Infanticide? One can't really condemn God for that when the whole "eye for an eye" thing was law even in gentile nations during the time. The Pharaoh had ordered all the Hebrew infants killed a generation prior to the first Passover. At least the Egyptian firstborn died peacefully.
Besides, God can't really be singled out for that instance of infanticide--according to the Bible, people lived up to 900 years before the flood. Every natural death afterwards is infanticide by comparison!
"religions have clear laws that serve as their morals. atheists have nothing to go by"
And can you reconcile the 'morals' of various religions with your own conscience? Religions have laws and punishments (stoning, executions, etc) for trivial acts that we consider reprehensable in our modern society.
With regards to atheist morals, atheism is not a belief system. It does not define morals. It is merely a response to a claim. Buddhists are atheists. Are you claiming they lack morals?
incidentally, you have many invalid points, which i wont to address due to youtube's character limit. one that did stand out was asking if there was anything moral about "human sacrifice" and a bunch of other crap. i dont see how atheists can have morals, since morals differ from man to man, woman to woman, country to country. religions have clear laws that serve as their morals. atheists have nothing to go by other than whatever seems most popular at the time or even their own personal beliefs
@ponlaluz "religion has clear laws that SERVE as their morals" (not the same as morals are from god) These laws have changed over time. The followers agree to the laws given, and those who don't are excluded or form splinter groups that establish laws as they understand god to have set them. Isn't this going by what is popular or their "own personal beliefs"? Don't fear the atheists, fear those who believe their moral code is as infallible as their god.
@digitalHistorian i dont see why you emphasized 'served'. i resubmit my sentence to say "religions have clear divine laws as their morals" religions plural, btw, thanks for misquoting me. i dont see your point, is it that sects are a testament to the falseness of a faith? That just because they dont all agree, its proof that theyre all full of shit? are muslims idiots for not agreeing on the justification of the 9 /11 attacks? are christians dumb because they oppose the acts of the WBC?
holy fuck how many annoying fucking voices am i gonna run into in one fucking day?! ASJLF DVSJ<IASUPFODBSC<VX this has nothing to do with the vid but damn your voice is annoying.
Well, a bit of this is wrong. Hitler intended to eliminate all traditional religion from his new state, and that included Christianity, and replace them all with a kind state-centered of neo-paganism. neither the fat bearded one, nor the Irish one are entirely correct, but the fat one is a bit closer to the truth on this particular matter.
I don't see how you can call anything moral or immoral when you believe that such things are matters of opinion. There is nothing that makes one human opinion inherently more valid than another. If you are going to argue that there are moral laws which transcend humanity then you are making an argument for God.
Nazi troops referred to Jesus as the illigitmate son of a jewish whore. Catholics and Christians were oppressed in Nazi Germany, just not as much as Jews. Read Himmler, he believed the Lost City of Atlantis DID exist, but was destroyed by Christians. They preached a paganistic nordic faith.
@GProduct I don't quite understand your point...but on the topic of Nazis and Christianity..
The Vatican Church was allied with Fascism (Germany was fascist while Hitler ruled) during the time of the Nazis reign. Also, almost everyone was oppressed in Nazi Germany, hell, some people were placed in concentration camps just due to their hair colour.
And as for the "Lost City of Atlantis"...it is a Roman/Greek myth. A land mass cannot sink, land is connected to ocean's bottom: ---\__/--
I am christian and I agree with about 85% of what your saying also DO NOT take the bible literally my belief is that some 75% of it is metaphor and maybe more than that so I technically am christian but the majority of my belief is that obviously something had to initiate the big bang and I believe that something was God.
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@1tabligh So you believe things can't create themselves? So who created god? Who created the creator of god? Who created the creator of the creator of god? and so on.
@ElaborateTiger So who created god? Who created the creator of god? Who created the creator of the creator of god? and so on.
____
The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe.
@1tabligh I think you're on a weak argumentative track here. When trying to determine an explanation for something, it is not necessary or often even possible to have an explanation for the explanation, another explanation for that, and so on.
You can Google ( commonsenseatheism 6113 ) to find a more detailed covering of this point.
There are plenty of other reasons why your opponent's argument from ignorance is very poor.
@1tabligh "Something cannot come from nothing" Therefore god.
Ok, god is something, so what created god?
Oh... god is eternal? ...Well if something can be eternal, why not the universe?
Look, not understanding how something happened or works, does not equate to: "god did it". It just means that we don't know. Philosophise all you want, but THINKING of a concept does not make it reality. *God of the gaps, anyone?* And claims like "god is beyond space and time" are dishonest cop outs.
@blfry The Need of the World for One Without Need!
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
The effort to reconcile science and religion is almost always made, not by theologians, but by scientists unable to shake off altogether the piety absorbed with their mother's milk.
-- H L Mencken, Minority Report (1956), quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief
atheists too aggressive? what a joke, i know an atheist will never come to my door preaching his beliefs, yet a i get 1-2 christians a week ringing my door bell trying to push their beliefs onto others.
Fallacy #3: Christians are ridiculous for thinking they are being repressed.
Truth #3: When I see laws against bringing a Koran or a copy of The God Delusion to school, I'll believe it. Also, tearing down the Ten Commandments as Atheists are known to demand is a fundamental act of censorship. Again, a secular state is not a religion-free zone. It's merely a state where the government does not control religion. The 1st Amendment protects free speech. It doesn't explicitly condemn public religion
@nofalltoofar There are no laws against bringing the bible to school. Kids can and do set up Bible Study groups in public schools. The law simply states that school officials cannot use their position to promote any religion or use public funds to support it. This goes for ALL faith groups. Same with the courts and 10 commandments. It's about preventing money raised from ALL to prop up the religion of SOME.
@nofalltoofar The 1st Amendment protects your freedom of speech from being censored by the GOVERNMENT. It doesn't mean that your fellow citizens can't criticize you for it. Free speech means the 10 commandments can be up and atheists can publicly mock it.
@nofalltoofar "a secular state is not a religion-free zone. It's merely a state where the government does not control religion". You've got it completely backwards. Secular state means any religions are OK for individuals and organized groups, since they do not offend or violente anybody else. And it also means religion does NOT take place in public orgovernamental affairs.
@nofalltoofar you are right, a secular state is not a religious free zone, it means the government doesn't do religion.
and as for your complaints about removing the 10 commandments, if they put up scriptures from the quoran or the church of FSM, would you still defend them against removal as hard as the christian things? or would you fight for their removal?
the government cannot take sides on religion, as it has to accomdate all it's people.
Fallacy #2: Atheism is a more neutral or acceptable position due to the fact it posits a lack of belief.
Truth #2: Post-modern theory has shot more holes in this than Bambi's mother. Atheists are indeed religious and liturgical in their beliefs. Claiming that there is no unified Atheism is laughable as there is no unified concept of Jesus Christ either. It's all special pleading and absolutely ridiculous. Religious freedom isn't silence. It's cacophony, and it pisses Atheists off.
Atheism isn't a religion. It isn't a "unified" group in the same sense that Christians are unified. We are unified in the sense that we all agree on the exact same thing- there is no God. We aren't "religious" in our "beliefs" because we lack the thought of God existing.
I don't understand your second statement. I can say though that your beliefs don't "piss me off" because you should believe what you choose.
@nofalltoofar Part 2- The only thing that pisses me off is a person from a certain viewpoint being snide and rude and expecting me to convert to their beliefs. Usually when someone right out insults you I'm sure you don't feel too happy. Well, Christians do this to Atheists all the time.
We aren't pissed off by your beliefs it is just that many Christians shove their beliefs in our faces like we are supposed to just change our thoughts.
@nofalltoofar As for "it pisses Atheists off", the only thing that pisses me off about religion is it's tendency to try and enforce it's bigoted moral values on everyone else, even when they do not agree, or may even find it despicable.
Fallacy #1: Expecting somebody to have a coherent world-view which takes into account possible alternate explanations and seeks informed dissent is pointless if they haven't studied hokey ancient religions
Truth #1: The reason Christianity has survived so long under the scrutiny of scholars stems from the inherent sensibility of the text it derives its authority from. No greater philosophical work has been penned, even the plethora of texts defending it.
@nofalltoofar I will politely disagree with number one as well. The reason why Christianity has survived "so long", which isn't too long compared to Hinduism at all, is because for the majority of Christianity's history it was forced upon people and if they did not believe they would be put to death. That is fact and that is the only reason why it has lasted.
Now, Christianity still survives but without threat of death many leave it. 75% of kids leave it by the time they're 20.
@nofalltoofar Point #1: Christianity has lasted so long because it was largely spread at the tip of a sword. Not because it is so sensible, because it isn't. As of late many people are turning away from their respective faiths because it is so easy to get new information nowadays that everyone is starting to see just how antiquated religion is.
Point #2: No, Atheism is not a religion or unified in the slightest. It is merely a single statement, "I do not believe in a God".
@FOXGEAR92 But at that age and time, the tip of the sword was the only way to spread ideas. Today in some parts of the world it is the barrel of a gun.
Lol, here is something out of topic.
I don't remember being invited to the church of the Atheist, I don't believe there is one, but it is a thought, and if there is money involved, I will kindly make a church of the Atheist. Maybe it will help in cutting my taxes.
@FOXGEAR92 just to point this out very quickly, atheism's statement would be something like "I believe God doesn't exist". Your statement is a bit more agnostic. Yes, it's a simple detail, but hey, since we're at it, let's call things by their names, right? ... sure
@JSLSampaio No, because to say there's a god which someone doesn't believe in you'd first have to define god.
You can't actually do this because you'd need to prove god first.
You can't prove god, because you can't define, and so on ad infinitum…
If you happen to find some being, or constant, or force which you feel content by calling it god, you'd still have to prove that it somehow holds power over us, and explain why anyone should refer to it as god or revere as such.
Name one? Put up? EVERY atheist inherently thinks they have the answers, you can find several pretty speaking Englishmen with vids. What u dont get is to put MANS science on a pedestal & pat your backs since u have it all figured out is every bit as insane as them telling us the nonsaved goto hell. I believe in possiblities, I dont believe MAN. Bible or scientist. The sum total of our knowledge is closer to none then the absolute, faith to me is obvious,s much more is to be learned b4 assuming
@guitargold77 Sorry you're so angry, but you are also completely wrong on pretty much everything you're ranting about here. Your views are equally narrow and simple minded.
I think atheist are everybit as annoying as the far other side. They think they have all the answers. Id like to see a poll, PREDOMITELY they are, single, anal retentive, OCD riddled-see them orgainize their fruit loops by color in tupperware, extremely annoying/having to always be right, blowhards ready at a moment to tell us their story (see utube) This professor is a idiot, but he shouldnt be fuel (like the bible thmpers) for u to lionize yourselves united in your mastery of the universe
For centuries religious people intimidated, and MURDERED atheists, people in other religions, and people within their own religions, all in the name of god.
And now, after a few centuries of science and secularism redering much of religious doctrine impotent, the religious have the nerve to complian that atheists are too agressive because they SPEAK OUT (not murder) and refuse to believe this nonsense anymore? Are you kidding me?
honestley no matter what u believe or do, who gives a fuck, u should care about your life not others unless it hurts u. and hitler was using god as a way to brainwash his citezens to saying god is with us makes it sound like your doing something good even tho it may not be the case
@stempy7777 na the bible didnt do anything, its that im on the internet and not in a class room. but thats my opinion. AND LETS START THIS ARGUMENT!!!!
i think athiest are so aggressive because they need a definite reason to know they're right because deep inside they dont believe, i feel like they think they ate better than everybody
@stempy7777 how on earth do you know we "Atheists" don't believe in a God-free consciousness? you spelled 'athiest' wrong by the way. The bible made you too illiterate to have logic?
well i look at death as a combination of evoulotion and reincarnation where as soon as u die u can be reborn because every second 3 people die 5 are born which leaves two empty vessels which either generate two new people or we all started out as single celled organisms and had to work are way up the latter untill we became monkeys after you die from your monkey form then u get to the final stage which is human and once again once ur human you always remain human goerge carlin has been reborn
Hitler was Hitler, he misused religion AND science to aid his crimes. The new testament is outdated but if you look how it built on the old testament it was very progressive, and about as liberal as it could be to catch on 2000 years ago. It paved the way for the modern judicial system, and whether you like it or not prevailing western morals are built on it. Why not focus on the exploration of different atheist philosophies? Science alone does not provide a satisfactory meaning in life.
I very much enjoyed your video, it was very smartly and sharply written. That professor should really be fired for attempting to discuss historical facts without the least bit of factual evidence. Is that the caliber of professor Yale employs? Perhaps Prof. Gelernter should stick to teaching computers and let those more competent speak about religion, atheism and history. By the way the number of "holy" wars far out-number the "atheism" wars. Come to think of it I can't recall any atheism wars.
"That professor should really be fired for attempting to discuss historical facts"
He's not talking about "historical facts" at all, he's saying present Academia is hostile to Theism, will tear down even in classes where it is OFF TOPIC, and then get away with it.
""holy" wars far out-number the "atheism" wars"
And the number killed by Communist China in one "war", actually genocide, outnumbers all the "Holy wars" put together. I can cite exceptions just as well as you can.
Totally off topic.... but I love your accent..... Totally on topic: Great video, I hate how they talk about things they haven't researched or don't understand with such arrogance and call nonbelievers aggressive when we call them on it.
@Alaskaslim You jumped straight to theists and not to the creationists. I have no air of superiority because I'm an atheist, I used to be a hard core evangelical, we're all people and we're all equal regardless of beliefs. The only thing is, is that when you assert a belief and tell everyone else that it must be true, but you have NO evidence to back it up, prepare yourself for scrutiny. There is nothing wrong with correcting those that assert false/unsupported concepts.
"You jumped straight to theists and not to the creationists."
Creationists are a problem, I'm not denying that, but they are apart of the right, of Conservatives, and there is FAR MORE of liberalism, of nigh militant-secularism, in the schools.
They attack faith, and that's not right. If you're going to challenge students like that, than either let it be balance of both sides, or don't be surprised when the OTHER SIDE establishes their own schools.
I used to have an English teach, in high school mind you, who would take one side of an issue, get the entire class ont hat side, and then isntantly take the OTEHRSide and argue from that standpoint.
THAT, in my mind, is what teachers should do, not "laud" how stupid one side or the other is, but argue BOTH, make the students THINK, and then settle it for themselves.
Also, if you teach English, do not f*cking preach on environmentalism, left or right, stay on topic.
@Alaskaslim Teachers who don't teach their subject are BAD teachers, but there are English classes that focus on writing that deals with world issues, environmentalism is a world issue, it's going to come up. There are things where there just isn't an other side at the moment. Evolution, for instance, has no other option at the moment. It's the unifying theory of biology for crying out loud. Some subjects just don't have another side.
@Alaskaslim Did I say that your class was one of those classes? No, I said that there are such classes, and you didn't specify which one you were in. I also said that teachers who don't focus on their curriculum are bad teachers, it's not some liberal conspiracy. Also, the term "Darwinism" doesn't show up in any scientific journal, it only shows up in creationist claims. You need to study the theory more. I thought you were serious, but with your capslock I'm beginning to smell troll
@Alaskaslim You're quote mining and it's getting annoying now. I've already agreed that it is wrong, you're just making it wound like I'm not and I don't appreciate that. With your mention of indoctrination you're implying that it's some greater plan to do it, and not just crazy teachers, you're blaming it on liberals. No I am not proving your point about "Darwinism" as it was never a scientific standpoint. Darwin provided a lot of important info in evolution its not separate.
No, this is just my format for responding to everything, please don't take it personally, I'm not trying to imply something with it.
"you're blaming it on liberals."
I'm not "blaming" liberals, I'm saying indoctrination occurs in our schools.
When only around 15% of professors call themselves conservatives, and teachers are allowed to teach off-topic from their course, Liberalism is being taught, with virtually no counter-argument.
Darwin WAS RACIST, he tried to provide scientific backing, for WHITE SUPREMACY.
Think biologists didn't have to filter that out to get something TRULY scientific?
I'm not saying Darwin didn't contribute, he of course established the theory. I'm saying the theory, as HE envisioned it, was flawed, and has since been rendered obsolete.
That's inarguable, the very fact we don't predict people of African descent going extinct makes it so.
@Alaskaslim I presume here we fully agree: Darwinism, in the sense you use it, has no place in school curricula if detached from its own evolution. Otherwise it would not be a science course, but a history course, or a course in literature. Nonetheless, Darwin's theory has not been rendered obsolete. It's central parts (mutation, selection, adaptation) have been confirmed, over and again, even experimentally (see e.g. Manfred Eigen's "Evolution Machine"). Heard of Eigen?
His ideas for what created variations among species, was wrong, his theory of inheritance, was wrong.
Darwin wasn't much the lab scientist, he was very much the theorist, and did not do enough to verify his work. As the progenitor of the Evolutionary theory, he's overrated. Those who came after him, like Alfred Russel Wallace, did far more to develop and legitimize the theory.
@Alaskaslim To use the Physics analogy again: String theory attempts to unify quantum physics and relativity in a geometric theory. The same was done by synthetic evolution theory combining the inheritance laws of Mendel and Darwin's mutation and selection. When back in high school we started at that point. Mendel discovered the foundations of genetics, which is necessary to understand evolution.
@Alaskaslim an addition: relativity, like Darwin's theory, both are mainly phenomenological. Relativity describes what, but doesn't explain why and how (what IS gravity?). Mendel also still remains on that level (he knew no DNA). And evolution theory (like science at large) keeps evolving, parallel to our understanding of molecular biology (epigenetics being the latest trick of nature, pointing even back to Lamarckism). The school subject is "evolution theory", not "Darwinism".
I would still call this an apples to oranges to comparison.
String theory seeks to reconcile Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, without changing either, instead trying to find and define the point where they attain cohesion.
Relativity is still now what it was in 1919, our understanding in its functions has evolved, but theory itself has remained static. Evolution in PRINCIPLE is what Darwin got right, but in precise machinations, he erred. Einstein made no such error.
@Alaskaslim I use it as an analogy. Principles already are a lot in the world of complexity. In synergetics and chaos theory we often can be happy to find principles, i.e. understand the workings of a complex system, but without being able to predict its precise behavior. Nobody claims that Darwin understood the exact machinations. How could he? The messy world of Biology is different from theoretical physics in that it will always be less precise.
"Nobody claims that Darwin understood the exact machinations."
Einstein understood those of his, hence why the comparison is off. When noting the position of stars at the edge of the sun, calculating their deflection, his predictions had to be, and were, entirely accurate, to the degree it took several decades to realize just how accurate, while his contemporaries argued bias and error. Einstein's theory was merely justified over time, while Darwin's had to be adjusted & fixed.
@Alaskaslim That is a new angle for me. From where do you derive that Charles Darwin was a racist? As far as I know he even questioned the validity of the race concept and assumed that there is only one human species. Quite progressive for his time. "Race" in general is a very fuzzy concept, biologically. I think it is truly far fetched to call Darwin a racist. If I am to guess, that claim has a political/ideological foundation.
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."
Racism? I couldn't say.
"The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
@Alaskaslim As I said: his theory is phenomenological. As much of Zoology was back then (and was, until quite recently). That considred, it is understandable that morphologically he considered an Aborigine closer to a Gorilla than one of his pale English contemporaries. He doesn't judge but mainly talks about the widening gap between species, in this case resulting from wiping out the great apes. Which is happening. He anticpipated it right.
@Alaskaslim if I read "savage races" as "indigenous cultures", he was right again: Western money culture is wiping out everything else. Again: he intended no judgement, I presume. But he did judge the Caucasian (Western?) culture: "(...) for it (the future gapbreak between species) will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian (...)". I see no racism. Auto racism at best.
"Western money culture is wiping out everything else."
... This seems as if you make no distinction between a cultural death, and a physical death, and the latter was certainly what Darwin was referring to.
@Alaskaslim Is there really that much of a difference? Doesn't "the West" use brutal force to achieve its goals? Didn't imported infectious diseases kill off much of the indigenous populations in the Americas and Polynesia? And we also see healthy interbreeding of members from many cultures and ethnic groups. In the long run the gene pool will be such that the current so called "races" all will have seized to exist. His "more civilized state" may well refer to our inner nature.
Yes there is, there are more Inuits right now in the Northwest than there have ever been, there are slightly more Native American overall than there were in the 1600s.
Disease killed many off, but it didn't kill all of them off, and they've since more replenished their numbers.
Darwin was wrong, I haven't kept tabs for South America, I believe it's the same for the Australian Aborigines, but I know he's wrong here.
@Alaskaslim Could be. But considering that many argue that there is, after all, only one human race (genetic differences between alleged "races", as far as I recall, are less than between any two unrelated individuals within any so called race.) And if we had no biological foundation for the "race" concept, we'd be back to cultures. And cultures are dying. I presume Darwin had a very fuzzy - if not shallow - concept of the difference between culture and race.
Yes there is, there are more Inuits right now in the Northwest than there have ever been, there are slightly more Native American overall than there were in the 1600s.
Disease killed many off, but it didn't kill all of them off, and they've since more replenished their numbers.
Darwin was wrong, I haven't kept tabs for South America, I believe it's the same for the Australian Aborigines, but I know he's wrong here.
Yes there is, there are more Inuits right now in the Northwest than there have ever been, there are slightly more Native American overall than there were in the 1600s.
Disease killed many off, but it didn't kill all of them off, and they've since more replenished their numbers.
Darwin was wrong, I haven't kept tabs for South America, I believe it's the same for the Australian Aborigines, but I know he's wrong here.
@Alaskaslim As WIkipedia points out: "(...) in the United States, the term "Darwinism" is often used by creationists as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as atheistic naturalism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a short hand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, evolution by natural selection." Mind you: relativity theory also looks different now than 90 years ago, yet Einstein was right.
@Alaskaslim Einstein never "measured the solar eclipse". It was the precession of Mercuries Perihelion that was measured. But my analogy points at something else: The theory of evolution is the underlying theory for the development of all species. The foundation of biology. And it prove correct all the way to chemical evolution. Meanwhile there was no way to derive, say, QED from relativity theory. Quantum theory and relativity theory in many respects were at odds.
@Alaskaslim I am suspicious, but won't make a fuss about the partial quotes atm.
You are though, you claimed "there is FAR MORE of liberalism, of nigh militant-secularism, in the schools." that is insinuating that it's the liberals doing it.
Just because they're a minority, there is no reason to assume that they're being persecuted. If they can't back up their arguments with evidence then they will be dismissed, this goes for conservative and liberal alike.
@lilredfilmgeek here in Europe the term darwinism is actually neutral (in the UK or France)). Mainly, I guess, because we don't have much of an issue with creationists. In German it refers to "Social Darwinism".
@Alaskaslim What exactly are you trying to teach the other side to? The bible is allowed in school as literature, what more do you want without evidence to support it as anything else? Atheism does NOT equal liberal. There are conservative atheists. One of the reasons you see so many liberal atheists is that the present conservative party is trying to turn the government into a theocracy and we want to uphold the constitution.
@Alaskaslim It might be difficult to understand, but for many - if not the majority - of Western Europeans teist religion as it is found in the US is considered something of the past. An earlier stage of cultural evolution. Even most Christians over here read the bible as a collection of metaphors. The belief in a personal creator god is widely thought of as primal. Outdated. Replaced by insight & inquiry. That is not to say there is no spiritual life (in the broadest sense).
"The belief in a personal creator god is widely thought of as primal."
You're referring to Deism, that has indeed played role here. Benjamin Franklin referred to himself as such, and Thomas Jefferson expressed many Deist influences. It still permeates U.S. society, but as to Sola Scriptura, back to basics movements, I'm not surprised, many Colonists (Puritans) moved here to practice it.
@Alaskaslim I am wondering where you are actually heading. Are you mainly calling for a more balanced approach? But then again, as far as I know, there is a separation of church and state in the US. I'd say religions are cultural phenomena, and they should be treated as such. There are too many brands to treat them all equal anyway. In my Highschool time we had a class which did not teach faith, but comparative religious studies. Judaism over Islam to Buddhism. Is that okay 4 u?
Just as I said, Darwin gets too much credit and modern theory has evolved past him. I wasn't touching upon it being taught in schools, only that it is NOT an example of an subject that isn't multifaceted.
lilredfilmgeek tried to justify "oh, there's only one valid viewpoint for some subjects like Evolution". I was saying within Evolution itself, varying theories are still being proposed. I was not considering creationism.
@Alaskaslim Sure. If anything, evolution is an example of a highly complex and as yet incompletely understood process/phenomenon/field of research. I mentioned Manfred Eigen before. Evolution theory certainly has come a long way from Anaximander to Eigen. Seems like we are not far apart in this respect. I see Darwin's contribution more as a cultural than as a scientific breakthrough. Similar, perhaps, to Humboldts. And yes: Edison is (scientifically) overrated, too!
Cultural, to what respect? In recent time he's become a figure to rally behind, but in his own time, he was really just preaching to the choir, he made no great shifts within the secular culture of Britain that existed.
To see what I mean, just read this critique from the Evolutionary Psychology Journal;
epjournal . net/wp-content/uploads/ep055269 . pdf
As to Edison, I think of him as the Steve Jobs of his day, that said he also did a lot of harm, preaching for DC vs AC.
It wasn't curiosity that killed the cat - it was (blind) faith! It is highly probable that the human tendency to base actions and decisions and an entire planetary culture and society on their beliefs in things that either don't exist (e.g. God) or that are complete impossibilities (e.g. perpetual exponential economic growth) will break their neck as a species.
Right here, you just made a jab at right-wing economics, didn't you?
You just killed your own point. The problem with CONCEITED atheism, is that since they know more on some topics than people who do not bother to learn them, they think they're right about everything, and everyone else, whose not like them, is wrong by default.
@Alaskaslim Not right wing economics - classical economics in general - has been mathematically proven to be without any foundation. Aside from the fact that it largely ignores human nature by assuming humans always act "rationally". I can point out the original sources, if you are interested. It is all pretty straight forward math.
Not sure what you mean with "conceited atheism". But you seem to introduce a statement I did not make and then derive the corollary that I am wrong.
are atheists too agressive? Why the fuck does it matter? Are christians being too agressive when they raise thier bible in their hand as they scream at gays? Are christians being too agressive when they treat atheists like they're the stupid ones? Atheists are a minority and this country. WE (bc i am one) are sick of the opression of the religious folks and are letting people know, hey fuck faces, there ARE people who dont buy into your bullshit DEAL WITH IT
When polling for conservative-thinking academics, they're below 20% in most institutions, that INCLUDES people with spiritual beliefs.
It's one thing to argue public representation, but that's not the point, it's the realm of ACADEMIA, and there religion IS under attack, and people are primarily scoffed at when they try to defend it. And why? Because the other side is the majority.
@motorheadbanger90 You know who are the aggressive ones? The extremists of any belief. Weather it be the terrorists of Islam, the fundamentalist Christians, or even the crusading atheists. We are all human, and deep down inside we all want to live in peace. We just need to follow that instinct, and learn to see past each others difference. Because I agree that we will never have peace if we want everyone to conform to a certain viewpoint. From, a friendly Roman Catholic.
Listen to me atheists! You will go to HELL. Believe or not, God exists, hell is real. If you don't believe the existence of him, he will send you to hell. You will BURN IN THE LAKE OF THE FIRE ETERNALLY!! No one will help you. Now! Evolution is a GREAT LIE! Science is a liberal conspiracy. Scientists are satanic atheists who wants to destroy our values. No matter what you think. Hell is REAL! Believe before you die, or burn in hell. God will NEVER forgive you!
As for his students knowing the Bible, I again think you misstate; he is obviously referring to those people who comment on the Bible and religion as if they are knowledgeable, when in fact they very rarely are.
@blfry Firstly, [citation needed]. Secondly, I never said atheists know nothing about religion; I said quite often, in my experience, atheists who talk about the Bible know very little about it, especially not by any scholarly standard. "I've seen this verse quoted" doesn't make one a knowledgeable commentator on religion, which is often what it comes down to - a cheap "Aha!".
@blfry Also, FWIW, loudmouth theists, like loudmouth atheists, who try to tell everyone else what the Bible says (often to twist it to their own ends that have nothing to do with the Bible), often have no clue what they are talking about.
@Alaskaslim YT won't let me link it, but if you look it up with the pew research center, you'll see information to back up blfry's claim. If you want, I can link it in a personal message.
"you'll see information to back up blfry's claim."
Do so, but let be clear, it has to prove superior knowledge of the compared theist's own faith, not just on religion in general.
If it does not make that distinction, do not bother. If it's just simply knowing religions in general, that's no different than saying they're more "multi-culture affluent".
@TheCirkusklown One profesional poll and study performed by: "Pew Research Center" ....for starters.
You could also just google "Atheists agnostics score religious tests"
Funny thing about most religions, is that they tend to strongly discourage things like questioning, reason, free thinking and often education in general.
There has also been shown to be a dirrect correlation between education and religious belief. Generally the more of the former, the less there is of the later.
@blfry That study also shows that a majority of the mormons and the jews know their stuff so I don't really know what your point is. Atheists may "know" the bible but often times they are guilty of cherry picking and the pushing the literal translations of the passages to make their case which is just as bad as any fundie christian.
@TheCirkusklown My post was in responce to a guy stating that atheists do not know anything about religion, so they basically have no right to comment about it.
"Cherry picking" is something that almost every religious person does in spades when it comes to what they choose to believe, and what they choose to ignore. But if the bible is literal and true, then it should ALL be fair game to question, and point out the flaws.
Unless it isn't all true... but if that's so, why believe it?
@saberswordsmen1 Actually, nonbelievers are some of the most well versed people when it comes to religious doctrine. You see, most of us weren't born that way, many started out with religious backgrounds in one religion and then learned about others as well. Some were always atheists and read about other religions because they find it fascinating. I'm not saying that all atheists are thoughtful, well read, and not arrogant (I'm some are asshats), but many are.
@lilredfilmgeek I'm sure many are, as I've met and are good friends with some. But those who speak the loudest about the issue, on either side, tend to be the least knowledgeable.
I think you are fighting straw men here. He never said the lack of practicing a religion was suppressing religion, I think he's referring to the fact that it can be very hard to be an academic and openly practice religion without being attacked. In the very responses to the video you reference, there was a great call to have his credentials stripped. That, in my experience, is unfortunately true.
@notinmyname2050 What? An atheist who wants to correct himself and grow? And here I thought we were all trying to close ourselves off and prey on ignorance. ;)
How did he get equal billing? I also like crusading atheism by an American wtf
josepejv 2 hours ago
Infanticide? One can't really condemn God for that when the whole "eye for an eye" thing was law even in gentile nations during the time. The Pharaoh had ordered all the Hebrew infants killed a generation prior to the first Passover. At least the Egyptian firstborn died peacefully.
Besides, God can't really be singled out for that instance of infanticide--according to the Bible, people lived up to 900 years before the flood. Every natural death afterwards is infanticide by comparison!
N3bu14Gr4y 11 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"religions have clear laws that serve as their morals. atheists have nothing to go by"
And can you reconcile the 'morals' of various religions with your own conscience? Religions have laws and punishments (stoning, executions, etc) for trivial acts that we consider reprehensable in our modern society.
With regards to atheist morals, atheism is not a belief system. It does not define morals. It is merely a response to a claim. Buddhists are atheists. Are you claiming they lack morals?
Diomedes01 15 hours ago
incidentally, you have many invalid points, which i wont to address due to youtube's character limit. one that did stand out was asking if there was anything moral about "human sacrifice" and a bunch of other crap. i dont see how atheists can have morals, since morals differ from man to man, woman to woman, country to country. religions have clear laws that serve as their morals. atheists have nothing to go by other than whatever seems most popular at the time or even their own personal beliefs
ponlaluz 15 hours ago
@ponlaluz "religion has clear laws that SERVE as their morals" (not the same as morals are from god) These laws have changed over time. The followers agree to the laws given, and those who don't are excluded or form splinter groups that establish laws as they understand god to have set them. Isn't this going by what is popular or their "own personal beliefs"? Don't fear the atheists, fear those who believe their moral code is as infallible as their god.
digitalHistorian 13 hours ago
@digitalHistorian i dont see why you emphasized 'served'. i resubmit my sentence to say "religions have clear divine laws as their morals" religions plural, btw, thanks for misquoting me. i dont see your point, is it that sects are a testament to the falseness of a faith? That just because they dont all agree, its proof that theyre all full of shit? are muslims idiots for not agreeing on the justification of the 9 /11 attacks? are christians dumb because they oppose the acts of the WBC?
ponlaluz 12 hours ago
holy fuck how many annoying fucking voices am i gonna run into in one fucking day?! ASJLF DVSJ<IASUPFODBSC<VX this has nothing to do with the vid but damn your voice is annoying.
ponlaluz 15 hours ago
Mitchell and Webb! :D
puresatire 18 hours ago
Well, a bit of this is wrong. Hitler intended to eliminate all traditional religion from his new state, and that included Christianity, and replace them all with a kind state-centered of neo-paganism. neither the fat bearded one, nor the Irish one are entirely correct, but the fat one is a bit closer to the truth on this particular matter.
pupplepeak 20 hours ago
damn so i can't be a biologist and a catholic lol?
suckmyvenom 1 day ago
I don't see how you can call anything moral or immoral when you believe that such things are matters of opinion. There is nothing that makes one human opinion inherently more valid than another. If you are going to argue that there are moral laws which transcend humanity then you are making an argument for God.
jmsnooks 1 day ago
I'm a (quietly) Crusading Atheist, and proud of it.
50zcarsman 1 day ago
I saw the picture of the Celtic God and screamed out loud "DAGDA THE GOOD!" In a really weird voice. It was really fun.
GuyCrazyGuy 1 day ago
No, too few atheists actually take any action.
I would be surprised if even 10% of viewers on here were even members of their local/national atheist/secular groups.
trixapete 1 day ago
Love his Scottish brogue.
GarlicPudding 1 day ago
@GarlicPudding Whoops, meant Irish.
GarlicPudding 1 day ago
This is a well done video. Good job! :)
DUBrayton 1 day ago
Oh I got it, he is being sarcastic.
rustedromeo 2 days ago
Nazi troops referred to Jesus as the illigitmate son of a jewish whore. Catholics and Christians were oppressed in Nazi Germany, just not as much as Jews. Read Himmler, he believed the Lost City of Atlantis DID exist, but was destroyed by Christians. They preached a paganistic nordic faith.
GProduct 2 days ago
@GProduct I don't quite understand your point...but on the topic of Nazis and Christianity..
The Vatican Church was allied with Fascism (Germany was fascist while Hitler ruled) during the time of the Nazis reign. Also, almost everyone was oppressed in Nazi Germany, hell, some people were placed in concentration camps just due to their hair colour.
And as for the "Lost City of Atlantis"...it is a Roman/Greek myth. A land mass cannot sink, land is connected to ocean's bottom: ---\__/--
pangexp 1 day ago
Excellent video.
mythicalhell 3 days ago
I am christian and I agree with about 85% of what your saying also DO NOT take the bible literally my belief is that some 75% of it is metaphor and maybe more than that so I technically am christian but the majority of my belief is that obviously something had to initiate the big bang and I believe that something was God.
bbjbbj4 3 days ago
@bbjbbj4 why pick and choose between what you believe, if the bible is god's word, then surely it's all true?
cloudycolacorp 3 days ago
I think that ugly beard is sucking the intelligence out of his brain...
Elc22 3 days ago
The atheist Delusion!
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 4 days ago
@1tabligh you again!
yes no scientist can say we wernt made, but NO ONE can see we were!
azmanabdula 3 days ago
@1tabligh So you believe things can't create themselves? So who created god? Who created the creator of god? Who created the creator of the creator of god? and so on.
ElaborateTiger 3 days ago
@ElaborateTiger So who created god? Who created the creator of god? Who created the creator of the creator of god? and so on.
____
The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe.
1tabligh 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh I think you're on a weak argumentative track here. When trying to determine an explanation for something, it is not necessary or often even possible to have an explanation for the explanation, another explanation for that, and so on.
You can Google ( commonsenseatheism 6113 ) to find a more detailed covering of this point.
There are plenty of other reasons why your opponent's argument from ignorance is very poor.
IamBHM 2 days ago
@ElaborateTiger Then we have to deny the existence of the universe. We would also have to deny ourselves because we are a part of the universe.
But you say to yourself: I cannot do that because I am here. Then you have to say: God is there.
His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence!
1tabligh 3 days ago
@1tabligh "Something cannot come from nothing" Therefore god.
Ok, god is something, so what created god?
Oh... god is eternal? ...Well if something can be eternal, why not the universe?
Look, not understanding how something happened or works, does not equate to: "god did it". It just means that we don't know. Philosophise all you want, but THINKING of a concept does not make it reality. *God of the gaps, anyone?* And claims like "god is beyond space and time" are dishonest cop outs.
blfry 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blfry The Need of the World for One Without Need!
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
1tabligh 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ElaborateTiger **causeless cause** **causeless cause** **causeless cause** **causeless cause**
1tabligh 3 days ago
The effort to reconcile science and religion is almost always made, not by theologians, but by scientists unable to shake off altogether the piety absorbed with their mother's milk.
-- H L Mencken, Minority Report (1956), quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief
PikPobedy 4 days ago
atheists too aggressive? what a joke, i know an atheist will never come to my door preaching his beliefs, yet a i get 1-2 christians a week ringing my door bell trying to push their beliefs onto others.
thedecoy99 4 days ago
@thedecoy99 where do you live, this way i won't move there.
natesdevices 4 days ago
Fallacy #3: Christians are ridiculous for thinking they are being repressed.
Truth #3: When I see laws against bringing a Koran or a copy of The God Delusion to school, I'll believe it. Also, tearing down the Ten Commandments as Atheists are known to demand is a fundamental act of censorship. Again, a secular state is not a religion-free zone. It's merely a state where the government does not control religion. The 1st Amendment protects free speech. It doesn't explicitly condemn public religion
nofalltoofar 6 days ago
@nofalltoofar There are no laws against bringing the bible to school. Kids can and do set up Bible Study groups in public schools. The law simply states that school officials cannot use their position to promote any religion or use public funds to support it. This goes for ALL faith groups. Same with the courts and 10 commandments. It's about preventing money raised from ALL to prop up the religion of SOME.
notinmyname2050 6 days ago 34
@nofalltoofar The 1st Amendment protects your freedom of speech from being censored by the GOVERNMENT. It doesn't mean that your fellow citizens can't criticize you for it. Free speech means the 10 commandments can be up and atheists can publicly mock it.
proprodigySD 5 days ago
@nofalltoofar "a secular state is not a religion-free zone. It's merely a state where the government does not control religion". You've got it completely backwards. Secular state means any religions are OK for individuals and organized groups, since they do not offend or violente anybody else. And it also means religion does NOT take place in public orgovernamental affairs.
excelente81 3 days ago
@nofalltoofar you are right, a secular state is not a religious free zone, it means the government doesn't do religion.
and as for your complaints about removing the 10 commandments, if they put up scriptures from the quoran or the church of FSM, would you still defend them against removal as hard as the christian things? or would you fight for their removal?
the government cannot take sides on religion, as it has to accomdate all it's people.
skjoldfetter 1 day ago
Fallacy #2: Atheism is a more neutral or acceptable position due to the fact it posits a lack of belief.
Truth #2: Post-modern theory has shot more holes in this than Bambi's mother. Atheists are indeed religious and liturgical in their beliefs. Claiming that there is no unified Atheism is laughable as there is no unified concept of Jesus Christ either. It's all special pleading and absolutely ridiculous. Religious freedom isn't silence. It's cacophony, and it pisses Atheists off.
nofalltoofar 6 days ago
@nofalltoofar I'm replying to Fallacy number 2.
Atheism isn't a religion. It isn't a "unified" group in the same sense that Christians are unified. We are unified in the sense that we all agree on the exact same thing- there is no God. We aren't "religious" in our "beliefs" because we lack the thought of God existing.
I don't understand your second statement. I can say though that your beliefs don't "piss me off" because you should believe what you choose.
Justinisinthebuildin 6 days ago
@nofalltoofar Part 2- The only thing that pisses me off is a person from a certain viewpoint being snide and rude and expecting me to convert to their beliefs. Usually when someone right out insults you I'm sure you don't feel too happy. Well, Christians do this to Atheists all the time.
We aren't pissed off by your beliefs it is just that many Christians shove their beliefs in our faces like we are supposed to just change our thoughts.
Justinisinthebuildin 6 days ago
@nofalltoofar As for "it pisses Atheists off", the only thing that pisses me off about religion is it's tendency to try and enforce it's bigoted moral values on everyone else, even when they do not agree, or may even find it despicable.
FOXGEAR92 4 days ago 2
Fallacy #1: Expecting somebody to have a coherent world-view which takes into account possible alternate explanations and seeks informed dissent is pointless if they haven't studied hokey ancient religions
Truth #1: The reason Christianity has survived so long under the scrutiny of scholars stems from the inherent sensibility of the text it derives its authority from. No greater philosophical work has been penned, even the plethora of texts defending it.
nofalltoofar 6 days ago
@nofalltoofar I will politely disagree with number one as well. The reason why Christianity has survived "so long", which isn't too long compared to Hinduism at all, is because for the majority of Christianity's history it was forced upon people and if they did not believe they would be put to death. That is fact and that is the only reason why it has lasted.
Now, Christianity still survives but without threat of death many leave it. 75% of kids leave it by the time they're 20.
Justinisinthebuildin 6 days ago
@nofalltoofar Point #1: Christianity has lasted so long because it was largely spread at the tip of a sword. Not because it is so sensible, because it isn't. As of late many people are turning away from their respective faiths because it is so easy to get new information nowadays that everyone is starting to see just how antiquated religion is.
Point #2: No, Atheism is not a religion or unified in the slightest. It is merely a single statement, "I do not believe in a God".
FOXGEAR92 4 days ago 15
@FOXGEAR92 But at that age and time, the tip of the sword was the only way to spread ideas. Today in some parts of the world it is the barrel of a gun.
Lol, here is something out of topic.
I don't remember being invited to the church of the Atheist, I don't believe there is one, but it is a thought, and if there is money involved, I will kindly make a church of the Atheist. Maybe it will help in cutting my taxes.
villalba874 4 days ago
@FOXGEAR92 just to point this out very quickly, atheism's statement would be something like "I believe God doesn't exist". Your statement is a bit more agnostic. Yes, it's a simple detail, but hey, since we're at it, let's call things by their names, right? ... sure
JSLSampaio 9 hours ago
@JSLSampaio No, because to say there's a god which someone doesn't believe in you'd first have to define god.
You can't actually do this because you'd need to prove god first.
You can't prove god, because you can't define, and so on ad infinitum…
If you happen to find some being, or constant, or force which you feel content by calling it god, you'd still have to prove that it somehow holds power over us, and explain why anyone should refer to it as god or revere as such.
Ebvardh 8 hours ago
@Ebvardh This is why I identify myself as an Ignostic. (no, not Agnostic... Ignostic.)
honorific88 6 hours ago
@honorific88 Yeah, well in theory this is how all debates on the existence of god should go on like, but then I guess there would be no such debates.
Ebvardh 6 hours ago
very cool voice dude.
runehwa 6 days ago in playlist Most Popular
You answer the question quite nicely. Yes they are.
randyzabel66 6 days ago
Name one? Put up? EVERY atheist inherently thinks they have the answers, you can find several pretty speaking Englishmen with vids. What u dont get is to put MANS science on a pedestal & pat your backs since u have it all figured out is every bit as insane as them telling us the nonsaved goto hell. I believe in possiblities, I dont believe MAN. Bible or scientist. The sum total of our knowledge is closer to none then the absolute, faith to me is obvious,s much more is to be learned b4 assuming
guitargold77 6 days ago
@guitargold77 Sorry you're so angry, but you are also completely wrong on pretty much everything you're ranting about here. Your views are equally narrow and simple minded.
Name one what, and put up what, by the way?
blfry 6 days ago
I think atheist are everybit as annoying as the far other side. They think they have all the answers. Id like to see a poll, PREDOMITELY they are, single, anal retentive, OCD riddled-see them orgainize their fruit loops by color in tupperware, extremely annoying/having to always be right, blowhards ready at a moment to tell us their story (see utube) This professor is a idiot, but he shouldnt be fuel (like the bible thmpers) for u to lionize yourselves united in your mastery of the universe
guitargold77 6 days ago
@guitargold77 Not all atheists are like that.
hjklhjklhjkl2008 6 days ago
For centuries religious people intimidated, and MURDERED atheists, people in other religions, and people within their own religions, all in the name of god.
And now, after a few centuries of science and secularism redering much of religious doctrine impotent, the religious have the nerve to complian that atheists are too agressive because they SPEAK OUT (not murder) and refuse to believe this nonsense anymore? Are you kidding me?
Anyway, Good video
DcEatsItsYoung 6 days ago
2:01 (the description on the bible) ... "And misspelling the word extreme"
MasterChieeff 6 days ago
honestley no matter what u believe or do, who gives a fuck, u should care about your life not others unless it hurts u. and hitler was using god as a way to brainwash his citezens to saying god is with us makes it sound like your doing something good even tho it may not be the case
stempy7777 1 week ago
@stempy7777 na the bible didnt do anything, its that im on the internet and not in a class room. but thats my opinion. AND LETS START THIS ARGUMENT!!!!
stempy7777 6 days ago
i think athiest are so aggressive because they need a definite reason to know they're right because deep inside they dont believe, i feel like they think they ate better than everybody
stempy7777 1 week ago
@stempy7777 how on earth do you know we "Atheists" don't believe in a God-free consciousness? you spelled 'athiest' wrong by the way. The bible made you too illiterate to have logic?
runehwa 1 week ago
David Gelernter does a good job of describing the aggressiveness of religions, awesome hypocrisy there.
Owadatsumi 1 week ago
Holy Zeus! I love your accent!
Shenson 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
well i look at death as a combination of evoulotion and reincarnation where as soon as u die u can be reborn because every second 3 people die 5 are born which leaves two empty vessels which either generate two new people or we all started out as single celled organisms and had to work are way up the latter untill we became monkeys after you die from your monkey form then u get to the final stage which is human and once again once ur human you always remain human goerge carlin has been reborn
1mcashinrs 1 week ago
Organised religion belittles, denigrates and disparages every value that makes us human
akanippy 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitler was Hitler, he misused religion AND science to aid his crimes. The new testament is outdated but if you look how it built on the old testament it was very progressive, and about as liberal as it could be to catch on 2000 years ago. It paved the way for the modern judicial system, and whether you like it or not prevailing western morals are built on it. Why not focus on the exploration of different atheist philosophies? Science alone does not provide a satisfactory meaning in life.
fookfocketyfookfook 1 week ago
Your self-imposed ignorance and hypocrisy is utterly amazing, and makes any intelligent response to what you say hardly worth the time.
tlstout65 1 week ago
I very much enjoyed your video, it was very smartly and sharply written. That professor should really be fired for attempting to discuss historical facts without the least bit of factual evidence. Is that the caliber of professor Yale employs? Perhaps Prof. Gelernter should stick to teaching computers and let those more competent speak about religion, atheism and history. By the way the number of "holy" wars far out-number the "atheism" wars. Come to think of it I can't recall any atheism wars.
Fellini20 1 week ago
@Fellin
"That professor should really be fired for attempting to discuss historical facts"
He's not talking about "historical facts" at all, he's saying present Academia is hostile to Theism, will tear down even in classes where it is OFF TOPIC, and then get away with it.
""holy" wars far out-number the "atheism" wars"
And the number killed by Communist China in one "war", actually genocide, outnumbers all the "Holy wars" put together. I can cite exceptions just as well as you can.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
Totally off topic.... but I love your accent..... Totally on topic: Great video, I hate how they talk about things they haven't researched or don't understand with such arrogance and call nonbelievers aggressive when we call them on it.
lilredfilmgeek 1 week ago
@lilredfilmgeek
"things they haven't researched or don't understand "
This man is a Yale professor, he LIVES it, he's not under any delusion, he's SEEN it happen, EXPERIENCED it first hand the VERY thing he talks about.
"call nonbelievers aggressive"
In academic circles, they are, and it's disgraceful. People like you assume a natural position of superiority, and it makes me laugh.
You're not smarter than theists, you still screw up or say stupid things, 9/11 truthers anyone?
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@Alaskaslim You jumped straight to theists and not to the creationists. I have no air of superiority because I'm an atheist, I used to be a hard core evangelical, we're all people and we're all equal regardless of beliefs. The only thing is, is that when you assert a belief and tell everyone else that it must be true, but you have NO evidence to back it up, prepare yourself for scrutiny. There is nothing wrong with correcting those that assert false/unsupported concepts.
lilredfilmgeek 1 week ago
@lilredfilmgeek
"You jumped straight to theists and not to the creationists."
Creationists are a problem, I'm not denying that, but they are apart of the right, of Conservatives, and there is FAR MORE of liberalism, of nigh militant-secularism, in the schools.
They attack faith, and that's not right. If you're going to challenge students like that, than either let it be balance of both sides, or don't be surprised when the OTHER SIDE establishes their own schools.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@Alaskaslim
I used to have an English teach, in high school mind you, who would take one side of an issue, get the entire class ont hat side, and then isntantly take the OTEHRSide and argue from that standpoint.
THAT, in my mind, is what teachers should do, not "laud" how stupid one side or the other is, but argue BOTH, make the students THINK, and then settle it for themselves.
Also, if you teach English, do not f*cking preach on environmentalism, left or right, stay on topic.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@Alaskaslim Teachers who don't teach their subject are BAD teachers, but there are English classes that focus on writing that deals with world issues, environmentalism is a world issue, it's going to come up. There are things where there just isn't an other side at the moment. Evolution, for instance, has no other option at the moment. It's the unifying theory of biology for crying out loud. Some subjects just don't have another side.
lilredfilmgeek 1 week ago
@lilredfilmgeek *sorry, is the only accepted explanation at the moment*
lilredfilmgeek 1 week ago
@lilredfilm
"but there are English classes that focus on writing that deals with world issues, "
I encountered this in my Compositional essay class, the teacher screened "Inconvenient Truth".
There's no way to defend that, it's indoctrination on a subject sans English.
"Evolution, for instance, has no other option at the moment."
Bullsh*t, there are VARYING interpretations of Evolution, what, do you think DAWRINISM is the prevailing theory? Of course you don't, it's obsolete.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@Alaskaslim
Darwinism, excuse me.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@Alaskaslim Did I say that your class was one of those classes? No, I said that there are such classes, and you didn't specify which one you were in. I also said that teachers who don't focus on their curriculum are bad teachers, it's not some liberal conspiracy. Also, the term "Darwinism" doesn't show up in any scientific journal, it only shows up in creationist claims. You need to study the theory more. I thought you were serious, but with your capslock I'm beginning to smell troll
lilredfilmgeek 1 week ago
@lilredfilmgeek
"Did I say that your class was one of those classes?"
That's irrelevant, for it has always been MY point, and I brought it up.
Teachers who have no business talking on a subject, do so anyway, and typically it's only from one standpoint, and that's WRONG.
"it's not some liberal conspiracy."
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, I'm saying it's something taken for granted, and it shouldn't be.
"the term "Darwinism" "
You just proved my point, it's obsolete.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@Alaskaslim You're quote mining and it's getting annoying now. I've already agreed that it is wrong, you're just making it wound like I'm not and I don't appreciate that. With your mention of indoctrination you're implying that it's some greater plan to do it, and not just crazy teachers, you're blaming it on liberals. No I am not proving your point about "Darwinism" as it was never a scientific standpoint. Darwin provided a lot of important info in evolution its not separate.
lilredfilmgeek 1 week ago
@lilredfilmgeek
"You're quote mining"
No, this is just my format for responding to everything, please don't take it personally, I'm not trying to imply something with it.
"you're blaming it on liberals."
I'm not "blaming" liberals, I'm saying indoctrination occurs in our schools.
When only around 15% of professors call themselves conservatives, and teachers are allowed to teach off-topic from their course, Liberalism is being taught, with virtually no counter-argument.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@Alaskaslim
"Darwin provided a lot of important info in evolution its not separate."
Darwin also provided a lot of bullsh*t intermixed with his theories.
He tried to supplant a scientific basis, for white supremacy.
Much of the modern interpretation for "natural selection", didn't come about until far later.
Darwin's own original variant was able to explain micro-scale examples, but could not explain gross evolution, which is still the subject today.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@Alaskaslim I'm going to PM you some links about so called "darwinism" and good links about evolution, and what Darwin actually contributed.
lilredfilmgeek 1 week ago
@lilredfilmgeek
Need I repeat myself?
Darwin WAS RACIST, he tried to provide scientific backing, for WHITE SUPREMACY.
Think biologists didn't have to filter that out to get something TRULY scientific?
I'm not saying Darwin didn't contribute, he of course established the theory. I'm saying the theory, as HE envisioned it, was flawed, and has since been rendered obsolete.
That's inarguable, the very fact we don't predict people of African descent going extinct makes it so.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@Alaskaslim I presume here we fully agree: Darwinism, in the sense you use it, has no place in school curricula if detached from its own evolution. Otherwise it would not be a science course, but a history course, or a course in literature. Nonetheless, Darwin's theory has not been rendered obsolete. It's central parts (mutation, selection, adaptation) have been confirmed, over and again, even experimentally (see e.g. Manfred Eigen's "Evolution Machine"). Heard of Eigen?
Buntrabe 1 week ago
@Buntrabe
Darwin's Theory, as he envisioned it, was wrong.
His ideas for what created variations among species, was wrong, his theory of inheritance, was wrong.
Darwin wasn't much the lab scientist, he was very much the theorist, and did not do enough to verify his work. As the progenitor of the Evolutionary theory, he's overrated. Those who came after him, like Alfred Russel Wallace, did far more to develop and legitimize the theory.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@Alaskaslim To use the Physics analogy again: String theory attempts to unify quantum physics and relativity in a geometric theory. The same was done by synthetic evolution theory combining the inheritance laws of Mendel and Darwin's mutation and selection. When back in high school we started at that point. Mendel discovered the foundations of genetics, which is necessary to understand evolution.
Buntrabe 1 week ago
@Alaskaslim an addition: relativity, like Darwin's theory, both are mainly phenomenological. Relativity describes what, but doesn't explain why and how (what IS gravity?). Mendel also still remains on that level (he knew no DNA). And evolution theory (like science at large) keeps evolving, parallel to our understanding of molecular biology (epigenetics being the latest trick of nature, pointing even back to Lamarckism). The school subject is "evolution theory", not "Darwinism".
Buntrabe 1 week ago
@Buntrabe
I would still call this an apples to oranges to comparison.
String theory seeks to reconcile Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, without changing either, instead trying to find and define the point where they attain cohesion.
Relativity is still now what it was in 1919, our understanding in its functions has evolved, but theory itself has remained static. Evolution in PRINCIPLE is what Darwin got right, but in precise machinations, he erred. Einstein made no such error.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@Alaskaslim
Our evolving understanding of Relativity came from simply applying it, and see what it does.
Evolution was that, and work out the erroneous base assumptions/data.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@Alaskaslim I use it as an analogy. Principles already are a lot in the world of complexity. In synergetics and chaos theory we often can be happy to find principles, i.e. understand the workings of a complex system, but without being able to predict its precise behavior. Nobody claims that Darwin understood the exact machinations. How could he? The messy world of Biology is different from theoretical physics in that it will always be less precise.
Buntrabe 1 week ago
@Buntr
"Nobody claims that Darwin understood the exact machinations."
Einstein understood those of his, hence why the comparison is off. When noting the position of stars at the edge of the sun, calculating their deflection, his predictions had to be, and were, entirely accurate, to the degree it took several decades to realize just how accurate, while his contemporaries argued bias and error. Einstein's theory was merely justified over time, while Darwin's had to be adjusted & fixed.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@Alaskaslim That is a new angle for me. From where do you derive that Charles Darwin was a racist? As far as I know he even questioned the validity of the race concept and assumed that there is only one human species. Quite progressive for his time. "Race" in general is a very fuzzy concept, biologically. I think it is truly far fetched to call Darwin a racist. If I am to guess, that claim has a political/ideological foundation.
Buntrabe 1 week ago
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."
Racism? I couldn't say.
"The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
No idea.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@Alaskaslim As I said: his theory is phenomenological. As much of Zoology was back then (and was, until quite recently). That considred, it is understandable that morphologically he considered an Aborigine closer to a Gorilla than one of his pale English contemporaries. He doesn't judge but mainly talks about the widening gap between species, in this case resulting from wiping out the great apes. Which is happening. He anticpipated it right.
Buntrabe 1 week ago
@Buntrabe
"in this case resulting from wiping out the great apes."
And the "savage races" as he put it.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@Alaskaslim if I read "savage races" as "indigenous cultures", he was right again: Western money culture is wiping out everything else. Again: he intended no judgement, I presume. But he did judge the Caucasian (Western?) culture: "(...) for it (the future gapbreak between species) will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian (...)". I see no racism. Auto racism at best.
Buntrabe 1 week ago
@Buntrabe
"Western money culture is wiping out everything else."
... This seems as if you make no distinction between a cultural death, and a physical death, and the latter was certainly what Darwin was referring to.
Racism, I'm not going to split hairs on that.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@Alaskaslim Is there really that much of a difference? Doesn't "the West" use brutal force to achieve its goals? Didn't imported infectious diseases kill off much of the indigenous populations in the Americas and Polynesia? And we also see healthy interbreeding of members from many cultures and ethnic groups. In the long run the gene pool will be such that the current so called "races" all will have seized to exist. His "more civilized state" may well refer to our inner nature.
Buntrabe 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Buntrabe
"Is there really that much of a difference? "
Yes there is, there are more Inuits right now in the Northwest than there have ever been, there are slightly more Native American overall than there were in the 1600s.
Disease killed many off, but it didn't kill all of them off, and they've since more replenished their numbers.
Darwin was wrong, I haven't kept tabs for South America, I believe it's the same for the Australian Aborigines, but I know he's wrong here.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@Alaskaslim Could be. But considering that many argue that there is, after all, only one human race (genetic differences between alleged "races", as far as I recall, are less than between any two unrelated individuals within any so called race.) And if we had no biological foundation for the "race" concept, we'd be back to cultures. And cultures are dying. I presume Darwin had a very fuzzy - if not shallow - concept of the difference between culture and race.
Buntrabe 1 week ago
@Buntrabe
Semantics, his meaning was clear, I'm not getting into an argument over this.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Buntrabe
"Is there really that much of a difference? "
Yes there is, there are more Inuits right now in the Northwest than there have ever been, there are slightly more Native American overall than there were in the 1600s.
Disease killed many off, but it didn't kill all of them off, and they've since more replenished their numbers.
Darwin was wrong, I haven't kept tabs for South America, I believe it's the same for the Australian Aborigines, but I know he's wrong here.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Buntrabe
"Is there really that much of a difference? "
Yes there is, there are more Inuits right now in the Northwest than there have ever been, there are slightly more Native American overall than there were in the 1600s.
Disease killed many off, but it didn't kill all of them off, and they've since more replenished their numbers.
Darwin was wrong, I haven't kept tabs for South America, I believe it's the same for the Australian Aborigines, but I know he's wrong here.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@Alaskaslim As WIkipedia points out: "(...) in the United States, the term "Darwinism" is often used by creationists as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as atheistic naturalism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a short hand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, evolution by natural selection." Mind you: relativity theory also looks different now than 90 years ago, yet Einstein was right.
Buntrabe 1 week ago
@Buntrabe
"Mind you: relativity theory "
Has differed only in Minor ways, and Einstein proved its validity the moment he measured the solar eclipse in 1919. Objective, verifiable proof.
At that point it was all or nothing, 100% right, or just false. The theory he had constructed then, is the theory we have today.
Overtime, Darwin has been proven false in his understanding of Genealogy, among other areas relevant to his theory.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
Comment removed
Buntrabe 1 week ago
Comment removed
Buntrabe 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Alaskaslim Einstein never "measured the solar eclipse". It was the precession of Mercuries Perihelion that was measured. But my analogy points at something else: The theory of evolution is the underlying theory for the development of all species. The foundation of biology. And it prove correct all the way to chemical evolution. Meanwhile there was no way to derive, say, QED from relativity theory. Quantum theory and relativity theory in many respects were at odds.
Buntrabe 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Alaskaslim I am suspicious, but won't make a fuss about the partial quotes atm.
You are though, you claimed "there is FAR MORE of liberalism, of nigh militant-secularism, in the schools." that is insinuating that it's the liberals doing it.
Just because they're a minority, there is no reason to assume that they're being persecuted. If they can't back up their arguments with evidence then they will be dismissed, this goes for conservative and liberal alike.
lilredfilmgeek 1 week ago
@lilredfilmgeek
In truth, people DO in America try to bring Darwinism into academia, and scientists in Europe laugh at us for that.
Darwinism is the oldest form of Evolution, and like most theories in their earliest form, it's absolute crap.
In its place, multiple theories have arisen, there is of yet, no universal, underlying answer, only that somehow, animals change over time.
And that's my point. Within Evolution itself, there are multiple "options" as you put it.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@Alaskaslim No, there is actually some pretty solid evidence to support how and why most changes happen.
lilredfilmgeek 1 week ago
@lilredfilmgeek
... I'm not saying Evolution doesn't work, I'm saying Darwin's own theory has been replaced.
And it has. Goddamit, just look at this article our of Evolutionary Psychology Journal;
epjournal . net/wp-content/uploads/ep055269 . pdf
Sorry, but he's given too much credit, just like Thomas Edison.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@lilredfilmgeek here in Europe the term darwinism is actually neutral (in the UK or France)). Mainly, I guess, because we don't have much of an issue with creationists. In German it refers to "Social Darwinism".
Buntrabe 1 week ago
@Buntrabe Thank you for correcting me here, I corrected myself in a PM to alaskaslim, but forgot to do so here! :)
lilredfilmgeek 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Alaskaslim What exactly are you trying to teach the other side to? The bible is allowed in school as literature, what more do you want without evidence to support it as anything else? Atheism does NOT equal liberal. There are conservative atheists. One of the reasons you see so many liberal atheists is that the present conservative party is trying to turn the government into a theocracy and we want to uphold the constitution.
lilredfilmgeek 1 week ago
@Alaskaslim It might be difficult to understand, but for many - if not the majority - of Western Europeans teist religion as it is found in the US is considered something of the past. An earlier stage of cultural evolution. Even most Christians over here read the bible as a collection of metaphors. The belief in a personal creator god is widely thought of as primal. Outdated. Replaced by insight & inquiry. That is not to say there is no spiritual life (in the broadest sense).
Buntrabe 1 week ago
@Buntrabe
"It might be difficult to understand"
It's not, I implore you to not talk down to me.
"The belief in a personal creator god is widely thought of as primal."
You're referring to Deism, that has indeed played role here. Benjamin Franklin referred to himself as such, and Thomas Jefferson expressed many Deist influences. It still permeates U.S. society, but as to Sola Scriptura, back to basics movements, I'm not surprised, many Colonists (Puritans) moved here to practice it.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@Alaskaslim I am wondering where you are actually heading. Are you mainly calling for a more balanced approach? But then again, as far as I know, there is a separation of church and state in the US. I'd say religions are cultural phenomena, and they should be treated as such. There are too many brands to treat them all equal anyway. In my Highschool time we had a class which did not teach faith, but comparative religious studies. Judaism over Islam to Buddhism. Is that okay 4 u?
Buntrabe 1 week ago
@Buntrabe
"I am wondering where you are actually heading."
Just as I said, Darwin gets too much credit and modern theory has evolved past him. I wasn't touching upon it being taught in schools, only that it is NOT an example of an subject that isn't multifaceted.
lilredfilmgeek tried to justify "oh, there's only one valid viewpoint for some subjects like Evolution". I was saying within Evolution itself, varying theories are still being proposed. I was not considering creationism.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@Alaskaslim Sure. If anything, evolution is an example of a highly complex and as yet incompletely understood process/phenomenon/field of research. I mentioned Manfred Eigen before. Evolution theory certainly has come a long way from Anaximander to Eigen. Seems like we are not far apart in this respect. I see Darwin's contribution more as a cultural than as a scientific breakthrough. Similar, perhaps, to Humboldts. And yes: Edison is (scientifically) overrated, too!
Buntrabe 1 week ago
@Buntrabe
Cultural, to what respect? In recent time he's become a figure to rally behind, but in his own time, he was really just preaching to the choir, he made no great shifts within the secular culture of Britain that existed.
To see what I mean, just read this critique from the Evolutionary Psychology Journal;
epjournal . net/wp-content/uploads/ep055269 . pdf
As to Edison, I think of him as the Steve Jobs of his day, that said he also did a lot of harm, preaching for DC vs AC.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
Comment removed
lilredfilmgeek 1 week ago
It wasn't curiosity that killed the cat - it was (blind) faith! It is highly probable that the human tendency to base actions and decisions and an entire planetary culture and society on their beliefs in things that either don't exist (e.g. God) or that are complete impossibilities (e.g. perpetual exponential economic growth) will break their neck as a species.
Buntrabe 1 week ago
@Buntrabe
"(e.g. perpetual exponential economic growth) "
Right here, you just made a jab at right-wing economics, didn't you?
You just killed your own point. The problem with CONCEITED atheism, is that since they know more on some topics than people who do not bother to learn them, they think they're right about everything, and everyone else, whose not like them, is wrong by default.
That's ignorance, nothing else.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@Alaskaslim Not right wing economics - classical economics in general - has been mathematically proven to be without any foundation. Aside from the fact that it largely ignores human nature by assuming humans always act "rationally". I can point out the original sources, if you are interested. It is all pretty straight forward math.
Not sure what you mean with "conceited atheism". But you seem to introduce a statement I did not make and then derive the corollary that I am wrong.
Buntrabe 1 week ago
Fuck you and fuck your thumbnail!!!! I wanted to see penn and teller goddamn it
Dementeddizzy79 1 week ago
are atheists too agressive? Why the fuck does it matter? Are christians being too agressive when they raise thier bible in their hand as they scream at gays? Are christians being too agressive when they treat atheists like they're the stupid ones? Atheists are a minority and this country. WE (bc i am one) are sick of the opression of the religious folks and are letting people know, hey fuck faces, there ARE people who dont buy into your bullshit DEAL WITH IT
motorheadbanger90 1 week ago 15
@motorheadba
"Atheists are a minority and this country. "
In the COUNTRY, but not in Schools.
When polling for conservative-thinking academics, they're below 20% in most institutions, that INCLUDES people with spiritual beliefs.
It's one thing to argue public representation, but that's not the point, it's the realm of ACADEMIA, and there religion IS under attack, and people are primarily scoffed at when they try to defend it. And why? Because the other side is the majority.
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@motorheadbanger90 You know who are the aggressive ones? The extremists of any belief. Weather it be the terrorists of Islam, the fundamentalist Christians, or even the crusading atheists. We are all human, and deep down inside we all want to live in peace. We just need to follow that instinct, and learn to see past each others difference. Because I agree that we will never have peace if we want everyone to conform to a certain viewpoint. From, a friendly Roman Catholic.
NintendoMaster098 1 week ago
5 points at least for the Monty Python shot in an appropriate place
Raideryank88 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Listen to me atheists! You will go to HELL. Believe or not, God exists, hell is real. If you don't believe the existence of him, he will send you to hell. You will BURN IN THE LAKE OF THE FIRE ETERNALLY!! No one will help you. Now! Evolution is a GREAT LIE! Science is a liberal conspiracy. Scientists are satanic atheists who wants to destroy our values. No matter what you think. Hell is REAL! Believe before you die, or burn in hell. God will NEVER forgive you!
freandwhickquest 1 week ago
As for his students knowing the Bible, I again think you misstate; he is obviously referring to those people who comment on the Bible and religion as if they are knowledgeable, when in fact they very rarely are.
saberswordsmen1 1 week ago
@saberswordsmen1 Fun fact:
Atheists continually score higher on tests of religious knowledge, than the "faithful" people who claim to actually believe the stuff.
They're correct in saying that one of the best ways to make someone an atheist, is to have them actually read the bible.
blfry 1 week ago 8
@blfry Firstly, [citation needed]. Secondly, I never said atheists know nothing about religion; I said quite often, in my experience, atheists who talk about the Bible know very little about it, especially not by any scholarly standard. "I've seen this verse quoted" doesn't make one a knowledgeable commentator on religion, which is often what it comes down to - a cheap "Aha!".
saberswordsmen1 1 week ago
@blfry Also, FWIW, loudmouth theists, like loudmouth atheists, who try to tell everyone else what the Bible says (often to twist it to their own ends that have nothing to do with the Bible), often have no clue what they are talking about.
saberswordsmen1 1 week ago
@blfry
"Atheists continually score higher on tests of religious knowledge,"
Prove it, cite a study, further, is knowledge of OTHER religions, or religion that person practices?
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@Alaskaslim YT won't let me link it, but if you look it up with the pew research center, you'll see information to back up blfry's claim. If you want, I can link it in a personal message.
lilredfilmgeek 1 week ago
@lilredfilmgeek
"you'll see information to back up blfry's claim."
Do so, but let be clear, it has to prove superior knowledge of the compared theist's own faith, not just on religion in general.
If it does not make that distinction, do not bother. If it's just simply knowing religions in general, that's no different than saying they're more "multi-culture affluent".
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@Alaskaslim No it doesn't because that's not what we're claiming.
lilredfilmgeek 1 week ago
@lilredfilmgeek
Than what are you claiming?
Alaskaslim 1 week ago
@blfry
[citation needed]
TheCirkusklown 1 week ago
@TheCirkusklown One profesional poll and study performed by: "Pew Research Center" ....for starters.
You could also just google "Atheists agnostics score religious tests"
Funny thing about most religions, is that they tend to strongly discourage things like questioning, reason, free thinking and often education in general.
There has also been shown to be a dirrect correlation between education and religious belief. Generally the more of the former, the less there is of the later.
blfry 1 week ago
@blfry That study also shows that a majority of the mormons and the jews know their stuff so I don't really know what your point is. Atheists may "know" the bible but often times they are guilty of cherry picking and the pushing the literal translations of the passages to make their case which is just as bad as any fundie christian.
TheCirkusklown 6 days ago
Comment removed
blfry 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheCirkusklown My post was in responce to a guy stating that atheists do not know anything about religion, so they basically have no right to comment about it.
"Cherry picking" is something that almost every religious person does in spades when it comes to what they choose to believe, and what they choose to ignore. But if the bible is literal and true, then it should ALL be fair game to question, and point out the flaws.
Unless it isn't all true... but if that's so, why believe it?
blfry 6 days ago
@saberswordsmen1 Actually, nonbelievers are some of the most well versed people when it comes to religious doctrine. You see, most of us weren't born that way, many started out with religious backgrounds in one religion and then learned about others as well. Some were always atheists and read about other religions because they find it fascinating. I'm not saying that all atheists are thoughtful, well read, and not arrogant (I'm some are asshats), but many are.
lilredfilmgeek 1 week ago
@lilredfilmgeek I'm sure many are, as I've met and are good friends with some. But those who speak the loudest about the issue, on either side, tend to be the least knowledgeable.
saberswordsmen1 1 week ago
I think you are fighting straw men here. He never said the lack of practicing a religion was suppressing religion, I think he's referring to the fact that it can be very hard to be an academic and openly practice religion without being attacked. In the very responses to the video you reference, there was a great call to have his credentials stripped. That, in my experience, is unfortunately true.
saberswordsmen1 1 week ago
I'm beginning to think Big Think was trolling both the professor and its audience by having him on.
VideoMenu 1 week ago
This video almost has as many fallacies as the one he is referencing.
TheAblaisdell11 1 week ago
@TheAblaisdell11 such as? Not trying to be contrary, but having mistakes pointed out to me helps me stop from repeating them.
notinmyname2050 1 week ago 12
@notinmyname2050 What? An atheist who wants to correct himself and grow? And here I thought we were all trying to close ourselves off and prey on ignorance. ;)
VideoMenu 1 week ago
Nice video man and cool accent too.
Muskudos 1 week ago
He's a disgrace to academia.
ngusumakofu1 1 week ago