Michael Shermer - What’s the New Atheism? 

Science also has NOT proven anything. It's called materialism and it has already been debunked by quantum mechanics

Correct- however, it has been disproved. See Rands conception of the fallacy of the primacy of consciousness

complexes and grievances from childhood.

@@Talmurid Not sure a philosophical conception is proof of anything? But it is an interesting perspective.

@@Augustus_McCrae Metaphysics necessarily deals with truth claims about reality, otherwise it would be useless and irrelevant. The validity of Rands argument for the nonexistence of God stands not merely as some philosophically abstract curiosity, but a undeniable truth about existence.

Exactly. At 7:33 he spills the beans on their game plan and it's abhorrent to say the least.

No, he did not. @@mugsofmirth8101 ... he was exemplifying the way 'militant atheism' works by quoting their strategy and slogans but he was not identifying with it ,nor promoting it.

​@@mugsofmirth8101 And at 8:10 he states "that's just not my style." Is this an intentional mischaracteriztion of his position by you or do you find comprehending spoken English to be too difficult?

THAT is not the goal of this atheist. Where are you getting your infirmation?

@@mikel5582 Yep and literally everything else he says in the interview shows that IS his style. Claiming something is not his style while his behavior proves otherwise. Actions speak louder than words.

like most of the material on this channel, 10-15yrs ago

@@backwardthoughts1022 That's what I suspected, thanks!

I like your style

Riiiiiiight

Our bodies are in the Earth's mind.

As is evidence by the comment responses above 👆 the secularists in this thread have no argument whatsoever against Earth worship which is a legitimate religious position, especially among Native Americans.

​@@MrKydaman atheists are too dumb , seen it a million times. Complexity of the universe: The sheer complexity of the universe, with its intricate laws of physics and the delicate balance needed for life to exist, can be seen as evidence of a design or creator. Anthropic principle: This principle states that the universe seems to be fine-tuned for the existence of life, which some argue points to a creator who intended for life to arise. Religious and spiritual beliefs: Many religions and spiritual traditions believe in a creator deity who brought the universe into existence. These beliefs often provide individuals with meaning and purpose in life. . Faith is at the very core of science because nothing has ever been proven

"If..," But that hasn't been proved; therefore many people will act more morally than they would otherwise have done. And what will be the result: less immorality, even if God doesn't exist.

@@Bilgeadam111 right they would continue to follow the ideology they've been brainwashed in until someone printed otherwise. And to the brainwashed masses, it is very hard to prove the truth even in the face of significant evidence. Why I try not to persuade anyone. Logic and reason z and let the realities fall where they may

Listen again. He never states that he knows anything with certainty. Do you know with certainty that a pink elephant doesn't materize in your living room every night while you're sleeping? No, you don't know that with certainty. However, since there's a lack of pink elephant evidence, it's a reasonable conclusion that it most likely doesn't exist. There is the same amount of reliable evidence for the existence of gods; i.e., none whatsoever. You *_want_* to believe in a god and that's fine. Just don't expect people who draw conclusions based on reliable evidence to abandon reason and believe like you.

Don’t argue with Atheists, you will never win. Sometimes as a believer I envy their unquestioning nature but don’t envy their hubris.

Source?

​@@Theo_SkeptomaiIf you can't find the source of this information anywhere else, then use this as a source.

@@peweegangloku6428 I won't find such a source. In fact, I will find quite the opposite.

@@Theo_Skeptomai It depends on where and how you search. Also your objectivity matters.

True

Developing morality without god is easy. Morality pre-dates religion by tens of thousands of years. The only thing religion adds to morality is a (long) list of people toward whom one does not have to be moral.

@@njhoepner Is there objective morality? You made claims, but can you justify them? How do you know the things you claim?

@@deanodebo you also have made claims, can you justify them? how do you know the things you claim?

@@jayjohnson5016 which claim?

He specifically prefaced that comment with a "monotheistic" descriptor.

@@mikel5582 actually he specifically mentioned a Norse deity. Pay attention.

@@mikel5582 In any case, the argument doesn't apply to the literally millions of polytheists in the world so that fact alone makes it a weak argument.

​@mugsofmirth8101 You're objectively wrong. He states Apollo, etc. as examples of gods a monotheistic believer might be atheist to. Then you attempt to build in some wiggle room in defense of your initial mischaracteriztion of his position. You're up to three swings and three strikes, just in this sub-thread. The point remains that, with the possible exception of people who believe in every possible god, everybody is an atheist about at least one proposed god. Seriously, this isn't at all complex. Maybe there's an easy-level sudoku you could spend your morning working on instead of taxing yourself over CTT videos.

@@mikel5582 You're objectively wrong. It's not possible to "be atheist about" a single god. Atheism applies to ALL gods. Once again you've demonstrated your failure to understand basic logic and English.

Truth is truth ... always and forever. It is only secular Liberals arguing that there are "undiscovered" truths that some enlightened secular Humanist will discover to challenge the believes & values of the ... majority.

How so?

You have articulated an eloquent and convincing argument. You must have been the pride of your debating club.

This is not a problem whatsoever. It’s a fairly tired and impotent apologetic offered most often by those for whom the greater entailments of the proposition have not even been superficially explored.

Assuming you are correct that morality stems from some divine source, which source is the correct one? It's still up to the human to decide which set of god-given morals is the correct set And some of those even change over time . It's almost as if morals are man-made concepts to begin with. 🤔

@@mikel5582 right, these are all valid weaknesses of the position. And beyond that, even if we were to grant that morals are grounded in whatever god is agreeable to the person using this argument, then this still rules out the objectivity of morality as god’s will is necessarily subjective. Or, further, if god is merely the conduit through which we become aware of the objective truth of morality, then there are laws greater than god thus rendering this being no longer supreme.

With so many views on religion it's all just a personal opinion. Considering their own history, their morality is all very subjective. They have no issue with supporting their obvious moral contradictions. They talk about how life is sacred. Yet they don't even believe it. They decide what life they consider to be important. They scream about being persecuted because they can't persecute others they don't like. They cry about abortion while their own religion allows it. They talk about religious freedom when they don't even believe it should exist. They demand that gov stay out of their lives while pushing to restrict that right to others. All this to support a fiction of theological and moral superiority.

Morality is grounded on empathy which humans as social animals evolved and which most humans possess. We had to work together and care for the welfare of others in order to survive.

@@mackenziemarceau2616 thanks 😀.

"Scientists were just studying science" My lady, you have here mistakingly reified 'science' as all this. One thing is most certain: science is a tool, a made up methodology by man, and in no way can be designated for: emanation, life, being, nature, energy, light, Aether, and so on.

Every time God did one of his many despicably immoral deeds, he must have been going through one of his atheistic phases where he didn't believe in himself.

There's really not much point. The entire USSR was an atheist state that criminalized religious practice (unless you were jewish). Everything else follows from that, so Stalin being atheist is just a given as every Soviet leader was anyway.

I look forward to a similar comment: "Stalin was a priest."

mind as an emergent property of particles certainly means there is no difference between why something should be assembled or not. it is literally meaningless.

He was a catholic

He’s just answering questions. Besides, I heard they can talk to snakes.

The problem in America is that a very politically aggressive extremist christian faction has captured one of the two main political parties, and it forcing their theologically vacuous agenda on everyone else. So we have the criminalisation of fertility treatments in Alabama for example, bans on books in schools, and a concerted attack on science education. We see it here with people who have not even the first basic clue what evolution theory actually says declaring it wrong on grounds that, if they weren't attacking education, would be hilariously misconceived. If someone wants to sit in a corner with their fingers in either ears denying the facts that everyone else is using to building our civilisation around them, that's their right. When they're attacking the basis of the science and foundational technologies we all rely on, that's not ok.

@@simonhibbs887 Do you think saying that an aggresive extremist Christian faction has *captured* one of the main political parties is accurate. Captured as in completely taken over? The reality is that there are extremists on both sides, but the vast majority of people are left leaning or right leaning, and at the end of the day they really aren't that far apart. The problem I see is that the "other side" that you are cleary on seems to want to be extemely divisive and not allow people to have different opinions.

@@MrKydaman >"Captured as in completely taken over?" As in dictated policy of specific issues important to them, such as reproductive health and science education. >"The problem I see is that the "other side" that you are cleary on" You would be wrong, I'm a committed free market capitalist and life long conservative voter. My political coming of age was in the late 70s and 80s, I was and am a Thatcher conservative. I considered the Republican party in the US of the time as my natural political ally on that side of the Atlantic. Since then the Republican party has become a bizarre caricature of it's former self, selling out on the small state individual freedom agenda that lead a caucus of Republican appointed justices to determine the original Roe Vs Wade ruling. It's been subverted by a biblically and theologically illiterate Christian faction that's abandoned over a thousand years of allegorical theological thought for brute textual literalism which, nevertheless, is profoundly ignorant of what the Bible actually says. For example biblically the 'pro life' position is completely absurd. Harm to a woman causing her to miscarry is, according to Exodus, no more serious than property damage. The rabbinical consensus was that the unborn are 'mere water' until their first breath, and as Rabbi himself Jesus would have been well aware of the religious law.

"Just have your beliefs and let others have theirs". Tell that to militant Islam.

The problem is when they don't have the same goals, as in Alabama and education systems across the US.

Not "as moral"; far, far *_more_* moral than the average believer.

@@mikel5582 Nonsense, just as arrogant and gullible.

‘The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses,’ Einstein wrote to Gutkind, ‘the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this.’

@@simonhibbs887 I believe that Einstein also made different statements about God and I agree that he didn't believe in the Bible or the Supernatural, but he also greatly admired the philosophy of Spinoza who in my opinion was a Pantheist.

Science is a method (Function) created by Man (Function) to explain natural phenomena (Functions) of the Universe (Function) composed of space, time, Laws of Nature, Matter & energy which are all Functions. All Functions ... have INFORMATION ... like purpose, rules, properties, processes, & design ... which are abstract constructs & Functions ... that come from the Mind of an Intelligence. Information only has meaning, purpose & value to an intelligence. There is zero evidence .. nature & natural processes .. can make, operate & improve the simplest Function 13.7 billion years ago ... or ... quantum particle, atom, molecule ... or space, time, Laws of Nature, matter & energy ... or the simplest Function made by Man ( a Natural intelligence). Man will always believe in "the gods" because Man is a Natural intelligence ... with a Mind & intellect ... to always deduced by observation ... that anything with clear purpose, function & design can only be made by an INTELLIGENCE like Man. But everything in the Universe including Man's body has clear purpose, function & design. Everything being a Function and Man's intellect .. is the reason Man will always believe in the gods. But only the God of the Bible ... fully explains why He created the Universe & Man ....the sciences & free world developed by Christians ... and fulfilled prophesies from the Jewish Bible by sending His only begotten Son (Jesus). Atheism is for fools .. who ignore everything in the Universe has clear purpose, function & design .. to insist nature & natural processes .. can make, operate & improve a Function.

That's a grandiose fantasy.

@@johnnytass2111 religions are a fantasy yes

We kinda already have that in June 😂

@@rosamorales729 National Migraine & Headache Awareness Month?

@@Newcenturion100 GrooomerPrideMonth

We have learned, however, that there _is_ an alternative to projection. ²Every ability of the ego has a better use, because its abilities are directed by the mind, which has a better Voice. ³The Holy Spirit extends and the ego projects. ⁴As their goals are opposed, so is the result. The Holy Spirit begins by perceiving you as perfect. ²Knowing this perfection is shared He recognizes it in others, thus strengthening it in both. ³Instead of anger this arouses love for both, because it establishes inclusion. ⁴Perceiving equality, the Holy Spirit perceives equal needs. ⁵This invites Atonement automatically, because Atonement is the one need in this world that is universal. ⁶To perceive yourself this way is the only way in which you can find happiness in the world. ⁷That is because it is the acknowledgment that you are not in this world, for the world _is_ unhappy. How else can you find joy in a joyless place except by realizing that you are not there? ²You cannot be anywhere God did not put you, and God created you as part of Him. ³That is both where you are and what you are. ⁴It is completely unalterable. ⁵It is total inclusion. ⁶You cannot change it now or ever. ⁷It is forever true. ⁸It is not a belief, but a Fact. ⁹Anything that God created is as true as He is. ¹⁰Its truth lies only in its perfect inclusion in Him Who alone is perfect. ¹¹To deny this is to deny yourself and Him, since it is impossible to accept one without the other.

The perfect equality of the Holy Spirit’s perception is the reflection of the perfect equality of God’s knowing. ²The ego’s perception has no counterpart in God, but the Holy Spirit remains the Bridge between perception and knowledge. ³By enabling you to use perception in a way that reflects knowledge, you will ultimately remember it. ⁴The ego would prefer to believe that this memory is impossible, yet it is _your_ perception the Holy Spirit guides. ⁵Your perception will end where it began. ⁶Everything meets in God, because everything was created by Him and in Him. God created His Sons by extending His Thought, and retaining the extensions of His Thought in His Mind. ²All His Thoughts are thus perfectly united within themselves and with each other. ³The Holy Spirit enables you to perceive this wholeness _now._ ⁴God created you to create. ⁵You cannot extend His Kingdom until you know of its wholeness. Thoughts begin in the mind of the thinker, from which they reach outward. ²This is as true of God’s Thinking as it is of yours. ³Because your mind is split, you can perceive as well as think. ⁴Yet perception cannot escape the basic laws of mind. ⁵You perceive from your mind and project your perceptions outward. ⁶Although perception of any kind is unreal, you made it and the Holy Spirit can therefore use it well. ⁷He can inspire perception and lead it toward God. ⁸This convergence seems to be far in the future only because your mind is not in perfect alignment with the idea, and therefore does not want it now.

The Holy Spirit uses time, but does not believe in it. ²Coming from God He uses everything for good, but He does not believe in what is not true. ³Since the Holy Spirit is in your mind, your mind can also believe only what is true. ⁴The Holy Spirit can speak only for this, because He speaks for God. ⁵He tells you to return your whole mind to God, because it has never left Him. ⁶If it has never left Him, you need only perceive it as it is to be returned. ⁷The full awareness of the Atonement, then, is the recognition that _the separation never occurred._ ⁸The ego cannot prevail against this because it is an explicit statement that the ego never occurred. The ego can accept the idea that return is necessary because it can so easily make the idea seem difficult. ²Yet the Holy Spirit tells you that even return is unnecessary, because what never happened cannot be difficult. ³However, you can _make_ the idea of return both necessary and difficult. ⁴Yet it is surely clear that the perfect need nothing, and you cannot experience perfection as a difficult accomplishment, because that is what you are. ⁵This is the way in which you must perceive God’s creations, bringing all of your perceptions into the one line the Holy Spirit sees. ⁶This line is the direct line of communication with God, and lets your mind converge with His. ⁷There is no conflict anywhere in this perception, because it means that all perception is guided by the Holy Spirit, Whose Mind is fixed on God. ⁸Only the Holy Spirit can resolve conflict, because only the Holy Spirit is conflict-free. ⁹He perceives only what is true in your mind, and extends outward only to what is true in other minds. The difference between the ego’s projection and the Holy Spirit’s extension is very simple. ²The ego projects to exclude, and therefore to deceive. ³The Holy Spirit extends by recognizing Himself in every mind, and thus perceives them as one. ⁴Nothing conflicts in this perception, because what the Holy Spirit perceives is all the same. ⁵Wherever He looks He sees Himself, and because He is united He offers the whole Kingdom always. ⁶This is the one message God gave to Him and for which He must speak, because that is what He is. ⁷The peace of God lies in that message, and so the peace of God lies in you. ⁸The great peace of the Kingdom shines in your mind forever, but it must shine outward to make you aware of it. The Holy Spirit was given you with perfect impartiality, and only by recognizing Him impartially can you recognize Him at all. ²The ego is legion, but the Holy Spirit is one. ³No darkness abides anywhere in the Kingdom, but your part is only to allow no darkness to abide in your own mind. ⁴This alignment with light is unlimited, because it is in alignment with the light of the world. ⁵Each of us is the light of the world, and by joining our minds in this light we proclaim the Kingdom of God together and as one.

From: A Course In Miracles

THAT’S WHAT I WANNA KNOW!

@SamoaVsEverybody814 thanks for your silly opinion that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I posted.

​@SamoaVsEverybody814 are you upset with life, sir?

@SamoaVsEverybody814 Another irrelevant comment that completely fails to address the subject matter. If you're an adult I feel sorry for you because your behavior and intelligence level is that of a toddler.

@SamoaVsEverybody814 Why should we all be as miserable as you are? I guess it's true what they say: "misery loves company"

@SamoaVsEverybody814 Nice strawman fallacy. There's just no shortage of fallacious rhetoric from you. Why am I not surprised? 😂

"Believers" is pretty nondescript. Believers in what?

@@mikel5582 Not believers but rather accepting scientific data attemtpting to explain the function of quantum mechanics..The Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 was awarded jointly to Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science.. Now go and read the conclusions of their experiments and chew on this!

​@@vecumex9466 You seem angry about my non-confrontational question that simply asked for clarification of the OP's intent. So thanks but I have no intention of chewing on whatever hostile viewpoint you're peddling.

@@mikel5582 Not angry at all just commenting on your believers nondescript reference. Hostile? Are you kidding me!

​@@vecumex9466 Yet I still don't have any clarification regarding what the OP meant when he referrered to "believers." Believers in Christianity? Believers in anti-theism? Believers in pantheism? Believers in the conclusion that all of this is just a simulation? Believers in Hinduism? Believers in multiverses? Believers in the chew-on-this argumentative approach? etc., etc.

Atheists don't necessarily make a positive claim that god does not exist, it's simply the absence of belief in a god or gods. I just don't believe such exist but I'm not claiming to know that for sure in the sense of having proof for it. I also think the answer to that question is that it's unknowable, so I'm also an agnostic, but an agnostic could also choose to believe in the existence of god anyway. To go a little further, I think many of the conceptions of god various theists put forward are incoherent. I deny that those exist because they're implausible nonsense, or outright morally repulsive. However there are definitions of god that are so abstract that their existence or otherwise is moot.

@@simonhibbs887Hey, thanks for clarifying. I always thought atheist rejects the existence of God. I had to look it up and found my mistake.

@@scottc3165 It can mean that as well, it’s all good. As with most such subjects there are a lot of different variations.

@@simonhibbs887there’s atheists in this very comment section making that claim so you’re clearly wrong.

@@scottc3165what mistake? Atheists not only reject the existence of any deities but are openly in denial of it.

Atheism has been going for quite a bit longer than that. It’s all relative.

They try but end betraying themselves like Castro did to Che

Yeah, he's a skeptic. That's pretty much the meaning of skepticism.

@@mikel5582 Nope he's not a skeptic. He's a secularist. He's not skeptical of his views. He believes in them.

@SamoaVsEverybody814 "there is no evidence for the existence of any god" 👈 That's a "god claim" right there but I doubt you would scrutinize it to any extent.

@SamoaVsEverybody814 The irony is you believe everything you just wrote yet fail to see your hypocrisy. 😂

@SamoaVsEverybody814 And again you continue to spew your beliefs at me while claiming you have no beliefs. Keep it up junior you're quite good at contradicting yourself! 😂😂

But he's not a Christian...

@@randygault4564 I never said he was. Would you like me to rephrase? His arguments are pathetically bad and don't come anywhere near the coherence level of the more capable atheist philosophers that have written on atheism.

Which specific arguments are bad? Just because they *_feel_* bad to you doesn't necessarily mean they're bad arguments. Have you ever taken university coursework in logic and reasoning? If you have, how well did you do? If you haven’t, maybe give it a try and see how your skills in argumentation objectively stack up.

@mikel5582 Oh I'm crying laughing right now 😭... you sound like one of Dawkins minions right now. If you want textbook ridiculous pathetic arguments, you can start right there.

Wow, that's a mouthful.

Hmm…interdasting 🤔

Nice one, friend. Yes, I too have read this from the Veda, bible, kolbrin, hermetics, and other such far more ancient texts than the quran.

@@S3RAVA3LM Can you provide reference for your claim, in each of those books where you read it?

@@rizwanrafeek3811 it's not a claim that the quran is a copy and paste at all, and not original. Because you are so biased, discriminate, self centered, obnoxious, condescending, arrogant, cowardly, and delusional, I leave it to God, for whatever his reason, for keeping a tight chain on you and blinding your vision, making a drunkard out of you in mind, and preventing you from true realization. What is there to admire in the likes of you, rizwan? There's no spirit in you, no love. You're not a wiseman, poet, philosophy, artists, doctor, activist, warrior, godly man, altruistic, philanthropic. What makes the dross of you think others should consider your ugly decree all the while you ignore everybody else? You think you're of Allah, and yet even Allah has rejected you. Absolutely I can give exercepts, quotes, references, citations backing up my original comments. Allah tells me not to honor a demon who smells from 100 miles away.

@@S3RAVA3LM I understand you pulled it from thin air.

You mean like believing the State Government has your best interests in mind?

@@bowieupland6112No, the State Government is a real entity. It actually exists. I mean something that is exclusively the product of human imagination.

​@@bowieupland6112 Of all the arguments one might come up with to counter the OP's position, that's the one you're going with? The imaginary state government?

@@windfoil1000 Do you believe that the State has your best interests in mind?

@@mikel5582 Yes, that's the one I'm going with. Would you like to answer: Do you believe the State has your best interests in mind?

It's nice that your found time to post in between your 24/7 position as taste-tester for extra-caffeinated coffee.

Maybe it's just a network or server issue. I've read your comments under many CTT videos. They're in no way radical enough to be censored.

You make others look really stupid. So, you got to go.

@@mikel5582 *"Maybe it's just a network or server issue. I've read your comments under many CTT videos. "* ... No, it's a "video topic" issue. It always happens when *atheism* or *theism* is the topic. I knew when I hit the submit button that my comments wouldn't show up. Plus, CTT doesn't feel our feedback and conversations are worth letting us all know that it's not them doing the censoring ... maybe because it is?

​@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I'm not on CTT staff but, if I were going to censor comments, I'd also censor comments that accused me of censoring comments. Honestly, I often run into issues posting comments under videos on many different channels. It's usually my device or network acting up.

@@mikel5582 *"I'm not on CTT staff but, if I were going to censor comments, I'd also censor comments that accused me of censoring comments."* ... You wouldn't maintain your subscriber list for very long if you did that. Nobody wants to spend their time commenting under a video only to have all of their work censored or hidden. RU-vid and channel-orchestrated censorship have been major issues these past few years. *"Honestly, I often run into issues posting comments under videos on many different channels. It's usually my device or network acting up."* ... Interesting that I would only have those "network or device issues" whenever CTT posts videos on atheism and theism, don't you think?