It's a worse goof-up than what you would expect in Jehovah's Witness literature - and that's saying something. When Watchtower writers misquote, they misquote from scientific books that readers are unlikely to check for themselves. I can't think of an example of where they have misquoted from the Bible as brazenly as this - a book that everyone has access to. As you point out, even the verse they referenced is hardly unequivocal in condemning slavery.
This is the way, theologians, preachers and parsons make people believe in the good Christian God. They knowingly and willingly misquote the Bible to make it appear that the God they're preaching is good while knowing with almost certainty that no believer will actually look it up in the Bible. Tell a Christian that slavery is prohibited according to [book, chapter, verse] sounds credible to those Christians, no matter if that verse actually says so. They won't look it up. That's why it's important for us atheists to look it up and explain that the theologians and preachers are not right about their statements.
They think Einstein was trying to sound _Christian?!?_ Bwahahahahaha! *_"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."_* - Albert Einstein, Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in "Albert Einstein: The Human Side," edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman. I have always admired that expression. "Unbounded" is a term in the Calculus which means an equation that goes from negative to positive infinity. "If something is in me which can be called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the universe so far as our science can reveal it." Poetry. A shame those folks have never bothered to learn the man before they tried to tell us what he thought.
Robert Richardson it's called quote mining and it is one of the few tactics Christians regularly practice. I find it comical because they will always demand you are taking the bible out of context even when you put it into context yet only care about quote mining when you do it.
7 ปีที่แล้ว +11
yup he believed in "Espinozas" God but christians always think he is talking about the christian god lmao
+Rogred The letter is contained in the book edited by his final secretary (in the years before his death), and is in his personal papers archive, part of his estate. The Princeton University archive may contain a digital copy, but it's behind a paywall. You can pick up a copy of the book from Amazon.com (I checked, and they do have copies in stock) if you want to read more. www.amazon.com/Albert-Einstein-Human-Side-Glimpses/dp/0691023689
*France S* actually Einstein didn't believe in a self-aware creator, even one that didn't give a crap about our tiny flyspeck of a planet. He use "god" as a synonym for the wonder and awe as a scientist he felt when he was working to comprehend the natural world and all of the laws that order its functioning. This very unconventional use of the word is most often what scientist like Einstein and Hawkins mean when they use the word "god". And this usage is an endless source of confusion to supernaturalists of all stripes who think the great scientific mind is agreeing with their supernatural god concept. This isn't to say that there aren't scientists, and very good ones too, who explicitly believe in a supernatural god/creator. But in general those scientists, like Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, are very clear about this. I really just wish that my fellow scientists would stop using the word "god" in this way. After all our goal is the clear and unambiguous communication of our ideas and findings.
I agree with one point in their book; they spell Dawkins's name correctly. I want to give them a ribbon for at least trying to play along with the grown-ups.
Alex is 18 years old. I literally cannot attempt to conceive how intellectual and knowledgeable he'll be if he pursues his interests in critical thinking, philosophy and religion in 10 years, let alone 20 or 30 years. He's not even in university yet like wtf?
Eamon Nomae He will be destroyed by education. He will have no time, he will become fat, he will be indoctrinated with stupid leftist ideas and his intelect will diminish
Eamon Nomae If you get out there and try to educate yourself you'll come across most lines of reasoning that Alex has come across and will probably come to the same conclusions.
Qlzldxx Rkddsc What leftist ideas? Humans should get that which is necessary for their survival and upholding of their human dignity supplied to them, no matter who they are?
I would definitely send a complaint to the school librarian or something. Recommend them to add Dawkin's book "The God Delusion" so there's no bias or just say it's a terrible book and explain why. lol
The God Delusion was the final nail in my religion's coffin. It was slowly dying for years before, but the book sent it 6' under and never to be returned, again.
Religion needs to be kept alive, not quelled. If anyone agrees that persons of my type are only delusional in their sense of grandeur, then we can talk.
The Poison Bucket, your definition of a god is wrong. At its most basic definition, god is something supernatural (outside of the natural universe) responsible for the existence of natural laws (and all there is). Ask yourself "How did natural laws, such as gravity, came into existence?", if you think there IS an answer to this question (whether we know it or never will, just recognizing there must be an answer to this question) then logically you get to a DEIST point of view (the most basic one, without adding all the characteristics generally associated with God). Science works based on natural laws such as gravity, however science will never be able to prove or explain the origin of these laws, because it it limited to them and also it would be contradictory. The origin of natural laws such as gravity can not be a natural origin, because natural laws themselves are what define the natural universe (without them there is not a natural world, with them there is).
I very much like the direction you seem to be going with your career, Alex, and I wish you the very best. You are one of the most eloquent speakers in the TH-cam skeptic community.
I absolutely love your videos. You're the only person I "know" that shares most viewpoints with me, and most importantly the logic, reasoning and research behind it. It is truly refreshing to hear somebody I can somewhat relate to once in a while. I've been subscribed for probably over a year by now, and your videos never fail to catch my attention. Keep it up!
he shares a lot of viewpoints with me, and might have the intellectual capacity to make me question my views on things i disagree with him. that said, i'd love to see more on his political position though, since he did come out in favor of capitalism. i find that morally repulsive because it's undemocratic by design and, in its current stage, looks almost exactly like feudalism. the only difference is that it's about inherited wealth and one in ~20 million selling an (often stolen) idea instead of inherited title+wealth and the occasional knighting. i'm very curious about actual arguments why someone would support this system. you know, arguments different from "gulags!!!!111". there are people in american prisons for being too poor to pay for a parking ticket, and there are cases where american prisons let inmates die, for example from a mold infection of the brain, without being able to see a doctor. and, of course, there's gitmo. in short, the gulag argument works against authoritarian regimes, but is independent of the economic system. and "that guy over there is an asshole, too" has never been a convincing argument.
Well, sir. I have to say that I am very much surprised by you. You don't think there's anything out there bigger than you? More important than you? Watching out for you? Just answer me this: If there aren't cosmic teapots, where does all the tea come from? And don't even come at me with that tea leaf theory bullshit. Tea leaves are only a theory.
+Nathan Hayes Hey, don't assume my unicorn beliefs. If there aren't any unicorns then explain to me what precisely had sex with a walrus in order to give birth to the first Narwhal. That's right, you can't. Silly A-cosmic teapot-ists. Next you'll be telling me that skittles don't come from rainbows.
The cosmic teapot isn't an imaginary man. The holy box of PG Tips tells us that it orbits Neptune, and Neptune exists. You gonna tell me planets don't exist next?
O' Spaghetti Monster! I repent to you my treacherous sins. I made a great mistake in not believing in your might. Please, cuddle me with your noodly appendages and keep me safe from the Dumpling Devil and his evil gaze that steals men's hearts away from the Almighty Spaghetti Monster and towards his dungeon of darkness where his Dumpling Underlings rule those who were led astray!
Andrew Cooper i also want to know, having read “the reason for God” “the dawkins delusion” and “the devil’s delusion” - studying theology for 2 years, ihave yet to find anything marginally impressive
Seeing as when ever I see a theological argument my thought is "Have you ever tried a real argument?". I would also like to know what these good books are.
Although them lying makes their argument significantly weaker, it doesn't actually disprove their point. It could easily be the case that their point is correct but they're idiots, or bad at arguing. Similarly, religious people who point out stupid or immoral atheists can't then say that atheism must be wrong. I do think their point is wrong, but not because they're bad at arguing it.
I believe that in standard usage 'atheism' is a claim made about reality, specifically a claim that there are no deities. An atheist is someone who makes that claim. Any claim made about reality can be correct or incorrect. And although "gravity" can't be wrong, our claims about how gravity behaves can be. Or if I were to claim that air is composed of 74% methane, I would be wrong. Atheism could in theory be wrong. All it would take is for a god to exist, which is not 'per definition', impossible.
@Benjamin Armitage bullshit. atheism is not a claim, and especially not a claim whether something does or doesn't exist. let me explain it in code: def is_there_a_god_theist(): # WARNING: ignores reality # WARNING: references global shared dogmatic state (not as immutable as it may seem) ! return "Of course there is because " + MY_FAVORITE_DOGMA def is_there_a_god(): if is_there_any_evidence_for_god(): return "Well, there seems to be evidence for it" else: return "No evidence seems to support this hypothesis" So you see, atheism is not a position, it's an algorithm, skepticism applied to one specific claim. Now go and try to debunk skepticism, you might become a true lolcow yet ;-)
Holy crap Alex, I remember when you had literally next to no subscribers, now you’ve exploded and deservedly so. Thanks for filling my time with something other than Shooter Games and Memes.
"He may not be the greatest theologian in the world, but I think Dr. Dawkins escapes this analysis considerably unscathed." Richard may in your opinion not be the world's greatest theologian but he is a damn find biologist and communicator
I have been an atheist for about 50 years, since my early twenties. I am impressed, Alex, by you finding the truth about religion so early in life, and with what you are doing to spread rational thinking. Bravo!
Why do you suppose that "religion" has anything whatsoever to do with the mister god fantasy? It is a phenomenon of of the psyche of men and related to identification with but one of the functions, which is why it prevents them from experiencing impartial reason, which is why the puppy-mouse Alex is so concerned with norms and other related fantasies.
JDSCT That means the library pays for one... If you're near one, most "developed" (eh hem, eyes rolling) have a law or convention that everything that gets published (books, magazines etc) must be offered to certain major libraries. Eg in the UK there are 5 libraries IIRC: the British, Bodleian?, Edinburgh, Aberystwyth and another I can't remember off hand. It's been a long time since I worked in libraries. If the offer is accepted, they get a free copy. I'm not sure if self-publication has the same rule. The point being, paying them isn't necessarily necessary!
JDSCT If you want humor read The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Here's a (rough) quote I find funny: "Prayers seem to take a long time to reach Him, which suggests a time dilation effect. And so many prayers are addressed to Him that He cannot catch them all without time dilation. For these reasons, we suspect the FSM spends a great deal of time orbiting a black hole."
Meeting a patient's spiritual needs is important to healthcare, even though it's not a replacement for medicine. I'm an atheist who works with high-risk postpartum patients, and the disruption of rituals such as Catholic mass caused by medication schedules and mobility limitations causes distress in patients. I do believe it is a delusion, but if I ignored the delusion I would be a worse nurse.
Is it, Tim? When people in serious condition were told that people were praying for their recovery, they did notably worse than the ones who were not being prayed for or didn't know about it. Worse that disruption of rituals is only a problem because of the material rituals and the aggressive selling of the pain and torture for not following the random demands have caused such harm, indicating that the best "spiritual need" to fill is to deprogram them from religion.
Mark Hackett I'm not talking about prayer, I'm talking from a perspective of patient interaction. Being able to meet a patient's spiritual needs is important for a patient's emotional state. Even though they are delusions.
Mark Hackett I also agree that it would be better for a patient to deprogram from religion, but when a c-section patient asks for a priest so they can have mass, brought to them, that's not a perfect moment for a Hitchslap.
Tim Basham 😾 Your patients would not suffer in the manner you describe if they had not been subjected to religious indoctrination in the first place. As a nurse, how do you respond to those who deny blood transfusions on religious grounds? Or organ transplants? Or abortion? Or genital mutilation, both male and female?
+Tim Basham The keyword is THE PATIENT'S NEEDS. Like in respect their own views. The way it was stated in what Alex quoted implied it was positive to evangelize in hospitals as ALL patients had a spiritual need and would benefit from the exactly same treatment. Which is absurd. Likewise having you take care of them finding somebody to pray with them or a pastor to come in and give a mass when they cannot go to the church, is enough to satisfy the needs, it does NOT require you to become their confession buddy, praying companion or whatever as that would not meet YOUR needs.
Sylvia Ellis You have time after school to watch as well. You shouldn’t be looking at your phone in school (outside of library breaks), so you shouldn’t even know he has a video up until school ends!
Kiah Farrell 😡 Yet again, another failure! In what manner is ‘losing my sh!t’ at all relevant to the subject of this video? What happened to your p?ss? Who cleared up the mess? Do explain your linguistic ineptitude . . .
I really appreciate this channel's existence, as I find it takes the complicated, wordy explanations that exist both in most atheist and most religious books and makes them much more understandable. I'm not stupid, I get the theories/principles/arguments the books are explaining, and I can understand what they're saying when I read it, but God, it's so tedious to have to rake through someone rambling on for paragraphs just to get a grasp on something that could be explained in a sentence. That's why it's so useful to have someone summarise the points for me (in a pleasant accent, might I add).
I know right? I mean who wants to read an entire page of pretentious words and paragraphs when they could have said it in 2 to 3 sentences? Its as if they just write lengthy paragraphs to seem more intelligent so that their argument seems better.
You know it's funny that people always say that the Soviet Union was atheistic, but forgets about the fact that the Inquisition was Christian. And they also forget that even if the Soviet Union immoral acts were because of atheism, that doesn't make atheism false.
The Rational Thinker In Marxism: Marx- Prophet The Revolution- Second Coming Punishment of bourgeois- sinners thrown in Hell Communist Party- Catholic Church Marxist Utopia- Heaven Proletariat- Christians So that's part of the reason Marxism is a flawed ideology. It rips off Christianity, a delusional belief system.
The Rational Thinker Not to mention that Communists like Stalin and Mao intentionally and stratefically wanted to hijack religious devotion and move it from theism to worshipping the State and themselves as the ultimate authority of the State. A rigorous rationally justified position of weak atheism on a general god concept (with strong atheism for incoherent god concepts) was not what communist atneism was about. It was just another political tool in the movement. But as you said, even if atheism really did motivate their attrocities(and the evidence suggests othetwise) it in no way falsifies the position.
Except that it is a misscharacterization of Marxism, as especially Orwell and Hitchens could point out. For one thing Marx said "If this is Marxism then I'm not a Marxist". There is no genocide, thought-crime or Gulags in his writings, this is Stalinism which is why Orwell wrote Animal Farm to destroy the myth of a socialistic USSR and I think he destroyed the myth with one sentence "some animals are more equal than others." Marx also supported the democratic Paris commune, so he is not quite as rigid as many think he was. Also, what the religious miss is that Stalin too was made in god's perfect image, and he was allowed to do what he wanted despite god knowing the future before it happens. Why does death or suffering even bother god, the soul is after all eternal. The atheist has the upper hand here as he can be against both Stalin and God, but the difference is that Stalin's reign of terror is over, whilst God is still perfectly free to throw people in hell, which is far worse than Stalin could ever do.
In more detail: The USSR’s atheism was a symptom of their abusive behavior, not the cause; religion was a competitor for state power, and thus had to be removed. Not to mention that these authoritarian regimes had their own cults of personality and state-sponsored propaganda that were just as noxious as the religion they replaced. People like Alex are more modern, progressive secular humanist atheists, who have little more in common with Stalin than bin Laden.
I just read The God Delusion and found it very interesting. I would love to watch a video where you discuss Dawkins, about at which points you agree and disagree with him!
I've never had the misfortune of reading the bible, but I'm surprised someone could read the slavery verse and dismiss it or see it as a metaphor, while everything else is fine. Great video as always, Alex.
Alex, As a lifelong atheist (I never felt a spiritual or religious impulse), I thought The God Delusion was an superb book. Yes, he aggressively attacked religion and some might have found that off-putting, but his final chapter on science and the counter-intuitive nature of reality was well worth the price of the book. This chapter was both thoughtful and thought-provoking. I must take a bit of a left turn here and confess that I was abducted by aliens recently while driving on a remote road in the American countryside, and the aliens communicated to me, via telepathy, a special revelation. They are planning to invade Earth at some point in our lifetime (sound familiar?). In preparation, they administered a remote galactic intelligence test to determine the roles humans would play once the invasion commences. Atheists, critical thinkers, and skeptics, were deemed to be of exceedingly high intelligence, essentially equal to that of the aliens. Thus we were to be left to our own devices, or to help the aliens rule the planet if we so desired. On the other hand, Christians, whom the aliens studied quite closely over the years, did not fare so well on the galactic test. Moreover the aliens found their supercilious attitude rather annoying. Therefore they are to be domesticated as pets, to be walked on leashes by both aliens and atheists alike. I guess I have to build a bigger dog house. And finally Creationists, such as Ray Comfort, Joshua Feuerstein, and Ken Ham, who registered the lowest IQ in the history of the galactic empire, will be relegated to such functions as paper weights, door stops, and mannequins in clothing stores. TRIGGER WARNING: Overly-senstive people who find the above special revelation offensive should proceed to their safe space and cuddle their stuffed animals and holy books. And they should recall that gentle domestication is far more humanitarian than Christianity's burning non-believers at the stake, the 1000 years of Christian anti-semitism inspiring Hitler to perpetuate the holocaust, and the widespread molestation of altar boys by priests.
Locutus D'Borg do you honestly think you can properly compare domestication of wild cats to the 'domestication' of Christians? What would that even entail?
@@StefanReich In control of the universe? Nobody. Absolutely no one is in control of the universe, and for the betterment of your mental health, I recommend you get used to it. In control of your happiness and contentment? Only you.
Kai Widman PLEASE DO THIS BOOK BACK WHEN I WAS AN EVANGELICAL WHEN I WAS LIKE 12 I READ THIS BOOK AND KEPT ON TRYING TO GET MY SCIENCE TEACHER WHO WAS AN ATHEIST TO READ THE BOOK AND NOW I CRINGE AT THE MEMORY
All of the Lee Strobel books are cringe. He pretends to be an ardent skeptic but he goes to a apologist and says "Is God real?" They say 'Yes' then he's like "That by just saying 'yes' it undeniable proves it, now I'm a Christian!" And real skeptics everywhere shake their heads in disgust.
We have a creator; Aristotle's 'Great Chain of Being' - aka evolution - created us. And that creator had a creator [1:40] known as chemistry, and that had a creator known as physics. As far as we can tell, it's creators all the way down, so conceive this as a singularity and you have your Creator. Et hoc dicimus deum.
I love your channel so much. I can't believe how young, intelligent, AND talented you are. Hope you can post more regularly. (Also please make more music, your song With You is my new obsession). Cheers mate.
I think spirituality is important for some people pertaining to their health, but spirituality as in meditation and yoga, not as in religion. Meditation is good for exercising deep thinking and looking at things with empathy and seeing deeper meaning, and yoga is good for flexibility. Religion, or the religions that harm more than help, should not be held to the standard of importance in the health of a person.
The problem many theists and atheists have is they think the claim "No gods exist" is somehow equal to the claim that "A god exists" vis-a-vis the burden of "proof" or "evidence." After all, atheists like me who don't just lack belief but positively disbelieve in gods can't demonstrate that we live in a godless universe. But just because two claims both lack proof or evidence doesn't make them equally invalid. Just as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," extraordinary beliefs require more rational justification than more mundane ones. If one guy believes that ivory billed woodpeckers are _not_ extinct and another believes in spacefaring Martians, the latter obviously has a taller hill to climb to convince others. Furthermore, just because a belief lacks proof or evidence, that belief can still be totally rationally justified. I can't prove that no human has ever run a one-minute mile, but I'm rationally justified in believing it never happened. If I have a thousand-sided die on which 999 sides show a 0 and one side shows a 1 and I'm asked what number I believe will come up on a random roll, I'm going with 0 every time! I can't prove that, nor can I show evidence that a 0 will definitely come up, but I can show that it's a rationally justified belief. I do not simply "lack belief" in gods. I deny them. I'm a hard atheist. Do I not then shoulder some burden of proof? Well...technically. But in the absence of proof it's not like we've nothing to go on. The hard atheist (and the theist) merely assumes a burden of rational justification. And since the god-beliefs of the theist are more extraordinary than those of the hard atheist, the theists will _always_ carry more of the load. Similarly, I don't just lack belief in Bigfoots. I believe there are none. You can say I am making an "unproved" assumption but only a silly person would say that this belief is as irrational and unjustified as the belief Bigfoots do exist. So...if challenged, _can_ I rationally justify my belief that no gods exist? Sure. By noting the very large graveyard of past gods; by pointing to the fact that believers in any god often disagree widely about the qualities of that god; by the primitive, ignorant and unscientific nature of holy books; by the logical conflict entailed by invisible and immaterial "beings;" by the fishiness of the excuses all theists use as to why their gods hide; by the fact that gods are often portrayed as male, female or animal-like, which merely strengthens the Man-created-gods theory. You may say that this "proves" nothing, but as you can see, that's a moot point. Rational beliefs don't require proof or evidence. But I hope I've proved one thing: hard atheism is a totally justifiable stance.
"Infinite regress" was quantified by the LHC. NO WAIT...that's not true. Arno Penzias & Edwin Hubble were able to deduce its existence. NOT EVEN.. ALBERT EINSTEIN said it was "the one universal theory which will NEVER be overthrown" YES..EXACTLY! It's THE THEORETICAL PHYSICS this "priest" says is laughably misapplied. IT'S THE "FIRST LAW of Thermodynamics "! Infinite regress is deducible because energy is never/can never, originate: 1ST LAW!! WHY our/Einstein's default is that NATURAL genesis of "heat" can never be reconciled.... such that we can operate only from the assumption that THE NATURAL universe can ONLY regress. BUUTTT...OF COURSE the theists conclude then that the physical universe required NON-NATURAL ETIOLOGY. AN ABSOLUTELY LOGICAL, TRUE OR NOT, PROGRESSION.
@@munstrumridcully easy. What do you get if you multiply six by nine ? (From the scrabble bag). You know it only makes sense if you use base thirteen. Also How many roads must a man walk down (From Frankie mouse and Benji mouse) There is more but I'm running out of time. Peace
I have a question. If the bible was the words of God. Why are there so many branches of Christianity that practice different ideologies? And why did they need the New Testament that covers up most of the concepts presented in the Old Testament?
Cuong Hoang Regarding there being different sects of a religion that comes from only one source, each sect will tell you that the other ones interpret it wrong. Which only exposes the huge flaw in their ideology; how can an irrefutable truth be open to interpretation? The new testament is through the prophet, jesus, who reformed the religion which was previously just the old testament, or judaism. Because he is allegedly the son of god it allowed the religion to be reformed, the idea is that the first prophets, abraham and moses among others, interpreted god’s word wrong so god had to send his son down to correct the people and tell them of the new word of god. Again, if it is the ULTIMATE TRUTH, how can there be so much confusion over it, if there were a god he would not make it so difficult to figure out whether he is real or not; he would not give messages that are completely open to interpretation.
Emisilla Silla the thing is, god is omniscient and knows everything that will be, so before he even created man he knew he would give his petulant demands to the prophets and that they would get it wrong, and that he would send Jesus to remedy that, and make a pig's ear of that.... Of course we'd all have been saved a lot of bother if we all spoke the same original language, but the petty baby had to confound our minds because of the tower of Babel which apparently might have "reached heaven"; if only god knew then that heaven isn't a few hundred metres in the air we would have understood his instructions. But he knew he would mess things up and he knew it was for no reason. Such prowess.
I mean the Bible does say let every man seek his own salvation, I think embodying the teachings of Jesus Christ is the main goal, and although there are several different doctrines to Christianity catholic, Protestant, baptist, etc they all believe in Jesus Christ.
Conceived In the stars the bible also tells you how much pay for your slaves and that it's fine to beat them as long as they don't die within a couple of days ( so if they suffer for longer before perishing that's okay). And it says to kill witches, which followers are dutifully doing to this day. What a fabulous book.
First of all; greetings from Chile. I truly enjoy your videos. however, I do have a comment in a section that you mentioned in reference to fasting. In all truth, the scientific world had indeed written quite a bit about the positive effects of intermittent fasting not only in your body but most importantly in your brain. So, I´ve to tell you that they were right on the money when they mentioned the health benefits of fasting. I went to Yale and had to study the human body thoroughly and did I lot of research on my own I know, in this was some of the subjects that I investigated and wrote quite a bit. I´m getting off the subject I know and I apologize for that. Please keep sending more videos I find them very educational. Impressive coming from someone so young as you.
Cannot believe their ignorance and just blatant laziness. How is it they can get a book published, without actually doing background reading and critiquing, and yet uni students would fail a first year essay for that? 🤦🏻♀️ Interesting and well put as always Alex
Alex, if you ever read this just know that I a man that's 37 have been continually impressed by your intellect. Keep it up my brother. Remain humble yet confident. =)
this video came up after i watched a frank turek video about what richard dawkins said in a ben stein interview. if you want to see how dishonest frank turek is that is a video to watch.
Objection! I'm a right winger (and an empiricist) and i understand science. You would be surprised how many left wingers peddle pseudo scientific woo to support their political agendas.
you do realize those arent synonyms anymore right? on that basis, everyone should follow the bible because its what the ideas were before now. Scientists/Holy men know that the sun revolves around the earth. Do you get my point?
How in the world did that book even get published?? The ignorance continues to spread indiscriminately. Kudos to you sir for shedding some light on this hilarious failure of a rebuttal to the God Delusion
The thing is that lazy people will not read Dawkin's book cause it's longer. So they won't corroborate what it says in that crappy shorter book. Take care
I support Richard Dawkins, we are 'blessed' to have him among us. Like the Cosmic Skeptic, Dawkins argues and questions ideas. His attacks are not ad hominem, they grow out of his knowledge of biology. I prefer ideas based on evidence as opposed to faith. It is really just that simple.
I knew I was Atheist age 7, but by 18 years old I could never have articulated such knowledge.. He's a genius! Rock on the monumental task of logical thinking.. Go Alex!
I am 77 and love this stuff. I hope you are outrageously funny because an evening of beers with you would be like listening to Beethoven's 109, kindness, wit, and thought-provoking.
8:10 As an EMT, and having dealt with death, mass casulty occurance and firefights, spirituality does matter and help people. Now don't get me wrong its NOT a substitue for any medical care but an addiditon. I'm not even talking to invoking any deity or spirits or whatnot. I'm talking about emotional support. That emotional support for some (including me) is purely the doctor explaining something quite clear and a nurse to talk to me for a bit before having to rush to another patient, I acknowlage that some might prefere a priest as support or even crystals. As stupid as it sounds - but having dealt with delusional patients it's sometimes better to play along during medical need rather than counter it - that doesn't extent to psychatric help which needs(!) to counter those episodes but it doesn't help to counter a psychological delusion when treating a broken leg. (example- we had a patient who believed a talking fish implanted eggs in his leg which caused it to fracture. The time and effort to counter his belief would be to much so we played along "removed the eggs" and straightened out his leg) Now you might claim all taht to be anneecdotal evidence, and you might be right but - heres a study which provides some substance to my claim. www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA218401 Ok its about prayer, and before jumping to conclusion and the other study denying praying works- this study is about the patient praying themself not beeing prayed for -even Dawkins described it in his book to have a placebo effect. TL;DR I propose that spiritual support in ADDITION to medical treatment can be helpful if done right. I.e. don't pray for an atheist or let a spiritualist keep his crystals as long as they don't interefere with the treatment.
"As if we should base a patient's care on what they think they need rather than what a medical professional thinks they need" Patient care is managed using a patient centered approach. This means the patient takes the priority role in managing their care including what therapies are to be utilized. Spirituality, cultural values, and beliefs are taken into consideration when organizing care. I am an atheist BSN who has been in healthcare for 20+ years and whole heartedly support the patient centered care model.
Its funny how many times i agree with Alex as a Christian. If every doctor took care of spiritual needs, there would be so much opportunity for corruption, and many more problems.
Such clear thinking, as usual, from Alex. There is another book from Alistair Mc Grath which I would love to see Alex review. Steam was coming out of my ears as I read this. I found it so outrageous. It was the only book I have ever thrown in the bin - but this means that, unfortunately I can't say what the title is! He talks about denial of Norway being a country and hippos in the bath if that rings any bells for anyone....
Nice critique. I have read "The Dawkins Delusion" and found it, without going into detail, rather naive. What i want to say though concerns your opening about Dawkins. He does seem to come in for criticism about not being strong philosophicaly. That may or may not be true, but it saddens me. Reason being, at one time among my friends I was the only one who was sceptical of all the extraordinary things said friends believed in. Examples of such being ghosts, the Bermuda triangle, reincarnation etc etc. I was criticised for not being open minded, which to me was an annoyingly unthoughout criticism which i won't go into here. I then heard an interview of Dawkins on the radio where he talked about the need for evidence to inform our beliefs, and what the nature of that evidence should be. It struck such a chord with me. You may be somewhat right about Dawkins, but he's not that wrong.
Love your channel, I’m actually on the opposite side of the spectrum. I’m sure you don’t get many religious people who like your channel, but I️ do. It’s fun and challenging to think about. I️ am quite religious, but I️ always enjoy your interesting approach to atheism. I️ enjoy reading the opposition as well, and you are easily one of the better spokesmen. There are plenty of idiots in the theistic and atheistic communities. The world needs more debaters and presenters like yourself.
Michael Simon : Can you name just one commentator from your so-called "idiots in the atheistic community". I would not ask you to name an idiot from the theistic community because that's just too easy.
I just finished reading that book, and what I would say is that the biggest problem with the book lies in the fact that it focuses on the more trivial part of Dawkins' argument, or straight out missed Dawkins' point. Many times during the read I asked myself "so what?"
All KNOWN teapots. What if someone (Carl?) hid teapots on the Voyager probes? What if some alien civilization has invented a teapot on their own? In those cases there are teapots which are not in the orbit around the Sun.
Alex, if I may make a suggestion. Instead of reading what you want to quote from a book, put it in writing on the screen, and bold or underline whatever areas you want for emphasis. It's easier for people to understand when they can read it themselves than to listen to a quotation. And it communicates better that way also. Just thought I'd help you out with my suggestion :) I am a fellow atheist and I love your videos keep up the good work attacking the stupidity of religion.
Excellent ! Thank you Alex ! I did not read yet Alistair and Joanna McGrath’s book, but I hope that its contents might complete mine « A Finger on the light, counterpoint to Richard Dawkins’ atheism », edited by Stratton Press, Cheyenne, WI,USA, in 2018. In actual fact, RD is a sort of mystificator, is truly really nuts, who realized -many years ago- that 80% of people were like him atheist, and non-believers, the subject of which RD has exploited to a maximum, making his followers -ignoring for a lot of them the spiritual matter and God’s love- fervent disciples, demonstrating their hatred against believers. In other word, RD’ knowlege in theology is mine in nuclear physical. The same applied with Darwing’s theory regarding evolution of species. The folk ignoring a big part of this subject, it is easy for RD to discuss about it, which even nowadays he is still defending tooth and neil, while DNA was not existing during Darwins’ time, what RD feigns to ignore, deliberately, including the last discovery of the mitochondrial DNA capable to move back into the time to determine the birth of species, modifying radically Darwing’s theory, somehow obsolete not to say out of work ! Alex, feel free to pick up a copy of A Finger on the light, and let us know your opinion, please !
2:02 - "This is quite an elementary criticism of theism to which there are a number of compelling responses such as the Kalam cosmological argument." I don't see how the Kalam cosmological argument is in any way a compelling response. It makes a rather large jump from "the universe has a cause" to "If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful." That's quite the assumption to make. Why does it have to be a "personal" creator? Why does it have to be a conscious entity at all? The only reason I can think of is to make it fit the existing religious belief that the person is trying to defend, not to find a logically coherent conclusion. The rest of the video was pretty much gold. I only take the time to nit-pick this statement because I appreciate CosmicSkeptic's content. Kalam Cosmological Argument: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument
CosmicSkeptic push-ups Free weight squat, free weight lunges every direction, chin ups. Smart people exercise you by that rational you should be jacked.
wow.. someone who actualy read from both sides and examine the actual books, statements and arguments regarding it to make an informed decision on what to belive. You have my respect and a new sub. No one is to be taken at their word regarding important issues and no one is beyond criticism :)
I want to apologize to you for a comment that I made on another one of your videos where I said you were still “just a Catholic ...”. Actually I find your videos are very thoughtful, researched and well spoken. Thanks for your insights.
I suggest a competition: I'll try to write as much stuff from the Bible that makes some sense, and you try to find something in that very chapter that is completely unacceptable! "Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."-John 4:11-12"
I love your videos, how you make your points clearly, considering both sides of an argument fairly before coming to a conclusion. They've helped me enormously in my transition from evangelical Christian to atheist. I can't say the same for Richard Dawkins. He's rude, condescending and sometimes doesn't answer a critic's question but beats them into silence through humiliation. When I read part of "The God Delusion" (I couldn't stand to read all of it), I thought, "This is a book of hate," written not to help people but to hurt them. It's because of him and his supporters that I resisted embracing atheism for many years, because I didn't want to turn into a nasty bully like him. Heck, he even hates Doctor Who, and after he'd been it!
I see what you mean. There are people who do extended fasting for secular reasons, so cutting down on sugar is a really weak comparison when faithless fasters fast faithfully.
To quote Amarnath Amarasingam from the introductory chapter to Religion and the New Atheism (2010): "The academic community, with a few exceptions, has largely dismissed [new atheist] writings as unsophisticated, crude, and lacking nuance. As such, most of the work dealing with the new atheist corpus has tended to be equally crude, mocking, or dismissive." I have read parts of The Dawkins Delusion and the second sentence seems like a fairly good description (but the McGraths have nothing on John Haught when it comes to bad responses to new atheist works).
![TEEDEE TADA - DIAMOND NARAKORN X LEGO LYKN [Special Dance Performance]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QgtZedFeumA/mqdefault.jpg)
The misreading of the verse on slavery is shocking. How did that get past the editors?
It was after reading that passage that I decided to make this review. I audibly laughed when I first saw it.
It's a worse goof-up than what you would expect in Jehovah's Witness literature - and that's saying something. When Watchtower writers misquote, they misquote from scientific books that readers are unlikely to check for themselves. I can't think of an example of where they have misquoted from the Bible as brazenly as this - a book that everyone has access to. As you point out, even the verse they referenced is hardly unequivocal in condemning slavery.
John Cedars you assume it had editors.
CosmicSkeptic It's a worse goof up than "becasue." You get it? Am I funny?
This is the way, theologians, preachers and parsons make people believe in the good Christian God. They knowingly and willingly misquote the Bible to make it appear that the God they're preaching is good while knowing with almost certainty that no believer will actually look it up in the Bible. Tell a Christian that slavery is prohibited according to [book, chapter, verse] sounds credible to those Christians, no matter if that verse actually says so. They won't look it up. That's why it's important for us atheists to look it up and explain that the theologians and preachers are not right about their statements.
They think Einstein was trying to sound _Christian?!?_ Bwahahahahaha!
*_"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."_*
- Albert Einstein, Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in "Albert Einstein: The Human Side," edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman.
I have always admired that expression. "Unbounded" is a term in the Calculus which means an equation that goes from negative to positive infinity. "If something is in me which can be called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the universe so far as our science can reveal it." Poetry. A shame those folks have never bothered to learn the man before they tried to tell us what he thought.
Robert Richardson it's called quote mining and it is one of the few tactics Christians regularly practice. I find it comical because they will always demand you are taking the bible out of context even when you put it into context yet only care about quote mining when you do it.
yup he believed in "Espinozas" God but christians always think he is talking about the christian god lmao
Is there a link to that letter?
+Rogred
The letter is contained in the book edited by his final secretary (in the years before his death), and is in his personal papers archive, part of his estate. The Princeton University archive may contain a digital copy, but it's behind a paywall. You can pick up a copy of the book from Amazon.com (I checked, and they do have copies in stock) if you want to read more.
www.amazon.com/Albert-Einstein-Human-Side-Glimpses/dp/0691023689
*France S* actually Einstein didn't believe in a self-aware creator, even one that didn't give a crap about our tiny flyspeck of a planet. He use "god" as a synonym for the wonder and awe as a scientist he felt when he was working to comprehend the natural world and all of the laws that order its functioning. This very unconventional use of the word is most often what scientist like Einstein and Hawkins mean when they use the word "god". And this usage is an endless source of confusion to supernaturalists of all stripes who think the great scientific mind is agreeing with their supernatural god concept. This isn't to say that there aren't scientists, and very good ones too, who explicitly believe in a supernatural god/creator. But in general those scientists, like Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, are very clear about this. I really just wish that my fellow scientists would stop using the word "god" in this way. After all our goal is the clear and unambiguous communication of our ideas and findings.
Spoiler: Dawkins exists. :)
LOL! Bastard.
Got 'em!
checkmate
How dare you!
*_O O F_*
I agree with one point in their book; they spell Dawkins's name correctly. I want to give them a ribbon for at least trying to play along with the grown-ups.
*Dawkins'.
Looks like you couldn't spell it right xD
Dawkinses?
:- ) that was some excellent roasting. and the best: if christians don't like it, they HAVE TO forgive you. it is in their book
Aditya Srivatsa Actually, it’s “Dawkins’s” and not “Dawkins’” because it’s singular Dawkins and not plural of Dawkin.
@@adityasrivatsa4115 you are an idiot
Alex is 18 years old. I literally cannot attempt to conceive how intellectual and knowledgeable he'll be if he pursues his interests in critical thinking, philosophy and religion in 10 years, let alone 20 or 30 years. He's not even in university yet like wtf?
Eamon Nomae He will be destroyed by education. He will have no time, he will become fat, he will be indoctrinated with stupid leftist ideas and his intelect will diminish
Eamon Nomae
If you get out there and try to educate yourself you'll come across most lines of reasoning that Alex has come across and will probably come to the same conclusions.
What?
Yes so wise for his age I’m twice his age but have learned much from him. I thank John cedars for introducing me to his channel.
Qlzldxx Rkddsc
What leftist ideas? Humans should get that which is necessary for their survival and upholding of their human dignity supplied to them, no matter who they are?
I was in my school library the other day and I went to get out a Dawkins book but "the Dawkins delusion" was the only book with his name they had...
Skeptical.bricks oof
Skeptical.bricks tell your librarian about the books you want. They will usually get it when they can.
I would definitely send a complaint to the school librarian or something. Recommend them to add Dawkin's book "The God Delusion" so there's no bias or just say it's a terrible book and explain why. lol
Skeptical.bricks how sad is that !
That's just sad
The God Delusion was the final nail in my religion's coffin. It was slowly dying for years before, but the book sent it 6' under and never to be returned, again.
😂👍🏾
Religion needs to be kept alive, not quelled. If anyone agrees that persons of my type are only delusional in their sense of grandeur, then we can talk.
The book is a joke. Watch William lane Craig
@@charlescarter2072
I did 🤣
th-cam.com/video/0tYm41hb48o/w-d-xo.html
The cosmic tea pot is a more likely than god because at least we know that tea pots exist
alic seprin that didn't make sense, so your saying energy exists therfore God Exists?
I agree.
No.
Now I want to shoot a tea pot into space to make it orbit the sun .__.
The Poison Bucket, your definition of a god is wrong. At its most basic definition, god is something supernatural (outside of the natural universe) responsible for the existence of natural laws (and all there is). Ask yourself "How did natural laws, such as gravity, came into existence?", if you think there IS an answer to this question (whether we know it or never will, just recognizing there must be an answer to this question) then logically you get to a DEIST point of view (the most basic one, without adding all the characteristics generally associated with God). Science works based on natural laws such as gravity, however science will never be able to prove or explain the origin of these laws, because it it limited to them and also it would be contradictory. The origin of natural laws such as gravity can not be a natural origin, because natural laws themselves are what define the natural universe (without them there is not a natural world, with them there is).
I very much like the direction you seem to be going with your career, Alex, and I wish you the very best. You are one of the most eloquent speakers in the TH-cam skeptic community.
I absolutely love your videos. You're the only person I "know" that shares most viewpoints with me, and most importantly the logic, reasoning and research behind it. It is truly refreshing to hear somebody I can somewhat relate to once in a while. I've been subscribed for probably over a year by now, and your videos never fail to catch my attention. Keep it up!
Sveva.. I am also thinking exactly the same thing. So you are definitely not alone. Others are here....
he shares a lot of viewpoints with me, and might have the intellectual capacity to make me question my views on things i disagree with him.
that said, i'd love to see more on his political position though, since he did come out in favor of capitalism. i find that morally repulsive because it's undemocratic by design and, in its current stage, looks almost exactly like feudalism. the only difference is that it's about inherited wealth and one in ~20 million selling an (often stolen) idea instead of inherited title+wealth and the occasional knighting.
i'm very curious about actual arguments why someone would support this system. you know, arguments different from "gulags!!!!111". there are people in american prisons for being too poor to pay for a parking ticket, and there are cases where american prisons let inmates die, for example from a mold infection of the brain, without being able to see a doctor. and, of course, there's gitmo.
in short, the gulag argument works against authoritarian regimes, but is independent of the economic system. and "that guy over there is an asshole, too" has never been a convincing argument.
I’d recommend Viced Rhino as well; not quite as charismatic, but he’s also quite interesting.
Well, sir. I have to say that I am very much surprised by you. You don't think there's anything out there bigger than you? More important than you? Watching out for you?
Just answer me this: If there aren't cosmic teapots, where does all the tea come from? And don't even come at me with that tea leaf theory bullshit. Tea leaves are only a theory.
+Nathan Hayes Hey, don't assume my unicorn beliefs. If there aren't any unicorns then explain to me what precisely had sex with a walrus in order to give birth to the first Narwhal.
That's right, you can't. Silly A-cosmic teapot-ists. Next you'll be telling me that skittles don't come from rainbows.
The cosmic teapot isn't an imaginary man. The holy box of PG Tips tells us that it orbits Neptune, and Neptune exists. You gonna tell me planets don't exist next?
Anglomachian, Hahahahahahah you are a genius 😂
All hail the mighty teapot orbiting the sun!
Don't get him started on Pastafarians... fucking splinters!
O' Spaghetti Monster! I repent to you my treacherous sins. I made a great mistake in not believing in your might. Please, cuddle me with your noodly appendages and keep me safe from the Dumpling Devil and his evil gaze that steals men's hearts away from the Almighty Spaghetti Monster and towards his dungeon of darkness where his Dumpling Underlings rule those who were led astray!
Now I'm curious. What are the "good" apologetics books in your collection?
Andrew Cooper i also want to know, having read “the reason for God” “the dawkins delusion” and “the devil’s delusion” - studying theology for 2 years, ihave yet to find anything marginally impressive
Seeing as when ever I see a theological argument my thought is "Have you ever tried a real argument?". I would also like to know what these good books are.
Nunda David Bentley Hart? William Lane Craig? Edward Feser? Probably these three.
The only one I have is "The Reason for God," courtesy of a concerned family member.
stefanos2691 I wouldn't call them that
If you have to lie to prove your point then, you have no point. If their religion is true there wouldn't be a need to lie and misinform.
Although them lying makes their argument significantly weaker, it doesn't actually disprove their point. It could easily be the case that their point is correct but they're idiots, or bad at arguing. Similarly, religious people who point out stupid or immoral atheists can't then say that atheism must be wrong.
I do think their point is wrong, but not because they're bad at arguing it.
Atheism can't, per definition, be wrong. It's a state, not a worldview. That's like saying gravity or the composition of air is wrong.
I believe that in standard usage 'atheism' is a claim made about reality, specifically a claim that there are no deities. An atheist is someone who makes that claim. Any claim made about reality can be correct or incorrect. And although "gravity" can't be wrong, our claims about how gravity behaves can be. Or if I were to claim that air is composed of 74% methane, I would be wrong.
Atheism could in theory be wrong. All it would take is for a god to exist, which is not 'per definition', impossible.
@Benjamin Armitage
bullshit. atheism is not a claim, and especially not a claim whether something does or doesn't exist.
let me explain it in code:
def is_there_a_god_theist():
# WARNING: ignores reality
# WARNING: references global shared dogmatic state (not as immutable as it may seem) !
return "Of course there is because " + MY_FAVORITE_DOGMA
def is_there_a_god():
if is_there_any_evidence_for_god():
return "Well, there seems to be evidence for it"
else:
return "No evidence seems to support this hypothesis"
So you see, atheism is not a position, it's an algorithm, skepticism applied to one specific claim. Now go and try to debunk skepticism, you might become a true lolcow yet ;-)
Benjamin Armitage
Many do use the words atheism and atheist like you mentioned. But this usage is wrong as per word roots combination.
Holy crap Alex, I remember when you had literally next to no subscribers, now you’ve exploded and deservedly so.
Thanks for filling my time with something other than Shooter Games and Memes.
Bringing logic to religion is the equivalent of bringing a gun to a knife fight.
Denver Merz I think it's more like bringing a gun to a gun fight but all the religious people's guns are loaded with blanks
But the religious people are also wearing full bullet proof bodysuits, so no matter how much you shoot them, they never die.
Captain D Cap, that is unyil you throw a molatov cocktail of knowledge at them, skip the guns all together, burn 'em out.
Denver Merz Molotov of knowledge
Aleksandra Zaryanova thanks, I appreciate you. 👌
"He may not be the greatest theologian in the world, but I think Dr. Dawkins escapes this analysis considerably unscathed."
Richard may in your opinion not be the world's greatest theologian but he is a damn find biologist and communicator
I have been an atheist for about 50 years, since my early twenties. I am impressed, Alex, by you finding the truth about religion so early in life, and with what you are doing to spread rational thinking. Bravo!
Why do you suppose that "religion" has anything whatsoever to do with the mister god fantasy?
It is a phenomenon of of the psyche of men and related to identification with but one of the functions, which is why it prevents them from experiencing impartial reason, which is why the puppy-mouse Alex is so concerned with norms and other related fantasies.
@@vhawk1951kl I think your space bar is broken. But that's not the biggest problem with your post.
10:02
The book sounds quite funny, but I refuse to put money in their pocket to verify...perhaps a trip to the library.
JDSCT That means the library pays for one... If you're near one, most "developed" (eh hem, eyes rolling) have a law or convention that everything that gets published (books, magazines etc) must be offered to certain major libraries. Eg in the UK there are 5 libraries IIRC: the British, Bodleian?, Edinburgh, Aberystwyth and another I can't remember off hand. It's been a long time since I worked in libraries. If the offer is accepted, they get a free copy. I'm not sure if self-publication has the same rule. The point being, paying them isn't necessarily necessary!
You can download it freely on http(:)//gen(.)lib(.)rus(.)ec/ just search for it there
JDSCT If you want humor read The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Here's a (rough) quote I find funny:
"Prayers seem to take a long time to reach Him, which suggests a time dilation effect. And so many prayers are addressed to Him that He cannot catch them all without time dilation. For these reasons, we suspect the FSM spends a great deal of time orbiting a black hole."
You're too thick to understand it anyway
@@tanseygreen291 Can't defend the book, so you attack it's critics. Classy. Your god must be proud.
Meeting a patient's spiritual needs is important to healthcare, even though it's not a replacement for medicine.
I'm an atheist who works with high-risk postpartum patients, and the disruption of rituals such as Catholic mass caused by medication schedules and mobility limitations causes distress in patients.
I do believe it is a delusion, but if I ignored the delusion I would be a worse nurse.
Is it, Tim? When people in serious condition were told that people were praying for their recovery, they did notably worse than the ones who were not being prayed for or didn't know about it. Worse that disruption of rituals is only a problem because of the material rituals and the aggressive selling of the pain and torture for not following the random demands have caused such harm, indicating that the best "spiritual need" to fill is to deprogram them from religion.
Mark Hackett I'm not talking about prayer, I'm talking from a perspective of patient interaction.
Being able to meet a patient's spiritual needs is important for a patient's emotional state.
Even though they are delusions.
Mark Hackett I also agree that it would be better for a patient to deprogram from religion, but when a c-section patient asks for a priest so they can have mass, brought to them, that's not a perfect moment for a Hitchslap.
Tim Basham 😾 Your patients would not suffer in the manner you describe if they had not been subjected to religious indoctrination in the first place. As a nurse, how do you respond to those who deny blood transfusions on religious grounds? Or organ transplants? Or abortion? Or genital mutilation, both male and female?
+Tim Basham
The keyword is THE PATIENT'S NEEDS. Like in respect their own views. The way it was stated in what Alex quoted implied it was positive to evangelize in hospitals as ALL patients had a spiritual need and would benefit from the exactly same treatment. Which is absurd. Likewise having you take care of them finding somebody to pray with them or a pastor to come in and give a mass when they cannot go to the church, is enough to satisfy the needs, it does NOT require you to become their confession buddy, praying companion or whatever as that would not meet YOUR needs.
Write a response book called “The Dawkin’s Delusion Delusion”
Who has got time to write that crap
And then they will write another book in response " The Dawkin's Delusion Delusion Delusion"
THANKS FOR NOT POSTING WHILE IM IN SCHOOL
Sylvia Ellis You have time after school to watch as well. You shouldn’t be looking at your phone in school (outside of library breaks), so you shouldn’t even know he has a video up until school ends!
"The international bestseller" - LOL, I never heard of it... 😂
Tomas Beha. That is at best an attempt to an argument from authority.
I didn't know this book existed before seeing this video.
I saw the Dawkins delusion at my library and I lost my shit😂😂
Is your name really Kiah? Oh you poor child.
Kiah Farrell 😡 Yet again, another failure! In what manner is ‘losing my sh!t’ at all relevant to the subject of this video? What happened to your p?ss? Who cleared up the mess? Do explain your linguistic ineptitude . . .
Sir Meow The Library Cat , how does my eloquence in a wording a TH-cam comment affect you?
lol there are so many prudes in the comments of this video. Seriously wording changes nothing, we don't think you're smart.
Does your library at least have atheist books too?
I really appreciate this channel's existence, as I find it takes the complicated, wordy explanations that exist both in most atheist and most religious books and makes them much more understandable. I'm not stupid, I get the theories/principles/arguments the books are explaining, and I can understand what they're saying when I read it, but God, it's so tedious to have to rake through someone rambling on for paragraphs just to get a grasp on something that could be explained in a sentence. That's why it's so useful to have someone summarise the points for me (in a pleasant accent, might I add).
I know right? I mean who wants to read an entire page of pretentious words and paragraphs when they could have said it in 2 to 3 sentences? Its as if they just write lengthy paragraphs to seem more intelligent so that their argument seems better.
You know it's funny that people always say that the Soviet Union was atheistic, but forgets about the fact that the Inquisition was Christian.
And they also forget that even if the Soviet Union immoral acts were because of atheism, that doesn't make atheism false.
The Rational Thinker In Marxism:
Marx- Prophet
The Revolution- Second Coming
Punishment of bourgeois- sinners thrown in Hell
Communist Party- Catholic Church
Marxist Utopia- Heaven
Proletariat- Christians
So that's part of the reason Marxism is a flawed ideology. It rips off Christianity, a delusional belief system.
The Rational Thinker Not to mention that Communists like Stalin and Mao intentionally and stratefically wanted to hijack religious devotion and move it from theism to worshipping the State and themselves as the ultimate authority of the State. A rigorous rationally justified position of weak atheism on a general god concept (with strong atheism for incoherent god concepts) was not what communist atneism was about. It was just another political tool in the movement. But as you said, even if atheism really did motivate their attrocities(and the evidence suggests othetwise) it in no way falsifies the position.
Except that it is a misscharacterization of Marxism, as especially Orwell and Hitchens could point out.
For one thing Marx said "If this is Marxism then I'm not a Marxist". There is no genocide, thought-crime or Gulags in his writings, this is Stalinism which is why Orwell wrote Animal Farm to destroy the myth of a socialistic USSR and I think he destroyed the myth with one sentence "some animals are more equal than others." Marx also supported the democratic Paris commune, so he is not quite as rigid as many think he was.
Also, what the religious miss is that Stalin too was made in god's perfect image, and he was allowed to do what he wanted despite god knowing the future before it happens.
Why does death or suffering even bother god, the soul is after all eternal.
The atheist has the upper hand here as he can be against both Stalin and God, but the difference is that Stalin's reign of terror is over, whilst God is still perfectly free to throw people in hell, which is far worse than Stalin could ever do.
By the same token the Inquisition doesn't make Christianity false.
In more detail: The USSR’s atheism was a symptom of their abusive behavior, not the cause; religion was a competitor for state power, and thus had to be removed. Not to mention that these authoritarian regimes had their own cults of personality and state-sponsored propaganda that were just as noxious as the religion they replaced. People like Alex are more modern, progressive secular humanist atheists, who have little more in common with Stalin than bin Laden.
It’s not just this young man’s intellect that impresses, it’s his fluency, his eloquence. A brilliant future awaits him.
Three down votes. I'm guessing Alistair and Joanna McGrath and their dog.
Dawkins is not claiming theological wisdom or relevance of theology.
He has always been on the evolutionary side of arguments and perspective.
Cosmic Skeptic - The next Christopher Hitchens
No he's the first alex J O'Connor
He even looks a bit like him
FIFA and Football F&F
Lol ikr..he has the exact same eyebrows and scowl
FIFA and Football F&F Hitchens was in a league of his own, tho Alex is doing well for himself.
His accent is not thicc enough.
I just read The God Delusion and found it very interesting. I would love to watch a video where you discuss Dawkins, about at which points you agree and disagree with him!
"When shall wee fleas meet again ?
In thunder lightning or in rain ?
When the hurly burly's done
When the battle's lost and won"
I've never had the misfortune of reading the bible, but I'm surprised someone could read the slavery verse and dismiss it or see it as a metaphor, while everything else is fine. Great video as always, Alex.
Slavery existed on every continent , in every culture, from the beginning of humanity.its still around
Same with murder and all the other fine human endeavors
Alex,
As a lifelong atheist (I never felt a spiritual or religious impulse), I thought The God Delusion was an superb book. Yes, he aggressively attacked religion and some might have found that off-putting, but his final chapter on science and the counter-intuitive nature of reality was well worth the price of the book. This chapter was both thoughtful and thought-provoking.
I must take a bit of a left turn here and confess that I was abducted by aliens recently while driving on a remote road in the American countryside, and the aliens communicated to me, via telepathy, a special revelation. They are planning to invade Earth at some point in our lifetime (sound familiar?). In preparation, they administered a remote galactic intelligence test to determine the roles humans would play once the invasion commences.
Atheists, critical thinkers, and skeptics, were deemed to be of exceedingly high intelligence, essentially equal to that of the aliens. Thus we were to be left to our own devices, or to help the aliens rule the planet if we so desired.
On the other hand, Christians, whom the aliens studied quite closely over the years, did not fare so well on the galactic test. Moreover the aliens found their supercilious attitude rather annoying. Therefore they are to be domesticated as pets, to be walked on leashes by both aliens and atheists alike. I guess I have to build a bigger dog house. And finally Creationists, such as Ray Comfort, Joshua Feuerstein, and Ken Ham, who registered the lowest IQ in the history of the galactic empire, will be relegated to such functions as paper weights, door stops, and mannequins in clothing stores.
TRIGGER WARNING: Overly-senstive people who find the above special revelation offensive should proceed to their safe space and cuddle their stuffed animals and holy books. And they should recall that gentle domestication is far more humanitarian than Christianity's burning non-believers at the stake, the 1000 years of Christian anti-semitism inspiring Hitler to perpetuate the holocaust, and the widespread molestation of altar boys by priests.
Locutus, I really hoped that your "experience" was just an analogy, if not then you are crazy.
Diego, my special revelation should be interpreted through your own lens of experience. May peace go with you.
Wow, fuck those aliens. Slavery is still wrong, and there are plenty of good theists.
Locutus D'Borg do you honestly think you can properly compare domestication of wild cats to the 'domestication' of Christians? What would that even entail?
"TRIGGER WARNING: Overly-senstive people who find the above special revelation offensive"
What about people who find it clucking futs?
This book is more of a hit piece article on Dawkins than an actual book
Dawkins is a very smart person I have yet to see even a remotely "good" argument for any god
If there is no god, who is in control?
@@StefanReich
In control of the universe?
Nobody.
Absolutely no one is in control of the universe, and for the betterment of your mental health, I recommend you get used to it.
In control of your happiness and contentment?
Only you.
@@kevinturner7509 So I am God?
@@StefanReich No, you're Stefan.
@@StefanReich Lmao don't dig your own grave
Do a case for a Creator next.
Kai Widman PLEASE DO THIS BOOK BACK WHEN I WAS AN EVANGELICAL WHEN I WAS LIKE 12 I READ THIS BOOK AND KEPT ON TRYING TO GET MY SCIENCE TEACHER WHO WAS AN ATHEIST TO READ THE BOOK AND NOW I CRINGE AT THE MEMORY
Sierra Farnum
Lol
No! Do Star Wars.
All of the Lee Strobel books are cringe. He pretends to be an ardent skeptic but he goes to a apologist and says "Is God real?" They say 'Yes' then he's like "That by just saying 'yes' it undeniable proves it, now I'm a Christian!" And real skeptics everywhere shake their heads in disgust.
We have a creator; Aristotle's 'Great Chain of Being' - aka evolution - created us. And that creator had a creator [1:40] known as chemistry, and that had a creator known as physics. As far as we can tell, it's creators all the way down, so conceive this as a singularity and you have your Creator. Et hoc dicimus deum.
I love your channel so much. I can't believe how young, intelligent, AND talented you are. Hope you can post more regularly. (Also please make more music, your song With You is my new obsession). Cheers mate.
I think spirituality is important for some people pertaining to their health, but spirituality as in meditation and yoga, not as in religion. Meditation is good for exercising deep thinking and looking at things with empathy and seeing deeper meaning, and yoga is good for flexibility. Religion, or the religions that harm more than help, should not be held to the standard of importance in the health of a person.
The problem many theists and atheists have is they think the claim "No gods exist" is somehow equal to the claim that "A god exists" vis-a-vis the burden of "proof" or "evidence." After all, atheists like me who don't just lack belief but positively disbelieve in gods can't demonstrate that we live in a godless universe. But just because two claims both lack proof or evidence doesn't make them equally invalid. Just as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," extraordinary beliefs require more rational justification than more mundane ones. If one guy believes that ivory billed woodpeckers are _not_ extinct and another believes in spacefaring Martians, the latter obviously has a taller hill to climb to convince others.
Furthermore, just because a belief lacks proof or evidence, that belief can still be totally rationally justified. I can't prove that no human has ever run a one-minute mile, but I'm rationally justified in believing it never happened. If I have a thousand-sided die on which 999 sides show a 0 and one side shows a 1 and I'm asked what number I believe will come up on a random roll, I'm going with 0 every time! I can't prove that, nor can I show evidence that a 0 will definitely come up, but I can show that it's a rationally justified belief.
I do not simply "lack belief" in gods. I deny them. I'm a hard atheist. Do I not then shoulder some burden of proof? Well...technically. But in the absence of proof it's not like we've nothing to go on. The hard atheist (and the theist) merely assumes a burden of rational justification. And since the god-beliefs of the theist are more extraordinary than those of the hard atheist, the theists will _always_ carry more of the load. Similarly, I don't just lack belief in Bigfoots. I believe there are none. You can say I am making an "unproved" assumption but only a silly person would say that this belief is as irrational and unjustified as the belief Bigfoots do exist.
So...if challenged, _can_ I rationally justify my belief that no gods exist? Sure. By noting the very large graveyard of past gods; by pointing to the fact that believers in any god often disagree widely about the qualities of that god; by the primitive, ignorant and unscientific nature of holy books; by the logical conflict entailed by invisible and immaterial "beings;" by the fishiness of the excuses all theists use as to why their gods hide; by the fact that gods are often portrayed as male, female or animal-like, which merely strengthens the Man-created-gods theory. You may say that this "proves" nothing, but as you can see, that's a moot point. Rational beliefs don't require proof or evidence. But I hope I've proved one thing: hard atheism is a totally justifiable stance.
great video :)
"Infinite regress" was quantified by the LHC. NO WAIT...that's not true.
Arno Penzias & Edwin Hubble were able to deduce its existence. NOT EVEN..
ALBERT EINSTEIN said it was "the one universal theory which will NEVER be overthrown"
YES..EXACTLY! It's THE THEORETICAL PHYSICS this "priest" says is laughably misapplied.
IT'S THE "FIRST LAW of Thermodynamics "!
Infinite regress is deducible because energy is never/can never, originate: 1ST LAW!!
WHY our/Einstein's default is that NATURAL genesis of "heat" can never be reconciled....
such that we can operate only from the assumption that THE NATURAL universe can ONLY regress. BUUTTT...OF COURSE the theists conclude then that the physical universe required
NON-NATURAL ETIOLOGY. AN ABSOLUTELY LOGICAL, TRUE OR NOT, PROGRESSION.
@ OPEN MIND
great to see you under a video that has nothing to do with drugs
42, the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything.
Bob Barker hail 42!
Bob Barker Ah, but what is the _question_ ?! ;)
@@munstrumridcully easy. What do you get if you multiply six by nine ? (From the scrabble bag). You know it only makes sense if you use base thirteen. Also How many roads must a man walk down (From Frankie mouse and Benji mouse) There is more but I'm running out of time. Peace
@@azuregriffin1116 Hail Deep thought.
@@zapkvr :)
I have a question. If the bible was the words of God. Why are there so many branches of Christianity that practice different ideologies? And why did they need the New Testament that covers up most of the concepts presented in the Old Testament?
Cuong Hoang, and why would there be so many contradictions?
Cuong Hoang
Regarding there being different sects of a religion that comes from only one source, each sect will tell you that the other ones interpret it wrong. Which only exposes the huge flaw in their ideology; how can an irrefutable truth be open to interpretation?
The new testament is through the prophet, jesus, who reformed the religion which was previously just the old testament, or judaism. Because he is allegedly the son of god it allowed the religion to be reformed, the idea is that the first prophets, abraham and moses among others, interpreted god’s word wrong so god had to send his son down to correct the people and tell them of the new word of god. Again, if it is the ULTIMATE TRUTH, how can there be so much confusion over it, if there were a god he would not make it so difficult to figure out whether he is real or not; he would not give messages that are completely open to interpretation.
Emisilla Silla the thing is, god is omniscient and knows everything that will be, so before he even created man he knew he would give his petulant demands to the prophets and that they would get it wrong, and that he would send Jesus to remedy that, and make a pig's ear of that....
Of course we'd all have been saved a lot of bother if we all spoke the same original language, but the petty baby had to confound our minds because of the tower of Babel which apparently might have "reached heaven"; if only god knew then that heaven isn't a few hundred metres in the air we would have understood his instructions. But he knew he would mess things up and he knew it was for no reason. Such prowess.
I mean the Bible does say let every man seek his own salvation, I think embodying the teachings of Jesus Christ is the main goal, and although there are several different doctrines to Christianity catholic, Protestant, baptist, etc they all believe in Jesus Christ.
Conceived In the stars the bible also tells you how much pay for your slaves and that it's fine to beat them as long as they don't die within a couple of days ( so if they suffer for longer before perishing that's okay). And it says to kill witches, which followers are dutifully doing to this day. What a fabulous book.
I don't think Dawkin's objection to the cosmological regress elementary at all, I find that argument quite substantial. Why do you disagree, sir?
First of all; greetings from Chile. I truly enjoy your videos. however, I do have a comment in a section that you mentioned in reference to fasting. In all truth, the scientific world had indeed written quite a bit about the positive effects of intermittent fasting not only in your body but most importantly in your brain. So, I´ve to tell you that they were right on the money when they mentioned the health benefits of fasting.
I went to Yale and had to study the human body thoroughly and did I lot of research on my own I know, in this was some of the subjects that I investigated and wrote quite a bit. I´m getting off the subject I know and I apologize for that.
Please keep sending more videos I find them very educational. Impressive coming from someone so young as you.
Cannot believe their ignorance and just blatant laziness. How is it they can get a book published, without actually doing background reading and critiquing, and yet uni students would fail a first year essay for that? 🤦🏻♀️ Interesting and well put as always Alex
Why doesn't this guy have more subscribers holly shit I love him
Better now? 😋
@@theuniversewithin74 even better
Alex, if you ever read this just know that I a man that's 37 have been continually impressed by your intellect. Keep it up my brother. Remain humble yet confident. =)
"The Dawkins delusion" as in "The delusion that I can understand Dawkins"
this video came up after i watched a frank turek video about what richard dawkins said in a ben stein interview. if you want to see how dishonest frank turek is that is a video to watch.
Cosmic Skeptic.....you are one of the most nuanced thinkers on TH-cam. Respect!
Once again, a very good talk! You still sounded like you were speaking to that group of people again from weeks ago or however long ago that was!
Right Wingers/Religious Fundamentalist not understanding science, I never would have guessed.
Objection! I'm a right winger (and an empiricist) and i understand science. You would be surprised how many left wingers peddle pseudo scientific woo to support their political agendas.
I'm with you, Lee.
you do realize those arent synonyms anymore right? on that basis, everyone should follow the bible because its what the ideas were before now. Scientists/Holy men know that the sun revolves around the earth. Do you get my point?
I'm a Conservative Atheist 🤔
I'm a Religious Liberal isn't an insane statement either. Both are political with neither pertaining to religion....
How in the world did that book even get published?? The ignorance continues to spread indiscriminately. Kudos to you sir for shedding some light on this hilarious failure of a rebuttal to the God Delusion
The thing is that lazy people will not read Dawkin's book cause it's longer. So they won't corroborate what it says in that crappy shorter book. Take care
"false knowledge is worse than ignorance" GBS
You Tube has the audio version available, however it's nearly twelve hours long so there is the attention span issue too.
Walter Definis
The bible is even longer, so they probably won't read that too.
I read the God Delusion and the Origin of Species.
It's no wonder people get confused about the term 'theory', as I now question why we don't call it "string/M hypothesis"...
I support Richard Dawkins, we are 'blessed' to have him among us. Like the Cosmic Skeptic, Dawkins argues and questions ideas. His attacks are not ad hominem, they grow out of his knowledge of biology. I prefer ideas based on evidence as opposed to faith. It is really just that simple.
I knew I was Atheist age 7, but by 18 years old I could never have articulated such knowledge.. He's a genius! Rock on the monumental task of logical thinking.. Go Alex!
Got a 32 minute ad about the coming antichrist
Following Alex on goodreads has finally paid off
sylvia docker *off
Eclectic Mess whoops lol
Off
I am 77 and love this stuff. I hope you are outrageously funny because an evening of beers with you would be like listening to Beethoven's 109, kindness, wit, and thought-provoking.
8:10
As an EMT, and having dealt with death, mass casulty occurance and firefights, spirituality does matter and help people.
Now don't get me wrong its NOT a substitue for any medical care but an addiditon. I'm not even talking to invoking any deity or spirits or whatnot. I'm talking about emotional support.
That emotional support for some (including me) is purely the doctor explaining something quite clear and a nurse to talk to me for a bit before having to rush to another patient, I acknowlage that some might prefere a priest as support or even crystals. As stupid as it sounds - but having dealt with delusional patients it's sometimes better to play along during medical need rather than counter it - that doesn't extent to psychatric help which needs(!) to counter those episodes but it doesn't help to counter a psychological delusion when treating a broken leg. (example- we had a patient who believed a talking fish implanted eggs in his leg which caused it to fracture. The time and effort to counter his belief would be to much so we played along "removed the eggs" and straightened out his leg)
Now you might claim all taht to be anneecdotal evidence, and you might be right but - heres a study which provides some substance to my claim.
www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA218401
Ok its about prayer, and before jumping to conclusion and the other study denying praying works- this study is about the patient praying themself not beeing prayed for -even Dawkins described it in his book to have a placebo effect.
TL;DR
I propose that spiritual support in ADDITION to medical treatment can be helpful if done right. I.e. don't pray for an atheist or let a spiritualist keep his crystals as long as they don't interefere with the treatment.
“Theological wisdom.” LOL
Nah, God solves everything. If my car doesn't start, I know God damned it... or at least that's what I say rather loudly.
That’s well known in the theological ideology as the “ Basil Faulty” argument for an infinite and all-knowing God
very funny!!
@@davidhudson1106 More like an ignorant and no-knowing God, it's a mistake! If your car is purring then look at that baby fly!
All I can say is this: “Before I was born I didn’t experience any inconvenience”. Mark Twain.-
"As if we should base a patient's care on what they think they need rather than what a medical professional thinks they need"
Patient care is managed using a patient centered approach. This means the patient takes the priority role in managing their care including what therapies are to be utilized. Spirituality, cultural values, and beliefs are taken into consideration when organizing care. I am an atheist BSN who has been in healthcare for 20+ years and whole heartedly support the patient centered care model.
Its funny how many times i agree with Alex as a Christian. If every doctor took care of spiritual needs, there would be so much opportunity for corruption, and many more problems.
Isn't "Theological Wisdom" an oxymoron xD ?
Like "Military Intelligence."
@@37Dionysos The word "intelligence" in "military intelligence" means information, not acumen.
@@dozog Thanks SO much! Gee, who knew that?
@@37Dionysos It means it's not an oxymoron like Theological wisdom.
@@dozog You're doing a great job out here!
Alex! You amazing person!
Dawkins is my role model and my aspiration in life in the field of science and an unwavering hatred for ignorance
Please be sure to have empathy for the individual delusionist. Hitch-slaps convert debate-viewers, not debatees.
Ignorance is bliss!
Such clear thinking, as usual, from Alex. There is another book from Alistair Mc Grath which I would love to see Alex review. Steam was coming out of my ears as I read this. I found it so outrageous. It was the only book I have ever thrown in the bin - but this means that, unfortunately I can't say what the title is! He talks about denial of Norway
being a country and hippos in the bath if that rings any bells for anyone....
Nice critique. I have read "The Dawkins Delusion" and found it, without going into detail, rather naive. What i want to say though concerns your opening about Dawkins. He does seem to come in for criticism about not being strong philosophicaly. That may or may not be true, but it saddens me. Reason being, at one time among my friends I was the only one who was sceptical of all the extraordinary things said friends believed in. Examples of such being ghosts, the Bermuda triangle, reincarnation etc etc. I was criticised for not being open minded, which to me was an annoyingly unthoughout criticism which i won't go into here. I then heard an interview of Dawkins on the radio where he talked about the need for evidence to inform our beliefs, and what the nature of that evidence should be. It struck such a chord with me. You may be somewhat right about Dawkins, but he's not that wrong.
You should make a response to Ravi Zacharias, because he is surprisingly popular among Christians.
Yeah, I used to listen to him quite a bit back when I was a Christian, and I'm sorta surprised by the lack of people responding to him.
It's quite hard to argue against someone who is just spouting woo. There is little to get a grip with that they can't get round with pure invention.
I could have left work early but I stayed and got paid extra while I finished this video
Well I suppose we should all be thanking you for subjecting yourself to this drivel so we don’t have to
Love your channel, I’m actually on the opposite side of the spectrum. I’m sure you don’t get many religious people who like your channel, but I️ do. It’s fun and challenging to think about. I️ am quite religious, but I️ always enjoy your interesting approach to atheism. I️ enjoy reading the opposition as well, and you are easily one of the better spokesmen. There are plenty of idiots in the theistic and atheistic communities. The world needs more debaters and presenters like yourself.
Michael Simon : Can you name just one commentator from your so-called "idiots in the atheistic community". I would not ask you to name an idiot from the theistic community because that's just too easy.
I just finished reading that book, and what I would say is that the biggest problem with the book lies in the fact that it focuses on the more trivial part of Dawkins' argument, or straight out missed Dawkins' point. Many times during the read I asked myself "so what?"
If Dawkins wrote the God delusion, then who wrote Dawkins?
Genes!
Hey Alex! When are you going to immigrate to the U.S. like Hitch did ? We need you badly. I'll sponsor you . Hell kid I'll adopt you .
MacheteDontTweet I second that. He can come live with us in NC...we REALLY need him! 🤣
All Teapots are in orbit around the Sun
All KNOWN teapots. What if someone (Carl?) hid teapots on the Voyager probes? What if some alien civilization has invented a teapot on their own? In those cases there are teapots which are not in the orbit around the Sun.
Alex, if I may make a suggestion. Instead of reading what you want to quote from a book, put it in writing on the screen, and bold or underline whatever areas you want for emphasis. It's easier for people to understand when they can read it themselves than to listen to a quotation. And it communicates better that way also. Just thought I'd help you out with my suggestion :)
I am a fellow atheist and I love your videos keep up the good work attacking the stupidity of religion.
I wonder if such apologists lie so often that they don't even realize they're doing it after a while. Great vid as always! :)
Do you have all the books?
solomon gregg i hears he already has the next GoT
This is the earliest I've ever been! Lol
Lu Citti hi no rai?!?!
How can one still be religious after reading the god delusion?
A reasonable person can't, but then again, a reasonable person wouldn't be religious in the first place.
th-cam.com/video/DWkZpwKv9Bk/w-d-xo.html
Well, never underestimate what brain rot descends on people.
Excellent ! Thank you Alex ! I did not read yet Alistair and Joanna McGrath’s book, but I hope that its contents might complete mine « A Finger on the light, counterpoint to Richard Dawkins’ atheism », edited by Stratton Press, Cheyenne, WI,USA, in 2018. In actual fact, RD is a sort of mystificator, is truly really nuts, who realized -many years ago- that 80% of people were like him atheist, and non-believers, the subject of which RD has exploited to a maximum, making his followers -ignoring for a lot of them the spiritual matter and God’s love- fervent disciples, demonstrating their hatred against believers. In other word, RD’ knowlege in theology is mine in nuclear physical. The same applied with Darwing’s theory regarding evolution of species. The folk ignoring a big part of this subject, it is easy for RD to discuss about it, which even nowadays he is still defending tooth and neil, while DNA was not existing during Darwins’ time, what RD feigns to ignore, deliberately, including the last discovery of the mitochondrial DNA capable to move back into the time to determine the birth of species, modifying radically Darwing’s theory, somehow obsolete not to say out of work ! Alex, feel free to pick up a copy of A Finger on the light, and let us know your opinion, please !
2:02 - "This is quite an elementary criticism of theism to which there are a number of compelling responses such as the Kalam cosmological argument."
I don't see how the Kalam cosmological argument is in any way a compelling response. It makes a rather large jump from "the universe has a cause" to "If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful." That's quite the assumption to make. Why does it have to be a "personal" creator? Why does it have to be a conscious entity at all? The only reason I can think of is to make it fit the existing religious belief that the person is trying to defend, not to find a logically coherent conclusion.
The rest of the video was pretty much gold. I only take the time to nit-pick this statement because I appreciate CosmicSkeptic's content.
Kalam Cosmological Argument: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument
The God Delusion is a masterpiece and a devastating attack on religion.
Wonderful video!
Are you still allergic to exercise?
[Premade Sandwiches] yeah can we have an update on that
As far as I know. Still a little scared to test.
CosmicSkeptic push-ups Free weight squat, free weight lunges every direction, chin ups. Smart people exercise you by that rational you should be jacked.
wait what, he cant actually exercise?
Joshua Lay "(edited)" Jesus Christ if that's the second draft I don't want to see the first"
Beautifully explained and cleverly researched. How does the Bob Seger song go ...”When will they ever learn, when will they eeever learn!!”
wow.. someone who actualy read from both sides and examine the actual books, statements and arguments regarding it to make an informed decision on what to belive. You have my respect and a new sub. No one is to be taken at their word regarding important issues and no one is beyond criticism :)
Good morning Alex
Dawkins is not a good arguer when it comes to theology or philosophy. He needs to stick to his field of expertise.
Alex, I just wanted to let you know I farted
I want to apologize to you for a comment that I made on another one of your videos where I said you were still “just a Catholic ...”. Actually I find your videos are very thoughtful, researched and well spoken. Thanks for your insights.
I suggest a competition: I'll try to write as much stuff from the Bible that makes some sense, and you try to find something in that very chapter that is completely unacceptable!
"Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."-John 4:11-12"
I love your videos, how you make your points clearly, considering both sides of an argument fairly before coming to a conclusion. They've helped me enormously in my transition from evangelical Christian to atheist. I can't say the same for Richard Dawkins. He's rude, condescending and sometimes doesn't answer a critic's question but beats them into silence through humiliation. When I read part of "The God Delusion" (I couldn't stand to read all of it), I thought, "This is a book of hate," written not to help people but to hurt them. It's because of him and his supporters that I resisted embracing atheism for many years, because I didn't want to turn into a nasty bully like him. Heck, he even hates Doctor Who, and after he'd been it!
I see what you mean. There are people who do extended fasting for secular reasons, so cutting down on sugar is a really weak comparison when faithless fasters fast faithfully.
To quote Amarnath Amarasingam from the introductory chapter to Religion and the New Atheism (2010):
"The academic community, with a few exceptions, has largely dismissed [new atheist] writings as unsophisticated, crude, and lacking nuance. As such, most of the work dealing with the new atheist corpus has tended to be equally crude, mocking, or dismissive."
I have read parts of The Dawkins Delusion and the second sentence seems like a fairly good description (but the McGraths have nothing on John Haught when it comes to bad responses to new atheist works).
I met you at the David Silverman talk. But I'm surprised you don't seem all the keen on Dawkins. Would love to hear more about why that is.
Just a heads up, it should read "considerably" in your description. Other than that, great video!