PROF AC GRAYLING 'PROVING ATHEISM'

[rhondah]

Spending time listening to Professor Grayling is never a waste of time. Thank you for sharing this talk with us on YouTube. Much appreciated.

[lorenbibby]

Prof Grayling is such a wonderful speaker. I could listen & discuss all day. What a teacher he must make 😁🌿

[larryparis]

Wish the sound engineer had done a better job. Quality speaker in Prof. Grayling, substandard sound engineer.

[DownhillAllTheWay]

38:00 - "Originally there were gods everywhere, then there were 12 of them, then only one" - so we're going in the right direction!

[robertpoen]

The burden of proof is on those who propose the idea. Until such time as they produce some evidence the only sensible position is non-belief.

[patrickodea]

I am a Christian and I really admire these discussions. I do not go to church anymore because I have found that the typical sermon is just an emotional attempt to affirm people's beliefs. What I really admire about this is how he explained the freedom in science, how there is not fear of truth or discovery in the way religion has tried to suppress other forms of thinking, but rather encourages it. The act of suppression of other forms of thinking is really an indication of one's own insecurity in their beliefs. But so far science and the study of other faiths has confirmed what I believe

[amerikano]

I liked the quote: The sound of tyranny is silence and the sound of democracy is noise.

[PeterOzanne]

Whether God exists or not depends on your definition of God. There are many Christians who erroneously define "God" as "A" supernatural being, that has agency as humans do. But Mystics of many faiths (and none) define God as Being itself. Therefore God exists. Because Being IS.

[isaac]

All religions claim that all other religions are false, ... and they are all correct.

[DarwinsStepChildren]

The dragon in the garage is a good example, Grayling simply didn't take the metaphor far enough. The metaphor works best when several individuals claim to have a dragon in their garage. For simplicity I will say that three individuals claim to have a dragon in their garage. You need to choose which garage (A, B, or C) to follow. I.E., which garage contains a dragon? How do you decide? Individual X chooses garage A, because their great grand parents, grand parents, and parents all went to garage A, and that is why they choose garage A. Individual Y chooses garage C because after getting a job, garage C is the closest and fits their lifestyle best. Individual Z started off going to garage A, but met someone special who attends garage B, and individual Z now attends garage B to spend time with this special individual. The point is, the only reason to select one dragon in the garage over another is entirely based on desire. It is not based on proof. It isn't that individual A proved the existence of a dragon better than individual B or individual C. The proof of a dragon existing in a particular garage is exactly the same proof that a dragon exists in a different garage. The same goes for lack of proof, the lack of proof that a dragon exists in one garage is exactly the same as the lack of proof a dragon exists in another garage. The reason to choose one religion over another has absolutely nothing to do with proof, it all comes down to desire. The question becomes: Is it better to randomly choose one garage containing a dragon over another based solely on desire, or is it better to understand no proof of a dragon exists in any garage and therefore accept no dragons exist at all?

[greatermanchesterhumanists]

He's an excellent speaker - lucid and he gives us tools to fight imaginary gods...!

[isaac]

There are many gods, and they have all been created in the imaginations of people.

[tedgrant]

Proof is very important, although I cannot prove it.

[andrewholliday]

re plural gods...The Old Testament accepts a plurality of gods - for each cultural group (Jews are admonished not to worship false gods (any alternative gods put forward within the tribe of Israel) or the gods of others. It never says the gods of other cultures are false - just not suitable for Judaism. Most god-botherers don't read their own book - and tend to miss that bit.

[jjjccc]

There are different ways to demonstrate negative claims, depending on the context and the nature of the claim. Here are some possible methods:

- **Proof of impossibility**: This is a method that shows that a negative claim is true by showing that the opposite claim is logically impossible or contradictory. For example, to demonstrate the negative claim that there is no largest prime number, one can use a proof by contradiction that assumes there is a largest prime number and then derives a contradiction from that assumption¹.
- **Evidence of absence**: This is a method that shows that a negative claim is true by showing that there is no evidence for the opposite claim, especially when such evidence would be expected or easy to find. For example, to demonstrate the negative claim that there are no elephants in Canada, one can use evidence of absence such as the lack of sightings, tracks, droppings, or other signs of elephants in Canada¹.
- **Negative claim limitations**: This is a method that shows that a negative claim is true by specifying what is excluded or absent from a certain subject or category. For example, to demonstrate the negative claim that a certain device does not have a battery, one can use a negative claim limitation such as "the device comprising: a power source devoid of a battery" in a patent application⁵.
- **Avoiding negative claims**: This is a method that avoids making negative claims altogether by using positive claims instead, especially when negative claims are vague, ambiguous, or difficult to prove. For example, instead of making the negative claim that "this article does not contain any errors", one can use a positive claim such as "this article has been carefully checked and verified" in a Wikipedia entry⁴.

Source: Conversation with Bing, 4/25/2023

[tomgreene]

A leading scientist ...very powerful experiment...agreed scientific position by all leading researchers in the field....what more truth did Newton want?

[MuhammadAdamGhamkoley]

God gave the man an uncommonly good head of hair.

[PDG]

Excellent speaker and clearly persuasive.

[MrCanis]

"I am not convinced that a god exists;" Atheism proven.

[paulkeogh]

I suggest using the adjective “militant” is justified in describing any absolutist position characterised by intolerance, self-righteousness and a refusal to accept that all positions, without exception, make assumptions that are open to question. Rational thinking has indeed pushed religious belief and dogmatism beyond the fringes of human knowledge but it’s important to remember that to reason is to question. Just as knowledge is never absolute, our ‘isms’ including atheism should resist absolutist posturing too.