As an atheist I honestly find Hart's work really interesting. Never does it feel like the words of an evangelist (I'm speaking to you William Lane Craig) only an honest philosopher.

Hart brings up a most interesting point. Dawkins books sell because his target audience is often easily bored, ignorant, and unwilling to do the hard lifting in evaluating complex philosophical and sophisticated theological/religious positions. This is tremendous irony: that people who have an elevated opinion of their own uninformed opinions can move so arrogantly towards conclusions that they have not even properly thought out, researched, or approached fairly. Dawkins is quite the boor. He can only be taken seriously by overly materialistic people wedded to their reductionism. He is the priest and they are the low informed worshippers. It is no coincidence that so many of them are also marxist liberals. Only self willed ignorance and self indulgence can explain such superficiality.

There's a lecture on my channel called "The Intersections of Scripture and Theology" where Hart gives historical evidence for his claim that the Church Fathers read the OT allegorically.

okay, here is my beef: when we are 6 they tell us about Noah's Flood. When we are 8 they tell us about Exodus. When we are 10 they tell us about Jesus' Triumph over Death. When we are 12 they tell us about the Spirit, and the Father and the Son. When we are 14, we read for ourselves about the massacres, immolations and infanticides of Kings&Samuel. At no time do they tell us that these are metaphorical, that these are merely old stories. At no time, that is, until the day when we say we do not believe in them. Then suddenly the 'sophisticated' theologians appear to shame us for not having a nuanced understanding of these texts. I'm sorry, but where was the metaphor when we were in Sunday School? Where was the nuance when we went to Church and listened to our Pastors?

Hart has atheists shook.He is insanely articulate and sound.

finally some sense in the God /vs atheists debate!! he should take on Sam Harris, who's only merit is in attack catholics weak points,he does nothing to add to the debate about if God really exist for example... "some Christians made some bad things" that's all he knows!!

Question: How do you respond to Dawkins and Hitches railing on the OT God as a moral monster? Answer: 1)This is an old point and everyone knows [except for fundamentalists] to interpret them allegorically. 2) The intentions of the author differ entirely from what Christians make of them. Help me: 1) What is allegorical about Moses' massacre of the Midianites? 2) Shouldn't there eventually be one consistent understanding of text that everyone agrees on, instead of just saying "You don't get it."?

so he attacks the well known atheists with ad hominem - then he says their arguments are an embarrassment while providing no examples at all ... then he fails to counter even a single argument. I'm trying to figure out if he's even being serious.

@jorgekluney That's a religious view. Those that are non-religious are viewed as going to hell, being inferior, etc. Atheism does not entail any metaphysics, it is just non-belief. If atheism is metaphysical, it would state that all humans are of the same matter, so they are completely equal (but this is a logical fallacy as atheism, like I have pointed out, is only non-belief). In either case, all these dictators ruled in countries with a majority of religious people that did not stop them

You don't have to be an atheist. You can be whatever you like. But when you challenge someone's point of view, you should expect counterpoints. I cannot say (and will never say) there is NO God, because I cannot prove it. Yet reciprocally, just because something is disprovable, is not proof of existence. You are entitled to you opinions, but Neil Degrasse Tyson said it best: "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." And I've taken philosophy. I loved it!

@Ubiwator You are right. People tend to think that atheism entails a view of life, and it does not. And this jorgenkluney seems to think that there is a difference between ideology and religion. Religion is ideology.

We have a right to reject your God and we are not ignorant for doing so. The evidence is on our side. Dawkins is attacking fundamentalism. This is not surprising considering the stance of fundamentalists on Science and Atheism. Fundamentalisms are the most extreme and dangerous movements from an Atheist perspective . Therefore I think it can be argued that Dawkins is aiming at the correct target.

No. Not even close. It's a simple hypothetical question, do you think it is fair that you go to prison, yes or no? This is the third time I've asked...

Hart: "All the church fathers (stutters), well, we read this allegorically. And they didn't (stutters) and that doesn't mean reading it as if you believe there are messages encoded secretly in the text." Merriam Webster definition of "allegorical": "having hidden spiritual meaning that transcends the literal sense of a sacred text".

i see. you are espousing the muslim view that the death on the cross never took place. am i wrong? we can examine that along with the substance of your question once you clarify whether my assumption is wrong. thank you.

@jorgekluney Do you believe in the Aphrodite? And if you don't, then is your heart filled with hate? Can you never know love? Do you believe in Buddha? And if you don't, does that make you kill?

@jorgekluney You may wish that atheism entails certain metaphysics, but that does not make it so. There are atheist nihilists, humanists, spiritualists, fatalist, materialist, physicalist, etc. Atheism does not entail one or the other of these views. Religion however has a clear dogma (bible, quran, Avestan, etc). Now try again.

I respectfully ask what is love? And how do you know that you love? Love is first a concept not a physical entity of itself. It may have a physical expression but it begins as an idea. In fact what is an intellectual proposition? And how can you be sure of such a thing? You say the evidence for a God is zero please justify the statement itself and why should your judgement be taken seriously? In fact if physical evidence is what you are confining your argument to then you have failed to prove your point because you have no way of physically proving the actual thinking that underlies the thoughts and words that came from you mind? We take language and thought for granted and rarely take time to examine its metaphysical origins? The problem is we cannot not understand this feature that in its most comprehensive form belongs exclusively to the Human race insofar as this world is concerned. This was the falsity of a once well accepted philosophy known as logical positivism. The postulates of this philosophy were not subject to its own verification criteria? Hence its disappearance from the halls of academia. The whole science of the mind and the world of ideas and concepts evade empirical study. The brilliance of Newton, Einstein and many others remain the great enigma for all atheists. Hume was dismantled long ago but he has been revived in our modern era. That is why the same logical fallacies of Hume are being constantly repeated by scientists who refuse to see beyond their noses.If the proofs for God are restricted by the dead philosophy of empiricism (materialism) than it is true no such proof can be offered; but if the proof for a God is possible it lies in the realm of metaphysics, and it is here that God is the best and most reasonable answer. We can deny or ignore that non material facet extant in Human beings which practically speaking would render us nothing more than babblers and mumblers having nothing meaningful too say. Life without the mind would be impossible! Why would we prefer to endorse a belief that reduces us to a status of an animal or as the old writers would say lower brutes? I would sooner be a Deist than an atheist. The mind informs me that I should have a noble existence and not one that is driven by brute necessity and impulses. Atheism from an ontological and teleological perspective seems quite worthless. I guess the alternative is just too unacceptable?

I mean, if your father committed murder, would it be fair for you to go to prison for his crime? Even though you weren't there and no one could even prove the murder actually happened. Do you think it would be fair, that you were sent to prison for that supposed crime committed not by you, but supposedly by your father?

That was a lead in to my following comment. I don't dispute "Fathers" reading OT as allegorical. What I can't come to terms with is the message a person would derive from some of the stories of the Bible. Lot and his daughters? Incest is ok? Moses killing the Midianites? Genocide is ok? Keeping virgins as spoils of war is ok? For better or worse, shouldn't there be one universal understanding of text that everyone agrees on, instead of people like Hart just scoffing that "You don't get it"?

@jorgekluney Problem with calling atheism a belief is that is implies that its some sort of religion/faith system,sure it (atheism) does say "god" doesn't exist but this comes from a point of view where atheists like to have testable evidence and data before believing in something like a "god".So I would be careful with throwing out the"atheism is a belief" line with out thinking about the position the atheists like me are coming from.We simply want evidence and data before we believe anything.

sorry, maybe i am slow? what do you mean by this?

Is there a #1 missing from your original post? No one can deny a positive effect. And when it comes to religion, no one addresses the negative ones. The problem with religious dogma is that because people accept it as infallible; and it can't be changed. Why not take the bad OUT of the Bible? Because the addict that got "saved", believes one part, and he/she must accept it all, as per the dogma requires. Replace it with what we learn (from human experience) is good for the future of our species.

Seems a bit unprofessional to criticise Dawkins for "not knowing what he's talking about" without actually pointing out the flaw in his argument.

I didn't just make an attempt to compare them, I did compare them. They are comparable. It doesn't matter what crime you choose, murder, theft, or eating a "sacred fruit", the fact that all the offspring of that offender must inherit his guilt is an injustice. We teach our children right and wrong, they aren't born bad because someone they were supposedly related to did something bad (and more so, when that bad deed cannot even be proven to be true).

I think the fallacy you're talking about is argument from population but how on earth could I be using a fallacy when he didn't actually put forward an argument to start with. He just said Dawkins was unsophisticated and then conveniently failed to point on the flaw- so a bad argument gets a bad response.

Not sure why you're telling me all this, I agree with it already.

@jorgekluney People keep trying to insinuate that Atheists have no moral grounds for opposing 'evil'. This is just simply untrue. Morals don't come from religion or God, they come from our genetic history as social creatures, empathy, parenting and social rules (socialisation). In short Atheists have been found to have the same basic rules of fairness as nearly every other human. Some people violate these rules (religious or non-religious) and it is everyone's duty to point it out.

the violences of the old testament may not have actually happened, but we still have a kind of bipolar, elitist God in the Bible ..... loving and merciful, always ready to give His own people a second change.... but also angry, jealous, destructive.

@AZ0960036 I never said anything like that, my comment was a rhetorical question. Of course one can love even if one does not believe in God, it's the complete ignorance to even think that love is a consequence of belief in God. :-)

@jorgekluney You made that comparison, which is just a really bad argument for action and the belief in god. A belief that there is no beer in the fridge is not negative, I can measure it: there is beer, or not beer, and if I want beer I get more. It doesn't apply to god. I can't say, ok there is no god, therefore I will go get some god.

Why do the religious cry at funerals? If everything is true, there should be going away parties. After all they would be with their eternal God right? And you too? Not unless deep in your mind there was that doubt that God would forgive you, for being alive. For being the fallible being he made you to be, for trying your whole life just to be a failure in his eyes. Why the tears? Temporary separation? It's just temporary, isn't it?

On all videos discussing atheism, religious people are always trying to create a connection between communism and atheism. It is merely a logical fallacy, as communism was not grounded on atheism, but on a dogmatic ideology. This is much closer to religion. Every religion is dogmatic, and every religion has an ideology (even though this changes as power changes).

If your father or mother commits murder or worse, should you, and your children, and their children's children, all go to prison?

Make a valid argument. I'm not without reason, but I am without patience for religious sycophants. Moses was quite clear. I challenging the point, literally or allegorically: what moral is to be learned from Moses commanding killing everyone except for the virgins? If none exists, why defend it? You're talking widows, Moses was't. Regardless of the era, killing the lot & enslaving virgins is immoral. Adhering to such stories out of faith for moral guidance can desensitize their true immorality.

@jorgekluney But these things are empirically testable, we observe them when we interact with others, by the fact that we have survived long enough to evolve and our observation that humans hold unfounded positions. We 'believe' them because they are the best explanation we have based on the evidence. God does not fit this criteria. 'God' is a non-answer that has no necessity. We have better answers in some cases (most of science) and no or little evidence in others (big bang or abiogenesis).

The problem with saying that Dawkins' ideas are philosophically unsophisticated is that the vast majority of philosophers agree with his position. The polls I've read have put about 70% of professional philosophers as atheist. That doesn't bode especially well for his assertion and it'd be much better if he actually just addressed the arguments rather than make bold assertions. As it stands, he's done no better than a kid in a playground.

We resent those things too, but that is not the general reason for lack of belief. The evidence is the main issue. Simply put, we see no reason or evidence to believe in your God or any other and we do not believe that the problems of the world are related to your God at all. You need to do some research, it is highly unlikely that Dawkin's readership are uneducated considering the stats we have on Atheism (most Atheists are highly educated).

My argument: It's wrong to kill in the name of God & reap virgins as spoils of war. I used Iraq as a template for the same scenario: How would we feel if soldiers were permitted to take virgins home for themselves in the name of God? Can you stand behind that? Yes or No: If you were a virgin girl, your whole family murdered, would you feel grateful to be a sex slave? Oh, you get to just take your hands off the wheel and say it was God trying to build a nation. Oh I see, it was God's doing.

Science has hypothesis and theory about the contingency of the universe. And, what is wrong with saying "I don't know?" I examine my beliefs never ALL the time. It's a good thing to do. It's okay to change your position based on new evidence. Religion stubbornly stands in defiance of the new ideas. And, I bet Francis Collins is WAY smarter than me. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with the way he thinks the universe started. You're just appealing to authority. Argumentum ad auctoritatem.

For some reason, I'm guessing that you think I don't fully understand the philosophical arguments, otherwise, why would I not be convinced by them? Right? In the same sense that other Christians don't believe that I used to be Christian think: If he would just read the Bible, he would believe. I've read the Bible. I've taken the class. And I've given up on anything that is not of the real world. I don't care about ontological arguments. God either doesn't exist or doesn't care.

Checking for virginity is the evidence. I'd wager that if you examined your beliefs a little more objectively, you might not have as full a hand as you thought. It's our personal responsibility to give our lives meaning & purpose (which I do have). A skeptic mind is a healthy mind. Finding out you've been lied to from youth about what is true about the universe (which is my case) and then rejected all for simply changing your mind, opens your eyes to the true "love" the faithful hide behind.

Lol well yes that is the question- which is why it would be much better for this guy to actually respond to arguments instead of resorting to childish insults. Lol if I want to know his arguments I should check out his books? That's not exactly the way it works. As a consumer, there's a lot of stuff out there I want to read and learn. There's a lot of competition for my attention. For me to buy something, I need a pretty good reason. This guy has guaranteed that I WON'T buy his books.

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. 1 Corinthians 1

If Iraq wasn't 'sacked' (your term) then there wouldn't be a need for engineers and contractors. You're impression of 'sacked' would be different if your hometown was a war site. While in Basra, did you ask the opinion of any locals if they felt like we destroyed their city? It was easy for you. You could just LEAVE the violence and destruction behind. They have to live with it. So how can you rationalize that Iraq isn't as bad as ancient times? It could be argued that it is WORSE.

At least he does say that taking scripture verbatim is a problem. I'll give him that much. Not much more... he's just as arrogant as Dawkins, to say you are stupid because you read someone's book that he doesn't agree with.

my warning towards the end could qualify as a reply to #1. you are a honing steel to sharpen my intellectual knife, as i am yours. everyone learns from and teaches the other. but, alas, if we continue we might be dragged into the pitfalls of intellectual masturbation.

I'm obsessed with truth. Checking for virginity has nothing to do with being a sex slave? Enlighten me, professor. Give me an actual source of information to prove it on the virginity, because you're wrong. I presumed nothing, I only said examine your beliefs. Name one religion that is based on empirically definable evidence. And really? A questioning mind versus a skeptical mind? Provide your sources, or otherwise I'm done because we aren't getting to real information or a pertinent exchange.

Good thing you're out to get me on this conversation. God is keeping score right now, and he tells me you are doing great! Keep up the good work. He also told me that your mutually exclusive beliefs are the one and only truths, and that no other possibilities exist, so good on you for that as well. He wonders how you figured it out so fast, since he has been trying to hide the ultimate truth for thousands of years. Anyway, kudos for wrapping it all up! What's next? Cancer? Aids?

I said before you commented: HUSBAND TO BE. LOOK ABOVE. I went to college, fyi. God didn't give anyone anything. Man made all this up. Christ didn't successfully abolish anything, either. You've made it clear that you still believe God actually did/does things. Until you let go of that fantasy, nothing I'll say will wake you up, you have to come to that on your own. Examine your beliefs. If you dare. If you still believe afterward, you haven't questioned hard enough. Good luck. Goodbye.

Is Hart capable of anything beyond ad hominem arguments? Video after video I watch, and I've yet to see him supply a substantive critque. Other than the ability to say "Dawkins is a poopyhead" in an erudite manner, I don't see the appeal he has for christians. Maybe that is all they require to feed their confirmation bias.

I know what you're talking about. I just don't care. Futile hypothetical word-games. I do not care about highly abstract, transcendent, non-reality that is beyond perception in this world. It seems pointless to discuss what doesn't directly affect this world. Philosophy = mental masturbation. The ultimate secret of the universe is going to be revealed by word-games? Kalam, Aquinas' proofs, ex nihilo, blah, blah, blah. I don't care. I liked the class, but I don't define my universe from it.

Probably a clever man but he’s picked the wrong side of the argument which is why his arguments fall short of being convincing or persuasive.

Yeah, yeah, your red isn't my red, and other unanswerable philosophical chestnuts that would likely NEVER be answered. We decide our morals as a society, not divinely. Who's talking aesthetics? Trying to prove God through philosophy at best just amounts to word games. Fun, but kind of like Chinese food it leaves me hungry too soon. We give our own lives purpose. You must have been THE dodge ball CHAMP in school.

Lol that's because theological training does absolutely nothing to help you determine whether God exists. It just helps you put together more rationalisations of whatever it is you already happen to believe.

Don't waste your time debating theology (on either 'side'). There are many, far more constructive things you could be doing with your life.

Nothing but smears about selling books and assertions of ignorance, from the outset ... Gee, how impressive ...

There is no way to make the narratives of the O.T. acceptable to those who are looking for excuses to dismiss the Bible! Th hard fact is that God holds the human race in contempt because of sin and often allows the pain and misery that so many of us wonder over to exist because we do not deserve better. And God told the Israelites to destroy the inhabitants of what became the promised land as an act of judgement for their abominations and wicked deeds. This serves as a reminder that God will judge the world and render to everyone that which they deserves if they are without Christ as their sin bearer. There is no language possible to make this less fearful and bitter for those who refuse to accept God's terms of eternal salvation. Likewise there is no way to lessen the horrors of an eternal punishment for those who find such a thought or teaching to be cruel and unwarranted. But that's the Bible friends as it stands like it or not?

@jorgekluney So you're comparing the belief in god with the belief that there is beer in your fridge? Well, I guess it's a good comparison, but beer is much more important.

I love your rose tinted glasses. There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge, but it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Religion can bode well in low income or socially struggling areas. Nothing miraculous there.

I love how NO ONE provides an explanation to the effects I mentioned. I'm talking the problems religion has caused for others, because I care about other peoples problems too, not just my own. Weird... right? Your ad hominem attacks reeks of bias. Religion is great exercise for LABELING. Religion inoculates rational thought, legitimizes it's own evils, and desensitizes it's followers. "I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." AND CREATE EVIL.

1.) No. 2.) Because it makes me sad to hear the harm religion causes others. 3.) I hope that by posting people stop to think of the negative potential their faith carries with it, because of it's obsolete dogmas. Quid pro quo: If your father or mother commits murder or worse, should you, and your children, and their children's children, all go to prison?

bible is hardly an epitome of morality. "For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'" -- Matthew 15:4

This guy's description of Dawkins is humorous. "He hasn't done the heavy lifting". Dawkins, rightly, doesn't waste his time on something so patently ridiculous as this branch of human ignorance called religion. And this series of videos is intolerable due to the interviewer's tween-like awe for this confused mess of a man.

What a fool! He is not even capable of showing that his own religion is the only true one let alone refuting any atheist thinker!

Sophistry