Been enjoying the podcast. While Im still skeptical that Christianity is "on its way back," i do agree that the antitheist rhetoric has certainly lessened. I was an uninterested atheist in my teens and I've now recently started going to church and while I'm still far from calling myself Christian, it doesn't seem to be this evil boogeyman that the new atheists made it out to be.
Good for you, friend. Keep an open mind, keep asking questions and don't be afraid to read or listen to Christian scholars, especially those who are well-educated like John Lennox, Alister McGrath, William Lane Craig, and Hugh Ross.
I am saddened to hear of the passing of Michael Ruse. I met him in person following a debate he had at my seminary and I had a short conversation with him. He was a gracious man and not the arrogant scoffer that I anticipated. I just hope that he came to accept the truth of Christianity before it was too late.
Jesus said that the harvest would be plentiful in the end times. We are seeing that! It is wonderful to see so many coming to faith, as all other avenues, other religions, atheism, new age, satanism, etc. let them down. Sadly though, we are also seeing a falling away of Christians...again, prophesied in scripture.
McGrath argues in bad faith at a number of points in the video. Where I live - Germany - people haven't been ridiculed for their faith in school. Nobody really cared at all. Even in the late 80s, early 90s, I'd say around 80 percent of my classmates showed zero interest in religion. Long before people like Dawkins became popular. Also - because of the intellectual bubble people like McGrath live in, they give way too much credit to people like Hitchens when it comes to the downfall of Christianity in the west. I never even heard the name Hitchens before I started watching apologetics videos on TH-cam not too long ago. New atheism's impact is highly overrated. Maybe looking at the church (catholic or protestant) itself might be the way to find an answer why people don't care all that much anymore.
Dawkins and his arguments makes me better at debating athiest so much easier, i prefered respectful debates with intelligent and respectfull athiest They will come back once the new athiest is no longer popular And the idea tht disrespecting people because the disagree with you is not very empathetic of the new atheists
th-cam.com/video/xIHMnD2FDeY/w-d-xo.html Dawkins sits mute, deaf, sub-moronic as ACTUAL ACCOMPLISHED biologists, Craig Venter, Nobel laureates Sydney Altman & Leland Hartwell ALL say, "it is impossible that humans will ever know life's origin". THAT'S Dawkins' sine qua non; abiogenesis. That's what's made hime $10s of millions. NEVER has he contributed to cell research/DNA/botany/medicine/nutrition...ALL & ONLY abiogenesis. But when he's prima facie confronted, not by credulous 19y/os, but absolute authorities in BIOLOGY; SILENCE!
I find that the more one delves into a broad topic such as Christianity, one finds itself more aware of what they dont know, rather than approaching any sort of clarity. I have a rapidly growing list of books that are rapidly going into the $1000 mark all together. One of those books is the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It will be interesting to flip through the "best" book by an esteemed New Atheism proponent and compare it to say Thomas Aquinas, Decartes, Hume, Voltaire etc. I've heard the writing is poor in the God Delusion but will hold off on any subjective opinion until it's read I suppose. Great video!
I would say that this is generally true for any serious area of study. I have been studying history and literature academically for nearly 20 years, and I find myself accumulating more doubt and caution with each year. When I was ages 18-22, I thought I knew everything, of course. Or, at least nearly everything that was worth knowing.
@@cerdic6586same here - when I was in my early 20s I thought, 'just a couple more books to read and I got it all figured out.' 😂 same attitude you see in people like Alex O'Connor and many other twenty something atheists.
@@MrSeedi76 I guess it is part of being young. There is a TH-camr called Whatifalthist who is only about 23 and yet seems to think he understands every civilisation on the planet. Clearly does not speak multiple languages, relies upon selective secondary sources and theorists, and over-generalises and decontextualises. The result is that young people or older people lacking in certain areas of education may easily swallow his words uncritically.
Why do we accept the 'religious' label? Why do we accept that we belong in a category that includes Islam and Judaism and Hinduism etc? Isn't our distinctive that we have placed our sole trust in a man who was the thorn in the side of the 'religious' of his day? ... and we had best not parade Francis Collins as one of our heroes any more than Louis Pasteur ... who have both played their respective lead roles in the planting of weeds in the minds and poisons in the bodies of our generation, both inside and outside those labelled 'religious'.
Atheism is for all ages. I am 62 and have always been one. From the moment I heard about God I thought Naaah, the adults are fooling me! I believed in Father Christmas for a couple of years, but never a god.
Better if they are not brainwashed into superstition earlier than teens. Is it any wonder that apologists panic when the young go to college and wake up to the nonsense their preachers claim?
At the age of six I heard at Sunday school how this being who supposedly created the universe could not force a Pharaoh to do his bidding with just his spoken word. I stopped believing at that point. Now at 60 years of age knowing the last 54 years were not spent being gullible.
Edit: same can be said of Dawkins and company. McGrath says so much and so little at the same time. I’m glad he’s helpful to believers, but he isn’t helpful to non believers at all. He just constantly hints at arguments without ever actually saying anything worth engaging. It’s sad. Meow
When dawkins claimed a living cell with millions of specified functioning protien machines all coordinated by highly complex specified coded information simply mindlessly engineered itself only the dimmest of zealots continued to follow his musings. He assured faith in a intelligent creator will always be a mainstream logical conclusion.
What's missing from this discussion, and most of Justin Brierley's podcasts, is any reference to sociocultural processes and the related role that plausibility structures (see Peter Berger's large body of work on this topic) have in forming our sense of ourselves and the world. For example, Alister McGrath manages to ignore the role of plausibility structures when he presents the listener with a false choice between the shallow 'intellectual' content of new atheism and its success at the 'emotional' level. This is to falsely dichotomise the intellect with emotion given both are formed and continuously shaped by cultural products and social structures. New atheism fits hand in glove with the wider cultural practices of modernity and post-modernity, which means it was able to grow on fertile ground. The fact that Christians have failed to make significant positive contributions to 20th and 21st-century culture meant that new atheism could make a disproportionate impact. Justin Brierley has persistently failed to understand Wittgenstein's comment that 'it is practices that give words their sense'.
Criticizing looking afar off! Who's that? Introducing unfamiliar ways of speaking. Bringing the opposite meaning of Criticizing! Hearing! Esteem one another in front of HIM?
This is ridiculous wishful thinking, as claiming the reverse would be. No one changes mind because of one book or the other. Unnaffiliated, apatheism and agnosticism increases as soon as inequality decreases. The poorer a country the higher its GINI, the more religious it gets. Take your pick with any country in the globe.
If only it was only Craig that Dawkins refused to meet. Michele Behe and Phillip Johnson don't exhaust the list. This is important to point out because he claims that Darwin made him an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
whatever keeps you in your illusion. just the voice of craig is enough to get away. and the the crap that comes out of hes mouth. a grown man believing in santa.
The irony is entirely in new atheism being like a religion (since it was a movement whose sole purpose was to attack religion). Pointing out that they were like the very thing they hated isn't ironic at all.
You’re both right: 1. The New Atheism movement utilized the same strategies as the religions it was trying to tear down. It was hypocritical, and therefore ineffective. 2. Religious critics of New Atheism will often point out this hypocrisy, not realizing that it hurts their own case: They make it clear that they only have a problem with others using their own tactics to “convert” people away from their own religion. This suggests that neither party using these arguments was ever interested in truth, only in having the most influence.
(a) What is atheism? The answer is given in the word, some say: A-Theism = NO-God-belief. - My name is not Jokp Fylox, what is my name? I don't live in Nuioh, where do I live? My code is not 20321 what is it? None of these questions can be answered with even microscopic probable certainty. Nor, what is atheism. Only well-defined pairs of 2 opposites can be answered with, NOT; like this: I am not she = I am he, not night=day etc. (b) What about to believe?: It is; to be quite sure, but not absolutely sure. Absolutely sure is: To Know. So: Not believe: To be unsure but not absolutely unsure. The same as ´to believe´! The concept of God is only implied as something higher and more powerful than us, to define or describe it more accurately is impossible. So what does NO-God belief become in this clarification: To be unsure but not absolutely unsure, whether something higher and more powerful than me, but not more precisely defined, exists, in this case God. (c) What the general public believes to be scientific evidence or proof rides the same humanity like a demon. The whole concept of proof has its origins in the mathematical method: An example of a mathematical proof: TheSquareRotOf 3 is not a fraction of integers with different primefactors. Proof: If sq(3)=a/b -> 3=(a/b)^2 =(a^2/b^2) then a^2 is divisible by b^2, contrary to the condition that a and b have no common factor, contradiction. So as in sq(81) = a/b -> 81=(a/b)^2 = ((9*c)^2/(3*c)^2) here a=9c and b=3c have many common factors. - Now how is a method like that to be transferred to all phenomena in the World or the Universe? So far there is NO possibility to generally use this method in the world, only in special cases, and Kurt Gödel proved logically in 1931 that there are true statements in any logical system, that can not be prooven. Undecidable questions have even arisen in physics, suggesting that incompleteness afflicts not just math, but in some little understood way, The Reality. About the World and Reality, we must use the method of observation. And observations do not always give the whole picture, so theories must constantly be adjusted in line with new observations. Thus, existing phenomena may have inaccessible evidences. Demanding the Creator be visible as the created, implies he would have created himself: Impossible. So evidence based on direct observation can never be found. - I have no evidence, just a question: (d) The answer to whether one believes in or the outlook on life one has can, because the word ´belief´ is fluid and the term God is only implied as something elevated over us, cannot therefore be answered with: I do not believe in God, I am an Atheist. The question must be clarified like this: I didn't ask what you don't believe, I asked what your outlook on life IS, what IS being an atheist, or what is the content of atheism? Someone will then try to rewrite NOT with other words: Rejection of, refutation of, lacking, dismissing, absence of, not responsible of etc... It doesn't help much. If the atheists have someting to say at all, the question must have a NOT-free answer. (e) Then I get lectured in that atheism is no beliefsystem, has no message, no philosophy, no answer, nothing; just ordinary people that has not got any evidence. But this is just a rewriting of NOT, so I ask: What are you lacking evidence of? "God" they answer. I ask then: What is that, describe that? - no answer - Then the atheist instead proudly explains: "We are not from the stoneage, we are modern. We have lazer tools, microscopes, telescopes, satellites, computers and cars etc., we dont need to believe in anything." - These tools give us greater opportunity to see how things happen, why things happen is in lesser degree revealed, and they often generate more questions than they answer. They do not explain why matter organizes, and things (forms) are assembled, and the nature of consciousness is still inaccessible to science. (f) Then the atheist deliver one spectacular devastating selfdestructing blow after another: "God belief is exactly parallel to this: Believer(theist): I believe unicorns exist. - Nonbeliever(atheist): I do not believe unicorns exist." - But unicorns are well defined and described fantasy animals and that gives us opportunity to search for one, and noone has ever found one on Earth. The idea of God is neither well defined and possible to describe in any detail, and this idea does not even belong to the category of ´things´. The atheists now clames that I have a personal problem that dont concerns them if I dont accept definitions with; NOT. But I only want to know what atheism contains. So that claim is synonymous to; If anyone want to know what atheism is, they have a personal problem! (g) Now the atheist tries to divert the subject by asking; why he should believe in the Christian god, out of 1000 other hungry gods who have to be fed with newborn children and people, drink blood and torture animals and humans to death? - In that case, the Christian God (Christ) is the opposite to all of this, so that could be a good reason for the atheist to become a Christian, but does he want that? "No, the 1000 gods dont exist", he say. "Ok, I understand, but describe in all details what it is that doesn't exist." Now the atheist gets angry and fights for his life; ridicules my horrible english and tells me to seek professional help, and tries a last desperate attempt to save himself by claiming that the burden of proof that God exists is on the believers, not the atheists. But Kurt Goedel proved in 1931 that there exist true statements that cannot be proven even in the well defined logical systems of consistent theories. So the burden of proof that they are true cannot possibly be on Kurt Goedel, exactly because he proved that they cannot be proven true, but STILL are TRUE. So the atheist are in urgent need to explain why they dont think such statements are true, contrary to the Goedel principle. When atheists reject this proven principle the burden of dis-proof is on the atheist, but that cant be done. That leaves the burden of disproof of God on the atheist. But noone gives it! (h) Hundreds of atheist videos have got this comment, but not a single factual counter-comment. No-one gives anything but worplay, or accuses me of making a meaningless wall of word-salad and word play, or personal attacks and characterisations of me as an idiot that tries to look wise by cooking soup with advanced words(even though I dont use any). Never a comment that explains what is nonsense and why. - NOT ONE! - So every such harassing counter-comment is proof that I hit the rotten point where atheism collapses. (i) But once again I give atheists a chance to explain what they positively without negatives, stand for: I want an answer from an atheist about the CONTENT of atheism without not, absence, rejection, dismissing etc. I am not satisfied with their wordplay with negatives; What is left of the atheist when all the NOTs (negatives) have done their job? Science? I also believe in science, but I am not an atheist. "We dont believe in God", they shout a bit louder, as if that helps. Describe that? I ask. And the atheist cannot answer, and even ask me for what evidence I have, or tells me to ask those who believe in God about it! So the atheists depend on the believers to tell them what not to believe in! But the believers cannot define or describe God, noone can. And round and round it goes, . . so I will give my answer:
(j) Even though atheism by the atheists own clame is nothing; the atheists are something. Millions og people deprived by satanistic propaganda, of any meaning, purpose, direction, hope and inspiration in life what so ever. That is dangerous, extremely dangerous! The theists, while having the same definitional problem as atheists, at least have the humility to look up to something higher unfathomable in wonder, awe, inspiration and longing. This the atheists cannot do, and they cannot accept that others have it. They are driven by self-satisfaction and self importance. They want to ridicule those who have perceived something they do not see, all atheist videos show that. Atheism is therefore pride in the strongest form and therefore the original sin. The origin of sin! The origin of human degradation. When one does not want to look up to something higher and more powerful than oneself, then it is only oneself and that which is lower than oneself that can be seen. When you think yourself are at the mountaintop, all further movement will lead downward. If you have no higher idea about life and existence, then: Down you go! And in this context that means destruction, breakdown, dissolution, disaster, desperation, aimless flight downwards and downwards to death and unconsciousness. And in time it will spread to everything, both personal, cultural, scientific, artistic, moral - EVERYTHING. That is WHAT Atheism is. Don't go that way!
(k) If, on the other hand, one has something higher which is not just a word or an abstract, theoretical and very vaguely defined concept, but a supreme concrete example - Jesus Christ son of God - which we can visualize through concrete sources, then we always have something to reach for and we are securely anchored in the highest.
what a crazy movie. did you say that the 4 horsemen couldn't agree? how many different believes are there in christianity? most of you got turned as children. so you cant have an honest conversation. and lol coming to faith. Faith is just a word one use when you dont have evidence.
@@seizureseizer Nice of you to drop fallacy labels, as it is easier than dismissing the fact that faith is just a word one uses when you don't have evidence.description
Hope you enjoy this conversation! 📘You can get a FREE CHAPTER from my book “The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God” by signing up to my newsletter: justinbrierley.com/get-justins-newsletter/
I believe that some of those said to be part of this "surprising rebirth of belief in God", are sincere, but many in the public eye and ears, are just using Christianity as the Noble Lie. Even Dawkins says that he regrets the loss of Christian goodwill and morality, politeness, etc, in the world. That might not even be true, but he reportedly said so. But to not be vulnerable to accusations that the increase of believers is just fake spin, to re-shape the public, look not to celebrities and public intellectuals, but to real growth in sincere faith, like the growth of Christianity in China, and other places, where being a Christian is even more difficult than it is here.
Brierley continues this bizarre obsession with ‘new atheism’ and Richard Dawkins. Are there any honest and even somewhat reasonable Christians left? If so, they should engage with actual arguments and not continue with this pathetic and intellectually empty poisoning of the well.
I wish Mgrath would use the proper title and address the Atheist's divine personage as Saint Richard-of-Dawkins. The problem with new atheism is many of the dudes got old, and two of the horsemen have galloped off to Valhalla. A dozen contributors 'claim' that Saint Richard-of-Dawkins helped them resort to superstition, and millions who have not seen his book are abandoning churches. Would Justin and Alister recommend that all Christian bookshops stock the Divine Epistles of the world's greatest living saint on their shelves to attract more converts?
The problem with it is it's illogical and only a position one can hold until they cannot deny spirituality anymore, most of the planet are already on that level. Atheists are caterpillars telling butterflies wings don't exist.
@@WriteTrax What exactly do you mean by “spirituality?” There are nonreligious people who call themselves spiritual. Do you mean theism? Supernaturalism? Self-improvement through a mutually agreed upon method? I agree that atheism tends to focus on cold, hard facts despite sometimes lacking even that. But as an ex-Christian myself I can recognize the importance of practical and community-driven habits. Maybe without all the superstition and dogmatic assumptions, though.
Who do you think you are kidding here? In the developed world, Atheism has been on the rise for a long time and Dawkins has influenced this. Christianity is on the decline.
Didn't Christianity have an institutional presence during the entire development of the "developed" world? Isn't the "developed world" itself now in decline?
@markh1011 Birth rate, financial stability, state sovereignty, miltary power, political influence, manufacture, academic standards, cultural production, family and community life... Even good old fashioned manners are now hard to come by.
@@andrewjohnson8232 Oh and if you think otherwise, it's because you've (1) not learnt enough history and/or (2) fallen for the 'everything was great in the good old days' myth.
Been enjoying the podcast.
While Im still skeptical that Christianity is "on its way back," i do agree that the antitheist rhetoric has certainly lessened.
I was an uninterested atheist in my teens and I've now recently started going to church and while I'm still far from calling myself Christian, it doesn't seem to be this evil boogeyman that the new atheists made it out to be.
Good for you, friend. Keep an open mind, keep asking questions and don't be afraid to read or listen to Christian scholars, especially those who are well-educated like John Lennox, Alister McGrath, William Lane Craig, and Hugh Ross.
I am saddened to hear of the passing of Michael Ruse. I met him in person following a debate he had at my seminary and I had a short conversation with him. He was a gracious man and not the arrogant scoffer that I anticipated. I just hope that he came to accept the truth of Christianity before it was too late.
Jesus said that the harvest would be plentiful in the end times. We are seeing that! It is wonderful to see so many coming to faith, as all other avenues, other religions, atheism, new age, satanism, etc. let them down. Sadly though, we are also seeing a falling away of Christians...again, prophesied in scripture.
McGrath argues in bad faith at a number of points in the video.
Where I live - Germany - people haven't been ridiculed for their faith in school. Nobody really cared at all. Even in the late 80s, early 90s, I'd say around 80 percent of my classmates showed zero interest in religion. Long before people like Dawkins became popular.
Also - because of the intellectual bubble people like McGrath live in, they give way too much credit to people like Hitchens when it comes to the downfall of Christianity in the west. I never even heard the name Hitchens before I started watching apologetics videos on TH-cam not too long ago. New atheism's impact is highly overrated. Maybe looking at the church (catholic or protestant) itself might be the way to find an answer why people don't care all that much anymore.
Dawkins and his arguments makes me better at debating athiest so much easier, i prefered respectful debates with intelligent and respectfull athiest
They will come back once the new athiest is no longer popular
And the idea tht disrespecting people because the disagree with you is not very empathetic of the new atheists
th-cam.com/video/xIHMnD2FDeY/w-d-xo.html
Dawkins sits mute, deaf, sub-moronic as ACTUAL ACCOMPLISHED biologists,
Craig Venter, Nobel laureates Sydney Altman & Leland Hartwell ALL say,
"it is impossible that humans will ever know life's origin". THAT'S Dawkins'
sine qua non; abiogenesis. That's what's made hime $10s of millions. NEVER
has he contributed to cell research/DNA/botany/medicine/nutrition...ALL & ONLY abiogenesis.
But when he's prima facie confronted, not by credulous 19y/os, but absolute authorities in BIOLOGY;
SILENCE!
I’m shocked that a Biologist with not a philosophical bone in his body created a philosophy based on slogans.
Just mind blown.
I find that the more one delves into a broad topic such as Christianity, one finds itself more aware of what they dont know, rather than approaching any sort of clarity. I have a rapidly growing list of books that are rapidly going into the $1000 mark all together.
One of those books is the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It will be interesting to flip through the "best" book by an esteemed New Atheism proponent and compare it to say Thomas Aquinas, Decartes, Hume, Voltaire etc.
I've heard the writing is poor in the God Delusion but will hold off on any subjective opinion until it's read I suppose.
Great video!
I would say that this is generally true for any serious area of study. I have been studying history and literature academically for nearly 20 years, and I find myself accumulating more doubt and caution with each year. When I was ages 18-22, I thought I knew everything, of course. Or, at least nearly everything that was worth knowing.
What are three things that give the video any value?
@@cerdic6586same here - when I was in my early 20s I thought, 'just a couple more books to read and I got it all figured out.' 😂 same attitude you see in people like Alex O'Connor and many other twenty something atheists.
@@MrSeedi76 I guess it is part of being young. There is a TH-camr called Whatifalthist who is only about 23 and yet seems to think he understands every civilisation on the planet. Clearly does not speak multiple languages, relies upon selective secondary sources and theorists, and over-generalises and decontextualises. The result is that young people or older people lacking in certain areas of education may easily swallow his words uncritically.
I wouldn't have enough faith to become an atheist.
I agree atheism is escapism from the voice of God .infact spiritual and logical irrationalism .
Why do we accept the 'religious' label? Why do we accept that we belong in a category that includes Islam and Judaism and Hinduism etc? Isn't our distinctive that we have placed our sole trust in a man who was the thorn in the side of the 'religious' of his day?
... and we had best not parade Francis Collins as one of our heroes any more than Louis Pasteur ... who have both played their respective lead roles in the planting of weeds in the minds and poisons in the bodies of our generation, both inside and outside those labelled 'religious'.
Atheism is for teenagers.
what's wrong with you? do you even know what it means?
if so you are one of a few that havent been lied to by preathers
Ageism.
Atheism is for all ages. I am 62 and have always been one. From the moment I heard about God I thought Naaah, the adults are fooling me! I believed in Father Christmas for a couple of years, but never a god.
Better if they are not brainwashed into superstition earlier than teens. Is it any wonder that apologists panic when the young go to college and wake up to the nonsense their preachers claim?
At the age of six I heard at Sunday school how this being who supposedly created the universe could not force a Pharaoh to do his bidding with just his spoken word. I stopped believing at that point.
Now at 60 years of age knowing the last 54 years were not spent being gullible.
Edit: same can be said of Dawkins and company.
McGrath says so much and so little at the same time. I’m glad he’s helpful to believers, but he isn’t helpful to non believers at all. He just constantly hints at arguments without ever actually saying anything worth engaging. It’s sad.
Meow
When dawkins claimed a living cell with millions of specified functioning protien machines all coordinated by highly complex specified coded information simply mindlessly engineered itself only the dimmest of zealots continued to follow his musings. He assured faith in a intelligent creator will always be a mainstream logical conclusion.
What's missing from this discussion, and most of Justin Brierley's podcasts, is any reference to sociocultural processes and the related role that plausibility structures (see Peter Berger's large body of work on this topic) have in forming our sense of ourselves and the world. For example, Alister McGrath manages to ignore the role of plausibility structures when he presents the listener with a false choice between the shallow 'intellectual' content of new atheism and its success at the 'emotional' level. This is to falsely dichotomise the intellect with emotion given both are formed and continuously shaped by cultural products and social structures. New atheism fits hand in glove with the wider cultural practices of modernity and post-modernity, which means it was able to grow on fertile ground. The fact that Christians have failed to make significant positive contributions to 20th and 21st-century culture meant that new atheism could make a disproportionate impact. Justin Brierley has persistently failed to understand Wittgenstein's comment that 'it is practices that give words their sense'.
Criticizing looking afar off! Who's that? Introducing unfamiliar ways of speaking. Bringing the opposite meaning of Criticizing! Hearing! Esteem one another in front of HIM?
This is ridiculous wishful thinking, as claiming the reverse would be. No one changes mind because of one book or the other. Unnaffiliated, apatheism and agnosticism increases as soon as inequality decreases. The poorer a country the higher its GINI, the more religious it gets. Take your pick with any country in the globe.
So, are you predicting a huge revival of religion in the West? Since the middle classes are gradually disappearing, and the rich keep getting richer.
@@ben0298 Sadly, probably, yes. And with wars, more so. henrich.fas.harvard.edu/files/henrich/files/henrich_et_al-2019-nature_human_behaviour.pdf
@@ben0298 Yes. War increases religiosity too.
Criticizing will say, who is that so familiar voice?
If only it was only Craig that Dawkins refused to meet. Michele Behe and Phillip Johnson don't exhaust the list. This is important to point out because he claims that Darwin made him an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
whatever keeps you in your illusion.
just the voice of craig is enough to get away. and the the crap that comes out of hes mouth.
a grown man believing in santa.
@ I am not a fan of Craig either actually
@fries sorry you've been hurt.
Any body else see the irony of criticising new atheism for being like a religion?
The irony is entirely in new atheism being like a religion (since it was a movement whose sole purpose was to attack religion). Pointing out that they were like the very thing they hated isn't ironic at all.
@@stephengray1344Thank you. I was expecting that response
You’re both right:
1. The New Atheism movement utilized the same strategies as the religions it was trying to tear down. It was hypocritical, and therefore ineffective.
2. Religious critics of New Atheism will often point out this hypocrisy, not realizing that it hurts their own case: They make it clear that they only have a problem with others using their own tactics to “convert” people away from their own religion.
This suggests that neither party using these arguments was ever interested in truth, only in having the most influence.
(a) What is atheism? The answer is given in the word, some say: A-Theism = NO-God-belief. - My name is not Jokp Fylox, what is my name? I don't live in Nuioh, where do I live? My code is not 20321 what is it? None of these questions can be answered with even microscopic probable certainty. Nor, what is atheism. Only well-defined pairs of 2 opposites can be answered with, NOT; like this: I am not she = I am he, not night=day etc.
(b) What about to believe?: It is; to be quite sure, but not absolutely sure. Absolutely sure is: To Know. So: Not believe: To be unsure but not absolutely unsure. The same as ´to believe´! The concept of God is only implied as something higher and more powerful than us, to define or describe it more accurately is impossible. So what does NO-God belief become in this clarification: To be unsure but not absolutely unsure, whether something higher and more powerful than me, but not more precisely defined, exists, in this case God.
(c) What the general public believes to be scientific evidence or proof rides the same humanity like a demon. The whole concept of proof has its origins in the mathematical method: An example of a mathematical proof: TheSquareRotOf 3 is not a fraction of integers with different primefactors. Proof: If sq(3)=a/b -> 3=(a/b)^2 =(a^2/b^2) then a^2 is divisible by b^2, contrary to the condition that a and b have no common factor, contradiction. So as in sq(81) = a/b -> 81=(a/b)^2 = ((9*c)^2/(3*c)^2) here a=9c and b=3c have many common factors. - Now how is a method like that to be transferred to all phenomena in the World or the Universe? So far there is NO possibility to generally use this method in the world, only in special cases, and Kurt Gödel proved logically in 1931 that there are true statements in any logical system, that can not be prooven. Undecidable questions have even arisen in physics, suggesting that incompleteness afflicts not just math, but in some little understood way, The Reality. About the World and Reality, we must use the method of observation. And observations do not always give the whole picture, so theories must constantly be adjusted in line with new observations. Thus, existing phenomena may have inaccessible evidences. Demanding the Creator be visible as the created, implies he would have created himself: Impossible. So evidence based on direct observation can never be found. - I have no evidence, just a question:
(d) The answer to whether one believes in or the outlook on life one has can, because the word ´belief´ is fluid and the term God is only implied as something elevated over us, cannot therefore be answered with: I do not believe in God, I am an Atheist. The question must be clarified like this: I didn't ask what you don't believe, I asked what your outlook on life IS, what IS being an atheist, or what is the content of atheism? Someone will then try to rewrite NOT with other words: Rejection of, refutation of, lacking, dismissing, absence of, not responsible of etc... It doesn't help much. If the atheists have someting to say at all, the question must have a NOT-free answer.
(e) Then I get lectured in that atheism is no beliefsystem, has no message, no philosophy, no answer, nothing; just ordinary people that has not got any evidence. But this is just a rewriting of NOT, so I ask: What are you lacking evidence of? "God" they answer. I ask then: What is that, describe that? - no answer - Then the atheist instead proudly explains: "We are not from the stoneage, we are modern. We have lazer tools, microscopes, telescopes, satellites, computers and cars etc., we dont need to believe in anything." - These tools give us greater opportunity to see how things happen, why things happen is in lesser degree revealed, and they often generate more questions than they answer. They do not explain why matter organizes, and things (forms) are assembled, and the nature of consciousness is still inaccessible to science.
(f) Then the atheist deliver one spectacular devastating selfdestructing blow after another: "God belief is exactly parallel to this: Believer(theist): I believe unicorns exist. - Nonbeliever(atheist): I do not believe unicorns exist." - But unicorns are well defined and described fantasy animals and that gives us opportunity to search for one, and noone has ever found one on Earth. The idea of God is neither well defined and possible to describe in any detail, and this idea does not even belong to the category of ´things´. The atheists now clames that I have a personal problem that dont concerns them if I dont accept definitions with; NOT. But I only want to know what atheism contains. So that claim is synonymous to; If anyone want to know what atheism is, they have a personal problem!
(g) Now the atheist tries to divert the subject by asking; why he should believe in the Christian god, out of 1000 other hungry gods who have to be fed with newborn children and people, drink blood and torture animals and humans to death? - In that case, the Christian God (Christ) is the opposite to all of this, so that could be a good reason for the atheist to become a Christian, but does he want that? "No, the 1000 gods dont exist", he say. "Ok, I understand, but describe in all details what it is that doesn't exist." Now the atheist gets angry and fights for his life; ridicules my horrible english and tells me to seek professional help, and tries a last desperate attempt to save himself by claiming that the burden of proof that God exists is on the believers, not the atheists. But Kurt Goedel proved in 1931 that there exist true statements that cannot be proven even in the well defined logical systems of consistent theories. So the burden of proof that they are true cannot possibly be on Kurt Goedel, exactly because he proved that they cannot be proven true, but STILL are TRUE. So the atheist are in urgent need to explain why they dont think such statements are true, contrary to the Goedel principle. When atheists reject this proven principle the burden of dis-proof is on the atheist, but that cant be done. That leaves the burden of disproof of God on the atheist. But noone gives it!
(h) Hundreds of atheist videos have got this comment, but not a single factual counter-comment. No-one gives anything but worplay, or accuses me of making a meaningless wall of word-salad and word play, or personal attacks and characterisations of me as an idiot that tries to look wise by cooking soup with advanced words(even though I dont use any). Never a comment that explains what is nonsense and why. - NOT ONE! - So every such harassing counter-comment is proof that I hit the rotten point where atheism collapses.
(i) But once again I give atheists a chance to explain what they positively without negatives, stand for: I want an answer from an atheist about the CONTENT of atheism without not, absence, rejection, dismissing etc. I am not satisfied with their wordplay with negatives; What is left of the atheist when all the NOTs (negatives) have done their job? Science? I also believe in science, but I am not an atheist. "We dont believe in God", they shout a bit louder, as if that helps. Describe that? I ask. And the atheist cannot answer, and even ask me for what evidence I have, or tells me to ask those who believe in God about it! So the atheists depend on the believers to tell them what not to believe in! But the believers cannot define or describe God, noone can. And round and round it goes, . . so I will give my answer:
(j) Even though atheism by the atheists own clame is nothing; the atheists are something. Millions og people deprived by satanistic propaganda, of any meaning, purpose, direction, hope and inspiration in life what so ever. That is dangerous, extremely dangerous! The theists, while having the same definitional problem as atheists, at least have the humility to look up to something higher unfathomable in wonder, awe, inspiration and longing. This the atheists cannot do, and they cannot accept that others have it. They are driven by self-satisfaction and self importance. They want to ridicule those who have perceived something they do not see, all atheist videos show that. Atheism is therefore pride in the strongest form and therefore the original sin. The origin of sin! The origin of human degradation. When one does not want to look up to something higher and more powerful than oneself, then it is only oneself and that which is lower than oneself that can be seen. When you think yourself are at the mountaintop, all further movement will lead downward. If you have no higher idea about life and existence, then: Down you go! And in this context that means destruction, breakdown, dissolution, disaster, desperation, aimless flight downwards and downwards to death and unconsciousness. And in time it will spread to everything, both personal, cultural, scientific, artistic, moral - EVERYTHING. That is WHAT Atheism is. Don't go that way!
(k) If, on the other hand, one has something higher which is not just a word or an abstract, theoretical and very vaguely defined concept, but a supreme concrete example - Jesus Christ son of God - which we can visualize through concrete sources, then we always have something to reach for and we are securely anchored in the highest.
Dawkins arguments are stand up comedy on steroids...
what a crazy movie. did you say that the 4 horsemen couldn't agree?
how many different believes are there in christianity?
most of you got turned as children. so you cant have an honest conversation.
and lol coming to faith. Faith is just a word one use when you dont have evidence.
Poisoning the well, and just a total strawman.
@@seizureseizermixing metaphors in a way I find confusing…
Anybody else see the irony of criticising atheism for being like a religion?
@ and clinging lovingly to a book they valued…
@@seizureseizer
Nice of you to drop fallacy labels, as it is easier than dismissing the fact that faith is just a word one uses when you don't have evidence.description
Hope you enjoy this conversation! 📘You can get a FREE CHAPTER from my book “The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God” by signing up to my newsletter: justinbrierley.com/get-justins-newsletter/
crazy talk. get over that outdated lifestyle book.
I believe that some of those said to be part of this "surprising rebirth of belief in God", are sincere, but many in the public eye and ears, are just using Christianity as the Noble Lie. Even Dawkins says that he regrets the loss of Christian goodwill and morality, politeness, etc, in the world. That might not even be true, but he reportedly said so.
But to not be vulnerable to accusations that the increase of believers is just fake spin, to re-shape the public, look not to celebrities and public intellectuals, but to real growth in sincere faith, like the growth of Christianity in China, and other places, where being a Christian is even more difficult than it is here.
Brierley continues this bizarre obsession with ‘new atheism’ and Richard Dawkins. Are there any honest and even somewhat reasonable Christians left? If so, they should engage with actual arguments and not continue with this pathetic and intellectually empty poisoning of the well.
I wish Mgrath would use the proper title and address the Atheist's divine personage as Saint Richard-of-Dawkins.
The problem with new atheism is many of the dudes got old, and two of the horsemen have galloped off to Valhalla.
A dozen contributors 'claim' that Saint Richard-of-Dawkins helped them resort to superstition, and millions who have not seen his book are abandoning churches.
Would Justin and Alister recommend that all Christian bookshops stock the Divine Epistles of the world's greatest living saint on their shelves to attract more converts?
The problem with it is it's illogical and only a position one can hold until they cannot deny spirituality anymore, most of the planet are already on that level. Atheists are caterpillars telling butterflies wings don't exist.
@@WriteTrax What exactly do you mean by “spirituality?” There are nonreligious people who call themselves spiritual. Do you mean theism? Supernaturalism? Self-improvement through a mutually agreed upon method?
I agree that atheism tends to focus on cold, hard facts despite sometimes lacking even that. But as an ex-Christian myself I can recognize the importance of practical and community-driven habits. Maybe without all the superstition and dogmatic assumptions, though.
@@seanpierce9386 As someone who studied every religion there is in depth, Christianity is real and true, the rest are real and fake.
@@WriteTrax
I agree that the belief in Christianity is real, but the content of it is flimsy.
@@VaughanMcCue How so?
Who do you think you are kidding here? In the developed world, Atheism has been on the rise for a long time and Dawkins has influenced this. Christianity is on the decline.
Didn't Christianity have an institutional presence during the entire development of the "developed" world?
Isn't the "developed world" itself now in decline?
@@andrewjohnson8232
_"Isn't the "developed world" itself now in decline?"_
By what measure?
@markh1011
Birth rate, financial stability, state sovereignty, miltary power, political influence, manufacture, academic standards, cultural production, family and community life...
Even good old fashioned manners are now hard to come by.
@@andrewjohnson8232 Noting that you tried to cherry pick, all of those things are far beyond what they used to be.
You just made my point.
@@andrewjohnson8232 Oh and if you think otherwise, it's because you've (1) not learnt enough history and/or (2) fallen for the 'everything was great in the good old days' myth.