That's weird it's either believing in religion or yourself not a collective spirituality or basically communism or socialism and morality is subject to circumstance not so much on my father was good and my people are from good people then we can never do wrong and Greek orthodox is the same as Jews (Consecration,Sacrifice and destruction) like the guy that wrote the book
HE just sounds anti American and anti constitution and then try's to seem more morally good by social aesthetic...
@tyroy57 Absolutely. As soon as you've let go of conventional religion, you've already overcome the biggest obstacle for your ego. From there on, it's just a matter of evaluating every other assumption you have and asking yourself whether or not they derive from the same conditions and impulse that led to your erroneous beliefs, or if you've accepted them uncritically, or if they can't be better explained objectively with other concepts (e.g. spirituality = psychology & aesthetics).
I had no idea what God meant or was until I was 13 years old... the world tells me I'm an atheist, but the truth is I were just never schooled in religion. My life seems to be going okay...
Atheism is a Religion, because you believe, you have faith there is no God without proof. When you die, it is only then you see the truth.
Go back to the definition of faith. Faith is believing in something without proof. Religion is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Atheism is defined as the doctrine or belief that there is no God. Therefore Atheism is a religion.
@ThunderheadNebula This is a lie. Atheism is no more a religion than not-stamp collecting is a hobby, and bald is a hair color. Atheism is a rejection of theism... nothing more. It is not a belief system. According to you, you have faith in Thor not being a real god... do you go to an Athorist church? Your religion is Athorism. Definitions are not what words mean. No. They are a tool to tell you how a word has been used. Atheism is the rejection of theism. Or: a lack of belief in (a) god(s).
@ThunderheadNebula To prove that atheism is not a belief in no god. Buddhists, scientologists, Raelians, secular humanists, communists, new born babies are all atheists... what do they have in common.. in regard to their theistic views? That's right: a lack of belief in (a) god(s)... and nothing more. Your definition of atheism is a straw-man that does not resemble the actual truth of what an atheist is. It is a lie.
I hate the whining about the "new atheists". I respect religious people, but why should I pretend, to take religion seriously? it is bullcrap. In China in the poor areas many, many people believe in ghosts. There are no ghosts, no gods, that is my opinion, which is back by a ton of evidence. And no, I am not interested in being super polite, when other religions have death penalty for apostasy and indoctrinate kids with their crap.
Schaefer has'nt figured out that it is imperative to scrutinize the author of any publication before reading it. There are hundreds of thousands of religious books around the world. Which do you read first? None! They all have authorship goofier than Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard. The most likely answer to any question we have is to look at a great number of the info in respected peer reviewed articles.
@17R3W That is if you like the historical aspect of Christianity which is lacking in protestantism. But its brutal and really leaves no other alternatives.
I was sympathetic with this guy up until he compared Hitchens and Dawkins to televangelists..I mean wtf? I hope I dont have to explain why to anyone but that is cheap and ill thought through.
This is the first spiritual person that I hear, who actually seems to make a bit of sense, who I can accept, even though I still am not spiritual at all or buying into it.
Frank Schaeffer Jr has taken the road less travelled...trying to make a living in a rough business, writing. With his gift for gab he could have walked right in to filled churches just with his name. "Whacked out funda-mental-ists" and Tea Birchers misleading the Banana Republicans is exactly how I feel. Run for office Frank, we need you in the "D" column.
If you're not religious, then don't call it ' God'. If you're spiritual, then call it spirituality. God is not nature. Nature is nature. God is not love. Love is love.
'God' is Yahweh, Allah etc. This "God is whatever I want it to be" stuff muddles the water to no end and lets people get away with so much intellectual lazyness.
The "despair" of Atheism huh... I have no despair in my life. This guy is a moron. You can't just pick the half-way point between religion and atheism and say it's superior to both because it's moderate. Sorry to be a pain in the ass but things are either true or they aren't. You can choose your opinions but not your facts. This fence-sitter needs to go find some, and make up his mind.
Shaeffer reminds me of where I was 3 or 4 years ago. Still stubbornly holding on to a belief in God despite it's incoherance, but unwilling to fully accept the dogma of organized religion. As a result I would cherry pick the bits of dogma I liked and throw out the rest. Furthermore, it's quite obvious that Frank does not understand athiesm, as he strawman's it constantly. It's also quite obvious from this interview that he doesn't really understand evolution either..
OK, I have so many problems with this interview. First of all, atheists can be spiritual; nothing about spirituality requires gods. See: Sam Harris. Second, Dawkins an extremist? Give me a break. Certainly he is vocal about his beliefs, but hardly extreme. Third, there is nothing about atheism that leads one to despair or meaninglessness. Frank really doesn't know what he is talking about. He makes huge sweeping generalizations that are just false. Very disappointed Cenk; you shouldn't agree.
Someone who calls Hitchens and Dawkins evangelists of atheism either hasn't read what they've written or has but didn't get it. I don't understand how arguing based on fact and reason makes you an evangelist.
Wow ive never heard of this Schaeffer guy. Im not interested in anything spirtual but im glad theres an alternative to Dawkins and Hitchens that isn't some fundie fucktard.
Dawkins and Hitchens are not outsiders to religion. They were both raised in Catholic housholds and as they grew old enough just like Schaeffer saw what a sham organized religion is.
@ThePsychoguy Hitchens was an Anglican also. You can't be raised in England 50 years ago without extremely intense indoctrination. Also this nonsense about Hitchens being bigoted etc... his children go/went to a Quaker school and he celebrates certain Jewish holidays...
Frank Schaeffer grew up in a religious home. Once he got old enough to think for himself, he rejected the philosophy he'd grown up with, but he missed going to church.
So he came up with all this theory of his, generalizing to say everyone else thought the same way he did, and making straw-men opponents out of Dawkins (who only seems like a bully if you've never listened to the guy in your life) and Hitchens (who once wrote a book bashing Mother Theresa). He is not convincing.
I generally like Schaeffer, but he's just fucking wrong on this one.
When a person buys shit from Richard Dawkins, he isn't under the illusion that it will, say, keep him from going to hell, or make him straight. With those Jesus Freaks, on the other hand...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"rejecting religion is like rejecting a product someone is trying to sell you on TV"
OK, you've convinced me. From now on I'll make all my decisions regarding foundational beliefs about the world using the same level of thought I would put into deciding whether or not to buy a Sham Wow.
Having resolved that thorny issue, I have no further use for this conversation.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It seems our disagreement is that you believe atheism is only about belief/non-belief in gods, with no deeper connection to world-view, rationality, understanding.
I hold it is inseparable from these things. Atheists understand the world based on different foundational concepts than theists.
And finally, ALL humans attempt to understand their world, put it into a context. We aren't "required to," we just do.
So we disagree, but I appreciate many of your other points. I'm out.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You didn't answer, you simply noted that hypothetical arguments are by nature subjective (yes, obvious).
If you can't see that atheism has a great deal to do with explaining how the world works, frankly you're lost.
Atheists persceive the world working in a very different way than theists. Is that not obvious to you?
Theists can attribute disasters to an act of god. Atheists cannot. They are forced to look for natural processes in their explainations. One view is rational/one isn't.
"He criticizes Dawkins for not feeding his soul."
Ugh, its like saying atheism offers nothing. Its not supposed to offer anything...If you want to feed your "soul" (call it a mind???) then feed it with some knowledge, or spend some time with a loved one. Yes we are just a bunch of atoms, but does that make your experience any less?
And besides, if noone, Dawkins or Hitchens did not cause a rukus, who would bring the issues to light? You need people like Dawkins to question/make question.
I know! Schaeffer then agrees it is good to push back against extremism with some rational arguments. It's as if he desperately wants to remain impartial, navel gaze and write about it. There's nothing wrong with that, may even make for a good read but it just seems as if he is confused over what spiritual means.
God may not exist but religious experiences are real. No one denies that and no atheist says that similar experiences must be expunged from our lives!
I think many people are misunderstanding the argument Schaeffer is making in regards to spirituality. What he's saying is that there's always going to be a certain part of our minds which is driven towards religion and the supernatural. Arguments against God are about as effective in swaying public opinion as Zeno's paradoxes were for disproving motion. Anyone can see it, no one can change it, so the best thing to do, as a society is to find a constructive outlet for it.
Less than 30% of Norwegians believe in any god (even less in Sweden).
However, both countries were once just as religious as the US. It's clear that Public opinion CAN be swayed on this issue, just like any other. Quality education helps significantly.
And my point is that you will have that ~30% (at least) no matter what (never mind the fact that a large number of those polled as saying there was no God said they believed in some "spiritual or life force"). You can try all you want, but as I've said, you can't get rid of it. For proof, just turn on the T.V. and count how many shows deal with ghosts, aliens, angels/demons/ psychics, etc. People LOVE mysteries. Trying to erase religion is like trying to erase faith in motion.
He criticizes Dawkins for not feeding his soul. This isn't the Dawkins I know and Cenk has it spot on whilst Schaffer seems to be saying a lot without saying much in order to fill a book. If the intricacies of evolution don't feed your soul then you're not that spiritual. How many times does Dawkins have to say that understanding a rainbow doesn't diminish but rather increases its beauty or that he loves old churches. When will people really listen to him rather than hear what they want?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I agree about the word "atheism." A nonsense label; I use it here only as shorthand, since so many seem to cling to it.
But I disagree that non-theism (only slightly better ,-) is not about rationality and truth. Ask yourself WHY you don't believe in a god? At the bottom of it, you'll likely find a rejection for claims made without supporting evidence. You're seeking to understand the world rationally. If you were shown rational, empirical evidence of god tomorrow, would you believe? I would.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Atheism has nothing to do with medicine or explaining how our world works"
1. The medicine reference was metaphor.
2. Atheism has a lot to do with explaining how the world works. Most atheists take the position that claims (like those for god) must be supported by evidence. This concept is the bedrock of science (the means by which we discover how our world works). Atheists are knowingly or unknowingly supporting the scientific method and rejecting superstition.
Some atheists say it's wrong to say atheists can be spiritual. Some atheists say it's wrong to say they can't. The thing is, you can't please or define everyone, you can only have your perspective.
I like hearing this guy's moderate point of view as a deist and Cenk's as an atheist. I agree with them both on the most important part - we can get along with our different views. The rest is a lot less important.
Precisely. The end product is the facilitation of further social interactions. Religion will never go away, for obvious reasons, so I'd say the best efforts are the one that promote harmony among us, rather than discord. And to be honest, it really *only* matters what we believe ourselves; proving it to others doesn't particularly do much of anything (ie the truth is worth knowing in and of its merit and to the extent that you embrace this personally, it benefits *you*).
Yes, I agree. It's great to share ideas and experiences, but that's all you can share. It's up to each of us to decide what constitutes our proof and what we'll do with that conviction.
I agree with Cenk, if everyone though like this intelligent, empathetic guy. The world would be a much better place, but I suppose human beings will always find something to fight about.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Shaeffer's argument about Dawkins and "new atheists" doesn't hold water: Atheists aren't here to "feed the soul"--they're here to speak truth. The truth is important, whether it is comfortable or not. By Shaeffer's argument, a doctor should refain from telling a patient they have a terminal disease, because while it may be true, it does not "feed their soul," it doesn't offer them any hope. Attacking Dawkins, et al, is like shooting the messenger for bringing uncomfortable news.
That doctor analogy doesn't hold water either because, by all accounts, atheists cannot make any definitive claims like they can, and, unlike an atheist, a doctor *can*make them feel better, even if only marginally better (via medicine n such). Well in any case, the body is a lot different of a thing than, say, the mind and intellectual matters. Truth this, the truth isn't necessary as medicine is.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"atheists cannot make any definitive claims"
I disagree. Atheists can make one rather important empirical claim: there is currently no evidence of any "god."
Imagine a doctor (to push the metaphor further) claiming to KNOW why people develop a certain disease, when in fact the cause is unknown. Claiming knowledge one does not have is unethical and potentially dangerous. This is exactly what religion does.
BTW: The practice of medicine is based entirely on truth and reason.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
at first i was sorta buying bit...but naw, to make such a claim would entail a PLAY BY PLAY update of all the information out there possible in the universe. hell, even qualifying that by saying "known to man" only reduces it to a still immensely large field. Just cause you aren't aware of an argument out there doesn't mean there isn't one. Now, if you said "That i know of", that'd change the story entirely, but that's not very definitive.
I first heard Schaeffer on NPR and was fascinated by his story, I think what it boils down to is that we all need to recognise that we are all different and need to respect each others differences. i may disagree with Schaeffer religiously... (am agnostic) but i applaud his recent works in exposing fundamentalism
people need to stop giving people like this guy schaeffer a megaphone. absence of evidence is evidence of absence. the characteristics we assign to "spirituality" don't require belief in anything supernatural.
if there is evidence for something that is considered "supernatural" then it stops being supernatural.
when you actually define what these people are calling "spirit" and "god" you can start having a worthwhile conversation WITHOUT "God"
Dawkins critics always say 2 things 1. Hes a bully of sorts 2. Hes all about disproving something.
1st Because his style of debate is clearly logicbased, very easily presented, and supported by reality the feeling of being bullied is understandable. 2nd. He doesnt try to prove god doesnt exist, but that its irrelevent and unanswerable. And that god would have had to have evolved itself. Raising the same question, circular, u see.
Religions are jokes. Do you all really believe that God came down and talked to illiterate people and dictated these poorly written books with horrible fables, many contradictions, and things absolutely proven false?
Ok, Richard Dawkins is not the equivalent to Sarah Palin. She is much smarter than him, lol no. Come on he is giving FACTS and they are just spewing crap. There is a big difference.
Stalin was most certainly an atheist (for material rather than philosophical reasons), Hitler is dubious. His entire anti-Semitic philosophy had undeniably religious roots, his main break with the Lutheran church was a) they were an autonomous organization outside the state, and b) he considered Christianity worship of a Jew. Nonetheless, despite not being Christian (and even that has conflicting accounts), he made constant references to his "faith", "destiny" and so forth throughout his life.
Please name for me one time Stalin commited an attrocity in the name of atheism. You know that we can show many done in the name of Christianity. Tit for tat.
You also got that correct. Despite there being little doubt that Stalin was an atheist, none of the evil things he ever did were because of his atheism (apart from, arguably, shutting down most venues of religious worship). It can be argued (fallaciously, though) that his atheism was what gave him lack of moral character. This argument is incorrect, as I've demonstrated, but it's what they mean when they say, "Hey, whaddabout HITLER+stalin?!?"
Besides, that is an absurdly fallacious argument. Would we not thus conclude, looking towards the Spanish Inquisition, the later Roman Emperors, the atrocities of Frederick Barbarossa, or Baldwin I (against fellow Christians no less), that "faith in politics" leads to evil and vile ends? Far more examples of this type (owing to the disparity of religious/non-religious rulers in history) can be found. That doesn't mean it's true, the point is that your type of argument is grossly uninformed.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
ROFL, atheist intolerance on youtube. who'd have thunk it?
No really though, you guys are making atheism look bad because it's one thing to have a lack of belief in the existence of god, which is a perfectly legitimate (and INTELLECTUALLY honest) point of view, and ANOTHER thing to be an anti-theist that actively rags not only on the fundamentalist elements of religion (and rightfully so) but the MODERATE AND WEAKER elements of religion too. Makes you look like fascists.
Fascism? Is any perspective which is not relativist fascist? Because the "whatever floats your boat (as long as you are nice and don't make anyone feel bad)" is relativism. In a sense, the difference b/w you and militant atheists is that militant atheists actually think religious people are saying something that is either true or not true (and not just being "cool" or "not cool"), and, ironically, show religions a lot more respect than you do.
not particularly. Assuming that faith based convictions are, by definition, a form of insanity (from what i've garnered from a number of people i've heard here on youtube) doesn't seem like respect at all. Also, forcing the matter into such a binary only seems to alienate people who don't wish to be so serious about the subject. Surely you can't deny that there *do* exist a significant contingent of people on here who simply bash religion in general. That's like denying creationists exist =\
This is not to also say that there *aren't* militant atheists who are quite respectable to religious folks (Take Matt from the Atheist experience: he's shown more patience then I ever could with the kind of arrogant callers he's received on the show). I guess a lot of my criticisms go towards the commentators on here who seem to partake only in bashing of some sort, via arguments such as "moderate religious people give sanctuary to extremists" and the sort. I dunno.
Sure. Of course I would grant, and should have granted that. I think George Carlin, for example, is just mean about religion and not particularly funny. Between non-academics, most of these debates are really battles for status. That is, most Christians don't want to look stupid (which is a totally un-Christian attitude, incidentally).
Anyway, I do actually endorse the "moderate religious people give sanctuary to extremists" not in a political sense, but in the sense that if there is no God, then both are equally wrong.
Atheists don't have to respect anyone's beliefs no matter how loopy but they should respect people's right to choose and practice that belief. Dawkins certainly respects people's right to practice their religion but he doesn't respect their right to indoctrinate or legislate on others based on that belief. He also argues that children should be exposed to rational and impartial thinking. I'm sure Christians would agree their child should learn about Islam as an idea rather than as a true belief!
He's a fucking false flag godsucking douchebag. Dawkins is a self declared militant atheist. It's unfortunate that Dawkins has gotten involved with this "bright" (not so bright after all) nonsense but to compare his site with some touch the screen twat is disingenuous.
There is no meaning except that which we ourselves give to life. Cowardice in the face of that reality is religion, plain and simple.
It seems that you are confused between intolerance and intolerance of intolerant people. Dawkins is pushing back against evangelism, if people kept their beliefs relatively private and didn't insist they be taught in schools or that laws should be based on them, then there'd be no need to push back.
You're arguing against self defense based on the idea that resisting an attack is a form of violence itself. Would it be far better if all atheists just bent over and took homophobic laws etc?
ergo, yes. (i believe i've even heard one of em, or perhaps it was Hitchens, use the term to describe their work). The whole concept *OF* anti-theism is militant in nature.
I have had to read Hawkins for a philosophy class and he seems willfully ignorant of the fact that it is impossible to prove a negative. I suppose, if he were to admit that, he would force to confront the fact that he is just about as big a zealot as the most bible-thumping evangelical.
I don't think he tries to prove a negative as often as just giving an argument that shows a thought to be disingenuous. I've never had the feeling that he is trying to "prove" anything, except the flawed origins of religion, whether within the mind or without.
When I read him, which was about two years ago (for a graduate-level class in which I got an A), I got the impression that he really could not get his mind around the fact that there is no way to disprove the god concept. If he were to really do so, he would have to admit that, just as it is impossible to prove that any god does or does not exist, his insistence that there is something wrong with people who believe in things they cannot prove would necessarily have to apply to him as well.
Honestly, you should check it out because you are totally wrong in your assumptions. He admits that you can't disprove God, but you also can't disprove the tooth fairy. So, there is a burden of proof, and Dawkins has proof to back up his side (evolution mainly) and points out there is no proof/evidence for JC/God.
Why do you keep insisting you read him when it's obvious you're lying? Major chapters are dedicated to the probabilities of a god's existence. Just admit it.
Your comments betrays the fact you've lied about reading Dawkins. If you really had, you'd know the basic premise of his last book is the probability of a god's existence, not absolute. That's too big of a mistake to not be a lie.
I did read dawkins for a class. I have not read everything he has ever written but it is clear he is not willing to apply the irrationality of believing something which cannot be proven to HIS OWN BELIEFS WHICH CANNOT BE PROVEN. Therefore, from my memory of what I read a couple of years ago, I am of the opinion that he is unable to come to terms with the impossibility of proving a negative where his own unprovable beliefs are concerned.
Had you read The God Delusion (I'm assuming that's what you're referring to), you'd know he doesn't try to prove a negative. He explains how probabilities affect this question. Similar to the question, "Do unicorns exist somewhere in the universe?" You can't prove it right or wrong, but you can calculate the odds and swiftly come to the conclusion it is exceptionally unlikely. The exact same principle applies to the hypothesis of the existence of an omnipotent intelligent agent.
There is no way to even calculate the odds. For example, that an event or series of events has occurred in the same way a 1000 times is not proof that it will do so 1001 times. At the end of the day, it takes faith to belief that it will do so. And, even should it happen 1001 times, the same faith would be needed to believe in the 2002nd time. There is just no way to prove any of it. Dawkins would like it to be so, as would many religoous people but wishing isn't getting.
That isn't faith, it's called statistics. It's an established field of mathematical study. Science doesn't pretend to have "proof", because proof is a fool's dream. It is very irrational to say, as an example, because a scientist might admit we only know to the 99.9999th% that gravity exists, that gravity is not effectively "proven" and validates your lack of belief in gravity. This is something called You Fail Statistics Forever.
I think the difference is that the atheists approach their beliefs from a systematic, logical path, whereas theists are relying either on faith, scripture or both. Dawkins has readily admitted "we're working on it," which shows that it is still in the belief stage. It's the approach that matters, imo.
There really is little difference. The idea of faith being heavily involved in the scientific process is not exactly new. There are many who have dealt with it. A good place to start is William James' essay "The Will to Believe." James was, after all, critiquing scientific method as much as he was talking about religion.
There really is little difference. The idea of faith being heavily involved in the scientific process is not exactly new. There are many who have dealt with it. A good place to start is William James' essay "The Will to Believe." James was, after all, critiquing scientific method as much as he was talking about religion.
It's one book! You cannot hide behind the fact that it's you're opinion when you didn't know the major theme of the book is that a god is IMPROBABLE not impossible. Disproving something he never said is IRRATIONAL. Continuing to do so after you've been corrected is DECEITFUL. We all know you couldn't have read it. Just admit it.
I get fairly irritated with people that say that Hitchens and Dawkins are like evangelists. No, they are not. That's a short cut to thinking. Evangelists are are purely peddling nonsense, and it is because of men like them, and the BS they spew throughout society that others have to say, "wait a minute, this is nonsense!" Atheists like RD and CH are simply responding to the nonsense that is religion, and ills it puts forth. They will both say they don't care what an individual believes privately
Thank you for the interview, Frank and TYT. Old solutions are no solutions for the modern day.
My grandfather once took his mother (my great-grandma) to an evangelical service. Afterwards he asked her what she thought of the preacher. Her reply was precious - "I think he's a goddam phony!"
Atheists are just people who don't believe in god(s). Atheist activists are actively speaking out against the ills of believing in god(s), which there is a great deal of, I'm certain Schaeffer is a Christian in agnostics clothing so his viewpoint is invalid on the entire atheist agenda, he has no clue about the reasons we should not believe in god(s), the main reason most people are spiritual is because they miss loved ones who have died and hold a hope that they want to see those people again
I reject the premise that an "atheist" can be a spiritual person. If you have faith or belief in a spirit world beyond means of naturalistic observation or mathematical calculation, then you leave yourself open to belief in literally anything invisible and unmeasurable: gods, angels, souls, djinn, whatever. That is weaker than the minimalist 'weak atheist' position against particular gods. Hold on to those beliefs if you have to, but you cannot caucus with true atheists.
Many use the word spiritual in a broader sense. They might say they had a spiritual experience when they fell in love etc... It's another way of saying overwhelming awe.
The religious experience is real (chemicals etc) even if the religion is false. Let's call that feeling a spiritual one, knowing what chemicals cause that feeling doesn't destroy it. You still feel something powerful when listening to Mozart, when atheists/agnostics say they're spiritual that is what they're referring to.
Yeah it's just electrical impulses in your brain that makes you happy to see your grand children but just because we know that doesn't mean that it's less wonderful. And there's no need to insert a magical agent in there to explain the whole thing.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I like the way this guy (Schaeffer) shows how Dawkins is a peddler of his wares. Yes, his website is like a cheesy display of cheap trinkets.
However, I am sad to hear what he said about us coming from single celled organisms as there is no evidence for such mumbo jumbo. Living things DON'T go from simplicity to greater complexity and more information but rather from great complexity to loss of information and randomness. We are actually DEVOLVING rather than evolving.
i can definitely appreciate this guy's perspective on the craziness of people and religion. doesn't mean i have to agree with everything he says, but he is reasonable like i wish so many others were. good interview
"Evangelical" just means to put forth one's opinion. Frank is being an "evangelical" for his position in this very video. I don't dislike it when people put forth their position, and the fact that religious people feel they are justified in pushing their beliefs so strongly("god's will" etc) on others isn't even the biggest problem. The question is the legitimacy of the content, not that it is being put forth. Also how intellectually honest they are being and how many fallacies they appeal to.
So lacking the belief in god means you have no meaning? Not even close, all it means is that there is no goal put forth by a deity to give an overarching meaning to mankind. We set our own goals and therefor our own meaning.
Also lacking the belief in a gods does not mean you are not "spiritual" by most definitions of the word.
Wow, what a douche saying that atheism = no meaning. Come on, just say it Schaeffer, you don't like the "new atheist" because your feelings are hurt by what they say about your "spirituality" that is shared with the religious nuts. Plus for the gazillion time, you can only pin atheist on one thing and only one thing, they lack a belief in a god or gods. Finally, stop trying to put yourself in this fake middle-ground by trying to make Dawkins comparable to religious extremist leaders.
Really now? What does he do that makes him an extremist? If you mean that he is very vocal then I agree. I don't see him telling people how to vote, what philosophy to follow, or to follow his way of thought or else. So, please, tell me how Dawkins is like the religious nuts?
That's a very good interview. I wouldn't say that dawkins like pat roberston though. He may have inadverdently created a personality cult, but that's not a bad thing. As a biological anthropologist, he makes good points about the human condition.
Schaffer just lost a fan. His misrepresentation and downright lies about the "new atheists" is far too religious for me. When people try to look even-handed by lying, they don't need my help buying their books, they can just say I did. Dawkins is mercahandising while pitching his new book. Maybe he should have paid attention to what Jesus said about hypocrisy after all.
I listen to Dawkins only because he knows so much about evolution and I know so little and want to know more about the process and Hitchens I disagree with politically.
I didn't get to these beliefs b/c of what they said, it was through my own personal growth and understanding of myself.
He, like many Christians and others religious people do, are generalizing about atheists and atheism in general which lowers his credibility on the subject in my eyes.
The point is that comparing Dawkins to Pat Robertson is fallacious b/c Dawkins' non belief in god is just a fraction of who he is, while Christianity is centered around every fragment of Robertson's life.
This guy sounds like hes pretending to come from a non-religious point of view but is actually just trying to draw atheists into religion with some sneaky propaganda.
Oh wait, wrong guy. Anyways, I don't necessarily agree with his view on atheism. I mean, Dawkins is in no way comparable to Hitchens, and atheists do think there is meaning in life, but just not the prescribed meaning we are given. That's my feeling on that.
Atheism means lack of belief in God/god/gods....not necessarily lack of spirituality. (Look at Sam Harris) And lack of spirituality is not meaninglessness either though. This guy is shallow.
I completely disagree with Schaeffer about atheism bringing despair and no meaning. That's just nonsense! However, I did like how Cenk kept him honest about the roles of Dawkins and Hitchens. Very interesting interview over all.
I don't really disagree with him, however, I don't agree with him mischaracterizing atheism as necessarily bleak and meaningless. I think that's a mistake on his part.
That's weird it's either believing in religion or yourself not a collective spirituality or basically communism or socialism and morality is subject to circumstance not so much on my father was good and my people are from good people then we can never do wrong and Greek orthodox is the same as Jews (Consecration,Sacrifice and destruction) like the guy that wrote the book
HE just sounds anti American and anti constitution and then try's to seem more morally good by social aesthetic...
JonesArmandoHoward 6 months ago
spirituality is nonsense, grow up, fairy stories won't help
tyroy57 8 months ago 2
@tyroy57 Absolutely. As soon as you've let go of conventional religion, you've already overcome the biggest obstacle for your ego. From there on, it's just a matter of evaluating every other assumption you have and asking yourself whether or not they derive from the same conditions and impulse that led to your erroneous beliefs, or if you've accepted them uncritically, or if they can't be better explained objectively with other concepts (e.g. spirituality = psychology & aesthetics).
thinedoor2 5 months ago
7 mins , still said nothing yet
tyroy57 8 months ago
4 mins in and hes said nothing yet !
tyroy57 8 months ago
I had no idea what God meant or was until I was 13 years old... the world tells me I'm an atheist, but the truth is I were just never schooled in religion. My life seems to be going okay...
me2wonder 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@me2wonder You are an atheist if you do not positively believe in a god.
jymbo1969 10 months ago
Atheism is a Religion, because you believe, you have faith there is no God without proof. When you die, it is only then you see the truth.
Go back to the definition of faith. Faith is believing in something without proof. Religion is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Atheism is defined as the doctrine or belief that there is no God. Therefore Atheism is a religion.
.
Allen West 2012
ThunderheadNebula 10 months ago
@ThunderheadNebula This is a lie. Atheism is no more a religion than not-stamp collecting is a hobby, and bald is a hair color. Atheism is a rejection of theism... nothing more. It is not a belief system. According to you, you have faith in Thor not being a real god... do you go to an Athorist church? Your religion is Athorism. Definitions are not what words mean. No. They are a tool to tell you how a word has been used. Atheism is the rejection of theism. Or: a lack of belief in (a) god(s).
jymbo1969 10 months ago
@ThunderheadNebula To prove that atheism is not a belief in no god. Buddhists, scientologists, Raelians, secular humanists, communists, new born babies are all atheists... what do they have in common.. in regard to their theistic views? That's right: a lack of belief in (a) god(s)... and nothing more. Your definition of atheism is a straw-man that does not resemble the actual truth of what an atheist is. It is a lie.
jymbo1969 10 months ago
I hate the whining about the "new atheists". I respect religious people, but why should I pretend, to take religion seriously? it is bullcrap. In China in the poor areas many, many people believe in ghosts. There are no ghosts, no gods, that is my opinion, which is back by a ton of evidence. And no, I am not interested in being super polite, when other religions have death penalty for apostasy and indoctrinate kids with their crap.
ChineseAtheist 1 year ago
Schaefer has'nt figured out that it is imperative to scrutinize the author of any publication before reading it. There are hundreds of thousands of religious books around the world. Which do you read first? None! They all have authorship goofier than Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard. The most likely answer to any question we have is to look at a great number of the info in respected peer reviewed articles.
Zeeeeek 1 year ago
Wow! Someone from the right who finally makes sense!
Bytor963 1 year ago
i'm glad i found this guy, well spoken and speaks the truth.
dgb751 1 year ago
Comment removed
musicappreciate 1 year ago
very smart man
johnnyrockerfella 1 year ago 6
Everything this man says is true.
17R3W 1 year ago
@17R3W Read his book "Dancing Alone" probably the most brutally honest book I have ever read.
emekonen 11 months ago
@emekonen
Okay, will do:
Dancing Alone: The Quest for Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religion
17R3W 11 months ago
@17R3W That is if you like the historical aspect of Christianity which is lacking in protestantism. But its brutal and really leaves no other alternatives.
emekonen 11 months ago
I was sympathetic with this guy up until he compared Hitchens and Dawkins to televangelists..I mean wtf? I hope I dont have to explain why to anyone but that is cheap and ill thought through.
resonance10 1 year ago
This is the first spiritual person that I hear, who actually seems to make a bit of sense, who I can accept, even though I still am not spiritual at all or buying into it.
3vegemite 1 year ago 2
God damn commercials are everywhere,
artko13 1 year ago
danger0usknowledge 1 year ago
Frank Schaeffer is my hero
thegatesoftroy 1 year ago 3
If you're not religious, then don't call it ' God'. If you're spiritual, then call it spirituality. God is not nature. Nature is nature. God is not love. Love is love.
'God' is Yahweh, Allah etc. This "God is whatever I want it to be" stuff muddles the water to no end and lets people get away with so much intellectual lazyness.
magnusjsolberg 1 year ago
@magnusjsolberg Awesome I've always thought that same thing.
funknotik 1 year ago
I think this guy is actually a well meaning person. That said, I'll retain my atheism.
SuperFantasticFox 1 year ago
The "despair" of Atheism huh... I have no despair in my life. This guy is a moron. You can't just pick the half-way point between religion and atheism and say it's superior to both because it's moderate. Sorry to be a pain in the ass but things are either true or they aren't. You can choose your opinions but not your facts. This fence-sitter needs to go find some, and make up his mind.
dmwalker24 1 year ago
This man talks in stereotypes.
Yahntia 1 year ago
Spirituality is bullshit. Stop thinking about think which obviously don't exist.
EclecticSceptic 1 year ago
Frankie the fly......you're as wack as Art Bell....c'mon dude...you're farther out than Al Gore and global hoaxing baby
indkeith 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Frankie the fly......you're as wack as Art Bell....c'mon dude...you're farther out than Al Gore and global hoaxing baby
indkeith 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Frankie the fly......you're as wack as Art Bell....c'mon dude...you're farther out than Al Gore and global hoaxing baby
indkeith 1 year ago
Frankie the fly......you're as wack as Art Bell....c'mon dude...you're farther out than Al Gore and global hoaxing baby
indkeith 1 year ago
@indkeith Fox is not a source of news. Global warming is a fact.
jymbo1969 10 months ago
Frankie the fly...we're in the last days you moron
indkeith 1 year ago
Shaeffer reminds me of where I was 3 or 4 years ago. Still stubbornly holding on to a belief in God despite it's incoherance, but unwilling to fully accept the dogma of organized religion. As a result I would cherry pick the bits of dogma I liked and throw out the rest. Furthermore, it's quite obvious that Frank does not understand athiesm, as he strawman's it constantly. It's also quite obvious from this interview that he doesn't really understand evolution either..
evolve749 2 years ago
the interviewer is the real star
MultiDoublehelix 2 years ago
I know Schaeffer means well, but ultimately, what he puts forth is just plain incoherent.
-"Mo"
TheAwedCouple 2 years ago
OK, I have so many problems with this interview. First of all, atheists can be spiritual; nothing about spirituality requires gods. See: Sam Harris. Second, Dawkins an extremist? Give me a break. Certainly he is vocal about his beliefs, but hardly extreme. Third, there is nothing about atheism that leads one to despair or meaninglessness. Frank really doesn't know what he is talking about. He makes huge sweeping generalizations that are just false. Very disappointed Cenk; you shouldn't agree.
minisiets 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Good point about the "new athiests" Frank. They are crying out for a swat-down. Their view is inherently lazy.
c42u 2 years ago
Comment removed
c42u 2 years ago
Someone who calls Hitchens and Dawkins evangelists of atheism either hasn't read what they've written or has but didn't get it. I don't understand how arguing based on fact and reason makes you an evangelist.
phantomofmyopera 2 years ago 10
I really don't find Dawkins all that strident. Mind you, I've come across ALOT of very abrasive and simpleminded creationists on here! LOL
Maybe that's given me some bias.
johnedwards1968 2 years ago 4
Wow ive never heard of this Schaeffer guy. Im not interested in anything spirtual but im glad theres an alternative to Dawkins and Hitchens that isn't some fundie fucktard.
Fangtorn 2 years ago
There isn't room for grey here, Although it might make you feel good.
origonionhead36 2 years ago 4
Dawkins and Hitchens are not outsiders to religion. They were both raised in Catholic housholds and as they grew old enough just like Schaeffer saw what a sham organized religion is.
mundo77 2 years ago 4
Dawkins was raised Anglican. I'm not sure about Hitchens, but you're right. Not many in the west are really outsiders to religion.
ThePsychoguy 2 years ago
@ThePsychoguy Hitchens was an Anglican also. You can't be raised in England 50 years ago without extremely intense indoctrination. Also this nonsense about Hitchens being bigoted etc... his children go/went to a Quaker school and he celebrates certain Jewish holidays...
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
Frank Schaeffer grew up in a religious home. Once he got old enough to think for himself, he rejected the philosophy he'd grown up with, but he missed going to church.
So he came up with all this theory of his, generalizing to say everyone else thought the same way he did, and making straw-men opponents out of Dawkins (who only seems like a bully if you've never listened to the guy in your life) and Hitchens (who once wrote a book bashing Mother Theresa). He is not convincing.
Wendy62 2 years ago
I generally like Schaeffer, but he's just fucking wrong on this one.
When a person buys shit from Richard Dawkins, he isn't under the illusion that it will, say, keep him from going to hell, or make him straight. With those Jesus Freaks, on the other hand...
It's a false analogy, plain and simple.
mrbadguysan 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"rejecting religion is like rejecting a product someone is trying to sell you on TV"
OK, you've convinced me. From now on I'll make all my decisions regarding foundational beliefs about the world using the same level of thought I would put into deciding whether or not to buy a Sham Wow.
Having resolved that thorny issue, I have no further use for this conversation.
changestation 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LOL! thumb up for shamwow pwnage
BlackbirdsFive 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It seems our disagreement is that you believe atheism is only about belief/non-belief in gods, with no deeper connection to world-view, rationality, understanding.
I hold it is inseparable from these things. Atheists understand the world based on different foundational concepts than theists.
And finally, ALL humans attempt to understand their world, put it into a context. We aren't "required to," we just do.
So we disagree, but I appreciate many of your other points. I'm out.
changestation 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You didn't answer, you simply noted that hypothetical arguments are by nature subjective (yes, obvious).
If you can't see that atheism has a great deal to do with explaining how the world works, frankly you're lost.
Atheists persceive the world working in a very different way than theists. Is that not obvious to you?
Theists can attribute disasters to an act of god. Atheists cannot. They are forced to look for natural processes in their explainations. One view is rational/one isn't.
changestation 2 years ago
"He criticizes Dawkins for not feeding his soul."
Ugh, its like saying atheism offers nothing. Its not supposed to offer anything...If you want to feed your "soul" (call it a mind???) then feed it with some knowledge, or spend some time with a loved one. Yes we are just a bunch of atoms, but does that make your experience any less?
And besides, if noone, Dawkins or Hitchens did not cause a rukus, who would bring the issues to light? You need people like Dawkins to question/make question.
NerdsUnited47 2 years ago 2
I know! Schaeffer then agrees it is good to push back against extremism with some rational arguments. It's as if he desperately wants to remain impartial, navel gaze and write about it. There's nothing wrong with that, may even make for a good read but it just seems as if he is confused over what spiritual means.
God may not exist but religious experiences are real. No one denies that and no atheist says that similar experiences must be expunged from our lives!
Saddamuel 2 years ago
I think many people are misunderstanding the argument Schaeffer is making in regards to spirituality. What he's saying is that there's always going to be a certain part of our minds which is driven towards religion and the supernatural. Arguments against God are about as effective in swaying public opinion as Zeno's paradoxes were for disproving motion. Anyone can see it, no one can change it, so the best thing to do, as a society is to find a constructive outlet for it.
cockroach2 2 years ago 5
"no one can change it"
Less than 30% of Norwegians believe in any god (even less in Sweden).
However, both countries were once just as religious as the US. It's clear that Public opinion CAN be swayed on this issue, just like any other. Quality education helps significantly.
changestation 2 years ago
And my point is that you will have that ~30% (at least) no matter what (never mind the fact that a large number of those polled as saying there was no God said they believed in some "spiritual or life force"). You can try all you want, but as I've said, you can't get rid of it. For proof, just turn on the T.V. and count how many shows deal with ghosts, aliens, angels/demons/ psychics, etc. People LOVE mysteries. Trying to erase religion is like trying to erase faith in motion.
cockroach2 2 years ago 5
He criticizes Dawkins for not feeding his soul. This isn't the Dawkins I know and Cenk has it spot on whilst Schaffer seems to be saying a lot without saying much in order to fill a book. If the intricacies of evolution don't feed your soul then you're not that spiritual. How many times does Dawkins have to say that understanding a rainbow doesn't diminish but rather increases its beauty or that he loves old churches. When will people really listen to him rather than hear what they want?
Saddamuel 2 years ago 4
"If the intricacies of evolution don't feed your soul then you're not that spiritual"
Beautifully said!
changestation 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
OK fine, but you didn't answer the question. Would rational empirical evidence of god's existence change your mind?
If so, your non-belief (atheism) is based on rationality.
If not, you are disregarding rationality (usually called "irrational").
BTW: I sent no duplicate messages. Tech glitch perhaps.
changestation 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I agree about the word "atheism." A nonsense label; I use it here only as shorthand, since so many seem to cling to it.
But I disagree that non-theism (only slightly better ,-) is not about rationality and truth. Ask yourself WHY you don't believe in a god? At the bottom of it, you'll likely find a rejection for claims made without supporting evidence. You're seeking to understand the world rationally. If you were shown rational, empirical evidence of god tomorrow, would you believe? I would.
changestation 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Atheism has nothing to do with medicine or explaining how our world works"
1. The medicine reference was metaphor.
2. Atheism has a lot to do with explaining how the world works. Most atheists take the position that claims (like those for god) must be supported by evidence. This concept is the bedrock of science (the means by which we discover how our world works). Atheists are knowingly or unknowingly supporting the scientific method and rejecting superstition.
changestation 2 years ago
Some atheists say it's wrong to say atheists can be spiritual. Some atheists say it's wrong to say they can't. The thing is, you can't please or define everyone, you can only have your perspective.
I like hearing this guy's moderate point of view as a deist and Cenk's as an atheist. I agree with them both on the most important part - we can get along with our different views. The rest is a lot less important.
TheGiantRobot 2 years ago
Precisely. The end product is the facilitation of further social interactions. Religion will never go away, for obvious reasons, so I'd say the best efforts are the one that promote harmony among us, rather than discord. And to be honest, it really *only* matters what we believe ourselves; proving it to others doesn't particularly do much of anything (ie the truth is worth knowing in and of its merit and to the extent that you embrace this personally, it benefits *you*).
NwZ2 2 years ago
Yes, I agree. It's great to share ideas and experiences, but that's all you can share. It's up to each of us to decide what constitutes our proof and what we'll do with that conviction.
TheGiantRobot 2 years ago
atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive claims.
NwZ2 2 years ago
yes it is....It's not like Buddhists believe in God(s), hence the definition of atheism (and that's all it is).
NwZ2 2 years ago
well, there are religious people (well, if you wanna call em that) that are atheists. (Aka Buddhists). But that's neither here nor there.
NwZ2 2 years ago
I was replying to changestation's comment.
NwZ2 2 years ago
I agree with Cenk, if everyone though like this intelligent, empathetic guy. The world would be a much better place, but I suppose human beings will always find something to fight about.
Replay107 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Shaeffer's argument about Dawkins and "new atheists" doesn't hold water: Atheists aren't here to "feed the soul"--they're here to speak truth. The truth is important, whether it is comfortable or not. By Shaeffer's argument, a doctor should refain from telling a patient they have a terminal disease, because while it may be true, it does not "feed their soul," it doesn't offer them any hope. Attacking Dawkins, et al, is like shooting the messenger for bringing uncomfortable news.
changestation 2 years ago
That doctor analogy doesn't hold water either because, by all accounts, atheists cannot make any definitive claims like they can, and, unlike an atheist, a doctor *can*make them feel better, even if only marginally better (via medicine n such). Well in any case, the body is a lot different of a thing than, say, the mind and intellectual matters. Truth this, the truth isn't necessary as medicine is.
NwZ2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"atheists cannot make any definitive claims"
I disagree. Atheists can make one rather important empirical claim: there is currently no evidence of any "god."
Imagine a doctor (to push the metaphor further) claiming to KNOW why people develop a certain disease, when in fact the cause is unknown. Claiming knowledge one does not have is unethical and potentially dangerous. This is exactly what religion does.
BTW: The practice of medicine is based entirely on truth and reason.
changestation 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
at first i was sorta buying bit...but naw, to make such a claim would entail a PLAY BY PLAY update of all the information out there possible in the universe. hell, even qualifying that by saying "known to man" only reduces it to a still immensely large field. Just cause you aren't aware of an argument out there doesn't mean there isn't one. Now, if you said "That i know of", that'd change the story entirely, but that's not very definitive.
NwZ2 2 years ago
yea, it all boils down to whether your statement is one of the few types of negatives one can prove and i don't think it is one.
NwZ2 2 years ago
I first heard Schaeffer on NPR and was fascinated by his story, I think what it boils down to is that we all need to recognise that we are all different and need to respect each others differences. i may disagree with Schaeffer religiously... (am agnostic) but i applaud his recent works in exposing fundamentalism
cindylauryn 2 years ago
people need to stop giving people like this guy schaeffer a megaphone. absence of evidence is evidence of absence. the characteristics we assign to "spirituality" don't require belief in anything supernatural.
if there is evidence for something that is considered "supernatural" then it stops being supernatural.
when you actually define what these people are calling "spirit" and "god" you can start having a worthwhile conversation WITHOUT "God"
drrobotnik999 2 years ago 3
Dawkins critics always say 2 things 1. Hes a bully of sorts 2. Hes all about disproving something.
1st Because his style of debate is clearly logicbased, very easily presented, and supported by reality the feeling of being bullied is understandable. 2nd. He doesnt try to prove god doesnt exist, but that its irrelevent and unanswerable. And that god would have had to have evolved itself. Raising the same question, circular, u see.
religionOFFENDSme 2 years ago 4
Religions are jokes. Do you all really believe that God came down and talked to illiterate people and dictated these poorly written books with horrible fables, many contradictions, and things absolutely proven false?
Hahah
dfrutled 2 years ago 2
Ok, Richard Dawkins is not the equivalent to Sarah Palin. She is much smarter than him, lol no. Come on he is giving FACTS and they are just spewing crap. There is a big difference.
chevon1920 2 years ago 5
BOUT TIME SOMEBODY PUT IT OUT THERE!
amp1616 2 years ago
"you can be moral and atheist too" then i guess hitler and stalin were shining examples of how faith in politics has no place, just like obama says
tehant1liberal 2 years ago
Stalin was most certainly an atheist (for material rather than philosophical reasons), Hitler is dubious. His entire anti-Semitic philosophy had undeniably religious roots, his main break with the Lutheran church was a) they were an autonomous organization outside the state, and b) he considered Christianity worship of a Jew. Nonetheless, despite not being Christian (and even that has conflicting accounts), he made constant references to his "faith", "destiny" and so forth throughout his life.
reeve1991 2 years ago
Please name for me one time Stalin commited an attrocity in the name of atheism. You know that we can show many done in the name of Christianity. Tit for tat.
YOURINQUIRER 2 years ago
@YOURINQUIRER
You also got that correct. Despite there being little doubt that Stalin was an atheist, none of the evil things he ever did were because of his atheism (apart from, arguably, shutting down most venues of religious worship). It can be argued (fallaciously, though) that his atheism was what gave him lack of moral character. This argument is incorrect, as I've demonstrated, but it's what they mean when they say, "Hey, whaddabout HITLER+stalin?!?"
reeve1991 2 years ago
Besides, that is an absurdly fallacious argument. Would we not thus conclude, looking towards the Spanish Inquisition, the later Roman Emperors, the atrocities of Frederick Barbarossa, or Baldwin I (against fellow Christians no less), that "faith in politics" leads to evil and vile ends? Far more examples of this type (owing to the disparity of religious/non-religious rulers in history) can be found. That doesn't mean it's true, the point is that your type of argument is grossly uninformed.
reeve1991 2 years ago
Comment removed
CodeofVideos 2 years ago
I believe there is meaning. Therefore there is meaning. Case closed.
IntractableJ 2 years ago 2
Is it just me or does cenk and more and more ppl use the word "look" ?
SoCalBoyy 2 years ago 5
See he is saying something I never hear.
I am not into religion but i do belive in God&Jesus Christ.
watchulla 2 years ago
How,is that possible? You have to find out by doing research if jesus lived. You still believe in bronze age myths cause you fear death.
jehovasinz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ROFL, atheist intolerance on youtube. who'd have thunk it?
No really though, you guys are making atheism look bad because it's one thing to have a lack of belief in the existence of god, which is a perfectly legitimate (and INTELLECTUALLY honest) point of view, and ANOTHER thing to be an anti-theist that actively rags not only on the fundamentalist elements of religion (and rightfully so) but the MODERATE AND WEAKER elements of religion too. Makes you look like fascists.
NwZ2 2 years ago
Fascism? Is any perspective which is not relativist fascist? Because the "whatever floats your boat (as long as you are nice and don't make anyone feel bad)" is relativism. In a sense, the difference b/w you and militant atheists is that militant atheists actually think religious people are saying something that is either true or not true (and not just being "cool" or "not cool"), and, ironically, show religions a lot more respect than you do.
houxy 2 years ago
not particularly. Assuming that faith based convictions are, by definition, a form of insanity (from what i've garnered from a number of people i've heard here on youtube) doesn't seem like respect at all. Also, forcing the matter into such a binary only seems to alienate people who don't wish to be so serious about the subject. Surely you can't deny that there *do* exist a significant contingent of people on here who simply bash religion in general. That's like denying creationists exist =\
NwZ2 2 years ago
This is not to also say that there *aren't* militant atheists who are quite respectable to religious folks (Take Matt from the Atheist experience: he's shown more patience then I ever could with the kind of arrogant callers he's received on the show). I guess a lot of my criticisms go towards the commentators on here who seem to partake only in bashing of some sort, via arguments such as "moderate religious people give sanctuary to extremists" and the sort. I dunno.
NwZ2 2 years ago
Sure. Of course I would grant, and should have granted that. I think George Carlin, for example, is just mean about religion and not particularly funny. Between non-academics, most of these debates are really battles for status. That is, most Christians don't want to look stupid (which is a totally un-Christian attitude, incidentally).
houxy 2 years ago
Anyway, I do actually endorse the "moderate religious people give sanctuary to extremists" not in a political sense, but in the sense that if there is no God, then both are equally wrong.
houxy 2 years ago
Atheists don't have to respect anyone's beliefs no matter how loopy but they should respect people's right to choose and practice that belief. Dawkins certainly respects people's right to practice their religion but he doesn't respect their right to indoctrinate or legislate on others based on that belief. He also argues that children should be exposed to rational and impartial thinking. I'm sure Christians would agree their child should learn about Islam as an idea rather than as a true belief!
Saddamuel 2 years ago
He's a fucking false flag godsucking douchebag. Dawkins is a self declared militant atheist. It's unfortunate that Dawkins has gotten involved with this "bright" (not so bright after all) nonsense but to compare his site with some touch the screen twat is disingenuous.
There is no meaning except that which we ourselves give to life. Cowardice in the face of that reality is religion, plain and simple.
nilbud 2 years ago
Dawkins and Hitchens are like evangelists?
Bollocks.
paulo101 2 years ago
e·van·gel·ism (-vnj-lzm)
n.
1. Zealous preaching and dissemination of the gospel, as through missionary work.
2. Militant zeal for a cause.
NwZ2 2 years ago
It seems that you are confused between intolerance and intolerance of intolerant people. Dawkins is pushing back against evangelism, if people kept their beliefs relatively private and didn't insist they be taught in schools or that laws should be based on them, then there'd be no need to push back.
You're arguing against self defense based on the idea that resisting an attack is a form of violence itself. Would it be far better if all atheists just bent over and took homophobic laws etc?
Saddamuel 2 years ago
ergo, yes. (i believe i've even heard one of em, or perhaps it was Hitchens, use the term to describe their work). The whole concept *OF* anti-theism is militant in nature.
NwZ2 2 years ago
I have had to read Hawkins for a philosophy class and he seems willfully ignorant of the fact that it is impossible to prove a negative. I suppose, if he were to admit that, he would force to confront the fact that he is just about as big a zealot as the most bible-thumping evangelical.
Oh, well.
Nogeorgiabelle 2 years ago
lol DAWKINS EVEN!! ugh.
Nogeorgiabelle 2 years ago
I don't think he tries to prove a negative as often as just giving an argument that shows a thought to be disingenuous. I've never had the feeling that he is trying to "prove" anything, except the flawed origins of religion, whether within the mind or without.
IntractableJ 2 years ago
Actually he admits that all the time, he put it in context with the relvoving tea-cup around saturn or not. So check it out, your wrong.
stemcgolf 2 years ago
When I read him, which was about two years ago (for a graduate-level class in which I got an A), I got the impression that he really could not get his mind around the fact that there is no way to disprove the god concept. If he were to really do so, he would have to admit that, just as it is impossible to prove that any god does or does not exist, his insistence that there is something wrong with people who believe in things they cannot prove would necessarily have to apply to him as well.
Nogeorgiabelle 2 years ago
Honestly, you should check it out because you are totally wrong in your assumptions. He admits that you can't disprove God, but you also can't disprove the tooth fairy. So, there is a burden of proof, and Dawkins has proof to back up his side (evolution mainly) and points out there is no proof/evidence for JC/God.
stemcgolf 2 years ago
Why do you keep insisting you read him when it's obvious you're lying? Major chapters are dedicated to the probabilities of a god's existence. Just admit it.
YOURINQUIRER 2 years ago
Your comments betrays the fact you've lied about reading Dawkins. If you really had, you'd know the basic premise of his last book is the probability of a god's existence, not absolute. That's too big of a mistake to not be a lie.
YOURINQUIRER 2 years ago
I did read dawkins for a class. I have not read everything he has ever written but it is clear he is not willing to apply the irrationality of believing something which cannot be proven to HIS OWN BELIEFS WHICH CANNOT BE PROVEN. Therefore, from my memory of what I read a couple of years ago, I am of the opinion that he is unable to come to terms with the impossibility of proving a negative where his own unprovable beliefs are concerned.
Nogeorgiabelle 2 years ago
Had you read The God Delusion (I'm assuming that's what you're referring to), you'd know he doesn't try to prove a negative. He explains how probabilities affect this question. Similar to the question, "Do unicorns exist somewhere in the universe?" You can't prove it right or wrong, but you can calculate the odds and swiftly come to the conclusion it is exceptionally unlikely. The exact same principle applies to the hypothesis of the existence of an omnipotent intelligent agent.
reeve1991 2 years ago 2
There is no way to even calculate the odds. For example, that an event or series of events has occurred in the same way a 1000 times is not proof that it will do so 1001 times. At the end of the day, it takes faith to belief that it will do so. And, even should it happen 1001 times, the same faith would be needed to believe in the 2002nd time. There is just no way to prove any of it. Dawkins would like it to be so, as would many religoous people but wishing isn't getting.
Nogeorgiabelle 2 years ago
That isn't faith, it's called statistics. It's an established field of mathematical study. Science doesn't pretend to have "proof", because proof is a fool's dream. It is very irrational to say, as an example, because a scientist might admit we only know to the 99.9999th% that gravity exists, that gravity is not effectively "proven" and validates your lack of belief in gravity. This is something called You Fail Statistics Forever.
reeve1991 2 years ago 2
I think the difference is that the atheists approach their beliefs from a systematic, logical path, whereas theists are relying either on faith, scripture or both. Dawkins has readily admitted "we're working on it," which shows that it is still in the belief stage. It's the approach that matters, imo.
Zeromus7 2 years ago 2
There really is little difference. The idea of faith being heavily involved in the scientific process is not exactly new. There are many who have dealt with it. A good place to start is William James' essay "The Will to Believe." James was, after all, critiquing scientific method as much as he was talking about religion.
Continued...
Nogeorgiabelle 2 years ago
There really is little difference. The idea of faith being heavily involved in the scientific process is not exactly new. There are many who have dealt with it. A good place to start is William James' essay "The Will to Believe." James was, after all, critiquing scientific method as much as he was talking about religion.
Continued...
Nogeorgiabelle 2 years ago
(Continued)
An unprovable hypothesis is just that--unprovable. It doesn't matter who is putting it forward. If it be Dawkins, Jerry Falwell, me or anyone else.
Nogeorgiabelle 2 years ago
It's one book! You cannot hide behind the fact that it's you're opinion when you didn't know the major theme of the book is that a god is IMPROBABLE not impossible. Disproving something he never said is IRRATIONAL. Continuing to do so after you've been corrected is DECEITFUL. We all know you couldn't have read it. Just admit it.
YOURINQUIRER 2 years ago
I get fairly irritated with people that say that Hitchens and Dawkins are like evangelists. No, they are not. That's a short cut to thinking. Evangelists are are purely peddling nonsense, and it is because of men like them, and the BS they spew throughout society that others have to say, "wait a minute, this is nonsense!" Atheists like RD and CH are simply responding to the nonsense that is religion, and ills it puts forth. They will both say they don't care what an individual believes privately
64kix 2 years ago
Thank you for the interview, Frank and TYT. Old solutions are no solutions for the modern day.
My grandfather once took his mother (my great-grandma) to an evangelical service. Afterwards he asked her what she thought of the preacher. Her reply was precious - "I think he's a goddam phony!"
audadvnc 2 years ago
Atheists are just people who don't believe in god(s). Atheist activists are actively speaking out against the ills of believing in god(s), which there is a great deal of, I'm certain Schaeffer is a Christian in agnostics clothing so his viewpoint is invalid on the entire atheist agenda, he has no clue about the reasons we should not believe in god(s), the main reason most people are spiritual is because they miss loved ones who have died and hold a hope that they want to see those people again
DJBerber 2 years ago
I reject the premise that an "atheist" can be a spiritual person. If you have faith or belief in a spirit world beyond means of naturalistic observation or mathematical calculation, then you leave yourself open to belief in literally anything invisible and unmeasurable: gods, angels, souls, djinn, whatever. That is weaker than the minimalist 'weak atheist' position against particular gods. Hold on to those beliefs if you have to, but you cannot caucus with true atheists.
clownpenisfart 2 years ago
Many use the word spiritual in a broader sense. They might say they had a spiritual experience when they fell in love etc... It's another way of saying overwhelming awe.
The religious experience is real (chemicals etc) even if the religion is false. Let's call that feeling a spiritual one, knowing what chemicals cause that feeling doesn't destroy it. You still feel something powerful when listening to Mozart, when atheists/agnostics say they're spiritual that is what they're referring to.
Saddamuel 2 years ago
Yeah it's just electrical impulses in your brain that makes you happy to see your grand children but just because we know that doesn't mean that it's less wonderful. And there's no need to insert a magical agent in there to explain the whole thing.
Smorfty 2 years ago
Much respect to both of them.
dtulifat 2 years ago 2
IMHO religion was a useful tool for organizing people but its now becoming obsolete.
kthhrv833 2 years ago
He's making a case for deism.
It's just bullshit.
BaileysBeads 2 years ago 4
This guy is just full of shit, I don't believe in god so I'll just make up some random bullshit up lol.
There is no god FACT the sooner stupid Americans have that drilled into their heads the better.
Why do I know I'm right? one word "Dinosaurs". Game over religion..
DrCrYz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I like the way this guy (Schaeffer) shows how Dawkins is a peddler of his wares. Yes, his website is like a cheesy display of cheap trinkets.
However, I am sad to hear what he said about us coming from single celled organisms as there is no evidence for such mumbo jumbo. Living things DON'T go from simplicity to greater complexity and more information but rather from great complexity to loss of information and randomness. We are actually DEVOLVING rather than evolving.
MrWizeupnow 2 years ago
lol man you Americans are fucking nuts, what you just wrote is beyond stupid.
DrCrYz 2 years ago 4
Just because you find proof of devolution in yourself doesn't make it true.
lordfarrel 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
MrWizeupnow 2 years ago
i can definitely appreciate this guy's perspective on the craziness of people and religion. doesn't mean i have to agree with everything he says, but he is reasonable like i wish so many others were. good interview
sisforshayla 2 years ago 2
So this guy is criticizing people for making money off of book sales while... plugging his book?
christyell 2 years ago 7
He just seems concerned with creating a market niche for himself.
houxy 2 years ago
Comment removed
theTrenchantObdurate 2 years ago
"Evangelical" just means to put forth one's opinion. Frank is being an "evangelical" for his position in this very video. I don't dislike it when people put forth their position, and the fact that religious people feel they are justified in pushing their beliefs so strongly("god's will" etc) on others isn't even the biggest problem. The question is the legitimacy of the content, not that it is being put forth. Also how intellectually honest they are being and how many fallacies they appeal to.
saken 2 years ago 3
i was going to point out how clueless this guy was but reading the comments on the first page i think my job has been done
Leadman1989 2 years ago
So lacking the belief in god means you have no meaning? Not even close, all it means is that there is no goal put forth by a deity to give an overarching meaning to mankind. We set our own goals and therefor our own meaning.
Also lacking the belief in a gods does not mean you are not "spiritual" by most definitions of the word.
saken 2 years ago 3
Wow, what a douche saying that atheism = no meaning. Come on, just say it Schaeffer, you don't like the "new atheist" because your feelings are hurt by what they say about your "spirituality" that is shared with the religious nuts. Plus for the gazillion time, you can only pin atheist on one thing and only one thing, they lack a belief in a god or gods. Finally, stop trying to put yourself in this fake middle-ground by trying to make Dawkins comparable to religious extremist leaders.
darkkodiak001 2 years ago 10
Dawkins IS a religious foaming at the mouth extremist! What planet are you on. The guy is rabid.
MrWizeupnow 2 years ago
Really now? What does he do that makes him an extremist? If you mean that he is very vocal then I agree. I don't see him telling people how to vote, what philosophy to follow, or to follow his way of thought or else. So, please, tell me how Dawkins is like the religious nuts?
darkkodiak001 2 years ago 4
Schafer is the only way for it to be spelled in America.
1tofallen 2 years ago
That's a very good interview. I wouldn't say that dawkins like pat roberston though. He may have inadverdently created a personality cult, but that's not a bad thing. As a biological anthropologist, he makes good points about the human condition.
chainersedict 2 years ago 6
Schaffer just lost a fan. His misrepresentation and downright lies about the "new atheists" is far too religious for me. When people try to look even-handed by lying, they don't need my help buying their books, they can just say I did. Dawkins is mercahandising while pitching his new book. Maybe he should have paid attention to what Jesus said about hypocrisy after all.
YOURINQUIRER 2 years ago 2
you have to have someway of disseminating your message. Hawking a book is different than t-shirts and mugs.
bungerman1000 2 years ago
T-shirts and mugs are great way to do that. Is Schaffer's gripe that they are better marketers than he? This interview would prove that.
YOURINQUIRER 2 years ago
I listen to Dawkins only because he knows so much about evolution and I know so little and want to know more about the process and Hitchens I disagree with politically.
I didn't get to these beliefs b/c of what they said, it was through my own personal growth and understanding of myself.
He, like many Christians and others religious people do, are generalizing about atheists and atheism in general which lowers his credibility on the subject in my eyes.
gogosox82 2 years ago 10
I have to disagree with Frank.
He's positioning atheism with religion and compared what he perceives to be the leaders of the movements to each other.
Atheists don't follow one person or several people blindly like religious people tend to do. I know of atheists who don't like Dawkins or Hitchens.
gogosox82 2 years ago 9
I know of Christians who don't like Pat Robertson. What's your point?
cockroach2 2 years ago
The point is that comparing Dawkins to Pat Robertson is fallacious b/c Dawkins' non belief in god is just a fraction of who he is, while Christianity is centered around every fragment of Robertson's life.
gogosox82 2 years ago 3
This guy sounds like hes pretending to come from a non-religious point of view but is actually just trying to draw atheists into religion with some sneaky propaganda.
Scorceror 2 years ago 6
I loved Brütal Legend Mr Schafer.
Oh wait, wrong guy. Anyways, I don't necessarily agree with his view on atheism. I mean, Dawkins is in no way comparable to Hitchens, and atheists do think there is meaning in life, but just not the prescribed meaning we are given. That's my feeling on that.
snipzor 2 years ago 3
Atheism means lack of belief in God/god/gods....not necessarily lack of spirituality. (Look at Sam Harris) And lack of spirituality is not meaninglessness either though. This guy is shallow.
withoutasong 2 years ago 10
I completely disagree with Schaeffer about atheism bringing despair and no meaning. That's just nonsense! However, I did like how Cenk kept him honest about the roles of Dawkins and Hitchens. Very interesting interview over all.
CousinoMacul 2 years ago 13
I go further, if you need a deity to give yourself meaning or morality, then you have something seriously defective in your brain.
dangerouslytalented 2 years ago
I don't really disagree with him, however, I don't agree with him mischaracterizing atheism as necessarily bleak and meaningless. I think that's a mistake on his part.
devourerofbabies 2 years ago 11