I am covering in this video some of the main talking points in debates between atheists and Christians.
Comments
Seversky is upset about a very questionable quote denigrating atheists?
The Claim is that George H.W. Bush said this at an airport while he was Vice President in 1987. The person who claimed Bush made the statement was Rob Sherman, who was writing an article about Bush for American Atheists magazine.
There is little proof that Bush actually made the comments. There is no video or audio recording, nor were there any other witnesses to the comment to corroborate it. Sherman did not even take contemporary notes at the time. Sherman seems to indicate that other reporters were there and recorded the conversation, but that none of them bothered to save those recording or to report on those sensational comments at the time. If any other reporter did hear the Vice President say that, you can be sure they would have reported it. Given that Bush has never said anything else like that before or after, I find it hard to believe that he would make such a comment.
https://www.quora.com/In-an-interview-did-George-W-Bush-really-say-atheists-shouldnt-be-considered-full-citizens-because-America-is-a-nation-under-God
If Seversky is really concerned with equal treatment between Christians and atheists, then why is Seversky not even more upset that atheists persecute Christians in academia with impunity? Or is it only OK for atheists to ruin a Christian's livelihood, whilst even saying anything derogatory about atheists is to be punished and strictly forbidden? That's a pretty unbalanced scale of justice you have there Sev.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g
Slaughter of Dissidents – Book
Volume 1 of a trilogy, the disturbing premise of this book documents widespread discrimination by Darwin loyalists against Darwin skeptics in academia and within the scientific community. Multiple case studies expose the tactics used to destroy the careers of Darwin skeptics, denying them earned degrees and awards, tenure, and other career benefits offered to non-skeptics. The book exposes how freedom of speech and freedom of expression are widely promoted as not applicable to Darwin doubters, and reveals the depth and extent of hostility and bigotry exhibited towards those who would dare to question Darwinism. The book also shows how even the slightest hint of sympathy for Darwin Doubters often results in a vigorous and rabid response from those who believe such sympathies represent an attack on science itself.,,,
"If folks liked Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," they will be blown away by "Slaughter of the Dissidents." - Russ Miller
http://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Dissidents-Dr-Jerry-Bergman/dp/0981873405
Discrimination (by Darwinists) is a pervasive reality in the scientific (and education) world. It’s also a hidden reality.
Scott Minnich
Richard Sternberg
Günter Bechly
Eric Hedin
Don McDonald
David Coppedge
Caroline Crocker
Bryan Leonard
Martin Gaskell
Dean Kenyon
Roger DeHart
Granville Sewell
https://freescience.today/stories/
Here are many more examples of discrimination against people who dare question Darwinism
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/review-of-darwins-doubt-slams-id-theorists-for-not-publishing-in-darwinist-run-journals/
bornagain77
January 28, 2023
January
01
Jan
28
28
2023
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
Seversky at 70,
If those statements about George Bush senior, and others, are true, why didn't atheists go to the Supreme Court or the ACLU?relatd
Seversky at 67,
I disapprove of the arrogance of the Woke Mob who believes that they are perfect and are THE ANSWER to all social problems. I was taught right and wrong along with my contemporaries. I have no reason to change what I was taught since it's all been proven true.
I'm waiting for your list of "things I might be missing out on."relatd
January 28, 2023
January
01
Jan
28
28
2023
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
Seversky at 66
https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2018/12/02/did-george-h-w-bush-really-say-atheists-shouldnt-be-considered-citizens/OhReally
January 28, 2023
January
01
Jan
28
28
2023
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
Relatd/59
Bertrand Russell is a man who prefers vagueness. Such people should not be allowed to drive.
Would you prefer the arrogance of pretending to a certainty you don't have?Seversky
January 28, 2023
January
01
Jan
28
28
2023
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
AaronS1978/63
Oh thanks Sev for reminding me of the atheist argument of intellectual arrogance and the delusion of being brave, because you believe in an unpopular idea.
President George H W Bush, in an interview in 1987, was asked if he recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists. He replied, "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
Is that what you believe?Seversky
January 28, 2023
January
01
Jan
28
28
2023
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
Seversky at 60,
"... but don’t kid yourselves that it’s more accurate because there is a whole lot you’ll be missing out."
Tell us about this 'whole lot.' A list of what I might be missing out on would be helpful.relatd
January 27, 2023
January
01
Jan
27
27
2023
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
Was Bertrand Russell a person to justify his beliefs?
No. Nor is anyone who challenges ID.jerry
January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT
Oh thanks Sev for reminding me of the atheist argument of intellectual arrogance and the delusion of being brave, because you believe in an unpopular idea.AaronS1978
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT
O 61
Well stated.
“but don’t kid yourselves that it’s more accurate because there is a whole lot you’ll be missing out.”
Black and white much?
Vividvividbleau
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT
Bertrand Russell is a man strong enough to want to project his own befuddlement onto others and lecture them on the "uncertainty" of their beliefs while baselessly arrogating a position of alleged superior understanding to himself.Origenes
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
Bertrand Russell is a man who is honest enough to confront the reality that there is a lot we don't know about the world - including ourselves - and strong enough to live with that unavoidable uncertainty. You can see the world in binary black-and-white if you prefer the simplicity - if it makes you feel better - but don't kid yourselves that it's more accurate because there is a whole lot you'll be missing out.Seversky
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
Origenes at 54,
Bertrand Russell is a man who prefers vagueness. Such people should not be allowed to drive.relatd
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
Ram @52,
Condolences for your friend and your friend's family!
I’m a theist/creationist, of no particular religion, and I really hope I’m wrong.
Here are some thoughts. The world is filled with astonishing design of incredible complexity and beauty. Is there design or purpose for humanity beyond that of the great apes? If so, HOW would one expect to find out?
For some reason, humanity is able to recognize beauty, justice, and evil. Are these real or simply neural illusions?
Quantum mechanics demonstrates that human choice and consciousness can alter reality by collapsing probability waves into particles, so it would seem that consciousness and choice transcend the reality that it's able to minutely control. so . . .
Is it possible that what we consider reality is a filter, a stage, or a sandbox of some kind? If so, what might its purpose, especially considering your theism.
Are we being filtered on IQ, athletic ability, business acumen, philosophical achievement, killing the most people in the name of social justice (kidding) or something else?
Everyone has their view and you can argue till the cows come home.
Definitely! So, that's not the route to take.
Die and find out what’s going on.
Or maybe someone who died and came back . . . if you trust their story.
Kind regards,
-QQuerius
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
Vivid @55
Right.
Jim Slagle puts it like this:
.... those who claim that all beliefs, acts of reasoning, etc., are nonveracious are positing a closed circle in which no beliefs are produced by the proper methods by which beliefs can be said to be veracious or rational. Yet at the same time, they are arrogating to themselves a position outside of this circle by which they can judge the beliefs of others, a move they deny to their opponents. Since the raison d’être of their thesis is that there is no outside of the circle, they do not have the epistemic right to assume a position independent of it, and so their beliefs about the nonveracity of beliefs or reasoning are just as nonveracious as those they criticize. If all of the beliefs inside the circle are suspect, we cannot judge between truth and falsity, since any such judgment would be just as suspect as what it seeks to adjudicate. We would have to seek another argument, another chain of reasoning, another set of beliefs, by which we can judge the judgment—and a third set to judge the judgment of the judgment, ad infinitum. At no point can they step out of the circle to a transcendent standpoint that would allow them to reject some beliefs as tainted while remaining untainted themselves.
Stupid uncle Bert ....Origenes
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
Ram
“Die and find out what’s really going on. Afterlife/priorlife/no-life. We’ll all see.
It’s that simple.”
Yes it is!
Love ya back!
Vividvividbleau
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
O
“None of our beliefs are quite true; all have at least a penumbra of vagueness and error. …”
If true at least one of our beliefs, not “none”, are true.
Vividvividbleau
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
Wiki on Bertrand Russell:
For the advancement of science and protection of liberty of expression, Russell advocated The Will to Doubt, the recognition that all human knowledge is at most a best guess, that one should always remember:
B.Russell : None of our beliefs are quite true; all have at least a penumbra of vagueness and error. ….
Question to my fellow forum members: what is the problem with uncle Bert's opening sentence? What did he overlook?Origenes
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
Ram at 52,
For the sake of others here, finding out after death will mean some will not repent and ask Jesus to come into their lives. Our lives are not our own. Judgment, not Death, is the key thing to think about.
Hebrews 9:27
"And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,"relatd
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
It comes down to a matter of brain programming.
Die and find out what's really going on. Afterlife/priorlife/no-life. We'll all see.
It's that simple.
Everyone has their view and you can argue till the cows come home.
Not going to settle the matter.
I'm a theist/creationist, of no particular religion, and I really hope I'm wrong.
Die and find out what's going on.
Everything else is chin music.
RAM (I love you all!)
P.S. a good friend of mine died suddenly Sunday from heat failure at 63. Probably a good idea to be ready. At any age. At least for anyone who cares about death.
Death. It's coming for you.ram
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
Bertrand Russell
Smart, yet he was so screwed up on his thinking.
Zeus makes more sense than his beliefs.jerry
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
Proof of God
Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.
I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.
On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.
Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.
-- Bertrand Russell (1947)Seversky
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
Aaron @48
Richard Dawkins argument about the left recurrent laryngeal nerve has no bearing on whether something was designed, or whether God exists. It’s honestly silly.
As to laryng. nerve thing.
(I said the following before, I will say it again.)
As you said, it is silly and beyond absurd.
Perhaps you know that I am a mechanical engineer (with decent background in IT).
There are 10,000,000 of kind of species on this planet.
Let's say, that each of these species is made of 1000 of parts.
That means, 10,000,000 x 1000 = 10,000,000,000 parts.
How many design "flaws" did these Darwinian clowns find ? Out of 10,000,000,000 parts ?
Laryng. nerve? :))))))
This alone should rise eyebrows :))))
Each species is an engineering masterpiece.
Seriously, these people are not normal ... that is for sure.martin_r
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
I feel most of the arguments against God are just arguments of dissatisfaction, and really don’t have any bearing on God’s existence
Richard Dawkins argument about the left recurrent laryngeal nerve has no bearing on whether something was designed, or whether God exists. It’s honestly silly.
His argument is consistent with someone bitching about some feature on Microsoft Windows, declaring it’s poorly designed, and then claiming that Bill Gates doesn’t exist because of it.AaronS1978
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT
Seversky at 46,
Ah, the middle-of-the-roaders.relatd
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT
Atheists Vs Christians: Who Makes The Better Claims ?
Agnostics.Seversky
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT
I am currently on a cruise, just closely passed KF's Monserrat a couple days ago.
I have been going through old comments and organizing them. Here is one from almost 17 years ago that is relevant.
As some have said, faith has many connotations. I am not sure I agree with the first entry in the American Heritage Dictionary that Barry offered. Faith must have a significant component of doubt. Several years ago I had a discussion with a Jewish gentleman who was an adjunct professor and we were sharing the same office while teaching. He said faith must always have doubt attached to it otherwise it isn’t faith and I bought his argument because it seemed to apply to my understanding of faith. We do not have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow or as Mark Frank said that 2 + 2 = 4. We have knowledge. People have faith that God gave Moses the ten commandments or that Christ rose from the dead or that an angel spoke to Mohammed in a cave or that there will be a life after death or in the personal area that someone we know very well will support us in time of need. There is no hard proof of any of these. On the other hand faith does not mean there is no evidence but only that no conclusive evidence exists and there is the possibility that what we believe may not be true.
Under this definition, atheism is a faith. There has to be doubts about it. It hard to imagine what Mark Frank says that they can see no evidence for a Deity especially for someone as educated as Dawkins. That has to be nonsense. I could go into the litany of arguments that we all know pointing to design in the universe and in life. Even Dawkins must know some if not all of them. It does not mean he believes any of the litany but only that he knows they have some merit and might be a possibility. So even Dawkins and other atheists 1) believes something independently of logic and evidence (the arguments for design are over whelming) or 2) has some doubts about his position and thus either way his atheism is faith according to both Mark Frank’s and the definition I prefer.
jerry
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
Relevant to the question in the OP, one side has all the advantage.
No place in our universe is there a coherent discussion of why atheism is true. There are however thousands of coherent discussions for a creator. So the question in the OP is inane.
Aside: there is a rhetorical trick going on in the video. All the atheist supporters are made to look unappealing.jerry