Machiavelli died centuries ago. Modern historical science is about objectivity. The historian should inject his opinion on history as little as possible. A historian's job is to write about history and explain it, he shouldn't give his opinion about it when not necessary. He should stay as objective as possible.



I wouldn't call late Rome immoral, not anymore than early medieval Europe which, I assure you was a lot less moral and still thrived regardless. Rome and Byzantium both had high standing cultures, well developed commerce and a high standing culture with for example major Christian philosopher St. Augustine of Hippo.

Your notion of morality is rather twisted anyway. You call modern 'liberal' Christianity (it's not fucking liberal; if it were up to them I'd remain a virgin for the rest of my life because sex outside of wedlock isn't allowed and since there's no way in hell I'm ever finding a girl... very fucking liberal, yeah, forcing me to accept celibacy) immoral.

Your moral compass is really fucked up. if you think modern Christianity is immoral (it's irrelevant at best). At least modern Christianity isn't burning heretics on the stake, burning women on the stake for witchcraft, selling tickets to get into heaven, legitimizing royal absolutism, legitimizing anti-Semitic pogroms, condoning the murder of Muslims and Jews (which had taken refuge in a house of worship) during the first crusade, taking an active role in European imperialism and in conjunction with that forcing its religious teachings down people's throats when those people don't want a new religion, being happy with their own which becomes subject of active disrespect (one of things that played a major role in the Great Indian Mutiny of 1857-'58).

All I can say, Onkel Willie, is that you are a good illustration of my points in my article on atheism.

Why? Because I'm disagreeing with you and providing facts to back myself up? You might perceive what I said as bashing of religion, but all of those things actually happened, there's no denying them.

Fact is your definition of atheism remains fundamentally incorrect. I don't hate God. As far as I'm concerned he doesn't exist and never has. The etymology of the word as well as the dictionary give the official definition of atheism. Your definition was just created by you to serve your own prejudices. Atheism means not believing in God, it's not hating God because hating him would require the belief that he exists (which I don't have).

The sources you cite aren't based on empiric research which means they're not exactly reliable either, and you've taken quite some stuff out of the original context.

Also: congratulations, way to go in not addressing any of the points I made!

Of course I exist!!!
-GOD

I watched only small portions of the two videos. Both videos, however interesting they may be, are ultimately pointless. Just because one intellectual has better debating skills than another doesn't mean that their position is the correct one.



Whether they have doctorates or not ultimately doesn't mean anything. I've studied theological and philosophical subjects as well.

Atheism is still the superior position for a number of reasons which I'll explain below.

1. The default position for any serious researcher or intellectual should always be one of skepticism.
If a group of individuals approached a team of scientists and told them that there was a monster that inhabited the lake of Lochness, the scientists would not jump for joy and start carving statues of the Lochness Monster so they can begin to worship it. Instead, they might gather some scientific instruments, side-scanning sonar, underwater cameras, etc, so they could try to document this supposed monster. Also, no scientist in their right mind would try to defend the existence of a supposed Lochness monster unless they actually had considerable evidence to support their claim.

2. Some may argue that this "God", although it created the universe, actually exists outside of it. So therefore there would be no actual evidence of God itself, but only the evidence of its creation. This is an argument that was put forth to me by a Christian pastor who was preaching at my college a few months ago. I thought it was entirely ridiculous. How can we arrogantly say that our universe is "intelligently designed?" We only have ONE universe to observe. It's not like we have a dozen universes to compare to one another. You can't compare apples and oranges if you only have apples! How would we compare an intelligently designed universe to a non-intelligently designed universe anyways?

Also, just because there was a big bang or a beginning galactic explosion to our universe, that doesn't mean a God had something to do with it. And just because we don't fully understand something, that doesn't mean we should just throw our arms in the air and say "god must have done it!".

3. Humans have a very long history of explaining things by using the "God must have done it" excuse.
A long time ago it used to be that lightning and thunder were thought to happen when the sky Gods were angry with humans. Today, we know this is not true at all. Poseidon doesn't live under the Atlantic ocean, and there isn't a giant lava god hiding in a Hawaiian volcano, although that would be fucking awesome if there were! Science and knowledge eventually explained away all the gods and goddesses of old, along with many superstitions as well.

4. If you do believe the universe was created, then why settle on God as an explanation? Why not highly advanced Aliens from an alternate universe? Why not an advanced computer programmer from an authentic reality, who created this universe within an artificial computer system? Or maybe a computer programmer from an artificial system who created this universe in another artificial system? It can go on and on and on.

How do you know whether THIS reality is an authentic (natural reality) or a virtual (simulated) reality?

Before we can even begin to surmise whether some supreme being began creation, we first have to determine what kind of reality we're actually inhabiting. I honestly don't have that answer!

I'd like to know how small "small" is...but I will give you credit for the fact that you did more than anyone else......Nor does the audience decision over who won determine the truth. Hate him as you will, but Pope John Paul II said it best: you can't vote on the truth.

Having said that, it does make it easier to win an argument when you are arguing the position that is more intellectually honest. Playing where it lays is probably the most important debate strategy of them all.It doesn't mean everything, but it does mean something. Do you really think that you've studied it as much as either of these two have?If you're going to be balanced though, then you'd have to expect that they'd be skeptical of atheism's favorite scientific theories about how the universe began. Are they? Can you really tell me that they are as skeptical about theory which they are obviously biased in favor of? Not that it's an atheist-only theory, but how many scientists have you heard express skepticism about evolution, to the point that they are giving it a truly honest and fair hearing?That comparison is a misrepresentation of most religious people, and you know it. This is one thing that really gets me about modern, angry atheists...they frequently aren't honest in their arguments. They're very good about expressing their antipathy for religious people, but passing that off as balanced, pragmatic arguments is not intellectually honest.First of all, the very nature of deities as commonly proposed by religion and scripture put it beyond the realm of detectability by typical scientific analysis. They are not characterized by being able to be detected by normal means, and often, they are said to be entities whose existence must be taken in faith... So to try to compare a deity to the Loch Ness Monster is, as most atheist arguments are, intellectually dishonest.See my above post.Wait a minute... What kind of college is this, and why are you attending lectures like this? Explain the circumstances.Why does it have to be arrogance, especially if he's just repeating something he was taught? I would say that making existential arguments and assertions, not explaining why one is correct by basing it all on someone else being wrong and their contrary ideas being correct by default (for some mysterious reason), is the truly arrogant position.I don't get how you think that guy was comparing one universe to another anyway, as if there were more than one universe... Also, did he suggest that there was a way to observe the creator of the universe in a position outside of it? Did he say that?

See, what you're apparently doing is dreaming up a whole bunch of assertions that this pastor probably never made, and then trying to project them onto what he actually did say, as a way to make it seem (to yourself) that he is bound, by his own arguments, to a burden of proof that he cannot provide. It's really just a straw man on your part, if you think about it...unless you can tell me more about what he said.So what? You are the one throwing your arm in the air and saying "there is no such thing as a god" just because someone cannot empirically show you a deity.

Again, atheists are guilty of imagining that certain arguments and propositions are being flung their direction, that might not be, and assuming that their viewpoint is the default correct answer if others' cannot be proven true...even when the true propositions might state that they cannot be scientifically proven and must be taken in faith.Again, another straw man... You are assuming that all religions and theological theories are on equal footing with one another in terms of falsification, which they are not. Just because the Greeks thought that Zeus lived on Mt. Olympus does not mean that all religions are equally false, or equally falsifiable.

Right along with that, it's also very common for atheists to make a similar assumption: that all religions pose an equal threat to civilization. Does any intellectually honest person think that terrorism is as likely to be committed by a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Christian or a Jew as it is by a Muslim? Of course not, which is why atheists who point to Muslim violence and say "Remember, ALL religion is this dangerous" are intellectually dishonest, pushing an agenda.Well you can sit and speculate all day long about the origin of existence, but unless you can come up with something that you can scientifically demonstrate, by all of the same rules you are trying to invalidate religion by, you can't invalidate what anyone else says about it.
So what makes you think that you can say, with full confidence, that anyone else is wrong?

Better yet, why get so wound up about it?
If you think that this pastor who comes to your college is wrong, then why not just believe that he's wrong and go on your merry way? Why not settle on the idea that, although no one is convincing you of God or whatever else, that you, by all of the same yard sticks you are using on them, can't logically convince them otherwise?

Interesting quote, especially when you consider that the Pope's church has done exactly that.
It was the early Roman church that essentially voted on what books would be available in the new testament and what doctrines/theology would be practiced by the church.

There weren't any Marcionite, Gnostic, Ebionite, or Eastern orthodox Christians who attended the council of Nicaea to offer their opinion on which "holy texts" were trustworthy or which doctrines should be included in Christianity.



So having faith in a God is more intellectually honest than lacking a belief in a God?



Definitely not, and I'm glad I haven't because there is no straightforward answer to the question they're seeking. I know when to stop research into a subject that I know will be a fruitless endeavor.
If the answer was objectively obvious, then both of those men would agree with each other but they don't.
And yet, the default position of skepticism is still the most valid in this case.

The only evidence creationists can present for their case is that everything "appears to be intelligently designed", therefore there must be an intelligent designer. But we know that through the processes of natural selection and genetic mutation, greater intelligence can arise from lesser intelligence. Complexity can arise from simplicity. Simple elements or chemicals can form into more complex chemical compounds, and this happens naturally in our world and the rest of the universe. Simplicity can give rise to complexity without an intelligent being causing it to happen.

If someone made the claim that life existed on the planet Mars, the default position would be similar to atheism. A scientist would say that he does not believe or has a lack of belief that there is life on Mars, unless evidence is presented to show otherwise. Just because there are some areas on Mars that give the appearance that life could exist there, that doesn't mean we should assume that it is so.



That comparison is actually true for MANY religious people on this planet, maybe not Christians or Muslims though.
I'm not an angry atheist. All in all I would say atheists are more psychologically sound than their religious counterparts who often struggle with guilt, sin, and the prospect of eternal damnation if they misbehave. Some aspects of religion can help people overcome hardship and obstacles, but many aspects of religion can also be psychologically detrimental for believers, and sometimes physically detrimental as well.



I have nothing against religious people. In fact, I think some people actually NEED religion, i.e. they function better when they have that psychological crutch that religion can sometimes provide to a believer. For instance, those who join alcoholics anonymous will often renew their faith or develop a faith in Christianity because it helps to psychologically overcome substance abuse.



Which is why it is usually entirely pointless for scientists to even participate in debates like those in the videos.

The invisible purple unicorns that live on the planet Jupiter are also beyond the realm of detectability. But I would argue that having faith in these invisible purple unicorns can help improve your life and will also save you from the eternal icy prison on the planet Pluto.
You can recite this simple prayer for divine protection: "Our heavenly purple unicorns who gallop below the clouds of Jupiter, may you bless me and my family with divine unicornian protection. May you ensure that our needs are satisfied and that our souls will ascend to Jupiter upon death. By the grace of our heavenly unicorns, Amen."



If you can have faith in a god or goddess, then you can have faith in practically anything!
Why not have faith in my purple unicorns?



I think it's arrogant in general for humans to assume that they know a God designed everything, and that a God has a special purpose for them, etc. The belief in God appeals to human pride and ego. People want to think they're the special creation of some fantastically diving being. Humans want to be the center of the universe, yet we most definitely are not. We're incredibly tiny compared to the vastness of the known universe.



I can't say either position is totally correct, but given the lack of evidence for a God, the default position would be atheism or something close to it. For that position to change, some form of evidence would have to be presented to prove that a universal creator exists or that it designed our reality. I haven't encountered such evidence and neither has the field of science.



No, the point I was trying to make was that we can't assume our universe was designed by an intelligent creator, just because some of us might think it appears that way. Anyways what parameters could we devise to determine whether the universe was intelligently designed, or merely the by product of natural processes?



They don't even have to show me a deity, they just have to provide credible evidence to convince me that our universe was created by an intelligent creator. And "intelligent creator" doesn't necessarily imply "God".



True, not ALL religions are falsifiable.
But religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are falsifiable in some areas, because they make historical claims or other claims that could be disproved. For instance, the bible tells us that the Hebrews left Egypt in an Exodus and that later on they militarily conquered Canaan. These are both historical claims which can be proven or disproved by historians and archaeologists who study evidence from the time period in which the supposed events took place. The evidence for these two series of events is quite lacking, leading many in the history field to cast doubt upon whether they actually happened the way the bible describes. The evidence seems to suggest that the Hebrews or ancient Israelites had always been native to the land of Canaan, were never enslaved in mass in Egypt, and did not militarily conquer all of their Canaanite neighbors. There is also evidence to suggest that the early Hebrews believed that their God had a wife or female counterpart!



You yourself seem to be making many assumptions about atheists. I don't think all religions are equally a threat to humanity. On the contrary, I think centralized governments are a far bigger threat today than any organized religious movement.



Along the same vein, you can't invalidate someone's belief that invisible purple unicorns inhabit the planet Jupiter!


I'm not saying anyone else is wrong, I'm just saying I think it's wrong to assume that they're correct.
I lack a belief in purple invisible unicorns, just like I lack a belief in God.
I won't say that unicornians or deists are wrong (because they could potentially be right), but I think it is wrong to assume that their beliefs are correct without any good evidence to verify those beliefs.

I don't believe in any gods. Of course, I can't say with 100% certainty that there isn't, but I feel pretty confident that even if there is something eternal and infinite it isn't any god found in religion, most of which feel 100% confident they have it right.
There are no air-tight logical arguments for or against. The debate has been raging for thousands of years, and it is still as unresolved as it ever was. If you have the faith to believe, then good for you, but you can't expect to win anyone over by some string of propositions and axioms. After tossing and turning for countless nights trying to find "the Truth", I decided to spare my mind from any more of that nonsense.

Well, go take it up with them. What do you want me to tell you?If voting on truth is absurd, then would their input have mattered?

Hey, why didn't they invite every Pagan religion on the face of the earth to the council as well? Just think...they could have been all foo-foo according to modern values of wholesale inclusiveness...Ah, maybe you didn't watch very much at all of that debate between Dr. Harris and Dr. Craig...because if it was the Notre Dame debate you were referring to in that comment of your to which I responded with this above comment, then you'd have known what I meant about the comparison between Dr. Craig's and Dr. Harris' arguments. You just committed another straw man fallacy. So this is how you excuse your own ignorance or inferior education on something, compared to others? Come on, dude...that is really, really weak. So you're saying that it's a question whose answer cannot be conclusively determined, and therefore, your opinion is correct by default? REALLY weak, dude.Let me stop you right there...

The debate in the video is not over creationism vs. evolution. Did you know that? Did you also know that many religions don't subscribe to the notion of creation without evolution as a component thereof?

I love how atheists try to cut every controversy between themselves and religions people, especially Christian, to an creation vs. evolution argument...I guess you feel much safer wind-bagging about that than getting into sticky subjects like moral relativism, negative evidence and such, eh?Really? What religions people can you point to who hear rumors of a monster swimming in the waters and, as you described, jump for joy and start carving statues of it in preparation to worship it?Really? I would say that most atheists are less psychologically sound, often having extreme complexes over religion, being quite seriously obsessed with something they don't even profess to believe in the first place...doesn't seem to psychologically sound to me. Don't lie to yourself.I love how atheists cannot seem to acknowledge benefits of faith without being demeaning and condescending in the process... This is one of the reasons particularly outspoken atheists have a reputation for being particularly neurotic and antisocial.You didn't watch the video enough to even grasp the substance of what they were discussing. If you had, you'd know that the topic of debate (at least in the Notre Dame debate) wasn't over the existence of God in particular... Just like all the others on here, you don't care what other people have to say about the subject because you are to wrapped up in your own delusions of mastery on the subject, as if what you have to say about it is so damn important... And as always, it's almost impossible to have a discussion with an atheist about anything theological without the atheist trying to be as big of an incendiary prick as he can be...

This is why I have come to the conclusion that most of you guys have real serious complexes over religion. It's a real personal hangup for you...something at the center of a personal vendetta...maybe against your parents, maybe against the preacher who touched you inappropriately, who knows...maybe it's just a way to make yourself feel like you fit in with "the cool kids"... I suppose one could...if they thought they had a good reason for it...
Do I make it a point to act like a prick to those who do believe in unicorns?
No, because I don't have a complex over unicorns.
It's something I don't believe in, but I'm not obsessed with it.

Don't you think it would be a little strange if I did not believe in unicorns, but at the same time, ranted on and on for hours about how they don't exist and expressed undeniable antipathy for all those who do?

Now, go look in the mirror...It's funny that you have come to the conclusion that arrogance is at the center of religion. Seems to me that arrogance is at the center of atheism, held by those who consider themselves more evolved and of great fortitude, able to accept the idea of blinking out into nonexistence upon death. If that isn't cause enough to believe that atheists are arrogant, then maybe how they call religious people stupid repeatedly, and call themselves "intellectual" and "thinkers" is.So you didn't really deny what I pointed out...Even if you did, you would refuse to accept it. It's not as if the acceptance of evidence is a universal thing. Even if they proved somehow that the earth was covered by water thousands of years ago and reassembled the Arc piece by piece, you probably would still reject every bit of it and maintain that there is no evidence whatsoever. I know when someone has their heels dug in...In other words, you committed a straw man against that preacher...Better yet, what parameters could we devise that would be accepted by consensus among those who are hostile to those with opposing viewpoints, likening their beliefs to purple unicorns and such? Probably none.What would you call "credible evidence to convince" you? What would it take?Source?These are things that I have heard from atheists before...no it doesn't represent all atheists, but it does represent many, many of them.No, but again, it's not something that brings me into a froth like it does some people...Well wouldn't it also be wrong to assume anything, including assuming that skepticism should be the default?Again, it's all about who finds what evidence acceptable. I'll be interested to hear your answer for what you consider acceptable evidence.

Well if I had to take up anything with the Catholic church, it wouldn't be over the historical reliability of their religious texts or how those texts were accepted by the church; I would probably be more concerned with the fact that catholic officials are still molesting and raping young children with disturbing frequency.



Maybe if they had invited a variety of other religious groups, then I think everyone in attendance would have had a WTF moment and realized how ridiculous they all were. Debating over which magical stories were true or not, or maybe they would argue over which god or goddess answers the most prayers. Or whether Zeus could kick Jesus's ass in a fight?



I'm watching it right now at the moment.
The first speaker Dr. Craig makes the claim that moral values and duties are "objective".
According to what I have read on the web, Dr. Craig has also made the claim that "Without God, objective moral values do not exist".

Morals and values aren't just a by product of culture, environments, or religion.
Morals/values are heavily influenced by our genetics. The genes which influence our behavior have also influenced humanity's development of legal systems and common morals & values shared by humans. We can see more primitive examples of this when we look at Bonobo apes or chimpanzees. Objective morality can be explained without a God. We can determine if something is wrong or right based on our mental programming, largely influenced by our human genetics, but not exclusively so.



Bill Gates never graduated college, should we trust his advice on computers?



My position of lacking a belief in god is not an opinion.
I could offer an opinion if there was actually evidence to evaluate but there isn't any.
A lack of belief is a default position when confronted with a claim that something new and amazing has been discovered. You don't automatically believe in a new claim when it's announced, you wait until there is evidence to evaluate so you can then decide later whether it is likely true or false. But until then, you lack a belief in that new claim until it can be proven.

For instance, if someone claimed that the 'cure for aids" had been discovered. I would not become a curist and start celebrating. I would remain unconvinced until actual evidence, lab work, medical trials, and success stories had been published, then I would believe.

A lack of belief always...ALWAYS...comes before belief.

Oh dear..

11:45 - 12:11



Craig: "God is loving, kind, generous..."



Craig's statement by itself is incredibly subjective.
Craig is a christian, and he should know full well that his God tried to convince Abraham to kill his own son (cruel joke?), convinced the Israelites that they should murder and conquer the people of Canaan, destroyed two whole cities because supposedly EVERY human within them was evil (including children?), oh and worst of all, God wiped out most of ancient humanity in a flood because once again, most of humanity was evil (including children!).

How can a God who supposedly committed such acts be regarded as an objective source for morality?
This is the same God that supposedly told the Hebrews to mutilate their infant sons' penises. He told the Hebrews to sacrifice lambs and doves in a temple because apparently this so called God loves the scent of burning flesh! In fact, it states more than a dozen times in the bible that God loves the smell of burning flesh.

I don't know if a supreme creator actually exists or not, but I hope no one would base their sense of morality off the biblical god.

Go take it up with them, then. Go pound on the doors of the nearest church and accuse them all of being pedophiles.What would really be funny is to watch an atheist in the middle of that, spitting and hissing at everyone, and foaming at the mouth...Well, since you decided that you were enough of a genius about theology that you didn't really need to study it any further, I'm not surprised that you'd wonder things like who would win a fight between Jesus and Zeus... Well then, you are forbidden by logic from believing that concepts like "right and wrong" are anything more than illusions. You have just bought onto something that can be thrown in your face, every day, for the rest of your life.Would you rather trust Bill Gates himself or one of the college-educated software engineers who works for Bill Gates?Default according to...who? Who made that rule, and why can it not work in reverse?I do or you do? Since when did you start making rules for everyone about what they are to believe and why?And if you didn't like the results of the lab work, didn't believe the trial findings, didn't believe the testimonials of patients, you'd throw it all out anyway...because one of the guys in the company molested a child...Source?

No, we would be laughing at the absurdity of it all.



Actually I do still study theology, but the debate over whether God exists or not is a fruitless debate. You eventually reach a point where there is no more to study about it because of lack of evidence.



No, they're not illusions. To some extent they have been encoded in our genome through many previous generations of natural selection. All of humanity shares a common genome although there are slight differences between individuals and genetic groups. The reason why most of humanity is against murder is because our genetics have programmed us with a brain that is geared more toward reciprocal altruism than the opposite. It's not because some God came down from the sky and told us not to kill, it is our own genetics that usually prevent us from committing murder.

Stealing and murder is very risky. If you get caught you could suffer injury, death, or imprisonment, all of which could potentially prevent you from sexually reproducing with a mate. Morality is intimately tied in with human evolution, not religion.



Skepticism is always the rational default position in science or any area of study. This is what I've been taught at my college thus far. And this is especially true for claims about the supernatural or rare phenomenons. The greater the claim, the greater the evidence you need to back up that claim. If someone was to say they were abducted by space aliens, then they would need to present considerable convincing evidence to prove that claim to most educated people.



I wouldn't call it a rule and I certainly didn't make it up. Skepticism has been vital in every field of research. It's one of the ways that science maintains its integrity.



The evidence should speak for itself. If the lab work, trials, and survival rates of the patients show that the cure is working, then it works.

Here's a fantastic debate, I thought this was far better than the other two:

Frank Turek vs. Christopher Hitchins
Does God Exist?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7WBEJJlYWU