Coming to Faith through Dawkins Part 2: Is there a new New Atheism? Alister McGrath & Alex O'Connor

[@reginar0529]

Alex has been at his most eloquent and personal in this conversation! Great counterpoints between these two guests. Excellent job, Ruth!

[@martinploughboy988]

And demonstrated that he doesn't understand Christianity & Ruth has not corrected him.

[@josiahnissley9790]

Fundamentally, I think Dawkins and other offensive approaches to religion provide a flashy blunt force critique but lack the nuance that individuals like Alex are willing to provide. Dawkins and the like shocked me out of my fundamentalism, Alex and the like provided a more nuanced analysis, and personal inquiry lead me to reformulate my understanding of Christianity

[@91722854]

the most important point is people, be it non-theists (coz atheist is a position given by theists to people who are not believing in a particular religion, and can be offensive to atheists who never ascribe themselves to any of those religious views) or theists, is that neither use a person position or belief to determine how others should live and behave, but rather from the pure understanding and study (which Science happens to be the method humans are trying to achieve with as little bias as possible to achieve progression), coz if by respecting Christians means more than just not provoking people's view in a disrespectful manner, meaning to live beneath their world view or rules then it may as well form any sort of social consensus, including Nazism, policing state would also be made fair and square if a group's belief is justified so much so to be enforced on those who are not in the same group, that's when chaos and social instability happens, because they would be opening up a whole load of group beliefs and practices to be rightfully subjected on everyone and each other, meaning if a group of people arise suddenly who worship dragons and hold beliefs such that every child of under 10 years of age from each family much willingly have their eyeball scourged out of their eye sockets every month and be sacrificed to dragons in the dragon temple to remain cosmological stability, and their "proof" of that being "rightfully" "divinely" justified and hold "sovereignty" are to be taken as it without questioning out of "respect", then imagine how the society can collapse and how life would be in such a state. If religious views are to be "respected" despite the contradictions and subjective emotional aspect, imagine how it would go if the same applies to any field of scientific study, so ultimately it's not just a disrespect of views and people who hold those views, it's just being rational with things so people can go on about their own lives, imagine if we were to favor the flat-earthers one day just because of this much demanded respect from flat-earthers in the same way as Christians ask for (or at least as illustrated in the video), shall we all then change the textbooks, GPS and every single thing that displays Earth and maps etc into a flat-earther's view just so they feel respected?

[@davethebrahman9870]

The fact that you are offended by so mild a figure as Dawkins would seem to indicate that his criticism struck home.

[@billyoga807]

@@davethebrahman9870He did say that Dawkins shocked him out of his fundamentalism. Dawkins n co is quite effective when it comes to fundamentalism in religion but can't go far beyond that.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@billyoga807 Of course they can. Dawkins’s work is full of arguments against believing in a supernatural realm.

[@billyoga807]

@@davethebrahman9870 Only effective against fundamentalist Christianity/Islam. Not to popular religion like Shinto

[@BibleSongs]

So much better than the first instalment. Very nice!

[@mullahosk585]

It's great to see an atheist who understands that God cannot be reached by debates and arguements. This is the first time I've come across an atheist who recognises this

[@BubbaF0wpend]

On the contrary, I think the vast majority of atheists recognise there are not really any good arguments to support the existence of a god (let alone a specific one), which is why they're atheists

[@sumthnwateva]

Why do so many theists engage in debate and arguments to prove God then?

[@mullahosk585]

@@sumthnwateva Your right. They shouldn't bother. But like we have professional atheists, we also have professional theists. It's a nice little earner

[@_Sloppyham]

As long as you do not engage debates or arguments for/against god I’d say you aren’t hypocritical.

[@pauldavid9351]

Alister is a brilliant man.

[@nothanks6549]

Divine hiddeness and people just not wanting to see it doesn't account for those who were born to Christian families, grew up believers, liked believing, looked for God in everything, listened to all the apologetics they could and just couldn't make it make sense. I went to a church that was huge on sharing your faith with strangers. I wanted to be prepared and so I thought of questions I might be asked and looked for answers to those questions. After 10 years of looking for answers to those questions and finding nothing that I would feel confident in explaining to a non believer i just gave it up.

[@martinploughboy988]

But the Bible does account for it. We do not become Christians through our understanding but through an act of God. Jesus explains it in John 6: ... All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. ... No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:37, 44)

[@rydergroves5696]

@@martinploughboy988 I don't mean to just throw an atheist "gotcha" question at you, I just wanna know genuinely, does it ever bother you to read verses like that in the Bible? Cause that verse and others seem to basically say that whether people go to heaven or not is just based on God's arbitrary picking and choosing of people, and it's not really about the wellbeing of humans, but more about God demonstrating his own glory for his own satisfaction. Maybe you disagree with putting it that way, but that's the way it seems to read to me, and that bothered me even back when I was a believer

[@martinploughboy988]

@@rydergroves5696 That's what the Bible says, except that God is not arbitrary. It's what Augustine & Calvin taught.

[@rydergroves5696]

@@martinploughboy988 Well, you can assert that it isn't arbitrary but I haven't seen anyone actually explain how it isn't arbitrary in a way that makes any sense to me. You say that the Bible teaches that God is the one who ultimately brings people to heaven, so what criteria or system does he use to decide who he saves? What reasons could he have for not saving certain people? It seems like an issue that is deep and can't simply be hand waved away by asserting that you think it isn't arbitrary

[@martinploughboy988]

@@rydergroves5696 Why would you expect to understand God's reasons? After all, God sees all of time at once, He is outside of time, not trapped in it as we are.

[@pjgedye]

the way I've always thought about the tension of science and my faith is as answers to two different questions, those of why and how. The illustration that Alex gave about Shakespeare was one of the best explanations of that I've heard.

[@josiahnissley9790]

Leviticus isn’t the only relevant passage on slavery

[@Mrguy-ds9lr]

Whats the others?

[@JohnCook-om3iq]

Appologists should be very humble when they talk critically of Richard Dawkins a person hates being brain washed by religion at an early age. Appologists should be very humble in their criticism they should cast their minds back to example set by Ravi Zacharias.

[@geoffstemen3652]

@@Mrguy-ds9lr See the passage on Babylon the Great in Revelation.

[@lrvogt1257]

To the question of why new atheism isn’t as discussed now. Well, to be fair, not believing in something does not inspire passion. New atheism was speaking up against the arrogance of those who would insist on conformity and take our taxes to do it. Now there are so many non-religious and those who pay lip service to religion but just don’t care it’s harder to get worked-up over it… although now in the US the radical right is encouraging religious extremists to be aggressively so so this may change.

[@harlowcj]

Absolutely agree that the new atheists were making a cultural critique rather than a philosophical one. Their point was made, and made well. But the limits of that point were quickly reached. As you point out, to argue for atheism is a very boring argument as atheism offers no explanations or assertions for why we are here or how the world works. Listening to Matt Dillahunty explain his limited worldview is just incredibly dull. Not only is it not interesting on that front, but it leaves a rather gaping hole that we see society trying to fill in all kinds of perverse and selfish ways. Alex seems to really wrestle with it on a personal level. And I've noticed Sam Harris seems to be increasingly concerned with trying to provide society with some framework for existence.

[@lrvogt1257]

@@harlowcj : Accepting a natural world without supernatural forces is perfectly comfortable to me. Real science is incredibly fascinating and exciting and not dull at all. It's enough a framework for me that we just have to get along with each other as well as we can for our own good. With or without a god, people still just negotiate to maximize pleasure and minimize pain in the real world. I'd rather not have a capricious supernatural overseer.

[@harlowcj]

​@@lrvogt1257I agree with your whole first part, except in my case I accept the supernatural as part of this universe. I am strongly against the idea that your views on the supernatural should diminish your wonder and excitement that science is such an amazing tool at our disposal and the fact that we came to be conscious creatures in a scientifically viable universe. I'm not exactly sure what your larger idea is behind negotiating to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. I fully agree that a capricious supernatural overseer sounds truly awful and I'm sure we would know it every day if something like that made the universe. Let's just say there wouldn't be any atheists if that were the case.

[@lrvogt1257]

@@harlowcj : I just mean that society is a constant negotiation to generally avoid painful conflict and enjoy a fulfilling life whatever that means to the individual. The capricious overseer is the biblical god doing all kinds of terrible things to get people to bow down to him. Seems kind of malicious and needy to me. Divine hiddenness is an argument non-believers use.

[@ezza88ster]

It's so refreshing listening to two adults talking! The discussion opened my mind and my heart.

[@martinploughboy988]

Hardly adults, McGrath doesn't use the Bible to refute the pathetic lack of understanding of O'Connor.

[@samsimpson565]

How many book titles of Alister McGrath’s have Dawkins in the title. Dawkins literally lives rent free in his head. 😂

[@mikescollard6499]

Dawkins has become such a target that it's good marketing.

[@geoffstemen3652]

Dawkins is merely the loudest of many voices providing a woefully stunted perspective, in need of shoring up with other viewpoints.

[@samsimpson565]

@@geoffstemen3652 Still lives rent free in Alister McGrath’s head

[@matswessling6600]

@@geoffstemen3652"stunted perspective"? in what way?

[@bamyayire9673]

As God does in Dawkins's head 🎉

[@vanoroce64]

I have a hot take: I think atheists like myself have moved on from the new atheist tone and arguments and into much more fruitful, cordial interactions with theists is because, well... atheists are *much* more acknowkedged and respected nowadays. When I was young (in the 90s), telling my best friend I didn't go to church (nevermind that I was an atheist) was like telling him I had horns and a tail. Now? We're finally being sorta kinda treated like we have a right to exist and our religious freedom might be a thing.

[@yankeegonesouth4973]

Are you in the US? Or in a particularly observant region of the US? From my perspective here in the States, religion has been far less dominant in Europe for far longer than in the US.

[@jamessutton4726]

In the UK being a christian is a radical act

[@_Sloppyham]

I became an atheist a few years ago so I kinda skipped the whole “new atheism” phase. Watching videos about it feels like watching history in a sense.

[@traceyedson9652]

I want to commend Alex on being a superb - I’m not being snarky - Christian atheist. At around 58” he’s given one of the best homilies in repentance & forgiveness I’ve heard. And he’s prepared, restrained, respectful, and interesting. I thoroughly enjoyed Alistair & the excellent interviewer. Top-notch, all.

[@oscarpaez123]

Just because he is a nice, well-mannered, listens, makes intelligent comments on forgiveness and has balanced nuanced view does not mean that he is Christian. Being good or wanting to be good does not make Alex a Christian, otherwise I would be a Christian too.

[@alohm]

Faith is not about belief, but trust. Commitment, confidence, and devotion. That gives us the strength to navigate uncertainty and travails. With a why, a goal or meaning, we can withstand any what. I say this as a non-believer', but one who trusts there is something more to our experience.

[@christianhayter]

Many believers with great faith have played with venomous snakes to demonstrate their faith - and paid the price Many believers with great faith think they can go into the deepest jungle and convert the natives - and ended up in their cooking pots This proves faith is for those who want to eliminate themselves from the gene pool

[@cedward5718]

What is it that you don't believe, and what is the object of your faith?

[@simonskinner1450]

Faith is based on belief because it is what you trust, and show trust in displaying God's righteousness, where sin is proof failed belief. You can have exactly the same commitment or more than a believer, if you are driven by the same logic as God, as such logic is available and to be reasoned by us all freely. The only thing God requires of course is that the principles do not change to suit another logic, as certain communities over time have suited even a majority of the community, but God wants all to be looked after. The reward of eternal life is based on a statute of good doing, not a lack of evil without commitment, but faith proving commitment for grace.

[@mjh277]

@@cedward5718can you clarify your question please? :)

[@cedward5718]

@@mjh277 he said he was a nonbeliever but still had faith.

[@Bythegraceofgod1646]

As an ex-atheist/agnostic who came to believe in God through Jesus Christ about 4 or so years ago now, I respect Alex’s sincerity and humility greatly. His willingness to talk about and work out these big and important questions in a public forum with someone of diff beliefs is beautiful. God knows & sees Alex intimately. He alone understands what He needs, which includes these conversations, these invitations from God to Alex, as if the LORD says to him as He does to Isaiah, “come and let us reason together!” God works through His ppl. Let’s pray God bring Alex to the joy of true and everlasting salvation through our good and gracious King Jesus! He hears our prayers, so let us pray, dear brothers and sisters! 💜🙏

[@derekallen4568]

I, on the other hand, am a Christian that became atheist 50 or so years ago, hope Alex doesn't lose his logical facilities, and become a Jesus freak.

[@Bythegraceofgod1646]

@@derekallen4568 What convinced you that the atheist worldview is more accurate in its representation of reality than Christianity?

[@derekallen4568]

@@Bythegraceofgod1646 the truth

[@derekallen4568]

@@Bythegraceofgod1646 I stopped believing in Santa. I stopped believing in the Christian God. I stopped believing in the supernatural. If you want to convince me, you have to convince me of the supernatural, god exists, and the Christian God exists.

[@den8863]

@@derekallen4568Christianity developed the basis of western law and morality, santa has not.

[@hooligan9794]

New Atheism got itself entangled with the American right? This seems a bizarre claim. Anybody know what McGrath is referring to here?

[@Jocky8807]

I am not sure. But it seems in England most people have become atheist and secular. And therefore the fight moves to the us, where there are plenty fundamentalists to fight. Most later debates were in the US. And the issue have also move to more on the US interest (like abortion, terrorism). Hitchens, I believe, has also become a US citizen.

[@meglukes]

He’s seriously underestimating the significance of the acceptance of the finite age of the universe by the scientific community.

[@cpt.kimintuitiondemon]

What do you think the significance is?

[@BubbaF0wpend]

Finite age of the universe *in its current form* (i.e. since big bang) We have no way of investigating what came before that

[@aaronclarke1434]

Yes. What we know can be summarised briefly: 1. The universe was in a hot dense state. 2. It is expanding. 3. We can’t see light before 380,000 years after the event. We know next to nothing beyond that about the beginning. We don’t know if the universe extends beyond the Observable Universe infinitely. We don’t know if it goes in cycles or was a single event. So people using it on one side or the other of the debate about the existence of God are overestimating what we know.

[@martinploughboy988]

@@BubbaF0wpend There is no way to see the BB.

[@BubbaF0wpend]

@@martinploughboy988 I don't get your point

[@daneumurianpiano7822]

As Alex suggested, world view and faith may influence each other. Some people may reject faith because it might call for a change in their behavior. Jesus recognized this when he warned potential followers to count the cost before deciding whether to follow him.

[@oscarpaez123]

"I have found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" - Kant. This is what the theist sounds to me at times.

[@martinploughboy988]

So what knowledge does the Christian deny? The Atheist, on the other hand, denies the knowledge he has of God's existence.

[@_Sloppyham]

⁠@@martinploughboy988I don’t really care for the first sentence, but the second sentence usually implies the “it’s written in humanity’s hearts” garbage that holds no evidential backing whatsoever.

[@martinploughboy988]

@@_Sloppyham Your knowledge that it is true is sufficient evidential backing. If you didn't know God existed you would have no reason to be an Atheist.

[@_Sloppyham]

@@martinploughboy988 “your knowledge that it is true” and where is this knowledge? I’ve certainly said nothing of the sorts that I know of a god’s existence, you seem to be making up a bunch of claims again with no evidence

[@martinploughboy988]

@@_Sloppyham At the core of your being you know God exists, it's part of your nature.

[@Practical.Wisdom]

This is such a brilliant episode, thank you!

[@daneumurianpiano7822]

Rather than permitting any and all actions, in Christianity even God must be true to his own nature. Not only our words and deeds are to be under the lordship of Christ, but even the thoughts and intents of our hearts.

[@femiawopegba2323]

Incredible! Just a thought about the clothes analogy Alez raises. This is reminiscent of Adam and Eve being naked and yet not ashamed story. According to the story, when they sin, they realised they were naked. Like... Durh! They had always been naked - in a material naturalist sense at least. But at that point it seemed they had lost an extra pair of lens that they had been using to view the world, that had enabled them to transcend the natural nakedness into an aura of God's covering presense. So viewing what Alex says through the lens of the Genesis story is profound in that it implies when we have our atheism (no God in my space) glasses on, all we see about the world is the bare natural and material, often stripped of its overarching value with death staring at the end of mortal existence. But as Alister points out, using the God theoretical lens, life all of sudden carries meaning and tells a different story beyond the crumbling material fact in a way that gives hope for a tree of life, in spite of death. Now, this is not an argument for God, but it is so striking that this is exactly the point the Genesis story makes.

[@omnikevlar2338]

Kudos to Alister for acknowledging Leviticus 25. I would like to know his thoughts on it. Personally I look at it as immoral and showing partiality or what we would call racism today. And I throw that as well as many other parts of the OT as garbage that ancient men used God as an excuse for what they wanted in my faith. I do agree with Alister on asking what should the expectations be in regards to divine hiddenness? Well if you start in the Book of Acts. Jesus revealed Himself to one of the most resistant nonbelievers called Paul. You also have angels breaking people out of jail. And God correcting theology in regards to eating pork. What some Christians would call a secondary issue. I also don't agree with Alex on the green needle video analogy on hearing what you want to hear. I think it is close but in that example you can choose what you want to hear. Where as in life I don't think you can choose your beliefs. Great Vid!

[@20july1944]

OK. Are you an atheist?

[@martinploughboy988]

The Pentateuch does not try to create the perfect society. The law that Moses gave was to create a society where men would look at the law & realise their own imperfection. As Jesus said with regard to divorce, but it applies to other aspects of our hardness of heart: He said to them, Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. (Matthew 19:8) Likewise, some slavery was allowed, because of their hardness of heart. We need to face the fact that Israel had extreme difficulty in following even the laws they were given, let alone a law that required perfection.

[@omnikevlar2338]

@@martinploughboy988 So if someone once to say these moral laws that the Bible set was just for a time. And doesn’t need to be applied for today. I completely agree. However people don’t apply this consistently at all cause with something like homosexuality people have no issue arbitrarily labeling this as timeless sin that shouldn’t change at all.

[@martinploughboy988]

@@omnikevlar2338 The moral laws are for all time, it is the ceremonial laws that are not.

[@omnikevlar2338]

@@martinploughboy988 No where does the Bible condemn slavery though. Show me a passage where the institutions of slavery are condemned and now recognized as sin from the Bible.

[@DaboooogA]

43:00 Alex really should see Olivier's 1948 adaptation of Hamlet!

[@jaime5434]

It’s crazy how the internets flow of information has been able to slowly weed out the straw man arguments on both sides. I wonder what atheism and monotheism will look like in 30 years. I personally hope we will be more allies then not

[@chadh9457]

Something that has struck me is the veering of each 'side' towards each other in their world view and approach to engaging with each other. They are becoming more and more like each other as they wage war with each other. It is like the warring brothers/twins in mythology or the fist fighting men in the carpark who embody a visceral hatred towards one another, they are exceptionally adept at revealing the faults of the Other but in doing so reveal to the outsider/onlooker that their perceptive analysis in only due to just how similar they are. In essence they have elevated each other to both rival and model. They mimic each other more and more as their fever pitch of attempted distinction from one another accelerates. The atheists outright refuse to see the irreplaceable role of religion in the hominization of our species relegating the entire enterprise to the junk heap. In place of this void they entrust reason itself - not a reasonable argument - but reason itself to fill gaps of understanding, thereby sneaking in a belief system to hold up the base of, for lack of another descriptor, their Christian morals. On the other hand I have never heard until recently the word 'objective' and the communication of scientific principles so prolifically as I do now from the theists. Their use of the word objective to describe the origin of their morals leaves me thinking if they have actually looked up the meaning of the word objective, because it is tied to empiricism, it is tied to physical reality. Is there anything more subjective than the thousands of religions and their logarithmically abundant array of rituals and prohibitions? haha, it is entertaining for me to watch. I think we will see these two brothers envelop each other to become indistinguishable, employing the same rationalisations and the same stubbornness.

[@_Sloppyham]

I feel like the arguments are going to be roughly the exact same

[@jgarciajr82]

I would pay to see Alex talk to John Vervaeke or Alexander Bard ❤🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙌

[@cpt.kimintuitiondemon]

Name 1 thing that is interesting or relevant about/in this book :

[@MrTotalSense]

At some point Alex O’Connor questions relational versus ontological. I think he’s saying that if one has a relationship with God (knows God and is known by God) it should be obvious that God exists to oneself and to others (by the testimony of the redeemed).

[@tonygoodkind7858]

Would that be true? People do have "relationships" with imaginary friends, after all.

[@gregzade5202]

What seems fair and reasonable is to call ideas either stupid or a great idea. To call people stupid seems like a cheap shot. But, sometimes it seems warranted, example, those who believe Earth is flat, despite all the evidence, data, at their finger tips, yet reject the evidence. What else can be said about the individual that hold to this belief?

[@FAAMS1]

The final take on this debate, which is first and foremost as it usually is about tribal wars, should be not so much about Rationalism vs Religion vis a vis but about making the perineal distinction on the difference of actually being stupid from acting stupid. Acting stupid IMO is more prevalent in recurrent Mythology apologists which doesn't mean people that opt to act stupid must be necessarily stupid by definition. In all fairness if one devotes a bit of time making auto analysis one fairly quickly concludes we all act stupid for the most part of our waking hours...nonetheless and fairly beyond the specificity of debating Religion in particular there is plenty of Mythology around on which we spread our enacting of stupidity, be it the traditional Nationalist kind, the apology of big brands in corporate world now in fashion, or the cult of the super genius in Sciences that grants better financing to this or that departement of investigation... The whole human enterprise is made of narratives and Myths, story telling to be precise, and for that my problem is not so much with conjuring out this ancestral need we have to confabulate group narratives, which by the way was the fatal mistake that the whole New Atheist movement fell for much in the vein of XIX century positivist movement, done without understanding one yota about Sociology, as no one has won an argument with we are better then you kind of debate...again my problem is instead with the Aesthetics of what kind of Mythology I rather indulge myself in...I prefer some level of sophistication rather then having some raw meat and blood for consumption. Traditional Religion if it is to survive will have to learn to talk mythology in distinct aesthetic styles for distinct audiences! As is traditional Religious narratives don't cut it any more, it doesn't matter how much some religious people try to sell the idea there is some sort of a religious new brewing in the making...just look at the ever dwindling number of priests in churches or the number of people that actively attend the mass. It is patently false to say there is a comeback in the making in any way shape or form. It is nonetheless true there is a vacuum which is dangerous as the fall of some narratives will inevitably be replaced by new narratives...the danger of new narratives being of course the lack of Historical revision on the right recipe to adapt to social ecosystems without bringing in great harm while experimenting with novelty.

[@bcatcool]

Mate I think you just fell into the trap of concluding something that you havnt really explored. Or hanging around the same people who have the same view without ever going anywhere? Yesterday I was invited to a breakfast in Coventry with 15ish different church leaders all in a tiny area of the City. Working together collaborating and ALL seeing growth. Which traditional narratives are you talking about? The burning bush? The parting of the Red sea? Jonah and the whale? The healing of the lepers? The walking on water? The fire of Pentecost? The Virgin birth as God became a baby? Perhaps the healing of the lame man lowered through a roof ...... Mosaic Church in Cov. Maybe worth a visit?

[@martinploughboy988]

The really stupid act is that of the Atheist, who pretends not to know God exists.

[@FAAMS1]

@@martinploughboy988 What God? Define your terms for the "G" word and be consistent if you want an answer...

[@martinploughboy988]

@@FAAMS1 Why would I care if you answer? The God you know exists, who created you & gave you the knowledge that He exists.

[@_Sloppyham]

@@martinploughboy988 you have made the claim that people actually do know that god exists and just lie about it. now prove it, cause I know you can’t.

[@davidpdiaz]

No captions?!

[@20july1944]

Thank you for having this comments section open immediately -- much more civilized than "chat."

[@BubbaF0wpend]

Is that what you're really after, "civilised"? Is that why you call Alex a "little pos" and other people idiots in the comments? Your non-existent god must be so glad he sacrificed himself (temporarily) for such a lovely xtian.

[@20july1944]

@@BubbaF0wpend Yes, the comment stream is nothing but a food fight.

[@Canonimus]

Biology and social are the two sides of the same coin. The main problem in psychiatry is that we do not have diagnosis, without a diagnosis (physiopathological processes) MDs are just guessing, and that is the worst medicine, if we can call it medicine. Social variables are always taken into account in all medical fields. Psychiatry needs to be a lot more medical.

[@martinmartin1363]

What led many in the ancient world to Judaism was there willingness to die for their God and the same is said for Christianity in the early church there is charity, chastity and the willingness to die for their God, who is a stumbling stone for the Jews and folly to the gentiles.

[@freddieguillemard5994]

Very interesting and stimulating.…,

[@Fair-to-Middling]

16:10 I don't know about Dawkins, but Bart Ehrman certainly talks about his positive beliefs about life and how he is grounded in them, how he has replaced his belief in God so that he can live a moral and decent way.

[@natanaellizama6559]

Yeah, but it's not very coherent. Bart is not a philosopher. If atheism is true, then there's no ground for objective values, so all evaluations(like moral, decent) are subjective, and the subjective does not require objective affirmation. It is self-affirmed in its own subjective sense.

[@onionbelly_]

​@@natanaellizama6559 Moral objectivism, such as Kantian ethics or moral realism, is not contingent on the existence of deities, so your response that Bart isn't a philosopher or that there's no ground for objective values without god(s) is kind of an irrelevant point. Is drowning babies objectively immoral?

[@natanaellizama6559]

@@onionbelly_ Kantian ethics do have a theistic background, shown very well by Schopenhauer. Moral realism is unreasonable without a deity. It's the cope for some atheists, which provide some magical entities, not unlike deities(in fact, much much worse) called "reasons", but that is irrelevant. The question is not about reasons but about values as without objective value for your (indefensible) objective reasons they are quite literally meaningless. Also, you need to ground them in value in order to sort these objective reasons as more important than subjective reasons. No atheist position can ground itself as objectively valuable, and therefore no atheism lifts off the ground in either rational or motivating terms. This applies to any pretended moral realism as well, especially in a moral context which requires your model to have "bite". That without delving into the more fundamental issues of grounding reason or any form of subiectivity. If objective reality is not subjective. Then no, of course that any expression of our limited, contingent subjectivity is not and cannot be objective, almost tautologically, including morality or concepts or language or even logic or reason. This base nihilism is almost the necessary starting frame from atheism. Some atheists have tried to cope with this, parting from the Enlightenment, usually by elevating rationality to the level of the Divine(hence not truly being atheistic), but this fails internally.

[@onionbelly_]

​@@natanaellizama6559 You can make that theistic connection by appealing to a God, but the moral philosophy itself isn't contingent on the existence of god(s). Can you please answer my question: is drowning babies objectively immoral?

[@natanaellizama6559]

@@onionbelly_ Sure... because God exists. I think I've argued why it is. If your moral model cannot account for its own value, not only is this something that anyone can dismiss, rationally it is something that all should dismiss. It is absurd to pretend that a value-less model provides any compelling framing of morality. If your model lacks objective value, then that's it. It's objectively meaningless. You could subjectively care, but it doesn't account for objective morality nor provides an objective basis for anything. So, you need to explain how can one even in principle derive objective values without God? By the very definition of terms one logically can't. That's why atheism is a bad model of the world(and the same applies to any model, not just a moral one, but any epistemic model as well, and in argumentation, it applies to all argument as well, for if the atheist cannot ground the objective value of their own arguments, the effectively they have removed themselves from the table of serious and meaningful arguments and models).

[@thespiritofhegel3487]

I used to be a naturalist until I heard the amazing story of this Pundit Mohatma, the famous yohgurt, who one day decided to prove mind was greater than matter. So he was wrapped in a sheet, chained so he couldn't move, put into a lead box which was sealed and lowered into a hole twelve feet deep. The hole was filled in by experts. Then they put a twenty-five ton rock on the hole, and he had no food and no air and he stayed like that for six weeks. When they finally dug him up, to everybody's amazement he was ... dead. You know, a lot of people said it was a trick. A trick! They said he was dead when he was put in. ... well you always get these sceptics, nothing shifts them, whatever the evidence..

[@Apollos2.2]

I couldn't follow, what is your point? I'm not surprised he was dead 😮

[@20july1944]

What is the point of all that?

[@christianhayter]

The point is - those who jump off a cliff with faith, thinking they can fly....go SPLAT

[@20july1944]

@@christianhayter So? Did someone argue that faith per se is meaningful?

[@belialord]

I believe this is sarcasm, folks

[@jamescarr4662]

IN EFFECT IN EFFECT IN EFFECT IN EFFECT IN EFFECT IN EFFECT IN EFFECT....GOD ALMIGHTY....

[@francesco5581]

The new atheists are the young nerds that became grown up and are rooted in the materialistic nerdy science.

[@tonygoodkind7858]

Pesky nerds, always caring about what's true and not just being swept up by their feelings by every bad idea!

[@francesco5581]

@@tonygoodkind7858 No, the nerd is always someone who take a "passion" beyond healthy skepticism and is usually fixed in details forgetting the very important things, the big picture.

[@tonygoodkind7858]

@@francesco5581 No part of reality (the big picture) provides strong, logical evidence of a god. Do you understand what that means? It means we haven't _detected_ a god. Ever. (Evidence is any detection of reality that indicates a particular idea is true.) Well some of us are honest about that and _just don't believe._ Others believe without a good reason. The latter group should care more about truth.

[@francesco5581]

@@tonygoodkind7858 the problem is different. Is about first causation. Reality is either here by an intelligent first causation (intelligent design) or by chance/randomness. Reality is too complex to take "chance/randomness" seriously and as you say there is no direct evidence of a God. But also we dont have any logic/scientific reason to explain how a "non intelligent" first causation caused a perfect first set, subsequent thousand passages without finding a dead end, the presence of elements, right quantities, temperature, pressure, laws and universal constants to deterministically create a complex universe. At worst both options have a 50% chance ...

[@tonygoodkind7858]

@@francesco5581 "Chance/randomness" describes our state of knowledge * when the bowling ball smashed into the sidewalk next to them, the person on the street considers it "random" * to the person who accidentally knocked it out of the cargo plane, it wasn't random at all; just physics working as normal So the first reason you're wrong is the more complex reality is, the _more_ likely we are to perceive it as "random. The second reason you're wrong is called "false dichotomy", where a person presents choices as though they're the only options even though other possibilities exist ("you either love the color red or you're a duck" leaves out people who don't love red and aren't ducks). Basically you're ignoring all other potential possible causes of reality (including the possibility of there not being a cause) when you say "intelligent first cause [or] randomness". Also I'm interested only in evidence of a god, so phrases like "intelligent first cause" seem to me a huge retreat from you defending the position of a god (if you had evidence of a god, you'd provide evidence of a being matching the definition of "god", and so you'd use the word god). What do you even mean by "perfect first set"? Reality seems _staggeringly imperfect,_ if we're measuring it by human standards. For example we can travel to and survive in less than 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003% of our universe. We also don't know if our universe is everything, so the actual number may be a lot worse (for example there may be countless other universes where ours is the only one able to support life). I'm not claiming any of these things are definitely true, only making you aware that many possibilities exist which you can't deduce away, leaving us with "I don't know" being the only reasonable answer.

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

An atheist who is actually honest with himself and others. Will wonders never cease! His candor is just amazing to see

[@pg6296]

Love your insights and comments Alex. ..You remind me of the rich young man in the bible.

[@Alien1375]

He reminds me more of the disiple Thomas. Only this time there is no Jesus hanging around showing his wounds.

[@tonygoodkind7858]

When Gary wrote his book encouraging belief in leprechauns, he also wrote stories of "Doubting Murphies", in order to encourage believers of leprechaunism to calmly ignore the lack of evidence of leprechauns.

[@kladies3021]

​@@tonygoodkind7858So I guess you all are tired of "sky daddy", "flying spaghetti monster" and now the fad is leprechauns. How successful have these comments been in changing a thiests mind? Is there a meeting where all the atheists get together and collectively decide on what new fad character you will use to flood comment sections?😂

[@kladies3021]

​@@tonygoodkind7858When St. Patrick's Day does roll around. Do you stay home in protest 🪧?Or if you do meet up with friends do you knock over all the St. Patrick's Day tableware and decorations in protest?😂

[@tonygoodkind7858]

@@kladies3021 Did you ignore the point because you agree the other poster was wrong? Well that leaves us with zero valid reasons to believe in a god in this thread. Did you present zero reasons of your own because you agree god(s) aren't worth believing in? Fixating on the leprechaun example I used to explain why the original commenter is wrong doesn't deal with the point that _anyone spreading a falsehood can predict doubters,_ but that doesn't make the falsehood truth. I think you know you can't deal with the point. That's why you sidetracked.

[@alistaircotton7840]

Faith is a response to acknowledging our need for forgiveness of sin. THEN God can enter in.. It’s not sexy but it always get missed in these discussions?? Repent and believe. Mk 1:15 In terms of experiencing God in Luke 4:12 Jesus answered, “It is said: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’” Not to say that we don’t experience God and people can’t have these experiences but this in itself won’t necessarily make anyone believe.

[@Bryanerayner]

You can't take half of the Bible, and then be upset that it's lacking. Creation through evolution is not something scripture teaches

[@davidparry5310]

Scripture also doesn't teach that the Earth is a spheroid, or that disease is spread through microscopic organisms.

[@Bryanerayner]

@@davidparry5310 but it doesn't indicate it ISN'T. Evolution directly contradicts scripture whereas physics and microbiology do not. Evolution isn't measurable- it's pure postulations and speculation from an era where the actual complexity of the microscopic world was barely grasped

[@davidparry5310]

@@Bryanerayner 'Evolution directly contradicts scripture' It only contradicts a _literal_ interpretation of scripture, just as the notion that the Earth is a spheroid contradicts a literal interpretation of parts of scripture where it's described as a disc. 'physics and microbiology do not.' Evolution is a legitimate of biology whether you like it or not, and overlaps with micro-biology. 'Evolution isn't measurable- it's pure postulations and speculation from an era where the actual complexity ' That's just like ... your opinion, man.

[@Bryanerayner]

@@davidparry5310 repetition isn't an argument. "God intentionally did this" vs. "God thought it would be more efficient to randomly do this" are different thoughts. "God precisely counts things" vs "God has a general direction he wants things to go in and lets them get there after much trial and error" They're worlds apart. Whereas "the earth is firmly established, it cannot be moved" doesn't have difference in meaning when you see heliocentrism. Poetry is different than history and Genesis is a very particular poem contrasted with Psalms. You say there is evidence of evolution - are there any documented cases of species change that we have observed? Many of the previous examples are just so stories, and don't hold up when you take DNA and the intricacies in

[@davidparry5310]

@@Bryanerayner 'Whereas "the earth is firmly established, it cannot be moved" doesn't have difference in meaning when you see heliocentrism.' Where did I say anything about heliocentrism? 'Poetry is different than history' And the Genesis creation story isn't history. 'You say there is evidence of evolution - are there any documented cases of species change that we have observed?' Yes, mules, ligers, tigons.

[@jozefglemp8011]

I am pleased to see that new atheists are still winning the debates and conversations with new christians.

[@blakerice7928]

Really? All of them? I don’t think so. I think it takes some real humility to admit when an atheist loses or the thirst does well. Unless you truly do think the atheists always “win” after a talk. To which I would respond with…. Watch more. There are brilliant arguments on both sides

[@RobertSmith-gx3mi]

Atheism has not changed. The church no longer being able to kill non-believers is what has changed.

[@appieb.8883]

What would you place religion with? Secular humanism.

[@simonskinner1450]

Why would there not be physical suffering as a test to examine belief, when there is unbelief that accepts it as natural, but belief reasons to reduce suffering.

[@cpt.kimintuitiondemon]

Can you rephrase please? Not sure I understand your point. Thnx

[@simonskinner1450]

@@cpt.kimintuitiondemon Whether you believe in Creation or not the natural world is what it is, it provides mankind many tests of including suffering, but we are asked to manage everything to reduce harm and blame. As an Atheist it never crossed my mind to consider kindness, especially the way females might view kindness which is more like cosseting, when I moved to my belief in Creation it was due to reasoning than emotions.

[@_Sloppyham]

@@simonskinner1450oh, is this a moral question? Because at its foundation morality cannot be rationalized and IS a feeling with or without a god.

[@simonskinner1450]

@@_Sloppyham Well in Bible we must reason our faith, however emotionally invested, as love can never be reverence by reason.

[@_Sloppyham]

@@simonskinner1450 I would say faith is described more as wishful hopefulness than something based on evidence (and therefore reasoning). This is just going off how Jesus says it is better to be the man that believes without seeing than the man who only believes after sufficient evidence. (Paraphrasing of course)

[@mowm88]

Holy Crap Alex is Young(!). 9-11 and he was 1 at the time? Oy vay.

[@GoldenMechaTiger]

You realize 9/11 was over 20 years ago right..?

[@gregzade5202]

Alex brought up a debate between Frank and Hitchen's. Frank asked - Where did all this come from, if not from God? Hitchen's reply's, I don't know, nobody knows and Frank doesn't know. That's not dodging the question or is it being evasive. Hitchens does go on to say, but we do know about the heat death of the universe. So Hitchen's it's not side stepping Frank question at all!

[@benscraftymusings]

No one knows if they have had an 'irrefutable, tangible experience of God'- but Christians like to think they have, otherwise they wouldn't call themselves Christians. What has actually happened is that they have had an or several nebulous experiences, which, due to their belief system, or the influence of others' around them, they accord with the Christian god. The label gives them a comfort that they wouldn't have without it.

[@jaime5434]

You don’t know what Christians think man You only know what some Christians you probably met think if you’re not just getting your information from the internet… Christianity isn’t about experiences is more about participation. It’s something you have to live and do to really get a grip on. And then find that the practice does make a difference

[@tonygoodkind7858]

@@jaime5434 It's certainly consistent with atheism to describe Christianity merely as a social club ("more about participation") and not as a true idea worth believing (something where detections of reality, "experiences", indicate it's true).

[@jaime5434]

@@tonygoodkind7858 Seriously huh? A social club……… Participation is how humans understand reality in every single way you just described man

[@tonygoodkind7858]

@@jaime5434 We only know reality by evidence. (That's why it's responsible for every functional technology around you right now, like the device you're reading this on.) So because nobody has strong, logical evidence of a god, nobody knows they exist. So then if your goal is truth, you shouldn't believe in gods (unless we somehow get evidence some day).

[@jaime5434]

@@tonygoodkind7858 Doing an experiment is participating in reality that’s what that is. Participation is a broader way of looking at it because everything about reality/ human experience can’t be explained through experiments obviously… you’re incorrect about that….. so there are other ways which humans come to understand things. That’s where the word “participation” comes in, which is meant in a secular sense..And yes I’m sure this is a fact, look up research done by John Vervaeke he’s isn’t a Christian either….. One more thing… nothing in the universe that I know of will ever give material/ experimental evidence of a creator. That’s not how that works. It’s more like the validation of patterns that scriptures point to. Understanding they aren’t subjective illusions but are actually there. Too much to explain here

[@northernlight8857]

Hmm...Its interesting that Alistair seems oblivious to the rise of the atheism movements across the world and secular humanism.

[@samdg1234]

Is there evidence that Alex is aware of what you refer to?

[@billyoga807]

Statistics say that it is religiosity that is on growing n nonbelievers is on the decline according to pew center. It might not be like traditional organized religion but still growing nevertheless. Secular humanism is just European phenomenon. East Asia like Singapore China n Japan are among one of the least religious countries (Singapore may be debatable) but there is no humanism whatsoever growing in those countries. In fact, in China which hold the biggest population of atheists had no secular humanism at all. Religion is always understood in western paradigm n those paradigm is alien to the eastern world like Asia.

[@harlowcj]

Fill me in on how secular humanism is catching on in a big way. Where is it expanding the most rapidly and what have its effects been on society?

[@northernlight8857]

@@harlowcj Nonbelievers is the third biggest worldview group in the world. Its not that long ago we were persecuted in many religious countries including the west. And we still are in some muslim countrires. Granted secular humanists are not that big yet , but in the short time it has been around it is growing and getting organized. Its the best worldview per date and people are catching on. There are alot of people that hold secular humanists views. We just need to get better in communicating the need to become members. In my country it is easy and it has only been on the increase all the time. In my country we have been able through democratic channels to get a seperation of church and state, to end mandatory attendance for church events, we offer secular alternatives to all the life rituals , and much more. Give it time.

[@edwardtbabinski]

The “new” new atheism is not based on atheists who have written bestsellers (though Ehrman continues to do so). The new new atheism seems to consist in sharing the full range of biblical scholarly questions online, making such questions accessible and understandable to more people. MythVision does exactly that, including streaming (and sometimes flying out to interview) top historical Jesus scholars, and opening up their streaming episodes to questions. Matthew Harke and another fellow (who runs Amateur Exegete) are producing some fascinating material as well, Tweeting and sometimes YouTubing. While other new new atheists cover the biological sciences, like the woman who runs Gutsick Gibbon, and also Ben Stanhope, who cover respectively, evolution, and biblical cosmology. The videos and websites of all these new new atheists, as well as several KZbinrs who question Christianity in info-taining ways either via animation, cartoons, or clips of Christians saying or acting in weird ways, are all part of he new new atheist movement, or at least the Leavers or Nones movement, people who no longer adhere to a particular church or strict religious doctrine.

[@nothanksplease]

I stopped being an atheist cuz it literally makes no sense. you can say God of the gaps all day but it doesn't matter it doesn't make any difference because something has to exist outside of our understanding of physics for life to even exist because things can't just come from nothing. so there had to be something; God would make sense considering it would be outside of our understanding of how reality works. the world's disgust at Christianity and acceptance of most other religions or views of spirituality even though Christianity is a beautiful religion when you actually start reading the Bible in context. you have no idea how much I was lied to about and you have no clue how misconstrued the information I was given by The Atheist Community was. In retrospect it's literally insane to see the reality around you and think that there couldn't possibly be something greater than it. Literally have parts of our brains that evolved for religion; you don't think that's important? It's also really weird that they try to step on Christianity so freaking much when there's been much bigger issues in the world as of late than Christianity. Like don't get me wrong the Catholic church has certainly done a lot of awful things that's a no way unique to religion in any sense. For example more children are abused by teachers than priest. Should we never allow children be taught again? But here's the thing if you read the Bible you would know that like child abuse is condemned heavily. So much of the Bible is corrupted by humans when they enforce their own ideas correct yes we can all agree but that isn't something that stops at religion. Atheist look at a symptom of human immorality and think that stomping out a symptom will get rid of it but really what you would be doing is getting rid of the only system that encourages good morality because it does actually seem like most of our modern-day morality is based on Christian ethics and thank God for that. Bet you didn't know but in the first testament in the Old Testament if a slave runs away to go to like Israel or one of those tribes they had to keep them safe they couldn't like give them back or enslave them you couldn't take sex slaves either you had to treat them as wives which means that you couldn't treat them like a slave and abuse them.

[@RLBays]

@@nothanksplease How does not believing someone who says their god is real, make no sense?

[@20july1944]

@@RLBays An atheist needs to explain matter/energy AND matter arranged as living things. You can't do either of them.

[@tihomirvrbanec9537]

Atheist needs not explain anything of the sort. Scientist try and do come up to answers to those questions, but it seems some people cant wait and resort to godanswer prematurely @@20july1944

[@20july1944]

Does that inform anything important? How does any new atheist explain origin of life?

[@tonygoodkind7858]

1. 9:22 Weird to frame this _just_ as violence. The subconscious realization we don't have strong, logical evidence of a god causes _many_ reactions, most common of which is distracting off topic (focusing on any _non-evidence for god_ argument). Everyone sees this if they KZbin, _'evidence of god'_ and fully watch any of those videos: the vast majority of videos believers title that way spend that majority of their time _not_ trying to present evidence (if they reach that point at all -- some never do). Then there's one step more subtle, where the argument presented clearly isn't evidence of a god, but it's being presented as though it is: * you want me to prove leprechauns exist? * well the universe had a beginning right? So there you go * [obviously implying that I'm claiming leprechauns are somehow responsible for the universe beginning and yet -- what evidence did I present of that? None. Ironically to know leprechauns were involved in the beginning _would first require evidence of leprechauns!_ Because how would I know they did anything if I don't even know they exist?!]

[@tonygoodkind7858]

2. "Science vs. religion" mostly seems like a _theist_ talking point. The facts are clear * we don't have strong, logical evidence of a god. So _nobody believing in gods does so scientifically._ * that's why (just like Point 1 describes), theists bring up 'hey these theists are scientists!'. In short, they're distracting off topic from what actually matters.

[@maxdoubt5219]

McGrath is playing that same apologetic game. Yes, science and religion qua religion are not incompatible, just as science and astrology are not incompatible. But science has debunked much of the _literal_ bible. Relegated to myth are the Flood, 10 Plagues, Exodus, Wanderings and Conquest, as well as most of the characters in those tales. And, of course, two original humans in a Persian garden. Yet time and again New Testament passages refer to these events as real history. Just do a New Testament search for, "Out of Egypt" to see some. According to the (anonymous) Matthew and Luke gospels, Jesus believed in Noah's flood. Was Jesus wrong or were words put in his mouth? Remember: apologists like McGrath don't care so much for showing that theism is more rational than atheism but for maintaining the authority of the bible; for use as a weapon in a program of ideological conquest. They do this by constantly reinterpreting and cherry-picking the bible to keep it compatible with new science and evolving social norms. Yet they tell themselves and each other that this malleable bible is a solid and reliable source for history and/or morality. Xianity must keep its dogma compatible with any state of affairs whatsoever. Even evolution! 😄But that which is compatible with anything is equally compatible with nothing. Science can't debunk _theism_ but destroys the reliability and authority of the bible and so justifies disbelief in the _biblical_ god.

[@cpt.kimintuitiondemon]

⬆️

[@bcatcool]

What proof? 'Atheism is dead'- worth reading Author is Eric Metaxas.

[@jaime5434]

I didn’t read all your comment but I have to say this: those stories your talking about are heavily symbolic and allegorical. That’s how ancient people remembered and tried to understand complicated truths about the world and God. It doesn’t mean these stories didn’t happen what it means is that the literal way they happened wasn’t the point. The point was the message the story was trying to convey. In an ancient Hebrew context that was “Truth”. To encapsulate very complicated and profound lessons that have been learned over time in a way that can be remembered through oral tradition before books and widespread literacy. The New Testament referring to them as True doesn’t change that at all. And yes the earliest church father’s New this and wrote about allegory in the scriptures. ……….By the way I did read some of your comment just now and I can tell your actually immature and probably watch porn every single day.

[@martinploughboy988]

Those events are real history & science has not 'debunked' them. Evolution, for example, isn't science, because it has nether been observed nor demonstrated.

[@_Sloppyham]

@@jaime5434that last paragraph was just a wild turn of events for me. To assume such things of a person and to attempt to insult them seems, at least to me, very immature.

[@nietzschescodes]

0:46 A bœk?! lol

[@shassett79]

I'm always intrigued when I hear someone seemingly propose that they'll explain how they reasoned their way into theism as an adult- and particularly so, if they're coming from atheism- but it inevitably ends in disappointment. Like... OK, you think Dawkins/Hitchens/whoever was mean or dismissive. That's fine, I have the same critique. But how does that lead you to god? I understand that McGrath has a book to sell, and so, may not want to elaborate on how Dawkins led him or any of the people his book describes to religious belief, but at least give us _something!_ Edit: On the topic of new "New Atheism," it seems like an attempt to contextualize the "New Atheists" as some passing trend? I have to say I disagree. Dawkins wasn't proposing arguments that nobody had ever considered before, he was just forcefully advocating for atheism in popular media at a point where that seemed novel. Dawkins may be waning but his atheism wasn't "new" and atheism itself certainly hasn't waned with him.

[@shassett79]

@MarisaHoare Anything is possible, but I'm looking for specifics.

[@shassett79]

@MarisaHoare I'm not sure what you mean when you suggest I "could do it myself." I'm just interested in understanding the perspective of adults who are led to theism via some logical process.

[@harlowcj]

Im excited for the day Alex becomes a Christian. From what I've seen from Alex over the past year, it is not a question of if, but when.

[@tonygoodkind7858]

"When" evidence of a god is finally provided is a pretty big "if"! (Been a big 'if' for thousands of years.)

[@daviboechatnunes1187]

Let's pray for that

[@tonygoodkind7858]

@@daviboechatnunes1187 Prayer doesn't convince reasonable people. Evidence does. Until theists have that, I think Alex is going to remain unconvinced. (And he'll be right to remain unconvinced!)

[@martinploughboy988]

@@tonygoodkind7858 An Atheist is not a reasonable person. they claim to know there is no God while knowing God exists.

[@tonygoodkind7858]

@@martinploughboy988 If were weren't reasonable, your post would've contained strong, logical evidence of a god. _Instead, it didn't, proving atheism (non-belief in gods) is reasonable._ Additionally you're acting like believing in a god requires intentional dishonesty: * you ignored the actual position of most atheists (non-belief) to argue against a niche position (Hard Atheism; the belief there are no gods), when neither Alex nor myself have said that's our position. * you ignored the real argument against God (capital G, proper name of the god of Christianity) like the Problem of Evil which proves God _specifically_ doesn't exist. (I forget if Alex makes this argument here, but he does make it elsewhere.) * you ignored the conditional _"when"._ When atheists finally hear strong, logical evidence of a god (and that's a pretty big "if"!), the majority of them will believe in a god. Until then, belief isn't justified and only irrational people believe.

[@aosidh]

Alister saying his conversion was purely intellectual while using the cadence of a cult member 😹

[@maxdoubt5219]

To understand why Xians are so arrogant, just evaluate this statement: "I don't _know_ if an 8'6" tall woman exists, but I _believe_ she's a good person who loves jazz, hates peas, gets angry at speeders, sad when it rains and she wants a new sofa." See the cart/horse problem? The beliefs _assume_ prior knowledge or they're just idle speculation. And Xians are always bloviating about how their god is "good" or sometimes jealous, joyous, disappointed, enraged and loves/hates or likes/dislikes or wants this or that. Such intimate, _personal_ beliefs _assume_ prior knowledge _or they're just idle speculation!_ Are Xians going to relinquish all their beliefs about their god's gender, inner feelings, motivations and desires? Of course not. So they all _assume_ their god exists. PROOF PLEASE!

[@bcatcool]

Proof is a straw man argument I believe. If you listend to the interview they agree that ultimately this is NOT possible. Seeking understanding making choices along the way and respecting others perspective is pretty much what they are suggesting compared to - as you have demonstrted - an off-the-shelf pretty meaningless argument about arrogant Christians. Ill ask you what books you have read and what your life is like rather than blowing your head off. If you think that the supernatural cannot exist then you live a completely material universe then you are beleiving in probably a relativistic world just making up your own rules as you like? What do you think? Offer something meaningful.

[@_Sloppyham]

@@bcatcoolI don’t think this person ever said that the supernatural CANNOT exist.

[@bcatcool]

At some point I felt slightly sorry for Alex. The complexity and effort to answer such questions on the basis that you are in the 'territory' of Christianity is clearly costly. Lord I am praying right now for the 'moment' to take hold of Alex. Then hopefully he will find peace. Holding and seeking balancing so many different ideas must be exhausting.

[@frankvandermerwe1487]

LMAO.

[@tonygoodkind7858]

_bcatcool,_ What are you talking about? Was strong, logical evidence of a god presented? No? Well then atheism is the correct position to hold, period. Until the first theist actually provides a good reason to believe a god actually exists, _nobody_ should believe.

[@GoldenMechaTiger]

This alister guy really seems to want a lot from Dawkins. He somehow wants him to present an alternative to religion when that is not at what Dawkins is trying to do. And he also wants Dawkins to read theology which again why would a scientist waste time on that? Dawkins is interested in what is real so inventing some new moral framework or reading theology is just a complete waste of time and it's frankly dishonest of Alister to attack Dawkins on these points.

[@hrvad]

Hitchens was very dialectic, or left wing, in his dealings with religion. Lots and lots of ruthless criticism, very little about what he himself believed in. Also dabbled in "parallel language", such as redefining faith to mean belief in something without a shred of evidence. Also the redefinition of atheism as just "a lack of belief" insulated the atheists against having a positive view of things, and then they could just criticize and leave it there. That also obscures the fact that atheism really is a world view. But they could push that away by directing our attention to the dialectic between established religion and the antithesis of atheism. When atheism was eventually infected with moral thinking it was the Atheism+ crowd that were explicit social justice warriors. Which is just left wing politics and values. In my mind there's no doubt they were just doing the work of the Marxists, although Marxism also has gnostic roots.

[@WIDGI]

Consider this, 95% of the world's population don't live in USA. Terms like New Atheist, New New Atheist and Atheism+ don't really mean anything outside of the US. Whether the correct term is atheist or agnostic is irrelevant, many millions of people literally have no belief in a Christian God or any other gods. That doesn't mean they share a worldview, so the notion of atheism as a worldview makes as much sense as saying, "anyone who doesn't believe in Thor must share a worldview". What you appear to want is for someone to say not just, "I don't believe in your religion", but to explain why they don't, and then to present an alternative religion. Also, until relatively recently, Jesus was the most famous socialist in history.

[@MS-od7je]

The brain is a Mandelbrot set as a complex morphology. Please try to understand what that really means. The Mandelbrot set is simultaneously Internet and finite. It has a beginning and an end. Every iteration begins with zero. It can be shown to be in all structures from the smallest to the greatest in the universe. It is the morphology of your brain. Please try to understand what that means .

[@JK-uo3pd]

No But there definitely is a revival of old paganism

[@simonskinner1450]

Time for New Christianity, back to its roots of Abraham, that properly reveals the OT in the NT. I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity' for NT truth.

[@thedoctor.a.s1401]

yes there is, we need a resurgence of new New Atheism. Christopher Hitchens was the intellectually thought leader of New Atheism.

[@daneumurianpiano7822]

Alex, what if the universe was created with a positive impetus and telos, with an expectation of positive evolution and maturation, but humans gradually ignored their better instincts and sabotaged the process. God intervened (see Oscar Cullman's _heilsgeschichte_, or salvation history) and then personally in the Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, to set us back on the upward path. The goal involves our movement toward unconditional love, selfless behavior, informed faith, and a rich, affirming unity. See Piaget's stages of child development and Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development. "Sometimes when we argue, A grain of truth is sown. If we humbly nurture it, We'll bring a harvest home. Thru respect and listening, We finally agree And form a stronger partnership Than one found easily." --From my song "We Need Each Other"

[@DFMoray]

Has anyone ever become religious due to a debate? God will call his children and they will come.

[@martinmartin1363]

Atheism puts into one box all religions and all the gods and goddesses and Demi gods into the one creator God, and so religion in general is seen as shameful by the media outlets and these media outlets are global and their views and opinions have to be accepted. Society is a global village and what the global village says has to be accepted and never questioned.

[@tonygoodkind7858]

What? No, atheism is just non-belief/disbelief in _all_ gods. Not just the versions of gods that are "one creator god". (And if you meant to use a capital G it's even worse, because you've narrowed it down to the Abrahamic god and only a few others, who use "God" as their proper name.) Atheism isn't with respect to a particular religion. You're an atheist if you believe in _zero_ gods. (In fact that's why I dislike a common atheist argument, _"you're already an atheist for every other god ever invented; atheists just go one god further,"_ because if the person hearing that believes in at least one god, they _aren't_ an atheist.)

[@martinmartin1363]

@@tonygoodkind7858 A snail doesn’t believe in God are you a snail 🤔to truly believe there is no God You would need to have no concept of God but you clearly do , there are man made gods and there is 3 religions that believe in an eternal uncreated God, Islam,Judaism and Christianity, to truly deny God then you have to prove That the eternal God is man made basically to prove that something came from nothing, and if not what created something from nothing. The belief of an atheist is the denial of God and denying something came from nothing, it all just happened, evil it just happened, happiness it just happened etc,the atheist therefore believes he is the arbiter of his own destiny and his views and opinions is what he believes in.

[@tonygoodkind7858]

@@martinmartin1363 1. _Ideas start unknown._ If you disagree then when I tell you about the Undetectable Anti-Deity Donut which prevented all gods, you'd have to believe it until it was disproven -- and you'd have to believe there were no gods. 2. _They only become known by evidence._ Your post didn't contain evidence of a god, so non-belief is the rational, default position. 3. _"God" has a definition._ Just like leprechauns, dragons, and fairies, you can look it up in a dictionary. Then you can look for evidence of something matching that definition in reality. If you find evidence, it exists. If not, you have no reason to believe it exists -- _and you shouldn't believe._ Do you see how nothing about this involves "denying" a god? I'd have to know a god exists to "deny" them. _But neither of us knows a god exists!_ So I'm simply _unconvinced_ by an idea so terrible that _even you_ don't have evidence of it (someone who _believes it's true,_ doesn't even have evidence!). Your "arbiter" comment makes absolutely no sense, but maybe we'll work through those mistakes later to keep things focused for now. After all, no amount of you trying to change subjects (from defending your belief to attacking what you think mine are -- and you're wrong about, by the way) can prove a god exists. _Only evidence of a god_ can prove a god exists. _Be very aware you can't provide any._

[@_Sloppyham]

@@martinmartin1363there is…so much wrong here

[@martinmartin1363]

@@_Sloppyham There is so much wrong here 🙂and you edited this statement 😂hilarious 👍thanks you’ve cheered me up 😘

[@DIBBY40]

I'm a spiritual person, but it is not either athesim, or christianity. Orthodox christianity just doesn't work for me anymore, and it seems the same for a lot of people given the burgeoning deconstruction movement. A God who requires a blood sacrifice, who gets angry and destructive, who will send you to hell for adhering to the wrong doctrines is not a God I can respect, let alone love. Christianity has become about beliefs in the head, rather than the love, wisdom, peace and kindness one embodies. In fact, its rediculous that being a kind person is not enough for modern christianity, who will condemn that person to hell for not having the right beliefs.

[@20july1944]

Does that prove anything relevant? I don't care that you're put off by God -- should I?

[@northernlight8857]

​@@20july1944You would not have responded if you did not care.

[@20july1944]

@@northernlight8857 I care that this idiot is acting as though whatever he things matters per se. It doesn't.

[@becky6644]

Some christians are universalists (they believe all will ultimately be reconciled to God). If the idea of eternal hell is the primary motivation for stepping away from Christianity, I totally understand. But I would also suggest investigating alternative Christian philosophies about hell, the nature of God, etc. Brad Jersak and David Bentley Hart are great resources for this, in my opinion, as well as Robin Parry.

[@DIBBY40]

@@becky6644 I've read David Bentley Hart's book, "That all shall be saved". I liked it. It is amazing to me that he has to go into so much detail to convince other Christians that God really is Love! Of course he has been condemned as heretical ( even though universalism was by far the predominant view of the early church)by the usual suspects.

[@williambranch4283]

Nihilism is a recurring medical condition.

[@user-ih7gc7dt9l]

Atheism is hopeless

[@Alien1375]

Christiantiy is brainless.

[@BubbaF0wpend]

Hopelessness in god disbelief does not make the false hope of god belief worthwhile

[@MrMurph73]

I remember McGrath being utterly DESTROYED by Sam Harris in a debate a few years ago

[@jozefglemp8011]

not very surprising, feels like a beginner in a field

[@Kristofur77]

How can atheism be new?

[@TheMouseAvenger]

You're not familiar with the phrase "New Atheists", I assume?

[@WhatsTheTakeaway]

"New" refers to the approach and arguments of contemporary atheism.

[@Kristofur77]

Atheistic core value the same past millenias. The reason why is nonsense, core Atheistic value hasn't changed.

[@WhatsTheTakeaway]

@@Kristofur77 Atheistic values change all the time. The atheistic values of Chinese people are very different from the atheistic values of American atheists.

[@MrSeedi76]

​​@@WhatsTheTakeawayonly that the arguments are in no way new. All of these debates could have been from 2,000 years ago. I never saw any debate so far that even deemed it necessary to ever define the term "religious truth". In what way, shape or form is religion true or atheism for that matter? They certainly can't mean that every single thing in a book that goes 3,000 years back should be true in a literal sense? As if there even was a concept of scientific truth that we have today. That can't be the level of the current debate. That's as if we ignore thousands of years of thinking about these questions to simply start over and over again. Also - these debates in the English speaking world obviously always revolve around a literal understanding of the Bible which is only supposed to have this exact meaning (the fundamentalist one). It's a strawman debate from the perspective of evangelicals in the US and elsewhere. They are only a minority. Here in Germany nobody would consider those questions about creationism, slavery, etc as relevant. Mainstream protestants aren't literalists. Catholics neither. So the debate is fundamentally flawed. Terms like truth, myth, history, science, etc are never defined, the debate never reaches more than a very superficial understanding of philosophy, theology or science. After watching dozens of debates, and having studied philosophy, theology and sociology myself, I came to the conclusion that KZbin debates are a waste of time.

[@TrueMakaveli50]

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠To be fair, there is no such thing as an “atheist worldview”, being an atheist is not a prerequisite for any kind of belief. You can be an atheist and be the kindest person in the world or the most sadistic. Stalin and Mao were atheists. But so were a couple of the founding fathers of America (more deist than atheist, but socially the same thing) Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. The list of great atheist/deist philosophers and scientists is expansive. So are the crimes of other atheists. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god/gods. It is not a belief in itself. You are an atheist in respect to the thousands of other gods humans have created to explain their world. I assume you don’t believe in Zeus, Ra, Vishnu, etc? Each atheist is responsible for creating their own worldview. With the help from those who came before or on their own. For better or for worse, it’s up to the individual. Which I think is a more noble pursuit than believing the answers have all already been given to us thousands of years ago. “It is better to have questions you can’t answer, than answers you can’t question.” In my view, all the gods humans have created (usually men specifically create them, unsurprisingly) are as likely to be real as any other. They could all be real for all we know. Maybe animism is right and the whole universe is made up of spirits. Maybe the Buddhists are right in that you can find peace within yourself. Nobody can know for sure. So the best you can do is live your life as if it was all you had. And treat all life as the precious, fleeting thing it is. To live through all the suffering, with love in your heart, until the end. That’s my worldview. Take care!

[@alexnorth3393]

Religious belief does demonstrate foolishness.

[@Starchaser63]

I've said it before, if you have to debate or explain over and over the existence of God then you have already shown God doesn't exist. If God existed there would be no Aethists or reason to debate because God has revealed himself.. any God who can't defeat evil and suffering and wants are constant prayers and praise is not worth worshipping.

[@aosidh]

Love this as an anti-cumulative case, or a more subtle argument from silence/hiddenness! Wouldn't a real god be more convincing?

[@Apollos2.2]

To answer your first point... A Christian will answer and even "debate" is to answer a question or objection. 1 Peter 3:15 NIV - But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.

[@Apollos2.2]

To answer your 2nd sentence. Couldn't we as easily say the opposite? If there were really no God, then why in almost every, if not all cultures throughout the world and history are there so many theists? That argument of yours doesn't seem to carry much weight.

[@Apollos2.2]

To answer your final sentence, according to what I believe the Creator God has defeated death and suffering by Jesus cross and proved it by the resurrection. He hasn't promised heaven on earth but has promised heaven in heaven, eternal life, for all who will turn and trust in Him. That includes you my friend, you can come to God through Jesus and have that eternal life I'm talking about.

[@Starchaser63]

@@Apollos2.2 I will follow Jesus when HE asks me and not anyone else...😃

[@tomgreene1843]

Atheism working well ?

[@christianhayter]

Yes as a matter of fact it is. Survey after survey shows - overwhelmingly, that secular nations enjoy better quality of life than theocracies. In every single major measure of well being

[@20july1944]

@@christianhayter Do you hate Christians?

[@tomgreene1843]

What surveys and nations have you in mind?@@christianhayter

[@mowm88]

New Atheism sounds very much like a British fascination/thing. Here in the States its so much background noise. If that.

[@northernlight8857]

There is a great atheism movement in the US. With the decline of Christianity and the rise of the nonreligious they do make a pretty big part of the populace.

[@shassett79]

Strongly disagree. Like them or hate them, the "New Atheists" blew a large hole in the religious psyche of America and drove fundamentalism to the margins. Where once American evangelicals had carte blanche to proselytize with reckless abandon, now they're decisively confronted pretty much every time they make a scene in the public sphere.

[@fortynine3225]

@@northernlight8857 That is just not true. According research in 2021 majority of americans 63% are religious with 30% being religious nones - atheists, agnostics or “nothing in particular” with 4% of those saying they are atheist. So looks like people ''believing nothing in particular'' which is in 2021 1 in 5 adult in the USA is where we are heading.

[@frankvandermerwe1487]

That's because you arent very smart, most likely.

[@daneumurianpiano7822]

Another factor must be the support or lack of support from God's people.

[@jacetheshepard1917]

Sup Alex

[@Secretname951]

Alex doesn’t make logical sense when he talks about evolution, perhaps his errors don’t distract from the argument but he could be a little less clumsy with his errors.

[@cpt.kimintuitiondemon]

What are the errors?

[@Sigmacadabra]

If you take the time to define the ground in which God does not exist, you will find it's rooted in the profound belief in God. The new atheists are simply those who are taking the long way around to true belief. Admirable but humility is important. Dawkins has to be the most devoted believer in God. Yet he fervently denies it because he so clearly sees past the mythology which requires the most profound belief in God

[@tonygoodkind7858]

What does that even mean? Look it's simple: _knowledge requires evidence_ (detections of reality), and nobody has evidence of any gods, so we don't know they exist, so we shouldn't believe. Until the first theist _finally_ finds evidence of a god (and let's face, that will probably never happen), we have _zero_ good reasons to believe in a god. Please start caring more about truth.

[@jerryspace9701]

Alex is too soft with these christians.... Disappointing... And Dawkins is right all the way

[@jacetheshepard1917]

'-') C'mon dude, it's over now.

[@91722854]

u go too hard, they would then just claim that you are being disrespectful to their religion and them as a person, the world is weird, people asking for respect when none should be given, yet they still think it's what they deserve just by having an opinion, I would ask of their god to smite me and don't even wait till I'm dead and send me to hell to make me suffer heavily so that i would have no other choice but to believe, bring hell to me right now, I'm welcoming it

[@daemon6294]

so, dawkins e god now?

[@cpt.kimintuitiondemon]

Alex does a lot more damage by being eloquent.

[@kevincockburn2228]

​@cpt.kimintuitiondemon Eloquence is also indicative of a relatively open mind despite still being on one side. Harsh, aggressive closed minded quips and memes for a lot of people are still only skin deep.

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

God is not hidden He is known by what is made the heavens declare His glory. There is I think allways room for plausible deniability If one does not wish to believe there is a God. God could if He wished make eveyone believe but that would remove free choice.If a person does not want to believe there is a God they will not. Jesus could have called on an army of angels but He did not, He could have done things that would have left no room for doubt but He did not.

[@sysprogmanadhoc2785]

SInce God is "everywhere" he's also in hell

[@RLBays]

It's not that god is hidden, it's that he's a fictional character.

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

@@RLBays That is your belief.

[@dorarie3167]

A god that provides critical faculties but insufficient evidence of its existence, then punishes those who disbelieve, is not just or worth worshipping. I don’t see a god, I see many individual conceptions, but none demonstrably true.

[@RLBays]

@@mrshankerbillletmein491 I mean, he exists in stories but nowhere else, so I'll go with what's both most probable and most plausible.

[@jimmoore9490]

God has given me prophetic dreams for my life starting about 35 years ago that are finally coming true. I also had the Holy Spirit hit me while I was waiting for the trafic light to change around 1994. I was lit up and everything looked new. I cant prove this to anyone since they are personal to me but it surely is the icing on the cake of my faith in Jesus. God will reveal to everyone eventually. 100%

[@MrAuskiwi101]

Seek help

[@jimmoore9490]

@@MrAuskiwi101 I have the best help in the universe. Thank you brother.

[@MrAuskiwi101]

@@jimmoore9490 I was talking about getting help in reality not continuing your delusions. See a mental health professional for your sake and for all those around ypu. Good luck getting better!

[@jimmoore9490]

@@MrAuskiwi101 Fogive me. I need to accept reality that we came from nothing, then a rock , then a spider, then a dinosaur and then a human and then the sudarium and then the shroud of turin and then a spirit body god and then I can create another world and be the king. Man your right I'm sorry I'm delusional. I apologize. I think I need another 4 billion years. I apologize again. Sorry.

[@MrAuskiwi101]

@@jimmoore9490 Accept the evidence not your imagination. Pretending an always existed wizard is the answer is dishonest.

[@Bryanerayner]

The blind belief in evolution is unfortunate. The theory was devised before the theory of the atom when basic chemistry was still closer to alchemy. It does not stand today

[@dorarie3167]

Sorry, are you saying the Theory of Evolution is incorrect? May I ask why you think so?

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

Whichever way you look at it, the bible is a pile of dung

[@shassett79]

Why would a person need an understanding of physics or chemistry to propose evolutionary theory based on observations of the natural world?

[@northernlight8857]

Dawkins is more or less not relevant among many atheists today.

[@shassett79]

Yeah, he kind of lost me with the misogyny and the biological essentialism. Undeniably smart guy, but wrong about a lot of things and younger atheists have better people (e.g. Alex) to look to.

[@martinploughboy988]

Why, why, why does McGrath abandon the Bible? Does he not think that God is not capable of answering all the questions of Atheists? It is really pathetic how people like him do not start with Genesis 1 & destroy the Atheist arguments with what God has said. Is he really a Christian that he has to rely on pathetic worldly arguments?

[@_Sloppyham]

I think he just understands that the arguments directly from the Bible are, let’s say, less than stellar in terms of justification.

[@martinploughboy988]

@@_SloppyhamOn the contrary, the arguments from the Bible are the ones that destroy all opposition. Trying to argue from the same basis as the Atheist is a waste of time.

[@_Sloppyham]

@@martinploughboy988 well, agree to disagree lol