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!

[@alvarosalgado377]

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

[@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...

[@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.

[@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?"

[@ludovicoc7046]

Fradd setting Feser on stun.

[@Dsquareddyson]

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

[@Avinkwep]

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

[@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.

[@johncopper5128]

THank you.

[@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.

[@gonzalovelascoc.2953]

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

[@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.

[@marlogue53]

You're doing invaluable work, congratulations.

[@michaelman957]

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

[@nickcooper1260]

I wonder if this guy still believes in Father Christmas?

[@mickeylax9975]

Nice rhetoric

[@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.

[@wungabunga]

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

[@waynemcauliffe-fv5yf]

And religious tomes aren`t mate

[@williambranch4283]

23 years of echo chamber

[@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?

[@djb5255]

Is this 2006??

[@benjaminpendleton7797]

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

[@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.

[@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

[@dynamic9016]

🙏 🙏 🙏

[@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.

[@davidnmfarrell]

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

[@mannythegrandfather2291]

Typical misrepresentation of theist claims

[@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..

[@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.

[@wungabunga]

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

[@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.

[@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

[@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...

[@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?

[@ARSONXBELLA]

my new atheism is God is a creep.

[@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?