This has been edited from the original. The entire interview can be found at the link below and I highly recommend it, especially if you are interested in libertarianism. • Glenn Beck talks to Pe...
Darwinism is a theory for idiots. It's Christianity they are going after because it's the dominant religion. The religion of the majority. You don't see them going after Judaism, Hindus, Buddhist, or even Muslims. They can have a menorah on the white house lawn but nothing about Christianity anymore.
Rodney Johnson Actually most atheists don't like that either. There is a clip somewhere on youtube of an atheist explaining this to Hannity. I myself am a Buddhist but it's because I like the principles behind Buddhism. I actually would love to believe in god as well and it's OK because Buddhism allows that. Actually as a person that believes in god I too don't believe in religious idols on public property.
Rodney Johnson Nine times out of ten, it's christians who are pushing their beliefs into public spaces because christianity is a religion focused on spreading itself. In that way, it's much like islam since they both seek to insinuate themselves into the business of the state, and thereby expose more people to their teachings. However, in North America christian traditions have already been well established as part of our culture so you see their influence much more often, therefore they are more readily identified as trouble spots. As for jews, hindus or buddhists, the practitioners of those religions haven't been taught to go out and spread the word. They don't proselytize like christians. Hell, NO ONE proselytizes like christians, so christians are going to get the majority of the blowback. It's really simple. When you shine the spotlight on yourself, expect to get all the attention. Well, christians love that spotlight so there you go.
It's so nice that someone finally defined what atheism and agnosticism actually are. Not every atheist runs around screaming about how they know for a fact God doesn't exist. This was a good discussion.
not every atheist? most atheists don't, because it's a lack of belief because of a lack of evidence. The religious community is the one guilty of "running around screaming about how they know"
I have to admit, this was one of the most civil discussions on this subject from two people I didn't really expect to be so civil with each other. I'm going to have to watch the rest of this, but so far, good on the two of you, and the audience for being respectful and open minded.
It really drives me crazy knowing that a lot of people don't have an accurate understanding of what an atheist is. But this video gives me hope. Although I don't always agree with Penn's views, I do love how he explains what an atheist is and what "separation of church and state" is. The best part was that he got through to at least one person in the room and changed the way she thought about atheists and our political goals. I wish there was a way to have this calm and non-combative conversation on a larger scale.
It was one atheist and many Jesus freaks.. They new Jellett would tear'em a new one, or he would simply leave... Have any of you heard of or no of christain 5-7 year olds that got raped by clergy and or friends of clergy... I have first hand knoleage ... It destroyed my family... Them Christains had police messy up paper work, doctors that couldn't verify what really happened, and finally muscle to walk in our home late at night to. Inform us to leave or go missing , we left in 48 hours... Ended up in evangelical hell ...my moms gone my sister is a lush... I got horrible ass problems.... I want revenge so bad it drives me crazy... I think trump might cause a civil war.. I m hoping... This will make it legal at least.. War is war.. War is hell...the two I found are dead and to old to hurt any further ... But I think I should be in the thick of this up coming madness .... I have a hatred that's never going away..almost fifty year s now, my mom died 3 weeks ago . Trump 2016💀
This Jillette fellow is exceedingly insightful and he is about as hardcore a libertarian as could possibly exist, props to him sticking to his principles.
@Gary Edwards He went with Dr Lawrence Krauss and the book that even other atheist are saying is full of contradiction and terrible philosophy. How do you call someone eloquent when they have no clue as to what they are talking about?
That's definitely what Beck was trying to say...but he definitely fumbled through his point. Kind of felt like he got a little lost for a second, like he brain farted about what he was trying to say.
I was a little confused too but I believe he was pointing at Penn, basically saying that Penn is an atheist and he and Penn are still friends, much like Payne and his colleagues
Paine was no atheist. He had his works published in France because he thought the French Revolution was leading into atheism. As anti-religious as he was, he was still trying to proselytize them into believing in a god.
AFractionOfInfinity I think you underestimate the intellect of the people of the 18th century. True enough physics was as far along as it is today, but there were thinkers in those times as well. I don't think most people can conceive of a non God created world in this century.
The penumbral aspect to the separation of church and state is the requirement that the state may not sanction one religion over another--this means that, if you let Christians put up a cresh, you must let EVERY religious or anti-religious group put up an equally sized monument in an equally visible manner. As this is unfeasible, the only alternative is for no religion to have any public assistance or access. P.S. Never mind the fact that our legal system is based upon secular and common law, and that the SCOTUS has already ruled that posting the commandments violates the establishment clause, only 2 out of the 10 Commandments are laws (murder an theft).
***** The Supreme Court has interpreted the 1st Amendment to mean exactly what I spelled out--as they are the only ones who's opinions matter, your comment is absolutely irrelevant.
awesome comment. but all your points are being ignored just liked I thought they would be. prepare for comments that repeats the same arguments while he ignores everything you type.
Penn 9:00, you can do it on public land as long as you pay the fee like everyone else. All excluded or none excluded. Government does not choose the message by the right to have access.
As an atheist I agree with you and disagree with Penn on this as well. Public means public. Would be the same thing as an all gay group wanting to meet on public land. They have that right.
Love Glenn, being a fellow Mormon, I do wish he'd understand you can only exclude and discriminate if you fund yourself and take no public funds or use public property. He needs to realize America is not a Christian nation, but merely a nation founded by (some) Christians. In fact this nation was founded so we could get away from a Christian nation.
Thomas Jefferson actually said America is in no way a Christian country. America was never meant to be a Christian country. America was meant to be a country where people of all religions even atheists would never have to worry about religious percussion. freedom of religion is for everyone atheists, Christians, Jews and even Muslims. I hate many Christians like Bryan Fischer who says freedom of religion was only meant for Christians. despite the fact that Jefferson who wrote the constitution, clearly stated later on that America was not a Christian nation. I'm an atheist and my wife's a Christian. She respects my beliefs on religion. And I respect hers. I don't call her stupid. we do make jokes about each other's stereotypes and beliefs. But only to not take ourselves too seriously. And I don't care that malls or schools have stuff that says merry Christmas. in fact I celebrate Christmas with my wife. But I do think if public places want to have stuff that celebrates one religions holidays. Then they should have have to have stuff celebrates every religions holidays Jews, Muslims, etc. It's only right for a public place to accommodate all religions if they want to accommodate one.
I applaud you and your wife; I hope many more will break from their ignorant prejudices and peacefully and respectably live together as you two have, bravo! Jefferson (as well as Paine) probably understood the separation of church and state and religious liberty better than any other Founder - despite both being unbelievers. One of my greatest inquiries is how different the language of the Declaration would have been if it were written after the Origin of Species - which would have almost surely have made its author an atheist rather than a deist. Had that been the case there would have - thankfully - been no confusion over the usage of the words "created" or "God" in it. In recent years theists have indoctrinated their youth into believing this nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian values rather than merely by people who held those values. It along with scriptural literalism are no doubt plagues on the freedom and intellect of society. I know what you're thinking "Is this guy really a Mormon?" I find it interesting that the average American voter today is almost as unlikely to vote for a Mormon as he is an atheist. We are both at the bottom of the list and least in favor in politics today, which is a shame considering probably no two sects of belief value the principles of freedom and liberty more. Glad to see someone else out there is using the ol' noggin.
I love that these two get along like they do! It goes to show us all that even though we might have deeply different beliefs that we can be friends and be respectful to one another...come on RU-vid lets all be friends! lol Yea like that is going to happen! :)
Aaron TruthRevoltNEWS As I've often pointed out to my friends, when we were children, going to elementary, jr. high, and HS together, and even in college (for most of us), none of us gave a rats ass what our friends thought about God. I have some wonderful friends who are committed Christians, and I have friends who are the ultimate skeptics (all but certain there is no god of any form, not even in the way *I* define God as a pantheist). Why in the world people have to bring religion into things is beyond me. Maybe it has something to do with what you want your kids to believe. I know my kids went to a U.U. church where the only "scripture" was love one another. I absolutely forbade other parents from taking them to this church or that church, or in any way trying to convert them into something they wanted them to be. I let them make up their own minds, and tell them to question even what I say when it comes to "the truth" about religion. Wouldn't it be nice if public schools taught critical thinking? That seems to be the thing most missing among theists and deists, whatever they refer to their God as.
Good job, you made a comment worth existing Hey I'm sorry if you've been misled Not all conservatives are stupid Here on the right we have Ben Shaprio, Steve Crowder, Glenn Beck, Milo So check them out. And I look forward to more comments like these
Yes, but just because many parts of society have changed does not mean that the old rules are suddenly invalid. Just because we now have certain technological capabilities, certain different sensibilities, does not in any way change human nature, and it is upon human nature that the Founders' rules for building a government are based. By that logic, a computer should not work if it is taken out of the country it was built in, because society is different and therefore semiconductors should behave differently as well.
TOASTEngineer The ideas of personal freedom don't begin or end with the people who wrote the US Constitution. I think it's good to focus on those concepts, but I think too much emphasis is given to the founding fathers themselves. It tends to just add to romantic myths that we have about those people. The computer analogy doesn't work for me, because we are talking about ideas, not a static piece of hardware which is subject to natural laws. A computer has no natural evolution like societies obviously do. Instead of asking "What would Thomas Jefferson do?", I think we should continue to ask ourselves "what kind of self-government allows the most personal freedom?". It's clear that the founding fathers' idea of freedom mainly meant freedom for white men who owned property.
drumrnva I strongly disagree with your opinion there, but I can see where you're coming from. But just because society changes doesn't mean that human nature itself has changed. That won't change until we stop being human, and despite what many transhumanists think I doubt that will be any time within our lifetimes. But yeah, it's better to think for ones self and allow the ideas of great men to guide your thinking. Stand on the shoulders of giants, not in their footprints.
Well, actually he did. That was a hard thing back then for people to come to grips with. Anthony Johnson came to the American colonies in August, 1619 as an indentured servant. In 1623 Johnson had completed his indenture and was recognized as a free negro. In 1651 he acquired 250 acres of land in Virginia, later adding another 250 acres; a sizable holding at the time. John Casor, a black indentured servant employed by Johnson, became America's first slave after a legal dispute with Robert Parker. Parker was a white colonist who employed Casor while Casor was still indentured to Johnson. Johnson sued Parker in Northampton Court in 1654. The court upheld Johnson's right to hold Casor as a slave on March 8, 1655. The court found: Read more at www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef2_1336262149#0se5UxBfdAX6LyMd.99 Not much of what people THINK they know is everything there IS to know.
Anglovox I would have too. Imagine the Historical significance of your personage being recognized for the rest of History as the First Slave Owner in the US Colonies. Nice, eh ? If slave ownership were Legal today and not the Social stigma as it was back then who would own them. I don't think I would. I ponder it and still, nope. Not for me. Morals and the horror in my mind of owning another person. It's nearly too difficult for me to be a decent Dad. I like being a Dad and all. Don't get me wrong, but I always worry will I make a mistake and seem like I am FORCING my child to practice Piano and then he'll grow up thinking, F'n dad ALWAYS made me play that danged thing. I HATE him for that. Ohhooo, did I feed the slaves today? Did my son? Shoot, I don't wanna OVER feed them. That's how I lost those fish !
Alright. Here's the deal....it not really useful to look the actors in established history COMPLETELY from a MORAL context. It doesn't work. History, which is to say the SOCIAL EVOLUTION of human thought, is by definition a COMPLEX thing. Look....We, the Americans, won a grand victory by Revolution.....and there was undertaken a "republic", GRAND experiment in "democracy...and yet there was chattel slavery ENTRENCHED in South among the planter class.....which was TOTALLY contrary to the very "spirit" of The U.S. Constitution and The Bill of Rights. ....but we HAD to start SOMEWHERE....and NOW, we DON'T have slavery....so we DID get there. The U.S.A. is, and has NEVER been, perfect....but it DOES NOT behoove us to allow "perfect" to be the enemy of "good." ....and because of this, The United States is STILL the GREATEST FUCKING NATION ON THE PLANET!; It is the last and ONLY hope for humanity!!!! ......Ya' fell me?
Anglovox I absolutely and totally agree with you. I abhor the thought that we started with indentured servitude and it morphed right in to full on Slavery. Damn those muslims selling their kinsmen all those years ago. It is what it is today and only India and some few parts of Africa and the middle east still practices Slavery today. I hope that one day no one does such a thing. Not only are we the Greatest FUCKING Nation I will go you one further and say we are also the BEST Nation on Earth :) today in every other way as well, Bar NONE! BOOM, )drops tha mic.)
Penn gave some eye-opening reasoning to me, and I've watched a lot atheist videos / debates. Loved it -- one thing: did he paint his left ring finger red?
Jillette's argument regarding the separation of church and state is relatively new. There was no such thinking in the Founder's day. They had no issue whatsoever in allowing religious observances and even religious services on public property. Since the Founders wrote the First Amendment they obviously understood its intent, and acted as I mentioned above anyway. That means that its intent was NOT to remove all forms of religious observance from the public square. Jillette said that he doesn't want a nation of bullies, but that's exactly what people who think like him are. Modern atheists, and the organizations they run (like the FFRF in Madison, WI), twist history to suit their agenda, which is to remove all religion from the public arena. Unfortunately, through legal threats and bullying, smalls towns and cities around America out of fear give them their way when they don't have to. The atheists never win when they are stood up against legally, because history isn't on their side. More Christians need to stand up and punch the bully in the mouth, so to speak, and establish American as it once was.
No. Atheists don't want to FORCE things in others space. Religions do. As he said, do whatever you want but a governing body should be protecting and standing up for every individual, not bias in one direction or another. Like where the money goes and what is allowed on public property.
Penn's statement that the nativity scene controversy is a conservative point is definitely true, in my opinion. I'm a believer and follower of Jesus, but I don't want the government promoting or infringing upon the rights of my religious beliefs...whether it represents Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. Penn is quite impressive!!!
He wasn't saying they can't gather on public property. He was saying that IF they receive taxpayer money they cannot gather on public property and exclude people. If they were not receiving taxpayer money they should be allowed to gather on public property just as anyone else should. But receiving taxpayer money is an endorsement from the state for that particular belief.
"God is good" automatically says morality is outside of God. While I don't think that's what that comment means, Penn is correct. That is what it implies. It should be the other way around. I enjoyed this discussion very much. It's nice to see that atheists and theists can share their philosophical beliefs peacefully through their understanding of the right to life and happiness. If we could all be like this, imagine what could be accomplished.
LOL I am more willing to give him respect just for BEING respectful. I very much like how he was able to explain his views without ever saying that people who believe in the Lord are wrong for their beliefs.
I am finding Glenn Beck be an awsome anchor of an tv-show, first time ever, he is actually very good in this video. have to say it, because he used to piss me of. Well done Glenn
Pen is awesome and I love Glenn too. They speak the truth as they see it and can agree on the constitution. There is so much more we can unite on then we disagree on, if you believe in what this country was founded on. if not maybe not so much!
I'd add to Penn's "don't take public money or use public land", that must necessarily includes tax breaks since getting a tax break for your business or religious group, that is fundamentally the same as the gov cutting you a check.
alastermyst No, they are an NPO and deserve the same treatment that any other NPO gets. They are also people and deserve to be able to use public land.
Josh White "No, they are an NPO and deserve the same treatment that any other NPO gets" LMAO, no, they obviously are not. If I set up a chain of buildings, called it all an NPO, and simple funneled all the extra money above operation costs into my pockets, that wouldn't be the same as what is considered as an NPO.
No, not specifically. I do have this though, which is related to the topic and a pretty good read: skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/19693/if-american-churches-paid-taxes-how-much-revenue-would-that-generate
When Penn refers to people saying "God is good" it's important to understand the difference between the ancient eastern notion of that phrase, compared against our western notion. Because I think he would agree with the classical theist perspective. In the west, God happens to be the biggest being among beings. Who created with substance below him, in accordance to standards above him. In the east, saying "God is good" meant that God is goodness as such. God is not AN absolute being, but rather absolute being.
Sorry, got cut off. Several times on the video. His response is to the woman asking about religious language in the bill of rights (endowed by their creator) and hot that fits with the separation of church and state. Penn responds that any atheist at that time would be considered a deist who recognized the need for a prime mover (in this case a non-interventionist god). Given our current knowledge today the prime mover is more likely to be a natural process or laws. Therefore he does not believ
Really good discussion and props to both of these guys for being able to have different opinions and be so calm and respectful of each other. The question that came up in my mind after watching this is shouldn't the individual person be able to practice or display what he wants on public property that he is paying for? For example, why wouldn't the boy scouts be able to hold jamboree's on public lands that they are paying for? I think everyone is to quick to get offended.
For Christians having issue with this; he said it himself, "I do not have an ACTIVE belief". That is brilliant. It does not deny the existence of God and affirms that belief is a choice. How many of us (according to this definition), were actually atheists for a very long time before making this choice? For the Atheists; Let's just assume for a second that there is a God. Christians believe that God "calls" us and changes our hearts. Perhaps God is silent to you for a reason.
I have no problem with people putting up giant crosses, nativity scenes, or anything else. They just need to do it on their property with their money. And even as a libertarian, I can say Thomas Jefferson was wrong on this issue.
I love how they mention Christianity and reference Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and don't mention that these God fearing "Christians" had SLAVES.
This is why atheists need more philosophers and thinkers speaking out. Scientists do not have the oratory skills in most cases to really speak on these things, and guys like Neil deGrasse Tyson who do, stray away from it because he knows he doesn't have the credentials to properly articulate it. You're not going to prove religion wrong with facts and science - religion is the battle of logic and philosophy.
Spiritually, I'm about as far away from Mr. Jillette, but politically, we agree a lot. Displaying a nativity scene, for me, should be handled in a free market. If there really is such demand for a nativity scene, it should be easy to raise the funds to rent out the space and display it.
What everyone seems to be missing in this type of discussion, wherein we intertwine the beliefs of the Framers with the beliefs of religious persons of all types, is that the Framers were HUMAN, and they made mistakes. I know that's sacrilege to a lot of people, but Jefferson said (paraphrasing now) "Don't treat the words of long-dead people like holy scripture. Your ancestors are no smarter than you, and things like the Constitution need to be revised or re-invented every generation." Now, looking at the cultural and scientific milieu of the late 18th Century, and you cannot possibly base your life on what those people were thinking. Jefferson--whose thought process we perhaps admire most--said it himself. Evolve. Change. Improve. Science now tells us things we could not have dreamed of 200 years ago.
Secondly, we were never intended to be a Christian Nation and didn't start out that way. The very first treaty we passed in the very first congress, which was passed unanimously by the way, was The Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of that treaty says "We are not, in any way, a Christian Nation. So who's right? Some Christian apologists trying to rewrite history or our true founding fathers? I'll go with the founding fathers.
As a Christian, I understand being neutral on federal or state property. On a public property, the First Amendment argues we have a right to express our religious or non-religious views.
Anything that's different from christians in America is frowned upon. As long you are christian all is good. anything else you are considered evil. Typical bullshit hypocrites.
Good discussion, but if the possibility of offending someone is grounds for denying activities on all public lands, then what exactly can be done on public lands?
I think many people misinterpret the First Amendment. I believe that the Ten Commandments are used in much of the same way as the Roman styled columns. They are not exclusive but rather show what cultural aspects America has applied from other sources.
And I think that our culture should strive to move farther away from its Christian influences. You might not agree, but I don't think it's the government's place to say that Christianity is a force on our culture that should be proudly displayed.
I understand where you are coming from and I know that there is now a general trend against Christianity. I would agree with your point on a state and federal level, but if a small community wants to express itself in this manner I don't think it should become a topic of national news.
Polite Conversation The trouble is the small community is the very place where someone who believes differently will be run over. Trust me on this one because the town I'm in is under 1,000 population and people considered different suffer far more here than in a city of a million.
There's always going to be forces of conformity in a community. America is moving closer and closer to a national community which would replace the community in the traditional sense. If implemented correctly, a small communal system could provide more choice and diversity. Under the current system no one is happy because we are each holding each other back from the aims of a different group. I understand your preference to the big city. You and I both did not fit in our small town. However, if people with similar beliefs to us could form a community then the benefit of the large city(diversity) and the benefit of the smaller community(deeper connections to the people around) could exist at the same time.
It drives me crazy when people say we started as a christian nation and when people say the the our Declaration say that we are endowed by our creator. IT DOES NOT. It says that "all men are created equal and THEY are endowed by THEIR creator. Whomever each individual deems that creator to be. "We and Our" implies a collective. "They and Their" implies individualism.
He's not wrong. Agnosticism isn't a single definition, different agnostics explain their way of thinking in different ways, that's all. I do agree with your definitions, however there are a great many agnostics who identify with agnosticism based on the belief that atheism is a positive belief that a god or gods don't exist. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheism with faith, that to me is the difference, and they aren't mutually exclusive at all. This is also becoming widely understood.
Penn broke down the actuality of atheism and libertarianism philosophy into a childish level of understanding for these people, and they seemed to be affected by it. Well done!
+Henry Murphy Atheists will consider ANY and EVERY possibility for the creation of the Universe and the origin of life (despite not having a shred of evidence for any of them) , they will even entertain the possibility that aliens created life, BUT the one and only concept they refuse to entertain, and with some hostility, is the concept of a Creator!
Andrew Case HA! Abiogenesis is a joke! There has never been any chemistry supporting life from non life!! Life originating from unguided accident/chance is comparable to the dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop!
As an American atheist, I support and defend everyone’s right to believe or to not believe in whatever they choose, free from discrimination and oppression. I do not, however, support someone using our government to impose their particular religious beliefs onto anyone against their will. If someone tells me that they can’t eat ice cream because their religion doesn’t allow it, that’s perfectly acceptable. But if someone tells me that I am not allowed to eat ice cream because their religion forbids it, then I have every right to tell them to go take a flying leap while publicly ridiculing and unrelentingly mock them and their fantastical delusion that our nation, somehow, only belongs to them and that our nation is no longer a secular republic based on democratic principles but rather some sort theocratic dictatorship that curiously aligns perfectly with the particular interpretation of their particular version of their particular denomination of their particular religion.
I am an atheist and I never tell anyone to abandon their faith in god. I actually would fight for their right to believe in a god. Don't listen to fake atheists who say they are because they want to sound intelligent and want to cram their way of thinking down your throat. I would expect from intelligent theists not to try to convert me in return.
I'm not at all surprised that Glen Beck and that lady from the audience hadn't been exposed to these arguments before... when you take it on faith that you are correct what incentive do you have to question your own beliefs or understanding of an issue
Issue with this is only... Penn agrees Pharmacist should not have to sell birth control but on another interview on CNN said the flower shop in Indian was discriminating against a gay couple when they refused to sell flowers.
The Difference is that the Pharmacist shouldn't have to sell a product it doesn't want to sell but as soon as you decide to sell a certain product (like 'flowers' as was the case with the flower shop) then you can't refuse to to sell that product to only certain individuals. Either you sell something to anyone and everyone who wants to buy it (until you run out of stock ofcourse) or you don't sell it at all.
I've never watched The Blaze before, but the camerawork is just absolutely horrendous! Keeping the fucking camera still for more than 3 seconds would be a great start at allowing people to become really engaged in what they're saying, instead of figuring out what part of the studio we're looking from. It's like they've got the cameras on a Scalextric track.
Not the lions' den at all (which is ironic you use that term since it originated in killing people of faith for having faith), Penn and Glenn are good friends and respect each other quite a bit. It was a civil and respectful debate and never would have been anything else.
JohnEBoy89: Of the things that are morally good, Does God command them because they are morally good? Or Are they morally good because God commands them?
Just a quick comment... The original Hebrew actually reads "Thou Shall Not Murder," not "Thou Shall Not Kill." That's a pretty big distinction, especially since Yahweh was the Hebrew God of War, and people in the military are paid to kill by their gov't. That said, thank you Penn Jillette. You represent us, the Libertarian agnostic atheists, well.
Penn gave clarity on this mate. Gnosticism is about Knowing Agnosticism is about not Knowing. Theism is belief. Atheism is non-belief. I've met Gnostic Atheists, Agnostic Atheists, Gnostic Theists and Agnostic Theists. Each type of person is interesting to talk too in there own special way.
Nacasius Someone can claim they know God doesn't exist, but it's impossible to disprove something unfalsifiable. Everyone being agnostic does not take away from being an atheist or a theist (non-believer or believer) as my original comment pointed out. Everyone is agnostic. There is literally no such thing as a Gnostic Atheist because it is impossible to have knowledge of something unfalsifiable unless the thing which was unfalsifiable shows itself in some way.
The Reasonable Atheist I think the point is that the believer are convinced themselves that there positively is a God, and has nothing to do with proveability, if that is a word. And I suppose it could be possible at some point in time that there is a God, but the negative can never be proved.
azznbad1 Being convinced is not proof of anything. There is never going to be knowledge for or against God, just as there will never be knowledge for or against unicorns that fart rainbows.
Penn does not give the correct definition of agnosticism. Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god. This means an agnostic can make no claim either for or against the idea of God because that knowledge is beyond their grasp or any ones grasp, for the agnostic while I respect the position as no point in the conversation. An Atheist on the other hand asserts that there is no God but this assertion is merely a belief and this is the commonality between them and a theist. A theist argues the opposite point that God does exist. I respect all the different forms of belief or non belief but we must not mix turns in order to fit what we want them to.
I disagree with Mr. Jillette's view on health care. It needs to be standardized. You can't have hospitals or pharmacies turning away people they don't want or refusing certain treatments. Ever human has a right to basic healthcare. If you can deny any person basic healthcare for any reason than you can start weeding out the populace that you don't like by getting groups on hospitals in an area to refuse medical care to minorities.
I think that was hypothetical, he doesn't believe in a "prime mover" he just explained it that way to make a point on how he would've been a deist back then when the margin for god were even bigger since there was little to no explanation to the natural world, He is in fact an atheist in the sense that he does not believe in god, but being certain about the existence of a god would just be a vague assumption.
