? it was made by man
therealaug 2 years ago 3
Dienlik, true but the constitution states our human "rights" come from God, not government. That is where we disagree. That is why people who think like you allow the goverment to take away your rights.
1Guitarslayer...well pip pip...lol You hit the nail square on the head. My question is if all human activity was guided by only logic, would "humanity" cease to exist??? I think so.
NYpatriot607 2 years ago
And since our human rights come from "God" , that means no Man or government can ever take those rights away from you. But if our "rights come from goverment, then they could be just as easily taken away by government or man. I'm not saying at all that any of you need to read the bible. You need to study human history. And not what our educational system teaches us about history because all that is just a cover up.
I'm talking about real history written by real men. Not Dr. Spock.
NYpatriot607 2 years ago
If they have the power, the force, they can take any right away from you they want. Saying or writing down that some rights and dignity are "unalienable" or "untouchable" is a phrase to indicate a guiding principle. As soon as someone stops caring about upholding this principle, the rights are gone. Rights do not magically exist by themselves, floating around in some sphere. They exist only as long as they are protected - by living humans, not words on paper.
blackwolf1200 2 years ago
@NYpatriot607 Sorry to break it to you, but no God that advocates slavery and stoning people to death can lay claim to being champion of human rights. Human rights are a product of secular thinking - check out the Enlightenment before you keep talking rubbish.
Also for hmn rights to come from God there`d have to be a God to start with.
paolo27th 1 year ago
Actually, the Constitution only mentions a *generic* Creator, not "God" as you likely see him in the likely Christian sense. It is to say, whatever "created" us, be it a god, gods, thing, or nature itself, endowed us with living rights. This does not mean "The Christian God gave me rights!" You need to learn how to read the Constitution, all these concepts are explained by the Founders own famous letters. Then, the Treaty of Tripoli makes clear none of our rights come from any specific god.
DeadlyChinchilla 2 years ago
I know how to read very well. Spelling is my soft spot. Just to set the record straight, I am not a christian. I believe in freedom. Glad you can be an athiest and love the constition. Most athiest tend to be communist. Or is progressive a prettier word???
Then there are the fake athiest who belive that little ol man can ,through knowledge, become god himself. It's funny how they wish to become the very same thing they say don't exist.
NYpatriot607 2 years ago
I didn't say you couldn't read, I said you need to know how to read the *Constitution.* Its not whatever random translation you prefer, the Founders made their intents more than clear in their corresponding writings.
At any rate, it doesn't matter what you or I are, but it seems you rely on many bad stereotypes to fill the gaps in your own knowledge. Atheists are not "mostly communist," "progressive" is not a bad word, and no atheist is interested in becoming something they don't believe in
DeadlyChinchilla 2 years ago
I find it interesting how you say you're not a Christian, yet you display very religious stereotypes in the way you speak of atheists in general. It seems you know very little about atheism when you mistake it for a governmental system (communism), and indicate the classic "atheists want to be god" nonsense most religious people toss out when they have no better argument against what a particular atheist is SAYING. Attack the atheist, not the idea... ad hominem, I believe. Do try again.
DeadlyChinchilla 2 years ago
@NYpatriot607 I`m sorry I just relied to your previous comment, after reading this I realise you are either retarded or a troll. Maybe a retarded troll?
paolo27th 1 year ago
Radical idea???by listening to what he says. He said, "Some other things need to be brought into the picture, that needs to be handled rationally and sensibly" end quote. He was referring to "the PROBLEM of aging"(yes he actually said that too) and he used the word "burden" 3 times in the sentence leading up to that quote and after. People are going live till 120 and only be able to work and pay taxes till their 70. That he says is going to be an even greater burden on society.
NYpatriot607 2 years ago
@NYpatriot
hes not suggesting lowering life expectancy!
by this he means social security is going to have to reform and society must change. with people living longer they will need more social security and the government must deal with that. also people will be retiring at older ages.
so yes it will be a greater burden obviously!
but he never said that was the solution
he does not know of a solution so he did not say one
its politics and it will come down to a tough decision
therealaug 2 years ago
Indeed. Thank God also, that the constitution frees me from being told by the government, that I must thank God for a damned thing.
dienlik 2 years ago 2
let me guess... A haraavard man... well pip pip...
HAHAHAHHHAHHAHAAAA
Tongue my asshole u spiritually bankrupt cocksucker, your mom must be proud.
kill yourself...
1Guitarslayer 2 years ago
Buddhism isn't a religion its a way of calming the mind and purifying the psyche.
humaner 2 years ago
no religion would be great because there would be less wars, less or no discrimination, no predudice.. nothing for evil people to flock to to stomp on others (liek the bible is used).
and there would be no little boys getting raped by priests, no clergy trying to cover it up so the cops dont know, no congregation that puts the pedo priest above their own abused kids.
it surely would be a great world if no religion existed.
imagine a terrorist without Islam. they'd have nothing to fight for.
personage2007 2 years ago
and also, Okturus, the fact that we don´t know everything is no excuse for us to make up a god to fill in the gaps..
actsnfacts 2 years ago 2