I can only imagine his abject horror of that senator from Arizona, leading a prayer group on the floor of the senate chamber this week, begging their celestial autocrat to strip women of reproductive health care. It was absolutely repulsive.
@@ninajoit Nothing compared to the horror of men "informed" they'll owe child support for a minimum of 18 years. Wimmin's hypocritical 50 year rant for "choice" extends ONLY as far as their GENDER. Absolutely no choice for men to opt out of child support...and they BOTH "CHOSE" to take their pantsoff. Hilariously as shamelessly hypocritical as wimmin taking a too very convenient hiatus for wimmin's suffrage during WW!. I'm way too smart to get trapped into child support, but still enjoy the enormously superior feeling contrasted with wimmin demanding "choice" as a "human right"...BUT FOR ONE GENDER ONLY!!
You can guarantee Hitch is no longer an advocate for atheism. He is not even thinking about those like you who are still left here in this world of delusive contemplation, we metaphysicians call "MORTAL IDENTIFICATION" 😂😂😂
As Christopher Hitchens said, when he debated Frank Turek: "I'll give you all the miracles, but you'll still be standing exactly where you are now, holding an empty sack."
Lennox: "He (Paul) was not a believer when he met Jesus". So Paul's vision counts as "meeting Jesus"! I dreamt of Churchill the other night, so I guess that means I've met Churchill! Thank you and well done Peter Singer.
Paul was an eyewitness to hearsay; in fact, there are zero writings extant that contain a contemporaneous, first-person, eyewitness account of the resurrection.
Except his revelation communicating with the resurrected Christ while as Saul was doing his persecution of Christians on the way to Damascus. And if he received that revelation at that time, it’s also possible he may have received additional revelations that were not placed into the New Testament as Paul.
Yeah, it’s such a non-argument if you pay any attention to it at all. And Lennox is _so proud_ of it! What we actually know is that Paul wrote about having had a vision. Do we know that he really had that vision? Would it establish the truth of the resurrection if we _did_ know that he really had it? No, and no.
He had a vision, that's it. Lennox equates this with Paul actually _meeting_ Jesus (his words), which is just not the case. Could I say I *met* someone from history (contemporary or not) if it was only in a dream? I don't think so.
If there were indeed around 500 eyewitnesses to jesus's resurrection, it's quite telling that not one of those FIRST HAND eyewitnesses wrote this extraordinary event down until Paul decided to ask around and write down their experiences as hearsay. And the bible does not have 500 accounts, so who's to say that Paul didn't simply discard the ones that didn't fit his vision of new faith and only kept the ones that did? Even then the gospels are inconsistent in describing people's reactions to this miraculous event. In one, the women who discovered the empty tomb were too frightened to tell anyone. In the other, they were overjoyed and told everyone and anyone they came across.
“Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of the astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy.” - Carl Sagan
"wonder of the astonishing universe" This is NOT the language of science. From Sagan's standpoint there is no wonder or astonishment.......there is only clarification of prior ignorance. Looks like Carl is getting a little out of his league.
An innumerable amount of holes can be poked into the validity of religion. For me, divine hiddenness is enough to disregard a god belief until one shows up and removes all doubt. It's quite simple. If you WANT people to believe in you, then show your damn face and say something to your creation once in a while. Something that people can take pictures of, record, and can be validated in the future rather than relying on inaccurate, contradictory, morally disturbing ancient books with ZERO originals. He better also have a damn good explanation of why so much of the world is shitty and why he decided not to talk to us for thousands of years, leaving us to our own devices, destroying each other and the planet. If one exists, they're either clearly not all powerful, an absolute prick, or both.
The fact that "divine hiddenness" is THE sole common attribute of every one of the thousands of gods ever proposed by human beings, it certainly does lead the reasoning mind to doubt that any of them are any more real than any others.
@@MizzouRah78 haha, hilarious mate. Here it is "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus
what about the "hereafter" kept you from being happy in the "here and now"? Was it the "Love your neighbor as yourself" part you found so distressing? Or was it the promise that the atrocities and injustices of this world will someday be adjudicated? Without His promise, they never will be, of course. Russel Brand (for one) has recently found that his life in the "here and now" was meaningless and has embraced Christian belief. Millions have also done so for two millennia. Why not you??
“Since it is obviously inconceivable that all religions can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.” - Christopher Hitchens
It was encouraging that Lummox got a couple of words in as it reinforced Peter's position. That (S)Paul had heatstroke or an epileptic seizure and was out of action for a couple of days indicates her certainly imagined he saw something. I experienced the same when I almost drowned. Bright light and disorientation. Of course, I grasped noodles cascading from the FS Monster and knew I was safe. Some folks of little faith will not believe me - such is life.
@@--Snowy-- "End Times" is another manipulation tactic,go study more about it.I live in Georgia country and most priests are moving with expensive jeep cars while talking anything negative about priests is sin.You don't need religion to be moral and have strong character,just study stoicism for example.In reality if you believe that there is no afterlife you would be more motivated to live as best as you can because you have one.
It's not even simply the fear of death that drives religion. What ultimately renders it pathological is that it perverts our own moral integrity by _reducing_ it to a system of reward/punishment. That's literally the most _primitive_ stage of Kohlberg's moral development.
Some omnipotent being apparently can create a world, fill it with animals of all kinds but can’t prevent cancer or a plane crash. Yet the faithful pray for survivors, never for these calamities not to happen in the first place.
"imagine all their wonder" Get real, they are merely burning spheres of gas. You don't get "wonder" by emerging from ignorance. "Beauty and wonder" are not in the realm of science. You are using the language of meaning and purpose and you really shouldn't do that.
other people of different religions had visions of their gods, just as paul did of jesus. does that mean those other gods are real, too? no. a vision isn't evidence.
With the continuous increases in scientific research and the accelerating decline in religious people, (yes, even in the states), I find comfort that my grandchildren and there own children will not have to listen to this anymore, and be happy.
Arguments against religion are ultimately arguments against believing in miracles, and arguments for, I can't imagine what else, for learning to think reasonably.
John Lennox is a disgrace to the title of "mathematician", when it comes to blind faith, he abandon his reason, logic and critical thinking he learned through mathematics
John Lennox does not engage in blind faith. The atheist community seems not to understand what faith means. Its meaning is closer to trust than belief. It certainly does not mean blind faith. That notion is an invention of atheists.
Mathematicians don’t have to believe in a physical universe to do maths. In fact, of the few elite scientists who are theists, most do physics, none do biology.
Atheism is a faith. It is a statement of what you believe about whether or not God exists. Unless you know for certain either way, your opinion about this question is by definition a belief, a faith, a truth in which you trust.
@@bencornell4432 First point.... You ARE an atheist. EVERYBODY is ... Nobody believes in all the gods that have been imagined and written about (by people). People who claim they believe in ONE god, (their actions show that they don't really) are atheist about THOUSANDS of others.. They haven't even read all the scriptures or dogmas. Second point... If you cannot tell the difference between an imaginary thing and a real thing, then both words become completely interchangeable and meaningless. All gods are the product of human imagination. No people = No gods. They cannot exist as an idea, unless humans exist FIRST to imagine them. Real things exist whether anyone believes in them or not. All gods are self evidently imaginary.
@@bencornell4432 False... I explained exactly why your statement is false and it didn't appear for some reason. First point... EVERYBODY is an atheist. Nobody believes in all the possible gods that have been imagined and written about. People who claim to believe in one god are atheist about THOUSANDS of others. Claiming to believe in one god, does not absolve a person from their atheism towards all the others...
Second point... All gods cannot exist, unless a human exists FIRST to imagine them. All gods are self evidently imaginary... Atheism isn't a faith it is a rational observation to a nonsensical, baseless claim..
"But Paul was an eyewitness to SOMETHING.." That's some pretty weak tea, sir. And while it's likely correct that Paul was writing in the mid-first century, he appears to know almost nothing at all of Jesus' life or his teachings.
Lennox claiming he can clearly remember things 20 or 30 years back is bullshit. I clearly remember scenes from movies I watched years ago. Very clear memories. When I watch the movies again, the scenes are totally different, or at least bear a vague resemblance to the way I remember them. Lennox would have just as fallible a memory as anyone else if he was honest...
An important question is why a 'maker' would have created the universe. The motivation for someone intent on evil and wishing the means to satisfy it seems more likely than someone doing it for good, especially given all the demonstrable failures in that. So let's assume the 'maker' is evil and that good in as far as it exists is part of his mysterious (or devious) ways.
Never knew Peter Singer had such enlightening arguments against religion. I knew he was a great moral philosopher and have read his essays on ethics and morality. Great work!!
I say we are lucky to see 70 ,lucky if pain isn,t everyday, lucky if hair grows in appropriate places..,eyes are perfect,skin is clear, no broken bones, teeth or gum trouble etc lonely in our later life.
In the beginning Jesus spake, and he said unto thee: "Why wasn't I the first god in human history?" The first god spake, and said unto him: "Just to be forgotten, from memories dim?"
@@iwatchyoutube202 From the dawn of time before God was born. Before the eternal void was formed. A time and place before space. When life was yet to be poured.
Secular humanism has a few advantages. For one, it can develop ethics based on the true foundation of all ethical systems: human nature. We cannot flatter ourselves: human nature can be extremely ugly. But enlightened self-interest alone does a remarkable job of clarifying ethical issues. In other words, the Golden Rule, which many cultures have invented. Two, secular humanism can predict when we are going to feel ourselves in ethical quandaries: on limits on parental rights, on m surgical and medical abortions, on capital punishment. We can admit that we feel competing ethical principles, and act accordingly. Religions tend to be confused in quandaries, as divine laws are supposed to be absolute and never at cross purposes. (False of course, but that’s what they claim.) Three, it is corrigible. Secular humanism has extended « rights » to many animals, which only a few religions did. Secular humanism has recognized that the planet has rights. Secular humanism has been the force behind universal human rights.
On his last point about Paul and the fact that some people have "visions", those who have "visions" do so because their brain is constantly bombarded with a distinct type of information that then "tends to reveal itself in visions". Paul was "absolutely AGAINST Jesus". If anything, Paul would have had a vision of something completely opposite of what he reported.
The best, greatest argument against Christianity is in the bible itself. Every Christian I speak too clams up and never here from again. -Ex-Christian never again will I make that MISTAKE again.
It is easy understand how various religious doctrines are composed to suit the mores of their particular audience/society. So maybe we can overlook absolute conformity between them. However, it must be acknowledged that mankind in general has an undeniable inner spiritual need for love and to understand the deeper purposes of life itself. Of course, science tries to pretend that there are no spiritual dimensions regarding life,and that everything is an accident with little or no purpose,-- except maybe that of survival of the species. All very well until one brings morality and choices into the picture, then one can either dismiss such values as irrelevant , or regard life as a series of spiritual choices between the various aspects of life/consciousness/awareness.. So perhaps one should start by regarding life as an opportunity to learn that conscious/spiritual awareness presents us with options in terms of attitudes/behaviour, --especially in regards to others. ( For example, do unto others as you yourself would have others do to you.) A good beginning from which to start.
@@electricmanist None of which actually bears on the factual question of whether any gods exist. Until demonstrated otherwise such drives are nothing more than an effect of our brain wiring.
@@diogeneslamp8004You use the term...brain wiring,-- well I wonder if you have ever considered how human 'brain wiring' came about ? The incredible neuron complexity of the human brain (not to mention the brains of all creatures) leaves no doubt that all this complexity didn't just happen--all by itself from nothing. Imagine, if you can, complete 'nothing ! No, not even that we term space since space itself is just the distance between 'things'--whatever they may be-- but absolutely 'nothing". Nothing at all, not even that which we call 'space', since space as we understand the term, is the distance between things, whatever they may be. Nothing! Not space, but total nothingness Hard to comprehend isn't it ?
@@electricmanist Singularities are also hard to imagine, but black holes exist, regardless of the paucity of your imagination. Just because it seems unlikely to you doesn’t mean it didn’t happen as advertised. Do you have any direct evidence for a god?
@@diogeneslamp8004Whether black holes exist of not , is not the issue. But the issue of a supreme intelligence creating all that is (e.g. the universe and even you) is not. If you choose to think that you are a meaningless 'nothing' (here today, gone tomorrow), that is your choice. However, the existence of the limitless universe (right down to its very molecular level) , is not. A creative force behind all that is, is self evident by the very fact that it (the universe) exists.
Paul saw something. Sure! Like lots of other before and after him through human history, among multitude of civilizations in every corner of the planet claiming they saw something. He was not the first one nor the last one to have experienced "supernatural" things.
Sadly, no amount of intelectuals or logic will sway the part of the population that believes in fairy tales. Ups, gotta go, Santa calling me to help with Rudolph...
I'd say that's demonstrably false. This kind of open discussion, debate, and questioning has helped countless people deconstruct their faith. Me included. That, along with education and the abundant access to information. Sure, there are certainly those who will never have the capacity to let go. However, it's a slow process. I honestly believe it's possible that the religious will officially be in the minority within a century.
Good for you. However, I have been interested in this topic for quite some time and the people like you I can count on one hand. Also, please note, I was generalizing. The idea was to point out the level of blindness.
@@simonov_spas I've been involved in the topic consistently for probably @ 15 years. Your personal account is in no way indicative of the figures. Thousands of people are swayed and deconverted by means of the methods mentioned. Whether generalizing or not, it's simply untrue.
@@MizzouRah78 Karen, just because you don't agree with something, does not make it false. My personal observations tell me one thing. Yours tell you a different story. Unless you have stats for believers to nonbelievers and non believers to believers ratios and rate, these are just two opinions.
@Spasko84 Karen? Really? Grow tf up. I'm not the one basing my argument on personal, physical experience. Your limited experience doesn't equate to being rational about your claim or generalization. "No amount of intellectuals or logic will sway the part of the population that believes in fairy tales" is a preposterous and unfounded statement. Between being logically fallacious and sensitive, I'm surprised you're not a Christian. 😂
"Faith is believing in something for which you have neither good arguments nor good evidence." If this is true then most religionists I encounter don't believe on faith, they don't believe in faith. Instead they believe on the basis of weak argument and poor evidence. I guess that makes them rationalists, in some sense of the word. Enter Lee's Elucidation: A finite number of words must be made to represent an infinite number of things and possibilities.
Sir Isaac Newton never talked about gravity. He talked about gravitation. Which is just an observable phenomenon. Am I arguing against gravity? Edit: there is no good argument against gravitation🙂
I’m glad it’s these Abrahamic theologies that are the main target under these atheist arguments. Those religions have created so much regression. I’m glad my spiritual needs are not in conflict with science and inquiry.
So many lying beliefs that they make you schizophrenic that you start seeing flying objects is like your mind playing tricks on you that I keep decoding myself from beliefs that are recorded in my subconscious to see through illusions to what's honest n real. One
Those who argue about religion don't understand physics, metaphysics, ontology, philosophy, divinity, mysticism, and religion. Their logic is like dog's breakfast.
All the divergent, kaleidoscopic examples of religious "magical thinking" that exist around the world should be seen as a direct refutation of each other. Sadly, all these naive and narrow-minded views have only created intense divisionism rather than creating an awareness of our own intrinsic ignorance. Humans will kill each other from ignorance before they can acknowledge their own naiveté. I am coming to the understanding that we, homo sapiens, are truly unworthy of the miracle we inhabit.
I am neutral on these matters,but how is it that out of millions of people two,mohammed and paul,have visions and nobody else,and the two biggest religions started with a bang,should'nt more people have been included if everybody is suppose to believe
The more we learn about evolution, the more we understand, that we fundamentally miss something. Looking at genes and probabilities, it just does not work out. Also, the idea that consciousness evolves somehow from matter, is an unproven dogma. I don´t want to speak out for traditional religion, but one has to admit, that the position to criticize spiritual standpoints completely, ist very weak.
You have at least a person you can verfiy that they exist. You have their behavior, actions, communication, development you can assess. And you can ask other people who will see the same person as you do, confirming that they exist.
Never ever believe in some that doesn't have any evidence, if you ever seen god for real which no one ever did no their no time to be wasted on this bs religions, live life, enjoy Life because at the end meaning of life is what you make it. Hava passion or purpose and focus totally on it and you will never be need any religional shtt
Religions just have no proof. They have novels which have been proven to be very inaccurate with story's proven to be deemed impossible. The biggest problem with all religions is that it gets the origins of life on this on this planet and the origins of the earth wrong. These two points have to be true and written down hundreds of thousands of years ago, sadly, I believe the oldest writing recorded was 70,000 years ago, but that still brings up the point of what were these gods doing for all of that time when humans were at their most vulnerable.
All religions, including Michael's, are men-made with fancy doctrines, creeds, dogmas, teachings, rites, rules, traditions, and mannerism. Make each one one's own religion and don't force it to others. Most of people were killed by those in the name of their God (by Christians), except Genghis Khan. Well, philosophy is religion too, as long as they don't stop talking about religion.
The only thing more exasperating and incredulous than listening to a creationist talk about science is listening to a scientist talk about faith. They have neither the intelligence nor the desire to distinguish it from superstition. But of course their failure to do so makes their own position seem so much more tenable. Faith is a process of discovery that has all of the validity of the scientific method, it is not just deciding you believe something and then denying everything that does not confirm it. So any scientist you hear from now on talking about faith in this manner, be assured he is either an idiot, a liar, or both.
@@Lordidude Another ignorant definition of faith by someone who has no idea. If I were to say that science includes astrology, necromancy, psychic abilities, witchcraft, and alchemy, youd be okay with that, right?
Plato said that there was a city called Atlantis on the bottom of the ocean? Plato was a wonderful philosopher but he was terribly deluded when coming to the idea of Faith and atheism. He also existed A LONG time ago before science was advanced enough to make religion obsolete.
There are NO eyewitnesses of the resurrection in the Jesus fables, and NO writings from any purposed witnesses. An empty tomb is evidence only of an empty tomb. The crucified did not get tombs but were left rot. Jesus is dead. These are just stories. Grow up now, my children and leave childish things behind.
I admire Peter Singer since I have heard about his paper from 1974 where he argues that people, who buy coffee at Starbucks instead of preparing it at home or who are dining at a restaurant however they could cook a cheaper meal at home, or who are buying new clothes or a new car while the old one could still be used and who ultimately do not donate to the charity all the money they could have saved by keeping their consumption on a "fasting mode", are evil. This argument should be preached every Sunday in every Church and the fact, that it comes from an Atheist should make all the pastors and all the Catholic or Orthodox priests feel ashamed for it shows a deeper understanding of the spirit of Jesus's teaching then the most of them has ever had. Yet this time, I was somewhat disappointed about how superficial and self-confident his reasoning is - and in some cases simply untrue. Just one example: One cannot say that even one case of HIV infection is due to the moral regulations of the Catholic Church. The Catholic moral teaching regarding sexuality forbids every sexual act between two men and every sexual act between a man and a woman with one exception made for a married couple of the opposite sex. No one got ever infected because of following the Catholic moral teaching - on the contrary, all infections connected to sexual intercourse were possible only by breaking the Catholic moral codex. A man who broke with the Catholic teaching by having sex with a prostitute and got infected can not argue that he hasn't used a condom because the Catholic teaching prohibits it.
Likewise the Israelites did no wrong when they committed a genocide against the Canaanites (Joshua) because god commanded their destruction. You sicken me,
@oldpossum57 I agree that not everything is holy in the Holy Book. It was written by humans, and it's inspired only to the extent they were able to be faithful to the truth and to resist evil in their lives. God doesn't take the free will away from some people just to make sure they will convey his message by 100%. It would be unjust. Besides this, it's impossible to make sure that God's message will not be twisted and turned into a lie. In this case, God would have to take the freedom away also from the preachers, who interpret the Gospel, as well as from all the listeners who can also interpret it wrong. I think the majority of the Evangelical Churches in America preach something one cannot call the Word of God. The Prosperity Gospel is just one example. Twisting of God's message happens also on the opposite side of the globe: The Russian Pops are blessing soldiers who were sent to kill their Ukrainian brothers. They insist that murderer are protectors of God's moral order; with President Putin misusing Bible quotes ("There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends.") to justify the killings. How to search for Holiness in the Holy Book? One of the criteria would be consistency. If God forbids murder calling it a sin, how could he command to murder? His commandment is: "Don't kill".
@@thinkingtogether5328 Another way to look at it is this: gods, religions, and ethical systems are all the invention of human cultures. Human cultures found their inventions on the animal instincts of a highly social Hunter-gatherer ape species, H. sapiens. This ape has very powerful instinctive emotions connected to our brain chemistry. These instincts are socially regulated.Very roughly, something like this model is what researchers in the human sciences propose. Certainly, a naturalistic explanation of human conduct might prove less flattering than the notion that a god or gods created the universe for us, a short-lived mammal, but it is much more likely to be true and more likely to indicate a fruitful way forward. I think even a theist would have to grant the naturalist explanation is more likely than any of the competing religions. I am sure all primitive human cultures need to channel and temper murderous agression. Even in a state of nature, the group can only tolerate a certain amount before the network of interdependencies breaks up. We see our chimpanzee cousins dealing with these problems. Much less expensive is murderous agression against the “other”. Our cousin the chimpanzee hunts and kills our cousin the bonobo. Amalekites and Israelites killing each other over land and cattle was more normal than Israelites killing each other. Sam Keen in Faces of the Enemy shows how governments of all stripes dehumanize the enemy. It makes it easier to “other” the foe. (By the way, one reason we can be sure all of these OT war stories are grossly exaggerated is that nomadic herdsmen cannot afford to go to battle long enough to annihilate their foes: they just don’t have the logistics to do more than conduct a raid.) Interestingly, cultures can educate their young men to channel their agression into sports and risky past times. Gwynn Dyer explains how the US Marines have to take 18 year olds who have no ill intentions against anyone and turn them into men who will kill on command. Forty years ago, they appealed to the young men’s rape fantasies. I doubt they are allowed to do that now.
@oldpossum57 I can't agree it's more normal if the Israelites kill other tribes then if they kill a member of their own tribe. This kind of moral thinking, seemingly based on natural law, can result in a Nazi morality (which was fully compatible with the natural selection laws and only in conflict with religious morality). Scientific comparison of many models of social behavior has shown that what benefits every individual and every society most, is cooperation and not fighting. The benefit of the winner in a fight is less than the benefit of every single participant in a cooperative behavior. The leading world religions promote altruistic behavior over the egoistic ones, forbid killing, teach compassion and forgiveness. Taken that cooperation has evolutionary advantages, one can regard them as a late evolutionary development, which will eventually lead to the appearance of a highly altruistic species, while the egoistic homo sapiens will get extinct;-) (Although the religions itself are still contaminated by primitive ideas like patriotism, patriarchism and so on). When you speak about what's more probable, you touch the problems of logic and of the probability. When using logic, one has to know about its limitations. It is enough to overlook just one tiny detail of reality, and one comes to completely wrong conclusions. For instance, your first message opens with "Likewise", and you treated there two different problems as if they would be similar in nature. Making such an error in a simple logical task, what gives you the confidence to be able to get to the right conclusions about the nature of the whole universe just by the means of your own logical thinking? I don't have that much trust in my own mental abilities. I think the Atheists make the same mistake the Teologians do: They both believe to be able to explain God by the sheer power of logic. The only thing we can know about God is God's manifestation in the world in the form of Truth and Love. Only those, who are commited to always be faithful to the truth and to practice love (defined as: carrying for others) can dream about finding some means to "prove" God's existence, and this only by experiencing his presence. About probabilities: We live in a very unprobable world, and we need to assume the existence of endless many universes to appear this universe more probable. At the same time, to make it work we have to assume, that in all those vast worlds the same probabilistic laws will apply - which stands in contrast with the fact, that we need also to assume, that physical laws itself (including the probability laws) are varying between the universees, because some of the laws governing our universe are also very unprobable, unless there are endlessly many worlds governed by different laws. With other words, our universe should be probable only in the areas of space which includes universees governed by other probabilistic laws then the laws we know from our universe.
@@thinkingtogether5328 I can’t follow much of what you say about cosmology. As I can’t follow it, I’m just guessing your topic is cosmology. I don’t think theological musings advance the discipline of cosmology much. I don’t suppose in a peer review of an article the reviewer ever asks the author, “Have you considered how introducing god into your equation might improve it?” I note your claim, “God is God's manifestation in the world in the form of Truth and Love.” I wonder how you know that as an objective statement? How would you define the terms, so that anyone else would know what you are talking about? As to religions being superior to an ethics based in naturalism, which we can call humanism, I think you have a lot of heavy lifting to do. Naturalism (methodological or metaphysical) claims that all ethical systems , all religions arise from cultural developments founded on human instinct. So, yes, the genocides of the Nazis, the genocides against the Amalekites by the Israelites, the bible, the genocides by Shias against Yazidis are all predictable on human nature. So are the self-sacrifice of Jules Léger, and Rick Rescorla and Godwin Ajala, and Frank Foley and the complex Oskar Schindler. As Hitchens asked, “I challenge you to name a good action that an atheist could not do. Then name an evil act that only a theist could do.” No one commits crimes to honour no god science flies us to te moon, as the kids say, while religion flies us into the world trade towers. Your religions are atavisms. Only a few of them treated animals as having ethical rights. None of them recognized the planet as having rights. All religions condone or command the hatred of “the other”. These superstitions have served what purpose they ever had. So long as people defer to some Nobadaddy in the sky, they can rationalize being hateful. If you want to see that writ large, look at the hate of Shia for Sunni, the hate of Hindu for Muslim and Sikh, the hatred of the white fundamentalist in the USA for blacks, browns, asians, women, gays and lesbians, Jews.
John Lennox is so tiresome! Twenty years of oral tradition story-telling by the average person of that time would be plenty to create an elaborate legend about a messiah executed in CE 30. The average person then was short-lived, physically-, economically-, socially-, politically-insecure, credulous, superstitious, ignorant, and likely (80-90%) to be entirely illiterate. They lived in a “world of wonders”, and readily believed them. We could compare these ancestors to our QAnon cultists: these are American citizens with rights and freedoms guaranteed who live to an average age of 78, thanks to ACA and other plans have healthcare, are educated to the very least to grade 10, have physical comforts that the Emperor of Rome did not enjoy. Yet they are credulous, superstitious, ignorant still. On 2 November 2021 they showed up in Dallas near Dealey Plaza to greet JFK Jr and his 104-year old father who were going to join Trump as he took back the Presidency from Joseph Biden. While waiting for the dead Kennedys, some say they also saw Robin Williams and Princess Diana , also dead. These cultists turned up several times more through November and into December. “Micki Larson-Olson, who wore a QAnon-themed Captain America costume Tuesday, said she not only believes JFK Jr. is alive - she also believes that his father was never assassinated and that the 104-year-old will appear to help usher in a Trump-JFK Jr. administration. How will she react when the slain president and his dead son do not show up? “We’ll figure that something happened in the plan that made it not safe to do it,” she said. “If it doesn’t go down how I believe it will, that’s OK. We’ll figure it just wasn’t the right time.”
This genius never mentions Jesus, and has never heard of medically-evidenced miracles. He is only a philosopher, and so is free to say anything about anything.
@@diogeneslamp8004Sure, just as crazy as the talking donkey. But somehow I find the talking donkey story funnier. It's hilarious how Balaam just carries on arguing trivialities with his loquacious beast like it's totally normal, like it happens every day, like some scene with Shrek and Donkey. Not a miracle of God at all. It's true Eve is also nonplussed by the talking snake. But then she's just new to the world being freshly created by God and not sure what to expect. So maybe she just thinks a talking snake is totally normal. But Balaam should have known better.
How can we explain this to youtube. youtube let's religious people bully on here and punishs those who are being bullied. Telling someone about your false beliefs is harmful, it's bullying. Teling someone that doesn't believe in your false ideologies, that they'll go to another place that doesn't exist, is criminal. You just threatened the person with harm. Yes, I know yourube believes in these false ideologies also. That why they shame, belittle, bully and hate on people who don't get involved with complete nonsense. Grow up and get an education.
If not by design, then how can you explain life itself or intelligence for that matter. Is it something that mysteriously came into being in what was until then a VOID ? (Not even empty space).??? This speaker uses the word 'genes' quite often without attempting to explain how genes came into being, in the first place. One has to be very careful not to try to get by or accept that everything is a product of (a nameless) power, without even attempting to define (or ignoring) its source. Atoms themselves are more than building blocks of matter, for taken down to their very basics, they (atoms) are not solid, but vibrant energy. Now if this speaker can explain how power/energy came into being in what was otherwise NOTHING. then he might be able to explain creation --not just on earth, but the entire universe. Until then, those who are aware, KNOW that they are part of that we call GOD.
He also pointed out that it is a simpler explanation that the universe is eternal, than an intelligence that created it. We don't need that intelligence to explain what we now observe. So why do we have to assume its existence?
So you’re expecting to learn the basics of cosmogony in a RUclips thread? This isn’t hidden knowledge, you could read about it for yourself. God helps those who help themselves.
@@ploppysonofploppy6066The power within each and every atomic structure of the universe speaks (no shouts) of a continuous creative force behind its existence . The very laws of physics/dynamics (which govern the entire structure of the universe) require an ongoing and intelligently designed) balancing force to maintain equilibrium. - (as does every atom of your own body remember). Atomically, INTELLIGENTLY designed (AND MAINTAINED) from moment to moment) these laws cannot be explained away simply by wishful (imaginative) thinking--- otherwise you yourself (and your arguments) fall into the same pit of utter meaninglessness . !!
@@diogeneslamp8004We are not merely referring to the cosmogony of the human race, but more to that of the entire universe. To adopt such limited thinking (if it is even that) to the existence of the universe (let alone to some of its inhabitants) , suggests some sort of limited awareness of being.
@@electricmanist No it really doesn't. There are observable laws of nature. And those laws explain how the raw matter extant at the big bang would create exactly the universe we see. Was anyone there to see it? No. But scientists have been theorising about it, but now we have telescopes that can see back in time, almost to the event itself. And the predictions in those theories are generally standing up. These laws were discovered by lifetimes of painstaking observations. To call them wishful thinking is offensive to those who have dedicated much of their lives to it. And yet, none of that disproves God's existence, just that we don't need one to explain what we see. To add a creator to the story at this point, requires an assertion, which is your right to make. Have you asked yourself why you make that assertion? Whenever I ask that, people usually don't reply by the way.
“He isn’t a competent philosopher.” Well, he is competent enough to have been chairman of philosophy at Monash University, an important Australian university, and competent enough to be present faculty at Zprinceton in the USA. Will you please tell us what college or university you are a professor of philosophy? Where you earned your degrees. What books and articles you have published.
@@oldpossum57 Cambridge. But no amount of academic credentials, books, or articles are a guarantee of academic integrity, philosophical logic, or willingness to consider all the evidence rather than just that which sits comfortably with one's own, in this case, very narrow world view.
@@campbellpaget453 An empty charge, coming from you. Obviously, it would be a discovery of the greatest significance if anyone could advance a solid argument for the existence of any god based on evidence. No one has done so. What has happened is that various gods have been discarded. There are dead gods littering the slopes beneath Olympus, beneath Valhalla. In the next century or so, the social scientists who read the statistics tell us that both Judaism and Christianity both will be dead letters. There will be pockets here and there of the more extreme sects. Some Chassids in Crown Heights, some LDS in Utah, some Falun Gong in NY, some Eckankar in MN. We cannot wait for you to bring evidence of gods any longer. There is very serious and urgent work to do.
I disagree with much of what this guy says. He wrongly conflates the 'fact' of evolution, i.e., that life forms have changed over time, with a method for it's having changed by mutation and natural selection. But, while the 'natural selection' part is doubtlessly true, there appears to be no mechanism by which random reassortment of genetic code elements can produce so rare a molecular assemblage as a functioning gene. Bottom line, we simply don't know where genes come from or how they are created. Since we aren't able to account for them by natural processes, It's not ludicrous to entertain the possibility of a creative agency at work.
No, if it's the case that we DON'T currently understand how something works, we don't get to say that we DO understand because it could happen by magic. That way of thinking indulges at least five fallacies, although it's enough to call it a God of the Gaps or Argument from Ignorance. What's telling about this particular fallacy is that if we were to accept it as valid form of argument, than anything not known could be explained by any imaginary agency you care to think of. And they would all have equal standing. Pink pixies did it all, yeah.
Creationists have lost all the battles, so now they go to the last hope. Abiogenesis. “You haven’t demonstrated abiogenesis in the lab. Until you do, I’m going to hold my breath and turn blue!” Go on. Hold your breath. There is no a priori reason why abiogenesis can’t be demonstrated in the lab. After all, it happened at least once 3.4 billion years ago on earth, and once it gets going, you can’t stop it. However, it might take millions of hours of labour, and when accomplished will have no value except to tell Creationists, I told you so! (You could imagine that government, industry and academia would rather spend the money on life saving drugs.) So here is an idea. Why not get the fundamentalist churches of America and the Muslim world to pay for it? A better use of your money than buying mansions and airplanes for your preachers!
There is something supernatural in the universe. No matter who created this supernatural but it created universe.There was something first creator idk that was that.
🟪BREAKING NEWS. Death is not the end of LIVING; death is the end of DYING, so get over it. Some advice to our brave, indefatigable and ambitious "wannabe" atheists: A wise man has once said: "A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." (Matthew12:35-37MKJV).
I sorely miss Christopher Hitchens 😢 the world is poorer without him.
Could only imagine what he had to say nowadays.
I can only imagine his abject horror of that senator from Arizona, leading a prayer group on the floor of the senate chamber this week, begging their celestial autocrat to strip women of reproductive health care. It was absolutely repulsive.
@@ninajoit Nothing compared to the horror of men "informed" they'll owe child support for a minimum of 18 years. Wimmin's hypocritical 50 year rant for "choice" extends ONLY as far as their GENDER. Absolutely no choice for men to opt out of child support...and they BOTH "CHOSE"
to take their pantsoff.
Hilariously as shamelessly hypocritical as wimmin
taking a too very convenient hiatus for wimmin's suffrage during WW!.
I'm way too smart to get trapped into child support, but still enjoy
the enormously superior feeling contrasted with wimmin demanding "choice" as a "human right"...BUT FOR ONE GENDER ONLY!!
You can guarantee Hitch is no longer an advocate for atheism. He is not even thinking about those like you who are still left here in this world of delusive contemplation, we metaphysicians call "MORTAL IDENTIFICATION" 😂😂😂
As Christopher Hitchens said, when he debated Frank Turek: "I'll give you all the miracles, but you'll still be standing exactly where you are now, holding an empty sack."
Love Hitch, right now I got me a tumbler of JWB 🥃 with a tad of Perrier in his memory.
Cheers 🥃🥃 to enlightenment.
They didn't show diagrams - mere speeches..
Lennox: "He (Paul) was not a believer when he met Jesus". So Paul's vision counts as "meeting Jesus"! I dreamt of Churchill the other night, so I guess that means I've met Churchill!
Thank you and well done Peter Singer.
And how is Mr. Churchill? Is he still carrying all that weight, or has he slimmed down?
Paul was an eyewitness to hearsay; in fact, there are zero writings extant that contain a contemporaneous, first-person, eyewitness account of the resurrection.
Prove it. Liar.
@@JimCastleberry If you make the assertion that something happened then the burden of proof is on you!
Yeh, but let's not forget, there are no eye witnesses, simply because it did not happen, the Bible is bullshit
@@JimCastleberrycan you tell us who any of the so called eyewitness were please? And how can their testimonies be authenticated? Please?
Except his revelation communicating with the resurrected Christ while as Saul was doing his persecution of Christians on the way to Damascus.
And if he received that revelation at that time, it’s also possible he may have received additional revelations that were not placed into the New Testament as Paul.
"Paul was an eye witness of SOMETHING"
Yes, NOT Jesus.
Yeah, it’s such a non-argument if you pay any attention to it at all. And Lennox is _so proud_ of it!
What we actually know is that Paul wrote about having had a vision. Do we know that he really had that vision? Would it establish the truth of the resurrection if we _did_ know that he really had it? No, and no.
He had a vision, that's it. Lennox equates this with Paul actually _meeting_ Jesus (his words), which is just not the case. Could I say I *met* someone from history (contemporary or not) if it was only in a dream? I don't think so.
Paul who?
@@Heygoodlooking-lk9kg: I think he was a member of The Beatles.
Anyway…, everybody has been an eyewitness to SOMETHING. How is that even significant?
If there were indeed around 500 eyewitnesses to jesus's resurrection, it's quite telling that not one of those FIRST HAND eyewitnesses wrote this extraordinary event down until Paul decided to ask around and write down their experiences as hearsay. And the bible does not have 500 accounts, so who's to say that Paul didn't simply discard the ones that didn't fit his vision of new faith and only kept the ones that did?
Even then the gospels are inconsistent in describing people's reactions to this miraculous event. In one, the women who discovered the empty tomb were too frightened to tell anyone. In the other, they were overjoyed and told everyone and anyone they came across.
The belief in sin may be the most ingenious manipulation method ever invented.
I think you meant to say insidious..
Sin is the absence of love only to be corrected not punished. The true teachings of Christ. Notice it's contrary to the dogma of the church
The belief in godly punishment for sin is the most ingenious manipulation.
What about the punishment in law and justice system?
Sin is a control mechanism.
“Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of the astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy.” - Carl Sagan
"wonder of the astonishing universe"
This is NOT the language of science. From Sagan's standpoint there is no wonder or astonishment.......there is only clarification of prior ignorance. Looks like Carl is getting a little out of his league.
An innumerable amount of holes can be poked into the validity of religion. For me, divine hiddenness is enough to disregard a god belief until one shows up and removes all doubt. It's quite simple. If you WANT people to believe in you, then show your damn face and say something to your creation once in a while. Something that people can take pictures of, record, and can be validated in the future rather than relying on inaccurate, contradictory, morally disturbing ancient books with ZERO originals. He better also have a damn good explanation of why so much of the world is shitty and why he decided not to talk to us for thousands of years, leaving us to our own devices, destroying each other and the planet. If one exists, they're either clearly not all powerful, an absolute prick, or both.
The fact that "divine hiddenness" is THE sole common attribute of every one of the thousands of gods ever proposed by human beings, it certainly does lead the reasoning mind to doubt that any of them are any more real than any others.
The best paraphrasing of Epicurus I've read
@@SiRushBass I'm happy to hear that. Especially considering I've never read any Epicurus. 😅
@@MizzouRah78 haha, hilarious mate.
Here it is
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus
@@SiRushBass Ah. I have actually heard that referenced before. Thanks! Lol
I love your videos and how I get to start my day listening to rational thinking - keep up the good work!
I gave up on the hereafter so I could be happy in the here-&-now. Stay healthy & happy.
what about the "hereafter" kept you from being happy in the "here and now"?
Was it the "Love your neighbor as yourself" part you found so distressing?
Or was it the promise that the atrocities and injustices of this world will someday be adjudicated? Without His promise, they never will be, of course.
Russel Brand (for one) has recently found that his life in the "here and now" was meaningless and has embraced Christian belief. Millions have also done so for two millennia. Why not you??
@@BillyBike416 Strong argument , imbecile ! Russel Brand is what the believers missed the whole time !
“Since it is obviously inconceivable that all religions can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.” - Christopher Hitchens
"the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong".
Words of a fool. Christopher should be "Hitchslapped" for that one.
It was encouraging that Lummox got a couple of words in as it reinforced Peter's position. That (S)Paul had heatstroke or an epileptic seizure and was out of action for a couple of days indicates her certainly imagined he saw something.
I experienced the same when I almost drowned. Bright light and disorientation. Of course, I grasped noodles cascading from the FS Monster and knew I was safe.
Some folks of little faith will not believe me - such is life.
Lennox is a child. I don’t care about his education or age…he’s a child.
Dishonest overwieght lier
If he is a "child" then millions are listening and many are being persuaded.
You are religious because of fear for hell and end times.If there wasn't hell for punishment and heaven for reward would you be religious?
That's exactly why I despice religions. They all feed on the inherent fear of death in human beings.
@@--Snowy-- "End Times" is another manipulation tactic,go study more about it.I live in Georgia country and most priests are moving with expensive jeep cars while talking anything negative about priests is sin.You don't need religion to be moral and have strong character,just study stoicism for example.In reality if you believe that there is no afterlife you would be more motivated to live as best as you can because you have one.
It's not even simply the fear of death that drives religion. What ultimately renders it pathological is that it perverts our own moral integrity by _reducing_ it to a system of reward/punishment. That's literally the most _primitive_ stage of Kohlberg's moral development.
Same can be said about law and justice 😅
@@carrotbrainYT who made law and justice
Speaking of Paul the theist said, "Yeah, but he was an eyewitness of something."
Something? So, maybe we should all just pray to our Lord Something.
"Something???"
Paul was explicitly clear as to the meaning of that "something".
EVOLUTION IS A FACT-PERIOD!!
You don't even want to question that fact.
Arguing with a Christian is like Arguing with a spoiled child
Some omnipotent being apparently can create a world, fill it with animals of all kinds but can’t prevent cancer or a plane crash. Yet the faithful pray for survivors, never for these calamities not to happen in the first place.
It's beautifully immersive looking up at the stars to imagine all their wonder. It is evil to look down believing all was created just for you!
"imagine all their wonder" Get real, they are merely burning spheres of gas.
You don't get "wonder" by emerging from ignorance.
"Beauty and wonder" are not in the realm of science. You are using the language of meaning and purpose and you really shouldn't do that.
other people of different religions had visions of their gods, just as paul did of jesus. does that mean those other gods are real, too? no. a vision isn't evidence.
With the continuous increases in scientific research and the accelerating decline in religious people, (yes, even in the states), I find comfort that my grandchildren and there own children will not have to listen to this anymore, and be happy.
Arguments against religion are ultimately arguments against believing in miracles, and arguments for, I can't imagine what else, for learning to think reasonably.
Paul was a witness of his own hallucination.
2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, planets & moons all created for the purpose of producing humans on one planet? Seems like overkill.
Almost as if many separate attempts were needed…
You missed counting one of them, there are 2 sextillion and 1.
John Lennox is a disgrace to the title of "mathematician", when it comes to blind faith, he abandon his reason, logic and critical thinking he learned through mathematics
John Lennox does not engage in blind faith. The atheist community seems not to understand what faith means. Its meaning is closer to trust than belief. It certainly does not mean blind faith. That notion is an invention of atheists.
Mathematicians don’t have to believe in a physical universe to do maths. In fact, of the few elite scientists who are theists, most do physics, none do biology.
The apostle Paul was hungry and ate some little brown mushrooms he found on the side of the road then he met the real Jesus.
There is nothing supernatural about a hallucination.
How many other witnesses were there to Paul's vision????
Maybe the guy just had heatstroke 😂
Faith is indistinguishable from stupidity and a licence for liars and charlatans to manipulate and exploit the fearful, desperate and gullible .
Atheism is a faith. It is a statement of what you believe about whether or not God exists. Unless you know for certain either way, your opinion about this question is by definition a belief, a faith, a truth in which you trust.
@@bencornell4432
First point.... You ARE an atheist. EVERYBODY is ... Nobody believes in all the gods that have been imagined and written about (by people). People who claim they believe in ONE god, (their actions show that they don't really) are atheist about THOUSANDS of others.. They haven't even read all the scriptures or dogmas.
Second point... If you cannot tell the difference between an imaginary thing and a real thing, then both words become completely interchangeable and meaningless.
All gods are the product of human imagination. No people = No gods. They cannot exist as an idea, unless humans exist FIRST to imagine them.
Real things exist whether anyone believes in them or not.
All gods are self evidently imaginary.
@@bencornell4432 False... I explained exactly why your statement is false and it didn't appear for some reason.
First point... EVERYBODY is an atheist. Nobody believes in all the possible gods that have been imagined and written about.
People who claim to believe in one god are atheist about THOUSANDS of others.
Claiming to believe in one god, does not absolve a person from their atheism towards all the others...
Second point... All gods cannot exist, unless a human exists FIRST to imagine them.
All gods are self evidently imaginary...
Atheism isn't a faith it is a rational observation to a nonsensical, baseless claim..
@@AndyCampbellMusic so how does atheism gives solution to problems regarding human emotions?
Peter Singer is being too polite. He should be more Australian lol and give it to them in our Australian way 😅.
"But Paul was an eyewitness to SOMETHING.."
That's some pretty weak tea, sir. And while it's likely correct that Paul was writing in the mid-first century, he appears to know almost nothing at all of Jesus' life or his teachings.
they said we r the center of the solar system, then they said nope our solar system is the center of universe.
The truth is that the various religions need to be themselves the centre of the universe. For money and for power.
Then we came to realize not only are we not the center of our galaxy, that there is no discernable center to the universe.
Lennox claiming he can clearly remember things 20 or 30 years back is bullshit. I clearly remember scenes from movies I watched years ago. Very clear memories. When I watch the movies again, the scenes are totally different, or at least bear a vague resemblance to the way I remember them. Lennox would have just as fallible a memory as anyone else if he was honest...
Why that meaningsless noise in the background. Disturbing and annoying. Any professor adding noise to his lecture?
Thanks
Philosophy tells you how to think, religion tells you what to think
Matter cannot create itself. Therefore, the existence of God is a logical and scientific necessity
An important question is why a 'maker' would have created the universe. The motivation for someone intent on evil and wishing the means to satisfy it seems more likely than someone doing it for good, especially given all the demonstrable failures in that. So let's assume the 'maker' is evil and that good in as far as it exists is part of his mysterious (or devious) ways.
Never knew Peter Singer had such enlightening arguments against religion. I knew he was a great moral philosopher and have read his essays on ethics and morality. Great work!!
The Fundamentalists God warned is causing much social issues in this world
I say we are lucky to see 70 ,lucky if pain isn,t everyday, lucky if hair grows in appropriate places..,eyes are perfect,skin is clear, no broken bones, teeth or gum trouble etc lonely in our later life.
In the beginning Jesus spake, and he said unto thee:
"Why wasn't I the first god in human history?"
The first god spake, and said unto him:
"Just to be forgotten, from memories dim?"
I'm so using this!
@@iwatchyoutube202 From the dawn of time before God was born.
Before the eternal void was formed.
A time and place before space.
When life was yet to be poured.
Is there any secular society with 100% justice and good people???
Is there any religious society with 100% justice and good people???
@@thatguyrich9822 exactly that's my point, humans are not 100% perfect, how can you expect them to be?
Secular humanism has a few advantages. For one, it can develop ethics based on the true foundation of all ethical systems: human nature. We cannot flatter ourselves: human nature can be extremely ugly. But enlightened self-interest alone does a remarkable job of clarifying ethical issues. In other words, the Golden Rule, which many cultures have invented. Two, secular humanism can predict when we are going to feel ourselves in ethical quandaries: on limits on parental rights, on m surgical and medical abortions, on capital punishment. We can admit that we feel competing ethical principles, and act accordingly. Religions tend to be confused in quandaries, as divine laws are supposed to be absolute and never at cross purposes. (False of course, but that’s what they claim.) Three, it is corrigible. Secular humanism has extended « rights » to many animals, which only a few religions did. Secular humanism has recognized that the planet has rights. Secular humanism has been the force behind universal human rights.
On his last point about Paul and the fact that some people have "visions", those who have "visions" do so because their brain is constantly bombarded with a distinct type of information that then "tends to reveal itself in visions".
Paul was "absolutely AGAINST Jesus". If anything, Paul would have had a vision of something completely opposite of what he reported.
Why do you think any vision Paul had would have been opposite what he reported?
@@jursamaj : That's the point Peter Singer is trying to make.
You have something in your mind for so long you start "seeing visions".
The best, greatest argument against Christianity is in the bible itself. Every Christian I speak too clams up and never here from again. -Ex-Christian never again will I make that MISTAKE again.
It is easy understand how various religious doctrines are composed to suit the mores of their particular audience/society. So maybe we can overlook absolute conformity between them.
However, it must be acknowledged that mankind in general has an undeniable inner spiritual need for love and to understand the deeper purposes of life itself.
Of course, science tries to pretend that there are no spiritual dimensions regarding life,and that everything is an accident with little or no purpose,-- except maybe that of survival of the species.
All very well until one brings morality and choices into the picture, then one can either dismiss such values as irrelevant , or regard life as a series of spiritual choices between the various aspects of life/consciousness/awareness..
So perhaps one should start by regarding life as an opportunity to learn that conscious/spiritual awareness presents us with options in terms of attitudes/behaviour, --especially in regards to others. ( For example, do unto others as you yourself would have others do to you.) A good beginning from which to start.
@@electricmanist
None of which actually bears on the factual question of whether any gods exist. Until demonstrated otherwise such drives are nothing more than an effect of our brain wiring.
@@diogeneslamp8004You use the term...brain wiring,-- well I wonder if you have ever considered how human 'brain wiring' came about ?
The incredible neuron complexity of the human brain (not to mention the brains of all creatures) leaves no doubt that all this complexity didn't just happen--all by itself from nothing.
Imagine, if you can, complete 'nothing ! No, not even that we term space since space itself is just the distance between 'things'--whatever they may be-- but absolutely 'nothing". Nothing at all, not even that which we call 'space', since space as we understand the term, is the distance between things, whatever they may be.
Nothing! Not space, but total nothingness Hard to comprehend isn't it ?
@@electricmanist
Singularities are also hard to imagine, but black holes exist, regardless of the paucity of your imagination. Just because it seems unlikely to you doesn’t mean it didn’t happen as advertised. Do you have any direct evidence for a god?
@@diogeneslamp8004Whether black holes exist of not , is not the issue. But the issue of a supreme intelligence creating all that is (e.g. the universe and even you) is not.
If you choose to think that you are a meaningless 'nothing' (here today, gone tomorrow), that is your choice.
However, the existence of the limitless universe (right down to its very molecular level) , is not. A creative force behind all that is, is self evident by the very fact that it (the universe) exists.
Paul saw something. Sure! Like lots of other before and after him through human history, among multitude of civilizations in every corner of the planet claiming they saw something. He was not the first one nor the last one to have experienced "supernatural" things.
Sadly, no amount of intelectuals or logic will sway the part of the population that believes in fairy tales. Ups, gotta go, Santa calling me to help with Rudolph...
I'd say that's demonstrably false. This kind of open discussion, debate, and questioning has helped countless people deconstruct their faith. Me included. That, along with education and the abundant access to information. Sure, there are certainly those who will never have the capacity to let go. However, it's a slow process. I honestly believe it's possible that the religious will officially be in the minority within a century.
Good for you. However, I have been interested in this topic for quite some time and the people like you I can count on one hand. Also, please note, I was generalizing. The idea was to point out the level of blindness.
@@simonov_spas I've been involved in the topic consistently for probably @ 15 years. Your personal account is in no way indicative of the figures. Thousands of people are swayed and deconverted by means of the methods mentioned. Whether generalizing or not, it's simply untrue.
@@MizzouRah78 Karen, just because you don't agree with something, does not make it false. My personal observations tell me one thing. Yours tell you a different story. Unless you have stats for believers to nonbelievers and non believers to believers ratios and rate, these are just two opinions.
@Spasko84 Karen? Really? Grow tf up. I'm not the one basing my argument on personal, physical experience. Your limited experience doesn't equate to being rational about your claim or generalization. "No amount of intellectuals or logic will sway the part of the population that believes in fairy tales" is a preposterous and unfounded statement. Between being logically fallacious and sensitive, I'm surprised you're not a Christian. 😂
Put a sock in it, John Lennox!
Life is random. Enjoy what can.
"Faith is believing in something for which you have neither good arguments nor good evidence." If this is true then most religionists I encounter don't believe on faith, they don't believe in faith. Instead they believe on the basis of weak argument and poor evidence. I guess that makes them rationalists, in some sense of the word. Enter Lee's Elucidation: A finite number of words must be made to represent an infinite number of things and possibilities.
Sir Isaac Newton never talked about gravity. He talked about gravitation. Which is just an observable phenomenon. Am I arguing against gravity? Edit: there is no good argument against gravitation🙂
The entire bible is structured using the 36 decans and 20 days, and nobody talks about it. It even has verbatim entries that are Chinese in origin.
“Alright, let’s see it.” Dan McClellan 😁
I’m glad it’s these Abrahamic theologies that are the main target under these atheist arguments. Those religions have created so much regression. I’m glad my spiritual needs are not in conflict with science and inquiry.
So many lying beliefs that they make you schizophrenic that you start seeing flying objects is like your mind playing tricks on you that I keep decoding myself from beliefs that are recorded in my subconscious to see through illusions to what's honest n real. One
RELIGION NO
RELATIONSHIP YES
Those who argue about religion don't understand physics, metaphysics, ontology, philosophy, divinity, mysticism, and religion. Their logic is like dog's breakfast.
,, Eye witness of SOMETHING,, Fuck me
Many people had faith that, even if they did contract Covid, their god would see them through it. Then ⚰.
Oops.
All the divergent, kaleidoscopic examples of religious "magical thinking" that exist around the world should be seen as a direct refutation of each other. Sadly, all these naive and narrow-minded views have only created intense divisionism rather than creating an awareness of our own intrinsic ignorance. Humans will kill each other from ignorance before they can acknowledge their own naiveté. I am coming to the understanding that we, homo sapiens, are truly unworthy of the miracle we inhabit.
I am neutral on these matters,but how is it that out of millions of people two,mohammed and paul,have visions and nobody else,and the two biggest religions started with a bang,should'nt more people have been included if everybody is suppose to believe
Who created GOD ??????
Wheres the wars?
The more we learn about evolution, the more we understand, that we fundamentally miss something. Looking at genes and probabilities, it just does not work out. Also, the idea that consciousness evolves somehow from matter, is an unproven dogma. I don´t want to speak out for traditional religion, but one has to admit, that the position to criticize spiritual standpoints completely, ist very weak.
Awesome answers to that dishonest smugler...
What evidence does a marriage have that a partner doesn’t need faith that he/she will not cheat ?
You have at least a person you can verfiy that they exist. You have their behavior, actions, communication, development you can assess. And you can ask other people who will see the same person as you do, confirming that they exist.
@@Lordidude How does that mitigate faith?
If you base your marriage on faith, you are foolish. Trust comes with experience.
*** Life and Death ~ 1 2 3 ~~ Memory lanes between Light and Dark, day as Night, smart as stupid but wize.
Never ever believe in some that doesn't have any evidence, if you ever seen god for real which no one ever did no their no time to be wasted on this bs religions, live life, enjoy Life because at the end meaning of life is what you make it. Hava passion or purpose and focus totally on it and you will never be need any religional shtt
Religions just have no proof. They have novels which have been proven to be very inaccurate with story's proven to be deemed impossible. The biggest problem with all religions is that it gets the origins of life on this on this planet and the origins of the earth wrong. These two points have to be true and written down hundreds of thousands of years ago, sadly, I believe the oldest writing recorded was 70,000 years ago, but that still brings up the point of what were these gods doing for all of that time when humans were at their most vulnerable.
All religions, including Michael's, are men-made with fancy doctrines, creeds, dogmas, teachings, rites, rules, traditions, and mannerism. Make each one one's own religion and don't force it to others. Most of people were killed by those in the name of their God (by Christians), except Genghis Khan. Well, philosophy is religion too, as long as they don't stop talking about religion.
Peter Singer!!!
Isn't he the one who proposes abortion AFTER a child is born?? Yes, he is.
The only thing more exasperating and incredulous than listening to a creationist talk about science is listening to a scientist talk about faith. They have neither the intelligence nor the desire to distinguish it from superstition. But of course their failure to do so makes their own position seem so much more tenable. Faith is a process of discovery that has all of the validity of the scientific method, it is not just deciding you believe something and then denying everything that does not confirm it. So any scientist you hear from now on talking about faith in this manner, be assured he is either an idiot, a liar, or both.
Faith is belief in the absence of any evidence. Superstition is a subspecies of faith.
In the context of determining whether something is empirically true or not, what is the value of making a distinction between faith and superstition?
@@Lordidude Another ignorant definition of faith by someone who has no idea. If I were to say that science includes astrology, necromancy, psychic abilities, witchcraft, and alchemy, youd be okay with that, right?
@pathfinder1273 I wouldn't because they don't apply the scientific process correctly.
Also, it’s perfectly possible to believe something untrue based on faith, so faith is never a sure path to truth.
"Atheism is a disease of the soul, before it becomes and error of understanding." Plato
Plato said that there was a city called Atlantis on the bottom of the ocean? Plato was a wonderful philosopher but he was terribly deluded when coming to the idea of Faith and atheism. He also existed A LONG time ago before science was advanced enough to make religion obsolete.
Suppose you ask a Jew and a Hindu, Who created the universe ?
You can expect two completely different answers.
Why don't they agree ?
Where your born and who taught you that religion
@@ryandaripper9937
My mother.
There are NO eyewitnesses of the resurrection in the Jesus fables, and NO writings from any purposed witnesses.
An empty tomb is evidence only of an empty tomb. The crucified did not get tombs but were left rot. Jesus is dead. These are just stories. Grow up now, my children and leave childish things behind.
I admire Peter Singer since I have heard about his paper from 1974 where he argues that people, who buy coffee at Starbucks instead of preparing it at home or who are dining at a restaurant however they could cook a cheaper meal at home, or who are buying new clothes or a new car while the old one could still be used and who ultimately do not donate to the charity all the money they could have saved by keeping their consumption on a "fasting mode", are evil.
This argument should be preached every Sunday in every Church and the fact, that it comes from an Atheist should make all the pastors and all the Catholic or Orthodox priests feel ashamed for it shows a deeper understanding of the spirit of Jesus's teaching then the most of them has ever had.
Yet this time, I was somewhat disappointed about how superficial and self-confident his reasoning is - and in some cases simply untrue.
Just one example:
One cannot say that even one case of HIV infection is due to the moral regulations of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic moral teaching regarding sexuality forbids every sexual act between two men and every sexual act between a man and a woman with one exception made for a married couple of the opposite sex.
No one got ever infected because of following the Catholic moral teaching - on the contrary, all infections connected to sexual intercourse were possible only by breaking the Catholic moral codex. A man who broke with the Catholic teaching by having sex with a prostitute and got infected can not argue that he hasn't used a condom because the Catholic teaching prohibits it.
Likewise the Israelites did no wrong when they committed a genocide against the Canaanites (Joshua) because god commanded their destruction.
You sicken me,
@oldpossum57 I agree that not everything is holy in the Holy Book.
It was written by humans, and it's inspired only to the extent they were able to be faithful to the truth and to resist evil in their lives. God doesn't take the free will away from some people just to make sure they will convey his message by 100%. It would be unjust. Besides this, it's impossible to make sure that God's message will not be twisted and turned into a lie. In this case, God would have to take the freedom away also from the preachers, who interpret the Gospel, as well as from all the listeners who can also interpret it wrong.
I think the majority of the Evangelical Churches in America preach something one cannot call the Word of God. The Prosperity Gospel is just one example. Twisting of God's message happens also on the opposite side of the globe: The Russian Pops are blessing soldiers who were sent to kill their Ukrainian brothers. They insist that murderer are protectors of God's moral order; with President Putin misusing Bible quotes ("There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends.") to justify the killings.
How to search for Holiness in the Holy Book?
One of the criteria would be consistency.
If God forbids murder calling it a sin, how could he command to murder?
His commandment is: "Don't kill".
@@thinkingtogether5328 Another way to look at it is this: gods, religions, and ethical systems are all the invention of human cultures. Human cultures found their inventions on the animal instincts of a highly social Hunter-gatherer ape species, H. sapiens. This ape has very powerful instinctive emotions connected to our brain chemistry. These instincts are socially regulated.Very roughly, something like this model is what researchers in the human sciences propose.
Certainly, a naturalistic explanation of human conduct might prove less flattering than the notion that a god or gods created the universe for us, a short-lived mammal, but it is much more likely to be true and more likely to indicate a fruitful way forward.
I think even a theist would have to grant the naturalist explanation is more likely than any of the competing religions.
I am sure all primitive human cultures need to channel and temper murderous agression. Even in a state of nature, the group can only tolerate a certain amount before the network of interdependencies breaks up. We see our chimpanzee cousins dealing with these problems. Much less expensive is murderous agression against the “other”. Our cousin the chimpanzee hunts and kills our cousin the bonobo. Amalekites and Israelites killing each other over land and cattle was more normal than Israelites killing each other.
Sam Keen in Faces of the Enemy shows how governments of all stripes dehumanize the enemy. It makes it easier to “other” the foe.
(By the way, one reason we can be sure all of these OT war stories are grossly exaggerated is that nomadic herdsmen cannot afford to go to battle long enough to annihilate their foes: they just don’t have the logistics to do more than conduct a raid.)
Interestingly, cultures can educate their young men to channel their agression into sports and risky past times. Gwynn Dyer explains how the US Marines have to take 18 year olds who have no ill intentions against anyone and turn them into men who will kill on command. Forty years ago, they appealed to the young men’s rape fantasies. I doubt they are allowed to do that now.
@oldpossum57 I can't agree it's more normal if the Israelites kill other tribes then if they kill a member of their own tribe. This kind of moral thinking, seemingly based on natural law, can result in a Nazi morality (which was fully compatible with the natural selection laws and only in conflict with religious morality).
Scientific comparison of many models of social behavior has shown that what benefits every individual and every society most, is cooperation and not fighting. The benefit of the winner in a fight is less than the benefit of every single participant in a cooperative behavior.
The leading world religions promote altruistic behavior over the egoistic ones, forbid killing, teach compassion and forgiveness. Taken that cooperation has evolutionary advantages, one can regard them as a late evolutionary development, which will eventually lead to the appearance of a highly altruistic species, while the egoistic homo sapiens will get extinct;-)
(Although the religions itself are still contaminated by primitive ideas like patriotism, patriarchism and so on).
When you speak about what's more probable, you touch the problems of logic and of the probability.
When using logic, one has to know about its limitations. It is enough to overlook just one tiny detail of reality, and one comes to completely wrong conclusions.
For instance, your first message opens with "Likewise", and you treated there two different problems as if they would be similar in nature. Making such an error in a simple logical task, what gives you the confidence to be able to get to the right conclusions about the nature of the whole universe just by the means of your own logical thinking? I don't have that much trust in my own mental abilities.
I think the Atheists make the same mistake the Teologians do: They both believe to be able to explain God by the sheer power of logic.
The only thing we can know about God is God's manifestation in the world in the form of Truth and Love. Only those, who are commited to always be faithful to the truth and to practice love (defined as: carrying for others) can dream about finding some means to "prove" God's existence, and this only by experiencing his presence.
About probabilities: We live in a very unprobable world, and we need to assume the existence of endless many universes to appear this universe more probable. At the same time, to make it work we have to assume, that in all those vast worlds the same probabilistic laws will apply - which stands in contrast with the fact, that we need also to assume, that physical laws itself (including the probability laws) are varying between the universees, because some of the laws governing our universe are also very unprobable, unless there are endlessly many worlds governed by different laws.
With other words, our universe should be probable only in the areas of space which includes universees governed by other probabilistic laws then the laws we know from our universe.
@@thinkingtogether5328 I can’t follow much of what you say about cosmology. As I can’t follow it, I’m just guessing your topic is cosmology. I don’t think theological musings advance the discipline of cosmology much. I don’t suppose in a peer review of an article the reviewer ever asks the author, “Have you considered how introducing god into your equation might improve it?”
I note your claim, “God is God's manifestation in the world in the form of Truth and Love.” I wonder how you know that as an objective statement? How would you define the terms, so that anyone else would know what you are talking about?
As to religions being superior to an ethics based in naturalism, which we can call humanism, I think you have a lot of heavy lifting to do. Naturalism (methodological or metaphysical) claims that all ethical systems , all religions arise from cultural developments founded on human instinct. So, yes, the genocides of the Nazis, the genocides against the Amalekites by the Israelites, the bible, the genocides by Shias against Yazidis are all predictable on human nature. So are the self-sacrifice of Jules Léger, and Rick Rescorla and Godwin Ajala, and Frank Foley and the complex Oskar Schindler. As Hitchens asked, “I challenge you to name a good action that an atheist could not do. Then name an evil act that only a theist could do.” No one commits crimes to honour no god science flies us to te moon, as the kids say, while religion flies us into the world trade towers.
Your religions are atavisms. Only a few of them treated animals as having ethical rights. None of them recognized the planet as having rights. All religions condone or command the hatred of “the other”. These superstitions have served what purpose they ever had. So long as people defer to some Nobadaddy in the sky, they can rationalize being hateful.
If you want to see that writ large, look at the hate of Shia for Sunni, the hate of Hindu for Muslim and Sikh, the hatred of the white fundamentalist in the USA for blacks, browns, asians, women, gays and lesbians, Jews.
John Lennox is so tiresome! Twenty years of oral tradition story-telling by the average person of that time would be plenty to create an elaborate legend about a messiah executed in CE 30. The average person then was short-lived, physically-, economically-, socially-, politically-insecure, credulous, superstitious, ignorant, and likely (80-90%) to be entirely illiterate. They lived in a “world of wonders”, and readily believed them.
We could compare these ancestors to our QAnon cultists: these are American citizens with rights and freedoms guaranteed who live to an average age of 78, thanks to ACA and other plans have healthcare, are educated to the very least to grade 10, have physical comforts that the Emperor of Rome did not enjoy. Yet they are credulous, superstitious, ignorant still. On 2 November 2021 they showed up in Dallas near Dealey Plaza to greet JFK Jr and his 104-year old father who were going to join Trump as he took back the Presidency from Joseph Biden. While waiting for the dead Kennedys, some say they also saw Robin Williams and Princess Diana , also dead. These cultists turned up several times more through November and into December.
“Micki Larson-Olson, who wore a QAnon-themed Captain America costume Tuesday, said she not only believes JFK Jr. is alive - she also believes that his father was never assassinated and that the 104-year-old will appear to help usher in a Trump-JFK Jr. administration.
How will she react when the slain president and his dead son do not show up?
“We’ll figure that something happened in the plan that made it not safe to do it,” she said. “If it doesn’t go down how I believe it will, that’s OK. We’ll figure it just wasn’t the right time.”
This genius never mentions Jesus, and has never heard of medically-evidenced miracles. He is only a philosopher, and so is free to say anything about anything.
He doesn’t mention them because they don’t exist.
I might as well say that you don't exist.
Bible says donkeys talk.
Bible says serpents talk.
@@diogeneslamp8004Sure, just as crazy as the talking donkey. But somehow I find the talking donkey story funnier.
It's hilarious how Balaam just carries on arguing trivialities with his loquacious beast like it's totally normal, like it happens every day, like some scene with Shrek and Donkey. Not a miracle of God at all.
It's true Eve is also nonplussed by the talking snake. But then she's just new to the world being freshly created by God and not sure what to expect. So maybe she just thinks a talking snake is totally normal.
But Balaam should have known better.
First to comment 😁
Second!
Believe in Jesus 😁
Believe in Jesus 😁
@@Whatever-w9cwhy?
🎉
How can we explain this to youtube. youtube let's religious people bully on here and punishs those who are being bullied.
Telling someone about your false beliefs is harmful, it's bullying.
Teling someone that doesn't believe in your false ideologies, that they'll go to another place that doesn't exist, is criminal. You just threatened the person with harm.
Yes, I know yourube believes in these false ideologies also. That why they shame, belittle, bully and hate on people who don't get involved with complete nonsense.
Grow up and get an education.
How is it bullying?
If not by design, then how can you explain life itself or intelligence for that matter. Is it something that mysteriously came into being in what was until then a VOID ? (Not even empty space).???
This speaker uses the word 'genes' quite often without attempting to explain how genes came into being, in the first place.
One has to be very careful not to try to get by or accept that everything is a product of (a nameless) power, without even attempting to define (or ignoring) its source.
Atoms themselves are more than building blocks of matter, for taken down to their very basics, they (atoms) are not solid, but vibrant energy.
Now if this speaker can explain how power/energy came into being in what was otherwise NOTHING. then he might be able to explain creation --not just on earth, but the entire universe.
Until then, those who are aware, KNOW that they are part of that we call GOD.
He also pointed out that it is a simpler explanation that the universe is eternal, than an intelligence that created it. We don't need that intelligence to explain what we now observe.
So why do we have to assume its existence?
So you’re expecting to learn the basics of cosmogony in a RUclips thread? This isn’t hidden knowledge, you could read about it for yourself. God helps those who help themselves.
@@ploppysonofploppy6066The power within each and every atomic structure of the universe speaks (no shouts) of a continuous creative force behind its existence .
The very laws of physics/dynamics (which govern the entire structure of the universe) require an ongoing and intelligently designed) balancing force to maintain equilibrium. - (as does every atom of your own body remember).
Atomically, INTELLIGENTLY designed (AND MAINTAINED) from moment to moment) these laws cannot be explained away simply by wishful (imaginative) thinking--- otherwise you yourself (and your arguments) fall into the same pit of utter meaninglessness . !!
@@diogeneslamp8004We are not merely referring to the cosmogony of the human race, but more to that of the entire universe.
To adopt such limited thinking (if it is even that) to the existence of the universe (let alone to some of its inhabitants) , suggests some sort of limited awareness of being.
@@electricmanist No it really doesn't. There are observable laws of nature. And those laws explain how the raw matter extant at the big bang would create exactly the universe we see.
Was anyone there to see it? No. But scientists have been theorising about it, but now we have telescopes that can see back in time, almost to the event itself. And the predictions in those theories are generally standing up.
These laws were discovered by lifetimes of painstaking observations. To call them wishful thinking is offensive to those who have dedicated much of their lives to it.
And yet, none of that disproves God's existence, just that we don't need one to explain what we see. To add a creator to the story at this point, requires an assertion, which is your right to make.
Have you asked yourself why you make that assertion? Whenever I ask that, people usually don't reply by the way.
Singer cherry picks his evidence and will not face up to ALL the evidence. He shows himself not to be a competent philosopher.
You are a dupe.
“He isn’t a competent philosopher.” Well, he is competent enough to have been chairman of philosophy at Monash University, an important Australian university, and competent enough to be present faculty at Zprinceton in the USA.
Will you please tell us what college or university you are a professor of philosophy? Where you earned your degrees. What books and articles you have published.
@@oldpossum57 Cambridge. But no amount of academic credentials, books, or articles are a guarantee of academic integrity, philosophical logic, or willingness to consider all the evidence rather than just that which sits comfortably with one's own, in this case, very narrow world view.
@@campbellpaget453 An empty charge, coming from you.
Obviously, it would be a discovery of the greatest significance if anyone could advance a solid argument for the existence of any god based on evidence.
No one has done so.
What has happened is that various gods have been discarded. There are dead gods littering the slopes beneath Olympus, beneath Valhalla. In the next century or so, the social scientists who read the statistics tell us that both Judaism and Christianity both will be dead letters. There will be pockets here and there of the more extreme sects. Some Chassids in Crown Heights, some LDS in Utah, some Falun Gong in NY, some Eckankar in MN.
We cannot wait for you to bring evidence of gods any longer. There is very serious and urgent work to do.
I disagree with much of what this guy says. He wrongly conflates the 'fact' of evolution, i.e., that life forms have changed over time, with a method for it's having changed by mutation and natural selection. But, while the 'natural selection' part is doubtlessly true, there appears to be no mechanism by which random reassortment of genetic code elements can produce so rare a molecular assemblage as a functioning gene. Bottom line, we simply don't know where genes come from or how they are created. Since we aren't able to account for them by natural processes, It's not ludicrous to entertain the possibility of a creative agency at work.
Congratulations, you just gave us a perfect example of an Argument from Incredulity.
No, if it's the case that we DON'T currently understand how something works, we don't get to say that we DO understand because it could happen by magic.
That way of thinking indulges at least five fallacies, although it's enough to call it a God of the Gaps or Argument from Ignorance.
What's telling about this particular fallacy is that if we were to accept it as valid form of argument, than anything not known could be explained by any imaginary agency you care to think of. And they would all have equal standing. Pink pixies did it all, yeah.
Creationists have lost all the battles, so now they go to the last hope. Abiogenesis. “You haven’t demonstrated abiogenesis in the lab. Until you do, I’m going to hold my breath and turn blue!”
Go on. Hold your breath.
There is no a priori reason why abiogenesis can’t be demonstrated in the lab. After all, it happened at least once 3.4 billion years ago on earth, and once it gets going, you can’t stop it. However, it might take millions of hours of labour, and when accomplished will have no value except to tell Creationists, I told you so!
(You could imagine that government, industry and academia would rather spend the money on life saving drugs.) So here is an idea. Why not get the fundamentalist churches of America and the Muslim world to pay for it? A better use of your money than buying mansions and airplanes for your preachers!
There is something supernatural in the universe. No matter who created this supernatural but it created universe.There was something first creator idk that was that.
"There's something supernatural in the Universe"... Who told you that?
Because you didn't made that up yourself, did you? 😉
@@-Thauma- There is first creator idk that is that.There can be endless chain of creators.
It's Jesus people, no one else
Everything created must have a creator - except the creator. Religious logic at work.
@@ObservantHistorian Forget who created creator,we don't care about that.Someone created universe.
2000 years with no real evidence whatsoever😢😢😢😢😢people still think Santa Claus is going to come and eat their cookies and bring them presents🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
🟪BREAKING NEWS.
Death is not the end of LIVING; death is the end of DYING, so get over it. Some advice to our brave, indefatigable and ambitious "wannabe" atheists:
A wise man has once said: "A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." (Matthew12:35-37MKJV).
Wheres the wars?