Atheism, as defined by lack of belief in the various gods put forth throughout history, makes no such claim to know everything. Doubting a claim does not mean that the person thinks they are omnipotent; just incredulous to the claim. That's it. You have made a straw man fallacy. Have you concluded that any of the other gods are man-made products of culture? Have you concluded that there definitely is a specific god or gods? By your own logic, would answering yes to either of these fall under the banner of claiming to know everything? And regardless of whether there is a god or there isn't: "wanting something does not make it true." This statement accurate either way.
Dear Robert okello, Get your facts straight. Atheist do not say "GOD DOES NOT EXIST", they say they have no proof so they dont believe. Its religious people who claim that god DOES exist. So, do they know everything? Cus if they dont, they should NOT claim he exists based on your own statement. Second, the original message says: *"wanting something doesn't make it true " this summarized everything* How did you read that and convert it to "My conclusion is that God doesn't exist"?
The difference between claiming to not believe in god based on lack of evidence and claiming that god exists despite the lack of evidence? Or the difference between "wanting something doesn't make it true" and claiming to know that god does not exist?
+ Robert okello *I claim to be having 50 millions dollars in my account.* Do you see the difference between these responses? : 1. "No, you haven't 50 millions in your account." 2. "I don't believe you have 50 millions in your account." One of them is a truth-claim and the other is not. The last one is about withholding judgement before sufficient evidence is provided. Let us use this on the god claim, *You're claiming there is a God* Do you now see the difference between the responses? : 1. "No, there is no God." 2. "I don't believe there is a god."
picitnew, There is also the difference between the fact that the part that is claiming fact is the one that has to present the evidence. So, those who claim "there IS a god" instead of saying "I believe there is a god" should also provide evidence to the existence of god.
Choir TcrMaloy ... you may think you're witty but you've only revealed that you don't know the definition of "supernatural." Scientific theories on the origin of the universe may incorporate natural processes that are beyond our everyday experience, but that is not supernatural.
Option A. We don't know how, but here's about when it happened and here is a lot of evidence about what happened immediately afterwards. Still working on it, some things we may have to change our mind on. Option B. GAWD
Well either a. you've really been channeled by demons, spoken to by angels, and are a modern day prophet.... or.... you are nuts/have seizures/ are a liar. Forgive me while I choose the options without hocus pocus.
It`s not a choice, it`s the default position. If someone were to claim that there was an invisible goat in the room, that could turn the lights on and off and that it created the room itself, the default position would be to say, `prove it`, that`s like atheism, it`s not making a claim, it`s responding to one.
@@bluto212 "Strong Atheism makes a different claim" It is a straw man because no one sensible actually makes that claim. It is a desperation on the part of theists that they have to try to claim anyone who doesn't beleive in their god is just as a irrational as they know that they are for accepting it without any evidence.
The truth is that both options are explanations for what we don't know. Observation is interpreted to the best of our intellect based on our knowledge until we know better.
@@casiandsouza7031 within the first minute that woman said it depends on what you mean by rational choice she just made the phrase rational choice a phrase that is entirely meaningless in any real context never defining the term
Deconstructing the reason to make it no longer about reasonability or being able to reason your way out or into a situation she made the word reason also meaningless in this is all before 5 minutes are up
@@casiandsouza7031 wrong. Theism claims to explain something we don't know. Atheism is the response that theism fails to meet it's burden of proof. Atheism, by definition, does not claim anything. Atheists can and of course do go on to make explanatory claims about the universe, morality etc.
@@rickkybobby8118 theism started out without filing any claim. It just sort answers with the knowledge of the times. Atheism is correct in pointing out errors in their answers but lack of evidence does not prove otherwise. Agnostics can be said to make no claim but not atheists. If you don't know just say you don't know. Don't say you are right and others wrong.
All thinking men are atheists. - Ernest Hemingway "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." --- Albert Einstein Lighthouses are more helpful than churches. --- Benjamin Franklin "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." --- Stephen Roberts Professor Stephen Hawking sets out to answer the question: "Did the Universe need a creator?" The answer he gives is a resounding "no". "Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense." --- Chapman Cohen "Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions" - Blaise Pascal "No man has ever been brainwashed by science" -- Unknown "Which is it, is man one of God’s blunders or is God one of man’s?" ---- Friedrich Nietzsche "A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows." --- Mark Twain "Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires." ---- Sigmund Freud "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." -- Isaac Asimov "If you want to control a population, give them a god to worship"- Noam Chomsky
All those that reject God can look forward to a painful punishment - God So there you have it. You can choose to follow Ernest and hope he was right. Good luck
Even the Christians laughed at the guy who thought there is evidence of the resurrection. The problem is FAITH. Faith allows people to believe in outrageous things without providing one piece of evidence at all.
The problem is is that if you start or trying to suggest that Faith be concordance with reason or perhaps even just goals then the word faith now has changed definitions you're not talking about the same faith as someone who's literally just turned off their brain
Yes it is the rational choice. What's rational in claiming to know a non-existent absent supernatural deity? What's rational in trying to apply the very questionable morals of an ancient book to the 21st century? What's rational about condemning entire groups of people just cause they don't worship the same imaginary friend in the exact same way as you do? I can do this for hours.
I would say it's the rational conclusion, but it's not a choice. Neither is theism, deism, etc. They're all the output from all of the input into an individual's brain. As an atheist, who abandoned Christianity over almost 30 years ago, I could no more choose to believe in Christianity than I could choose to believe I could jump off a tall building and fly unaided by technology. Theists are the same way. Even if things like cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, and the like are at play, religious belief is the output of their brain and they don't choose the output. The output can be changed with additional input. But the output, whether atheism or some form of religious belief, is never a choice.
+Raven Brown I need to correct myself, too. The output isn't just a matter of input. There is processing by the brain, as well. And a lot (if not all) of it is involuntary. For example, we don't choose to engage in confirmation bias - our brain either does it or it doesn't. So, the same inputs (which of course is impossible) into different brains wouldn't necessarily result in the same output.
+Raven Brown there is no rational choice because there is no evidence for atheism or theism.All of this is nonsense.You want atheism to be rational only to vaildate your views on religion.
+Morris Gordon Why would atheism require evidence in order to be the rational conclusion? Do you think that atheism is a positive claim that no deities exist? If so, you're mistaken.
Agnostic Atheism is the only intellectually honest position to hold. Gnosticism/ agnosticism related to knowledge about the existence of god. There is no such evidence so we are all agnostic. Atheism is a lack of belief in the claims that theism make. No evidence, no rational reason to believe.
mobis ware again an invention of the human mind. I do believe Yeshua was probably a real apocalyptic preacher but there’s no good reason to believe him a deity.
Deutschland Über Alles Gnosticism refers to “knowledge” Theism/ atheism refers to “beliefs”. I don’t know if god(s) exist but I don’t believe that they do.
Talking donkeys are a part of religion. The fact that it's inconvenient to the theologian's argument is irrelevant - she was invited to discuss religion, there was no proviso saying 'do not bring up the silly bits of religion because I'm a proper grumpy cow and it makes my argument look stupid.'
yes,it was so typical it beckoned belief.they might want to try different people in these as the same types are argumenting in every episode,like this old woman with 5 yrs hair style.
"The human heart cries out for peace and for love and for meaning" really? tell that to the millions of innocent men, women and children the "Catholic and Christain" Church have tortured, hung, drowned, burned alive, degutted, pulled apart limb from limb lady...
When that catholic dud started speaking I thought I was actually going to finally have respect for his position on atheism. He started out correcting the other man and stating that 'atheism is simply the lack of belief in a God, nothing more'. I'm like finally a theist who actually understands what atheism is and doesn't call us an evolutionist or a Darwinist or a materialist. Much to my dismay he then said the painful sentence, as Frank Turek does so often, that there is too much evidence for God to 'believe that atheism is true'. Aaaaaand we're back to square one. After acknowledging that atheism makes no truth claims, he then states that atheism isn't 'true'.
There is no evidence for athiesm. Its a stalemate. Only athiest know their belief is based on logic and religion is based on irrationality. Athiest can prove Christopher Hitchens was born a human, that he lived as a human, died and stayed dead. Christians can't prove Christ was born a god, lived as a god and died, only to return to life again 3 days later. They can barely prove a man called jesus of Nazazareth lived, let alone prove he was a devine being. If I had to choose, I know which side I'd be on. Thankfully there is the third option, be an agnostic.
He actually used the word disbelief to describe athiest. This may not be obvious to everyone but in doing so, he was implying athiest choose to deny the reality, that in truth God exists. As any athiest will state, athiest don't believe in God or gods. This may seem insignificant but I suspect he didnt do that by accident, it was his way of putting athiest down, implying they were wrong.
@@davidvarley1812 Atheists don't assert that god doesn't exist - they just don't believe that one does. It annoys me when people say they are agnostic, as it tells me nothing about their position on god, only that they don't have knowledge either way. Let me ask you, if you aren't an atheist, which god/what sort of god do you believe in? You're either a theist or an atheist, it's a dichotomy!
@@nathijomac I believe its possible that we might someday discover the answer to the question is there a God or gods. At present science can't answer that either way, so I sit on the fence. I'm nutritional, I neither believe nor don't believe in any God or gods. For me it's a question of scientific knowledge or lack of scientific knowledge, not belief. The O:E:D states, athiesm is the belief that God or gods don't exist. So technically your correct but any confusion was only accidentally and personal I think that's irrelevant as it's more an argument over words than meaning. I'm a agnostic because I say I am, you get no say in that matter. . It's your right to get annoyed by the term agnostic, I can do nothing about that.
I think it must be difficult for Queen Elisabeth. She's intelligent enough to know that religion is all mythology but she must maintain her position as Defender of the faith. I often think the same when an atheistic President ends his speech with "God bless the United States" He must be cringing inside every time he has to speak these words.
*interior sigh* "God bless the United States.". *Good thing I have this 12 years VSOP cognac in the oval office. I'm gonna need a shot of that... -Every atheist president to date after uttering these words.
Wow, the catholic made the best definition of atheism. That simply being the disbelieve in god. Everything else he said was wrong and lots of old tired arguments.
TheBT false it is not about disbelief of god or gods. Your are also a atheist if you believe in one. Because 2999 others closer to another anti polygamous beliefs.
Joel Super British Warrior Cong######## Plymouth That's not the core of a-theism. Atheism is essentialy nothing more and nothing less than not-believing the idea or argument for the existence of a god or gods. It's not claiming anything. What you described however, was probably an oversimplification of the idea that the universe came into existence without making the claim that it was by a 'devine act of creation' by a 'creator'. Science and scientists don't claim to know how things work or came to be in a very plausable way (meaning: coming up with a proven hypothesis => Scientific Theory) without sound evidence. If there's no evidence, science says: "we don't know, but we do want to study and research it until maybe one day we'll find answers and evidence." Bytheway, there are some interesting clips on TH-cam with Lawrence Krauss, in which he discusses and explains his ideas about 'nothing' and how 'something' could have come from 'nothing'. Pointing towards a god or gods for everything you don't know or understand (yet), is a sort of a convenient cop out IMHO. The God of the gaps. People are so eager for having an explanation and/or needy towards special purpose for or meaning behind everything, they are susceptible for all kinds of beliefs, superstition and religion, instead of accepting the reality and honesty that we don't know everything and that asking 'Why?' is maybe not the best question, but 'How?'. The why-question comes from the human desire to purpose, being special and fear for mortality and uselessness.
@@vicachcoup - In lack of evidence for the claim there's no reason to believe the claim. In the face of outlandish claims there's reason to disbelieve the claim.
That guy who claimed so much evidence of the resurrection is such a liar. There is no evidence of it and it indeed was a common theme in myths at that time.
I am an atheist myself but I appreciate Theology as a subject and see the the value in it. After all, it's religions around the world that have developed how cultures have essentially evolved around the world.
@Gary Fletcher Oh so you accept that the bible was wrong about that. Good, let’s carry on unbiasedly examining the claims the Bible makes. How many other flaws and mistakes do you think we’ll find?
@Gary Fletcher After Balaam starts punishing the donkey for refusing to move, it is miraculously given the power to speak to Balaam (numbers 22:28). So YOUR book thinks that donkeys can talk, even though we know that they can’t. That’s just off the top of my head. So shall we carry on looking for errors?
@Gary Fletcher Lol what Is “good” about the flaws and bad science in the bible? Also is that “no” meant to be an answer to my question about if you are a YEC?
Ask a theist a direct question about their beliefs and prepare yourself to experience a tap dance that would have made Mr. Bojangles himself jealous. Just don't prepare to receive a direct answer........
@@gman4074 no atheists don't believe in magic at all that's the difference! If theists do believe in magic without evidence then let them. I'll stick to the things that can be proven.
@@gman4074 actually atheists believe all sorts of different things they are all individuals. All atheism tells you about a person is they lack a belief in a god nothing more than that. Generally that means they don't state they know for certain that a god doesn't exist just that there hasn't been enough evidence to prove god exists. I think I would prefer to stick to believing things based on evidence rather than be like you and preach to everyone based on something you believe purely on faith and which you cannot prove. Your not the same G Man that Matt Dillahunty destroyed on the atheist experience are you by any chance?. Perhaps not but you sound a lot like him.
@@wkworld6741 If you dnt kno that Agnostics which means you dnt kno. Atheist.. A negation of theism meaning the opposite so it a claim their is no god. MATT D. Was destroyed by Matt Slick and Jordan Peterson. Profess themselves to be wise yet they were fools. THE Universe exist so you hve two options a naturalistic cause or Supernatural cause?
@@gman4074 lol so you are the loser that Matt destroyed thanks for the laugh. Please call in again I need entertaining. Also you are wrong in everything you just said but then again there's no surprise there!. It's not worth trying to educate you as no doubt it's like talking to a brick wall and a waste of my energy to even try!
I claim that an opinion, because everything in the Bible has an explanation, and has never been disproven. The reason I say this is that there currently exists a group of people (to my admittedly vague knowledge) who have a challenge to all atheists: Prove them (the ideas of creationism) wrong in a debate, and recieve $100,000. Nobody has done it.
+speedstackingmaniac Plenty of the Bible has been disproven. Noah's Ark is one among many. Also the person you're talking about is Joshua Feuerstein who set up the challenge. Problem is that he's asking atheists to prove a negative. So yeah, don't know if you're just trolling or what but your entire comment is backwards.
+Logical Reason if i was born an atheist.Then atheism is not an reasonable or rational position but a default position.For i feel Igtheism is our default position until we are introduce to the notion of a deity or non believe of a deity.
i dont quite get why religios people believe in just one god. like there are so many different religions and there have been way more and somehow religious ppl say all of them are wrong except their own.
Smart host. Was only trying to be objective at the start, and only 1 minute in, he completely checkmated the theologian/philosopher/believer. Run it back and watch her fall off her bike. Good Stuff!
on the last question the religious woman who has no evidence to back her belief says the questioner has no evidence for his hypothesis. the irony of her ignorance.
Scientific theory is based on an axiom that "we actually exist in this world". This cannot be proven. Atheist base their disbelief of God on science. Therefore atheists believe what they believe based on faith.
scientific theory is based on the "study" of this world. Weather the world we live in is actually real is irrelevant to it being the one we live in therefor being the only one that matters.Nice try though sye ten has already been beaten down on this view point.
Robert okello which version of the Bible do you read? The King James Version? I’m asking because I’m going to quote the version you use so there’s no ambiguity, and you can then ‘interpret’ those words. What denomination Christian are you, if any? And why? What exactly was the nature of your experience, did it carry any observable evidence for any neutral observer(s)? Are you an African? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okello
Robert okello are you trying to say that the Bible doesn’t say what it means and means what it says, because you say so? Where in the Bible does it condemn slavery? King Solomon has many wives and concubines, what did god say about that? The Israelites murdered whole cities, only sometimes keeping the young virgins to themselves, today that would be rightly considered a war crime, but their god commanded them to do it, why? Why aren’t you out murdering homosexuals and adulterers, the Bible commands it. Which version of the Bible do you read? I ask so you can’t complain saying that it’s the incorrect wording. Why would a god write a book which only those who must believe it fanatically and completely unquestioningly first, before they can have any idea what the words, any words, actually mean? You say this because you people love semantics and dancing around the very things that book actually says, you’d think it’s because your faith is so brittle and weak, that you need to constantly cherrypick the bits of the Bible you like, and then flip-flop over the other bits. In fact, Christians can’t even agree between themselves on how the Bible is to be interpreted, but your personal perfect relationship with him, alone, allows you to do that, right? Have you ever asked yourself why the supposedly most powerful being in existence needs to be constantly defending of its very existence, never mind anything else? There have been literally thousands of gods throughout history, and they all have the exact same amount of actual evidence for them. If that’s not true I want to see your evidence, it will make you world famous because you’ll be the first person in history to have verifiable evidence.
+Idiot atheist "Dean...We need to rid the world of the religion of hate, atheism first. atheism is the most arrogant and dishonest religion." Thank you again, this is why we need to get religion peacefully because of that asinine statement. Atheism is not a belief. It is a negative position. It really has no meaning accept now the religious have coined this phrase as if it was a positive position which by definition is not. Believing in things whether it is religion or not that cannot be proven empirically to be true is not a rational position. It is not irrational to have speculation but it is irrational to make knowledge claims where these claims are unfalsifiable. Having misguided faith or blind faith or faith in the religious context is not rational. It is understood why homosapiens fall victim to that methodology but it still makes it irrational to use that method.
Dean Lowdon most atheists are liberals. A lot of liberal views are very unhealthy for a society a country etc. If all religion died today and people came to being atheists with all the same views most atheists have today we'd find ourselves living in a socialist depressed place throughout the world constantly justifying these unhealthy values in life because we're all atheists even though atheists shouldn't be for these unhealthy views that for some reason most atheists are for.
AntiReligious...atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. atheism is not a total lack of belief. atheists believe they lack a brief in a god or gods. That is a belief. I like your claim "Having misguided faith or blind faith or faith in the religious context is not rational." This is why I have said that atheism is not rational. atheist take on blind faith alone that they are correct There are many things that cannot be proven with/through/by empirical evidence. (Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation.) You cannot use empirical evidence for.Pre-Columbian people. No information can be gathered by observing them. Nor can information be gathered on pre-Columbian people by experimentation. The fact that science is about the natural world. Religion is about the supernatural world. Science is not for the study of the supernatural. Your thinking is totally irrational.
If I spent 2 hours trying to convince you Santa Claus is real and a reindeer speaks and flies with 60 Watt red nose....you would think, at the very least, I was irrational.
Just stumbled or was intuitively lead to this channel and I must say it’s like a breath of fresh air I love all of the topics discussed I appreciate the host it’s just an overall well done show thank you I subscribed immediately
It's a programme that was(is?) on the BBC every Sunday morning. I used to get up and watch it every week because the subjects were always either philosophically or politically interesting and the people they had on always got into interesting arguments. Sometimes it got quite spicy. There's also a programme that ran at the same time at a different part of the year, called Sunday Morning Live(something like that), but that only ever had three guests, whereas this has lots of them in the front row, as well as a whole crowd of frequently insane members of the public behind them.
Dale D. Is that supposed to be clever? Who are you trying to impress? Do you have young children in your family or extended family? Well, they'll soon vanish in accordance with Bible prophecy. I hope that will satisfy you in your quest for evidence.
@@michaelbarnes2478 you guys have been saying this for 1600 years+++.. tomorrow... tomorrow.. tomorrow... maybe Saturday.. We're all lucky none of you have had the conviction or determination of another unnamed violent death cult. Your wishful thinking for the destruction of the human race is more than disgusting.
If one cant point out the irrational things , like flying or talking donkeys , how can one have a debate about rationality ? The woman acts like a todler who knows he's gonna hear or see something it doesnt like , and as a safeguard puts his hands against his ears , closes his eyes and starts saying BLABLABLA so not to hear whats being said . This woman shows perfectly why we should stop having theology being a study at university . Its a waste of time and money .
oh my god these are a wild ride. i can't. oh my. all i want to say - a big thank you to scientists who stand for rationality in such debates. thank you for taking such blows for the collective.
Actually not Flatearthers at least TRY to figure something out. Even If they are wrong. They are trying to prove flat earth or disprove sphere earth... Believers on the other hand just believe 😂
Things for people have to keep in mind: Agnosticism is NOT being "on the fence". A theist can be an agnostic as much as an atheist. The burden of proof is not on atheists. Proving something does not exist is impossible in science or logic. It is up to those who claim the positive to prove it. It is up to theist to prove God.
Theists keep thinking that atheism is a presupposition. Theism is so atheism must be, I guess. That's just not right. If you actually think about it in a rational, fair, unbiased, cold and unemotional way, atheism is just the right answer. There's one right answer, God either exists or he doesn't and if you just use your reason you will see that there's no reason to accept any religious claims. It's simply true.
Morris Gordon But that's what I'm saying. The religious are biased. Religion is a bias. That's why we see so many proofs that are post hoc rationalizations routing back to assumed conclusions. Atheism isn't like that. Atheism is, at least for me, an honest attempt to be less biased and to be honest with myself. To say, here's what I want to believe and here's what's evident and they're two different things. If you were to drop your bias and reason it out coldly and unemotionally over the course of many years, you would see it too. Eventually you wouldn't have a choice because it's the right answer. I was brought up very religious and I begged and pleaded with God to reveal himself to me. A stiff breeze at the right time would've done it. I never wanted to be an atheist. This was all before "The God Delusion" came out and atheism became a "hot topic" for lack of a better phrase. Eventually I had to admit to myself that there's just no really good reasons to believe in something that now seems like an extraordinary claim.
Morris Gordon I agree that people tend to be biased. I think some can be less biased by being using critical thinking, logic and skepticism and most importantly, honesty. Honesty towards one's self. Some religious even admit that they're being intentionally illogical. They'll say something like "Why would I use man's logic and not the word of God?" etc.
Faith (religious) as described in every dictionary - (noun) A belief without proof...... As an atheist all I ask for is evidence for the claim there's a creator, give me verifiable evidence and I'll believe, but in all my 71 years that's never happened. All I hear are opinions, not evidence.
These programmes always seem to give more time to those of a religious disposition. Those arguing from the atheist viewpoint have had less than half the air time. Very disproportionate considering there are far more atheists than those fully follow a religious life eg. attend church regularly.
@@dhdowlad Even worse..aids has a chance or being cured..whereas religious faith is a persistent parasite that has infected humanity since the dawn of man
It's perfectly obvious why that woman at the start is arguing for what is apparently an "expanded" definition of reason. She needs it to explain the talking donkey.
Lol, talking snakes, flying donkeys, dead man walking died for my sins, The earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, my cult is the correct one while the rest are made yo etc.. That is the RATIONAL CHOICE according to the holy scripture? smh..
Everyone is an Atheïst! Or someone needs to believe in the thousands of gods that existed in history or even the over 300 million gods that exist in Hinduism. So a Christian is a theist when it comes to Jehova, but an atheïst when it comes to for example Zeus, Ra or Thor.
“Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.” ― Voltaire That great man also pointed out an inescapable truth, “Faith consists in believing what reason cannot.” If what you believe is irrational, then have the faith and strength of character to admit the truth. If you have to use false logic to promote your truth, you are a liar or an idiot. Reason doesn't need an invisible sky god.
@@vicachcoup Correct. Key differences being that I don't 'believe there is no afterlife'. I just lack the belief that there is one on an evidential basis. Also, I don't lack the belief of an afterlife because of an emotional drive and desire for there not to be one, whereas that is what the lady was saying is the foundation of a lot of people's belief that there is one.
@@andyashworth7750 Once again, whatever belief you have or whatever you have a lack of belief in , has no bearing at all at what is actually true. And your patronising insinuation that others have that belief due to an emotinal drive is a sign of the lack of sophistication in your thinking.
@@vicachcoup Wow, chill. You are repeating my point. I am in agreement with you that whatever the belief is has no bearing on the reality of the belief. I just didn't list every belief in my original comment... Patronising insinuation? It was a quote from the Christian lady in the video... I'm well aware other religious folk have different reasons for thinking that their belief in an afterlife is justified. I come from a Christian family and most of my friends are christian. But yes, I am indeed narrow minded, patronising and unsophisticated. As you were.
@@andyashworth7750 TBH I didn't watch the video this video just followed from the previous one I watched. Apologies if that point about belief rooted in emotion wasn't yours. What is your position given that you come from a Christian background and have family members that still believe in that faith?
I watch a lot of religious vs atheist debates...there is ONE single commonality, the Theist is in every single instance not willing to accurately portray the stance of the atheist. They MUST try and paint atheism as something other than the rejection of theism or else it's clear who is rational and reasonable and who isn't.
It is disappointing to see Nicky Campbell fawning over Elaine Storkey. She’s a great radio presenter, but (based on the evidence here) a very poor academic!
im not so sure thats true being 99.99999 percent sure to infinity is good enough evidence of anything else not existing so why not apply it to gods until alternate evidence proves otherwise are we 100 percent sure that anything doesnt exist this could be a matrix
First there is no evidence whatsoever about the non-existence of God. Second , there are reasons suggesting the existence of God , and other reasons suggesting that God doesn't exist. So how come you are 99,99999 percent to infinity sure ??
Wrong, there is no evidence whatsoever that a god exists. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, and so far they have failed to meet that requirement of proof.
Giving reasons ok , but giving an "evidence" no , talking about "signs" ok but not about "proofs". Religion requires believing in God , not knowing with evidence that God exists.
How can atheism be a choice? It's the default position. You only become religious by being turned on to it some way. Stop pushing religion as the natural order, its Bollocks.
12:02 The geezer seems to think that because people believed it so much they were prepared to die for it means the resurrection is true, In that case anything a suicide bomber believes must be true and the Kool aid guy must have been spot on
Why is it that theists have to shout down counter arguments continually the problem with these discussions is there is no mechanism in it tk shut up people when they've had their say and let others have the same courtesy. This constant attacking merely makes their argument so much weaker as for the Catholic lady I've seen her before and she's nuts she says contraception makes women want to be sexually active and its a problem wtf is wrong with these people
Never forget, people, how lucky we are to be able to have this debate openly and easily in this age and part of the world. I look forward to the time when the same can be said in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq. And, don't worry, I'm not being 'islamaphobic'. The Catholic and Christian churches were just as bad before, as Hitchens put it, their fangs were drawn. We are lucky that we can express these ideas without fear of being stoned to death, burned at the stake, drowned as witches, tortured by the Inquisition, or convicted by religious juries. This is still happening in some parts of the world. To quote Cleese, 'I'm suggesting we've made some progress.' In some parts, even now, a woman can be convicted of adultery if she is raped and has less than 4 witnesses to provide evidence on her side. And under sharia law, a woman's testimony is worth (exactly mathematically) half as much as a man's. Oh no, wait, what did that woman say? Religion is an answer to heart's longing. I guess that makes it okay then. I long for the day when no one is any longer taken in by these ridiculous medieval myths and fables and superstitions - ANY of them. And the only way to do it is by educating people and ceasing childhood indoctrination by established, supported, funded and tax-exempted systemised regimes and organisations. Not in my lifetime, I'm sure. But maybe, just maybe. I really, REALLY hope. Now hand me that newborn baby boy or girl, because I need to mutilate its genitalia in the name of god...
Always an interesting, if a bit maddening, discussion. I notice a couple things every time I see one of these discussions: 1) Most religious people would object to reasoning of the quality they use on anything BUT religion. 2) With the exception of real extremists, most religious people only hold their beliefs when it's cheap to do so. If someone proposes to them "I'll give you a million pounds if you can survive through your god's salvation a shotgun blast to the face from a meter away" they'd likely say "he/she doesn't work like that" to which I would reply "imagine that". 3) I've seen before what the first woman mentions, the reason based on presuppositions line. That stuff works in the philosophy departments of universities, but it doesn't in, for example, the engineering department where things actually have to get done and work.
heads up for alains way of debating. i dont agree with her arguments but damn i like her positive attitute and method of running a discussion! you have my respect!
The only thing that is true in the Bible would be if I meekly ask for 1 penny for every prayer that never worked, I would be so rich I would inherit the Earth.
We have 'yearning’ in our hearts, therefore God exists. Right... It couldn't possibly be a plethora of other scientifically proven psychological issues that religious people describe as 'yearning' then.
Christ al bloody mighty that first woman comes out with some silly excuses for her particular deity, which “god” fails every promise made for it in its book of multiple choice.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
"wanting something doesn't make it true "
this summarized everything
Atheism, as defined by lack of belief in the various gods put forth throughout history, makes no such claim to know everything. Doubting a claim does not mean that the person thinks they are omnipotent; just incredulous to the claim. That's it. You have made a straw man fallacy.
Have you concluded that any of the other gods are man-made products of culture? Have you concluded that there definitely is a specific god or gods? By your own logic, would answering yes to either of these fall under the banner of claiming to know everything?
And regardless of whether there is a god or there isn't: "wanting something does not make it true." This statement accurate either way.
Dear Robert okello,
Get your facts straight. Atheist do not say "GOD DOES NOT EXIST", they say they have no proof so they dont believe.
Its religious people who claim that god DOES exist. So, do they know everything? Cus if they dont, they should NOT claim he exists based on your own statement.
Second, the original message says:
*"wanting something doesn't make it true "
this summarized everything*
How did you read that and convert it to "My conclusion is that God doesn't exist"?
The difference between claiming to not believe in god based on lack of evidence and claiming that god exists despite the lack of evidence?
Or the difference between "wanting something doesn't make it true" and claiming to know that god does not exist?
+ Robert okello
*I claim to be having 50 millions dollars in my account.*
Do you see the difference between these responses? :
1. "No, you haven't 50 millions in your account."
2. "I don't believe you have 50 millions in your account."
One of them is a truth-claim and the other is not. The last one is about withholding judgement before sufficient evidence is provided.
Let us use this on the god claim,
*You're claiming there is a God*
Do you now see the difference between the responses? :
1. "No, there is no God."
2. "I don't believe there is a god."
picitnew,
There is also the difference between the fact that the part that is claiming fact is the one that has to present the evidence.
So, those who claim "there IS a god" instead of saying "I believe there is a god" should also provide evidence to the existence of god.
"we have the evidence of the resurrection" that's how you spot a charlatan.
*Great evidence*: "People died for it two thousand years ago, supposedly."
People are dieing that have never died before
Theists would rather not talk about their supernatural beliefs because when they do they know they sound foolish.
Atheists don’t have supernatural beliefs...until the start trying to explain how 14B years ago there was nothing; then BANG 💥 whoop there’t is.
Choir TcrMaloy ... you may think you're witty but you've only revealed that you don't know the definition of "supernatural." Scientific theories on the origin of the universe may incorporate natural processes that are beyond our everyday experience, but that is not supernatural.
Option A. We don't know how, but here's about when it happened and here is a lot of evidence about what happened immediately afterwards. Still working on it, some things we may have to change our mind on.
Option B. GAWD
Well either a. you've really been channeled by demons, spoken to by angels, and are a modern day prophet.... or.... you are nuts/have seizures/ are a liar. Forgive me while I choose the options without hocus pocus.
Tom Tunafish
Yeah, the atheists who think we came from a rock are not foolish at all. 🤦♂️
It`s not a choice, it`s the default position. If someone were to claim that there was an invisible goat in the room, that could turn the lights on and off and that it created the room itself, the default position would be to say, `prove it`, that`s like atheism, it`s not making a claim, it`s responding to one.
Depends on the brand of atheism. Strong Atheism makes a different claim.
@@bluto212 No it doesn't, it says I don't believe in the thing your claiming exists, it's always the default position.
@@snootyfilms8617 No. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism
@@bluto212 "Strong Atheism makes a different claim" It is a straw man because no one sensible actually makes that claim. It is a desperation on the part of theists that they have to try to claim anyone who doesn't beleive in their god is just as a irrational as they know that they are for accepting it without any evidence.
@@roqsteady5290 That's not true. Richard Dawkins, a very prominent proponent of Atheism, is a Strong Atheist.
I love to imagine how these conversations would go with Aron Ra or Matt Dillahunty there.
Presumably aggressive and preachy...
@KingCaino Plays oh man if only! He could destroy them with such elegance and flair....i miss that beautiful man
Matt would smackdown these religious people easily..
Go watch Father Gregory Pine...he's the matt dillahunty of Christianity
@@fabulousagnostic2118 You mean like the theists in this video? Because aggressive and preachy is all they are.
That was an incredibly dishonest woman
The truth is that both options are explanations for what we don't know. Observation is interpreted to the best of our intellect based on our knowledge until we know better.
@@casiandsouza7031 within the first minute that woman said it depends on what you mean by rational choice she just made the phrase rational choice a phrase that is entirely meaningless in any real context never defining the term
Deconstructing the reason to make it no longer about reasonability or being able to reason your way out or into a situation she made the word reason also meaningless in this is all before 5 minutes are up
@@casiandsouza7031 wrong. Theism claims to explain something we don't know. Atheism is the response that theism fails to meet it's burden of proof. Atheism, by definition, does not claim anything. Atheists can and of course do go on to make explanatory claims about the universe, morality etc.
@@rickkybobby8118 theism started out without filing any claim. It just sort answers with the knowledge of the times. Atheism is correct in pointing out errors in their answers but lack of evidence does not prove otherwise. Agnostics can be said to make no claim but not atheists. If you don't know just say you don't know. Don't say you are right and others wrong.
All thinking men are atheists. - Ernest Hemingway
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." --- Albert Einstein
Lighthouses are more helpful than churches. --- Benjamin Franklin
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I
dismiss yours." --- Stephen Roberts
Professor Stephen Hawking sets out to answer the question: "Did the Universe need a creator?" The answer he gives is a resounding "no".
"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense." --- Chapman Cohen
"Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions" - Blaise Pascal
"No man has ever been brainwashed by science" -- Unknown
"Which is it, is man one of God’s blunders or is God one of man’s?" ---- Friedrich Nietzsche
"A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows." --- Mark Twain
"Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires." ---- Sigmund Freud
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." -- Isaac Asimov
"If you want to control a population, give them a god to worship"- Noam Chomsky
Smooth kriminal...I see you enjoy quote mining. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
All these have one thing in common , they are all in hell , wise up before you join them ,
threats? wise up jerkface. it doesnt take much to counter those quotes he mined out.
???
All those that reject God can look forward to a painful punishment - God
So there you have it. You can choose to follow Ernest and hope he was right.
Good luck
Even the Christians laughed at the guy who thought there is evidence of the resurrection.
The problem is FAITH.
Faith allows people to believe in outrageous things without providing one piece of evidence at all.
Religious people say "I believe" instead of "I don't know." Just have the humility to admit that you don't know.
Religion is the furthest thing from humility.
"I didnt come to debate talking donkeys"... I think "I know that part of my holy book is indefensible so let me dodge that question."
Correct. And if you don’t believe those parts of your Bible and pass them off as fable then couldn’t all the rest be as well?
Exactly, especially the bit about cheating death.
And spontaneous births.
Faith is irrational by definition.
The problem is is that if you start or trying to suggest that Faith be concordance with reason or perhaps even just goals then the word faith now has changed definitions you're not talking about the same faith as someone who's literally just turned off their brain
Simply true!
Yes it is the rational choice. What's rational in claiming to know a non-existent absent supernatural deity? What's rational in trying to apply the very questionable morals of an ancient book to the 21st century? What's rational about condemning entire groups of people just cause they don't worship the same imaginary friend in the exact same way as you do? I can do this for hours.
I would say it's the rational conclusion, but it's not a choice. Neither is theism, deism, etc. They're all the output from all of the input into an individual's brain.
As an atheist, who abandoned Christianity over almost 30 years ago, I could no more choose to believe in Christianity than I could choose to believe I could jump off a tall building and fly unaided by technology.
Theists are the same way. Even if things like cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, and the like are at play, religious belief is the output of their brain and they don't choose the output. The output can be changed with additional input. But the output, whether atheism or some form of religious belief, is never a choice.
loki2240 Hm. Interesting thought, certainly. Perhaps conclusion is the more accurate term.
+Raven Brown I need to correct myself, too. The output isn't just a matter of input. There is processing by the brain, as well. And a lot (if not all) of it is involuntary. For example, we don't choose to engage in confirmation bias - our brain either does it or it doesn't.
So, the same inputs (which of course is impossible) into different brains wouldn't necessarily result in the same output.
+Raven Brown there is no rational choice because there is no evidence for atheism or theism.All of this is nonsense.You want atheism to be rational only to vaildate your views on religion.
+Morris Gordon Why would atheism require evidence in order to be the rational conclusion?
Do you think that atheism is a positive claim that no deities exist? If so, you're mistaken.
The whole thing could have been over in 5 minutes, if he'd let Arif Ahmed actually fucking speak.
Faith is the belief in something without any evidence to support it.
Agnostic Atheism is the only intellectually honest position to hold.
Gnosticism/ agnosticism related to knowledge about the existence of god. There is no such evidence so we are all agnostic.
Atheism is a lack of belief in the claims that theism make. No evidence, no rational reason to believe.
Do you believe the Flying Spaghetti monster is just as likely to exist?
mobis ware again an invention of the human mind.
I do believe Yeshua was probably a real apocalyptic preacher but there’s no good reason to believe him a deity.
Deutschland Über Alles
Gnosticism refers to “knowledge”
Theism/ atheism refers to “beliefs”.
I don’t know if god(s) exist but I don’t believe that they do.
Deutschland Über Alles sometimes I post for others to read. 👍
I agree. All religious is utter unbelievable bollocks. Not one single scrap of evidence scientific or other of a god. It's brainwashing
Talking donkeys are a part of religion. The fact that it's inconvenient to the theologian's argument is irrelevant - she was invited to discuss religion, there was no proviso saying 'do not bring up the silly bits of religion because I'm a proper grumpy cow and it makes my argument look stupid.'
I wish someone would have mentioned that the heart is a muscle that pumps blood, it can not yearn.
The woman's mischaracterisation of reason in the first 5 minutes was breathtaking, stunning and typical.
Its a requirement of her job lol
yes,it was so typical it beckoned belief.they might want to try different people in these as the same types are argumenting in every episode,like this old woman with 5 yrs hair style.
"The human heart cries out for peace and for love and for meaning" really? tell that to the millions of innocent men, women and children the "Catholic and Christain" Church have tortured, hung,
drowned, burned alive, degutted, pulled apart limb from limb lady...
My heart longs for nothing. My brain does all the thinking
They will proceed with the classic: "oH bUt ThEy WeReNt ReAl ChRiSTiAnS!"
@@FactStormyes they clearly went against the New Testament and the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
When that catholic dud started speaking I thought I was actually going to finally have respect for his position on atheism. He started out correcting the other man and stating that 'atheism is simply the lack of belief in a God, nothing more'. I'm like finally a theist who actually understands what atheism is and doesn't call us an evolutionist or a Darwinist or a materialist.
Much to my dismay he then said the painful sentence, as Frank Turek does so often, that there is too much evidence for God to 'believe that atheism is true'. Aaaaaand we're back to square one.
After acknowledging that atheism makes no truth claims, he then states that atheism isn't 'true'.
There isn't, and has never been, good evidence for theism.
There is no evidence for athiesm.
Its a stalemate. Only athiest know their belief is based on logic and religion is based on irrationality.
Athiest can prove Christopher Hitchens was born a human, that he lived as a human, died and stayed dead. Christians can't prove Christ was born a god, lived as a god and died, only to return to life again 3 days later.
They can barely prove a man called jesus of Nazazareth lived, let alone prove he was a devine being.
If I had to choose, I know which side I'd be on.
Thankfully there is the third option, be an agnostic.
He actually used the word disbelief to describe athiest.
This may not be obvious to everyone but in doing so, he was implying athiest choose to deny the reality, that in truth God exists.
As any athiest will state, athiest don't believe in God or gods.
This may seem insignificant but I suspect he didnt do that by accident, it was his way of
putting athiest down, implying they were wrong.
@@davidvarley1812 Atheists don't assert that god doesn't exist - they just don't believe that one does. It annoys me when people say they are agnostic, as it tells me nothing about their position on god, only that they don't have knowledge either way.
Let me ask you, if you aren't an atheist, which god/what sort of god do you believe in? You're either a theist or an atheist, it's a dichotomy!
@@nathijomac I believe its possible that we might someday discover the answer to the question is there a God or gods.
At present science can't answer that either way, so I sit on the fence.
I'm nutritional, I neither believe nor don't believe in any God or gods.
For me it's a question of scientific knowledge or lack of scientific knowledge, not belief.
The O:E:D states, athiesm is the belief that God or gods don't exist.
So technically your correct but any confusion was only accidentally and personal I think that's irrelevant as it's more an argument over words than meaning. I'm a agnostic because I say I am, you get no say in that matter. . It's your right to get annoyed by the term agnostic, I can do nothing about that.
Wow that was a bunch of nonsense from the religious side...
Isn't it always, when the issue is the validity of religion (or atheism)?
Has there ever been anything but nonsense from religioturds?
+Mo Hammered Nice job insulting others ^^
thanks for your opinion, God bless!✌
+Funaru No surprise though, really. Pretty much exactly what one would expect.
"We have a deep yearning..."
That's a rational human desire for fairness and community that HUMANS must create.
Can't believe anyone with a semblance of intelligence can still believe in a sky wizard. Very sad
I think it must be difficult for Queen Elisabeth. She's intelligent enough to know that religion is all mythology but she must maintain her position as Defender of the faith. I often think the same when an atheistic President ends his speech with "God bless the United States" He must be cringing inside every time he has to speak these words.
*interior sigh* "God bless the United States.".
*Good thing I have this 12 years VSOP cognac in the oval office. I'm gonna need a shot of that...
-Every atheist president to date after uttering these words.
Psychotic religious people..what do you expect from a majority thats been indoctrinated since childhood?
Christians don't believe in a "sky wizard"
Wow, the catholic made the best definition of atheism. That simply being the disbelieve in god. Everything else he said was wrong and lots of old tired arguments.
+TheBT he didn't say a lot neither did the atheists
TheBT false it is not about disbelief of god or gods. Your are also a atheist if you believe in one. Because 2999 others closer to another anti polygamous beliefs.
Nothing created everything Atheism in a nut shell
*Nothing created everything Atheism in a nut shell*
Is it, though? What part of atheism requires you to believe that?
Joel Super British Warrior Cong######## Plymouth
That's not the core of a-theism. Atheism is essentialy nothing more and nothing less than not-believing the idea or argument for the existence of a god or gods. It's not claiming anything.
What you described however, was probably an oversimplification of the idea that the universe came into existence without making the claim that it was by a 'devine act of creation' by a 'creator'.
Science and scientists don't claim to know how things work or came to be in a very plausable way (meaning: coming up with a proven hypothesis => Scientific Theory) without sound evidence. If there's no evidence, science says: "we don't know, but we do want to study and research it until maybe one day we'll find answers and evidence."
Bytheway, there are some interesting clips on TH-cam with Lawrence Krauss, in which he discusses and explains his ideas about 'nothing' and how 'something' could have come from 'nothing'.
Pointing towards a god or gods for everything you don't know or understand (yet), is a sort of a convenient cop out IMHO. The God of the gaps.
People are so eager for having an explanation and/or needy towards special purpose for or meaning behind everything, they are susceptible for all kinds of beliefs, superstition and religion, instead of accepting the reality and honesty that we don't know everything and that asking 'Why?' is maybe not the best question, but 'How?'. The why-question comes from the human desire to purpose, being special and fear for mortality and uselessness.
It's not a choice. It's the opposite. Confronted with the "evidence" of God, I have no other choice than not to believe.
What evidence?
the fallacy fallacy
You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.
@@vicachcoup just as everyone should. If i make an ass out of meself and argue out of bad faith, i cant blame anyone if they dismiss my claim
@@czarzenana5125 - ... evidence for unicorns?
@@vicachcoup - In lack of evidence for the claim there's no reason to believe the claim. In the face of outlandish claims there's reason to disbelieve the claim.
That guy who claimed so much evidence of the resurrection is such a liar. There is no evidence of it and it indeed was a common theme in myths at that time.
there's not even a bone or dna of their jesus and they are denying the facts of evolution which are based on fossil evidence and dna
That religious crazy lady is just soaked in belief. She will go in a hole and rot like the rest of us. End of story
It never fails to amaze me that people can get Ph.Ds for "theology." It's like getting a Ph.D. for studying Star Wars as if it really happened.
.
Exactly
I am an atheist myself but I appreciate Theology as a subject and see the the value in it. After all, it's religions around the world that have developed how cultures have essentially evolved around the world.
The irony is you're judging Theology while being an athiest
WTF stop attacking Star Wars
First woman didn't even wait too long to start kicking out
"Is atheism rational?"
"No"
"Is talking donkey rational?"
"Let's not talk about that?"
@Gary Fletcher
Oh so you accept that the bible was wrong about that.
Good, let’s carry on unbiasedly examining the claims the Bible makes.
How many other flaws and mistakes do you think we’ll find?
@Gary Fletcher
Oh so are you a Young Earth Creationist then?
@Gary Fletcher
After Balaam starts punishing the donkey for refusing to move, it is miraculously given the power to speak to Balaam (numbers 22:28).
So YOUR book thinks that donkeys can talk, even though we know that they can’t.
That’s just off the top of my head.
So shall we carry on looking for errors?
@Gary Fletcher
What?
I’m dyslexic, so maybe it’s me, but I have no idea what that’s supposed to say.
@Gary Fletcher
Lol what Is “good” about the flaws and bad science in the bible?
Also is that “no” meant to be an answer to my question about if you are a YEC?
I've never needed religion in my life, you can live the good life without the invisible addiction.
Ask a theist a direct question about their beliefs and prepare yourself to experience a tap dance that would have made Mr. Bojangles himself jealous.
Just don't prepare to receive a direct answer........
Sound like you atheist you believe in magic without a magician
@@gman4074 no atheists don't believe in magic at all that's the difference! If theists do believe in magic without evidence then let them. I'll stick to the things that can be proven.
@@gman4074 actually atheists believe all sorts of different things they are all individuals. All atheism tells you about a person is they lack a belief in a god nothing more than that. Generally that means they don't state they know for certain that a god doesn't exist just that there hasn't been enough evidence to prove god exists. I think I would prefer to stick to believing things based on evidence rather than be like you and preach to everyone based on something you believe purely on faith and which you cannot prove. Your not the same G Man that Matt Dillahunty destroyed on the atheist experience are you by any chance?. Perhaps not but you sound a lot like him.
@@wkworld6741 If you dnt kno that Agnostics which means you dnt kno. Atheist.. A negation of theism meaning the opposite so it a claim their is no god. MATT D. Was destroyed by Matt Slick and Jordan Peterson. Profess themselves to be wise yet they were fools. THE Universe exist so you hve two options a naturalistic cause or Supernatural cause?
@@gman4074 lol so you are the loser that Matt destroyed thanks for the laugh. Please call in again I need entertaining. Also you are wrong in everything you just said but then again there's no surprise there!. It's not worth trying to educate you as no doubt it's like talking to a brick wall and a waste of my energy to even try!
Ah the Internet -where religions come to die ☺ -of course unbelief is the rational worldview
I claim that an opinion, because everything in the Bible has an explanation, and has never been disproven. The reason I say this is that there currently exists a group of people (to my admittedly vague knowledge) who have a challenge to all atheists: Prove them (the ideas of creationism) wrong in a debate, and recieve $100,000. Nobody has done it.
+speedstackingmaniac Plenty of the Bible has been disproven. Noah's Ark is one among many.
Also the person you're talking about is Joshua Feuerstein who set up the challenge. Problem is that he's asking atheists to prove a negative.
So yeah, don't know if you're just trolling or what but your entire comment is backwards.
+Hilary Keegan athiesm is not an rational choice because its not base on evidence
There is no evidence of religion. You are born an atheist. There are no religious infants. Atheism is the reasonable position
+Logical Reason if i was born an atheist.Then atheism is not an reasonable or rational position but a default position.For i feel Igtheism is our default position until we are introduce to the notion of a deity or non believe of a deity.
i dont quite get why religios people believe in just one god. like there are so many different religions and there have been way more and somehow religious ppl say all of them are wrong except their own.
Smart host.
Was only trying to be objective at the start, and only 1 minute in, he completely checkmated the theologian/philosopher/believer. Run it back and watch her fall off her bike. Good Stuff!
"Wanting something doesn't make it true." Dead LOL
on the last question the religious woman who has no evidence to back her belief says the questioner has no evidence for his hypothesis. the irony of her ignorance.
Scientific theory is based on an axiom that "we actually exist in this world". This cannot be proven. Atheist base their disbelief of God on science. Therefore atheists believe what they believe based on faith.
scientific theory is based on the "study" of this world. Weather the world we live in is actually real is irrelevant to it being the one we live in therefor being the only one that matters.Nice try though sye ten has already been beaten down on this view point.
Robert okello which deity do you believe in?
And why?
Robert okello which version of the Bible do you read?
The King James Version?
I’m asking because I’m going to quote the version you use so there’s no ambiguity, and you can then ‘interpret’ those words.
What denomination Christian are you, if any?
And why?
What exactly was the nature of your experience, did it carry any observable evidence for any neutral observer(s)?
Are you an African?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okello
Robert okello are you trying to say that the Bible doesn’t say what it means and means what it says, because you say so?
Where in the Bible does it condemn slavery?
King Solomon has many wives and concubines, what did god say about that?
The Israelites murdered whole cities, only sometimes keeping the young virgins to themselves, today that would be rightly considered a war crime, but their god commanded them to do it, why?
Why aren’t you out murdering homosexuals and adulterers, the Bible commands it.
Which version of the Bible do you read?
I ask so you can’t complain saying that it’s the incorrect wording.
Why would a god write a book which only those who must believe it fanatically and completely unquestioningly first, before they can have any idea what the words, any words, actually mean?
You say this because you people love semantics and dancing around the very things that book actually says, you’d think it’s because your faith is so brittle and weak, that you need to constantly cherrypick the bits of the Bible you like, and then flip-flop over the other bits.
In fact, Christians can’t even agree between themselves on how the Bible is to be interpreted, but your personal perfect relationship with him, alone, allows you to do that, right?
Have you ever asked yourself why the supposedly most powerful being in existence needs to be constantly defending of its very existence, never mind anything else?
There have been literally thousands of gods throughout history, and they all have the exact same amount of actual evidence for them.
If that’s not true I want to see your evidence, it will make you world famous because you’ll be the first person in history to have verifiable evidence.
The sooner all religion dies out the better. The arrogance and dishonesty of some of these theists is infuriating!
Dean...We need to rid the world of the religion of hate, atheism first. atheism is the most arrogant and dishonest religion.
+Idiot atheist: Atheism isn't a religion no matter how many times theists try to claim it is.
+Idiot atheist
"Dean...We need to rid the world of the religion of hate, atheism first. atheism is the most arrogant and dishonest religion."
Thank you again, this is why we need to get religion peacefully because of that asinine statement. Atheism is not a belief. It is a negative position. It really has no meaning accept now the religious have coined this phrase as if it was a positive position which by definition is not.
Believing in things whether it is religion or not that cannot be proven empirically to be true is not a rational position. It is not irrational to have speculation but it is irrational to make knowledge claims where these claims are unfalsifiable.
Having misguided faith or blind faith or faith in the religious context is not rational. It is understood why homosapiens fall victim to that methodology but it still makes it irrational to use that method.
Dean Lowdon most atheists are liberals. A lot of liberal views are very unhealthy for a society a country etc. If all religion died today and people came to being atheists with all the same views most atheists have today we'd find ourselves living in a socialist depressed place throughout the world constantly justifying these unhealthy values in life because we're all atheists even though atheists shouldn't be for these unhealthy views that for some reason most atheists are for.
AntiReligious...atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. atheism is not a total lack of belief. atheists believe they lack a brief in a god or gods. That is a belief. I like your claim "Having misguided faith or blind faith or faith in the religious context is not rational." This is why I have said that atheism is not rational. atheist take on blind faith alone that they are correct
There are many things that cannot be proven with/through/by empirical evidence. (Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation.) You cannot use empirical evidence for.Pre-Columbian people. No information can be gathered by observing them. Nor can information be gathered on pre-Columbian people by experimentation.
The fact that science is about the natural world. Religion is about the supernatural world. Science is not for the study of the supernatural. Your thinking is totally irrational.
it's fascinating that people still need to discuss this. 🤔
If I spent 2 hours trying to convince you Santa Claus is real and a reindeer speaks and flies with 60 Watt red nose....you would think, at the very least, I was irrational.
Oh, and can I quote you on that Elaine? "The Gospels are full of fiction" That's great, thanks for that.
The bible, also known as the goat herders guide to the universe.
Just stumbled or was intuitively lead to this channel and I must say it’s like a breath of fresh air I love all of the topics discussed I appreciate the host it’s just an overall well done show thank you I subscribed immediately
It's a programme that was(is?) on the BBC every Sunday morning. I used to get up and watch it every week because the subjects were always either philosophically or politically interesting and the people they had on always got into interesting arguments. Sometimes it got quite spicy. There's also a programme that ran at the same time at a different part of the year, called Sunday Morning Live(something like that), but that only ever had three guests, whereas this has lots of them in the front row, as well as a whole crowd of frequently insane members of the public behind them.
.... we’re still having this discussion are we? Ok then...
"Yes, a talking donkey is a rational choice" - said no sane person ever.
Dale D.
Is that supposed to be clever? Who are you trying to impress? Do you have young children in your family or extended family? Well, they'll soon vanish in accordance with Bible prophecy. I hope that will satisfy you in your quest for evidence.
@@michaelbarnes2478 - Santa is going to bring you coal, little man
LOL
@@michaelbarnes2478 you guys have been saying this for 1600 years+++.. tomorrow... tomorrow.. tomorrow... maybe Saturday..
We're all lucky none of you have had the conviction or determination of another unnamed violent death cult.
Your wishful thinking for the destruction of the human race is more than disgusting.
This woman at the beginning is so passive aggressive
This is such a hard watch. I can't believe the gullibility of religious people. Grow up.
Religious people today “it’s not about talking donkeys……..it’s what the donkeys were saying ……that’s what’s important !!!!”
Of course its the rational choice...
If one cant point out the irrational things , like flying or talking donkeys , how can one have a debate about rationality ?
The woman acts like a todler who knows he's gonna hear or see something it doesnt like , and as a safeguard puts his hands against his ears , closes his eyes and starts saying BLABLABLA so not to hear whats being said .
This woman shows perfectly why we should stop having theology being a study at university . Its a waste of time and money .
Years from now people will look back to the 21st century and laugh that people still believed in gods back then.
Don’t be so sure. Scientology and Mormonism might be the new popular beliefs.
@@ronytheronin7439 Let's hope not.
@@jeupshaw I was watching The Expanse and found much depressing that mormons were still a thing in that future.
I am going to follow the religion of Jedi by then to n the future it will be popular
The more I listen to Nicky Campbell, the more I like him.
oh my god these are a wild ride. i can't. oh my. all i want to say - a big thank you to scientists who stand for rationality in such debates. thank you for taking such blows for the collective.
"The Church of England send us some distressing news this week... attendance at Church is set to fall for the next 30 years.."
GASSSSP!!!!
:)
+Duane Locsin yes there many non practising Anglicans who don't go to church every sunday
How is it distressing? And to whom?
People just can't be bothered with religion anymore. They aren't generally distressed at all.
@@Whiskey.T.Foxtrot I imagine it would be distressing to see dwindling money plates and tithings.
Religion people and flat earthers are the same level
Actually not
Flatearthers at least TRY to figure something out.
Even If they are wrong.
They are trying to prove flat earth or disprove sphere earth...
Believers on the other hand just believe 😂
That first woman……let’s just avoid the question.
"Can you let me finish!?"
If we'd let you finish we'd be here all night...
Legend has it ... still not done
Things for people have to keep in mind:
Agnosticism is NOT being "on the fence". A theist can be an agnostic as much as an atheist.
The burden of proof is not on atheists. Proving something does not exist is impossible in science or logic. It is up to those who claim the positive to prove it. It is up to theist to prove God.
Theists keep thinking that atheism is a presupposition. Theism is so atheism must be, I guess. That's just not right. If you actually think about it in a rational, fair, unbiased, cold and unemotional way, atheism is just the right answer. There's one right answer, God either exists or he doesn't and if you just use your reason you will see that there's no reason to accept any religious claims. It's simply true.
Paul TheSkeptic of course you going to say god does not exist because you are an athiest i.e you are baised towards your statement
Morris Gordon But that's what I'm saying. The religious are biased. Religion is a bias. That's why we see so many proofs that are post hoc rationalizations routing back to assumed conclusions. Atheism isn't like that. Atheism is, at least for me, an honest attempt to be less biased and to be honest with myself. To say, here's what I want to believe and here's what's evident and they're two different things. If you were to drop your bias and reason it out coldly and unemotionally over the course of many years, you would see it too. Eventually you wouldn't have a choice because it's the right answer.
I was brought up very religious and I begged and pleaded with God to reveal himself to me. A stiff breeze at the right time would've done it. I never wanted to be an atheist. This was all before "The God Delusion" came out and atheism became a "hot topic" for lack of a better phrase. Eventually I had to admit to myself that there's just no really good reasons to believe in something that now seems like an extraordinary claim.
+Paul TheSkeptic its human nature.That why we are biased towards our own group.its science not me.
Morris Gordon I agree that people tend to be biased. I think some can be less biased by being using critical thinking, logic and skepticism and most importantly, honesty. Honesty towards one's self. Some religious even admit that they're being intentionally illogical. They'll say something like "Why would I use man's logic and not the word of God?" etc.
+Paul TheSkeptic just disbelieving doesn't make you honest
'Any chance of me finishing my sentence?' She says, after Arif was unturrupted earlier? Poor manners in this debate.
Faith (religious) as described in every dictionary - (noun) A belief without proof...... As an atheist all I ask for is evidence for the claim there's a creator, give me verifiable evidence and I'll believe, but in all my 71 years that's never happened. All I hear are opinions, not evidence.
She just admitted that a lot of the Bible is fiction 🤦🏻♀️
These programmes always seem to give more time to those of a religious disposition. Those arguing from the atheist viewpoint have had less than half the air time. Very disproportionate considering there are far more atheists than those fully follow a religious life eg. attend church regularly.
They just want the world know how stupid religious fanatics are
Agnosticism is the rational choice, but atheism is a sensible choice.
I would agree to that for the most , although I think that an agnost is an atheist that hasnt spend enough time thinking on the subject .
The fact that religious dogma still exists is mind blowing.
Less mind blowing more just evil?
What is the alternative?
@@dhdowlad That's like asking for an alternative for aids. Why do people ask that question incessantly?
@@FactStorm Do you think Religion is like AIDS?.
@@dhdowlad Even worse..aids has a chance or being cured..whereas religious faith is a persistent parasite that has infected humanity since the dawn of man
It's perfectly obvious why that woman at the start is arguing for what is apparently an "expanded" definition of reason. She needs it to explain the talking donkey.
Atheism is the default position. You have to become a theist
That is a typical atheistic back to front remark .
It's true, which is presumably why you don't agree with it.
You would not know the truth if it hit you in the face , you are wilfully ignorant .
Lol, talking snakes, flying donkeys, dead man walking died for my sins, The earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, my cult is the correct one while the rest are made yo etc.. That is the RATIONAL CHOICE according to the holy scripture? smh..
The truth is you have nothing apart from eternity in hell in the future .
You start with disbelief unless you change
Theres nothing in any religion that you can't get from the Beatles back catalogue!😁
Christian: the bibles rational cuz its filled with fiction parables and poems
Logic: has left the chat
Classic theistic arguments right from the start - semantics.
Deep down in my heart, I want that woman, looked in a room with Christopher Hitchens !
Everyone is an Atheïst! Or someone needs to believe in the thousands of gods that existed in history or even the over 300 million gods that exist in Hinduism.
So a Christian is a theist when it comes to Jehova, but an atheïst when it comes to for example Zeus, Ra or Thor.
Humans "having a yearning" is a flaming generalization, and doesn't make it rational to fabricate a magic creator.
Yahweh is just the Hebrew Zeus
I find it quite funny how Mrs. Sprout is constanly demanding to letting her finish the sentence just to have a long monologue without content 😅
Short answer:
Yes!
Long answer:
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeees!
“Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.” ― Voltaire That great man also pointed out an inescapable truth, “Faith consists in believing what reason cannot.” If what you believe is irrational, then have the faith and strength of character to admit the truth. If you have to use false logic to promote your truth, you are a liar or an idiot. Reason doesn't need an invisible sky god.
A persons longing for eternal life has no impact on the existence of eternal life
And neither does the belief that an eternal life doesn't exist
affect the reality of whether it exists or not.
@@vicachcoup Correct. Key differences being that I don't 'believe there is no afterlife'. I just lack the belief that there is one on an evidential basis. Also, I don't lack the belief of an afterlife because of an emotional drive and desire for there not to be one, whereas that is what the lady was saying is the foundation of a lot of people's belief that there is one.
@@andyashworth7750 Once again, whatever belief you have or whatever you have a lack of belief in , has no bearing at all at what is actually true. And your patronising insinuation that others have that belief due to an emotinal drive is a sign of the lack of sophistication in your thinking.
@@vicachcoup Wow, chill. You are repeating my point. I am in agreement with you that whatever the belief is has no bearing on the reality of the belief. I just didn't list every belief in my original comment...
Patronising insinuation? It was a quote from the Christian lady in the video... I'm well aware other religious folk have different reasons for thinking that their belief in an afterlife is justified. I come from a Christian family and most of my friends are christian. But yes, I am indeed narrow minded, patronising and unsophisticated.
As you were.
@@andyashworth7750 TBH I didn't watch the video this video just followed from the previous one I watched. Apologies if that point about belief rooted in emotion wasn't yours. What is your position given that you come from a Christian background and have family members that still believe in that faith?
I watch a lot of religious vs atheist debates...there is ONE single commonality, the Theist is in every single instance not willing to accurately portray the stance of the atheist. They MUST try and paint atheism as something other than the rejection of theism or else it's clear who is rational and reasonable and who isn't.
It was nice of them to pray for Richard Dawkins though, when he had his stroke.
Ben Thejrporter , but they failed to stroke him sexually when he had that prayer.
Prayer is not nice. It is an easy way to pat yourself on the back, and say you did something, when you really didn't.
CerN you presume too much. you've no understanding of prayer or the sincerity and intent of the one praying.
CerN atheists love to project. Very irrational and emotional people.
Kneeling down, clasping your hands together, and talking to nothing, does nothing.....Actions do indeed, speak louder than words......
It is disappointing to see Nicky Campbell fawning over Elaine Storkey. She’s a great radio presenter, but (based on the evidence here) a very poor academic!
The most rational choice is "Agnosticism" not atheism.
im not so sure thats true being 99.99999 percent sure to infinity is good enough evidence of anything else not existing so why not apply it to gods until alternate evidence proves otherwise are we 100 percent sure that anything doesnt exist this could be a matrix
First there is no evidence whatsoever about the non-existence of God.
Second , there are reasons suggesting the existence of God , and other reasons suggesting that God doesn't exist. So how come you are 99,99999 percent to infinity sure ??
Wrong, there is no evidence whatsoever that a god exists. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, and so far they have failed to meet that requirement of proof.
Giving reasons ok , but giving an "evidence" no , talking about "signs" ok but not about "proofs". Religion requires believing in God , not knowing with evidence that God exists.
You are talking about faith, which requires no evidence!. Its not a virtue, its gullibility!
We’re all born atheist.
It's actually worrying how many crazy people there are.
We are in a computer simulation neither side knows crap.
This quality is so good for a reupload
How can atheism be a choice? It's the default position. You only become religious by being turned on to it some way. Stop pushing religion as the natural order, its Bollocks.
I love how the host is always so obviously a normal person. He doesnt even pretend to take the religious nonsense seriously.
12:02 The geezer seems to think that because people believed it so much they were prepared to die for it means the resurrection is true, In that case anything a suicide bomber believes must be true and the Kool aid guy must have been spot on
depends on what you mean by rational choice...
"okay is it rational to suspend reality to believe in nonsense?"
Why is it that theists have to shout down counter arguments continually the problem with these discussions is there is no mechanism in it tk shut up people when they've had their say and let others have the same courtesy. This constant attacking merely makes their argument so much weaker as for the Catholic lady I've seen her before and she's nuts she says contraception makes women want to be sexually active and its a problem wtf is wrong with these people
Never forget, people, how lucky we are to be able to have this debate openly and easily in this age and part of the world. I look forward to the time when the same can be said in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq.
And, don't worry, I'm not being 'islamaphobic'. The Catholic and Christian churches were just as bad before, as Hitchens put it, their fangs were drawn.
We are lucky that we can express these ideas without fear of being stoned to death, burned at the stake, drowned as witches, tortured by the Inquisition, or convicted by religious juries. This is still happening in some parts of the world.
To quote Cleese, 'I'm suggesting we've made some progress.'
In some parts, even now, a woman can be convicted of adultery if she is raped and has less than 4 witnesses to provide evidence on her side. And under sharia law, a woman's testimony is worth (exactly mathematically) half as much as a man's.
Oh no, wait, what did that woman say? Religion is an answer to heart's longing. I guess that makes it okay then.
I long for the day when no one is any longer taken in by these ridiculous medieval myths and fables and superstitions - ANY of them. And the only way to do it is by educating people and ceasing childhood indoctrination by established, supported, funded and tax-exempted systemised regimes and organisations.
Not in my lifetime, I'm sure. But maybe, just maybe. I really, REALLY hope. Now hand me that newborn baby boy or girl, because I need to mutilate its genitalia in the name of god...
Always an interesting, if a bit maddening, discussion. I notice a couple things every time I see one of these discussions:
1) Most religious people would object to reasoning of the quality they use on anything BUT religion.
2) With the exception of real extremists, most religious people only hold their beliefs when it's cheap to do so. If someone proposes to them "I'll give you a million pounds if you can survive through your god's salvation a shotgun blast to the face from a meter away" they'd likely say "he/she doesn't work like that" to which I would reply "imagine that".
3) I've seen before what the first woman mentions, the reason based on presuppositions line. That stuff works in the philosophy departments of universities, but it doesn't in, for example, the engineering department where things actually have to get done and work.
heads up for alains way of debating. i dont agree with her arguments but damn i like her positive attitute and method of running a discussion!
you have my respect!
The only thing that is true in the Bible would be if I meekly ask for 1 penny for every prayer that never worked, I would be so rich I would inherit the Earth.
The old blonde is strick and firm and fierce without points
We have 'yearning’ in our hearts, therefore God exists. Right... It couldn't possibly be a plethora of other scientifically proven psychological issues that religious people describe as 'yearning' then.
I love studying Religious beliefs, I am a big fan of theological debate etc yet I am an atheist.
Friedrich Nietzsche.....'God is dead,but due to the state mankind is in,his shadow will continue to be shown in caves for years to come.'....so true!!
Elaine Storkey is one of my least favourite people, in practically all aspects of her being
Elaine is hugely disingenuous, she starts with one logical fallacy and just goes through a series of them each time not answering the question.
Christ al bloody mighty that first woman comes out with some silly excuses for her particular deity, which “god” fails every promise made for it in its book of multiple choice.