New Atheism Is Full of Sh*t (Dr. Ed Feser)

[@marilynmelzian7370]

A long time ago, I transcribed a lecture about how to deal with difficult people. The psychologist argued that there were two main mistakes. One was to escalate the situation by being a bully. The other was to escalate the situation by being passive. He said the best tactic is to meet the difficult person with equal intensity but without rage.

[@hiswill-r122]

This is the best comment I have read all week. I needed to read that. Thanks!

[@Dolberroa77]

Actually, this is so helpful beyond the context of this debate. Thank you

[@wet-read]

So, the implication here is that atheists are "difficult" people?

[@njhoepner]

OR...you could try dealing with the actual argument. Just a thought.

[@SOX-9]

@@marilynmelzian7370 pls share the name of the lecture

[@cfban]

Dawkins' "central argument" is the most pathetic piece of wishful thinking I've ever read. It basically states "Darwin's theory of evolution exists. Therefore in the future there might be an equivalent hypothesis in physics. Maybe." I don't think this is an unfair representation.

[@Cklert]

That sounds like science of the gaps.

[@MalpheusTheMalefic]

As David Bentley Hart put it, he makes category errors so profound they border on the infinite

[@lucasetienne6573]

Wishful thinking ? Try theism, less data for its validity. We have more evidence that evolution by means of natural selection is true than we have that people breathe oxygen, literally true.

[@user-gs4oi1fm4l]

Wishful thinking indeed.

[@generichuman_]

Right... because the track record of science discovering new things is so poor right? Or maybe we should trust that the God explanation that was wrong about natural disasters, and disease, and crop failures, and lightning, and evolution, finally has it right this time...

[@aidandougherty2192]

Dawkins got famous because crappy opinions don't sound that bad when they're said eloquently in a British accent

[@TheoSkeptomai]

What is an example of one of his "crappy" opinions?

[@aidandougherty2192]

@TheoSkeptomai One example is that he said he likes living in a Christian culture, but things the decline of Christianity in the west is a good thing. That's like saying you love bread, but not caring that the bakery is shutting down

[@lohi172]

Ikr? Lol I’ve thought that before, like would they’ve been as popular if they had the General American accent (think stereotypical, neutral News anchor accent)?

[@CarapaceClavicle]

@@TheoSkeptomai “God not real cause universe big” “God not real cause bad thing happen” “God not real cause monky” “God not real cause he have no own God” “God not real cause bad thing feel good” and many more.

[@generichuman_]

He actually got famous for being an evolutionary biologist and wrote many books on the subject where he never touched the topic of religion. None of these which you've read might I add...

[@FenixAzulPT]

When I first watched the debate between WLC and Hitchens in Biola University, I was 15 years old and as undecided as one could be on the question of God's existence. After that debate, my mind was set and I didn't change from there. I had just started lessons in philosophy and one of the first things my teacher taught me was to learn to extract the actual arguments out of a rhetorical discourse, so that I could evaluate the CONTENT lying underneath the FORM. I won't lie, Hitchens's declarations and rebuttals shook me and made me consider his position. But once I cooled down and tried to look for arguments, I didn't find anything while WLC's arguments were crystal clear. 12 years later, and I am now a Catholic priest. The New Atheism movement was trash and it's a shame that too many people didn't see it. And I thank Dr. Feser for his contribution to fight it 🙏

[@marcolorenti9637]

The fear of dying got the better of your rationality.

[@MrStaano]

But the best argument is; there is no proof any god or religion is actually real..... Thats the bases atheists like Dawkins operate on. And it true. Isnt it?

[@Freethinkingtheist77]

​​@@marcolorenti9637The 'fear of dying' argument is an extremely simplistic argument worthy of the New Atheists themselves.

[@Athens2021]

Ignorance is bliss 😅, good for ya,

[@ericgofreed1651]

You should have studied harder.

[@CheddarBayBaby]

New Atheism was a publishing phenomenon that had the added effect of pulling many people from the church who have not yet come back. Saying that ‘New Atheism is dead’ is the same triumphalism of saying ‘the Black Plague is gone’ standing in an empty medieval village. It was one discreet phenomenon but it has borne many effects, some of which have not been reckoned with.

[@bearistotle2820]

Very fair point. Many are still lost, and I personally have quite a few friends that still put forward their rhetoric as convincing.

[@TheoSkeptomai]

​@@bearistotle2820What do you mean that "many are still lost?"

[@newglof9558]

Actually a very solid point.

[@TheoSkeptomai]

@@CheddarBayBaby Are you willing to answer some straightforward questions concerning your comment?

[@TheoSkeptomai]

@@bearistotle2820 What is an example of this rhetoric?

[@kentadamson6992]

Really enjoyed this video. I have followed the New Atheist movement since it started. I noticed the same thing Dr. Feser notices here. Dawkins, Hitchens etc...spoke with a lot of confidence. However, if you actually listened to the arguments themselves, they really didn't refute God or faith at all. It was mostly ad hominem and straw man attacks towards people of faith.

[@tomgreene1843]

The smartest Atheist I have come across is Graham Oppy ...a serious thinker ...his debates with Feser are on utube. Blind watchmakers, ungrounded behaviour , and self illusion is for many rather unconvincing.

[@StoneAgeWarfare]

They always have this tendency to compare Jesus to simplicity of a myth like ancient volcano gods. It's dishonest.

[@marcolorenti9637]

Or maybe you want to suppress reality pretending to dismiss what they say, because it bursts your comforting bubble of supernatural BS?

[@bearistotle2820]

@@marcolorenti9637 No, I read "God is not great". Not only is it full of ahistoric nonsense, but Hitchens case against Christianity was nothing. He didn't understand what he so loudly proclaimed that he was rejecting.

[@ZacharySimLumactod-x2e]

I’m just curious how personally attacked you feel by how much you’re coping on this comment section. You must feel so attacked because you spew the same idiocy as Dawkins that you feel the need to defend your nonsense. Dawkin’s main argument in the God Delusion was “If God real, who created God?” This is laughable especially if you’ve read an ounce of Feser’s Aristotelian-Thomism on the First Way. Dawkins is not taken seriously in philosophy of religion, he’s only taken seriously by idiots like you.

[@sandstorm7768]

Never personally attack the person or put them down as stupid, but don't be afraid to clearly state there's harm or faulty logic behind a claim or ideology.

[@airinkujo3207]

exactly which why it gets on my nerves when i either side calling each other fools, where is the charity in that!? what good is calling someone a moron going to do if anything they will get more defensive and you lose chance a thoughtful and engaging dialogue.

[@vincomortem]

@@airinkujo3207How is it contrary to charity to be honest about the fact that the opponent is in fact stupid. Sometimes people are stupid, this would just be an objective statement of fact

[@ZacharySimLumactod-x2e]

You are correct, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Denett and atheists in general are imbeciles. Most of them don’t even know what atheism is, their simple mental faculties were influenced by Anthony Flew and they don’t even know it.

[@njhoepner]

That is the best way to deal with christian apologetics.

[@airinkujo3207]

@vincomortem a fool is person who is ignorant and/or stubborn in their sinful ways, most people would get defensive if they are labeled as such. it is sure fire way to get their defense up and rather than them engaging your argument they might resort to insults to even out the score or to feel superior. if a person is being an ignoramus it better to point out to them their behavior is foolish rather than to reduce their human dignity by labeling them as a fool.

[@stillnessinmotion81]

This reminds me of a lesson I learned in kung fu; "never allow your opponent to become more aggressive than you." It took me a long time to understand this but I finally do.

[@Druffmaul]

Makes perfect sense in martial arts. Not so much when dealing with facts and truth. Bullshit doesn't suddenly become true at some "aggression threshold."

@@Druffmaul which misses the point. truth can't prevail if it is mumbled.

[@Druffmaul]

Truth is truth regardless of who speaks it or how it's spoken.

[@georgwilliamfriedrichhegel5744]

My theory is that the New Atheist movement was impactful because it came along at a time when a lot of Christians had never been challenged in their beliefs before...pre-internet many Christians could go their whole lives living in a bubble and never encountering any significant challenge. This created a situation where 1) believers weren't quite ready for it yet and 2) people who weren't super into Christianity suddenly had support (or "support") for their feelings and ideas. Personally, I remember reading Dawkins in high school and thinking "That's it?"

[@MarshallWootton-yw4tz]

I definitely agree with the beginning half. The new Atheists movement came about at a time where religious challenge didn’t really exist in the larger countries like USA and Britain. This led to many who really didn’t practice their faith in the way that their religion says to fall into the New Atheists movement. I believe the same thing happened around the World Wars, where religious people got comfortable in their bubbles, then pop, they’re unable to defend their beliefs.

[@danielhicks4826]

I didn't bother reading any of that nonsense for me it's as simple as oh this edgy wise atheist says God is not real guaranteed because its dumb apparently.... and simultaneously claims Humans "evolved" from dang amphibians gabillions of years ago....Thats absurd if anything my faith is more reassured now lol. But I get it and it is good to read things written by ideologues who despise you and you them sometimes.

[@Autobotmatt428]

Also in the aftermath of 9/11 when anti religious sentiment was high. Also the Bush years. Islamic terrorism and many other factors made it the perfect for those guys to write those books and become popular. Also it was around the time youtube started.

[@markdwolf3198]

​@@danielhicks4826but what is less absurd is a god belief? Or talking donkeys, or a global flood, or heaven and hell, or justified belief in slavery, killing entire communities except for the virgins, the creation story, we all come from Adam and eve ( which would make us all inbred) which is genetically impossible, the complete lack of historical evidence for almost every event in the Bible, people don't rise from the dead ( this is a medical fact).... And on and on and on

[@RaddyC]

I agree. I’m in my late 20’s so I am barely able to remember a time before the internet. When I was around 12/13, a kid in my class told me he was an atheist. I was gobsmacked. I practically couldn’t wrap my head around it. It was borderline inconceivable. I remember him asking me question after question and having no answers to any of them. Fun fact that kid’s now a staunch orthodox Christian and married.

[@tedh9870]

Asking someone to prove their claim that god exists is not aggression.

[@KaylieChloe]

*I'm favoured only God knows how much I praise Him,* $230k every 4weeks! | now have a big mansion and can now afford anything and also support God's work and the church.

[@KaylieChloe]

Only God knows how much grateful i am. After so much struggles I now own a new house and my family is happy once again everything is finally falling into place!!

[@AlisaAndersons]

@@KaylieChloe Wow that's huge, how do you make that much monthly?.. I have been looking for ways to be successful, please how??

[@KaylieChloe]

It's Ms. Evelyn Vera doing, she's changed my life.

[@KaylieChloe]

I started pretty low, though, $5000 thereabouts. The return came massive. Joey is in school doing well, telling me of new friends he's meeting in school. Thank you Evelyn Vera, you're a miracle.

[@DavidDexterDD]

@@KaylieChloe Wow...I know her too she is a licensed broker and a FINRA agent she is popular in US and Canada she is really amazing woman with good skills and experience.

[@Dsquareddyson]

Wilson’s debate documentary with Hitchens (“Collision”) is fantastic

[@mariachacin557]

Would love to see Ed Feser and Sam Harris in a debate

[@njhoepner]

I'm not sure it would go that well for Feser. He's basically making the same arguments as William Lane Craig, with more fancy logic language to make it seem smarter. In the end, he simply has to assert without evidence that his "underlying substrate" is omniscient and loving and all that...just tacks on to the end of his various "proofs" with not one bit of reason as to why it has to be so. WLC does the same, just tacks it on to the end of the Kalam without any justification or support. It's laughable.

[@munashemanamike4217]

​@@njhoepner this comment has to be ironic ☠️

[@issaavedra]

​@@njhoepner Harris is essentially philosophically illiterate. He (and you) presupposes material reductionism and evaluate evidence from his previously assumed worldview. The fact that he is unable to understand what he is doing is amazing.

[@njhoepner]

@@munashemanamike4217 Not remotely.

[@LogosDIA]

Sam Harris is a pseudo intellectual when it comes to philosophy. Feser would annihilate him. That being said i think atheists like Alex Malpass and Jeffery Jay Lowder would likely do much better and point out huge flaws in Fesers worldview.

[@ludovicoc7046]

Fradd setting Feser on stun.

[@jacobscholtissek2410]

the bigest fault of christianity was, that we let us presented in a fairytale manner, at least in germany i got tought Genesis but it really was a fairytale not the WORD. 5 years ago when we had to stay inside i read my family Bible, and it was so clear from that moment that i cant believe i had never been taught it.

[@danielhicks4826]

Any Christian who accepts there claim of Evolution for example may as well already concede to atheist nonsense, for example, not only is no it is not even remotely settled proven "science" in fact the claim a Human literally evolved from an ape ancestor which going back further itself evolved from an amphibian is sci fi nonsense at best, outright deception at worst, so any time a Christian conceded that they essentially open that door for these types of Atheist to worm their way in. Anyways you make a very good point.

[@danielhicks4826]

One cannot have it both ways can either believe the Bible the claimed word of God as intended Genesis and all, or not it cannot be two opposing things so stuff like that tricks like that is one of the many ways they weaseled into children and teens lives because so many of their parents themselves may have got duped or gone to a compromising church that started to be like oh well I guess we did "evolve "from a fish they said its settled science well ok we can just get rid of genesis but the rest is good.....then after that oh well the tide is turning I guess we can tolerate and say Homosexuality is actually super awesome and not a tremendous sin at all so let's throw that part of the Bible out....and etc. etc. until eventually there is nothing left except "fables "and metaphors" nothing literal a brilliant devils trick frankly and it worked like a charm, hence the oxymoronic modern absurdity that is so called "progressive Christianity" for example, but that's how they do it one must believe the whole Bible or none of it, it cannot be both ways, and personally I find the accounts of Genesis to make 10000000 times more sense than " fish ancestor trans mutated into ape human then gained consciousness over billions of years.

[@skierbinky]

No, our biggest fault was that we let ourselves replace understanding symbols, numerology and allegory with “empirical” explanations for things. You know how many Tolkien fans out there who are merely just soyboy coomers who are fans because big swords smash orcs in face? As opposed to the symbolism that Tolkien based the story on? Try explaining how Borormir’s death was a consequence for his lack of faith, and pride in himself, his family and his nation to one of these people, they cant comprehend

[@jacobscholtissek2410]

@@skierbinky i stand by fableasation and spiritualism.

lol wut? the bible is garbage and genesis IS a fairy tale.

[@carlcantrell4781]

Two things Dawkins uses for fooling ignorant and stupid people is 1) he uses lots of big Latin and Greek words to sound smart and 2) he uses a lot of artists' pictures that fool the ignorant and stupid people because they look so good even though they don't prove a thing.

[@AS-sn5gf]

Bro you've never taken a math or science course in your entire life.

[@marcolorenti9637]

Scientific facts don't require any "big Latin and Greek words" spoken by Dawkins to be credible. Sorry if that bursts your comforting bubble of gods, resurrections and afterlives in heaven.

[@njhoepner]

"Everyone who doesn't believe in an invisible magical superbeing who controls absolutely everything without leaving the least trace of evidence for itself is obviously ignorant and stupid...because only those who believe in magical beings can be SMART like ME!"

[@dariyababumalapati7144]

I know someone who used the same tactics: The Church.

[@markdwolf3198]

Maybe his vocabulary is too robust for your comprehension, that doesn't make you remotely close to being right. Pictures? He writes books

[@johncopper5128]

THank you.

[@damnitfrank1305]

Not only WLC give it to hitchens but John Lennox made him look foolish too

[@Wmeester1971]

"Not only WLC give it to hitchens but John Lennox made him look foolish too" In your dreams. WLC does not know what he s talking about when trying to fit science into theistic believes and Lennox making emotional appeals without any substance.

[@marcolorenti9637]

Aww sure..."Look at the trees! look at the sky!"...Enlightnening 🤦‍♂

[@damnitfrank1305]

@@marcolorenti9637 It truly is my friend.

[@DeshCanter]

@@marcolorenti9637 It’s actually simpler than that. Do you love anyone? Please give a scientific definition of love and reproduce it in a laboratory. Oh, you can’t do that? Then according to Christopher Hitchens it doesn’t exist. So if your kids ask if you love them, be consistent with your professed worldview and tell them you don’t affirm what can’t be proven scientifically.

[@njhoepner]

The only person John Lennox has ever made "look foolish" is himself. He's a walking talking pile of unsupported emotional assertions with a smug smile.

[@EstebanGunn]

But flying spaghetti monster. Checkmate, I win.

[@njhoepner]

Both have the same level of evidence.

[@EstebanGunn]

@njhoepner There is no evidence for the strawman that lives in my head.

[@danielhicks4826]

But your muh sky daddyyyy I win lol. Did you see that ohh I told that dumb person who believes in God hows your sky daddy doing oh man burnnn.

[@S.D.323]

At least he never drowned babies

[@jayv3264]

“If people are careful…if they pay attention to the way I…” That’s the problem. They aren’t careful and don’t pay attention-it’s a textbook example of projection. How do they see things out of their own rose-tinted glasses? They tell you.

[@davidskolik5303]

There is no such thing as New Atheism. Atheism is just not believing in supernatural hocus-pocus. As far as annoying goes, the way religious people mangle science to fit their beliefs.

[@danielhicks4826]

You mean like when they claim with a straight face it's been proven humans "evolved" from a fish ancestor ga billions of years ago.........wait a minute that's the other guys. Or claim biological sex is a "social construct" because there not only Godless but also spineless cowards and ideologues who gravel to a LGBT cult because they are spineless and don't want to rock that boat for some pathetic reason and actual Truth is far beneath ideology even for countless Atheist so called defenders of science.....

[@GlennHeston]

There is no atheist argument. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. It has nothing to do with whether a god exists or not. I also lack a belief in Santa, but I also don't think he exists. Those are 2 separate things.

[@DAMIANWHITE-z2b]

You have put that perfectly. pity that the endless parade of fanatical, angry christians dont actually read and understand it

[@michaeldeltz8229]

The atheists that find their way on KZbin do, in fact, make arguments. Most of the ones I encounter make the argument that there is no evidence for God. When I present the mountains of good evidence for God that believers use to support the faith they already have, almost never is that evidence carefully looked at and discussed. They often will resort to ad hominem attacks, not knowing that I do have a master’s degree in the field and know what I am talking about.

[@GlennHeston]

@@michaeldeltz8229 "Most of the ones I encounter make the argument that there is no evidence for God. When I present the mountains of good evidence for God that believers use to support the faith they already have, almost never is that evidence carefully looked at and discussed." Because you saying it's evidence, doesn't make it evidence. If it can stand up as evidence, then it's evidence. Do you actually think that you can produce evidence that NO ONE has ever tried to present as evidence before!? "They often will resort to ad hominem attacks, not knowing that I do have a master’s degree in the field and know what I am talking about." If you have a masters, then you should know the difference between what you think is evidence, and what really is evidence. And you'd know that evidence isn't just claimed to be evidence until it has endured scrutiny.

[@skierbinky]

Atheism is the rationalization for why one chooses not to worship God. Its a series of goalposts shifts and contractions. One of which being “iT DoESnT cLAim that God DoEsn’T ExISt, It ONlY cLaIms THeREs nO eViDeNce.” This is merely to deflect from its refusal and inability to be honest with itself, follow the consequences from not believing in God has, and to posit its actual positive position. Its the philosophical equivalent of cowardice and slotfullness

@@michaeldeltz8229 There is zero evidence for any gods. If there was you lot wouldn't need to make up ridiculous word salad to support your fantasies.

[@ImagoDigest]

Yet people like Dawkins still want Christmas, Easter, love of neighbor. “They say they want the Kingdom, but they don’t want God in it.” - Johnny Cash

[@Maksie0]

Christianity didn't invent any of those lmao

[@S.D.323]

Well maybe there's a God and maybe not if there isn't would you stop loving your neighbor why?

[@Colddirector]

So you want atheists to co-opt those holidays like the Christians did to the pagans?

[@gonzalovelascoc.2953]

@MattFradd, I think it would be amazing if you interview Dr. Allister McGrath 👍

[@kantarelljulletjolahopp5607]

@@gonzalovelascoc.2953 I second this!

[@Druffmaul]

Do you believe in Odin and Amon Ra? Welcome to atheism.

[@ComicRaptor8850]

Those gods don’t exist, that must mean no God exists at all!

[@Deckardcutspace]

Matching energy huh? Andrew Wilson has entered the chat

[@PetersPianoShoppe]

Important discussion about tone. Doesn't change the substantive issue though. I'm unconvinced by the fallacious arguments that have been put forth for god claims, and I've not heard any new ones.

[@skierbinky]

If you have your own positive beliefs that you wish to propose, then do so. Otherwise its not profound to try to refute something based on a view from nowhere.

[@PeterDobbing]

This kind of macho debate, whether neo-atheist or neo-theist, is a massive turn-off.

[@cunjoz]

you guys are still going on about new atheism...

[@billyg898]

Does anyone have a recommendation for a book like The Last Superstition, but not so rhetorically aggressive?

[@jurepotocnik5708]

The Three Little Pigs, but it is on a slightly higher intellectual level...

[@billyg898]

@@jurepotocnik5708 Thanks, I'll take a look!

[@benjaminpendleton7797]

It's amusing how Hitchens aggressively tried to silence any discussion of Communism's atheist foundation.

[@marcolorenti9637]

He tried what?

[@fentonmulley5895]

So communism came before the earliest atheist thinkers? Did communists plant fake historical writings and the evidence that would fool historians?

[@newglof9558]

​@@marcolorenti9637was the post unclear?

[@danielhicks4826]

Or the direct murder/death/kill count directly tied to the atheist founded Bolshevism/Marxism/Communism especially between the years say 1880-1960s....they literally ignore that or deflect the relevance of it and instead focus on the fricking Inquisition lol its absurd. yes that ol horrible inquisition there's proof see .....but what about the record number of genocide under specifically mandated atheist communist Marxists regimes the past century? oh well shut up plebe lol.

[@danielhicks4826]

@@marcolorenti9637 His kind tend to downplay not only the genocide/murder/oppression/death toll under Marxists/communist regimes the past century, but they also tend to totally deflect away or deny how the fact they were also mandated atheist states has any relevance on such things as well.

[@donnadeau7619]

New apologist movement is nothing without supernatural substance

[@Avinkwep]

I think the best atheist channel on KZbin is thenonstampcollector, I’m not an atheist but I enjoy some of his content

[@tcl379]

yeah, that’s the kind of language we need for the title of a podcast. yeah that represents Jesus.

[@hongotedesco8931]

I think one of the issues is trying to paint "new atheism" with a hodgepodge of what's been heard over time. In simple terms, "new atheism" is the same as "old atheism" except for one crucial distinction: no one can disprove god, so new atheism just says "I don't believe in god because I see no evidence for god" (as opposed to the old "there is no god"). But that's it. It's not a world view, not a religion, not trying to solve any problem, not offering anything. Different atheist thinkers will go on and on about this topic or that, but that's not really the gist of things. And no, there is zero proof of any god, not matter how much you just keep saying it. Not Aquinas, not anybody has come even close to proving any kind of god. All these arguments tend to be assumptive and/or circular.

[@Jake-mv7yo]

Proving a negative is hard/impossible but I really think God should have been put to rest when we learned the Earth goes around the Sun. Even Genesis says the Sun and stars were created at different times like the Sun isn't also a star.

[@Djamieson713]

I think a lot of Catholic scholars issues with new atheism is that they didn't really put much effort in to disproving God has critics from the past have done.

[@Jake-mv7yo]

@@Djamieson713 Proving or disproving God is pointless. What really matters is if people NEED God or not. When people are struggling with life they need God which is why religion isn't as popular in areas with high standards of living. In the end I don't think belief in God is a choice that someone can make. Either their life is good and they don't need it or their life is filled with stress and hopelessness and they need "God" to cope with it. That's why people get so upset when you tell them there is no God because they are depending on it to take their pain away. It would be like trying to take pain medication from somebody with chronic pain issues obviously they will cause an uproar over it.

[@doctorlove3119]

Spot on

[@markdwolf3198]

@@Djamieson713 god is an unfalsifiable position. Its akin to saying dragons are real, I have evidence, and the evidence ends up being books, pictures, stories, myths, movies that describe what a dragon is and does. But with all of that said, I can't prove dragons aren't real, or leprechauns, or unicorns, or gods.

[@NG-we8uu]

I gave the last superstition to my atheist uncle and he never read it 😅

[@scovafd]

Too be fair, this segment didn’t say anything at all. All he saying is “Dawkins is wrong and his views are fundamentally boring”. Thats all good and well, but why? He never once got into any details as to why Dawkins is wrong. Btw I’m a Christian. I’m just trying to help. This segment said nothing really

[@The_Scouts_Code]

Hitchens got taken to the woodshed by Craig.

[@djb5255]

Is this 2006??

[@joksal9108]

Feser is tough on twitter, but never nasty to be nasty. Some of his lefty interlocutors can’t say the same.

[@marlogue53]

You're doing invaluable work, congratulations.

[@jurepotocnik5708]

Anyone claiming 'xyz is dead' is (I will not say full of s***) very much full of themselves. That includes many prominent atheist and Christian apologists. Dawkins, Feser and Craig all fall into that particular category. Christopher Hitchens however was a marvelous human being. Unlike those other gentlemen, he was very comfortable saying 'I don't know'. And I have not seen his equal on the apologist side. Not even close.

[@IsaacCallison]

I tried to find a video of Ed debating an atheist to see if his arguments would hold up under scrutiny, and I couldn't find any. Curious. I have spent a good portion of my life desperate to find an argument that makes plausible the existence of benevolent deity, and so far, nothing passes muster.

[@nathaniel5261]

Well said. You’d think if that benevolent deity existed, he’d make it a priority to just convince everyone himself by just showing up and explaining it to us, especially when theres really no good excuse for him not to when you really think about it.

[@LogosDIA]

He debated (More like a conversation) Graham Oppy who is a well respected atheist on a first cause argument and i found Feser to be decent in that one, not perfect but it makes sense at the very least, oppy had some good points too. It didn't really go anywhere unfortunately. That being said he mainly "debates" in the form of blogs and whatnot so that's where you would be best to go. An agnostic philosopher like Joe schmid went into a "Blog battle" with Feser and i found Joe's case against Feser to be incredibly strong and Fesers responses to be pretty weak, with Feser eventually quitting responding.

[@thevanbeard]

Bullshit is bullshit lol.

[@williambranch4283]

23 years of echo chamber

[@waynemcauliffe-fv5yf]

And religious tomes aren`t mate

[@bdude93]

Ha! Its not bluster it’s just not the delusion that defies 1st grade logic…

[@ericlynn940]

"A lot of the things i write, i write because i am annoyed..." This quote around the 5:19 mark does not compel one to want to take interest in the topic or the author. I also recognize this could be a clip from a much longer interview. Is there an author or commentator out there that has referred to themselves as a New Atheist? This is a trend in the debate podcast world that is interesting to watch: label people something that they do not call themselves. This type of move will get clicks and views and sell books (which is a goal that makes sense), but if made up terms are needing to be used, the merits of the argument are already muddled and overshadowed.

[@atleelang4050]

The New Atheists were and are a distinct group of public figures who label themselves as New Atheists. You could have Google it.

[@PatricksBreastplate]

Don’t be churlish. It’s a term to refers to a group who emerged around the same time. Hardly unusual.

[@njhoepner]

@@PatricksBreastplate He's right though. Even if you're correct, it's a term invented by the opponents of that group as a means of disparaging them...probably because said group is effectively getting under their skin and they find themselves having to play defense.

[@Thomas-bq4ed]

You should be extremely suspicious of a guy who criticizes someone and doesn’t actually bring up a single argument. Saying New atheists are wrong because they are too confident, and don’t actually make an argument, why not address literally any actual argument. Critical race theory, “thank god I didn’t have to talk about it,” you wrote an entire book about it. It irritated you, but “you aren’t interested,” in it. Click bait Christian author no substance

[@kellyannebanks6026]

The purpose of this clip and context was to explain to a majority Christian audience why he takes a more aggressive approach with atheists than many of them would. If you want his arguments, you will not find them in the above context. That is not the purpose of the discussion. You have to go look at other videos of him or read his books for argumentation.

[@Thomas-bq4ed]

@ you have to buy his book, moments later they brush over a debate with Christopher Hitchens, they do the same thing. Saying how empty his arguments are, but don’t take a moment to mention a single one. If you want to pretend to be controversial and a bad boy being “mean,” but don’t want to actually talk about anything substantial I don’t see why you bother.

[@CarapaceClavicle]

@@Thomas-bq4edhave you read any of Feser’s books?

"new atheism" was 50 years ago way to keep up

[@michaelman957]

The New Atheists arguments are sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[@grantbartley483]

nothing sound about them, lol

[@billwilkie6211]

Dawkins is still out there repeating the same tired bromides to anyone weak enough to listen.

[@anna-y6e6b]

people always say the world will be a better place without religion. that's totally false. people's nature is chasing or following god, or money, or other addictive things. if no religion, then people will go after materials or alcohole or drugs or sex or any addiction you can think of. but the world needs the religion the true religion that is christianity that advocate love, mercy, forgiveness, meaning and salvation. is everyone follows jesus, i mean walk the walk, the world would be a much much better place.

[@marcolorenti9637]

Because ancient people were clueless and took refuge in fantasy. Nowadays the entire planet is connected and informed, that's why religions are dying.

[@cisuminocisumino3250]

@@marcolorenti9637 Religions are not dying, where are you getting this information from? Religion and spirituality have actually been increasing particularly New ageism and Islam.

[@Nidhogg13]

@@marcolorenti9637 Ancient people were not "clueless," you chronological snob. They were perfectly aware that people do not come back from the dead or get up and walk after a lifetime of being crippled. The fact that these things actually happened and were witnessed to the the point of death by those who saw it firsthand (11 of the 12 apostles) is a big part of what led Christianity to spread the way it did.

[@anna-y6e6b]

@@marcolorenti9637 that's totally false, yes, many people claim that they're not religious but they're spiritual, which shows that people naturally believe in something higher than themselves, something that beyond materials. again, only when you wholeheartedly seek the truth and also examine your own heart to know we're sinners, literally everyone is a sinner. if you admit this fact, then you're on the way to truth, to Christ. i just remember when i was told that i was sinner, i didn't agree with it at all. i was like, i didn't commit crime, i was never in prison. how come i was a sinner. so many non christian countries where people knew nothing about bible or jesus, most of them would never admit they are sinners, and i was one of them. because we think that as long as i don't break the law, we are not bad people. but we never thought, that does't make us good either. for example, walk away from a poor, or hate in our heart or can not forgive others or being shelfish, etc, we consider that is normal that is human nature, and because everyone is like that, so there is nothing wrong with. but it's wrong, we can not justify our heart just because everyone is cold or umempathy or selfish, it doesn't make it right. that is exactly why we all need Jesus. I don't care how people or christians may mispractice jesus's teaching, but our lord's teaching is the ultimate truth, if everyone of us on this planet no matter which country you're from follows jesus and practice his teaching, the world is a much much much better place.

[@marcolorenti9637]

@@anna-y6e6b People are not naturally spiritual, they are naturally clueless, incredulous and afraid of death. Progress leaves less and less space for supernatural BS each passing decade. The world would be a better place if everyone would follow science and ethics, instead of believing in thousands years old baseless supernatural doctrines about resurrecting people and talking snakes.

[@donnadeau7619]

Don't you wish Jesus had an English ascent ?

[@JackStraw-d8b]

8 minutes and nothing to counter new atheism, except annoyance and arrogance. Got it.

[@munashemanamike4217]

How about you read his book instead of crying and being sensitive in a comment section

[@JackStraw-d8b]

@ I might be more inclined to reading his book, if he said anything interesting in this clip. Is the crying and sensitive comment an insult? Or just your lack of being able to provide any insight.

[@penandsword4386]

@@JackStraw-d8b A religionist insulting an intellectual. It's as if you can't win with the Lord's chosen ---

[@issaavedra]

Those guys are philosophical illiterates. They basically presuppose material reductionism and filibuster about how silly beliefs look from their worldview. I mean, I fell for it before I studied philosophy, but the fact that they are considered serious intellectuals is depressing.

[@munashemanamike4217]

@@issaavedra please provide an example for this

[@patrickcaldwell9884]

I think the most embarrassing part about atheism is admitting that you were once a part of it. When you turn that sort of radical skepticism back on atheism itself, and find that it is largely the most intellectual flacid belief on the bookshelf, it is quite humbling. 😬

[@markh1011]

Do you understand what atheism is?

[@LogosDIA]

My favorite part about theism is how literally not a single christian can make the leap from generic deism/pandeism to a personal christian God without mental gymnastics and destroying the possibility of their own knowledge

[@flipjohnson5863]

I, as an atheist, could make a much better argument against new atheism than this projection and misrepresentation.

[@tonybanks1035]

nah, it was accurate really

[@flipjohnson5863]

@ except it wasn’t.

[@roywall8169]

I always found the new atheists to be shallow. When anyone challenged them to go one step past their thought process, they melted down.

[@brianmesser12]

Atheist only have not seen any evidence for your peculiar supernatural god.

[@bryanclem894]

Same could be said for theists. Both parties are tainted by their own bias.

[@brianmesser12]

@bryanclem894 atheism is only we have not seen any evidence for your peculiar supernatural god.

[@markdwolf3198]

@@roywall8169 ok, challenge accepted. Atheist here, there is no god or gods, never has been and never will be. All religions are based on the supernatural and mystic thinking, not in reality.

[@MarkH-cu9zi]

_" When anyone challenged them to go one step past their thought process, they melted down."_ I've never seen that happen once. You're either exaggerating or simply making things up.

[@xxunderforestxx]

Atheist is a person how understand god, gods as fictional character ..... santa claus for adults

[@CarapaceClavicle]

If that’s what you think you don’t understand what you’re denying.

[@Uteria_888]

Why do you hate me so much?

[@danieljacobs4200]

😂

[@jt55652]

😂

[@newglof9558]

How does one hate someone one does not think about?

[@moorfim]

The thing with new athiest, have change there arguments alot these past years. Either way, there argument for God have to come from order of nature and we Christians believe our God is Jesus whom indeed revealed himself through nature order. Who all historians confirm his existence and dawkins himself also confirmed that later on. But the God of bible we believe in is a spirit and he is outside nature order, so there question itself often exclude him.

[@goldenalt3166]

@@moorfim Jesus revealed himself through the natural order??? Why even bother with a physical human existence then?

[@moorfim]

@@goldenalt3166 Yes 2000 years ago and its prophecy his birth and to be raised. Why bother with physical existence? is in the bible. Its temporary time. Human existience is a gift from God.

[@TheoSkeptomai]

WAIT!! Are you asserting ALL historians confirm the historicity of Jesus?

[@goldenalt3166]

@moorfim You already knew about God from nature. The "prophecy" from 2000 years old is both pathetic and unnecassary, right?

[@newglof9558]

​@@TheoSkeptomaithe ones that matter and are not fringe weirdos like Richard Carrier do, yes

[@lnielse1]

New Atheism Old Atheism blah blah blah. The basic stance is the same. They don't find any theistic argument compelling enough to believe in a god. Any god. They're still waiting for an argument that can point to one. Waiting waiting waiting

[@WTC_2U]

"New Atheism", oh c'mon. You're treating it like a belief system, It is not. Stop it. I simply don't believe, didn't then, don't now, won't tomorrow (unless shown evidence of such).

[@CarapaceClavicle]

Scientism is the belief system

[@MarkH-cu9zi]

@@CarapaceClavicle Atheism isn't scientism. It seems that theists want atheism to be whatever they want when it suits them.

[@CarapaceClavicle]

@@MarkH-cu9zi so you don’t have any beliefs that lead you to your unbelief?

[@markh1011]

@@CarapaceClavicle I have plenty of beliefs. The point remains, you're conflating atheism and scientism. Just like theists attack atheism by attacking materialism. Just like theists defend their god with arguments that don't even demonstrate their god and could support deism.

[@CarapaceClavicle]

@@markh1011 do the “plenty of beliefs” you have entail an atheistic viewpoint? I have plenty of beliefs too and they entail theism, more specifically Christianity. And those arguments that you say “could support deism” aren’t the end all be all to support my claim.

[@matthewmcmichael6416]

Not a catholic, but Feser and Fradd at one table is pure brilliance! Feser's writing is trenchant and illuminating 👍

[@aisthpaoitht]

New atheism is long gone. This is 2000s boomer core. We're way past that. Deal with the current group, like Alex O'Connor.

[@kevinhodges867]

I like O’Connor, but a lot of what I’ve heard from him is slightly refined repetition of the NAs.

[@justinhartnell6779]

What's boomer core?

[@user-gs4oi1fm4l]

Alex is so touchy feely with his objections they're not even objective. They are subjective confusions he has. No more than that.

[@bearistotle2820]

​@@user-gs4oi1fm4lI think that is really the only ground an atheist has to stand on. Not engaging the logic, but making an appeal that resonates with people on a deep level.

[@schramfamily]

It all comes down to, “I don’t like what’s in the Bible so I will come up with sudo-intellectual ideas to dismiss it”. Sadly, Alex is just another in a long line of obnoxious intellectuals.

[@CSUnger]

We should approach them with gentleness but being aware that gentleness to a horse is not the same thing as gentleness to a mouse.

[@penandsword4386]

"I will control other people. They shall be mine to drive , like horses . "

[@nickcooper1260]

I wonder if this guy still believes in Father Christmas?

[@mickeylax9975]

Nice rhetoric

[@jawneethecurious]

Well done, Dr Feser! Well done!!!

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

But there is still no evidence for God.

[@issaavedra]

If you assume materialism and evaluate evidence from that worldview, you will never accept any evidence challenging your beliefs. What would evidence for God would even look like? Any mystical experience would be better explained by madness, even if the sky split open and you saw God, wouldn't allucination be a better explanation?

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

@issaavedra There is no other valid way to understand the world that materialism because there is simply no evidence for anything other than natural laws. If you have it, show it now.

[@issaavedra]

@@StudentDad-mc3pu If materialism is true, why are you trying to convince other people of your logic? Assuming materialism, logic only exist in your brain and is the product of random collisions between atoms. Why would that be normative?

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

@issaavedra "Mystical Experiences" are not evidence. I'm happy for people to have faith in the unseen. But that's as far as it can possibly go. I don't need to say what evidence for God would like that's ridiculous. Serve it up and let's take a look.

[@issaavedra]

@@StudentDad-mc3pu " "Mystical Experiences" are not evidence." I know, nothing is evidence for something outside your paradigm. Even the most blatant demonstration can be dismissed as "hallucinations" or manipulation.

[@benjaminpendleton7797]

But atheistic Communism has such a great human rights record...

[@njhoepner]

Atheism is one thing, communism is another. Just like christianity is one thing, but the Inquisition is another. Or do you want to drop that line of excusegetics?

[@mve6182]

This video is weak: you accuse new atheists of being full of s**t, but after 8:49 minutes, I did not hear a single argument to back up this silly claim! Saying somebody is dumb is not impressive!

[@newglof9558]

Dr. Ed Feser is smarter than you.

[@godfreydebouillon8807]

They are truly dumb.

[@mattmalcolm534]

Which silly claim are you referring to?

[@godfreydebouillon8807]

And I think the point is, you're supposed to read the book. Fitting 300 pages into 8 minutes

[@user-gs4oi1fm4l]

Saying nothing created everything is dumb.

[@jeremyhinken3365]

I never backed down once, even at the height of New Atheism. Almost all of the arguments made are appeals to emotion. When someone is truly an expert in one field, their egos delude them into thinking their expertise can carry over into every other field. I will never understand why people fight so hard against things they don't believe exists. Anyone that really believes it doesn't exist will truly not care and just walk away...

[@MarkH-cu9zi]

_" Almost all of the arguments made are appeals to emotion."_ If you think this then I don't think you understood the arguments. _"I will never understand why people fight so hard against things they don't believe exists."_ It's more analogous to why theist youtubers devote so much time to atheists.... in fact you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about them.

[@jeremyhinken3365]

@MarkH-cu9zi We're commanded to spread the gospel. Clearly, you've either never read it or don't understand it. Dawkins paraphrased, "I know that everything is so intricately and delicately balanced in the universe, and if it were different by 1/1,000,000,000,000,000 of 1%, nothing could exist, but it's only the APPEARANCE of design. Absolutely DO NOT believe the data or your eyes. We've either manipulated or taken the data into a back alley and beaten it to a bloody pulp until it gives the results we want, er 'verified' the data. We come from nothing, we are nothing, we go back to nothing, and *YOU* are stupid for questioning it! The REAL question is WHO designed and built God?" Riiiiiight... Same skience that has been pointing and screeching about genetics, injections, sports and "reality" for the last 5 years. Then, pronouncing capital punishment on anyone who doesn't go along with it. There's a real reason y'alls cult is dying...

[@markh1011]

@@jeremyhinken3365 _" We're commanded to spread the gospel."_ Whining about atheists is spreading the gospel is it? 🙄 _"Clearly, you've either never read it or don't understand it."_ Oh I have. Clearly I know Christianity better than you know atheism.

[@markh1011]

@@jeremyhinken3365 _"Same skience that has been pointing and screeching about genetics, injections, sports and "reality" for the last 5 years. "_ What are you even talking about? Injections? Sports? You seem quite confused.

[@markh1011]

@@jeremyhinken3365 _"There's a real reason y'alls cult is dying..."_ More confusion. Atheism is growing. Christianity is declining. You're a mess lol.

[@Rojofro]

Why do you associate all “new atheists” and their beliefs with Dawkins, that would be like debunking a random cardinal on a thought destroys Catholicism. Most atheists and agnostic don’t hold that belief because of Dawkins, and it is dishonest to assume so.

[@TheDragonageorigins]

Because Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris are like the quintessential figureheads of "new atheism" With them was a wave of a new tactic in arguing for atheism

[@user-gs4oi1fm4l]

Yeah "new atheism" clearly is distinguished from "generic atheism" for that specific reason

[@njhoepner]

Because it's easier than providing evidence for the existence of their invisible magical superbeing, given that no one in recorded history has ever succeeded in doing so.

[@dynamic9016]

🙏 🙏 🙏

[@Charlotte_Martel]

"There's no argument for atheism." Are you serious? The argument is that, for the individual atheist, the evidence presented for God and/or a particular form of theism has not convinced him and compelled him to convert. If you wonder how this is possible or (like these gentlemen) think that is a lazy, disingenuous stance, ask yourself why you haven't comverted to Islam or Hinduism.

[@newglof9558]

Atheism is not a lack of belief. Atheism is the proposition that God does not exist. This definition is in accordance with the consensus of atheist philosophers. Yours isn't. "Agnostic atheist" is a nonsensical term.

[@ben0298]

There is evidence to support Christian, and not Islam or Hinduism, for a start.

[@godfreydebouillon8807]

You're full blown category error on everything you stated in your comment. I can explain to a rabbit all day, why it's rational to believe that propositions are true like "math is universally and eternally true" or "causation is a universal, fundamental feature of reality" or that "molecules are incapable of abstract and universal thoughts (such as formal systems of reasoning), because formal systems of reasoning aren't present in molecular structures". And on and on I could reason with the rabbit, and the rabbit may never be convinced, not because he is so knowledgeable about the subject and doesn't find the arguments convincing. Quite the contrary. New atheists "aren't convinced" the same way a rabbit is not. And what in the world does this have to do with Islam or Hinduism? They both believe in God and understand the fact that atheists are irrational. Once it's established as a FACT that God exists (this is a fact), then things like personal experiences, religious doctrines of faith etc can be debated. Again, your silly comment isn't even at the correct category level for the subject.

[@mattmalcolm534]

This is a bad analogy. Not being convinced of Islam's claims is analogous to not being convinced of Christianity's claims, that much is true. But it is most definitely NOT analogous to being convinced of atheism. This is because one can be convinced that God exists as a separate proposition from the truth of any one particular religious revelation.

[@justinhartnell6779]

​@godfreydebouillon8807 so you're saying the atheist is as dumb as a rabbit? Or what?

[@anthonyzav3769]

It’s not really complex - Yahweh Lord of Hosts (Armies) never loved a certain ethnicity and helped them in genocide - because he’s a pagan character like Zeus or Baal, Jesus never rose from the dead, and an angel never read the Koran to a caravan bandit. Feser’s talk about consciousness is all beside the point.

[@Austinite333]

People say things. Sometimes we cannot stop talking. Can atheists anymore than believers actually prove without a doubt that their viewpoint is 100% valid? Somewhere there is a beautiful intelligence that manifests all creation from Micro to macro. I seriously doubt it has much in relationship to that Yahweh guy from the OT. He was too flawed to be any kind of proper god. The Abrahamic religions miss the mark IMO..

[@barry.anderberg]

Why are we still talking about new atheism? I mean, yeah it's low hanging fruit.. shooting fish in a barrel and all that.. but honestly, new atheism is dead and has been dead for some time now. Let's move on.

[@dataforge2745]

Edward Feser is a big fan of philosophical arguments for God. He's also a big fan of the Courtier's Reply. According to him, anyone that disproves his arguments doesn't understand them. This is his major gripe with what has been called "new atheism". In reality, his arguments are bad. Like mosy philosophical arguments for religion, they rely on being over convoluted. So convoluted that not only can a reader find it difficult to see exactly where they are wrong, but even the writer manages to confuse himself into believing he's constructed a brilliant argument. His insistance that no critic understands his arguments (presumably everyone that agrees understands just fine) is because his spagetti logic is so inconsistent that you can't nail down a single formulation. There are many different varieties of apologetics, for many styles of theist psychology. Feser's brand of classical theism appears to be designed to pump up the egos of theists. To make them confuse convolution with intelligence.

[@newglof9558]

"They rely on being overly convoluted" You can just say "I'm too lazy to understand". Is that hard?

[@dataforge2745]

@newglof9558 And there it is. The aforementioned attempt at pumping up your ego.

[@richardyates7280]

​@@dataforge2745....or maybe you just don't understand

[@АпологетикаБазинского]

"I don't understand what you are saying, so you are wrong"

[@dataforge2745]

@АпологетикаБазинского It's funny how all of you are doing exactly what I accused you of. Almost like you didn't understand what I wrote. Makes me wonder if you even understand the arguments that you revere so much...

[@generichuman_]

Ed Feser applies archaic philosophy as if the last 500 years of scientific progress never happened. Everyone keeps raving about this guy and all I see is a repackaging of tired arguments from dead philosophers who didn't have the benefit of modern knowledge.

[@atleelang4050]

Have you read the massive and deeply reaserched book he wrote responding to the argument you just made?

[@CarapaceClavicle]

Will you guys ever at least try to understand? The last 500 years of scientific progress presupposes the metaphysics he ascribes to.

[@PatricksBreastplate]

This guy microwaves hotdogs and thinks, ‘if only Aristotle knew’.

[@oaktreet4335]

"Archaic philosophy" "tired arguments" "modern knowledge" 🤣🤣 You just failed Logic 101. Your license to speak on all matters of philosophy has been revoked.

[@njhoepner]

@@oaktreet4335 He's right though...Feser is merely repackaging Aquinas' five proofs (which weren't compelling even at the time) and tacking on "and the first mover/first cause/necessary substrate etc etc MUST BE omniscient and and intelligent and loving because...'cuz it just is." Maybe it's your license that needs to go?

[@davidnmfarrell]

New atheism was cringe, but so are those who claim to have proof of God's existence

[@mannythegrandfather2291]

Typical misrepresentation of theist claims

[@wet-read]

It isn't cringe, it just isn't the best thing to deal with religion (which includes theism of whatever stripes).

[@11kravitzn]

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. Feser should read the Bible more. No need to falsely accuse Feser of being a bitterly polemical anti-atheist.

[@TheoSkeptomai]

May I ask you some straightforward questions concerning your faith?

[@newglof9558]

​@@TheoSkeptomaiYour questions are never in good faith, but go ahead.

[@TheoSkeptomai]

@@newglof9558 Have a wonderful evening.

[@AJ_Jingco]

@TheoSkeptomai Even if Jesus Christ ✝️ personally appeared to you. You would NOT believe in Him because you hate God. Yes there is Suffering in this world because of Sin, but even if an innocent child dies that child will go to Heaven. Into God's Kingdom, because God is an Eternal being while you Theo Skeptomai is a *FINITE* being. You see through a Glass Darkly while God sees all the Perspective.

[@TheoSkeptomai]

@@AJ_Jingco Did I state, suggest, or otherwise infer that I hate this 'God'?

[@RealTrentertainment]

What a paragon of Christian humility.

[@newglof9558]

You guys have no idea what humility is.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

Define humility objectively without appealing to a diety. And why is it objectively desirable?

[@newglof9558]

​@@alisterrebelo9013humility is a virtue, which necessarily makes reference to God. I reject your first premise. As for your second, traits of character excellence are inherently desirable to anyone with a modicum of self-awareness. I'm not going to sit here and explain why it's good to be good. As such, I reject your second premise. Atheists are such clowns.

[@marcolorenti9637]

@@alisterrebelo9013 What does humility have to do with deities and other supernatural BS?

[@alisterrebelo9013]

@@marcolorenti9637 Everything to do with diety, nothing to do with BS. Care to have a crack at answering the two questions I raised?

[@goldenalt3166]

So you weren't surprised to find out Mother Theresa "sucks"? Perhaps you are so focused in certain aspects of religious thought that you've lost sight of why people care about religion?

[@MarcoAntoniov.]

We havent been surprised that Mother Teresa Sucks... because thats false. She doesn't suck. So we have nothing to be surprised about.

[@newglof9558]

Mother Teresa is a better person than you.

[@goldenalt3166]

@MarcoAntoniov. Ah, denial. To me that sounds just like the church hiding other atrocities. Do you even know what Hitchens claimed about her?

[@ARSONXBELLA]

my new atheism is God is a creep.