Keith Ward - What is the 'New Atheism'?

[@BooksForever]

To the extent that there’s a subset that can meaningfully be called ‘new atheism’, I suspect it applies to the aspect that has emerged to politically combat the ‘modern evangelicalism’.

[@newtonfinn164]

Interesting suspicion. Given the essential place of doubt in genuine Christian faith (Kierkegaard), one could argue that the opposite of atheist is not theist but rather cock-sure evangelism.

[@mikel5582]

Yeah. I think this interview took place several years ago and this type of unscrupulous apologist argument for evidence-less conclusions has evolved into the U.S. being on the precipice of entering the Hee-Haw Dark Ages.

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

I would say the modern is the same as the old "evangelicalism" by many names like inquisitors and Pharisees. I don't believe all that might be referred to as evangelical are Pharisees though but there's a significant group that would be like the dog catching the car in that they have an obvious competition among themselves that would seem likely to inevitably lead to more and more extreme actions if they were to gain a controlling influence, which we actually see in places today.

[@Henri-y8t]

@@BooksForever Hi to each of you, if I can help dont be shy with me ask, OK and My love and care about each of you

[@alwilsonwastheman]

Ill always remember what a doctor said to a lady at a hospital back when i was a kid. The lady said " Praise the lord his arm (her son) isnt broke..god answered my prayers"..the doctor replied " Go take a stroll through the pediatric cancer ward and the childrens burn unit and tell me why god never answered their prayers"

[@evaadam3635]

..every soul in us has a cross to carry in our journey to return back to our Original HOME through faith in a Loving GOD...

[@francesco5581]

So what you hope for these kids ? That they found eternal peace in an afterlife or that they were born, burnt and became nothingness for eternity ?

[@mikel5582]

​​​@@francesco5581 Why is becoming "nothingness" so scary? It's essentially the same as we were for the first billion or so years of this universe's existence. Of course, the OP's claim that a doctor said something like that seems highly unlikely and definitely unprofessional. Edit to add: By the way, nothingness implies no time domain so an eternity of nothingness doesn't really make sense.

[@Jinxed007]

​@@evaadam3635Why? Why does god need his creations to suffer?

[@evaadam3635]

@@Jinxed007 ... it was not God that made us suffer ... it was our choice to have lost faith in God's love when our souls left Heaven for greed despite God's plea and warning that there is only Emptiness and Suffering beyond Heaven.. we ended in cold dark emptiness instead as God had warned... we created our hell, only our free souls to blame... ..we are now sent here which is a much better life than being in hell because we asked God for it... our sufferings here are negligible compared to freezing in hell possibly eternally..... plus, we have a chance to return to Heaven by regaining our faith in God's love, that we lost, without knowing Him... ...by the way, all our sufferings we undergo, living with physical vessel on earth, can not destroy our immortal soul.. only losing faith or without faith in a Loving GOD can hurt our souls,..

[@stephenzhao5809]

1:00 ... what are some of the specific philosophical issues that the new atheists would either ignore ridicule or misunderstand 1:08 KW: ... 1:52 the new atheists reject the philosophical arguments or ridicule them and dismiss them totally you're telling me that those same philosophical arguments for God are largely rejected by even philosophers of religion although they understand it so what's the difference? 2:09 KW:

[@Gramsci]

New Atheism was 20 years ago. But this was still a question worth asking.

[@Andrew-lo5sc]

I think the debate changed when people realized space and time itself evolves. 100 years of discovery isn't as long as people think.

[@gettaasteroid4650]

it's not changed, "squeamishness was never yet bred in an empty pocket" - The Cream of the Jest

[@evaadam3635]

..can you please bring us bottles of yesterdays and barrels of tomorrows if you think time exists... if not, then you are just kidding...

[@gettaasteroid4650]

@@evaadam3635 so far (unless you know otherwise) the only consistent descriptions of nature are invariant

[@evaadam3635]

@@gettaasteroid4650 our lost souls were not sent here to know what is beyond nature but to believe for our salvation...

[@gettaasteroid4650]

@@evaadam3635 Sweet!, however, "I would rather think of my religion as a gamble than to think of it as an insurance premium" -Stephen Samuel Wise or consider Rousseau's Julie, all false religion is in conflict with nature

[@musicbyfriendsforfriends3311]

I just love it when theologian/philosophers spew their religious gobbledygook in answer to pointed questions.

[@jamesmiller7457]

@@musicbyfriendsforfriends3311 What kind of pointed questions are u referring to ?

[@fanofentropy2280]

Once you find out Santa and the tooth fairy are not real, no amount of philosophy or 'metaphysical perspectives' will ever make it "not silly".

[@Henri-y8t]

@@fanofentropy2280 Yo, that was not for you idiot Philippe 😎

[@jamesmiller7457]

@@fanofentropy2280 There is a huge difference between God and Santa Clause.

[@fanofentropy2280]

@@jamesmiller7457 How so? They both supposedly grant wishes/prayers. That sounds pretty similar to me. Please explain to me as if I were a five year old who believes in both, but is on the cusp of realizing the lie.

[@jamesmiller7457]

@fanofentropy2280 Why would i tell u from that perspective when I have kids and don't tell them that Santa Claus is real? Santa Claus is obviously a made-up story, and every Christian would agree with you. That seems like a pretty big difference.

[@mikel5582]

By this guy's logic, we should accept that anything anybody says might be possible and requiring material evidence is an unfairly high bar. If not, where should we draw the line? It seems that he thinks his line in the sand for where evidence is and is not required is the line that everybody must accept. No thanks.

[@benjamenkuo477]

I think the main point he is trying to make is that the question about the ontology of God is mostly a philosophical one, not a scientific one. This means that instead of using observation to prove the physical impossibility of god we we should use logic and metaphysics to prove the logical impossibility of god ( lot more stronger.) So he is not saying evolution or materialism is definitely wrong, he is just saying new-atheist should first justify their ontology on materialism and scientific realism. Also, new-atheist should treat analytic approach to god seriously. There are a lot of good arguments for god using modal logic or different types of logic. But new-atheist or ignorant scientists tend to just ignore it.

[@mikel5582]

​​@@benjamenkuo477 Thanks for the mostly* polite response. What exactly do you mean by "god" here, as opposed to "God"? I'm a scientist who has no problem with claims that there *_might_* be something beyond the physical world. But when those claims change from "might" to "is", I say "show me the evidence." That's not motivated by a desire to disprove non-material claims, it's a legitimate attempt to learn about something I may be missing. Usually the responses to that type of inquiry don't follow the rules of logic as I learned them (e.g., coursework in symbolic logic, which I found to be a very easy course). To me, they seem more like feelings than substantive evidence. *I added the "mostly" modifier because the wording "ignorant scientists" could be politely written as ".... scientists ignorant about ..." Edit to add that I have no issue when someone states "I believe there is more to existence than the physical world" as long as they don't claim it to be a fact that everybody must accept.

[@benjamenkuo477]

@mikel5582 The word "god" is the same as "God."I just forgot to capitalize them. Also, sorry about not specifying the relevant discipline that some scientists might be ignorant about. I will say a lot of scientists are often ignorant about metaphysics or logic, and that's fine. Is just they shouldn't make assertive philosophical claim if they are not familiar with the relevant literature or ideas that were developed by some of the brightest people in history. Also, logical evidence for god is definitely not just a matter of feeling, I don't know if you have ever learn any meta-logic (which is like the first step to the "real logic") or modal logic (usally learning modal logic require meta-logic,) but there are good argument for omnipotent god that are well developed. For instance, the ontological argument for god is a good example. Throughout history, there are a lot of thinkers that have developed this argument, like St. Anslem and Alvin Plantinga. If you want a more scientists example, then there is Gödel one of the most important mathematicians has developed a very sophisticated argument for god. And, of course, those arguments are very controversial, but they really touch the essence of the concept of god. The reason why metaphyscis is more relevant then science when we are dealing with cincept like God, free will, or modality is because science already provide us philosophier an emprical knowledge on those topic, and there are no more task for them, because the rest of the task is to use logical analysis to understand what those scientific knowledge entails. For example, on the topic of free will, scientists tell us the world is deterministic, split-brain experiment, and humans are largely affected by society, those information help us recognize what are the "facts" about our world, philosophier task is to use logic and language to develop a theory under that foundation that is provide by scientists. For example, compatablism approach to free will is totally aligned with science, and philosophier like A J Ayer developed a version of compatablist free will that I found very reasonable through pure logic and linguistics approach (that paper is call "Freedom and Necciscsty.") However, a lot of people who are engaged in the free will debate often lack relevant knowledge about the compatablism. Some of them don't even know the difference between libertarianism and compatablism. So the fact that famous figures like Sapolsky wrote a whole book on an objection to libertarian free will just trouble me. He never mentioned any relevant philosophical literature in his book, and the position he defending are already agreed upon most philosophier, he didn't really done anything new to be honest, and he's like claiming the free will debate is done. Of course, some scientists might say empirical facts are the only things that are relevant, like what Sapolsky might say about free will. However, they are making a philosophical claim about the value of knowledge and epistemic value. So the main thing I want to say is that some scientists are often ignorant about philosophy, but they tend to just start making bad philosophical on philosophical issue. Which troubles me because if Kant one of the most intelligent human in history have to spend years on justifying human epistemology, why scientists can just assume some epistemology theory without justifying them when they try to engage in philosophical questions.

[@benjamenkuo477]

@mikel5582 Also, on the topic of logic, it is really hard to explain why modal logic can entaisl facts about the world in just a few minutes. So I will try my best to explain to you why metaphyscis can possibly derive some facts about the world. For example, the ontological arguments are essentially saying that God is a necessary being. Therefore, it exist. So a necessary being exist in all possible world is mostly agree upon philosophier, like P=P is a necessary truth. So one of the ways to argue against the ontological argument is to argue that the existence of a God is contradictory, which means it is impossible for god to exist. The rest of the premises that are used in the ontological argument just follow the rules of modal logic. This argument has almost nothing to do with science, but it entails the metaphysical existence of something. So this is an example how logic can entails facts about the world. It is a deductive reasoning just like mathematics, in fact you need very strong and rigoristic mathematics to prove the completeness of logic, like Gödel's Theorem or Frege Theorem. Logic is definitely not something that is related to feeling, I will even say logic is like the most "true" knowledge that we can get.

[@mikel5582]

​@@benjamenkuo477 For the sake of discussion, let's say that there's a solid logical proof that existence as we know it requires a god. What do we do with that information? Does that mean that I'll have virgins waiting for me after death if I act a certain way? Does it mean that cows are sacred? Should I shun eating meat on Fridays? Maybe eating meat is a sin in general? Should I believe that tortilla really was sacred? What are this god's properties? Why does it not reveal itself to everyone? Why didn't it engineer a way of fueling ourselves that didn't require stinky bathrooms and the occasional runs? Isaac Newton believed in alchemy. Other brilliant people believed in phlogiston. Just because smart people of yore believed something to be true doesn't mean it must be true.

[@TheoSkeptomai]

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._* And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality. 1. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god. 2. I personally have never observed a god. 3. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god. 4. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 5. I have never been presented with any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality. 6. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true. 7. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 8. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 9. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 10. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 11. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._ ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

[@evaadam3635]

Choosing to be an Atheist is IMMORAL at the start because you are FREE-LOADING all the free bounties that you DID NOT CREATE, but you benefit and enjoy, because you have no GOD to thank to, no shame, no guilt, or no remorse which are traits common to sociopaths.... ...a sensible kind moral human being will at least assume that God exists whom he could give thanks to because he does not want to leave room for SOMEONE who could get hurt or disappointed just in case HE indeed exists... now, let me ask you: Is the "freedom to choose to believe in spiritual existence" a natural property of physical matter enslaved by nature ? If not, then isn't this un-natural "power to choose" is more than enough evidence to support the rational choice of belief that its origin is also un-natural or supernatural, saner than believing that your Consciousness is a product of Unconscious Bigbang out of NOTHING ?

[@TheoSkeptomai]

@evaadam3635 I didn't _choose_ to be an atheist. I am simply not convinced as to the truth of your baseless claim that this 'God' you've mentioned is a reality. I can NOT simply _choose_ that which I am convinced (or not convinced) to be true. So, correct this mistake of yours, and we can have a cordial discussion.

[@evaadam3635]

​@@TheoSkeptomai...yeah, I understand why you are posting things that you have no clue... you must be contaminated by many of these Atheists now who redefine so many things such as making gullibles to believe that man can get pregnant now... ...and now you want to redefine Atheism from its original meaning as a Choice NOT TO BELIEVE in the existence of God, into sorry , I just do not know, I can't decide, trying to appear Agnostic because Agnosticism has more IQ... ..if you want an honest discussion, why can't you be honest, why lie ?

[@evaadam3635]

​@@TheoSkeptomai..by the way, as I have already repeatedly shared here that Faith in a Loving God is not a claim of knowledge of fact but a BELIEF for lack of fact but for a good reason because of the existence of our supernatural Awareness with FREE WILL TO CHOOSE that could only originate from Supernatural SOURCE saner than your UNCONSCIOUS BIGBANG... ,..so, where did you get this LIE that I have claimed to know GOD ? You see, this is another proof that you are posting without a clue...

[@TheoSkeptomai]

@@evaadam3635 Have a great night. Peace.

[@AnarchoReptiloidUa]

Great vid. Thank you for your great channel. ❤❤❤❤❤

[@joelharris4399]

Considering "New Atheism" the movement in part emerged as a response to the events of 9/11, to ask the question seems rather belated in my opinion, considering some of the figures Hitchens, Bennett and Victor Stengel have bitten the dust

[@haydenwalton2766]

dennett

[@joelharris4399]

@@haydenwalton2766 typo😁

[@asyetundetermined]

The video is likely 10 years old at this point.

[@williambranch4283]

I met one online once? Denies theology, philosophy and psychology as well.

[@pierrec1590]

Religion is the first attempt of mankind to understand and explain the world. We have made progress since those early times, but not everybody has followed progress uniformly. Contrary to science, religion does not easily tolerate change because it is dealing with certainties, and these should never change. Which is the wisest, he who says I know everything, or the one who claims he knows nothing?

[@haudace]

The primary human drive which led to things like religion never truly disappeared. History shows that Christianity will perhaps fade away but it will most likely be replaced by some other type of faith based belief. Secularism is not guaranteed.

[@GM-o6i]

It seems to me that there is not only New Atheism but also New Theism.

[@MAO-ib9tc]

A wise person once said "philosophy is as useful to science as ornithology is to ducks"

[@alexeykulikov2739]

Stupid is a poor argument, regardless of smart attire

[@jamesnasmith984]

One senses a cosmos with an x,y,z,t point origin but “god creator” smacks of an anthropomorphic, tale from antiquity.

[@Bill_Garthright]

I enjoy the cosmology videos by Phil Harper. (His most recent has two cosmologists debating about whether the so-called "Big Bang" was really the beginning of things.) I'm no cosmologist, and I don't pretend otherwise, but I'm fascinated by all of the wild hypotheses which cosmologists consider (so far, with not enough evidence to tell which, if any, of them is actually true). My point is just that I've come to realize that what _seems_ reasonable to me isn't necessarily what's true. :) Unfortunately, my own experience on Earth isn't especially useful when it comes to using common sense to judge the origin of the universe, let alone the cosmos. Heh, heh. (I imagine you agree with that. Certainly, I agree with _your_ comment.)

[@thomasridley8675]

Even absolute certainty and faith has never made a god real. But their god must be that one very convenient exception.

[@anaccount8474]

Who's he talking about?

[@LuisManuelLealDias]

Is this interview 15 years old or something? This issue has been resolved and largely won by the atheists that long ago.

[@asyetundetermined]

“Boy, we really had a good run there during the dark ages didn’t we?” Additionally, “Oh, it’s not about evidence for me, it’s just about coming up with a plausible enough story to feel as though I have an answer. I’m very frail and frightened by the not knowing, you see.” Hell, at least this guy is honest.

[@thesoundsmith]

If you are in fear of being sent to Hell when you die, confession is good for the soul. ESPECIALLY at election time. IF you believe there will be an afterlife. why do you still "sin?"

[@justinhartnell6779]

You're a brave one.

[@asyetundetermined]

@@thesoundsmith I’m not entirely sure what it is you’re intending to say

[@asyetundetermined]

@@justinhartnell6779 indeed. The audience on this channel is passionate and divorced from reality. Their ability to bs knows no bounds. Everyone is so special.

[@justinhartnell6779]

Well, this is confusing...

[@MarkPatmos]

The universe self-forming without design, life from non-life, consciousness emerging from purposeless matter in motion, apparent purpose and design where there shouldn't be any, there are a lot of gaps in materialism that have nothing available to fill them according to materialism.

[@dougsmith6793]

[mark]: "The universe self-forming without design, life from non-life, consciousness emerging from purposeless matter in motion, apparent purpose and design where there shouldn't be any, there are a lot of gaps in materialism that have nothing available to fill them according to materialism." Can you provide any example at all of consciousness that is not also inextricably tied to a very specific type of material / physical structure? This appears to be more of a gap in your own personal understanding than it is a gap that supposedly materialism can't fill. So, you're making the usual case for God-of-the-gaps here.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Simon here, a man who comments often, the other day he replied to be saying that he does, sort of, acknowledge a Cause - for there is no way to deny the Primordial Cause(God) - of some kind or type, and he stated to me that he see's no reason in why the appellation in 'God' should be given to it. And that's fine, that's who he is. But...if one is going to critize, particularly denigrate, and not only somebody, some group or an organization, but the very power and life force of all, that which is the substratum of all, that in which we learn of this universal government, celestrial order, Reason and purpose, man's dinivinity, natural order itself etc. such a person should make sure, and even go out of their way to confirm, that they aren't in the wrong, or else they'll run away from mortification, for their entire lives they've been lost believing in lies, it would be too painful to confront such principles now. But it's not even that difficult. For man cannot deny the Primordial Cause, there's no such logic, and everything we know of is ultimately the property of this Primordial Cause - atheists treat science as if it were deity and all such science its property, which is fallacy - only theories that are inaccurate concerning this absolute principle can be eschewed or reprimanded. For me, man's realization of his Divinity is principle in man's life, so man can enquiry his very being, what he is a part of, where he comes from, so activating his Dharma, thus man lives in abidence with natural order. For atheists, because of their poor fund of knowledge and sub par iq's, they make up in their minds reifications and rationalization's in: people believe in God because they afraid, or believing in an after life so they can better get through their days. For God is important in that we realize mercy, because man learns through trial and error, we must allow mistakes and know that man is not perfect, and thus we now have understanding and even forgiveness. For the Divine is important in that we realize truth, justice, conviction, and the good, for time is not for wasting, nor is the good in life to be taken for granted, but a wise man would consider, reflect and seek out what exactly this good is in this here very universe. For God is important in that we refrain from extolling our ego's from being tyants and acknowledge a grand and magical universal power that the mind can't fully grasp, but should not be said to be redundant, for materialists will, once again, apply such lies for in their reifications and rationalizations - the ego by default self preserves; such a man limited to his ego denies all so to protect his mental paradigm...and in the bible, when such a paradigm comes crashing down is known as tribulation. All men have to go through this. It's the only way a man be reborn.

[@aiya5777]

here you go again keep on squabbling boy

[@S3RAVA3LM]

@@aiya5777 yes, that is a very substantial posit, and thx you, truly for sharing.

[@aiya5777]

@@S3RAVA3LM it's getting on your nerves, isn't it?

[@S3RAVA3LM]

@@aiya5777 maybe. But what does really bug me is when grown adults share their anti divine bs so influencing younger people who, going through the turbulence times in life, may be looking for meaning, reason and purpose for understanding what their in and experiencing. There's grown adults here who are anti intellectual yet feel they fit into the domain of science just because they deny God yet have no explication or exposition. Persons can believe what they one, nobody has a right to deceive people from realizing their Divinity.

[@aiya5777]

​@@S3RAVA3LM ok

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Here, we have a man in Keith Ward who does value wisdom and knows of its implications. What this man can apprehend is what many cannot, and that's fundamentally simple logic concerning truth and justice, the very substratum of all - for what is truth is just and what is just is truth. For many can observe and even experience attributes but not the principles; in recognizing such, the attributes and the like, in the very governing organization powers present on both the macro and microcosmic level we learn of the principle that is Harmony, that is antecedent and is the intelligible Cause of all governing powers. The Unknown, the supernatural or the immaterial isn't made up, but is based on everything the tool in science has helped us see snd comprehend, and the differentiation between natural and supernatural is not even real but made up in the minds of men, for the mind can't quite grasp the absolute truth, and due to the minds delimitation humans think they're cute in denying GOD, the one, Agathon, Brahman, but in reality, such persons only displace the intellect and reason with their arbitrary existential reification in a conditioned mind - meaning: such persons aren't smart. Such are people who need others to have a voice for them because without a group to tenaciously cleave to they really don't have a clue nor a spiritual compass to guide them; it's been oppressed by their tyrant ego, such as in the Bible Cain vs Abel, for the carnal mind always comes to destroy the Spirit. Anything Divine the evil seeks to destroy, as it feeds off of it. In reality, in Truth, in Justice and in Wisdom, there is no such thing nor anything plausible input or evidence that could ever support atheism - it's like a fire feeding off of wood to keep itself alive. Anybody who denies the Divine are to be shunned. And this doesn't mean supporting that 'rizwan rafeek' proselytizing muslim extremist. For the Divine light hasn't the ego tyrant.

[@haydenwalton2766]

what are we talking here - deism or theism. you've done enough smuggling already

[@Bill_Garthright]

Sorry, I'd like to reply to this, but I fell asleep halfway through. :) Pardon my humor, please. But seriously, WTF??? Do you have *anything* distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing up your god belief? How about *one* example, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself? Because, sorry, wishful-thinking simply isn't enough for me. That's why I'm an atheist. _Maybe_ a god exists. _Maybe_ it's even the specific god you were taught to believe as a baby. But the time to believe that is _after_ there's good evidence backing it up. Because - for me, at least - wishful-thinking simply isn't enough.

[@michaelboguski4743]

I think the point is, that not knowing the ultimate answers explaining existence remains. Of Singularity (so-called Black Holes) is as good as it gets; and Stephen Hawking tried mightily.

[@eustacequinlank7418]

Does a 'New Atheism' mean not thinking about why God doesn't exist all the time? I truly feel sorry for Richard Dawkins in a way, his entire identity is centred around "God" still and he will _never_ escape that now. He still retains his absolutes though, he's not much different than a dogmatised theist.

[@markstipulkoski1389]

What he is dogmatic about is not injecting the supernatural into the study of the natural. That's called disciplined, un-muddled thinking.

[@asyetundetermined]

@@eustacequinlank7418 equating two distinct and imbalanced positions is unfailingly a tactic employed by advocates of the weaker

[@eustacequinlank7418]

@@asyetundetermined Sounds like gobbledegook. Though please explain. edit: Am I being 'shamed' into to indulging one blinkered position over the other? No thank you.

[@asyetundetermined]

@@eustacequinlank7418 you are not being shamed, I’m merely making an observation. Where there are two competing ideas/agendas/factions, the one proclaiming that each is the same invariably comes from the weaker of the two.

[@realitycheck1231]

God is an idea of perfect, "universal" love. This real idea has always existed. Consciousness is also an idea. It's a false idea in something other than only perfect, universal love. But, any loving thoughts are real, and fearful thoughts are considered unreal or illusions/delusions. We normally don't consider extremely loving people as delusional, but most of us do consider extremely negative or fearful people (extreme conspiracy theorists, phobias, etc) as unreal or delusional. Why? Because there is a lack of love in these particular people. The difference between us and God, is that God (universal love ) considers any form of fear (war, division, disunity, hate, etc) as delusional. Only love is real and anything other than love is not a sin but a delusion, and delusions call for us to be more loving rather than punishing. I'm only explaining and not saying that I necessarily agree, obviously.

[@Henri-y8t]

@@realitycheck1231 Hi Realitycheck , I say again My love and care about you 😎 Philippe

[@nilanjanchatterjee6507]

Truth = Divine-X 😊

[@Maxwell-mv9rx]

Envolve in Nature reality need figure out reality but It is inconsistency with random reality. However take place consciousness keep It out. Atheism is NOT true evidence from mislead funcions of the brains.

[@anteodedi8937]

As an atheist myself, what I don't like about the new atheism movement is its anti-theistic/religionistic flavor. It demonizes/derogates all religious people to the point it becomes a catalyst for tribalism. It hurts atheism itself as people start to identify atheism with this particular subset and the burden falls on intellectually serious atheists to clean all the mess. It's also the part that they don't seriously address the theistic arguments, but I think that's of less importance. Though if we want to be fair, the same phenomenon happens on the theistic side as well. Fanaticism manifests itself everywhere.

[@simonhibbs887]

The main motivation for the new atheists wasn't philosophy, it was a reaction to political religious activism. Attacks on women's bodily autonomy, the imposition of religious doctrines and standards on education and research, the protection and obstruction of investigations of church figures from prosecution for abuse of children. Also generally the unfair advantages religious groups get in terms of legal and tax exemptions. They saw these as persistent attacks on secular civil society, and saw themselves as fighting back against these. If you watch interviews with them, those are the reasons they gave, and that Dawkins put in his books.

[@evaadam3635]

Atheists have claimed that they can be moral without God but, when life turns sour, pockets turn empty, or temper snaps, their true dark ugly color emerges to do heinous crimes that they never thought they are capable of doing. This is why no one should trust an atheist because they are no different than a ticking time bomb that can explode any time at their choosing because they have no God to worry... ...so, have you ever thought that the source of Atheists' mis-conducts that you have mentioned is the choice of being Atheists themselves... . perhaps, as an Atheist, you may not have done any wrong doing yet because your life is still good, pockets is full, temper is cool... ..and you may die clean thinking that you had done nothing wrong to your neighbors... but, are you really clean ? Just remember, you are free-loading all the free bounties you benefit and enjoy because you have no God to thank.. so, where will your soul be after death ?

[@anteodedi8937]

@@simonhibbs887 It was never confined to that. Dawkins and co dismiss religion wholesale as pure irrationality and the source of most of the evil in history. That's not intellectually honest and hinders a genuine debate. Compare Dawkins for a moment with Graham Oppy. The harm Dawkins has done to atheism becomes obvious. He is a good biologist and a good science communicator, though. I give him credit for that.

[@vladtheemailer3223]

Part of the problem is that mych of what is being ascribed to atheism or new atheism is actually the result of atheism plus.

[@NandKumar-qq3xk]

In a second stupid ? Is longest time's proff or day present butt to night gayab are you not ? Human forme was before you, stupid is past tance or present you ?

[@AlexanderR879]

All gods are man made. Period

[@sunyata4974]

Most people are unaware that physics and metaphysics have the same ontology. And the same natural law governing such ultimate reality. They are studying different aspects of the same reality. People who see conflicts have misunderstood them.

[@Jalcolm1]

Atheism, possibly new, is the conviction that killing others because of a sacred pact with an unforgiving deity, is a tragic mistake. There is no evidence that humans are above that. Surely by now, we’ve run out of excuses.

[@MagnumInnominandum]

The New Atheism is old enough to drink and buy firearms.

[@francesco5581]

new atheism is already almost disappeared by 2024 ... this video must be of at least 10 years ago. It existed only in the paradigm "reason vs religion !!" (and Kuhn still try to limit all to that) that now doesnt exist anymore .

[@paulbrocklehurst2346]

Well atheism still exists & since there's been so much more after 9/11 when the term was coined as a particularly noticeable increase in skepticism about religions it's certainly not going away. Especially with a war in the so-called "Holy Land" between Jews & Muslims who have always used their religious differences to justify killing one another. That's no something any atheist will martyr themselves for because unlike the God Squad, an atheist has everything to live for & nothing to die for.

[@simonhibbs887]

It's been absorbed into political discourse. New Atheism was a political movement, not a philosophical one. It was specifically a reaction to religious influence in politics and society such as women's bodily autonomy, interference in education and scientific research, and special legal exemptions for religious groups and practices.

[@francesco5581]

@@simonhibbs887 they didnt limit themselves to fight the evangelical aberration. They wanted to make money with all the debates, they wanted to sell books, they cherished their own persona, they wanted to decide what is rightful and what is not (Dennett did it even in his lasts months crusading against Tononi-Koch ). So they acted well beyond the "lets save freedom from evangelicals !!"... At the end they were obtuse and hateful no less than the very same evangelicals ...

[@paulbrocklehurst2346]

@@simonhibbs887*It's been absorbed into political discourse.* No it hasn't because atheism doesn't require any political affiliations whatsoever since an atheist can be left wing or right wing. That's because all there is to atheism is skepticism about god claims. *New Atheism was a political movement, not a philosophical one.* No it wasn't because people on the left or right don't believe god claims & being unconvinced by god claims isn't a political issue. *It was specifically a reaction to religious influence in politics and society such as women's bodily autonomy, interference in education and scientific research, and special legal exemptions for religious groups and practices.* No that's not true either because there are atheist who think abortion is acceptable just as there are ones which don't but don't take that on faith (why take anything on faith when anything could be?) Here's evidence for that which you can see with your own two eyes: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hmibkIlnj552hZY

[@simonhibbs887]

@@francesco5581 Oh they didn't just go after evangelicals. Islamic attacks on freedom of speech were a regular. Church interference in investigations into crimes against children. Presumably you are equally critical and in opposition to religious apologists and activists doing so professionally as well? Or in fact any and all political activists and pundits? Nasty slippery slope, that. As for 'decide what is rightful', Dennett was a professional philosopher. Having opinions on the projects of other professional philosophers was literally his day job.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

The man who seeath light shall never say he believeth or not believeth light. Only the blind sayeth he believeth or not believeth light. All beliefs are blind.

[@binucheriyan4492]

After enlightenment and modernity men can remain in faith and religion only by crusifying one's intelligence.

[@mockupguy3577]

There is no new atheism. There is atheism, it is age old.

[@evaadam3635]

...actually, there is something new in Atheism that you may notice... they are now confessing that they are not really wiser than the faithfuls, after all, whom they used to mock... they are now asking the Judges to free them from jail for the evil they commited because they are mentally damaged...

[@lipan315]

It seems that The void of unconsciousness in our mind needs to be filled up. The maybe right Uncertainty and the maybe wrong certainty, which one is better?

[@paulbrocklehurst2346]

How ridiculous is Keith Ward for criticizing Richard Dawkins on the grounds that he's calling an argument for a god Aristotle made (& not even the _Christian_ "God" which _he_ thinks exists) _"stupid"_ when it's irrelevant who makes an argument anyway. An argument stands or falls on whether or not it's well justified _never_ who makes it. If Aristotle's argument was as good as he's trying to imply here, why waist breath talking about Richard Dawkin's failure to address Aristotle's assertions & simply describe why Aristotle's claims are justified instead? I've read Keith Ward's atrocious book _What Do We Mean By 'God'?_ which was absolute drivel, & loaded to the hilt with circular reasoning & unsupportable assumptions. And why a Christian is being asked _What Is New Atheism?_ escapes me! Should Conservatives get to define Socialism or Socialists get to define Conservatism? No of course not! They get to define _themselves._ Atheists all agree that one thing they can _all_ agree about atheism is it's skepticism about _god_ claims but _theists_ can't even agree on their god / gods. Not even ones identifying as Christian since Catholics think their God is a 3 in 1 _'Trinity'_ (whatever that could really mean), Unitarians think God is singular & Morons think there are _lots_ of gods! (To say nothing of the Hindu & Sikh & Muslim or Zoroastrian etc. opinions I could mention!) Their disagreements remind me of the differences in opinion from people who believe aliens are visiting Earth in _flying saucers_ or _spherical craft_ or _cigar shaped objects_ etc! Well they can't all be right but they _can_ all be wrong can't they?

[@ahmedmuniyat9213]

Do you include atheists in "they cant be all be right but they can be false , right? " question ? One certain view has to be the truth, and even all the atheists are not homogeneous in their views . There are many different metaphysical beliefs amongst the atheists

[@paulbrocklehurst2346]

@@ahmedmuniyat9213 *Do you include atheists in "they cant be all be right but they can be false , right? "* Wrong because skepticism about being told there's a god isn't a claim is it? *question ?* Ask away... *One certain view has to be the truth, and even all the atheists are not homogeneous in their views .* No they're not but they _do_ all agree that there's no good reason to believe god claims. *There are many different metaphysical beliefs amongst the atheists.* Well maybe there are & maybe there aren't but the one thing they all agree on is there's no good reason to believe god claims. Have _you_ ever heard one? I haven't.

[@100percentSNAFU]

You make good points but don't apply them to yourself. Yes, there are a multitude of different theistic beliefs, but the all center around a common ground, that being belief in a higher power. You compared to political beliefs, and it's a good comparison, not every liberal person or conservative person is the same, and there are offshoots of each, but members of each group, while different, will have a common base. The same is actually true for atheism. The common ground is skepticism in a higher power, but it too comes in many forms. There are sectors of atheism that are outright combative with religion, ones that are purely skeptical, and ones that are as thoroughly convinced there is no God as the most devout theist is convinced there is.

[@paulbrocklehurst2346]

@@100percentSNAFU *You make good points but don't apply them to yourself.* Correct because not believing god claims isn't a claim but _all_ religions *are* claims & they can't all be true however they can all be _false._ *Yes, there are a multitude of different theistic beliefs, but the all center around a common ground, that being belief in a higher power. * Well they all believe there's a _being_ or _beings_ which created the universe but they can't all be true however they can all be _false._ *You compared to political beliefs, and it's a good comparison, not every liberal person or conservative person is the same, and there are offshoots of each, but members of each group, while different, will have a common base.* But the only similarity between _all_ atheists is they aren't convinced by god claims because that's all atheism is: skepticism about _every_ religion's god or gods claims & nothing else. *The same is actually true for atheism.* But skepticism isn't a _belief_ is it? *The common ground is skepticism in a higher power, but it too comes in many forms.* Not really or would you say that skepticism about say _mermaid_ claims also comes in many forms too? I wouldn't because all there is to skepticism about mermaid claims or for that matter any _god_ claims is finding them unconvincing since there's no good reason to believe _either_ of those assertions so why do so? *There are sectors of atheism that are outright combative with religion, ones that are purely skeptical, and ones that are as thoroughly convinced there is no God as the most devout theist is convinced there is.* But _none_ of those atheists believe god claims since there's no good reason to do so & that's _all_ there is to atheism as is the case with other forms of skepticism where no one can come up with any good reason to believe claims there are mermaids somewhere under the sea (or any other unsupportable claim like _mermaids_ or _gods_ etc.) Do you think there are many forms of mermaid skepticism too or do you agree that all there is to it is not being convinced by unsupportable claims they are there?

[@100percentSNAFU]

​@@paulbrocklehurst2346Disagree. You are just using lots of words to defend one position that you happen to agree with. Sure there are lots of different religions, but again every major one is centered around the same thing, belief in a higher power. Sure they can all be wrong, but what you don't account for is they can all be wrong AND atheists/skeptics can be wrong as well at the same time. There are only so many religions, yet a higher power or Creator could literally be anything that none of them acknowledge. "God" could be a guy sitting at a computer playing "Sim Universe". That's exactly why I am not religious. But I am also not an atheist. I find there are positives and negatives to both sides. But again I disagree that skepticism is somehow different and different rules apply. To me it's like the something vs nothing argument featured frequently on this channel. It's been said by some that nothing is only one possible state of countless states, therefore it is statistically infinitely impossible. Obviously that's one of many opinions but it's one that makes sense to me. It's the same, in my opinion, with the higher power vs nothing argument. There is only one state of no higher power, but countless states where the higher power could be nearly anything. And using that argument, religions are most likely wrong as well because each one only focuses on their perceived state of God. Either way, I again think you make some good points in your argument. I don't agree with some of it, but it does make for an intelligent debate and that's really all you can ask for.

[@Arunava_Gupta]

For me the problem with the new atheists is opposite to that with the bigots. For the new atheists logic and rationality have become like an acid that has wiped out not only wrong conceptions but also their entire intellect!

[@simonhibbs887]

New Atheism wasn't about philosophy, it was a reaction to religious interference in the law, particularly on women's bodily autonomy, but also interference in education, in scientific standards and funding, and special legal exemptions for religious groups. It was mainly a defence of secular civil society. If you watch interviews with any of it's proponents when they're asked what their motivation is, these are the reasons they give.

[@Arunava_Gupta]

@@simonhibbs887 fair point Simon although I do feel some developed allergy for anything related to God thinking it's irrational and illogical.

[@Arunava_Gupta]

I think some like Hitchens maybe did regard God as metaphysically impossible.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@Arunava_Gupta As atheists they of course were critical of theological thinking, but if that’s all there was to it I don’t think they would have bothered with any of their activism. The motivation for that was what they saw as the religiously motivated undermining of secular society.

[@LuuLuong-bn8iy]

😂😂😂😂

[@LucianTSkeptic]

One of the few videos in this series that deserves a thumb's down.

[@kierenmoore3236]

Wow, David Mitchell got really old … and stupid …

[@haydenwalton2766]

spoken like a true priest. when would anyone expect a theist to be intellectual honest on these matters ?

[@Henri-y8t]

Hi, God the creator of all and even beyond canot comunicate with each of you anyway the form of communication that we do right now so, reagarding me Philippe 😎 I am what is the closes thing of what God creator is as human form. Sure you can say that I am juste a copy of the copy since human being as is 9 generation long time ago that I am comunathing with humanity back then, some time it was My FATHER voice and a form of light that was to intense to watch but most of time it was Me human as each of you with some abilities that My FATHER give me, but now because those prophetic time that actualy are real I have the full abilities that My FATHER AS. Dont forget that My knowledge and experience are the same that My FATHER AS, all those mission if you want that I did My FATHER do not intervien into My choice instead I as him to do it. So, those who are idiot will call me the copy of the copy but the majority will still call me Philippe 😎 love and care about each of you,have the most of your Day

[@realitycheck1231]

Hi. Thank you for always being so positive. Everytime I read your posts I smile.

[@winstonoboogie2424]

The futility of humanity is all right here in the comments section. No wonder we have world wars, genocides, starvation, greed. The existence of a god is literally all we can hope for.

[@simonhibbs887]

I don't think anyone in the comments section has the power to stop or start wars, or are representative of people who can. Fortunately. Still, I do get your point.

[@evaadam3635]

Wars or No Wars, if you have sincere faith in a Loving GOD you have a place in Heaven.... those who have no faith at all will return to cold dark emptiness (hell) - an absence of God's grace... ...wars, starvation, calamities, physical deaths, diseases can never destroy your immortal soul... only losing faith or without faith in a Loving GOD can hurt your immortal soul...

[@TheoSkeptomai]

Are you suggesting that atheists, such as I, have contributed to those human plights you've mentioned?

[@evaadam3635]

​@@TheoSkeptomai..not a suggestion but a fact that thousands and thousands of lives from all over the world have been ruined EVERY DAY by Criminals who are not the likes of Mother Teresa... where have you been, from planet pluto ?

[@TheoSkeptomai]

@@evaadam3635 Are you suggesting that atheists, such as I, have contributed to those human plights you've mentioned?

[@TimBitts649]

We evolved for religion. You know what we did not evolve for? Atheism.

[@simonhibbs887]

There might be some truth to that. It seems likely theism is a generalisation of our tendency to think in terms of intentional causes, for evolutionary reasons.

[@mikel5582]

Our ancestors also had tails but that trait proved to be a waste for intelligent, bipedal organisms. Evolution isn't about what worked yesterday, it's driven by what will work tomorrow.

[@TimBitts649]

Richard Dawkins is a cultural Christian. I think I might be a cultural evolutionist.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@mikel5582 Well, what actually works today, but I agree with the basic sentiment.

[@evaadam3635]

...I suspect you must be thinking that Atheists evolved from hell, not from earth... ..anyway, their is no evolution...it is a false theory they concocted to give justification for being irresponsible and unaccountable... every evil act is not their choice but just how they became to be as accidental product of evolution to no fault of their own...

[@angel4everable]

God was here but left early: No important philosopher has taken monotheism seriously since Descartes. The arguments for the existence of God, ontological, cosmological, design, and teleological, have remained the same since Aristotle, with an equal chance of plausibility: none. What has changed is the way science has risen as an alternative explanation for the jobs the Old One, as Einstein called Him, was supposed to do.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Good day fellow rival. Your first comment implies God participates in time. No genuine Metaphysics or philosophia supports such. Kant and hume are not Philosopher's, they're existentialists - opposite of important. The question of God's existence is fallacy - you're implying God participating in time. God doesn't exist like any existential thing. God is the substratum of all that exists. Clearly you don't know what 'exists' even means. The principles do not change only our theories concerning them. Modern science Nikola Tesla and others critized. For science didn't rise it was hijacked in the early 1900's - science was only ever a tool for the metaphysician and Philosopher's. Persons like you will extol science today for it's technological feats, but you won't tell the truth of which without Tesla we would have the technology we have today; had it not been for the Greeks we may not have science in what it is today. You reference einstein here, as he's a relativist like yourself, but the man compares not to the gods of field theory. There's no substance in all that you posit. You're even incapable of acknowledging the track record of science: it is subject to revision. Treating science as if it were deity and all of nature as it's property, is exactly why you're clown.

[@c_n_b]

@S3RAVA3LM If god doesn't participate in time then the universe must have always been, meaning there is no need for a god at all.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@S3RAVA3LM I'm pretty sure that first sentence was a joke. Personally I'd put the origin of modern science with Galileo. Not due to his discoveries, which were many, but he was the first person to describe and practice what we now know as the scientific method.

[@angel4everable]

@@S3RAVA3LM You've obviously never read Irwin Shaw, or understand the concept of a pun.

[@befast1973-g2f]

Quantum theory is just God the gaps, unless you prove otherwise

[@evaadam3635]

Quantum Theory is founded by "Uncertainty Principle Theory"... ..in other words Quantum Theory is the theory of " I DO NOT KNOW" that only people who does not know anything can understand...

[@aiya5777]

​@@evaadam3635 you're like copy pasting your 💩 everywhere 😂🤣