It is interesting that we talk about genital mutilation in Africa like it doesn't happen here. Circumcision is the western version for males. It is an unneeded process that while hiding under the guise of trivial medical benefits is religious at its core. We see that social moral relativism is very common even in religions claiming objective morality. We need to question these practices that we just thought were ok in order to grow as a society. To me religion is holding us back in many ways. It makes some choose their religion over well accepted science.
What are the negative consequences of circumcision that people ignore that science has researched to prove harmful? It seems like you have projected a personal preference to accuse religion of causing ignorance when there is no evidence that it has. Religion directs and enhances science toward the benefit of people because it gives people the moral view that they have value and dignity. If there is no God people are meaningless accidents with no inherent value and can be experimented on and used for the power elite for the means they deem are good for evolution or to better themselves.
@@boltrooktwo You are cutting an infant unnecessarily for one. Feel free to look up the reasons for circumcision and see that they are not worth the procedure. It is a religious hang around we just can't get rid of for some reason. It does not serve any real medical purpose. Circumcision is a religious BS thing. It just goes to show how indoctrinated it has society that we cut newborns genitals. If god designed us perfect why cut off the tip of the dick? At what point do y'all finally see the hypocrisy and give it up? If you are correct on religion promoting science then explain the large number of theists who claim evolution is false. They make the claim based on religious beliefs. They call it faith and faith isn't knowledge. It is replacing facts with whatever you feel. Doing something because of god is a crap reason.
“Circumcision” Sorry but what has “circumcision” got to do with all the religions of the world? Religious expression is very diverse some people who believe in a higher power or absolute ontological ground of truth, reality and objective morality don’t even take part in organised religion or organised groups but some atheists (Humanists) do take part in organised groups. This is a debate between two Christians and a strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist so bringing up circumcision is just an (Appeal to Emotion Fallacy). This is also a red herring, an irrelevancy fallacy and non sequitur as it does not logically follow how this refutes Christianity. I could just as easily ask what about the tens of millions of innocent men women and children murdered under Stalin’s Communist Marxist atheist regime that was defined by atheism through its anti religious policies and death camps. You could predictably respond that “no true atheist” is capable of great evil and genocide and blame religion. And I would logically point out that this is the (No True Scots Man Fallacy). It’s also very transparent that whilst you recognised that subjective morality is the real issue here that you still chose to blame religious expression. This is nothing more than stereotyping and bigotry as religious groups are doing a lot to stop these bizarre practices. I rest my case!!
@@jayv9779 “Large number of theists who claim evolution is false” Sorry but the conflict myth between science and faith is exactly that, a myth and a false dichotomy perpetuated by militant atheist propaganda. Also this is a debate between two Christians and a strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist so it’s a non sequitur and a red herring! In her books, the prominent atheist philosopher Mary Midgley tells us that the theory of evolution is not only a scientific theory, but also a political one. The new middle-class plutocrats of the Enlightenment needed a 'creation myth' that would explain why they deserved to rule. The answer was Darwin's theory: the survival of the fittest. They were there because they were the best. This new myth was needed to replace the old one of the aristocracy - the myth of Divine Grace - that is, that they were there because it had been ordained by God. It never ceases to amaze me how ironic it is to listen to the so called non religious, that is strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists psychoanalyze critics of evolution and materialism pointing to religious commitment and upbringing (The Genetic Fallacy). Critiquing scientific theories is the scientific method after all. The irony is that it is the strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist and not the theist, who is committed to an evolutionary account of life’s origins. But the irony is that adaptation and speciation does not even explain origins so it is a non sequitur in a philosophical debate about metaphysics and origins. The theist has more options open and there are theistic evolutionists who accept that evolution is currently the greatest explanation regarding biology but that science is a constantly changing landscape. This commitment was aptly stated by Harvard evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin who admitted to being forced to “accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world” not by “the methods and institutions of science” but by “a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Nevertheless, the fact is that there are prominent contemporary Christian scientists such as Francis Collins who was the (Director of the Genome Project) who enthusiastically defend evolution and in contrast you have prominent atheist philosophers such as Thomas Nagel claiming that materialism and Neo Darwinism is an incomplete theory of reality and so is false. However, which world view has the greatest explanatory power? and which is the most coherent and parsimonious hypothesis? the Christian Francis Collins defence of evolution? or the prominent atheist philosopher Thomas Nagels claim that materialism and evolution is false? The fact is that bringing up evolution in a philosophical debate about metaphysical beliefs and origins is a red herring, an irrelevancy fallacy, a non sequitur as there are prominent scientists who are theistic evolutionists and there always has been. Because as I already pointed out the conflict between science and faith is a myth and a false dichotomy perpetuated by militant atheism. Plenty of Darwin's scientific contemporaries, men like John Stevens Henslow, Charles Lyell, Asa Gray, George Wright, Alexander Winchell, and James Dana etc, didn’t have any major issues with evolution and their Christian beliefs. Furthermore, the irony is that initially militant atheists liked to point to the “The Big Bang Theory” as a defeater for faith. The irony is that atheist scientists coined the phrase “Big Bang” to mock the theory holding back the science for several years. And the double irony is that George Lemaitre who developed the theory turned out to be a devout Christian and remained so. Im not making any appeals to authority by the way. Furthermore, as the prominent historian James Moore has stated "with but few exceptions the leading Christian thinkers in Great Britain and America came to terms quite readily with Darwinism and evolution." Nevertheless, according to contemporary atheist philosophers such as Mary Midgley…. “Evolution, then, is the creation myth of our age. By telling us our origins it shapes our views of what we are. It influences not just our thought, but our feelings and actions too, in a way which goes far beyond its official function as a biological theory” “Fatalism is now offered, not as just one possible philosophical attitude among others with reasons given for and against it, but as a fact backed by the tremendous authority of science.” (Mary Midgley). This rhetoric and assumption of fatalism and nihilism is the reason why there are people who have struggled with the theory in the first place so they are hardly to blame!! Similarly, according to the eminent atheist philosopher Michael Ruse… “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity.” (Michael Ruse). “The literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” (Michael Ruse). Equally, according to Dr Raymond Tallis… “Within the secular world picture, Neuromania and Darwinitis are the biggest piles of rubbish.” (Raymond Tallis) It speaks volumes that according to the eminent atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel… “The defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion. That world view is ripe for displacement” (Thomas Nagel). It speaks volumes that Thomas Nagel, Raymond Tallis, Mary Midgley and Michael Ruse are prominent atheist philosophers…. As I pointed out already science is a constantly changing landscape and evolution is a non sequitur in a philosophical debate about origins, that is metaphysical presuppositions such as prescriptive laws of logic, conscious agents, empiricism and values such as morals and ethics. I rest my case!! ❤️
“It’s replacing facts with whatever you feel” Ho the irony!! This came to a head in 2008 when Kroto, along with Dawkins and other anti-theist scientists, forced the resignation of Michal Reiss as Director of the Royal Society because Reiss was a clergyman who suggested science shouldn't dismiss pupils' views about creationism or intelligent design but should explain how such views were incompatible with science. The attacks on Reiss were not motivated by what he said but what he represented - dissent from the proposition that science and atheism are two sides of the same coin. It was an example of fundamentalist scientism at its worst and roundly condemned by all those, including Robert Winston, who value freedom of thought over imposed conformity. Although "Evolution As A Religion" was written two decades before the Royal Society revealed itself as the authoritarian dispenser of metaphysics under the guise of science, the eminent atheist philosopher Mary Midgley had already identified the scientism of Dawkins et.al. Science is laden with unacknowledged values although the sociobiologist E O Wilson presented materialistic science as a viable myth in competition with religion. Francis Crick claimed that science would produce a new set of beliefs about the nature of humanity. Religion was criticised for not being science and despised for raising questions about scientific impartiality in the pursuit of a world view which fails by its own standard of proof. It was scientific orthodoxy which rejected Galileo's heliocentric view of the world. It was also scientific orthodoxy which initially ignored Lynn Magulis's Gaia hypothesis until the paradigm shift so superbly described in Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" took effect.
Really interesting... I would love to have de knowledge and ability that Cliff and his son has, to be able and speak with my atheist friends. That's why a watch everything they post helps me a lot, thank you for that. God Bless you guy's. You are helping me out very much.
They are both far under par. Cliffe, the jumping jester, can barely hold his ground amongst youngsters and between real opponents he just makes a fool of himself, dragging his son down with him
I would not speak to atheist friends like this, very ignorant and condescending. If you want to talk with friends about different beliefs, start by asking questions and really listen to the answers. Maybe even think about it for a few days without responding. Don’t think you can learn a script or talking points, that never works.
@@walterdaems57 “Jumping jester” “Dragging his son down with him” Now that’s ironic coming from someone who promotes a philosophy that reduces our families and children to nothing more than “bags of chemicals”.
@@georgedoyle7971 where exactly did I talk about bags of chemicals? See, that’s the influence of jumping jesters, they tend to make ignorants jump to conclusions :)
@@talithaleah6563 “Very ignorant and condescending” Ho the irony! Sorry but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence! Because the fact is that our families and children are clearly more than just a “bag of chemicals”. The only ignorant and condescending approach here was the attempt to reduce our families and loved ones to chemical and biological robots (a bag of chemicals) just to score points and avoid the inevitable implications of metaphysics. Reality and existence and in particular the qualities of experience aren’t made of “matter” they are made of (what matters)! Have you actually watched Atkins past debates his style of debating is beyond ignorant and condescending and he is philosophically illiterate and impossible to teach. He’s recently polished up his stage act a little after decades of embarrassing (gotcha) moments from seasoned debaters as even prominent atheist philosophers have called him out on his embarrassing cringe worthy approach. However, he was still pretty rude at certain points in this debate and commits every logical fallacy in the book such as the (Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy) (Appeal to Scientism and Materialism of the Gaps Fallacy) (Merelogical Fallacy) (The Genetic Fallacy). (Is/Ought Fallacy) (Appeal to Nature/Naturalism Fallacy). The list goes on! These fallacies have been pointed out time after time to Atkins but he just does not listen and is a poor representative for atheism. Cliffe and his son are highly experienced debaters and Cliffe looks ready for a good holiday to be honest. Cliffes son is actually a doctor and a specialist surgeon and anyone who’s watched their numerous debates on UA-cam can see that they both clearly went easy on Atkins and were respectful as always as Atkins is clearly an elderly man who is now completely set in his ways. When Atkins debated William Lane Craig years ago Atkins actually claimed that the natural sciences were omnipotent and could “prove” anything! Lane Craig then went on to easily list a dozen things that the natural sciences could not “prove” including empiricism itself to the raucous laughter of the audience and the chair person topped it off with the statement… “Put that in your pipe and smoke it”. Despite this Atkins is still using the same old worn out arguments and prominent atheist philosophers don’t take him seriously as atheism can do much better than this as we all learned very little as Atkins philosophical approach to science is antiquated.
-' One should not intrude upon the aspirations of others', Atkins says. He then says-' It's okay to thwart the aspirations of others, such as African societies'.
The most tolerant and restrained I have ever seen the great Peter Atkins, especially considering a veritable barrage of well rehearsed wishful thinking bullshit from Cliffe. At one point when Cliffe was well and truly wrenched from cloud 9 by Peter, he looked deeply disturbed as if he was about to burst into tears ! Cliffe, anyone can play the: "X is just a bunch of Y" game ! I could for instance claim that the wonderful Vaughan Williams symphony that moved me to tears when I listened to it the other day was just a bunch of tiny indentations impressed into a polycarbonate disc, surely I couldn't really have derived such immense pleasure from it without first adopting an imaginary friend !
“Imaginary friend” “wishful thinking b…sht from Cliffe” Awww how quaint the “Imaginary friend” argument versus the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/theism/deism/panentheism. I prefer the tooth fairy argument myself with Dwayne Johnson in lead role. This is nothing more than an (appeal to ridicule fallacy and the Stone Fallacy), including rhetoric, a straw man argument and an ad hominem. I’m not making any appeals to authority but if only you could have been around during the time of Michelle Besso, Francis Bacon, John Henslow, Dostoyevsky, Kepler, Newton, Thomas Aquinas, Anselmo d’Aosta, Miguel de Cervantes, Charles Dickens, Shakespeare, Augustine, Kant, Einstein, Descartes and Spinoza etc you could have saved them all from their misguided belief in mind and consciousness/theism/deism/panentheism with your Earth shattering “Imaginary friend” argument! ❤️
“Bag of Chemicals” “Immense pleasure” This is beyond ironic!! Sorry but everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it ridiculous…. Imagine if you were a rebellious teenager who actually carried on believing into adulthood that everything is nothing more than a product of accidental, blind, mindless, meaningless, pitiless, merciless brain chemicals creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities. Imagine if you continued believing that humans and reality are nothing more than a product of environment, DNA and your personal Nietzschean “will to power”. Or “blood and soil” as the Nazis used to like to call it. Imagine if you actually believed that the overwhelming evidence of empathy, compassion, altruism, bravery, morals, ethics, meaning, purpose, absolute truth and objective morality was synonymous with believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the tooth fairy or unicorns. Imagine if you then went on to kill and murder tens of millions of innocent men, women and children. Imagine what it must be like to be inside the heads of the atheists Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler!! Because the fact is that… “What Hitler did not believe and what Stalin did not believe and what Mao did not believe and what the SS did not believe and what the Gestapo did not believe and what the NKVD did not believe and what the commissars, functionaries, swaggering executioners, Nazi doctors, Communist Party theoreticians, intellectuals, Brown Shirts, Black Shirts, gauleiters, and a thousand party hacks did not believe was that God was watching what they were doing. And as far as we can tell, very few of those carrying out the horrors of the twentieth century worried overmuch that God was watching what they were doing either. That is, after all, the meaning of a secular society.”
“Bag of Chemicals” Hitlers right hand man Joseph Goebbals wrote in his private diaries in 1941 that though Hitler was "a fierce opponent" of the Vatican and Christianity, "he forbids me to leave the church. For tactical reasons” (Joseph Goebbels). According to the Auschwitz survivor Viktor Frankl who was a psychiatrist and scientist (and survivor of two Nazi death camps) moral subjectivists, that is those who prefer to value humanity as nothing more than biological and chemical robots. That is (A bag of Chemicals) and determined machines free will deniers) are a danger to our families and our children… According to Victor Frankl…. “If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity, and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment - or, as the Nazi like to say, of ‘Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.” (Victor Frankl). Frankl’s words are sobering and should give us pause as we consider what we are teaching the next generation in our own sacred halls of learning. Are we teaching students that they are the product of their environment, not responsible for their actions? Are we teaching them to view good and evil not as absolutes, but as variables dependent upon one’s cultural norms? If so, are we simply hurtling the next generation towards the Auschwitzes, Treblinkas, and Maidaneks of the 21st century? I rest my case!!
“Surely I couldn’t have derived such immense pleasure without first adopting an imaginary friend” Ho the irony!! Sorry buddy but under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism you are nothing more than a temporary, accidental by product of a blind, mindless, meaningless process of random atoms and brain chemicals creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities. Under your world view that “immense pleasure” was illusory and was nothing more than meaningless neurons firing and a chemical dopamine hit. Under your world view you are nothing more than brain chemicals dude. You are just an overgrown amoeba! You are nothing more than a pointless, meaningless “bag of chemicals”, an evolved ape who shares half their DNA with bananas. A chemical and biological robot! So why “ought” we take your claims to the rational and moral high ground seriously? This is an unbelievably easy world view to critique and refute as it is literally “self” refuting and is littered with metaphysical presuppositions that can not be proven, justified or grounded in a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism that clearly excludes metaphysical realities. Atkins is clueless and loses every debate he engages in because logical positivism is self refuting and quantum mechanics demonstrated decades ago that classical materialism is dead!! The irony is that we are all on equal footing at the very least under relativism! However, under Atkins strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism you are nothing more than “a bag of chemicals” dude and nothing more substantive than the science project of vinegar and baking soda bubbling over!! Does the science project of vinegar and baking soda bubble over bravely when it uses prevarication (clever lies) whilst making value claims such as “immense pleasure” and “b…sht”? Can the baking soda and vinegar take the credit for its circular logic and self contradiction? This is hilarious and is comedy gold!! Your claims to absolute “truth” whilst claiming to be a “relativist” (a bag of chemicals) have no more “truth” value and are no more “right” or “wrong” than leaves blowing in the wind!! This is the implication of your world view not mine buddy. It’s an amoral world view!! There’s no such thing as “truth” or “right” or “b…sht” under this harmful ideology that reduces our families and children to nothing more than “bags of chemicals” . At least be a consistent strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist… Because according to the Nazis favourite philosopher, that is the atheists with possibly the highest IQs of all the atheists that ever lived… “logic is an illusion” (Nietzsche) “You can’t get an (ought) out of an (is)” - David Hume). “Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions. - Nietzsche, Reference from: On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense” In Will to Power, Nietzsche makes the self refuting claim that , "there is only one world, and this is false, cruel, contradictory, seductive, without meaning....We have need of lies in order to conquer this reality, this 'truth,' that is, in order to live-That lies are necessary in order to live is itself part of the terrifying and questionable character of existence." Reference: WP, 853, p. 451. Also TI, "'Reason' in Philosophy," 5, p. 37-8 Your world view not mine buddy!! I rest my case!!
6:07 What makes a person's aspirations more important than the person themself? The same question still applies - why is it wrong to harm them? It's just a random, meaningless event that the chemical reactions of the universe ultimately forced. The jihadist isn't wrong or evil.
It may be a meaningless event to the universe, but we humans tend to apply morality to situations. It is hard to argue that one person's morality is better than another person's, but in actual fact people do agree broadly on how we should treat each other, and we can use that agreement to structure our societies.
Big enough brains??? How does he know what big enough is maybe we actually are self deceived and think our brains are big because we measure it next to little things. You don't even know how good our brains are in comparison to anything better then us without God.
Cliffe was so patronising at the end and quite rude to his guest who he called "arrogant"! I am an atheist I would never talk to or treat someone that way! He should be ashamed and obviously missed the point of his version of a fairy tale!
@@chikkipop if everyone was an atheist humanity would’ve perished and most likely today society everyone will be their own God or their own conquerors and willing to do the lawful things most likely people be believing some delusional stuff like a guy being a girl or a guy getting pregnant all that type of crazy stuff you know and I’m talking about leaders who killed millions and majority of the head leaders were atheist and killed more people than religion like for example, communism killed more than 100 million people or higher in their ideology is atheism and they do not like religion witch is fine but living in society like that should tell you we will not be free and same, for example like North Korea it’s another ideology atheism as well well, let’s say I was an atheist just like you we could be good atheist, but the understanding of the world today whoever our leaders are would lead us to deaths with no freedoms so hopefully you understand what I’m trying to say and by the way, I have nothing against atheism I hear from both sides🤝
Who cares about them loosing there aspirations as long as the murdered does what he wants and dies before thinking it was wrong or not worth it. In that case the stupid murderer dies happier than the Athiest who spends his life in agony trying to come to an absolute that he got rid of time ago.
31:30 I think Cliff is right here :) but Atkins has a great touché moment to say it’s a “miracle” if he can finish his point with Cliff. Hahaha. Thanks for the debate, wonderful. Cliff won, hands down.
Morality is the cognitive process of differentiating between intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate. And as with all cognitive assessments, moral assesments are necessarily _subjective._ Each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his/her own morality. Likewise, each and every individual is soley responsible, accountable, and culpable for those intentions, decisions, and actions based upon those moral assessments.
@@theoskeptomai2535 so this is either a matter of consensus or awareness. You both are either recognizing one objective truth or agreeing on a subjective truth.
@Rabbit dude : religious beliefs are formed by 4 factors. Time, place, etnicity, upbringing. And that’s it. Of course you will/can find exceptions - but they are statistically insignificant. I don’t know about you, but this fact tells me, that religions are manmade. They can’t all be right, but - more likely - all be wrong. Religion is - with the knowledge we have today - an insult to human intellect.
Even if this Athiest believes in absolutes like I'm sure he said, there is no way to figure out what is absolute in his view it would be an adventure void of knowing and only learning but never coming to the absolute.
I'm always baffled why some (apparently intelligent) people seem to think that a PROOF for a supernatural god is that IF THERE ISN'T ONE then there's no ultimate purpose or "objective morality" and love is "just a chemical reaction". It's like saying that a proof for a supernatural Lord Krishna is that if there isn't one then all the Hare Krishna devotees having doing a lot of things for absolutely no reason. Anyways, why would that make subjective morality, personal meaning or love any less? I think it makes them MORE worthwhile because they are not forced upon us by some otherworldly entity.
Species developmental behaviour is derived through the assimilation of beneficial hereditable mutations by way of chemical reactions at the allele stage. Robert Sapolsky would confirm this. Emotions, reactions, morality etc have all the earmarks of evolution just as the development from gills to lungs or scales to feathers. Although not physical, their attributes contribute to the survival of a species by honing the very insticts we have which promoted hunter to hunter gatherer. They contibuted to the development of cooperation whether in harvesting meat or wheat to defending the tribe. Caring and upbringing of young to continue existence and care for the elderly. Chemicals and their mutations are responsible. Which is why the need for a god is unnecessary.
An important question you need to ask yourself when claiming the moral high ground is am I able to explain why my position is right or is it based on the claim that I know the mind of god.
Wrong understanding of morality. Judeo-Christian values don't claim high moral ground. The very opposite... The heart is deceptively wicked said Isaiah. All have fallen short of the Glory of God said Christ. To be a Christian is not a claim to be good. It's a decision one makes to be forgiven. Who needs to be forgiven? Only the bad, only the not-good. We understand morality because it is written on our hearts. We were created with the ability to discern right from wrong. There are not adequate natural words to explain these supernatural things. The Judeo-Christian claim is not that you need a belief in God to be good, to have a sense of morality. But without a supreme transcendent moral lawgiver, without the creator of morality there is no objective standard of right and wrong to be begin with. In your worldview what caused morality? The benzene molecule? The hydrogen atom? Which random collocation of atoms? Which unguided chemical reactions?
@@Bible33AD if u believe in judeo-Christian values, u believe that a deity gave Moses the 10 commandments that are objectively moral, therefore u must believe u have the moral high ground.
@@Bible33AD Bizarrely misinformed, but extremely common. *"We were created with the ability to discern right from wrong. There are not adequate natural words to explain these supernatural things."* It's interesting; theists come closer than they're aware of to getting it right. They always say *"We understand morality because it is written on our hearts."* Yet they don't give credit to the deserving writer, which is the *process of evolution.* We're hardwired to find survival strategies, and cooperation is one of the best methods of survival. *"without the creator of morality there is no objective standard of right and wrong to be begin with."* Correct..... in part. Since there is no "creator" there is indeed no objective standard, however there wouldn't be even if it were found that a "creator" existed, since there are no grounds anyone can provide which would *obligate* us to one. What if we disagreed with this "creator"? *"In your worldview what caused morality?"* Evolution, and the struggle to survive. Sorry, but no external "objective" source needed. Morality is exactly as messy as we should expect it to be, given our origins.
Who is a better person? one who has a belief that if I do good, or if I follow this religion I’ll go to heaven as a reward. or someone who does good & follows rules just because they decide to, The differences between the two is one needs to know if I’m good or if I follow this I’ll get something in return. as the other does good knowing they probably won’t get anything for it besides the feeling of doing good for others.
Good luck trying to get people to do good for the sake of that though. Only few people want to ‘do good’ universally. Most people only enjoy doing good conditionally. Like say for their boss, friends, family etc. Few enjoy doing it for all beings in the universe.
It’s not about who is better it’s about whose works of goodness are morally and intellectually consistent and justified. One (the former) has an objective justification to be good outside themselves and to hold to that regardless of the time or culture they are in. The other (the latter) can change everything about their moral views depending on the subjective whim of their culture. of course most in the latter camp don’t actually live as if morality is truly subjective, they still object to what they perceive as universal evils but can’t justify why that is. So one position is consistent morally and logically, but not the other.
38:41 - 38:54 that's completely untrue. It was very easy for me, as I became an adult, to start doubting God. It was easy to start doubting that Jesus was what everyone told me he is. It was VERY easy to doubt it all!
Why do you both never bring up the gifts of the Holy Ghost? These are promises made to the true believers! What I am saying , is that you most certainly can prove God is who he says he is, and will reward those that diligently seek him. God of The spiritual realm. God of all host. The flesh that wars against the spirit and soul. It takes more faith to believe there is no God, than to believe there is not one.
The problem with cliffe's solution is that it doesn't solve the problem that he objected to with cultural elitism as he calls it. You can invent a god but forcing it on others is no different from cultural elitism, because they may invent other gods that encapsulate different moral rules
Cliff’s view is the angle of truth and being in touch with reality to discover morals. You explain that it is reasonable that the complex order and design of universe comes from a designer. Understanding the design of life around us can lead to truth of what the real designer is like and what the nature of that designer is.
@@boltrooktwo religious indoctrination and beliefs can't lead to truth. Science and research lead to truth. Truth is the facts discovered in reality, not in delusions liked religion. Morality has nothing at all to do with this. It's just one of the assertions Theists use to draw out a lost debate
@@JnWayn The debate is not lost just because you assert it is. Scientifically prove to me science is the only source of truth? Scientism is the obsession with the findings and methods of science but is only a subjective philosophy. Scientism has it's own dogma and indoctrination and takes huge amounts of faith compared to other more rational options. Science is a tool best used by someone with a rational view of reality and the view that everything came from nothing and life came from non-life is irrational and denigrating to humanity. You can't observe a few surface patterns and processes and claim you have full knowledge of a subject and this is just what you are doing, that thinking is reductionist and faulty.
@@boltrooktwo @boltrooktwo @boltrooktwo I agree. It's not lost because I say it is, but because Theism internally contradicts and destroys itself. You're the one with countless gods. We're just asking you for evidence any of them is real. We know religions invent gods to indoctrinate children with and we know that all you've presented are religions, not a single god. Religion is really irrelevant to the issue of whether there's a god. Anybody can have a religion. It's just a belief system. That right there tells that you have no evidence. You don't need belief systems to believe what's true. And oh the irony in asking to scientifically prove to you science is the only way to knowledge. If you thought there were other ways why did you limit your question to only science? What I do know is that faith is not a way to know anything and all religions rely on faith so it doesn't matter if there are other ways. If there are, you aren't applying that and it's your job to tell me what that is, not for me to tell you why science is the only way. All of us know science works. If you have something else reliable present it. I'd like to know why scientists wouldn't use it and why you can't settle the argument with all the other Theists with false gods. You went on and on telling me about scientism. I wonder why. Have I said anything about it? Please tell me what the "other ways" that you mention are beyond science. Instead of all that time wasted talking about everything that has nothing to do with atheism, maybe in your next comment, present your evidence there's a god, or just admit it's just a wish
@@JnWayn I can name a few false claims from Neo-Darwinism and Scientism that have been debunked, there are many more. The missing link is still missing, all the attempts and finding fossils of the transition between ape and man have been woefully inadequate. The tailbone and the appendix in people are not vestigial byproducts in the human anatomy. If you don’t think so, try having your tailbone removed. The appendix can be removed but it has been shown to be a part of your immune system and weakens it when gone. There was a diagram of proposed horse evolution that when fully researched proved to be out of order chronologically and was just bones of progressively larger animals arranged by appearance with no evidence of relation. There are bones in whales that were suggested that they were vestiges left over in evolution from four legged land mammals, further study proves they are important precise support for whale reproduction. The geological layers are not proven to be the age they say they are, to date a layer you find what fossils are in that layer and to date the fossils you determine what layer they are from, a totally evidence-less circular arbitrary system for the determining the age of both. Ernst Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings are still in many biology textbooks, he was supposed to draw the fetuses of different animals and humans and he fallaciously drew them all the same when in reality human and animal fetuses are drastically different. Carbon dating and radioactive dating are quite often not even close to a date that works with the narrative of large-scale evolution so if the test doesn’t give the desired date they don’t use it and just propose the date that fits with the evolutionary timeline they want it to fit. Raccoons will never give birth to a horse, apes will never parent a human child, and cows won’t give birth to whales if they stand in the water long enough, the only evidence is for processes of adaptation within a particular kind of animal. Ecosystems are dependent on every animal and plant working in concert to survive that couldn’t have evolved independently by chance. You take out the bees the plants don’t pollenate, you take out one source of nutrients in an environment all the animals die. You will never find cells and life forming in tidal pools or thermal vents in oceans. Supposed evidence is often just creative made-up drawings and fanciful stories, just like fairy tales where the princess kisses a frog and it turns into a human prince. Throughout printed texts and books there are mistakes and errors they don’t change because it supports the narrative of false scholarship, extrapolation, and hype which are the only real supports for the completely false theory of life from non-life and genetic information writing itself. All to make beautiful human beings into complex bags of chemicals with no value and meaningless random mixtures of atoms pushed together by an indifferent universe. It's a terrible false line of reasoning supported by heaps of blind faith in things you've never witnessed or ever will.
We need to stop treating these atheists like they are on an intellectual journey and they are just mistaken. They hate God, and will use any excuse to reject him. They are vehement sinners that abominate the Lord with a passion, and this intellectual guise they use is just an excuse.
It's true Atheists hate God just like they hate unicorns, leprechauns, centaurs, Santa Clause and everything else that they aren't convinced exists. Disgusting
@@ThePurpleGoose023 I agree with you but the problem is we have no way to disprove this accusation they are making so it's pointless telling them they are wrong or trying to show them they are wrong. They will say all this stuff like "you just don't want to believe in God" I get this all the time from Christian theists, some Muslims too and they know very well that we can't disprove it and worse than that, everything we say or do, as far as they are concerned will be more "evidence" they are right. It's like back in the middle-ages when people used to be accused of witchcraft and the onus was on the person being accused of it to prove they were innocent of the crime of witchcraft but how could they possibly have proven their innocence when everything they said or did could be interpreted as evidence that they WERE a witch within the eyes of the accusers? This is the mindset that we are up against I'm afraid. Not all Christians or Muslims are like this in fairness, there are some reasonable believers who won't say this kind of unfalsifiable stuff about atheists, and it's possible to have a reasonable discussion with them but a sizeable number do think like this and it makes any reasonable discussion with them nigh on impossible, unfortunately. Thanks.
@@ThePurpleGoose023. Forgive me if I'm wrong but from my experience atheists hate God. You might be an exception but this has been my over abundant experience.
@@categories5066 I understand that and thank you for at least acknowledging there might be exceptions. I'm an exception too because I have no reason to hate a being that I am unsure even exists or not and has never shown himself directly to me to confirm his existence and help me to make an INFORMED choice about whether I should love him or not, but I have no way to prove it to you that I am aware of and that leads me to the problem I mentioned before. How could someone who is an atheist prove to you that their reason for doubting Gods existence has nothing to do with them simply hating God? Because if there is no way to prove it (which I suspect there isn't) then it's an unfalsifiable accusation that you are making against a group. I could make a load of unfalsifiable accusations against Christians or anyone but that would make me a jerk, agreed? And I'm not saying YOU'RE a jerk, I don't think you are. I think you are expressing a sincere view but one that is based on an unfair bias against people who label themselves an atheist. You're not willing to be fair because you BELIEVE we don't deserve to be treated fairly. If I ever make an accusation against anyone, I always make sure that they have a fair chance to prove me wrong. Making an accusation against someone that they have no way to prove false should be dismissed on the grounds that ANYONE could be accused of the same thing and they TOO couldn't prove the accusation false. This is the civilized way of doing things, otherwise, we might just as well go back to the witch-hunting era I mentioned before.
Atkins is desperately clinging on to the 3 weak points he probably used his whole life. Why did you even agree to the debate Peter? Atkins last words were "I hope I've improved peoples lives", oh you most certainly have Peter, you and your atheist buddies improve my life everytime I hear you speak, by strengthening my belief in Christ more then I thought was even possible
Theists frame morality incorrectly at the outset. They see it as a set of rules put forth by an external source, and anything other than that is simply "relative." But morality is a process, giving rise to more prosperous living conditions for the participants as it improves. Living things want to survive, and starting from this fact, we can observe that various strategies are better and worse, and at the most basic level there are commonalities. "Who says Hitler was wrong?" entirely misses the point, but it's even worse than that, because even if some external source existed, and we had some way of understanding its wishes, there are no grounds for our being *obligated* to this source. What if we disagreed with it? As we well know, the moral strictures men have imbued their storybook gods with are only selectively practiced, and there is no reason to suppose it would be any different with an actual source, should anyone be under the impression they needed to pay heed. Morality is doing our best, learning from experience and using reason as our guides. We're hard-wired to be herd animals, and cooperation is an essential strategy. Morality simply can't be so simple as *"Authority XYZ said so."* Add the moral question to the list of ways the religious view fails.
Without God, an absolute authority, there is no way of telling right from wrong, no way whatsoever, Hitler thought he was doing good, Mao Zedong thought he was doing good, but there is an absolute thus saith the lord, x
@@shevy7197 Well, if you were born in another country then maybe another holy book would be the instruction manual for you. Who's to say which one is legit?
@@littlesoul8282 there's only two religions in the world, how you approach God, either by "grace" and thus a free eternal gift, not of your works lest any man should boast, now every other single religious thought out there is to achieve eternal life by "works", every religion has a list, A,B,C etc, and every list has different things on them, but the fact that they even have a "list" at all proves that they are trying to approach God through what they can do for God, not what Jesus Christ did for them on the cross x
I wish i could hear a theist have an honest discussion. They all seem to have a flowchart to bring the discussion back to the same tired, ridiculous arguments.
Jesus is Lord God Almighty clothed in unsinful humanity and He is the author of eternal life to all realize that they are sinners deserving of God's just punishment in Hell and turn (repent) from whatever they trusted in before, if indeed they trusted in anything; to trusting in the person and finished work of Christ alone for salvation.
If god existed there would be no need to prove his existence. Since god doesn’t exist, someone claiming he’s the son of god, the only son of god, is the definition of a conman. That said, if there is a god after all, Cliffe is the best proof he’s not the product of some intelligent creator :)
you suppress him, you know he exists because you live your life as if he exists. you can't escape God because you are made in his image. you know morals are objective to a moral lawgiver and not your own relativism.
@@david.kushner but god does exist! Undoubtedly! Under the roof of your skull where he resides and should be protected by all means because once he leaves these very limited surroundings he is bound to dissolve in thin air :)
@@walterdaems57 alright here we go...Walter, tell me what you believe and the best piece of evidence for it as to why it's true since you think there's no evidence for God lets see who's is more rational.
@@david.kushner but I just acknowledged the existence of your particular god??? You really don’t want me to disprove the existence of pixies, goblins, the Easter bunny and gods in the real world, now do you? That would be an undertaking without end. By the way, since you claim the existence of a celestial wizard who shook the universe out of his sleeve, don’t you think the burden of proof sits in your lap?
@@walterdaems57 we can prove that goblins, wizards and pixies don't exist and we can also provide rational large amounts of clear evidence that we were created and came from something not nothing. if you didn't realize you provided no evidence for what you believe to be true about reality, still waiting.
Islam The Beautiful Religion ( Be Just ) Quran 5:8 '' O you who believe! stand out firmly for God, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the > HATRED OF OTHERS TO YOU < make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear God. For God is well-acquainted with all that ye do. '' Quran 4:58 '' Indeed, God commands you to render trusts to whom they are due and when you judge between people to judge with justice. Excellent is that which God instructs you. Indeed, God is ever Hearing and Seeing.'' ( God's The Rules Of War ) Quran 2:190 '' Fight in the way of God > THOSE WHO FIGHT YOU < but do not transgress. Indeed. God does not like transgressors. '' Quran 2 :193 '' And fight them on until there is no more oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. '' Quran 4:90 ''.........So if they withdraw from you and cease their hostility and offer you peace, in that case Allah has not granted you permission to fight against them.'' Quran 8:61 ''And if they seek peace, then you also seek it, and put your trust in God. He is the Hearer, the Knowledgeable.'' ( Stand Up For Justice ) Quran 4 :135 '' Ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against > YOURSELVES, < or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for God can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily God is well-acquainted with all that ye do.'' ( Who Are The Good Human Beings? ) Quran 2.177 '' Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but [true] righteousness is [in] one who believes in God, the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the prophets and gives wealth,> IN SPITE OF LOVE FOR IT,< to relatives, orphans, the needy, the traveler, those who ask [for help], and for freeing slaves; [and who] establishes prayer and gives charity; [those who] fulfill their promise when they promise; and [those who] are patient in poverty and hardship and during battle. Those are the ones who have been true, and it is those who are the righteous. '' ( Freedom To Believe And To Reject ) Quran 2:256 '' Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error '' Quran 10:99 '' And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed - all of them entirely. Then would you compel the people in order that they become believers? '' ( Tolerance For Other Religions ) Quran 109: 1- 6 Say,"O disbelievers, I do not worship what you worship. Nor are you worshipers of what I worship. Nor will I be a worshiper of what you worship. Nor will you be worshipers of what I worship. For you is your religion, and for me is my religion." ( Protection for Idol Worshiper ) Quran 9:6 "And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are people who do not know. " Quran16:125 “Call people to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good teaching, and argue with them in the most courteous way” Quran7:199 “Be tolerant....” ( Friendship With Non Muslims ) Quran 60:8 '' God does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, God loves those who act justly. '' ( Do Christians And Jews and "OTHER" non-Muslims go to Heaven? ) Quran 2:62 '' Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,-> ANY { On Judgement Day } ( According to the Quran Christians and Jews worship TRUE God ) (Quran 3:113-114) '' Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book ( Christians and Jews ) are a portion that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of God all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous.'' Note: According to the Quran that Jesus is not God nevertheless Christians still worship one '' TRUE '' God. ( Allah Is The Protector Of Monasteries, Churches, Synagogues And The Mosques ) Quran 22:40 [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is God ." And were it not that God checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of God is much mentioned. And God will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, God is Powerful and Exalted in Might. ( Why Are There So Many Different Religions In The World ? ) Quran 5 48 ''...... If God wanted He could have made all of you a single nation. But He willed otherwise in order to test you in what He has given you;(scriptures) therefore try to excel one another in good deeds. Ultimately you all shall return to God; then He will show you the truth of those matters in which you > DISPUTE submission < to God), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good)'' My explanation of above verse Islam mean > submission < to God ( The above verse saying is that God will not accept a religion from the "MUSLIM" and the Non-Muslims but total > submission < to God.) Question: How Can Muslim And the Non-Muslim > submit < to the God? Answer: Be kind to other human beings and Do not lie, Do not steal, Do not cheat, Do not hurt others, Do not be prideful and Do the charity work. ( God Allow Muslims To Marry And Eat Food From the Christian And Jew And Vice Versa ) Quran 5;5 ''This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture ( Christian and Jew) is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture ( Christian and Jew) before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers. And whoever denies the faith - his work has become worthless, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.'' ( Kindness Toward Atheists / Apostate ) Quran 60:8 '' As for such [of the unbelievers( atheist)] as do not fight against you on account of [your] faith, and neither drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to behave towards them with full equity: for, verily, God loves those who act equitably. '' ( All The Terrorists / Killers Will Enter Hell Fire ) Quran 5:32 "......Whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely......" ( Turned Your Enemies Into Your Best Friends ) Quran 41:34 "The good deed and the evil deed are not alike. Repel the evil deed with one which is better, then lo! he, between whom and thee there was enmity (will become) as though he was a bosom friend." ( The Husband and The Wife Are > Protecting Friends < One Of Another ) Quran 9:71 ''And the believers, men and women, are > Protecting Friends < one of another; they enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, and they establish worship and they pay the poor-due, and they obey God and His messenger. As for these, God will have mercy on them. Lo! God is Mighty, Wise.'' Quran16:97 “To whoever, male or female, does good deeds and has faith, We shall give a good life and reward them according to the best of their actions. Quran 30:21 “And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquility in them; and He placed between you > affection and mercy { Love } The Prophet Muhammad said, “Heaven lies under the feet of your mother.” ( Human Are One family ) Quran 49:13 " O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of God is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)." ( All The Racist People Will Enter Hellfire ) Quran 30:22 "And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your languages and your colors. Indeed in that are signs for those of knowledge." My comment: The > BASIC < message of God to the human is that '' YOU '' believe in God and be kind to other human beings / animals and in the > RETURNED < God will reward you with a new life in Paradise. * The Quran ONLY guides you how to become a good human being "Nothing Else". * You are a good human being or a bad human being that is YOUR choice. * No one can force you to become a good human being. * You MUST work HARD to become a good human being. * Why should ''YOU'' do good deeds and avoid bad deeds? * Do Good - it's for You. Do Bad - It's against you. * '' YOUR'' life is a TEST from God that you will choose to do either Good or Bad. * Find the excuse to help others and forgive others NOT the other way around. * '' YOUR '' final destination is either Hell or Heaven. * So work HARD toward choice of YOUR destination. Quran 17:7 '' If you do good, you will do so for your own good. And if you do evil, it will be to your own loss.''
Copy-and-paste and calling 'beautiful' the bloodiest religion in the world? Does the above constitute 'good' in your book? How do you know when you're good enough? If I do good for my own sake... is it really good? As for "lawless", that is false. (You would know this if you read the Bible.) However, speaking of laws... Have you heard of Sharia Law? Now there's some "good" stuff, eh? [sic]
Great video. Peter Atkins is very intelligent and a pleasure to listen to his arguments.
It is interesting that we talk about genital mutilation in Africa like it doesn't happen here. Circumcision is the western version for males. It is an unneeded process that while hiding under the guise of trivial medical benefits is religious at its core. We see that social moral relativism is very common even in religions claiming objective morality. We need to question these practices that we just thought were ok in order to grow as a society. To me religion is holding us back in many ways. It makes some choose their religion over well accepted science.
What are the negative consequences of circumcision that people ignore that science has researched to prove harmful? It seems like you have projected a personal preference to accuse religion of causing ignorance when there is no evidence that it has. Religion directs and enhances science toward the benefit of people because it gives people the moral view that they have value and dignity. If there is no God people are meaningless accidents with no inherent value and can be experimented on and used for the power elite for the means they deem are good for evolution or to better themselves.
@@boltrooktwo You are cutting an infant unnecessarily for one. Feel free to look up the reasons for circumcision and see that they are not worth the procedure. It is a religious hang around we just can't get rid of for some reason. It does not serve any real medical purpose. Circumcision is a religious BS thing. It just goes to show how indoctrinated it has society that we cut newborns genitals. If god designed us perfect why cut off the tip of the dick? At what point do y'all finally see the hypocrisy and give it up?
If you are correct on religion promoting science then explain the large number of theists who claim evolution is false. They make the claim based on religious beliefs. They call it faith and faith isn't knowledge. It is replacing facts with whatever you feel. Doing something because of god is a crap reason.
“Circumcision”
Sorry but what has “circumcision” got to do with all the religions of the world? Religious expression is very diverse some people who believe in a higher power or absolute ontological ground of truth, reality and objective morality don’t even take part in organised religion or organised groups but some atheists (Humanists) do take part in organised groups.
This is a debate between two Christians and a strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist so bringing up circumcision is just an (Appeal to Emotion Fallacy). This is also a red herring, an irrelevancy fallacy and non sequitur as it does not logically follow how this refutes Christianity. I could just as easily ask what about the tens of millions of innocent men women and children murdered under Stalin’s Communist Marxist atheist regime that was defined by atheism through its anti religious policies and death camps. You could predictably respond that “no true atheist” is capable of great evil and genocide and blame religion. And I would logically point out that this is the (No True Scots Man Fallacy).
It’s also very transparent that whilst you recognised that subjective morality is the real issue here that you still chose to blame religious expression. This is nothing more than stereotyping and bigotry as religious groups are doing a lot to stop these bizarre practices.
I rest my case!!
@@jayv9779
“Large number of theists who claim evolution is false”
Sorry but the conflict myth between science and faith is exactly that, a myth and a false dichotomy perpetuated by militant atheist propaganda. Also this is a debate between two Christians and a strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist so it’s a non sequitur and a red herring!
In her books, the prominent atheist philosopher Mary Midgley tells us that the theory of evolution is not only a scientific theory, but also a political one. The new middle-class plutocrats of the Enlightenment needed a 'creation myth' that would explain why they deserved to rule. The answer was Darwin's theory: the survival of the fittest. They were there because they were the best. This new myth was needed to replace the old one of the aristocracy - the myth of Divine Grace - that is, that they were there because it had been ordained by God.
It never ceases to amaze me how ironic it is to listen to the so called non religious, that is strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists psychoanalyze critics of evolution and materialism pointing to religious commitment and upbringing (The Genetic Fallacy). Critiquing scientific theories is the scientific method after all. The irony is that it is the strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist and not the theist, who is committed to an evolutionary account of life’s origins. But the irony is that adaptation and speciation does not even explain origins so it is a non sequitur in a philosophical debate about metaphysics and origins. The theist has more options open and there are theistic evolutionists who accept that evolution is currently the greatest explanation regarding biology but that science is a constantly changing landscape. This commitment was aptly stated by Harvard evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin who admitted to being forced to “accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world” not by “the methods and institutions of science” but by “a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”
Nevertheless, the fact is that there are prominent contemporary Christian scientists such as Francis Collins who was the (Director of the Genome Project) who enthusiastically defend evolution and in contrast you have prominent atheist philosophers such as Thomas Nagel claiming that materialism and Neo Darwinism is an incomplete theory of reality and so is false. However, which world view has the greatest explanatory power? and which is the most coherent and parsimonious hypothesis? the Christian Francis Collins defence of evolution? or the prominent atheist philosopher Thomas Nagels claim that materialism and evolution is false?
The fact is that bringing up evolution in a philosophical debate about metaphysical beliefs and origins is a red herring, an irrelevancy fallacy, a non sequitur as there are prominent scientists who are theistic evolutionists and there always has been. Because as I already pointed out the conflict between science and faith is a myth and a false dichotomy perpetuated by militant atheism.
Plenty of Darwin's scientific contemporaries, men like John Stevens Henslow, Charles Lyell, Asa Gray, George Wright, Alexander Winchell, and James Dana etc, didn’t have any major issues with evolution and their Christian beliefs. Furthermore, the irony is that initially militant atheists liked to point to the “The Big Bang Theory” as a defeater for faith. The irony is that atheist scientists coined the phrase “Big Bang” to mock the theory holding back the science for several years. And the double irony is that George Lemaitre who developed the theory turned out to be a devout Christian and remained so. Im not making any appeals to authority by the way. Furthermore, as the prominent historian James Moore has stated "with but few exceptions the leading Christian thinkers in Great Britain and America came to terms quite readily with Darwinism and evolution."
Nevertheless, according to contemporary atheist philosophers such as Mary Midgley….
“Evolution, then, is the creation myth of our age. By telling us our origins it shapes our views of what we are. It influences not just our thought, but our feelings and actions too, in a way which goes far beyond its official function as a biological theory”
“Fatalism is now offered, not as just one possible philosophical attitude among others with reasons given for and against it, but as a fact backed by the tremendous authority of science.” (Mary Midgley). This rhetoric and assumption of fatalism and nihilism is the reason why there are people who have struggled with the theory in the first place so they are hardly to blame!!
Similarly, according to the eminent atheist philosopher Michael Ruse…
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity.” (Michael Ruse).
“The literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” (Michael Ruse).
Equally, according to Dr Raymond Tallis…
“Within the secular world picture, Neuromania and Darwinitis are the biggest piles of rubbish.” (Raymond Tallis)
It speaks volumes that according to the eminent atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel…
“The defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion. That world view is ripe for displacement” (Thomas Nagel).
It speaks volumes that Thomas Nagel, Raymond Tallis, Mary Midgley and Michael Ruse are prominent atheist philosophers….
As I pointed out already science is a constantly changing landscape and evolution is a non sequitur in a philosophical debate about origins, that is metaphysical presuppositions such as prescriptive laws of logic, conscious agents, empiricism and values such as morals and ethics.
I rest my case!!
❤️
“It’s replacing facts with whatever you feel”
Ho the irony!! This came to a head in 2008 when Kroto, along with Dawkins and other anti-theist scientists, forced the resignation of Michal Reiss as Director of the Royal Society because Reiss was a clergyman who suggested science shouldn't dismiss pupils' views about creationism or intelligent design but should explain how such views were incompatible with science. The attacks on Reiss were not motivated by what he said but what he represented - dissent from the proposition that science and atheism are two sides of the same coin. It was an example of fundamentalist scientism at its worst and roundly condemned by all those, including Robert Winston, who value freedom of thought over imposed conformity. Although "Evolution As A Religion" was written two decades before the Royal Society revealed itself as the authoritarian dispenser of metaphysics under the guise of science, the eminent atheist philosopher Mary Midgley had already identified the scientism of Dawkins et.al.
Science is laden with unacknowledged values although the sociobiologist E O Wilson presented materialistic science as a viable myth in competition with religion. Francis Crick claimed that science would produce a new set of beliefs about the nature of humanity. Religion was criticised for not being science and despised for raising questions about scientific impartiality in the pursuit of a world view which fails by its own standard of proof. It was scientific orthodoxy which rejected Galileo's heliocentric view of the world. It was also scientific orthodoxy which initially ignored Lynn Magulis's Gaia hypothesis until the paradigm shift so superbly described in Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" took effect.
Really interesting... I would love to have de knowledge and ability that Cliff and his son has, to be able and speak with my atheist friends. That's why a watch everything they post helps me a lot, thank you for that. God Bless you guy's. You are helping me out very much.
They are both far under par. Cliffe, the jumping jester, can barely hold his ground amongst youngsters and between real opponents he just makes a fool of himself, dragging his son down with him
I would not speak to atheist friends like this, very ignorant and condescending. If you want to talk with friends about different beliefs, start by asking questions and really listen to the answers. Maybe even think about it for a few days without responding. Don’t think you can learn a script or talking points, that never works.
@@walterdaems57
“Jumping jester”
“Dragging his son down with him”
Now that’s ironic coming from someone who promotes a philosophy that reduces our families and children to nothing more than “bags of chemicals”.
@@georgedoyle7971 where exactly did I talk about bags of chemicals? See, that’s the influence of jumping jesters, they tend to make ignorants jump to conclusions :)
@@talithaleah6563
“Very ignorant and condescending”
Ho the irony! Sorry but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence! Because the fact is that our families and children are clearly more than just a “bag of chemicals”. The only ignorant and condescending approach here was the attempt to reduce our families and loved ones to chemical and biological robots (a bag of chemicals) just to score points and avoid the inevitable implications of metaphysics. Reality and existence and in particular the qualities of experience aren’t made of “matter” they are made of (what matters)! Have you actually watched Atkins past debates his style of debating is beyond ignorant and condescending and he is philosophically illiterate and impossible to teach. He’s recently polished up his stage act a little after decades of embarrassing (gotcha) moments from seasoned debaters as even prominent atheist philosophers have called him out on his embarrassing cringe worthy approach. However, he was still pretty rude at certain points in this debate and commits every logical fallacy in the book such as the (Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy)
(Appeal to Scientism and Materialism of the Gaps Fallacy)
(Merelogical Fallacy)
(The Genetic Fallacy).
(Is/Ought Fallacy)
(Appeal to Nature/Naturalism Fallacy). The list goes on! These fallacies have been pointed out time after time to Atkins but he just does not listen and is a poor representative for atheism. Cliffe and his son are highly experienced debaters and Cliffe looks ready for a good holiday to be honest. Cliffes son is actually a doctor and a specialist surgeon and anyone who’s watched their numerous debates on UA-cam can see that they both clearly went easy on Atkins and were respectful as always as Atkins is clearly an elderly man who is now completely set in his ways.
When Atkins debated William Lane Craig years ago Atkins actually claimed that the natural sciences were omnipotent and could “prove” anything! Lane Craig then went on to easily list a dozen things that the natural sciences could not “prove” including empiricism itself to the raucous laughter of the audience and the chair person topped it off with the statement…
“Put that in your pipe and smoke it”. Despite this Atkins is still using the same old worn out arguments and prominent atheist philosophers don’t take him seriously as atheism can do much better than this as we all learned very little as Atkins philosophical approach to science is antiquated.
-' One should not intrude upon the aspirations of others', Atkins says.
He then says-' It's okay to thwart the aspirations of others, such as African societies'.
Where did he say that? I must have missed that bit.
he didn't say the bit about African societies, but you are right
@@adsffdaaf4170 Yes he did
Cliff is so outclassed here it's so funny
Def not
The most tolerant and restrained I have ever seen the great Peter Atkins, especially considering a veritable barrage of well
rehearsed wishful thinking bullshit from Cliffe.
At one point when Cliffe was well and truly wrenched from cloud 9 by Peter, he looked deeply disturbed as if he was about to burst into tears !
Cliffe, anyone can play the: "X is just a bunch of Y" game ! I could for instance claim that the wonderful Vaughan Williams symphony that moved me to tears when I listened to it the other day was just a bunch of tiny indentations impressed into a polycarbonate disc, surely I couldn't really have derived such immense pleasure from it without first adopting an imaginary friend !
“Imaginary friend”
“wishful thinking b…sht from Cliffe”
Awww how quaint the “Imaginary friend” argument versus the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/theism/deism/panentheism. I prefer the tooth fairy argument myself with Dwayne Johnson in lead role.
This is nothing more than an (appeal to ridicule fallacy and the Stone Fallacy), including rhetoric, a straw man argument and an ad hominem. I’m not making any appeals to authority but if only you could have been around during the time of Michelle Besso, Francis Bacon, John Henslow, Dostoyevsky, Kepler, Newton, Thomas Aquinas, Anselmo d’Aosta, Miguel de Cervantes, Charles Dickens, Shakespeare, Augustine, Kant, Einstein, Descartes and Spinoza etc you could have saved them all from their misguided belief in mind and consciousness/theism/deism/panentheism with your Earth shattering “Imaginary friend” argument!
❤️
“Bag of Chemicals”
“Immense pleasure”
This is beyond ironic!! Sorry but everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it ridiculous….
Imagine if you were a rebellious teenager who actually carried on believing into adulthood that everything is nothing more than a product of accidental, blind, mindless, meaningless, pitiless, merciless brain chemicals creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities. Imagine if you continued believing that humans and reality are nothing more than a product of environment, DNA and your personal Nietzschean “will to power”. Or “blood and soil” as the Nazis used to like to call it. Imagine if you actually believed that the overwhelming evidence of empathy, compassion, altruism, bravery, morals, ethics, meaning, purpose, absolute truth and objective morality was synonymous with believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the tooth fairy or unicorns. Imagine if you then went on to kill and murder tens of millions of innocent men, women and children.
Imagine what it must be like to be inside the heads of the atheists Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler!! Because the fact is that…
“What Hitler did not believe and what Stalin did not believe and what Mao did not believe and what the SS did not believe and what the Gestapo did not believe and what the NKVD did not believe and what the commissars, functionaries, swaggering executioners, Nazi doctors, Communist Party theoreticians, intellectuals, Brown Shirts, Black Shirts, gauleiters, and a thousand party hacks did not believe was that God was watching what they were doing. And as far as we can tell, very few of those carrying out the horrors of the twentieth century worried overmuch that God was watching what they were doing either. That is, after all, the meaning of a secular society.”
“Bag of Chemicals”
Hitlers right hand man Joseph Goebbals wrote in his private diaries in 1941 that though Hitler was "a fierce opponent" of the Vatican and Christianity, "he forbids me to leave the church. For tactical reasons”
(Joseph Goebbels).
According to the Auschwitz survivor Viktor Frankl who was a psychiatrist and scientist (and survivor of two Nazi death camps) moral subjectivists, that is those who prefer to value humanity as nothing more than biological and chemical robots. That is (A bag of Chemicals) and determined machines free will deniers) are a danger to our families and our children… According to Victor Frankl….
“If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity, and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone.
I became acquainted with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment - or, as the Nazi like to say, of ‘Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.” (Victor Frankl).
Frankl’s words are sobering and should give us pause as we consider what we are teaching the next generation in our own sacred halls of learning. Are we teaching students that they are the product of their environment, not responsible for their actions? Are we teaching them to view good and evil not as absolutes, but as variables dependent upon one’s cultural norms?
If so, are we simply hurtling the next generation towards the Auschwitzes, Treblinkas, and Maidaneks of the 21st century?
I rest my case!!
“Surely I couldn’t have derived such immense pleasure without first adopting an imaginary friend”
Ho the irony!! Sorry buddy but under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism you are nothing more than a temporary, accidental by product of a blind, mindless, meaningless process of random atoms and brain chemicals creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities. Under your world view that “immense pleasure” was illusory and was nothing more than meaningless neurons firing and a chemical dopamine hit. Under your world view you are nothing more than brain chemicals dude. You are just an overgrown amoeba! You are nothing more than a pointless, meaningless “bag of chemicals”, an evolved ape who shares half their DNA with bananas. A chemical and biological robot! So why “ought” we take your claims to the rational and moral high ground seriously?
This is an unbelievably easy world view to critique and refute as it is literally “self” refuting and is littered with metaphysical presuppositions that can not be proven, justified or grounded in a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism that clearly excludes metaphysical realities. Atkins is clueless and loses every debate he engages in because logical positivism is self refuting and quantum mechanics demonstrated decades ago that classical materialism is dead!! The irony is that we are all on equal footing at the very least under relativism! However, under Atkins strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism you are nothing more than “a bag of chemicals” dude and nothing more substantive than the science project of vinegar and baking soda bubbling over!!
Does the science project of vinegar and baking soda bubble over bravely when it uses prevarication (clever lies) whilst making value claims such as “immense pleasure” and
“b…sht”?
Can the baking soda and vinegar take the credit for its circular logic and self contradiction?
This is hilarious and is comedy gold!! Your claims to absolute “truth” whilst claiming to be a “relativist” (a bag of chemicals) have no more “truth” value and are no more “right” or “wrong” than leaves blowing in the wind!! This is the implication of your world view not mine buddy. It’s an amoral world view!! There’s no such thing as “truth” or “right” or “b…sht” under this harmful ideology that reduces our families and children to nothing more than “bags of chemicals” . At least be a consistent strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist…
Because according to the Nazis favourite philosopher, that is the atheists with possibly the highest IQs of all the atheists that ever lived…
“logic is an illusion” (Nietzsche)
“You can’t get an (ought) out of an (is)” - David Hume).
“Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions.
- Nietzsche, Reference from: On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense”
In Will to Power, Nietzsche makes the self refuting claim that , "there is only one world, and this is false, cruel, contradictory, seductive, without meaning....We have need of lies in order to conquer this reality, this 'truth,' that is, in order to live-That lies are necessary in order to live is itself part of the terrifying and questionable character of existence."
Reference: WP, 853, p. 451. Also TI, "'Reason' in Philosophy," 5, p. 37-8
Your world view not mine buddy!!
I rest my case!!
@@georgedoyle7971 A very impressive ad populum list there George.
Your imaginary friend must be proud of you !
6:07 What makes a person's aspirations more important than the person themself? The same question still applies - why is it wrong to harm them? It's just a random, meaningless event that the chemical reactions of the universe ultimately forced. The jihadist isn't wrong or evil.
It may be a meaningless event to the universe, but we humans tend to apply morality to situations. It is hard to argue that one person's morality is better than another person's, but in actual fact people do agree broadly on how we should treat each other, and we can use that agreement to structure our societies.
People must come to Africa to see spirituality in reality. People do unbelievable things in Africa.
God-bless cliff and Stewart in Jesus name amen
@@JohnSmith-db2wl Jesus loves you John
Big enough brains??? How does he know what big enough is maybe we actually are self deceived and think our brains are big because we measure it next to little things. You don't even know how good our brains are in comparison to anything better then us without God.
Amen Brother Cliffe.
Cliffe was so patronising at the end and quite rude to his guest who he called "arrogant"!
I am an atheist I would never talk to or treat someone that way!
He should be ashamed and obviously missed the point of his version of a fairy tale!
Just tell us your another atheist so we can move on ... 🤣😭
@@YoungEli9 Everyone should be an atheist.
@@chikkipop if everyone was an atheist humanity would’ve perished and most likely today society everyone will be their own God or their own conquerors and willing to do the lawful things most likely people be believing some delusional stuff like a guy being a girl or a guy getting pregnant all that type of crazy stuff you know and I’m talking about leaders who killed millions and majority of the head leaders were atheist and killed more people than religion like for example, communism killed more than 100 million
people or higher in their ideology is atheism and they do not like religion witch is fine but living in society like that should tell you we will not be free and same, for example like North Korea it’s another ideology atheism as well well, let’s say I was an atheist just like you we could be good atheist, but the understanding of the world today whoever our leaders are would lead us to deaths with no freedoms so hopefully you understand what I’m trying to say and by the way, I have nothing against atheism I hear from both sides🤝
Cliffe owns!
I must be watching a different debate or you are exposing some wishful thinking. O well, isn’t that the base for religion? :)
@@walterdaems57he isn’t wishing that cliffe won
@@walterdaems57no that is not the base of religion, religion is characteristics to from a dynamic reality
@@walterdaems57and faith is made up with three things knowing god, believing god, and knowledge
@@nineline7208 in other words: full blown self induced delusion :)
Who cares about them loosing there aspirations as long as the murdered does what he wants and dies before thinking it was wrong or not worth it. In that case the stupid murderer dies happier than the Athiest who spends his life in agony trying to come to an absolute that he got rid of time ago.
31:30 I think Cliff is right here :) but Atkins has a great touché moment to say it’s a “miracle” if he can finish his point with Cliff. Hahaha. Thanks for the debate, wonderful. Cliff won, hands down.
In what way did he win lmao
Cliff failed from the start. It's what happens when you have bad ideas.
Morality is the cognitive process of differentiating between intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate. And as with all cognitive assessments, moral assesments are necessarily _subjective._
Each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his/her own morality. Likewise, each and every individual is soley responsible, accountable, and culpable for those intentions, decisions, and actions based upon those moral assessments.
Torturing babies for fun is morally wrong. Please substantiate your point, that that is only "neccesarily subjective" and not absolutely wrong.
@@Bible33AD Yes. Torturing babies is morally wrong.
@@theoskeptomai2535 so this is either a matter of consensus or awareness. You both are either recognizing one objective truth or agreeing on a subjective truth.
I pray that Peter Atkins gets saved. He's a nice guy that needs a Savior like the rest of us.
Religious people don’t need a Savior.
They need EDUCTION.
@@AnarchoPunkChad : you live - you die - end of history.
@Rabbit dude saved by who ?
The Easter bunny !
You live and you die.
Don’t be childish.
@Rabbit dude : religious beliefs are formed by 4 factors.
Time, place, etnicity, upbringing.
And that’s it.
Of course you will/can find exceptions - but they are statistically insignificant.
I don’t know about you, but this fact tells me, that religions are manmade.
They can’t all be right, but - more likely - all be wrong.
Religion is - with the knowledge we have today - an insult to human intellect.
@@erikhviid3189 I would suggest not to attack people's world view sir. Similar things said about atheism could really hurt you.
Even if this Athiest believes in absolutes like I'm sure he said, there is no way to figure out what is absolute in his view it would be an adventure void of knowing and only learning but never coming to the absolute.
What is an absolute, and upon what does it depend in order to be an absolute?
I'm always baffled why some (apparently intelligent) people seem to think that a PROOF for a supernatural god is that IF THERE ISN'T ONE then there's no ultimate purpose or "objective morality" and love is "just a chemical reaction". It's like saying that a proof for a supernatural Lord Krishna is that if there isn't one then all the Hare Krishna devotees having doing a lot of things for absolutely no reason.
Anyways, why would that make subjective morality, personal meaning or love any less? I think it makes them MORE worthwhile because they are not forced upon us by some otherworldly entity.
The morality issue is just another of the many failed arguments theists make.
Species developmental behaviour is derived through the assimilation of beneficial hereditable mutations by way of chemical reactions at the allele stage. Robert Sapolsky would confirm this.
Emotions, reactions, morality etc have all the earmarks of evolution just as the development from gills to lungs or scales to feathers. Although not physical, their attributes contribute to the survival of a species by honing the very insticts we have which promoted hunter to hunter gatherer. They contibuted to the development of cooperation whether in harvesting meat or wheat to defending the tribe. Caring and upbringing of young to continue existence and care for the elderly.
Chemicals and their mutations are responsible.
Which is why the need for a god is unnecessary.
An important question you need to ask yourself when claiming the moral high ground is am I able to explain why my position is right or is it based on the claim that I know the mind of god.
Wrong understanding of morality. Judeo-Christian values don't claim high moral ground. The very opposite... The heart is deceptively wicked said Isaiah. All have fallen short of the Glory of God said Christ. To be a Christian is not a claim to be good. It's a decision one makes to be forgiven. Who needs to be forgiven? Only the bad, only the not-good.
We understand morality because it is written on our hearts. We were created with the ability to discern right from wrong. There are not adequate natural words to explain these supernatural things. The Judeo-Christian claim is not that you need a belief in God to be good, to have a sense of morality. But without a supreme transcendent moral lawgiver, without the creator of morality there is no objective standard of right and wrong to be begin with. In your worldview what caused morality? The benzene molecule? The hydrogen atom? Which random collocation of atoms? Which unguided chemical reactions?
@@Bible33AD if u believe in judeo-Christian values, u believe that a deity gave Moses the 10 commandments that are objectively moral, therefore u must believe u have the moral high ground.
@@Bible33AD Bizarrely misinformed, but extremely common.
*"We were created with the ability to discern right from wrong. There are not adequate natural words to explain these supernatural things."*
It's interesting; theists come closer than they're aware of to getting it right. They always say *"We understand morality because it is written on our hearts."* Yet they don't give credit to the deserving writer, which is the *process of evolution.* We're hardwired to find survival strategies, and cooperation is one of the best methods of survival.
*"without the creator of morality there is no objective standard of right and wrong to be begin with."*
Correct..... in part. Since there is no "creator" there is indeed no objective standard, however there wouldn't be even if it were found that a "creator" existed, since there are no grounds anyone can provide which would *obligate* us to one. What if we disagreed with this "creator"?
*"In your worldview what caused morality?"* Evolution, and the struggle to survive. Sorry, but no external "objective" source needed. Morality is exactly as messy as we should expect it to be, given our origins.
The fact that the prof is so afraid to mention the word God shows his delusional thought process is full of baloney.
Why would anyone be afraid of mentioning a popular superstition? Utterly silly.
Did Peter Atkins say cultural elitism might be a good thing?
yup, he is incredibly intelligent but should stick to the beakers
He sure did.
@@adsffdaaf4170He's incredibly ignorant, actually.
Who is a better person? one who has a belief that if I do good, or if I follow this religion I’ll go to heaven as a reward. or someone who does good & follows rules just because they decide to, The differences between the two is one needs to know if I’m good or if I follow this I’ll get something in return. as the other does good knowing they probably won’t get anything for it besides the feeling of doing good for others.
Good luck trying to get people to do good for the sake of that though.
Only few people want to ‘do good’ universally.
Most people only enjoy doing good conditionally.
Like say for their boss, friends, family etc.
Few enjoy doing it for all beings in the universe.
It’s not about who is better it’s about whose works of goodness are morally and intellectually consistent and justified. One (the former) has an objective justification to be good outside themselves and to hold to that regardless of the time or culture they are in. The other (the latter) can change everything about their moral views depending on the subjective whim of their culture. of course most in the latter camp don’t actually live as if morality is truly subjective, they still object to what they perceive as universal evils but can’t justify why that is. So one position is consistent morally and logically, but not the other.
@@LilBitDistributist Nonsense. There is no objective source , nor could there be.
@@chikkipop lol sure
@@LilBitDistributist It's funny, but you can't show I'm wrong. Go ahead and try.
38:41 - 38:54 that's completely untrue. It was very easy for me, as I became an adult, to start doubting God. It was easy to start doubting that Jesus was what everyone told me he is. It was VERY easy to doubt it all!
Why don’t the Knectles come out and say that Gods are rubbish and believing is incredibly adaptive
Why do you both never bring up the gifts of the Holy Ghost? These are promises made to the true believers! What I am saying , is that you most certainly can prove God is who he says he is, and will reward those that diligently seek him. God of The spiritual realm. God of all host. The flesh that wars against the spirit and soul. It takes more faith to believe there is no God, than to believe there is not one.
Casuistry is their game
The problem with cliffe's solution is that it doesn't solve the problem that he objected to with cultural elitism as he calls it. You can invent a god but forcing it on others is no different from cultural elitism, because they may invent other gods that encapsulate different moral rules
Cliff’s view is the angle of truth and being in touch with reality to discover morals. You explain that it is reasonable that the complex order and design of universe comes from a designer. Understanding the design of life around us can lead to truth of what the real designer is like and what the nature of that designer is.
@@boltrooktwo religious indoctrination and beliefs can't lead to truth. Science and research lead to truth. Truth is the facts discovered in reality, not in delusions liked religion. Morality has nothing at all to do with this. It's just one of the assertions Theists use to draw out a lost debate
@@JnWayn The debate is not lost just because you assert it is. Scientifically prove to me science is the only source of truth? Scientism is the obsession with the findings and methods of science but is only a subjective philosophy. Scientism has it's own dogma and indoctrination and takes huge amounts of faith compared to other more rational options. Science is a tool best used by someone with a rational view of reality and the view that everything came from nothing and life came from non-life is irrational and denigrating to humanity. You can't observe a few surface patterns and processes and claim you have full knowledge of a subject and this is just what you are doing, that thinking is reductionist and faulty.
@@boltrooktwo @boltrooktwo @boltrooktwo I agree. It's not lost because I say it is, but because Theism internally contradicts and destroys itself. You're the one with countless gods. We're just asking you for evidence any of them is real. We know religions invent gods to indoctrinate children with and we know that all you've presented are religions, not a single god. Religion is really irrelevant to the issue of whether there's a god. Anybody can have a religion. It's just a belief system. That right there tells that you have no evidence. You don't need belief systems to believe what's true.
And oh the irony in asking to scientifically prove to you science is the only way to knowledge. If you thought there were other ways why did you limit your question to only science? What I do know is that faith is not a way to know anything and all religions rely on faith so it doesn't matter if there are other ways. If there are, you aren't applying that and it's your job to tell me what that is, not for me to tell you why science is the only way. All of us know science works. If you have something else reliable present it. I'd like to know why scientists wouldn't use it and why you can't settle the argument with all the other Theists with false gods. You went on and on telling me about scientism. I wonder why. Have I said anything about it? Please tell me what the "other ways" that you mention are beyond science.
Instead of all that time wasted talking about everything that has nothing to do with atheism, maybe in your next comment, present your evidence there's a god, or just admit it's just a wish
@@JnWayn I can name a few false claims from Neo-Darwinism and Scientism that have been debunked, there are many more. The missing link is still missing, all the attempts and finding fossils of the transition between ape and man have been woefully inadequate. The tailbone and the appendix in people are not vestigial byproducts in the human anatomy. If you don’t think so, try having your tailbone removed. The appendix can be removed but it has been shown to be a part of your immune system and weakens it when gone. There was a diagram of proposed horse evolution that when fully researched proved to be out of order chronologically and was just bones of progressively larger animals arranged by appearance with no evidence of relation. There are bones in whales that were suggested that they were vestiges left over in evolution from four legged land mammals, further study proves they are important precise support for whale reproduction.
The geological layers are not proven to be the age they say they are, to date a layer you find what fossils are in that layer and to date the fossils you determine what layer they are from, a totally evidence-less circular arbitrary system for the determining the age of both. Ernst Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings are still in many biology textbooks, he was supposed to draw the fetuses of different animals and humans and he fallaciously drew them all the same when in reality human and animal fetuses are drastically different. Carbon dating and radioactive dating are quite often not even close to a date that works with the narrative of large-scale evolution so if the test doesn’t give the desired date they don’t use it and just propose the date that fits with the evolutionary timeline they want it to fit.
Raccoons will never give birth to a horse, apes will never parent a human child, and cows won’t give birth to whales if they stand in the water long enough, the only evidence is for processes of adaptation within a particular kind of animal. Ecosystems are dependent on every animal and plant working in concert to survive that couldn’t have evolved independently by chance. You take out the bees the plants don’t pollenate, you take out one source of nutrients in an environment all the animals die. You will never find cells and life forming in tidal pools or thermal vents in oceans. Supposed evidence is often just creative made-up drawings and fanciful stories, just like fairy tales where the princess kisses a frog and it turns into a human prince.
Throughout printed texts and books there are mistakes and errors they don’t change because it supports the narrative of false scholarship, extrapolation, and hype which are the only real supports for the completely false theory of life from non-life and genetic information writing itself. All to make beautiful human beings into complex bags of chemicals with no value and meaningless random mixtures of atoms pushed together by an indifferent universe. It's a terrible false line of reasoning supported by heaps of blind faith in things you've never witnessed or ever will.
❤❤👍
As long as Athiest do not break the law by stopping Christian aspirations then God will have mercy on you.
Not enough. Not even close.
What "god" and why should anyone care if it has "mercy" on them? Do you say silly things like this often?
@@Bible33AD How *indoctrinated* can you be? 😇
I love cliffe but why was he so aggressive 😂😂💀💀😂
We need to stop treating these atheists like they are on an intellectual journey and they are just mistaken. They hate God, and will use any excuse to reject him. They are vehement sinners that abominate the Lord with a passion, and this intellectual guise they use is just an excuse.
It's true
Atheists hate God just like they hate unicorns, leprechauns, centaurs, Santa Clause and everything else that they aren't convinced exists.
Disgusting
@@ThePurpleGoose023 I agree with you but the problem is we have no way to disprove this accusation they are making so it's pointless telling them they are wrong or trying to show them they are wrong. They will say all this stuff like "you just don't want to believe in God" I get this all the time from Christian theists, some Muslims too and they know very well that we can't disprove it and worse than that, everything we say or do, as far as they are concerned will be more "evidence" they are right.
It's like back in the middle-ages when people used to be accused of witchcraft and the onus was on the person being accused of it to prove they were innocent of the crime of witchcraft but how could they possibly have proven their innocence when everything they said or did could be interpreted as evidence that they WERE a witch within the eyes of the accusers?
This is the mindset that we are up against I'm afraid. Not all Christians or Muslims are like this in fairness, there are some reasonable believers who won't say this kind of unfalsifiable stuff about atheists, and it's possible to have a reasonable discussion with them but a sizeable number do think like this and it makes any reasonable discussion with them nigh on impossible, unfortunately. Thanks.
@@ThePurpleGoose023. Forgive me if I'm wrong but from my experience atheists hate God. You might be an exception but this has been my over abundant experience.
@@categories5066 I understand that and thank you for at least acknowledging there might be exceptions. I'm an exception too because I have no reason to hate a being that I am unsure even exists or not and has never shown himself directly to me to confirm his existence and help me to make an INFORMED choice about whether I should love him or not, but I have no way to prove it to you that I am aware of and that leads me to the problem I mentioned before. How could someone who is an atheist prove to you that their reason for doubting Gods existence has nothing to do with them simply hating God?
Because if there is no way to prove it (which I suspect there isn't) then it's an unfalsifiable accusation that you are making against a group. I could make a load of unfalsifiable accusations against Christians or anyone but that would make me a jerk, agreed?
And I'm not saying YOU'RE a jerk, I don't think you are. I think you are expressing a sincere view but one that is based on an unfair bias against people who label themselves an atheist. You're not willing to be fair because you BELIEVE we don't deserve to be treated fairly.
If I ever make an accusation against anyone, I always make sure that they have a fair chance to prove me wrong. Making an accusation against someone that they have no way to prove false should be dismissed on the grounds that ANYONE could be accused of the same thing and they TOO couldn't prove the accusation false. This is the civilized way of doing things, otherwise, we might just as well go back to the witch-hunting era I mentioned before.
@@JohnCashin I should have used "thinking" instead of "treating". My bad
Isnt this the same guy who hugh ross decimated? Lol Peter Atkins is too stubborn to debate with. Its obvious he argues to protect his ego
Pearls to swine!!
No in this case Peter Atkins's possible conversion could bring about positive change. He is a smart logical man and may eventually come to christ
31:30 lmao 🤣
Only one person made sense in this conversation, and that was Peter Atkins.
I’m quite sure they had to pay Atkins for this
Atkins is desperately clinging on to the 3 weak points he probably used his whole life. Why did you even agree to the debate Peter? Atkins last words were "I hope I've improved peoples lives", oh you most certainly have Peter, you and your atheist buddies improve my life everytime I hear you speak, by strengthening my belief in Christ more then I thought was even possible
Theists frame morality incorrectly at the outset. They see it as a set of rules put forth by an external source, and anything other than that is simply "relative." But morality is a process, giving rise to more prosperous living conditions for the participants as it improves. Living things want to survive, and starting from this fact, we can observe that various strategies are better and worse, and at the most basic level there are commonalities.
"Who says Hitler was wrong?" entirely misses the point, but it's even worse than that, because even if some external source existed, and we had some way of understanding its wishes, there are no grounds for our being *obligated* to this source. What if we disagreed with it? As we well know, the moral strictures men have imbued their storybook gods with are only selectively practiced, and there is no reason to suppose it would be any different with an actual source, should anyone be under the impression they needed to pay heed.
Morality is doing our best, learning from experience and using reason as our guides. We're hard-wired to be herd animals, and cooperation is an essential strategy. Morality simply can't be so simple as *"Authority XYZ said so."*
Add the moral question to the list of ways the religious view fails.
I don't think we're doing good about poverty sorry brother.
Without God, an absolute authority, there is no way of telling right from wrong, no way whatsoever, Hitler thought he was doing good, Mao Zedong thought he was doing good, but there is an absolute thus saith the lord, x
And God slaughtered thousands in the old testament.
What’s the objective reason why one ought to do what God commands?
@@chad969 because he is your literal maker, and the Bible is his instruction manual for you x
@@shevy7197 Well, if you were born in another country then maybe another holy book would be the instruction manual for you. Who's to say which one is legit?
@@littlesoul8282 there's only two religions in the world, how you approach God, either by "grace" and thus a free eternal gift, not of your works lest any man should boast, now every other single religious thought out there is to achieve eternal life by "works", every religion has a list, A,B,C etc, and every list has different things on them, but the fact that they even have a "list" at all proves that they are trying to approach God through what they can do for God, not what Jesus Christ did for them on the cross x
Cliffe is reading a script & the cadence & tone of his voice drives me nuts.
Empty preaching why do they think that's convincing .
Oh Peter Atkins attempting to discuss ethics, this ought to be a disaster.
I don’t think either one of these people made good arguments at all.
Atkins speaks about jihadists imposing their view on others, but neglects the history of liberal democracy colonizing the middle east and north Africa
I wish i could hear a theist have an honest discussion. They all seem to have a flowchart to bring the discussion back to the same tired, ridiculous arguments.
@joey joestar Sure. And all those other religions are just silly, right? Welcome to my world. Oh, and that book you speak of, have you read it?
@joey joestar Please do. It's what helped me break free of indoctrination.
@joey joestar what’s your source
Same for atheists.
@@Bible33AD More theist projection.
He calls Christians a tribe and disrespects tribes to do it.
Though your sentence doesn't make sense, his calling believers a tribe is accurate.
Why does he care? if his wife and he are a bag of chemicals?
Cliffe you don't know anything about Africa. You say Africa is defined by mutilations
At the 15minute mark Mr Atkins casually showed the difference in intelligence between himself and his very pleasant but braindead interviewer....
Seems like the atheist excuse or cop out answer is “We just having discovered “blank” yet. Like come on lol
Jesus is Lord God Almighty clothed in unsinful humanity and He is the author of eternal life to all realize that they are sinners deserving of God's just punishment in Hell and turn (repent) from whatever they trusted in before, if indeed they trusted in anything; to trusting in the person and finished work of Christ alone for salvation.
I would love to see cliffe debate Brian Cox or Neil degrass Tyson.
Would love to see it with Neil degrass Tyson lol
Neil degrass tyson seriously lol
People believe Neil knows what he's talking about because of his voice and his demeanor, not because of his facts or arguments.
Jesse Bryant : I presume, that you don’t understand science.
@@erikhviid3189
Why don't you give me some and we can find out?
Atkins is a very angry, condescending person. I hope he finds peace in the knowledge of God’s existence before the Final Judgement!
Why would u think that your God that has done nothing he will save u of course he will when he saves u then we talk morals do not need a God
Evolutionary speaking, is free will something we evolved, if so when would free will be evolved?
That is stupid question common logical sense
At least he knows trees don't have minds. Do they have feelings?
If god existed there would be no need to prove his existence. Since god doesn’t exist, someone claiming he’s the son of god, the only son of god, is the definition of a conman. That said, if there is a god after all, Cliffe is the best proof he’s not the product of some intelligent creator :)
you suppress him, you know he exists because you live your life as if he exists. you can't escape God because you are made in his image. you know morals are objective to a moral lawgiver and not your own relativism.
@@david.kushner but god does exist! Undoubtedly! Under the roof of your skull where he resides and should be protected by all means because once he leaves these very limited surroundings he is bound to dissolve in thin air :)
@@walterdaems57 alright here we go...Walter, tell me what you believe and the best piece of evidence for it as to why it's true since you think there's no evidence for God lets see who's is more rational.
@@david.kushner but I just acknowledged the existence of your particular god???
You really don’t want me to disprove the existence of pixies, goblins, the Easter bunny and gods in the real world, now do you? That would be an undertaking without end. By the way, since you claim the existence of a celestial wizard who shook the universe out of his sleeve, don’t you think the burden of proof sits in your lap?
@@walterdaems57 we can prove that goblins, wizards and pixies don't exist and we can also provide rational large amounts of clear evidence that we were created and came from something not nothing. if you didn't realize you provided no evidence for what you believe to be true about reality, still waiting.
this a repeated video
Stopped watching. Waste of time.
I wonder if this guy spent his whole life looking for God instead of not looking what the outcome would be hmmmm..
Islam The Beautiful Religion
( Be Just )
Quran 5:8
'' O you who believe! stand out firmly for God, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the > HATRED OF OTHERS TO YOU < make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear God. For God is well-acquainted with all that ye do. ''
Quran 4:58
'' Indeed, God commands you to render trusts to whom they are due and when you judge between people to judge with justice. Excellent is that which God instructs you. Indeed, God is ever Hearing and Seeing.''
( God's The Rules Of War )
Quran 2:190
'' Fight in the way of God > THOSE WHO FIGHT YOU < but do not transgress. Indeed. God does not like transgressors. ''
Quran 2 :193
'' And fight them on until there is no more oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. ''
Quran 4:90
''.........So if they withdraw from you and cease their hostility and offer you peace, in that case Allah has not granted you permission to fight against them.''
Quran 8:61
''And if they seek peace, then you also seek it, and put your trust in God. He is the Hearer, the Knowledgeable.''
( Stand Up For Justice )
Quran 4 :135
'' Ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against > YOURSELVES, < or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for God can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily God is well-acquainted with all that ye do.''
( Who Are The Good Human Beings? )
Quran 2.177
'' Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but [true] righteousness is [in] one who believes in God, the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the prophets and gives wealth,> IN SPITE OF LOVE FOR IT,< to relatives, orphans, the needy, the traveler, those who ask [for help], and for freeing slaves; [and who] establishes prayer and gives charity; [those who] fulfill their promise when they promise; and [those who] are patient in poverty and hardship and during battle. Those are the ones who have been true, and it is those who are the righteous. ''
( Freedom To Believe And To Reject )
Quran 2:256
'' Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error ''
Quran 10:99
'' And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed - all of them entirely. Then would you compel the people in order that they become believers? ''
( Tolerance For Other Religions )
Quran 109: 1- 6
Say,"O disbelievers,
I do not worship what you worship.
Nor are you worshipers of what I worship.
Nor will I be a worshiper of what you worship.
Nor will you be worshipers of what I worship.
For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."
( Protection for Idol Worshiper )
Quran 9:6
"And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are people who do not know. "
Quran16:125
“Call people to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good teaching, and argue with them in the most courteous way”
Quran7:199 “Be tolerant....”
( Friendship With Non Muslims )
Quran 60:8
'' God does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, God loves those who act justly. ''
( Do Christians And Jews and "OTHER" non-Muslims go to Heaven? )
Quran 2:62
'' Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,-> ANY { On Judgement Day }
( According to the Quran Christians and Jews worship TRUE God )
(Quran 3:113-114)
'' Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book ( Christians and Jews ) are a portion that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of God all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous.''
Note: According to the Quran that Jesus is not God nevertheless Christians still worship one '' TRUE '' God.
( Allah Is The Protector Of Monasteries, Churches, Synagogues And The Mosques )
Quran 22:40
[They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is God ." And were it not that God checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of God is much mentioned. And God will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, God is Powerful and Exalted in Might.
( Why Are There So Many Different Religions In The World ? )
Quran 5 48
''...... If God wanted He could have made all of you a single nation. But He willed otherwise in order to test you in what He has given you;(scriptures) therefore try to excel one another in good deeds. Ultimately you all shall return to God; then He will show you the truth of those matters in which you > DISPUTE submission < to God), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good)''
My explanation of above verse
Islam mean > submission < to God
( The above verse saying is that God will not accept a religion from the "MUSLIM" and the Non-Muslims but total > submission < to God.)
Question: How Can Muslim And the Non-Muslim > submit < to the God?
Answer: Be kind to other human beings and Do not lie, Do not steal, Do not cheat, Do not hurt others, Do not be prideful and Do the charity work.
( God Allow Muslims To Marry And Eat Food From the Christian And Jew And Vice Versa )
Quran 5;5
''This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture ( Christian and Jew) is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture ( Christian and Jew) before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers. And whoever denies the faith - his work has become worthless, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.''
( Kindness Toward Atheists / Apostate )
Quran 60:8
'' As for such [of the unbelievers( atheist)] as do not fight against you on account of [your] faith, and neither drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to behave towards them with full equity: for, verily, God loves those who act equitably. ''
( All The Terrorists / Killers Will Enter Hell Fire )
Quran 5:32
"......Whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely......"
( Turned Your Enemies Into Your Best Friends )
Quran 41:34
"The good deed and the evil deed are not alike. Repel the evil deed with one which is better, then lo! he, between whom and thee there was enmity (will become) as though he was a bosom friend."
( The Husband and The Wife Are > Protecting Friends < One Of Another )
Quran 9:71
''And the believers, men and women, are > Protecting Friends < one of another; they enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, and they establish worship and they pay the poor-due, and they obey God and His messenger. As for these, God will have mercy on them. Lo! God is Mighty, Wise.''
Quran16:97
“To whoever, male or female, does good deeds and has faith, We shall give a good life and reward them according to the best of their actions.
Quran 30:21
“And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquility in them; and He placed between you > affection and mercy { Love }
The Prophet Muhammad said, “Heaven lies under the feet of your mother.”
( Human Are One family )
Quran 49:13
" O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of God is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)."
( All The Racist People Will Enter Hellfire )
Quran 30:22
"And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your languages and your colors. Indeed in that are signs for those of knowledge."
My comment:
The > BASIC < message of God to the human is that '' YOU '' believe in God and be kind to other human beings / animals and in the > RETURNED < God will reward you with a new life in Paradise.
* The Quran ONLY guides you how to become a good human being "Nothing Else".
* You are a good human being or a bad human being that is YOUR choice.
* No one can force you to become a good human being.
* You MUST work HARD to become a good human being.
* Why should ''YOU'' do good deeds and avoid bad deeds?
* Do Good - it's for You. Do Bad - It's against you.
* '' YOUR'' life is a TEST from God that you will choose to do either Good or Bad.
* Find the excuse to help others and forgive others NOT the other way around.
* '' YOUR '' final destination is either Hell or Heaven.
* So work HARD toward choice of YOUR destination.
Quran 17:7
'' If you do good, you will do so for your own good. And if you do evil, it will be to your own loss.''
If Islam is true, then the Bible is true
If the Bible is true, then Islam is false
@@mikeramos91 Genius
Jesus fullfilled the law
@@repentandfollowjesus3474..... Jesus made Christian lawless......... congratulation !!!
Copy-and-paste and calling 'beautiful' the bloodiest religion in the world? Does the above constitute 'good' in your book? How do you know when you're good enough? If I do good for my own sake... is it really good?
As for "lawless", that is false. (You would know this if you read the Bible.) However, speaking of laws... Have you heard of Sharia Law? Now there's some "good" stuff, eh? [sic]
Atkins is a clown. Time to dust off the dust of the sandals boys...
Cliffe, the jumping jester is a whole one man’s circus