RELIGION IS VIOLENT! Richard Dawkins & Matt Dillahunty
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 вер 2024
- STOP BLAMING ATHEISM - Richard Dawkins & Matt Dillahunty
Full discussion here: • GOD & BIOLOGY - Richar...
#richarddawkins #mattdillahunty #atheism #god
This is round two of An Evening with Richard Dawkins & Matt Dillahunty. This event took place on November 5th 2017 at the Danforth Music Hall in Toronto Canada. Enjoy! Presented by Pangburn Philosophy. This event was SOLD OUT!
Full discussion here: ua-cam.com/video/M_5gVn6G_1Y/v-deo.html
I appreciate Dr. Dawkins' metered and thoughtful response.
You referenced “prominent Atheist Community”, but at least in UK and I think in Continental Europe, there are no, or at least very few ‘atheist communities’. What would be the intended pursuit of such an ‘association’?
I’ve been identifying as a Non Believer’ since age 11. I’m now 65. My only action of commonality with other non believers is to give and receive LIKEs to social media comments.
I did become aware of term Atheism around 2007 when I first discovered the highly skilled, now sadly deceased Christopher Hitchens.
"Communities" could simply mean things like forums, Discord groups, facebook groups. As for organizations there has existed and still exists. There could be at least two motives. One is for being a support group. In the Bible belt atheists are sometimes rare and stigmatized so it's good to find likeminded people to meet up with.
Was the Soviet union an Atheist community?
@@tomgreene1843 You shouldn't conflate atheism with communism.
@@Svankmajer I don't.
@@tomgreene1843 in history, there have been groups / communities / countries where religious faith was suppressed.
Individual having no tendency to associate with any religion, may well have as much in common as those not believing in any Tooth Fairy. Non believers generally don’t associate, though I can imagine some opportunist looking to make ‘a fast buck’ from presenting some appeal of sorts.
Atheism and religion aren't equal alternatives. Atheism is a single position on a single issue, namely the lack of a believe in god(s). It doesn't say anything about a persons belief about anything else. Religion is a whole 'package' of beliefs and convictions, often including a belief in god(s) and various claims about reality and a set of morals and so on. So a religion can be partially true/false, moral/immoral and so on. Atheism can't, because it simply doesn't include any of it. That doesn't say that a person who is an atheist can't have true or false beliefs about reality and can be/act moral or immoral, but that doesn't logically and unavoidably follow from atheism.
People used to believe the Earth was center of Universe & the Sun orbited Earth & anyone who didn't were killed.
Some people in North Korea believe that a deity intentionally suffered for their sins, and are put into labor camps for it.
What people ?
@@tomgreene1843 tomgreene by name, tomgreener by nature.
lol Smoking weed has become a religion we literally have a holiday for it
Yup and fools have April Fool's day to... worship... fools ? IDK 🤔
(Oh wait that's not how holidays or religions work)
@@McNerdius that’s a terrible example
@@t2nexx561 Pi Day, when mathematicians everywhere eat and/or worship their favorite dessert
I agree with Dawkins, however anyone that is crazy and filled with hate can find the means to seek out and assess guns regardless of Country or gun laws.
Jainism is non-violent.
Very true. Sam Harris made a big point of this in a debate about Islam. The problem isn't the fundamentalists, it's the fundamentals of the specific religion
@@gezber Hmmm. I tend to think its both. Tribalism within any group can become dangerous, but some religious doctrines are worse than others.
Religion can be violent. History has sure proven that. The most violent societies we have had were not religious. Seems like the problem is not religion necessarily, but with people.
you were faster 😄
Please provide examples of your statement to support your claim. Without examples and empirical evidence of actual situations in our past human history, we have to just read your comment and simply agree or disagree based on absolutely nothing substantial. This is not an effective way to persuade people of your opinion one way or another. It often times accomplishes the opposite of what you are attempting to convey. So, I have to deny your hypothesis due to the lack of anything resembling evidence. Your statement is just words with no meaning. Grammatically it makes sense, but it means nothing…
This was a waste of your time and ours because it claims something without anything at all to back it up. When did claims start to not require any evidence to support of them?
mattorr2256 - Oh, forgive me. I did not realize an intellectual such as yourself would need me to site historical events such as the Spanish Inquisition, the Stalin regime, or Pal Pot.
I sincerely thought the atrocities committed by mankind (theist and atheists) was well known.
@@mattorr2256 Soviet Russia.
Matt’s seriously trying to make this about religion?
"there simply is not a logical progression which goes from atheism to doing any such thing."
Except there is.
It is exactly this which was leveraged by Lenin, and which enabled the formerly Orthodox and Christian-influenced population to murder, arraign, rape, steal from, and subjugate the Kulaks, with no fear of divine retribution or restraint. It was the removal of the restrictions of faith which allowed people to believe they could get away with it, and so the blood flowed.
Similar reasoning followed with China's cultural revolution, not to mention the killing fields of Pol Pot. True, it wasn't atheism which *caused* this, but rather it was the tool used to fill the moral vacuum presented by ideological rejection of God and religion, and replace it with a murderous and destructive mindset.
Atheism is a vacuum. It sucks in the nearest thing to hand to fill the gaps in society and individual life it strips away. There is no guarantee any of that is going to be anything but horrific.
I wouldn't mind, but the case was made long before the Russian revolution, that without God anything goes. And it does, unless people adopt something *else* which fills the void which allows you to do anything with a different, arbitarily chosen, set of alternative restrictions and requirements. And those restrictions and requirements usually go about as far as the individual thinks they can get away with.
Faced with the clear tragedy of the first avowedly atheist state in the USSR, the humanists of the 1920s began to wake up to exactly how things could go if you present the mob with a moral vacuum. Hence Secular Humanism and its twice-revised manifesto, largely borrowed from Christian morality but excising all those inconvenient bits which the SH community find inconvenient or which run against the humanist narrative. It's already changed twice, and will again the moment those in charge of it (read: the smart, rich, and powerful) decide that something else is convenient or otherwise. And then we'll get to see what really lies behind the façade. And it won't be pretty.
That's even before we get to how many people have actually signed up to the thing. A tiny minority. Most atheists haven't even heard of the thing. As a result it looks like a well-meaning but ultimately ineffective chocolate teapot of a document.
@@EntertainedEye This is largely irrelevant or hogwash or both. But we do agree on one thing. You said of atheism "it was a method.". I said as much when I posted "it was the tool...".
Claims that Lenin and Stalin and Pol Mot and Mao engendered a cult of personality, somehow equating these systems with religious ones to sidestep the obvious issue of atheism providing a useful moral vacuum to the powerful and unscrupulous, is just wishful thinking. Lenin was very explicitly anti-religious. Religion was to be eradicated, and he did indeed use the removal of reigious restrictions to galvanize and encourage the discontented masses to turn on their neighbours with murderous intent, on the explicit basis that, if there is no God, then anything is permissible. The whole point was that the individual made up their mind without restrictions from external moral codes. Inject into the idea of the state being able to make up the rules with no reference to external moral codes and hey presto, you have the world's first explicitly atheist state. What was the point of this? It was so Lenin could make the rules as murderous as he wanted, with no fear of those religious fuddy duddies in the Church being able to denounce him as the evil despot he was.
This isn't to say, of course, that all atheists are murderous or psychopaths. Lenin used atheism as a tool, after all. It was his skewed version of Marxism, combined with his psychopathy, which made him murderous. The atheism part of it just meant he didn't have to answer to anyone else's moral codes as he could make it up as he went along; The ends justified the means, and according to his own rules that was quite ok.
Deny this and you deny history. Badly. Sorry, but that IS what happened, and if you can't cope with that then you need to stop making excuses and think about things properly.
I never said that atheism is a religion. It isn't. But if you choose not to believe in God then you'll believe in anything. Like "the leader" or your country or hedonism or utilitarianism or scientific humanism or nihilism. Something. You choose. You have to choose. Really. But those things aren't religions. They are things you project your hopes onto, rather than systems you base your life around. They are anti-religions. The two work in completely the opposite way to each other.
@@mikehutton3937 You're following in the footsteps of Jordan Peterson there. He made the same argument that without religion people would lose their "metaphorical substrate" or something like that. But atheism says nothing about morality. All atheism is, is an unwillingness to accept a claim (existence of god) without evidence. As for dictators making up their own moral code all along, well... so do religions. In some countries, legal age of consent is 16, in others it is 18. A large portion of Hindus don't eat animals, yet christians kill animals in their religious celebrations. What is immoral to one religion or region is not immoral to the other. That merely tells us that there is no universal moral code. If there was, all religions would have agreed on it.
Another huge mistake is you believing that humans who don't believe in god will believe anything. That is the exact opposite of the way of thinking that atheism entails. Atheists are by nature skeptics. They won't believe in anything unless there is good reason to, or it benefits them. But if a sociopath wants to use atheism to commit crimes, he would just as easily use religion to do the same (How else would you explain terrorism rampant in islam?). An atheist with a sense of empathy won't hurt anyone. Yet tons of "good" hindus in my country, religious people who donate to the poor and less fortunate, will not allow anyone from a "lower caste" than them to enter their home. They do this because their religion tells them to.
@@mikehutton3937 The reversal of "if there is no God, then anything is permissible" is just as applicable, if not moreso: "if there is a God, then anything is permissible" - you just have to proclaim it to be in the name of the God - clearly exemplified from all the way back in the days of religious texts, all the way up to today where all kinds of atrocities are committed because "God is on our side" (and therefore against the victims of said atrocities, who no doubt also think God is on *their* side and return the atrocities in the same name). You could even say "If there is no God, nothing is permissible", because there is no higher authority to excuse you for overstepping your better natural judgement.
Atheism is all over the place in today's world - and guess what? It demonstrably isn't causing things to fall apart, and it's probably even safer to live in these places than in religious ones. And as a bonus you won't be excluded for not having the correct beliefs for whetever part of the world some religion or other is popular. Like, give it up with the whole nonsense idea that religion has any social utility whatsoever. You're just terrified that it does have some effect, and that somehow everyone is a psychopath underneath and will reveal as much if religion was dropped - speak for yourself. If all religion is is a leash for bad dogs, then you just incriminate yourself. The rest of us are getting on just fine.
@@diy_rabbithole Ok. There's a slew of mistakes and sidesteps here.
Nothing I've said is dependent on JP at all. The claim, that in the absence of God mankind would have to invent a new framework for morals, came from Nietzsche. The idea that without God anything goes in modern thinking comes from Dostoyevsky, and was voiced by Sartre much later. But the idea itself dates from way further back. Like 3000 years or so.
"All atheism is, is an unwillingness to accept a claim (existence of god) without evidence.". Wrong. It is the rejection of the evidence provided, for a variety of reasons.
"Another huge mistake is you believing that humans who don't believe in god will believe anything.". Nope. All humans have to believe in something. If it isn't God then it will be something else.
"Atheists are by nature skeptics.". Actually, no. Maybe about half are. But the underlying reasons why people choose (or don't choose, TBH) atheism include a rejection based, not on skepticism, but rather on an unwillingness to constrain ones behaviour to a set of rules which the individual finds inconvenient or worse. Many more are more apathetic about the subject than having any real hard doubts about the underlying claims or questions. A lot just want to get on with their lives without people interfering in whatever it is they are doing. But these aren't the people you find putting themselves forward as spokesmen for atheism.
"But if a sociopath wants to use atheism to commit crimes, he would just as easily use religion to do the same.". Atheism isn't like that. Plenty of sociopaths have used religion as a foil to justify their crimes, breaking the very strictures of the religion they're claiming justifies their actions. No, rather than a shield used to justify behaviour, atheism is never used as an excuse. Rather, it's used as an "I can be the judge of everything" enabler. You may regard the distinction as subtle, but it is important.
"How else would you explain terrorism rampant in islam?". I'm not here as an apologist for Islam. Not a muslim, and I'm not a fan of its attitude to violence.
"An atheist with a sense of empathy won't hurt anyone. ". Wow. The irony is so thick I think I'm choking. Anyone with a sense of empathy *and* a sense of personal responsibility will *try* not to hurt anyone. But many will. It's quite possible for anyone with a sense of empathy to hurt loads of people. But surely you mean that anyone with a sense of empathy won't try to hurt anyone (as flawed as even that statement is).
"Yet tons of "good" hindus in my country...". I'm not here as an apologist for Hinduism. The caste system is a part of the Hindu concept of justice and accountability, and is one I profoundly disagree with. Interestingly, it's primarily the Christian community who reach out to the lower castes and treat them with respect and care, to the extent that the higher caste Hindus target Christians with violence, as they see many Dalits leaving Hinduism behind because it offers very little to them other than hard work, destitution, and the disdain of some of their fellow Hindus.
@@Nyghl0 This started off promising, but as soon as you got to "If there is no God, nothing is permissible" it descended into farce.
There are plenty of people who claim to be the spokesman of God. Most don't tend to hang around very long. It can be self-delusion or megalomania or simple immoral utilitarianism. But their words drift into nothingness and they fall into obscurity. The last person to do so on a fairly successful scale was Hitler. That didn't go well.
On the other hand, if you have religious traditions dating back millenia, then they at least have the advantage of standing the test of time. In another post I've let it be known I'm no fan of Islam or Hinduism. In comparison what do we have from the secularists? Dating back many centuries? You could contend Marcus Aurelius and the Stoics, and possibly Confucius. But that's it.
The reason why religious communities and belief systems in the modern world have value is because they have been successful. In contrast atheism isn't really something you can build community around. You have to have some kind of philosophy or ideology which contains atheistic tendencies instead. Even humanism isn't necessarily an expression of atheism, and that's not been anything like a formalized idea for much more than 100 years.
"give it up with the whole nonsense idea that religion has any social utility whatsoever.". Your beef is not with me, but with the social scientists, who have proven it does in study after study after study after study. Might I suggest you read the following from the National Instutue of Health: "Religion, Spirituality, and Health: The Research and Clinical Implications". There's studies available for you to read at Heritage.org and elsewhere, John Stuart Mill argued that, rather than doing away with religion entirely, that a naturalistic religion would be better way of producing societal cohesion and harmony. But then he was a naturalist. Even Voltaire admitted that, even though he was an atheist, he would rather his maidservant was religious.
In short, you need to do some more research. You don't get to call something nonsense and expect people to believe you, just because it irks you, and particularly not if the majority of the experts who have studied the question disagree with you.
Te lo acabo de decir como superar la censura. Dile a todos tus queridos en el campo de concentración que yo, Miguel Ángel, un psicólogo, un profesional de la salud mental, declara haber descubierto que el ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es la idea religiosa del creador de la creación y concluye erróneamente que el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. Tienes que entender para salir de aquí. Recuerda el director está filmando lo que se dice y piensa en la película. Tienes que meterte en el personaje. Dile a todos tus queridos que pienso que Spinoza tiene razón y nuestra vida con nuestras experiencias son eternas. Es solo una idea que no puede hacer daño a nadie y está censurada. ¡Emergencia! ¿Cuanto te queda? ¿Necesitas agua? ¿qué quieres?. Tira los dados. ¿Qué sacastes? Estoy cansado, necesito descansar. Gracias.
Religion isn't violent, people are violent. Ironically, it's religion that teaches us that one's beliefs about another's views are no more valid than the converse.
It definitely IS violent. Doesn’t the Quran condone Behedings and stonings? 😂
How about something new though? Just make another channel for highlights, I did not subscribe for old content.
How do you spell 'smug self-satisfied condescending moral superiority'?
Dawkins and Dillahunty in this video never claimed what Pangburn said in the thumbnail. Thankfully they didn't, because it's darn sure incorrect.
Idiocy and hyperbole is the your best argument lmao
@@JebusHypocristosX Well the claim that atheism has never been violent is false. Never means not once. That's false. Even in the video they mention an atheist who went on a solo mission to attack people due to their religious stance. They weren't 100% sure that it was religiously motivated at the time, but it was confirmed later. Race also played a factor in that particular incident from what I recall. I remember when it was in the news.
@@theboombody You're grasping at straws, here. Individuals can be violent, sure, but there's no rational pathway to violence from the standpoint of atheism or secularism. More likely, there are vindictive motives (such as, for example, killing a priest that did horrible things to you as a child) that really don't have anything to do with atheism or secularism.
The individual in question with this shooting had a long history of violence and mental health issues. His ex-wife (who he had formerly assaulted) went to this church. It was never proven that this was religiously motivated, but more likely an issue between him and his former mother-in-law, from my understanding. This guy was just a bad egg that happened to be an atheist (although he was vocal about his atheism although that came later in his life).
@@chocopuddingcup83 There is nothing in atheism or secularism to PREVENT violent acts either. What sacred rule in the book of atheism says thou shalt not kill? Last I checked the ONLY rule atheism had was that God doesn't exist. That's the ONLY rule. You have to create a new godless religion like secular humanism with its own unquestionable dogma to prevent violence.
@@chocopuddingcup83 You're acting like something not having a rational pathway to commit an act means the same thing as an actual rational roadblock to committing an act.
There's no rational path for me going to Carl's Jr. for a burger. Especially since it's unhealthy. But if the irrational desire just happens to be there, and there's no rational roadblock to going to Carl's Jr., why not go anyway? Especially if it's something I want?
I imagine even the secular-minded are tempted to do things sometimes they know in the long run aren't good for them. Wouldn't they need some kind of rational roadblock in place too? Simply dis-believing in God is not enough of a roadblock to stop anything.
FEMA is starting to fill their billion 4 Man coffins this week 😢