The World Would Be Better Off Without Religion

In the words of Blaise Pascal, mathematician and Catholic, "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." Does religion breed intolerance, violence, and the promotion of medieval ideas? Or should we concede that overall, it has been a source for good, giving followers purpose, while encouraging morality and ethical behavior?
For: Matthew Chapman
For: A.C. Grayling
Against: Rabbi David Wolpe
Against: Dinesh D'Souza
===================================
Subscribe: bit.ly/IQ2onKZbin
Official site: iq2us.org/vote
IQ2US Twitter: bit.ly/IQ2Twitter
IQ2US Facebook: bit.ly/IQ2onFacebook
===================================

[@Tao33316]

Why would you make up the notion of hell? Easy, because hell is used to control the people through fear.

[@Atombender]

Clicked on this vid because I thought it had Mr. Bean in it.

[@nog89]

I would have loved to have Matt Dillahunty and Dawkins or Hitchens in this debate.

[@bunney3272]

"Nothing could be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense." -Voltaire

[@johnphelan7403]

Dinesh points out that in the Bible Jesus calls people Hypocrites "when they pretend to be one thing & are really another."Fast forward to 2012 where Dinesh attends a conference on Family Values with a married woman while himself married to a different woman.

[@danieljee8670]

I completely support separation of state and church. However I am quite dubious whether wiping out religion from the face of the earth would solve the problem. I agree the currently religion is being exploited for terrible uses (or even by nature some religion may be created for such purpose) but I find some ideologies very similar to religion when adopted by a government. Certain ideologies are extremely oppressive just like religion. I believe even without religion there will be more ideologies replacing religion to cause more troubles in the world

[@RastaRider]

This is a great format. I really enjoy it. And the best moderator I've ever seen in these sorts of events.

[@mcbeaumarchais7650]

I really started when Dinesh D'Souza said that most atheists are "angry with God". That is a horribly intellectually dishonest argument. He is accusing his opponents of lying about their disbelief. When someone says they reject theistic claims, it's not because they're "angry with God", because you can't be angry with something you don't believe exists. This argument is so intellectually dishonest, I have a hard time believing that Dinesh D'Souza was (at least) the second best religious apologist they could find. Intelligence Squared is highly respectable, so surely the best apologists would have relished the opportunity to participate. It's very confusing that such an argument could have appeared in so respectable a forum.

[@Tessitura9]

I actually think the answer to this question is simple. People will find ways to be good or bad with or without religion. Is the gun the reason why the killer killed? No. If it were unavailable, he would find another way. Does having more access to a gun make the person tempted to become a killer? No. A gun in the presence of a well-mannered person would not result in a killer. Religion isn't the problem. People are the problem (we can list countless examples of good and bad historical figures who were either atheists or believers). I don't think we would be worse off without religion, but would the world be better? In a perfect world, perhaps. But atheism nor theism are the answer to a "better" world. I don't know what would make the world "better", but if I had to guess, I would say perhaps tolerance and empathy. I know the opposing side would (even did) say that it's the text that is too open for interpretation which allows horrific acts, however, you can say that about absolutely anything: video games, music, film, a painting, a freaking manual on how to build a bike. EVERYTHING can be interpreted and influential in both negative and positive ways because we are human and we are all different. The problem isn't the film, the video game, or the song. It's the person. So to answer the question if the world would be BETTER is kind of ridiculous. We will never truly know until it happens, but my guess is no. Nor will it be worse. We will just find another reason to do whatever it is that we do on a daily basis. If that's humanism, well guess what? We will still have both great and horrible humanists. We will still have murderers. We will still have racism. We will still have poor people. We will still have global warming. We will still have animals going extinct. None of that is going away with the flick of a switch that says "religion". So instead of asking the question, "would the person have committed murder with or without the gun", or whether guns should be illegal, or if we should pass them out like candy, we NEED to be asking "how do we fix the root of the problem (aka the human condition)". Religion is just a fall guy =]

[@BestEDMToday]

Im glad i found this channel lol i love watching debates

[@romlyn99]

There is definite difference between a religion and a spiritual faith. Religion is ruled based, dogma and exclude people based on whether you submit to dogma - and all religion believe their dogma is the final and correct dogma, thus we have an "us and them" thinking. But a spiritual faith can see the commonality and unity between all people. And people of different faiths can still create friendships and even fall in love and marry. Based purely on loving each other based on loving the person - not because that person holds the same faith.

[@MarkTitus420]

The first speaker hit it right on the head. To me the only TRUE Christians there are are the Amish. They live strictly according to the Bible. They are the most loving and honest and hard working people walking this earth. All others are simply cherry pickers and the biggest hypocrites are on this planet. They live not by what they preach, only what soothes their guilt of the wrongs that they do through out the week, then to meet weekly to repent only to repeat this cycle over and over. I would recommend dropping all of this religions nonsense and just do everything that comes from heart and soul. Love all, forgive all, help your brothers and sister, hold no grudges, fear nothing, especially GOD! Once you realize we are all one, you will never want to harm anyone in any way again.

[@faceheadstudios]

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates just barely found your youtube channel and thoroughly love what you are doing. I love to hear clear, concise points made by very educated people on all sides...highly educational, as well as entertaining. My question is, and maybe you have done it, is have you done a traveling show with audiences outside of New York City? I would love to attend something like this myself. Another reason I ask, is because the NY crowd usually seems a bit tilted in their views in a more progressive, secular and liberal way in general and in the debates I've seen. The audience vote usually always reflects that. I know that the baseline vote at the beginning is usually given as an idea of the undecided vote that could be swayed, by my assumption is that many of those undecided may lean a certain way in their ideology, but may have some questions to whether they are fully on board with the selected topic. I would suggest a traveling show to other areas in the country may have very differing outcomes from the audience depending on the subject. My assessment may be an obviouse one, but I would be very interested to see the audience in Austin, Texas, to Portland, Oregon, or Las Vegas etc...reaction on the similar debates that you have done. Anyways, love it and I'm going to stay on my Intelligence Squared Debate binge!!!

[@mikkile0n]

David Wolpe seems to think that yelling makes points better...

[@kirked007]

What I like about the Intelligence Squared Debates is that there is civil discourse, listening and courtesy. If one watches TV (particularly the likes of Bill O'Reilly on Fox who rants and interrupts. Having watched countless discussions about religion it is invariably the religious who raise their voices - frequently they shout and interrupt

[@TheCorrectionist1984]

Consider the most common argument the religious apologist use: If there's no god, how would we know what's right and wrong. Or: what is giving us objective morality? Well this argument actually makes atheist look pretty good. Let's say somehow all religious people were somehow convinced that their religions are false and there is no god. Well according to apologist, this would either cause some people (maybe lots of people) to begin acting imorally. Guess which group of people would be of no concern? The atheists, of course. They believe this scenario already and yet act morally. So either the apologist's concerns are unfounded, or atheists are on average more inherently moral than believers.

[@candycatlara536]

Thank you for uploading

[@mathiasmoser4102]

"Alright, let's all clap", brilliant!

[@rumi9005]

I have to take issue with a claim D'Souza makes at around 52 mins. He claims science developed in Western Civilization because of Christianity. I would say the impetus toward scientific solutions to problems in Western civilizations goes back way further than Christianity. In Africa at the dawn of man (at least 100,000 years ago) you didn't need a whole lot of technology to survive. It helped, but it wasn't essential to survival for the species. Which is why most of Africa was still relatively unsophisticated technologically when the European explorers first went there. Once early humans left Africa and got to more inhospitable climates and terrain, like Europe and such, technology became much more important for group survival. Humans had to develop sophisticated shelters and sophisticated weapons and other technologies to survive and thrive. So natural selection favored those abilities. The spread of Christianity made use of those abilities, it didn't create them.

[@budirving7007]

The You Tube would be better off with more audio, for those who cannot hear as well. What can it hurt, it is adjustable.

[@AtomicZenstein]

Dinesh D'Souza is a wonderful example of someone that presents himself as knowing when he really doesn't. He's an eloquent con-man .

[@citizenboobyboobs1480]

When you get sick, do you go to church and get down on your knees or go to a man/woman of science and education and get a cure?

[@WhyMe0419]

I don't agree with Volpe but I love to listen to him. He is a great debater. Compare that to the obnoxious D'Sousa who constantly lies. I would have problems listening to D'Sousa even if I agreed with him.

[@HanZhang1994]

Those who lean left on the social political philosophy scale also do all those things, volunteering, tending to the less fortunate, planting trees, etc. It's not religion that motivates them, it's raising people in a society that values altruism. We can replace religion with just plain old altruism. It's not as if in Denmark or Sweden people are drinking all the time and not giving a shit about any poor or unfortunate people. By the way, they also live very long compared to the world average. It's not religion that's having these effects in those countries. It's raising people in a caring, supportive environment and inspiring them with stories of altruism.

[@williammcenaney9393]

They haven't defined religion. They haven't told us what it is in itself. What do all religions have in common that distinguishes any religion from every non-religion.

[@lannipie]

My word! I love to listen to debates whilst doing the housework as it makes something mundane and tedious wholly interesting, I was starching my sheets when D'Souza caused my jaw to drop and then my iron.... For someone who is essentially 'christian' and 'moral' I find his personal attacks utterly disgusting and infantile. As an atheist and humanist I try to live an ethical life rather than a moral one, and until people of the D'Souza frame of mind realise the difference between the two, I am afraid that they do not have a leg to stand on when it comes to arguing their corner.

[@migduh]

AC Grayling's my dawg.

[@jimmuncy5636]

Magic came first. Then came religion. Then science. Then, finally, a cellphone lasting a lifetime.

[@Billy-rr7re]

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." could not have said it any better

[@IIgREyIIwaRdENII]

I wonder what the results would be if this was done today? Nonetheless, a good debate and definitely worth watching.

[@LisaBabcockfulltimervgal]

It's amazing to me that intelligent men on the right can defend religion.

[@hitomi969]

Considering the hitler question, I have found this "hugh Trevor-Roper" that Dinesh quoted and (from wikipedia) : "The nadir of his career came in 1983, when as a director of The Times he "authenticated" the so-called Hitler Diaries. The opinion among experts in the field was by no means unanimous; David Irving for example, initially decried them as forgeries but subsequently changed his mind and declared that they could be genuine, before finally stating that they were a forgery. Historians Gerhard Weinberg and Eberhard Jäckel had also expressed doubt regarding the authenticity of the diaries. Within two weeks forensic scientist Julius Grant demonstrated that the diaries were a forgery." So once again, Dinesh prove his willingness to lie to people... Or he isn't able to make a 1min research on google... Either way, why do people listen to him ?

[@graylineloscabos9797]

this is awesome!!!

[@p3rd3d0r]

We could ask the same about sports (fights between team followers), music (fights between rappers, hip hop, heavy metals,...) , politics (Lefties against Righties, Kingdom against Republic, Dictatorship against Democracy...) Does that make politics a bad issue? They're not. Thanks to it, as well as to religion, we have also reached important social improvements, developed rights, etc. The problem is in ourselves, in people. The problem is we are learning the way to live together. Not religion, politics, music, sports,... It's us. So, to me, trying to find the reason of evilness in any of this matters is tricky.

[@ummmerrrrummm]

Very interesting. Why hasn't this had more views and comments?

[@sandeepaapian5847]

The Anchor is phenomenal! Indian Anchors who hold debates should learn!

[@nineonethirtyseven9816]

The question that was not addressed is: What would fill the vacuum once religion is taken out of the world? Just as theism has developed into an organization, it is impossible to believe atheism would not evolve into an organized ideology as well. This is just human nature to do so and history has shown how humans have easily introduced their own interpretation / misinterpretations into any religion to the point that it has been the cause of wars and bloodshed. There is no guarantee that organized atheism will not do the same or worse as well. The question is not that if the world would be better off without religion. The question should be if the world would be better off without any religion that is or becomes the cause wars, disunity and hatred. The answer to this question is definitely a big “Yes”. If any religion or ideology whether organized or non-organized becomes the cause of disharmony, then living in a world without such a religion is far preferable. However, this would never mean that the world would be better off without a genuine and True Faith that would be the cause of harmony and progress of society and civilization.

[@tyty21315]

im so glad i found this this will help me with my RMPS exam

[@szuchmann]

Why is the religious panel so loud? Grayling and Chapman are calm and almost monotone. Wolpe and Souza are literally yelling out to everyone. Why?

[@romlyn99]

Do onto others what you want done onto yourself... This is not enough - if the person is a sociopath or psychopath then you might have feelings of wanting others to try to harm you, as this excites you - or you might only feel happy when harming others. So we need to extend the golden rule - do onto others as you want done onto yourself as long as your actions do not harm or kill another. Then to help others based on compassion.

[@LuanOlimpio]

Wonderful debate

[@marcoestiercol6112]

I simply cannot stand Dinesh D'Souza's voice, face and demeanor

[@hillaryclinton823]

My head started to hurt when that Indian guy started to speak...

[@charlesmaine7387]

It is clear that majority of the audience are athiests and non-believers because religious people dont attend this kind of debate but rather live their lives for good.

[@chickybagoo9150]

@Fallen Angel Actually it was Richard Feinman who said "if you want people to do wicked things, that takes religion".

[@hermitjay6714]

"All right, Let's all clap. :-D" best part.

[@tiffsaver]

I often take the "middle road" when it comes to philosophical debates, simply because these arguments are too often a continuous loop without much consent or resolution. This debate is no different. Using dialectical terms like, "better" or "best" are much like using the terms "bad" or "worst." They are innately divisive and off-putting. Whichever side you're on, however, I think in the final analysis the answer to this question ultimately resides in how an individual's personal beliefs are ACTUALLY PRACTICED, not in the theories or hard line rhetoric of their leaders and dogma.

[@CyberiusT]

I'm an atheist, and I like both the guys on the them anti-religion side, but the pro-religion side won this argument. Not because they're right, but because they addressed the actual premise.

[@crodo123]

are you kidding? that denish guy was incredibly dishonest and from his very first point was creating straw-men argument for the anti-religion side only to "destroy" the straw-men with factually incorrect information.

[@veenenkel]

Yes! They kept discrediting religion but not addressing how religion is affecting society, political matters, etc, there were so many examples! I am No-religion team but the opposite side were way better prepared. Pity.

[@Butchthechokeartist]

Professor Grayling did address it very well imo. What do you mean?

[@leezhao]

D'souza argued at the end that Indians around Goa converted to Christianity to escape the caste system of India. I hope he sees the irony of that position. So the Indians converted to Christianity to escape another religion. How can he chalk one up for religion using this? Also, I find it rather disappointing that the "for" side did not respond to D'souza's indictment that atheism has caused more misery in the world in the persons of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Those people did not do what they did because of atheism. Quite to the contrary, they have basically all started their own religions in their countries with themselves as Gods. Stalin had "miracle harvests" (biology of Lysenko); Mao was said to be the "savior of the people." The East Germans sang of the infallibility of the party (Die Partei hat immer recht) which was said to give us even the Sun which predates the existence of the party by billions of years; etc., etc. How can you be said to be atheistic if you start your own religion under some different guise. Moreover, it is precisely a religion/religion-like history in all these countries that promoted blind obedience that provided the fertile soil for the growth of the likes of Stalin, Mao, etc. The Russian Tsar was supposed to be divinely inspired; the Chinese Emperors were divine himself and the "Son of the Heaven;" etc. So partially, we have religions to thanks for Stalin and Mao. Christopher Hitchens had a brilliant response to this point and one can easily find clips of it on youtube. Oh, how we miss you, Hitch.

[@rraabbeeoo]

Wolpe is incredibly rude. Truly. A.C. Greyling as is his norm conducts himself with humility. On personality alone this debate could be won.

[@megamus3]

logic and reason wins through eventually, despite the chains of the religious trying their dammedest to keep us back, history proves this.

[@michaeldoane4267]

The "moderator" totally tips his hand at 57:00. I've seen him do the same in other debates regarding religion. His "go to" for this one is Wolpe.

[@christianchaves3296]

Im no fan of religion, but the fact remains that you cant argue with the statistics. I commend the side against the motion for sticking to the theme of the debate, and insofar as that alone is concerned, regardless of what the people voted, they in fact won this debate. While I agree and am sympathetic to many of the things said by the side for the motion they didnt in fact remain true to the theme of the debate. I suppose it has something, or perhaps everything, to do with the dichotomist nature of the debate that forces the topic into a kind of polarity when in fact the topic isn't as black and white as its made out to be. I wish more people could see this. Either way, great debate!

[@ImplosiveCatt]

19:50 The irony is that Mother Theresa wouldn't use million dollars to actually help sick and poor because in her mind suffering is a virtue loved by God.

[@jaypond4368]

Seeing the comments down below I doubt any of the atheists here even listened to any of the apposing arguments. A good point Dinesh made: Atheist regimes have done fare worse to mankind than religious ones.

[@girlbloggerprincess]

All I would've asked Dinesh and the Jewish Rabbi is, "Who are you as a person without religion?" Would you not do good deeds? Would you not be sympathetic towards others inclined to help others? God instilled these features of goodness in our souls, and those features guide our path, guide our actions, not religion.

[@luisantonio805]

“The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world.” Georgia Harkness

[@ChibiViolin]

1:21:01 Nice try mate.

[@MrOldshadow1]

john lennon, imagine

[@andygray]

I can't get any sound on this video.

[@travb3075]

Stalin and Pol Pot are examples of men wanting to be gods, not being motivated by atheism. The suggestion that atheism can be a motivating force for such activities is a non-sequitur.

[@tommy-jy5ig]

Can we start with getting rid of monotheism?

[@BlaqBuddah]

At 52:27 D'Souza comment about Al-Ghazali just proved the other sides point. Not sure if he meant to do that

[@dsanders74]

I should have placed a bet in Las Vegas for the winner. People hate religion and religious people. The winner was clear based on the support for the two who supported the "against." Not a fair debate.

[@bleuscorpio]

Dinesh do not seem to understand that religious people also can be secular, it's an overlap

[@blusheep2]

Are you kidding! I've watched all these religious oriented debates and I am a Christian and I have always thought that the religious panels did a piss poor job in arguing their case because they would allow the atheist panel to drag them into debates about doctrine and mistakes made by men or women of religious faith instead of hammering down on the premise of the debate. I have rarely been surprised by the outcome but this one blows my mind. For once, the religious panel kept to the point. In fact, the religious panel was the one quoting science, statistics, and experience while the other side was drastically void of such studies. I'm not saying this from any point of view or bias. I think the religious panels in previous debates lost but in this case the religious panel decimated, DECIMATED their opponents. It wasn't even a contest. The panel of atheists had absolutely no response to the studies presented by their opponents. They could point to no one atheistic organization that could compete with religious altruism. They had no response to the studies that showed that religious individuals donated more to charity. They had no answer to religious value systems effect on western culture and government. And their only response was that "we can do it better" without any evidence that they do! Their best argument from the atheists, in my opinion, is the one about mass delusion. There is a reasonable discussion to have about what is better, a population of deluded individuals that through their delusion give greatly of themselves to others and develop a belief that encourages them to be at another's aid verse a population of people that are not deluded but sit on their hands and hoard their own wealth and time for themselves or immediate families. The problem with the delusion argument is that it starts with a presumption that both sides havn't conceded, and that is that God is a delusion. To use the delusion argument you must first prove its pretense which of course would take another debate altogether. But, you know what? The atheists didn't really harp on this argument and I give them credit for this because it would have been dishonest.

[@AngelOne11]

The greek are the ones who set all ethics and laws in Europe that we still practice today. Also, they were religious people. They had their Gods that they worshiped. I am pro the world is better without religion.

[@Moonawrathic]

It's interesting, I've watched 4 of these debates now and I can predict who wins 100% of the time before it even starts. It's really not that hard.

[@_starter]

I don't like how Dinesh debates, I find it dishonest.

[@joecasey8202]

Shit,I thought the question was rhetorical!

[@shinohidanzetsu]

Did Dinesh just mock a man that was molested or did I miss something?

[@nicovanos]

I heard Dinesh D'Souza arguing for the motion without realising it 1:10:25 : "But remember that all Abrahamic religions also have hell. Now think about that. Hell is much worse than diabetes. Hell is a lot worse than death." "Religious people actually sometimes fear of faith far worse than life can offer them." Now what conclusion can you draw from this?

[@wundermatt7298]

We need to get rid of these outdated books and teach people to do good.. For themselves

[@marinaj.haskel8619]

I would've loved to ask the team against the motion if they feel that the individuals who engage in charitable work - which I know are many - aren't frequently morally cheated by those who claim to be the priests of their religions, who more often than not seem to be running their own political and economical agendas.

[@jblock2490]

I already forgot, is this the debate where D'Souza cites "Hitler's Table Talks" as evidence that Hitler hated Christianity and that he wasn't actually Christian? Or was that the "Science refutes God" debate? Anyways, that book was apparently criticized as an academic source for having poor translations and questionable source material. It is interesting that Dinesh D'Souza would be unaware of this, though I suppose even if he was aware, it wouldn't stop him from using it to support his argument in a room full of non-academics.

[@140Characterz]

Totally random, but what did Dinesh say while Matthew was talking about how he was upset with him making preposterous assumption about his grandfather or uncle whichever he is

[@skidmoda]

Fantastic debate I love these. I hope we are moving toward a world with out invisible men in the sky. However, it does leave a absence doesn't. People I think need a thing a general guideline that is endorsed by the majority saying yeah I believe that is a good way to live. Not a religion, but maybe a general guide to life.

[@emrebilgi]

The reason why there aren't many comments here might be that the topic doesn't necessarily on Islam, but religion in general. If it was merely on Islam, thousands of hate comments could have been available here like in other similar debate videos discussing merely Islam. As for the participant voting at the end of the debate, there's an ambiguity. If they are really asking "who debated better?", why aren't they directly asking this in the end? They are unknowingly still asking "which idea is better?". Because, at the end of the day, they are still literally asking about the idea in the question phrase, not the performance of the debaters. To compare the initial and final vote results does not solve that puzzle. For example, as far as I'm concerned, I believe that debaters who are for the motion performed better. But I'd still vote against the motion as I still don't believe that the world would be better off without religion. One debater who is against the motion made a mistake by basing their whole argument on that "it is mostly religious people who do charity" even if that's statistically correct. Because people do not vote on mere statistics, but on perceptions. On how well you intelligently present your case. In his response, his opponent did his best points when he directly addressed the audience and asked them whether they do charity because of "fear of religion (or to go to Heaven)" or because "they have human sympathy for people who are suffering" (1:03:23). The way it is asked, even religious people would sure pick the latter option. Because, picking the former may people look like they are not decent&pure in nature, but only religion urges them to behave in certain ways. A better thesis for the debaters who are against the motion could have been to diversify the benefits of religion beyond "charity" which is a concept revered by all decent people, religious or not. On the other hand; bringing up acts like avoiding to pray, gambling, fornication, cohabiting, same-sex relationships, drugs, alcohol etc. which are despised by religious, but are condoned by non-religious and pointing out their harm on society could have won more points to the debaters who are against the motion and could have lead to a more balanced competition in the final vote. That would have also made the debate much more challenging and interesting.

[@locutusdborg126]

God, the moderator LOVES applause. Enough applause already. Now, I'm an atheist but I think Hichens would have done a much better job that the Darwin guy. Grayling was just okay.

[@BuickGirl1986]

dinesh brought nothing if you ask me his partner held that whole side. atheist but I like the stats of all the good things religious people do. though I assume that is community but it's nice to see what having a community can do.

[@YiannisPho]

A good debate, although I think some points could have been argued better. For example, D'Souza quoted statistics purporting to show that religious conservatives give a higher proportion of their incomes to charity than any other group. No rebuttal followed stating that their greater private charitable contributions hardly make up for the government funds they withhold for public assistance. In addition, the claim that secular liberals are the least likely to fund charities, has little to do with their being secular--or liberal, for that matter. As D'Souza himself states--erroneously thinking this bolsters his argument--on average this is the richest group. But that's exactly the reason for their low participation in charitable giving--not their relative lack of religious belief or their liberal ideology. Generally, the proportion of income going to charity declines as income rises. I'm glad the anti-religion side won the debate. But I missed Christopher Hitchens.

[@joshuajoakley]

You can most definitely go more than three minutes without hope.

[@differdog9354]

A scientist makes a hypothesis and then looks for evidence to back or refute his claim If there was a creator God who loved and cared about us. The evidence would be as follows: 1 Everybody would know of him and his commands and expectations. Multiple prophets all telling exactly the same story. 2 We would be emotionally mature. No petty arguments or wars. 3 We would have been designed better, no backache, baldness or cancer. 4 The earth would not have a cooling crust that is susceptible to volcanos, tsunamis, and earthquakes. 5 Bacteria and viruses would not exist or we would be immune. 6 The world would be designed in a way that we all flourished. Some people throw food away and have water on tap, some people experience famine and drought. 7 Adults would not believe or tell children ridiculous stories about talking snakes or flying horses, told as literal truths on pain of rejection if you did not believe. I could go on. There is no evidence for God.

[@augustadawber4378]

“I don’t know what caused the Big Bang and I don’t know why there is something instead of nothing and that means you don’t know either” - Bill Maher. “I prefer Rationalism over Atheism because the question of God is unknowable. As a Rationalist you don’t have to waste your time either attacking or defending either position” - Issac Asimov. “You should be skeptical of everything, including yourself” - Bertrand Russell. I had to preface this article with the above quotes because, although I am a Buddhist and believe in a Supreme Being, I am a great admirer of the above people. My two B.A.’s are not in Philosophy or Physics, so feel free to tell me that I don’t know what I’m talking about. You may be right. But I would like to open a discourse with my Atheist friends who have a Philosophy that I also admire. That philosophy is: ‘Your Heart should not accept what your Mind rejects’. One of the tenants of Buddhism is that you should not accept anything without thinking. But, I do have a rebuttal for at least two of the statements by some well known, highly intelligent, Atheists: “If God did not require being created, logic dictates that the Universe did not require being created either” - Michael Shermer. My rebuttal is that the Universe is composed of Matter, Energy, Gravity, Time and Space; all of which require being created. Consciousness however is still a mystery. In fact, if you’re a follower of the Niels Bohr Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, it is Consciousness that creates Matter. A Supreme Consciousness may very well indeed not have required being created. To those whose explanation of Consciousness is that the Human Brain is so complex that Consciousness ‘somehow’ evolved; you should know that using the word ‘somehow’ poses a lot of philosophical problems and questions. For example, Immanuel Kant in ‘The Critique Of Pure Reason’ surmised that Space and Time are only the relationship of one object to another; but, if we did not have the concept of Space and Time ‘A Priori’ in our Minds before we were born, we would not have been able to relate one sense impression to another. There would be no Awareness or Consciousness. “Quantum Mechanics allows for a Universe to come into existence out of Nothing” - Lawrence Krauss. I have several rebuttals for this. First, Quantum Mechanics has become all things to all people. Physicist Fred Alan Wolfe in ‘The Spiritual Universe’ claims that Quantum Physics proves the existence of the Human Soul. John Wheeler believes that the strange results in QP experiments suggest that someone is observing the Universe. Secondly, when Dr. Krauss (if I understand him correctly) talks of something coming from nothing - He is talking about Gravity affecting Negative Energy is such a way that virtual particles ‘pop’ into existence which then become real particles. The problem with this, as even physicists who are atheists have pointed out, is that this occurs in Space and in Time within the Universe. The Big Bang occurred in a no-when, no-place, no-gravity. Krauss’s reply is that a true Nothing (no space, no time, no gravity) is unstable. And like all unstable systems, it will eventually collapse in on itself and produce something. I’m not sure how to answer that. In a no-time, how does nothing ‘eventually’ collapse. It should be noted that by the year 2017, there may be satellites in place (according to the Science Channel - ‘How The Universe Works’) that might be able to detect Gravity Waves from a Universe that existed before the Big Bang. One theory is that a part of 2 separate Universes (each as a wave-like membrane) in a Multi-verse, collided, causing the Big Bang. If these Gravity Waves from a previous Universe are detected, that would obliterate Stephen Hawkings and Lawrence Krauss’s assertion that the Big Bang came from nothing. Of course, that still leaves the question: ‘What caused the first Big Bang ?’. And if the continuous Big Bangs go back in Infinite Regression - the question is: ‘Why is there something instead of nothing ?’ When I talk with some of my Atheist friends, who I highly regard, I always assert that both positions on the existence of God require a Leap of Faith. Whenever I state that I always get what I call ‘The Tooth-Fairy’ rebuttal. My friends will state that they cannot prove or disprove the existence of the tooth fairy. However, they are still not going to believe in the existence of the tooth fairy until there is substantive scientific evidence. My answer to that is: If you want to stay up all night outside your kid’s bedroom after one of them loses a tooth; and the tooth fairy never shows up - you can reasonably assert that there is no tooth fairy. What you can’t do is to go back in Time to the Big Bang and from a position outside the Universe observe the Big Bang and then state: ‘I was there at the Big Bang and I can tell you that there was no Supreme Consciousness. The whole thing was a product of Spontaneous Creation’. Since you can’t do that, comparing the question of God with the question of the tooth fairy or the spaghetti monster, or whatever, is quite disingenuous. This is why Issac Asimov preferred Rationalism over Atheism and why Buddhists, although they believe in God, assert that the Nature of God is unknowable. The bottom line is that if you are an Atheist and you state that you don’t belive in God; that is absolutely and perfectly fine. However, if you state, as a matter of fact, that there is no God, you are taking a Leap of Faith and crossing over into the world of Religious Dogma. If you state that a God-belief is stupid, you are a Religious fanatic. If the Question of God or the Nature of God is unknowable, then why do I believe in God ? Well, for me, God is not something I believe in, God is a Supreme Being that my Consciousness is aware of. Of course, what I think I am aware of is not Scientific Proof. So, as a Rationalist, I am willing to place this ‘Awareness’ down as a Belief and put it down in the category of Faith.

[@saganworshipper6062]

The Bill of Rights uncoupled religion from the state, in part because so many religions were steeped in an absolutist frame of mind, each convinced that it alone had a monopoly on the truth and therefore eager for the state to impose this truth on others. Often, the leaders and practitioners of absolutist religions were unable to perceive any middle ground or recognize that the truth might draw upon and embrace apparently contradictory doctrines. The framers of the Bill of Rights had before them the example of England, where the ecclesiastical crime of heresy and the secular crime of treason had become nearly indistinguishable. Many of the early colonists had come to America fleeing religious persecution, although some of them were perfectly happy to persecute other people for their beliefs. Education on the value of free speech and the other freedoms reserved by the Bill of Rights, about what happens when you don't have them, and about how to exercise and protect them, should be an essential prerequisite for being an American citizen or the citizen of any nation, the more so to the degree that such rights remain unprotected. If we can't think for ourselves, if we're unwilling to question authority, then we're just putty in the hands of those in power. But if the citizens are educated and form their own opinions, then those in power work for us. In every country, we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights. With it comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit.

[@riphihe]

It would be interesting to see where the votes went to and from. Fors increased by 7 pts against increased by 5 pts. My guess is that all the people that were for kept their votes the same and that all the people that were against kept their votes the same. 7 undecided went to the fors and 5 undecideds went to the againsts for a total of 12. In other words I dont think they CHANGED anyones mind that already had it made up before the debate began.

[@chrischutebox]

Its very clear that if the world was without religion and everything that came from religion the world would be worst . Sure there has been bad religions and bad religious people but for the most part we needs religion in the world to help mankind out for the better.

[@waynegoldpig2220]

Are A.C. Grayling and Robert Plant the same person? I think we should be told....

[@faceheadstudios]

A frustration as a Religious Person is the "All or Nothing" attitude about supposedly Religious people are held to. Just because someone professes an ideology, or belief doesn't mean that they are not human, or that they may fall short and make mistakes. The purpose of religion is a high bar that is set to try to achieve, and if we fail to achieve to get back up and try again. People are People, and will short of high expectations again and again, but that doesn't negate that having high expectations is a good thing. This comment is directed at Heath Kitchen who gives the example of Dinesh D'souza's issue with the law...yes dumb mistake, bad judgement...but that does not make what Dinesh say's any less relevant or true...he fell short of his own morality and now has to deal with the consequences.

[@kove]

Dinesh didn't answer the fact about the book "Who Really Cares", the fact being if you take out the money religious people give to their religion, the numbers reverse.

[@0VistaDelMar0]

Grayling never loses. By the way I miss rabi smuley sort of.

[@OnCharmLee]

Why are the debates about god and religion taken in the recent western world that Christianity represents all religions and that Christian god is seen as the right god? In Christianity, God is mal-established, the Bible and Jesus contain many non-scientific elements, and the religion itself has historically made many mistakes. OnCharm Lee (Author of the book “Humans & Truth - Human life is the awakening process”)

[@jacobpace1918]

INdeed, If he did something what, when, where, do "you" "really" know about it!?

[@MMaximuSS1975]

Yes. Yes. And yes. What does religion and a placebo have in common? *Everything*

[@noncomform]

All the charity work can be done by the government most effectively!

[@CarrieArt7]

Religious people definitely do stuff for other people. You just don't see it put in the media because it's not politically correct, & the media only likes to show the negative aspects of religion.

[@zigzagzoo12]

First of all, the moderator is not just biased (interrupting the side against before finishing their answers many times), but he's also a math-illiterate (not surprising since he's a journalist). But I am surprised no one else has pointed this out and I've checked several other videos from "Intelligence Squared" where he makes the same mistake in deciding the "winning team" At 1:47, the increase of votes is not determined by a simple subtract which only yields the percentage points increase. What he needed do is get the actual **percentage** increase. And if you do the math on that as I have done below, the "against" the motion side is the actual clear winner. To get percentage increase, there are several ways of doing it, but the easiest way is to divide the pre-debate percentage by the post-debate percentage and subtract by 1. For motion: 52 / 59 = .88 - 1 = 12% increase in votes Against m: 26 / 31 = .84 - 1 = 16% increase in votes Therefore: the winner by increase in votes post debate is the side against by 4 percentage points.

[@johnmcluren9120]

Wonderful, Wonderful debates like this are real expression of democracy, and social growing, this kind of event always are possible in a secular society not so in some religious ones

[@reversatire7724]

This debate needed Neal deGrasse Tyson, with his review of history of Islam, from their enlightenment to decline: "how many inventions, discoveries, how much brilliance would have come out of the Arab world if not for the AL ghazali's reformation towards the fundamentalist disaster it has been since"

[@jabroks648]

Most of those who initially key in "undecided" could be lying.

[@marinaj.haskel8619]

Do you mean to suggest they would have an agenda supporting one side or another? What would be their gain?