CosmicSkeptic Responds to Professor on Atheist Atrocities

Clip taken from the debate, 'Morality Without Religion is Bankrupt': • Christian Professor vs...
If you like Cosmic Skeptic content, please consider supporting the channel at / cosmicskeptic

[@mephistophelesthesilentchi3446]

Just look at all the atrocities committed by those who don't believe in Santa Claus. It is evident that without a sense of morality that is grounded in Santa's list, it would be nearly impossible to have sufficient reason to be nice each year.

[@jamesguilford6807]

mephistopheles the silent chief; People who believe in Santa Claus, but deny the redeeming power of Rudolph, with his shinning red nose, are going to be enslaved at the North Pole, repairing broken toys for eternity, less they repent and come to believe in Rudolph. The fact that one would need to be stupid to believe in flying reindeer, will not serve as a valid excuse to not accept Rudolph as their redeemer, come judgement day.

[@Myoldcocker]

The fairies are watching you children - behave

[@johnnycastellanetta7183]

@J w And he will punish you infinitely for thought crimes and being as he made you! Seems like if your god exists, maybe he's not worthy of love and praise. With all the religions on offer, why think yours is the true one?

[@rheareed6416]

@J w exactly his great spaghettiness will infinitely torture you with his meatbally appendages, change your ways now brothers and sisters before it's too late

[@jamesguilford6807]

@@Myoldcocker ; It is the gnomes who are watching over us, not the boot wearing fairies who have the job of shoveling reindeer shit. While the boot wearing fairies shovel the pole poop, the elves who are not assigned by Santa to the eternal toy factory, recycle the reindeer crap so that it can be used as fuel to run the generators which supply the North Pole with electricity. Is your relationship with Rudolph where it should be ? You have not been deer hunting lately have you ?!

[@AzGd98]

If you defeat a professor in a public debate, you automatically consume his PhD and claim his position at the University he works in.

[@el_urphayallanso]

Perhaps, he is also getting enlightened over there!😁

[@artistbervucci1716]

For real, some Professors are just questionable if they are even worthy of having PhD...

[@vitXras]

For a professor, his arguments are incredibly disappointing.

[@defiante1]

Alex was way to nice to him due to his standing. That one is just factually wrong, the "no gays" bit aside, atheists have been persecuted throughout history far more by any and every religion practically. Throughout most of human history, saying you did not believe was simply not an option unless you wanted to be sacrificed or stoned to death or burned alive or just turned into a social pariah.

[@MultiCappie]

I think it may be difficult to find a theist with good arguments.

[@brianmi40]

or it could be there SIMPLY ARE NO GOOD SOUND ARGUMENTS FOR RELIGION. Watch Matt Dillahunty on The Atheist Experience, and you'll quickly see how true that is.

[@georgedoyle7971]

@@defiante1 “Atheists have been persecuted throughout history far more by any and every religion practically” This is just intellectual dishonesty and is history revisionism in a feeble attempt to score points. There’s no denying that atheists have been persecuted for their beliefs. However, It’s actually common knowledge that millions more people died for their religious beliefs under Stalins atheist communist regime and anti religious policy in Russia than in the whole of previous history. This includes the murder and intensional starvation of Christians, the Orthodox Church and Muslims. Its estimated that 50 million men women and children died under Stalin because he rejected his theological upbringing and adopted the Marxist philosophy instead and took Darwinism literally using it to justify the complete decimation of the church’s and any religion in Russia resulting in the deaths of millions of innocent men women and children. The descriptions of what happens to the first person to stop clapping at the end of one of Stalins speeches is a chilling wake up call to the dangers and rhetoric of “New atheism” that unashamedly claims that religion poisons everything demonising millions of moderate religious people and desensitising vast groups of people to the horrific torture and plight that religious people have gone through in places like Russia, China, Korea and the Congo etc. Iv not even mentioned Pol Pot and Mau’s twisted ideologies yet. With regards to gay people Interestingly, Medieval Russians were apparently tolerant of homosexuality despite their religiosity and the church’s teachings. There is evidence of homosexual love in some of the lives of the saints from Kievan Rus dating to the 11th century. There were few legal sanctions against the LGBT community in Russia at the time, and even churchmen seemed perturbed by homosexuality only in the monasteries. Foriegn visitors to Muscovite Russia in the 16th and 17th centuries repeatedly express their amazement at the open displays of homosexual affection among men of every class. Contrary to Wikipedia, Scholars disagree about the effect of the Bolshevik Revolution on homosexual rights in Russia. Some argue that the Soviets were at the forefront of humanity in decriminalizing gay sex; others that the Bolshevik asceticism and distaste for sexuality of any kind set the movement back. Whilst the gay community was persecuted under the Russian Czars in the 18th century the fact is that the LGBT community were also very much persecuted under Stalins atheist regime as it did not fit his ideology of the perfect “scientific” family. Unfortunately, decriminalization in the early Soviet period around the time of Lenin etc did not mean an end to persecution. The modern Soviet fervor under Stalin for atheism, science and Darwinism meant that homosexuality was now treated as a subject for medical and psychiatric discourse, an illness to be treated and cured. Equally, in the popular mind, homosexuality was still associated with bourgeois and aristocratic values, with the pre-revolutionary bohemian elite. With respects to the persecution of religious people, according to the Commission on International Religious Freedom's 2020 report, large groups of Christians in Burma, China, Eritrea, India, Iran, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Vietnam are persecuted; Due to the amount of lives lost particularly in the Congo it has been estimated that 100, 000 Christians die every year because of persecution. Equally, the evidence suggests, not to mention the Danish National Research Database, that religious groups, particularly Christians including Muslims are, as of 2019, the most persecuted religious groups in the world. Christians face appalling levels of violence, abuse and harassment on a daily basis around the world today. No offence intended all the best to you and your family and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis ❤️

[@MultiCappie]

@@georgedoyle7971 ​ Cut and paste, cut and paste. No original thought in you at all, just what your brain has been washed. Okay then. ❤️

[@heliopyre]

"NK is atheist" the NK leader is considered divine.

[@xaenon]

damn, you beat me to it.

[@braeduin]

Exactly, theists love to point out North Korea and the Soviet Union as examples of atheist/secular regimes, but fail to grasp the point that these regimes appropriated religious ideology. An all powerful leader who must be loved and feared, a book of commandments to obey without question.

[@CaeruleanWren]

@@braeduin and beyond that, its not about religious belief in any way. The USSR didn't kill the religious in the name of atheism, they did it in the name of authoritarianism. They saw the church as a source of power which could potentially give people conflicting views with the gov't, turning some people against the gov't. Stalin couldve been Christian and still done what he did without issue.

[@rotwang2000]

@@CaeruleanWren It bothers me to no end when they try to imply the rather simplistic notion that the USSR was atheistic as its only characteristic and therefore attacked religious people rather than a totalitarian regime that could only maintain power by removing dissidents and anything that might look like organized resistance to their ideology.

[@punkwrestle]

@@CaeruleanWren Which is why Putin is now pairing with the Church to persecute others.

[@FalconFire13]

The amount of mental gymnastics he had to go through to defend his points is so blatantly obvious. Alex did a fantastic job getting across his responses in a respectful manner.

[@gssbruno]

Even the debate being about morality and religion, the professor quickly steered his argument to separate his idea of god from any religious institution, he knows that even if morality comes from a god, its certainly not the one from the bible.

[@fatdoi003]

Matt would've come in with the slavery question and finish him off....

[@natehirt4297]

Except shrugging off all of the 20th century atrocities..... did that one pretty easily. And if you think Germany and Russia were bad, look into China’s hand..... even the English law is based in Christian ethics...

[@fatdoi003]

@Tom H Fatality....... amen

[@andrewhall7176]

@Nehemiah Scudder And the Vikings worshipped gods, so that doesn't prove atheism as being more moral in any way.

[@vicmiller2204]

"when i was young there weren't any gays"

[@jean_etcetera]

Ah, yes. The gays and lesbians came ex nihilo, not from the closet.

[@danielharris9403]

"We called them sodomites"

[@matthewshort2639]

As a gay, I can confirm that in the year 1954, ten percent of the men thought, “let’s give dick a go.”

[@HTYM]

As if all of a sudden, in 1996 gay people just sprouted out of the ground or landed in Bozeman, Montana.

[@yeiiful]

@Ismael Barrera still it's very stupid to phrase it like he did. A tree is a tree no matter how you call it.

[@susanknight3801]

Religious belief: the purposeful suspension of critical thinking...

[@Graeme_Lastname]

The belief that it's a good idea to pay an institution to lie to you?

[@alanahhannah]

Oooh, I like that!

[@onba7726]

Atheist belief: No god. Also no values and no virtues. Or any other belief other then the first. That is totally something a society can be built on based on all the 'critical thinking' I have done. Yep, no need to value life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness and reflect this in law. In seriousness though, 'no god' is the only thing Atheism means. Secularism is not Atheism, it's secularism, and it can have Atheist in it but also Christians, and Agnostics, and so on. Having an Atheist county just leads to more USSRs and Chinas were the only moral authority is the government. And if you thing that science is a good thing to base a country off of here is a copy paste from Tyranny of Reason's description. Get the book first if you truly believe in critical thinking: "Tyranny of Reason reveals and details how the social scientific outlook holds that the search for truth in the social world is essentially no different from the search for truth by science in nature. This failure to recognize that human beings are fundamentally different from the physical objects examined by science can have devastating consequences, including the limitation of man’s freedom in thought and action and the devaluation of his search for meaning."

[@Graeme_Lastname]

@@onba7726 So humans aren't physical objects? That's odd. Do you have any way of demonstrating that?

[@onba7726]

@@Graeme_Lastname The human thought isn't a physical object. You cannot hold a personality in your hands even if you are holding a brain. On top of that identical twins don't have the same personalities regardless of weather or not they were raised in the same environment. This is one of struggles of the social sciences, tests will never give you the same results every time. On top of that a researcher unconscious bias effect the social test for more then the physical ones. But hay, why don't you demonstrate all the good Social Darwinism has done for the world, huh?

[@harulem]

If anyone needed further proof that religion poisons everything, take a good look at this respectable professor. He is no doubt a brilliant mind, and highly educated at that, so knowledgable in many fields. Yet his reasoning when it comes to justifying his belief is so blatantly poor and biased it hurts. To paraphrase Dawkins, if religion can do that to such a brilliant mind, imagine what it can do to an average person.

[@shanehull6235]

Too true a real shame

[@joaninha3484]

Is he a brilliant mind? He seems quite incoherent.

[@4idhero798]

@Josh Tyrael I find it lazy that you and many others would use the word "religion" loosely without any specifics. If you mean all world-ideologies besides your own, then you have some "defending" to do of your own as yours is just one of many.

[@WillWestonguitar]

What basis do we have to assume he's a brilliant mind, are you familiar with his work? I'm assuming by calling him professor you don't even know his name. A privileged old man in a suit speaks the queen's English and uses big words, and for some bizarre reason we equate that to intellect, even if the content of his arguments is vacuous.

[@harulem]

@@WillWestonguitar He was a lecturer in logic in Glasgow, a dean at Cambridge, and a professor at London and Oxford. I think this qualifies him as having a brilliant academic mind. Or maybe those institutions are just intellectual frauds, in all honesty I just refer to their reputation as I never attended a single one of them.

[@auntied4950]

To be fair, it must absolutely terrifying trying to argue anything with the brilliant CosmicSkeptic.

[@joshuaphilip7601]

On morality yes. He is quite strong there, not so great on theology or metaphysics but he'll get there.

[@joshuaphilip7601]

@J w I thought he was a subjectivist

[@jayv9779]

@J w That's strange. I thought he held the view you could make objective arguments with an agreed upon standard, but that morality is subjective. That should stand up to any theist argument.

[@jaymiddleton1782]

@J w I’ve seen him debate a Muslim apologist. He didn’t get rattled - he won the debate. Atheists never lose debates since, ultimately, they’re holding the correct position. Theists always lose debates since, ultimately, they’re holding the wrong position.

[@jaymiddleton1782]

@J w I’ve seen it, he’s not rattled, nor is he all over the place. Suboor (and yourself) just don’t understand the moral concepts he’s discussing. This is because Suboor believed the false presupposition that objective morality is derived from God, and objective standard. And he believes that without an objective standard, objective morality cannot exist. This argument is circular, it’s a fallacious argument. Reduced to its simplest form it is: God created objective morality. Objective morality exists. Therefore god exists. It’s not a legitimate point.

[@gypsieladie]

"When I was young, there were no gays." This is somebody's professor. 😑

[@raw_oyster]

I know. This shocked me.

[@mangalores-x_x]

He said they would not have called them gays, but homosexuals which is correct because the meaning of gay was usurped (as in it was intentionally being used as an euphemism) to mean homosexual when in the past (before 1970s) it just meant being joyful. I do not agree with him, but that does not mean you are allowed to quote him wrongly.

[@gypsieladie]

@@mangalores-x_x... I quoted what he said. He LATER clarified in a botched clean up attempt once he realized how dumb it sounded.

[@GS-lq2is]

@@mangalores-x_x He did not quote the professor incorrectly. And if all the professor was saying was that people used to be called homosexual as opposed to gay, then he was wasting time with utterly pointless remarks.

[@phoneboxchicken4108]

It's obvious why they were 'not around', given that they'd be beaten up, killed, put in prison and so on. Look at what happened to Alan Turing.

[@klarence5554]

I want to see Alex in his 60's

[@readandrap283]

I don’t. Not everyone necessarily continues to bloom as time goes on. Let’s appreciate him while we have him in the present.

[@BriannadaSilva]

He'll be invincible by then :O

[@LawnFlamingoPoop]

@@readandrap283 There's always that one person that has to disagree no matter what was said. Realistically, he probably will bloom as time goes on. You can appreciate him now and want to see what he blooms into, it's not one or the other

[@YwY-ct5yq]

@@LawnFlamingoPoop well yeah he or she is being narcissist if about it and yeah I guess what put you off was the sudden "I don't" , but I mean yeah we should appreciate that he is doing fine now, we don't know the future, his may not be great

[@LawnFlamingoPoop]

@@YwY-ct5yq I'd be willing to bet money that he hasn't peaked yet considering he went to university for this stuff and is building a youtube channel based on it. But also, what's the logic behind not wanting to see the person he progresses into because you should appreciate him for what he is right now? It makes zero sense and came off as disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing

[@KenjiMedia]

They got it wrong on north korea, its a religious state - Kim jeong il is god

[@garyjaensch7143]

I guess you would be someone who says he wasn’t an athiest, he was a Christian, yeah right Hitler was worshipping a Jew!!!

[@craigcorson3036]

I believe that you mean Kim Jong-un. Kim Jong-il is dead. Gods cannot be dead.

[@KenjiMedia]

Funnily enough Kim jong-il is still the eternal leader Kim jong um is the surpeme leader i.e president Its only 1 off of a father, son spirit religion

[@craigcorson3036]

@@KenjiMedia Makes as much sense as all of the other religions, I guess.

[@toniokettner4821]

@@craigcorson3036 ever heard of nietsche?

[@TherevTBone]

This guy has to be the least informed professor on Earth.

[@marioluigi9599]

Yeh but he's right about one thing. All the biggest, worst regimes have been atheistic. Stalin, Mao, Nazis, North Korea, China today is not just "re-educating" the Muslims. They're even doing it to Buddhism and Chinese folk religions, trying to eradicate them altogether, when they are actually part of Chinese historical tradition which the Chinese atheistic government is supposed to be defending... but they don't. On the other hand, societies that have had a historically Christian basis are much more tolerant. The Nazis by the way, were atheistic. The "Catholic" face that they put on was just a front to appease the Christian majority in Germany. But it's not like Hitler went to church every Sunday, is it?

[@marioluigi9599]

So you can't get away from the fact that some of the worst damage in the world has been done by atheists when they were put in power. And to ignore that, the way most people like him like to do, not even mention it... That is just disingenuous and fake. I'd respect these people more if they were actually true and transparent about it, and said, here is all the bad things that atheist governments have done and they HAVE done the worst things... and here is all the bad things that religious governments have done which were pretty bad also. In other words, I'd like to see these people become much more MEASURED and not so heavily biased, constantly brushing away all those bad things done by atheists, like they don't matter. Urmmm excuse me! They matter. And the people who have lost their lives to it matter. And it definitely matters that they were atheistic. That was an important part of it. You can't just say "oh that was just communism, not atheism". Excuse me, atheism is a big part of communism? They were all atheists in those societies, the officials. How about not ignoring that fact? That's completely disingenuous, especially when you then wanna blast religious societies... and religious societies have produced the most tolerant modern societies. Atheistic ones never did. Don't ignore that

[@TherevTBone]

@@marioluigi9599 buuuuuuuull shiiiiiit! Examples?

[@TherevTBone]

@@marioluigi9599 nazis were christian, North Korea is definitely a religious theocracy

[@marioluigi9599]

@@TherevTBone you atheist or something?

[@lancebybee7962]

Calling a government that views the leader "as godlike" secular, or atheist is kind of nuts.

[@ummerfarooq5383]

That is the standard of secularism and atheism

[@lancebybee7962]

@@ummerfarooq5383 NO, Godlike doesn't fit in the "I don't believe in gods" perspective. So as I stated nuts. "My dear leader is my god," is a wacko idea that makes no sense from the standard of secularism, or atheism. If such a standard can be said to exist.

[@s-saad7401]

@@ummerfarooq5383 stalins Russia, and North Korea, are both authoritarian states. Religion and authoritarianism has a lot in common! Such as dogma. The only difference is that the central figure in religion is God, whereas the central figure in authoritarian state is a person. There’s a reason why most religious folks show authoritarian attitudes as shown by a big line of research.

[@ummerfarooq5383]

@@s-saad7401 atheist Russia and atheist North Korea and atheist France.

[@AlGhoul]

@@ummerfarooq5383 "Joseph Stalin's cult of personality became a prominent feature of Soviet culture in December 1929, after a lavish celebration of his purported 50th birthday.[1] For the rest of Stalin's rule, the Soviet press presented Stalin as an all-powerful, all-knowing leader, with Stalin's name and image appearing everywhere." - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin%27s_cult_of_personality Not really atheist... "While other countries have had cults of personality to various degrees, the pervasiveness and extreme nature of North Korea's personality cult surpasses that of even Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong.[6] ... The idea is that as long as his bloodline continues to rule, Kim Il-sung's righteous and godlike spirit lives on in the North Korean leadership.[134]" - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_cult_of_personality Against, not really atheist... "In France, Valois, Taittinger, Renaud, Bucard, and La Rocque were all Catholics, and Doriot, previously an atheist, appealed to Catholic sentiments after he became a fascist. Although Maurras was an agnostic, he defended the Catholic church as a pillar of social order, and there were many Catholics among his followers. The fascist intellectual Robert Brasillach described the Spanish Civil War as a conflict between Catholic fascism and atheistic Marxism. Drieu La Rochelle rejected liberal Catholicism but praised the “virile, male Catholicism” of the Middle Ages and the “warrior Christianity of the Crusades.”" - www.britannica.com/topic/fascism/Varieties-of-fascism Hmm...sensing a pattern... www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2019/03/24/a-great-myth-about-atheism-hitler-stalin-pol-pot-atheism-atrocity-redux/ Yeah, it really does seem like you've just been lied to, probably by a Christian, all in an effort of the tu quo que fallacy of "they did it, too", even though it's not true (like how Christians derogatorily say atheists have more faith than Christians, and then say that you just have to believe in Jesus on faith)... There have been atheistic regimes that have done bad things, and yet those were on political grounds and with the same dogmatic fervor as religions, and no in the name of atheism or secularism. Indeed, when atheist regimes did attack religions or clergymen, it was due to the totalitarian nature of the regimes, not the atheism that serves as a footnote (as opposed to a central ideology that theocracies utilize).

[@cyoul8trallygatr549]

The professor was of course right when he said that not all that hate gays, are religious. But that is a poor argument, as CosmicSceptic so well showed him. There is no "secular moral system" saying homosexuality is wrong, but there are at least several religious ones which are very clear on that it is wrong. Many atheists have beliefs and opinions which are influenced by religious morality. They just don't believe, or have a lack of belief, in god(s). And where did the religious moral came from at the beginning? My wild guess, human beings. The professor did also showed that his knowledge of atheism wasn't the best trying to blame what happen in communist regimes on atheism. That is like blaming non-golfers in general for killing golfers because there was this man who doesn't play golf who killed golfers. The fact that he also killed other non-golfers like tennis players and everybody criticizing him ... well, that doesn't matter because ... reasons ...

[@nathanjora7627]

It’s even stupider than that : what the professor said was that the worst homophobic people in modern British society aren’t religious, which is asinine since nearly all of the worst offenders in that category are religious, mostly Christians, Jews, or Muslims, which holds true in every country on this planet. And that tired old argument of « atheistic » regimes >< Even if it was true that these were atheistic regimes and that the people at the top were motivated by their religion... It’s not a hill the religious want to stand on. Because in merely one thirty year civil war fought on the basis of religion, there were proportionally as many death as during the whole of soviet union’s in the gulags. One war. In one country. Hundreds of years before the invention of trains, electricity, long distance communication, mass agriculture, etc. Proportionally as many deaths as in the gulags. Now think about the fact that hundreds if not thousands of such wars took place in Europe alone, and you should be able to easily recognize that the death toll of all supposedly « atheistic » regime will never grow as high as the death toll of religious ones, when talking in terms of proportions, without even taking into account how better technologies make killing people faster and easier.

[@cyoul8trallygatr549]

@@nathanjora7627 The professor said so much that was stupid and factual errors that if I should have commented all in a complementary way, there would be a lot of text. When people accuses atheism or atheists of war, abuse or murder (often pointing at Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot), I just simply ask them where in the atheism does it say that you should start wars, abuse or murder anyone? I know that they probably don't know, or try to ignore the fact that atheism is only the positions; do not believe in or lack of believe in god. Neither Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot or any "atheist" did their terrible things because of atheism, but because they were terrible people. Religion (at least some of them) on the other hand, made even good people doing terrible things.

[@cyoul8trallygatr549]

@Nathan Desta I have tried to answer you, but my comment just disappear into thin air.

[@cyoul8trallygatr549]

@Nathan Desta After trying five times, I gave up answering directly in this thread, so I answered starting a new.

[@onba7726]

Just an FYI, both the USSR and the CCP were/are secular moral societies and they both prosecuted gays.

[@crunchyfrog555]

I absolutely hate the dishonesty of this tired old claim - the "but these atheist countries are bad". BUt NO Atheitst countries have killed IN THE NAME OF atheism. That's the difference.

[@Animal_lives_matter]

True, but did their lack of theistic beliefs somehow contribute to their decision to commit atrocities? The persecution of people for having religious beliefs would seem to suggest that such cases did occur.

[@Go4Noctis]

@@Animal_lives_matter They made the state into god. Thus all the statues and murals. Calling them atheist ignores the cult like nature and the more than human propaganda used for their leaders. They didn't persecute the religous because they weren't atheist they did it because only the state and the great leader would be worshiped and followed without question.

[@crunchyfrog555]

@@Animal_lives_matter Nope, that's just speculation on your part. There is ZERO evidence their lack of theistic beliefs did so. There is only really one example you could use - the Chinese acgtions against religion. I'm sorry, but you can't twist things because you don't like the answer.

[@jesperjee]

@@Animal_lives_matter Perhaps in some cases but most likely not often.

[@lusti6511]

@@Animal_lives_matter No, it was the lack of basic humanism who did that. Mostly it had to do with the idea of identity politics. Extremists from the left and right share this, one's dividing people into arbitrary groups like rich and poor or male and female and punish thos groups for beeing what they are. Right extremists do this with race. But it all leads to an "us vs. them" mentality which enables the misstreatment of those groups you don't agree/identify with. And this is also possible with religion as history and actual events clearly show. Therefore atheism and religion without a basic set of humanism just tend to corrupt themselves into dictatorship. But religion has a prerequisite which enables this even more: The believe in something whitout evidence and the complete ignorance of facts vs. your believe system. As Hitchens ones asked: Show me one good thing a religious person is capable of that an atheist cannot do. And then show me a wicked/evil thing a religious person could do, an atheist couldn't. It is this basic mindset who is vulnerable to wicked and evil things. This doesn't lead to the conclusion religion equals bad and atheism equals good, but as Daniel Linger stated correctly: No one blows himself up in the middle of a marked screaming "for atheism". Thats the vast difference.

[@easterlake]

"When I was young, there weren't any gays".........i stopped listening at that point

[@jimmythebold589]

da fuq??? i kept listening out of curiousity!

[@Longtack55]

see above (he called them homosexuals.)

[@notWaldont]

He meant that there weren't any quote unquote gays, as in they weren't called that. It's even obvious from how he says it, though he does right away clarify what he meant.

[@oddviews]

Certainly not a professor of wisdom. Intelligent, maybe, brilliant mind, maybe. But wise - absolutely not!

[@afielsch]

I wonder what he teaches and what kind of ppl study under him...

[@LordMarvel]

I wonder if he took into account, that pope in question was polish... would pope help if he would be from any other nation? History teaches us otherwise

[@danielgadomski5129]

I recently learned that JPII denied to help Oscar Romero cause he was a proponent of the liberation theology. Pope was so anti-communist that he denied Romero's pleads to openly criticize the military dictatorship in El Salvador.

[@mkoschier]

This Pope and with Ratzinger the next pope covered up 100s of pedophile priests were not put to justice not a good example at a ll

[@jasonantigua6825]

@@mkoschier I was going to point that out! They definitely look after their own!

[@jasonantigua6825]

@@mkoschier Let’s not forget how they threatened the victims too! With litigation in this life and he’ll fire in the next!!! Absolutely disgusting.

[@mkoschier]

@@jasonantigua6825 the church at his best the epicenter of humanity

[@dontimberman5493]

Ya but a government that replaced “god” with the ruler is not “atheistic” it’s staianisim or kimisum not secular.

[@LoLwithAlol]

Thats a no true scotsman fallacy, they are indeed secular, plus what you say.

[@Rune3100]

@@LoLwithAlol secular is not synonymous with atheist

[@alandgomez5905]

"Yeah we're bad, but so are you" lol. Great argument ffs.

[@DavidJones-zg4od]

The desperate last breathes of religion trying to defend itself in our modern society.

[@orionred2489]

We can wish... but there are 14 year old zealots being molded every day, and there probably always will be.

[@brianmi40]

@@orionred2489 It IS possible tho. The percentage of 18-24 year olds in Iceland that are religious is ZERO. We have a long road ahead of us and may never achieve ZERO, but "fringe" would be great, just as a first atheist President would be since now the religious "nones" in the USA are at 34% after a record growth of 3% last year.

[@alanahhannah]

Wow, you are so concise Alex, glad I found you,

[@chrisb8075]

Where is Hitch when you need him 😢 it's simple - heinous acts are committed in the name of religion. Acts are NOT committed in the name of atheism. *drops mic , exits stage left..

[@andrewhall7176]

Wow, your knowledge of history isn't very good. A very large number of heinous acts have been committed in the name of atheism, and a very large number have been committed without religion being a factor at all.

[@andrewhall7176]

@Nehemiah Scudder And what are the lies about Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot? I have a feeling I am about to see evidence that you aren't big on history, but go on, if you have a good point I will concede it.

[@andrewhall7176]

@Nehemiah Scudder Well, Hitler didn't kill loads of people in the name of atheism, but Pol Pot certainly did, and Stalin also had a good many people killed or persecuted because of their religious beliefs. The former two were practicing atheists who did indeed have people killed or persecuted precisely because of their religious beliefs or because they did not adopt atheism (in the case of Pol Pot). If killing is not the only thing you look at and you broaden it to persecuting people because of their religious beliefs then examples can be found throughout the communist world. Tell me, did you get the above claims from online forums?

[@andrewhall7176]

@Nehemiah Scudder No, actually, you are very wrong. Firstly, Hitler may have been born a Catholic, but he was not religious and did not practice; on the contrary, he despised Christianity because he viewed it as encouraging weakness. This dislike for Christianity was widespread in the Nazi party and Hitler's inner circle: Himmler wanted to replace Christianity with a revived pagan Germanic religion, Rosenberg detested it, Goebbels viewed it as tainted by Judaism, Göring was largely indifferent, Hess disliked it and was an ariosophist. I can go own if you like. The Nazis exterminated the Jews for racial, biological reasons, not religious ones. This is a well known fact. The fact that religious anti-Semitism existed in Europe prior to the Nazis does not change this. Stalin had large numbers of people killed or deported to the Gulag because they would not subsume their religious beliefs to communist doctrine. The communists destroyed hundreds of thousands of churches and banned people from practicing for years. Pol Pot had people killed because they were members of religious communities or because they carried on trying to practice their religions after all religion had been outlawed. The fact that he was brought up a Buddhist means nothing; he became an atheist and tried to impose atheism on Cambodia as part of its transformation into a communist society. Sorry, but you are not showing a great knowledge of history here.

[@andrewhall7176]

@Nehemiah Scudder Bwahaha, you are very uninformed!😂 It is extremely obvious that you actually do not know very much about the Nazis (amongst other things).🤣 Firstly, the fact that atheists were a small percentage of the German population means nothing; why would they need to be large to get into power? Why would you think a small group would need to be able to intimidate the rest of the population in order to rule? Has it ever occurred to you that many people might not really worry too much about a person or group's private views when voting for them, because they are voting for them based on party platform? Duh. Secondly, bringing up two quotes without any context to them is not proof of someone's views; you actually have to look at their overall behaviour and various utterances and writings in their context to find out what their views are. Let's be honest here, we all know you ran to Google to find quotes which would back yoy up. It is painfully obvious that you have actually read very little about the Nazis. The consensus, which is overwhelmingly backed by the evidence, is that Hitler personally disliked Christianity, as did many other Nazis, and their based their anti-Semitism on race and biology, not religion. The Holocaust was an ethnically motivated genocide, not a religious one. I would challenge you to show how Martin Luther's teaching had an explicit influence on Nazi ideology as opposed to völkisch ideas about race, but I doubt you could do it. After all, I'm sure this string is the first time you've seen most of the names I mentioned above, as well as words such as "völkisch" and "ariosophist". You can try to prove me wrong, but you won't manage. Nazism was not a Christian ideology and it was not heavily influenced by Christian ideas; it was a nationalist ideology based on Social Darwinist ideas and organicist views of the state. That it developed in a predominantly Christian country is no more a sign that it was a Christian ideology than the same predominantly Christian milieu in which Marx lived is a sign that Marxism is a Christian ideology. It's amazing how many of you atheist internet intellectuals provide such good examples of the Dunning-Kruger phenomenon.😂

[@saml8610]

I’m just convinced Alex works on a higher level of intelligence than most of the population.

[@resgresg]

Sadly yes. Imagine living in a world where Alex is regarded as an intelligent person.

[@fourfundamentals210]

@@resgresg I thinks it’s fairly clear that Alex is certainly intelligent. He is very articulate, which could perhaps indicate himself to be more or llo gent than he is, but he is intelligent nonetheless.

[@TheAwkwardGuy]

@@fourfundamentals210 I mean yeah he's saying that he is intelligent, but is sad that Alex would count as intelligent and not just, say, average (with his views/rhetorical skills that is).

[@katinkaaa2951]

he most likely does.

[@pgrothschild]

@@resgresg triggered theist 😅

[@CherryFlavoredFox0180]

I like that random guy on the left trying so hard not to laugh

[@mvtech4888]

I'm just amazed at how eloquent of a speaker Alex really is. It's frankly quit impressive

[@skepticalbutopen4620]

I find it sad that this young man can see the truth, and this old man has lived so much longer and yet, the truth has never reached him....

[@TheLancer042]

To say that communism is an atheistic “principle” is stupid.

[@marcinkanski2878]

in case it was meant as a critique of proffessor I just wanted 2 point out he said "Communism was atheistic IN principle" which is the view held by I feel like most people who lived 2 see it, but granted even I had to rewatch this fragment twice 2 make sure I havent misheard ; D

[@aathanraan8819]

@@noonespecial6537 No it isn't. Atheism stops at the proposition of a god's existence. There are no dogmas, laws, creeds, commandments or rules in atheism. It is a misnomer to even call it an -ism.

[@TheLancer042]

@@noonespecial6537 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@Alex-0597]

@@noonespecial6537 "I believe that every single existentialist, enlightenment thinker or philosopher, most educated atheists, and pretty much the entire collected corpus of atheist thought in history would suggest that you are stunningly full of shit." Are you suggesting that every atheist philosopher in history was a communist? Are you seriously suggesting that? "What do think the 'God is dead' spiel was about?" ...that religious institutions used to be everyone's source of morality and that now that people are less willing to blindly accept what a priest tells them, we need to create an alternative source of morality? Assuming you're referencing Nietzsche. "Can you honestly tell me that the belief or lack of belief in gods or a God has absolutely no affect on your decisions both moral and political?" Yeah, I honestly can. Because my atheism isn't a starting point for my beliefs. It's a consequence of my skepticism and desire to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. It would be more accurate to say that my skepticism has an effect on my moral and political decisions.

[@TheLancer042]

@@noonespecial6537 it’s a facepalm emoji to express your ignorance

[@49perfectss]

Soon as this guy called Soviet Russia and North Korea secular I dismissed him as a dishonest interlocutor. Very disappointing from a professor.

[@joeljohnson896]

Think you meant to say interlocutor

[@49perfectss]

@@joeljohnson896 oh haha thanks for the correction!

[@jonjonboi3701]

It is true that Soviet Russia and North Korea are secular nations

[@49perfectss]

@@jonjonboi3701 nope. Look up what secular is and then realize that both countries forced atheism as a national religion. Seriously my 9 year old can correct you on this lol.

[@tennicksalvarez9079]

@@perfection3iea220 no bro they have national religions for them it's about power not belief

[@thomasward3309]

It was pretty evident the professor didn't come prepared or know who'd be lined up on the other side

[@IxodesPersulcatus]

Very reserved.

[@jyidorne8042]

"My colleague... my good friend..." can mr. professor actually form any original thoughts or only refer to anecdotes about his famous friends?

[@lusti6511]

"when i was young there weren't any gays" When i was young there weren't any Higgs-Bosons but i still had mass. For someone calling himself a "Professor" this is an weak ass argument by any strech of imagination ... and people like him have the audacity to "teach"

[@1980Carlson]

Daaaaamn. Fire, Alex. Well done. He was waiting to talk and not listening to you at all.

[@FoivosApostolou]

Alex, you really put this guy in his place. I love your debating style and love your channel. Imo, when you debate people like this "professor" who are eager to interrupt and be the louder/smarter person in the room , you should also speak a little louder and assert yourself a little more. Good job man

[@Laska_Family_Adventure]

Kiddy hour from the professor here. I feel like he wasn't listening...

[@glenhill9884]

I agree. He wasn't. He also came to a debate on religion and admits he can't even define it.

[@freescratch645]

really good points made here, good debate from both sides. Leaves a lot of thoughts to be had.

[@paulybarr]

From both sides? Like hell. The prof's 'arguments' are feeble and crumble easily under Alex's remarks from 3.35 in particular.

[@georgedoyle7971]

@@paulybarr Sorry but your being dishonest and just following the crowd as there was definitely good points made from both sides. This debate has been going on for thousands of years lol. Just because professor Ward is old fashioned and not down with the kids it doesn’t mean his values and opinions aren’t valid. Did you really believe that the genius of Aquinas, Descartes, Albert Einstein, Anthony Flew, C.S.Lewis and G.K. Chesterton etc could be refuted in a ten minute discussion by someone who’s barely out of university who has a cult following due to the phenomenon of KZbin. No offence intended all the best to you and your family and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis. ❤️

[@superespeon100]

His eyebrow raise at 1:08 was hilarious

[@tommonk7651]

Well done, young man!

[@skepticmafia]

0:30 WHAT?!

[@dalemsilas8425]

North Korea has a religion and gods. They are called the Kims.

[@j.lahtinen7525]

The professor was just outclassed here, plain and simple. I really like Cosmic Skeptic's calmly reasoned approach. He is clearly very intelligent, well read, and has an approach that is eminently reasonable. He's also very persuasive. Some of his content is what finally pushed me over the edge, to stop eating meat. It's close to a year now, and I'm not going back.

[@foreignwarren7361]

Alex is so good at listening and responding.

[@asking4afriend311]

Let's not conflate secular governments with totalitarian governments. And let's also not conflate atheists with anti-theists.

[@Bakugo24]

why would someone defending god be the one to bring up the topic of homosexuality..

[@FastAndEasy2010]

What do you mean when you say you are not a humanist? Do you have a video on why not

[@andrewmcculloch8137]

Hi Connor, been a massive fan for years, you don’t need to say a word, I can actually see this poor man dig a hole for himself... stay free and skeptic from Glasgow.

[@Hopeless_and_Forlorn]

After I retired some ten years ago I found time to explore atheism. I have read books, joined many atheists in conversations, and watched hundreds of hours of debates and call-in shows featuring theist vs atheists. I have yet to find a single example of a theist making a valid point in favor of religion. Not in the historical record, not in literature, not in current issues or controversies, not in any debate or discussion. Not. One. Personally, in my long life so far, I have found not a single hint of any magical, mystical, or "spiritual" force, being or influence of any kind. When will this foolishness end?

[@samuelkim2926]

Maybe you have some biases to rational thought and debate. Since your bar seems high, perhaps you can request to meet and interview some people who claim to have supernatural experiences. Here's a scientist(Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering, and Professor of Computer Science at Rice University) kzbin.info/www/bejne/h3-qfY2sqbein7c Here's a former professor and chairman of the art department at Northern Kentucky University: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fIikmYl_o7WIjdU. Here's a Korean Law Professor at Ulsan University: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ml62YoBrr6qKp8U (It's in Korean but KZbin can translate it for you). There are many others, but I thought perhaps that you may prefer testimonies of people with some intellectual credentials.

[@canuckereh9202]

@@samuelkim2926 Childhood religious indoctrination is an extremely powerful force to extricate oneself from, for the average person and "intellects" alike. It is like an ever present blindspot that cares not for whatever religion is being pounded into the heads of children and gullible people. It is a sad, outdated and regressive facet of our societies. I am eternally grateful that my parents taught me HOW to think rather than WHAT to think.

[@georgedoyle7971]

@@canuckereh9202 “Childhood religious indoctrination is a very powerful force to extricate one self from” Totally agree with you “New atheism”, materialism and determinism indoctrination is very powerful, addictive and hard to get out of especially if you’ve had an extreme form of atheism rammed down your throat like the poor Russian children/people did in the Soviet Union. The indoctrination is especially powerful when its hidden behind the cloak of scientific authority and rationality. At least with theism, mysticism and transcendentalism people admit that the fundamental nature of reality is “faith” based and mysterious and that there’s no such thing as certainty even in science and philosophy. Also with theism no one is trying to reduce your family and children to nothing more than biological/chemical robots to justify using them for canon fodder like they did in Russia. In contrast the good thing about theism is that no one uses intellectualism and hubris to try and explain away the qualitative, subjective experience of reality, love, family, altruism, meaning, purpose, bravery and self sacrifice, that is consciousness as nothing more than “brain chemicals”. Iv even come across determinists/materialists in the scramble to refute the moral argument for a divine consciousness insist that rapists and murderers are not accountable as everyone is determined by cause and effect so rapists and murderers couldn’t help themselves as there is no such thing as free will. I think the bereaved families of the children who died at the hands of the Moors Murderers would beg to differ. It’s pretty clear to any normal person on the street which belief is poisonous and irrational. These quotes from eminent atheist philosophers speak volumes regarding the harm done by the “New atheist” movement, particularly to honest every day theists including atheists. Equally, “New atheism” has clearly evolved into a quasi religion and you only have to read the religious fervour and intolerance professed by atheists in this comments section for evidence regarding this recent and disturbing phenomenon. This is why eminent atheist philosophers such as Mary Midgeley, Thomas Nagel, Noam Chomsky, Massimo Pigliucci and Michael Ruse distanced themselves from “New atheism” right from the start recognising it as a form of atheism that does more harm than good. In particular it speaks volumes that Mary Midgeley whilst an atheist herself was actually a staunch advocate of religious expression and the Giai philosophy. Similarly, the eminent atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel stated...”I believe the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion. That world view is ripe for displacement.” (Thomas Nagel). Another eminent atheist philosopher Michael Ruse states... “the other unsettling way in which Humanism imitates religion and perhaps the most notable one in the case of the New Atheists is its claim that people who do not share its beliefs are not only mistaken but also deluded and perhaps even evil. The line I quoted above about opposition to evolution being a sign of insanity and possibly wickedness comes, of course, from Richard Dawkins.” (Michael Ruse). Noam Chomsky dismisses “New atheism” with the statement ... “i don't join the New Atheists. So, for example, I wouldn't have the arrogance to lecture some mother who hopes to see her dying child in Heaven - that's none of my business, ultimately. I won't lecture her on the philosophy of science.” ( Noam Chomsky). In contrast Hitchens insists that religion poisons everything. Daniel Dennette promotes the idea that moderate religious believers are “more dangerous than extremists because they make extremists look respectable.” Does this mean moderate atheists should feel guilty for making Stalin look respectable.? More worrying is the fact that Dennettes friend Sam Harris believes that black peoples low IQ is responsible for crime and promotes state enforced torture as he believes it will reduce extremism and terrorism ?? Dawkins recently tweeted that Eugenics would work even though ethics and empirical science actually says completely different and prominent Humanists have quickly pointed this out condemning his tweet which he refuses to retract despite the insult and pain it has caused the bereaved families of the victims of the holocaust and the Nazis genocide. It’s hardly surprising that research demonstrates that “New atheist” posts are just are a couple of clicks away from right wing propaganda and extremism in the KZbin suggestion box. “Eugenics itself, in large quantities or small, coming quickly or coming slowly, urged from good motives or bad, applied to a thousand people or applied to three, Eugenics itself is a thing no more to be bargained about than poisoning.” (G.K. Chesterton). Not to mention torture!

[@samuelkim2926]

@@canuckereh9202 I see. I forgot to mention that all of the three people I mentioned were not Christians until they were adults. In the case of the Korean Professor, the man was on the way to help write legislation that would restrict some religious freedom for Christians. He was in the middle of mocking a Christian preacher on TV when he met Christ. Howard Storm was an atheist well into his career and family life before he had a completely supernatural experience.

[@alexatwater1961]

There was only one Christian and they caught him and crucified him early.

[@knowone11111]

2,000 years later & we're still talking about Him, lololol

[@freddyt55555]

@@knowone11111 No need to capitalize "him", if you don't worship him.

[@knowone11111]

@@freddyt55555 but I do...

[@andrewharper1609]

@@knowone11111 Well since no one has proved that Jesus was historical maybe you should find a better use of capitals.

[@knowone11111]

@@andrewharper1609 yea, we just named our age after Jesus for no reason @ all, lololol

[@Drewski_ZA]

Id love to see a debate between Alex and Ben Shapiro just to see the back and forth... probably be up to a million words back and forth by the 10th min, cause they both speak barrier breaking speed..

[@Teddypally]

I've heard that argument before, called an appeal to definition fallacy. "Secularity is defined as not having anything to do with religion so how can you say a secular government puts religious people to death when the definition of secular government is that it has nothing to do with religion?". Consider, believing in the sanctity of life does not preclude killing in self-defence. Believing in the freedom of speech does not preclude censoring calls for censorship. Believing in feminism does not preclude disadvantaging men. Believing in secularity does not preclude removing religious influences. And the list goes on. The professor should have simple called out the fallacy. Then again, he probably uses it so the conversation ends up being an examination of the fallacy and not the subject matter and never getting anywhere.

[@creampuffme]

The north Korean govt. is a religious govt. The leader is literally treated as an all knowing all seiing deity

[@resgresg]

Same goes for Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and even Xi. That is the cult of the mystics you've discovered. You can either be a mystic of the spirit, ie religious retards, or mystics of muscles, ie the communists, nazis, fascists and so on. Sadly Alex confuses atheism with the mystics of muscles.

[@ShadowZZZ]

Ah the same old fallacy, and he is a professor?

[@punkisinthedetails1470]

I don't know how Alex and others like him sacrifice their lives down endless rabbit holes like this one.

[@hardikleet9083]

So which religion should i believe in.

[@paradoxfate]

Whenever someone argues that “secular” nations also committed atrocities, my mind immediately screams: Let’s say you are right! Ok, what you are saying is that atheism is “as bad” as religion. So if you are trying to say that there is no morality without religion, how does saying “you are as bad as I am” make it right!?. I mean, come on! It’s a fallacy! He is admitting and kind of defending religious atrocities through history by saying “you are the same” !? Wow…

[@Power-Mad]

"Humanism is anti religious" It's against some religious teachings of putting god before helping humans, but there's nothing that inherently makes it anti religious. You can be religious and a humanist. I would argue they don't follow their religious doctrine very closely in certain aspects but then again, most everyone doesn't given the general lack of murder themed punishments for trivial things.

[@AlGhoul]

Yeah, I think he is conflating secular humanism with humanism, which is odd because he seemed to be decently informed on various subjects. And I thought he was a philosopher professor, which makes his conflation even more odd.

[@michaeltellurian825]

And this conversation is at Oxford?

[@frankierays]

Ahh... civil discourse. I seem to remember having more of them earlier in my life but recently notice more “debates” devolve too soon into less than civil discussions. Defense of ones own sense of mediocrity (I suspect) may be the cause. Anyways, I appreciate this discussion.

[@Brazillianize]

So now there's ""history"" of an atheist inquisition . . . I call this projection! And B. S. !

[@ottonormalverbrauch3794]

North Korea hás religion, it's called Juche. It shows in perfection how people can be brought to believe in utter bogus, in this case those self appointed god figures.

[@Tilten]

True. North Korea is pretty much what heaven on earth would look like.

[@AlGhoul]

I looked up Juche, and it seems more like a political ideology based on self reliance (NK relying on itself in terms of diplomacy, defense, and economics), not a religion. Yes, NK does use Juche as sort of a cult-like practice in it's religious-like practices and viewing the leader as sacred, but it's hardly the same as a system or belief in a supernatural controlling force or deity, especially when NK is intolerant of most religion (except the native one that's just tolerated) due to it's communist roots (Marxist-Leninist origins, not the buzzword version of communist thrown about by conservative Christian Americans).

[@Tilten]

@@AlGhoul kzbin.info/www/bejne/nGWThYWAoZqprKs

[@AlGhoul]

@@Tilten I already know that NK worships the Kim family as divine, but Juche isn't a religion. As I stated, it does have cult-like practices. North Korea is an atheist state that treats its leader as a divine being guiding his son's rulership and otherwise operates as a religion of a sort, but Juche isn't a religion in and of itself. So while I enjoyed rewatching that clip of Hitchens, it is moot to my point.

[@Tilten]

@@AlGhoul You're probably right about Juche. But that is not my point; both you and the professor in the debate call NK an "atheist state". But NK is a more religious state than even Vatican City. And just like other religions have been, NK is intolerant to other religions. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me".

[@Findnyou]

Prof must have been into a yoga for years to be able to tie himself into such knots.

[@BruceCarroll]

Is nobody going to talk about the alien spaceship landing right outside??

[@eddieperez7132]

Maaaaaan, Hogwarts’ philosophy class ain’t no joke... BTW, that Christian magic is weak as fuq

[@edishswe7754]

That professor is shockingly bad. Constantly mixes up secularism and atheism. No idea about the views of his counterpart. Constant straw man argument.

[@MarlboroughBlenheim1]

Doesn’t look like he prepared at all. Had no notes. Doubt he knew who he was up against.

[@ministryofarguments3525]

Excerpt taken from the Clip, "We both had the word 'religion'. Of course, that could be, the stage of panic for a start." What an interesting point of view.

[@alexmajewski9235]

We absolutely do look at modern secular movements and judge them based on the actions of their predecessors from the 20th century for example.

[@ananonymousoyster365]

“Your ideological atrocities are worse!” “No, your ideological atrocities are worse!” “Nu uh!” “Yu huh!” “Nu huh!1!1!” How about we just agree that people are hypocrites and can’t stop killing each other when they’re in positions of power? The whole debate over who killed more people and whether or not that’s intrinsic to their metaphysical beliefs is just a total red herring anyways...

[@georgedoyle7971]

Well said!! Common sense and honesty at last. All the best to you and your family and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis ❤️

[@georgedoyle7971]

“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.” (Albert Einstein).

[@ebbyoma7008]

Secularity. Doesn’t. Necessitate. Morality.

[@rc7211]

Nobody said it did. Secularism merely implies freedom from religion, and freedom from religion allows for the development of a moral system which is based on reason instead of dogma and superstition.

[@ebbyoma7008]

@@rc7211 nobody said it, but the religious guy implied it by saying “look at all the bad things atheistic/ secular states have done; because of this, atheism/ secularism isn’t moral” (paraphrased) Which is of course a fallacious conclusion (fallacy of composition?)

[@ebbyoma7008]

@@odysseus3006 Don’t. Fight. Me. I’m. Atheist. Like. You. 💀 Also, theistic religiousity DOES necessitate morality. Just happens to be that most of their so called “morality” is pretty crappy.

[@odysseus3006]

@@ebbyoma7008 sorry, I completely misunderstood you.

[@WarpRulez]

I always love the _appeal from consequences_ argument. The argument doesn't actually care what is true, it's arguing for what would happen if you believed in a certain way, completely regardless of whether that way corresponds to actual reality or not. Of course in this particular case the argument completely ignores the fact that belief in Christianity is not a guarantee that nobody will ever commit any atrocities in the name of that belief.

[@oggolbat7932]

the same applies to atheism then

[@WarpRulez]

@@oggolbat7932 _What_ "applies to atheism"? What I said above is, essentially: "The argument that atheists have done atrocities is a ridiculous appeal from consequences fallacy." Your response? "The same applies to atheism then" _What_ applies to atheism?

[@dapablo2]

He does not meet people in pubs, he's talking about the people he socialises with as usual.

[@afm4711]

As a professor myself, I feel embarrassed and ashamed of such a disgusting specimen of my profession.

[@mockupguy3577]

Professor has a wonderful accent.

[@PatrickBuzoDrums]

Never has anyone done any actions in the name of secularism/atheism

[@truerealrationalist]

If we take secular government to mean that the government takes _no stance_ on religion, as Alex proposes, then it logically follows that a secular government would be diametrically _opposed to_ "atheistic activism," because "atheistic activism" necessarily and demonstrably _does_ have a hand in religious affairs.

[@DavidLee-vi8ds]

That young man is very patient.

[@vishwakumar2864]

3:16 whole video's main counter "Where can they look to for their moral authority .. if they turn to religious scripture, it's going to be right there" That's it .

[@rayriches1000]

The art of dodging the question and bringing up red herrings on show

[@alvinphua4561]

Haters can always look for justifications for their hate. We just need to continue reducing those justifications.

[@Katy_Jones]

The trouble with his "secular morality" strawman is that it isn't written down and used to justify being immoral.

[@afielsch]

He knows this, but is too dishonest to even allow for the thought. Typical for the religious.

[@withoutwords7404]

"Religion: You can't define it." Yes, yes... but you try to. Therein lies the problem.

[@ronniegeorge3152]

Fire

[@TrashTVTreasures]

Would love to see more women and POC in these convos.

[@Thor.Jorgensen]

I can highly recommend you look up Shannon Q. She is INCREDIBLY intelligent and well informed and has a way of forming convincing arguments that aren't offputting to those she has talked with.

[@FloppyCheeks.]

At 4:45 Alex says "Not all Athiest regimes are secular" Could someone help me understand this? If a government is athiest(nonreligious), how can they not be secular(keeping religion out of government)??

[@Magst3r1]

Actively banning religion and trying to get rid of religious people, like the Soviet Union did, wouldn't be secular, as secular means "not connected to religious beliefs".

[@connordickerson6815]

Something that has always confused me about religions beliefs is that a person seems to be drastically more likely to believe in what ever faith their parents have and their parents are drastically more likely to believe what ever faith is most dominant in the area they live.

[@jonathangarmuth8975]

When he is unable to compete with the argument just mutter, ok , ok, ok. It's like polite interrupting while being incapable of listening.

[@johnv5527]

I'm seriously confused by the magnitude variance of shallowness in people who stand up to argue for theism. In this case I almost broke my neck as I dove into the debate video!

[@glennmcc64]

What is he a professor of?

[@Knightfall8]

Mr O Connor soundly schooled that guy!

[@geoffmower8729]

Obviously not enough of them!

[@markusd.7409]

I would have rejected the idea that North Korea is secular. North Korea has invented its own religion with its "divine leader". Even the Soviet Union tried some kind of "religion" which is called Communism and was thought of a divine, as one was not allowed to criticize it. The Nazis tried to invent their own religion founded in Germanic Mythology with diverse occult ideas. For me Secularism has a lot to do with Enlightenment. We need open societies that are willing to learn from science and are thus flexible in their development. For me an dogma (including "free market economic thinking") has some religious stigma to it

[@chonwai]

Human element in anything is the cause of the atrocities, any type of ideology or believe system are always prone to the interpretation of the people in charge, hence if they are good people then the interpretation could be good and civilization might prosper, if the interpretation is to any kind of extreme then disaster will follow...it always depends on the person in power

[@haruedna618]

hah I love how he’s wearing vans too

[@steakknives]

Religion: A belief or set of beliefs used to give meaning to ones experience.

[@steakknives]

@@AvatarOfBhaal If you think about it, you filter what you hear/see/experience, through what you already believe. If something seems contradictory you can either change what you believe or how what you've experienced through your belief. I was raised christian, even thinking I might join the seminary until I was 22. Reading the bible for the second time with an adult mind is what changed my mind.

[@Gruso57]

This professor said "when I was young, there were no gays, we didn't have em". Im honestly shocked at someone who is supposedly intelligent could say something so ignorant.

[@misuapolozan3523]

maybe humanism is against religion, or at least some associations based on humanism, but I don't think they would ban religion or kill religious people for their faith

[@Dare2Doubt]

Sorry, Professor in what exactly?

[@tukicat1399]

Retitle.. Professor gets Schooled

[@TheSuperBestComment]

There's a difference between atheism and anti-theism. Also, atrocities committed by atheistic leaders were done in the name of political ideology, not in the name of atheism, since atheism is the opposite of a belief system. Arguing that lack of a belief in a supernatural being was responsible for genocide would be a bit like arguing that lack of belief in the tooth fairy was responsible for genocide.