(16/17) Intelligence Squared - We would be better off without religion

[MJFAN666]

LMAO. Hitchens Slow clap.

[zerobeat18]

Neuenberger seems to be more on the side of Hitchens et al! She seems to be calling what she does "religion" but it's really only that in name. I wouldn't have a big problem with religion if it was only the kind of pseudo-religion that Neuenberger espouses, the kind where the only measure of a good person is in their actions, not in whether or not they followed all the other ceremony of the religion. She is simply positing that "religion" is the only path to this, which is obviously false.

[runescapefacefan]

would have been cool if hitchens had spoken for notion after the retard Doctor had, cos then he would have definitely said he had masturbated to a picture of someone, would have been epic.

[livedandletdie]

Oh and I hate(dislike cause if you read my other comment you know I can't hate I'm just using a common phrase with strong words.) parareligious people like Julia Neuenberger, whom cannot decide to be religious or not. Religion is absolute faith and not A la Carte as Hitchens said.

[RustlessPotato]

3:50 Without religion, you wouldn't have your "extreme" religion...

[azdv]

That's so beautiful what Richard Dawkins said about goodness being a part of humanity and humans. It makes me teary and proud to be a humanist.

[JakeGunst86]

I think there may be a fundamental problem with the debate's hypothesis. The proposal presupposes assumptions on religious veracity, and in doing so, collapses the debate into an argument about the existence of God rather than 'we would be better off...' The truth is: if there is a God, you are much better off redeemed by faith; if there is no God, we are much worse off for being wrong. So I think the debaters are left arguing God's existence, not the effect of religion.

[DrAmorphos]

@JakeGunst86 1) the proposal implies nothing about the veracity of religion 2) even if there were a God, that would not automatically mean we would be better of with religion 3) You're not as logical as you think you are.

[howler95uk]

Read "Infidel" and "The Caged Virgin" by Aayan Hirsi Ali.

[ilyLaura1]

She admitted what Dawkins had been saying all along: perhaps "religion" is just a conscience, or an inner guidance that gives us assurance that it is good to help others. What she's just not understanding, though, is that that's not what anyone defines religion as. "religion" is exactly what Dawkins says it is: belief in a code of things handed down by something supernatural. And THAT, as Hitchens especially pointed out, is detrimental to humanity.

[wardzer]

I bet miss Julia observes most of the traditions and rituals of her religion.

[3TUPPR]

Everybody is their own moderate. There is always someone further to the left or right of yourself who you can call extremist. But you compare their views to your own assuming that yours are normal and reasonable. And you would, because they're yours.

[EdgePitSwing]

What the hell is a "Moderate Religion". You believe or you don't. You're just a closet agnostic.

[areyouquitemad]

Just because that lady can't recognize the definition of religion - its not the way she practises - doesn't mean its NOT her religion!!

If you're a christian and can't understand those 'fundamentalists' who follow the WHOLE bible, then you're no longer a Christian!!

Following the whole bible as though god wrote it = christianity

Picking and chosing what sounds good in the bible = not christianity (rather deism)

[mattstagg1973]

I believe that the mutilation of the genitals of babies is god's will, However I'm a moderate so work with me.

[mattstagg1973]

I am a moderate nutter so please don't treat me like a nutter

[Flutesrock8900]

@Fangornmmc Can one equate the overwhelming amount of knowledge you would have to gain, to understand what happens each time you just switch on the lights, to authority? It may seem so. However, scientists are constantly reviewing and tweeking their respective fields. Authoritative knowledge-keepers don't do that, they simply state what they believe. Most scientific areas are explained in somewhat easily graspable litterature, to whomever wishes to understand it whitout having to study it.

[Flutesrock8900]

@Fangornmmc No, you are in no way obligated to believe science blindly, you are in encouraged to test all you wish to accept as true. But what a daunting task! You can however assess the truthfullness of science by it's *results*! Simply watching this video is enough to prove most of physics and computer science! Your doctor is proof of medicine and - by extention - biology, and where would plastic be without chemistry?

[Fangornmmc]

2:15 all those are very bad reasons to believe anything. Science is an authority therefore according to his own statement Science is a very bad reason to believe anything (thats not my opinion I am merely reasoning onward from what Dawkins said)

[TheLydianRocks]

@Fangornmmc firstly you are not reasoning and secondly it is your opinion. Science is not an authority in that sense, it cant be by definition, how can it be an authority when it's own proponents always seek to undermine what is currently known and improve upon it, you are getting your terminology mixed up, in more ways than 1 considering you say "thats not my opinion"

[Fangornmmc]

@TheLydianRocks Ok assuming that science is an authority (and in retorics it is (at least that's what I was taught in school)) then according to sir Dawkin's statement (assuming it is valid) science is a very bad reason to believe anything.

I don't claim this to be true I am merely pointing out that if one equates authority more or less to science (because not only in my opinion but in my schoolbooks it is considered one) then Dawkin is undermining his own statement.

[GoCardinal2012]

Hitchens exhibits the universal "jerking off" sign at the 0:03 beginning of the video!!!

[annata12]

I tongue kissed many photographs in the playboy until i got my hand on the real thing.

[Whatsifsowhatsit]

I love how the proposing team explains how what's unique to religion is not art, beauty, emotion, love or morality, but the supernatural aspect of it (as all those other things exist in people independently of religion, as should be very obvious to anyone who looks at all at the human race, including atheists), only moments before a member of the opposing team says that's not how she sees religion, she thinks it's more to do with morality and all that. It's funny, though a bit offensive, really.

[ralfjacobs]

i realy dont like that woman her voice realy hurts my ears, and i have to say that shes talking now while im doing something else. maybe its the religion filter in my brain im not sure

[Chris201076]

If any of you love the argument Dawkins is making here then I encourage you to listen to what Stephen Fry had to say on this issue too at the 2005 hays festival (I think). You can get it if you youtube "Stephen Fry on humanism" or "Fry's beautiful comments on a world without God". It was one of the most profound comments on humanity I have ever heard and took my breathe away.

[Keeban3]

Ah, Julia, you have no idea what the words you use mean...

[GermanChocolateCake]

The idea that you are EVER being judged by anything other than yourself or your fellow humans is sophistry. God is merely the label you've given to your own conscience and ability to self-evaluate.

[SGRollingStone]

Well while Dawkins is right about religion not having a monopoly on emotions, I think he fails to see that most of the moral and humanistic aspects of mercy and generaly doing good for the sake of fellow human beings (sometimes at the expense of your own happiness) is rooted in Christianity.

[SGRollingStone]

@SGRollingStone And the rabbis quote of that prophet seems to make a greater impact on me than Hitches quote of Karl Marx in the previous vid, since it bears more weight on the matter than a simple knowing of a full quote by heart rather than actually correcting it's meaning as used before in hte debate.

[ldreiiyeiistk]

@SGRollingStone I agree that it is rooted in Christianity, but it was rooted into homo sapiens sapiens long before Christianity was ever invented by them. That's why it's no surprise that those human behaviors are rooted in all major religions, major ones being those that have significantly shaped our world today by the people it has controlled. Being a freethinking atheist, I would not call the three people who oppose the motion religious, but very kind and humane people.

[SGRollingStone]

@ldreiiyeiistk Very true. It really doesn't matter that much if the person is religious or not as long as it's a kind and humane one.

[Ematched]

@SGRollingStone "...is rooted in Christianity."

...unless you're a Buddhist, Hindu, Eskimo, Jew, etc. You essentially applied the fallacy, to which Dawkins responded, to a different area: from emotion to behavior. Again, religion, much less Christianity, does not monopolize good behavior, nor is it a guarantee nor primary motivator for good behavior. As Dawkins said, "The good things are a part of humanity, just as the bad things are a part of humanity whether you are religious or not."

[IamYou86]

@SGRollingStone While most of the moral and humanistic aspects of Christianity are rooted in the Mithraic religion. They had a guy who they killed on a torture device (a cross) and he also, much like Jesus rose from the dead. The Mithraic religion predates Christianity by 4 thousand years. Christianity is a very very young religion so how can it possibly corner the market on all the good stuff?!

[GSW12345]

Wait does she come from the moderate religious wing? Cause that wasnt made clear on numerous occasions...

[boomtao]

It just occurred to me that the atheists have a great gig! There are never any valid arguments from the religulous camp that can't be easily crushed. There simply couldn't be! So they are always certain to win the argument. Besides religulous folks always keep coming up with the same, old, lame excuses and (non)arguments, making it so easy! I am not belittling their eloquence nor intellect, but let's be honest ... there really isn't any battle, because they have already won before they start!

[DUB8leA]

the queen of comedy at 3:08

[Unholyseer]

The whole point of any art is to provoke and emotional response. The notion that it's a religious experience to feel this is just ridiculous, what about all the atheist artists, writers and musicians, are you saying that their art is less valid?

[BobbyRice2]

25 Seconds in and his point is clear, and expressed more beautifully and in such less words than I could do myself. I had a come back, I had a defence, but Dawkins - you sir, you, grrr, kiss me.

[111E982a]

wow.. okay, but i wept when i read some poem/story and cry when listening to some music..of course without religion.XD glad to have something in common besides atheism with my idol. XD

[Tobytrim]

Rabbi Neuberger described herself as being from "the moderate wing" of her religion......Could there ever be such a self contradicting term for a place??"

A "religious liberal" - What an oxymoron!!

I think the confusion stems from attempts, including hers, to intellectualy justify what amounts to ancient superstitions in a more enlightened age

[Snejfrod]

"I'm left thinking we have a confusion here"

Speak for yourself Neuberger.

[ErSchTsp]

Neuenberger seems to be making all the arguments against her own standpoint. Indeed, it is exactly moral truth that matters and not religion, she actually segregates these two herself, in her case to dodge the criticism against religion, but it merely strengthens the case that we will not miss religion, a point that the opposing party made earlier.

[Ashitaka255]

neuberger can't speak without her notes.

[bary1234]

Religious arguments are always so stupid. Damn why cant we shake these fucking superstitions?

[jonsen82]

just keep ur kisses to urself mrs baroness, it might be for the best :)

[martysings]

3:02 dawkins's face totally betrays that he knows how badass he is.

[areyouquitemad]

I love what Dawkins says about religion thinking it has the monopoly on grief, awe, wonder, empathy etc. Humans have had positive emotions since the begining of time, i hate that christians staple their little 'christian traits' tag. Morons.

[niginit]

Poor Julia didn't even understand the exercise of the kissing of the photograph.....

Why is she even here? Oh, right, religion. You can be called upon to give your testimony at an 'intelligence squared' debate and not have any intelligence to speak of. Just as long as you are moronically religious.

She doesn't "believe in evolution" and offered the same non sequitur tirade against secularism as we've heard a hundred times before.

[LordCustard]

Neuberger is almost not religious. She just barely has a belief in the supernatural. Everything else she forwards is secular and nothing to do with the accepted definition of religion- the way the proposers of the motion are defining it. She's very nearly just an atheist with pretentions, and many of her congregation actually are.

[Vidar1979]

I feel humbled when listening to these three atheists. I will never be able to put forth a better argument then they and am in awe of their brilliance.

[Loew01]

@Vidar1979 LOL. Reminds me of the question about 'priests'. Even atheists must satisfy their religious yearnings ;P

[yeahiknow3]

This entire contest was hilarious - and risky! Pitting the minds of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Grayling against anyone (at the same time!) I could have sworn would result in the implosion of the world from sheer awesomeness.

But it has happened, and we are still here.

[handsomedevill1001]

The problem is, human beings can't handle religion. Once people get their hands on religous text (Bible, Quran) they begin the process of interpretation, which almost always leads to conflict and violence. Christianity is at war with itself. That's why it's split into so many denominations and the irony is, they all hate each other. The Quran preaches even more violence than the Bible does. When weak minded people get a hold of these books...watch out!!! Bad thngs can happen.

[RealCreativeUsername]

Again rabbi, moderate action and behaviour. There is no moderate religion!

[moondoggie1327]

hitchens and dawkins never mention the riddle of epicurus.

[drche420]

Wow Dawkins really destroys all opposing arguments.

[Tarektioban]

I always love to hear what Dawkins has to say, I don't blindly follow what anybody says, however the vast majority of what he has to say is truly pure logic, and I don't see how any intelligent person can argue that.

[leechchill]

@Tarektioban

It just takes a little faith...

ah see what I did there

[Loew01]

@Tarektioban hmmm... how logical is his argument that teaching religion is child abuse? I think most psychologists would balk at that. I think Nigel's point is that Dawkins is expressing his religious drive. "Evidence is the only reason to believe something". So what evidence is there for love? Should we not believe in it?

[Acoustiic]

@Loew01 are you religious? have you ever been truly afraid that you'd go to hell? what would you call telling children that they are sinful and deserving of eternal punishment?

[Loew01]

@Acoustiic yes, I am religious. I've never been afraid of going to hell, but I've been afraid of zombies killing me at night and of gremlins behind my dryer. By that simple logic, parents who watch such movies with their children are committing child abuse.

I don't agree with parents who use scare tactics on their kids. It's infantile, but it's done by immature parents regardless of their belief system. To equate this to child abuse, however, is walking a thin line. (cont.)

[Acoustiic]

@Loew01 you're absolutely right. to call that child abuse and persecute it as such is wrong. thank you for that intellectual backhand. however, i don't think that anybody tries to convince their children that horror movies represent actual events. i'm sure that most parents actually do the opposite.

[Loew01]

@Acoustiic there's plenty of other stuff to be afraid of other than horror movies as a child. This world is pretty scary, much scarier than a vague definition of an eternal punishment that kids can't really relate to... my main point is that unless parents are using the concept of hell abusively, no religious kid I've ever met stays up nights sweating over whether he's going to hell. I honestly believe kids are more afraid of real pains... butt-smackings and ridicule at school.

[Acoustiic]

@Loew01 but doesn't dawkins mention in his book the woman who, as a child, was crushed by the idea that her late friend, who was not a believer, was in hell? you may have been fortunate (or is it unfortunate?) enough to have been secure in your faith and thus free from any real fear of hell, but i certainly wasn't. there was a point in my life when i knew that i had no real reason to believe in a god, but still possessed this silly -- yet all too potent -- fear of eternal hellfire.

[Loew01]

@Acoustiic I'm not afraid of hell because I don't believe in an eternal hell, and also because I can't imagine it being worse than parts of the world we live in... What about a woman who is crushed that her friend died and no longer exists? Is the sentiment any less scary, or disturbing? I'm not saying you don't have valid points, because you do. Fear of hell is obviously a tool to keep people acting a certain way. To say that is all it does is to over-simplify the various beliefs of hell.

[Loew01]

@Acoustiic The intellectual backhand wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at Dawkins for actually writing such illogical nonsense in his book, and then passing himself off as an rational academic. The irony kills me, but I appreciate you can recognize the inappropriateness of it. I hope other Dawkins supporters can see the flaw in that kind of reasoning as well. Just look at Tarektioban's comment above with 54 likes...

[Acoustiic]

@Loew01 if somebody told me i was going to hell today, i'd laugh. but there's a reason the idea of hell is taught to those who have no reason to fear it. it is, in my experience, a kind of last-ditch barrier against those who would have otherwise abandoned their system of belief in light of it's illogic or immorality.

[Loew01]

@Acoustiic If you've concluded that your religious beliefs are illogical and immoral, I don't see how fear of hell could keep you religious (and obviously it didn't). I think the fear you felt was more than merely the fear of eternal hell. I'm guessing more likely it was (at least subconsciously) something more close to home; fear of being judged by loved ones as someone less worthy. Of course I could be wrong, but the idea of changing one's belief is scary and the mind tries to defend from it.

[Loew01]

@Acoustiic My last thought on this point; the idea of eternal hell was conceived by masses being treated unjustly as a comforting thought. Those we are too weak to defeat in life will be judged in death, and finally there will be justice. The true purpose of the idea of hell is that there is real justice in the universe. Of course, petty people use that as a threat against people who disagree with them... If there is no hell, then there is no justice, and most people's lives just suck...

[Acoustiic]

@Loew01 yes, many discussions do devolve into some version of "i heard hell's quite hot".

[Loew01]

@Acoustiic The reason it's walking a thin line is because 'child abuse' has legal ramifications. There is also a psychological definition that Dawkins is completely ignoring to serve his own purposes (unless he honestly believes that children should be taken away from their religious parents, in which case he's a nut job). Do you believe religious parents should be given jail time and denied access to their children? If not, don't call it child abuse. It's an insult to real victims...

[Loew01]

@Tarektioban Because 'pure' logic is an oxymoron.

[23codyy23]

@Tarektioban

Modern day "intelligence" doesn't have much to do with it.

It's more so knowledgeable and willing to learn.

I'm sure the narrow minded modern "Theists" are often considered intelligent, because they are well spoken and well educated in certain aspects...but they will never be knowledgeable and wise.

[Ejkseh]

@Tarektioban

hear! hear!