Brian Cox reviews “one of the worst books ever,” the Bible
Brian Cox has some scathing words for religion and the "stupid" people who buy into it
Aux News Brian Cox
Oh, good, a new contrarian take from Brian Cox just came in! From the old guy who brought you “I could’ve done Napoleon better” and “woke culture is truly awful,” we now have some comprehensive thoughts on the Bible and religion as a whole. Buckle in, guys!
“I think religion does hold us back because it’s belief systems which are outside ourselves. They’re not dealing with who we are, we’re dealing [with], ‘Oh if God says this and God does that’, and you go, ‘Well what is God?’ We’ve created that idea of God, and we’ve created it as a control issue, and it’s also a patriarchal issue,” the Succession star declares during an interview with The Starting Line podcast. “That’s how it started and it’s essentially patriarchal. We haven’t given enough scope to the matriarchy and I think we need to move matriarchically.”
That’s right: Brian Cox’s opinion on religion is feminist, sorta kinda? He goes on to say that mothering is “the real conditioning of our lives,” and fathers are “too bloody selfish,” and men are “moveable sperm banks that walk around and come and go.” But the reason we are resistant to honoring mothers is “Adam and Eve,” Cox proclaims. “The propaganda goes right the way back—The Bible is one of the worst books ever, for me, from my point of view, because it starts with the idea that Adam’s rib—that out of Adam’s rib, this woman was created. And they’ll believe it. ’Cause they’re stupid.”
Did you think we were going to get an edgelord atheist take from Brian Cox, who once quoted the Bible in defense of J.K. Rowling? (In fairness, he’d prefaced his quote with “I’m not religious.”) Cox acknowledges now that people “need” religion, “but they don’t need to be told lies. They need some kind of truth, and that is not the truth. It is not the truth. It’s a mythology.” Add this one to the annals of great curmudgeonly rants from the all-time master of curmudgeonly ranting.
169 Comments
It might be my advanced age, but I kinda like the O.G. Hannibal Lecter, bad opinions and all. He got halfway to a good opinion here. Maybe less than halfway.
I’m sorry, but what makes his take “edgelord”? Are all atheist takes edgelord? I say good on him for speaking his mind about religion. It’s used to justify all sorts of horror that we inflict on each other (take a gander at the news recently?) and it’s holding us back as a species. It’s fucking awful.
Religion is the single greatest evil humanity faces. It’s a challenge to think of any atrocities that aren’t related to religion in some way or other.
I am an atheist and am excited to learn that, apparently, it now qualifies me as an “edgelord” as well. I also got whiplash from the way this article seemed to keep pivoting back and forth on whether the author thought it was the worst take, a legit take, a weird take, etc.
America is weird that way. People freaked out when Dawkins published “The God Delusion” as if it was some weird position to question religion. Meanwhile people in Europe were like “Didn’t Bertrand Russell write basically the same thing in ‘Why I am not a Christian’ about a century ago?”
There’s a huge gulf separating your standard “I don’t believe in God” atheist from your obnoxious “me not believing in God marks me as an super being with intelligence far beyond anyone religious, ever.” You gave a good example. Russell discussed arguments in favor of God’s existence, critiqued them, and concluded that he didn’t buy it. Dawkins set out to use “science” to prove that religion was a delusion. To paraphrase Stephen Jay Gould, anyone who tells you that science and religion are in conflict is bad at both. Dawkins was light on substance and heavy on provocation, and he helped kick off a movement of the most obnoxious sophomores weighing in on topics they don’t know shit about.For the record, I’m an atheist and a scientist. But neo-Atheism is definitely some edgelord bullshit.
It’s a cowardly position to claim as Gould did, that science and religion are compatible. To do so requires having one mindset in the laboratory and a contradictory mindset outside it. I’m also a scientist and think JBS Haldane put it best when he said the quote to the effect that if he trusts the equipment in his laboratory to give accurate results not affected by the influence of devils or angels, how can he then believe that they affect things outside it?
Get a load of Frank J. Tipler – One conflicted mathematician.
It’s not cowardly to recognize that these are non-overlapping magisteria.Taking a position on anything that is fundamentally non-falsifiable in unscientific. A scientist, like anyone else, is welcome to take either religious position they want (theism vs. atheism), although the position that best aligns with a scientific mindset is agnosticism.
I think most atheists would have to admit that they’re really agnostic, but at a certain point you have to choose to live your life a certain way. We don’t have a unified theory of everything, but we do have a framework of theories that are mostly in agreement with each other. Even with all the knowledge we’ve accumulated, you sort of have to be agnostic about everything anyway. We can’t prove that what we’re experiencing is actually the physical reality we believe it to be. We can only rely on our own senses, and our ability to sort through that sensory data. So everything we learn needs an asterisk next to it.*There are things that religions claim are real that go against what we know from scientific theories. While it’s not entirely impossible that these claims are true, they’re so highly improbable in our current framework, as to be unhelpful to consider in most circumstances. So while we can’t really know that god doesn’t exist, it’s so incredibly unlikely that only pedantry would lead the layperson to identifying as agnostic over atheist.And although I love pedantry, I also don’t consider the two propositions equal. I don’t like the idea of giving religion the same standing as science, because it leads to conservatives and rednecks teaching creationism in schools. There is value to identifying as an atheist instead of saying “I don’t know.” It normalizes the idea, and gives it a stronger prominence in public society.* this may or may not be true, but we’re not entirely certain.
I think your first statement absolutely applies to most, and certainly most traditional, atheists. But not the edgy sophomore type that makes the rest of us look bad, talking shit about “sky daddy” and so forth and imagining that that super accessible belief is a mark of genius. I get that a lot of that is a reaction to their exposure to white evangelicals, but they aren’t reflective of most of the world’s theists, and the “nothing good ever came from religion” bit sure overlooks art, architecture, and the civil rights movement, among others.But yeah, I take your point about the value of agnostics or implicit atheists simply calling themselves atheists for societal visibility, but I think the distinction is important when it comes to discussing the intersection of religion and science. Atheist absolutists tend to be convinced that “science” is on their side, especially with fringey provocateurs like Dawkins in the mix, but the fact remains that any absolute belief on this unfalsifiable subject (either theist or atheist) is a religious belief, not a scientific one.I would regard science and religion as equally valid systems for the pursuit of “truth,” but not of objective reality. I don’t think calling them NOMA suggests they should have equal weight in all things, especially public schools. Those would fall 100% within the science magisterium.
I think we’re mostly in agreement, although I would quibble with whether you can really credit religion with art and architecture. I assume you’re referring to great paintings and sculpture or cathedrals. Sure they were commissioned by religious organizations, but when those organizations are in charge of basically everything in society, you could credit everything to them. You may as well credit the work of Warhol or Banksy to capitalism.Architecture in particular is something that needs science to work. They didn’t figure out flying buttresses by praying. The greatest advancement in painting, perspective, was figured out during the Renaissance, a time when secularism and reason were beginning to take hold. I think you can draw a direct line between scientific discovery and these two examples. I suppose you can draw a line between religion and cathedrals looking nice, though. But that just seems to be because they felt it was important, rather than something inherent to the philosophy.To counter the civil rights movement example, slavery was justified by religion as well.I think the most important difference for me is that anything good (or bad I suppose) that came from religion is a fluke, because most religions are not a coherent philosophy. In Christianity, for every “love thy neighbour” there’s a “stone the apostate.” Science is a results-based system that doesn’t really wade into morality, although it is often used to extrapolate a moral direction.
I’m not suggesting that science isn’t part of architecture; merely that religion drove people to push the limits beyond just basic needs to see what could really be done. For art, even putting aside the commissioning of art, the biggest subject of human art since the dawn of time has been religion. I don’t think that can really be disputed. Faith, mythology, the idea of a world beyond this one: those have always driven artistic expression, especially before the advent of ideas like “ficiton.”And I’m sorry, the slavery/civil rights argument isn’t particularly valid. Religion never caused slavery, just as it mostly didn’t cause most of the things that are blamed on it; it just has historically been used to rationalize or justify things that were going to happen anyway owing to avarice and human aggression. Certainly religious justification helped to prop up things that people otherwise ought to have recognized were evils, but that’s secondary. On the other hand, religion has always been a lodestone for black liberation in America, going back to John Brown and so forth. During the Civil Rights era, while student organizations played a large part, it was religious leaders that really united the black population across generations, and it was largely the moral authority and conviction of those leaders that helped sway the hearts and minds of white people.But to your last point, a coherent philosophy isn’t necessary for the religious urge to do good, like inspiring creativity, uniting peoples, etc. You’re right that few of the major religions are especially coherent, at least textually; but viewing the Bible as univocal rather than an entire literature is a fallacy that both religious people and atheists very frequently fall into. The teachings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels absolutely constitutes a coherent moral philosophy that was pretty revolutionary at the time (and the thing that most makes me believe that there was some idiosyncratic figure, whether his name was Jesus or not, and whether he was just a man (my take) or more, who truly existed and introduced that shift.Religion is far to fundamental, heterogenous, and personal for it to ever be reduced to good or bad, and anyone doing either isn’t engaging intellectually.
I’m not disputing that religion was the subject of art. When religion comprises the entire life of a people, their world view, their laws, their social life, it’s bound to be reflected in art. When I was 10 I was obsessed with the Ninja Turtles. They were my whole life. Every picture I drew, story I wrote, etc. was somehow inspired by them. But you wouldn’t claim that there’s something inherent in the Ninja Turtles that inspires great art (and not just because my art wasn’t great). Art reflects the society it’s made in, and as we’ve seen the world become less religious, art has reflected this as well.So I can’t really credit religion directly with inspiring these great works, at least not to the point of saying that there’s something special about it (more than any other belief system). It may have been a motivating factor to do better, but on the other hand the Taj Mahal was built for some guy’s wife. For me, it’s a case of people just being inspired by what they know.Religion wasn’t always the source for art either. Early cave paintings were inspired by real life, and they often depicted real things like people and animals. The Greeks and Romans made statues of their gods, but they looked like people. Maybe they were trying to glorify Zeus, but they were depicting man. They had to study the human form.In a way, I think you might agree with me on this, because you say that religion didn’t cause most of the things that are blamed on it. I think this extends to things that religion is given credit for as well. If you don’t believe that religion caused slavery, then I don’t know how you can believe that it did cause the civil rights movement. Is it a causal force or not? You claim that religion can’t be reduced to good or bad, but you are happy to give it credit for successes, but not failures.My position is that because it’s not a coherent belief system it’s problematic. There may be some faiths whose rules are internally consistent to a point, but the fact that there is belief in things that can’t be proven is troublesome. Any system that allows for this allows for a great deal of deviation, and therein lies the incoherence.
While it’s true that the earliest cave paintings were about hunting, religion was the primary subject of art for the next tens of thousands of years. The desire to interact with or glorify the divine (regardless of whether that is misguided from a philosophical POV) was the motivation for exploring pretty much every art form for nearly the entirety of human history. This is not something that can be honestly disputed. There is an intrinsic connection between the two, and even as an atheist, I can appreciate that contribution to human culture.I feel as though you are deliberately trying to not engage with my point about causality. I very clearly noted that religion did not CAUSE slavery but was used as a tool to prop it up; I acknowledge the failure, but argued that it was overstated. It also did not CAUSE the civil rights movement, but it was nonetheless incredibly central to its success. I think it’s ultimately a pretty neutral force, but the whole “religion never did anything positive” POV is pretty inherently white, since it’s always focused on bad white churches and completely ignores the role of faith and power in the black community. The overall point was that religion is generally a tool employed in the service of rather than the source of things (good or ill), and that the scales don’t tip all the way on either side.Belief in things that can’t be proven is not inherently troublesome; that only is true when there are actual harms. Let’s not pretend that there aren’t innumerable things that can’t be proven that we all believe in: morality, aesthetic value, consciousness, free will, meaning, love, luck, intuition, etc. People on any side of things have an incredibly difficult time talking about religion objectively. But a rational discussion requires everyone involved to begin with Francis Bacon’s idols: you need to be hyperaware of your biases and be especially skeptical of any claims that align with your bias.
I’m not disputing that religion was the primary subject of art. I’m merely saying that a system that has all-encompassing power over a society is bound to be the subject of that society’s art. I don’t believe there is an intrinsic connection between the two, and I think that the gradual shift away from popular religious art has mirrored society’s own shift away from religion. Art is something that people use to find meaning in the world, so it makes sense that religion would be the subject of it for some people. But it could just have easily be a non-theistic philosophy. So in that way I think I can agree with you.I’m not deliberately not engaging with your point about causality. I think I’m misunderstanding what you mean, though. I’m conflating it with what you say about art. To me, it seemed like you were saying that religion caused great art. Although I don’t think that’s what you actually mean.I don’t believe that religion’s never done anything good, but I do believe that its lack of a need for proof makes it a lot prone to leaps in logic and excuses for bad acts. I think this is the most important difference between you and I, and is the source of our misunderstanding.The things you listed that can’t be proven that we all believe in are exactly the sort of things that religion concerns itself with. And I’m not sure I believe in all of them anyway.morality – I don’t believe in an absolute morality, and that’s the only morality that needs to be proven. I believe that morality is a product of the values of a society or person.aesthetic value – same as morality consciousness – we can’t explain it, but we can describe a condition that appears to exist in some tings and not others. I believe in it to this extentfree will – this is a concept that would make so little difference if we knew it was real or not that I am truly agnostic about it.meaning – there is none but what you make.love – biological responses to propogate the speciesluck – I don’t believe in this at allintuition – instinct perhaps, but definitely not intuitionMorality is probably the most problematic. Science doesn’t really engage with these issues, at least not to the point of prescribing behaviours. There is a rational morality that has goals like the conservation of the environment or the elimination of human suffering. They’re based on something concrete and observable in real life though, and not on edicts from possibly fictional entities.Religion may not have caused anything (good or bad), but I believe that it’s basis in unprovable reality is the reason for the bad things its been involved in. If a more rational system had been in place I think these bad things would have been less likely to happen. Just take for example any instance where evidence isn’t used to make decisions.
Besides, “cowardly” was Dawkins not even attempting to respond to Gould’s NOMA take until years after he died, because he knew that Gould would eviscerate the bogus arguments in the God Delusion.Gould was the superior evolutionary biologist, far more honest on this topic, and a way better person.I’m not sure Brian Cox would be a big fan of Dawkins’ pointless misogyny either.
“It’s a cowardly position to claim as Gould did, that science and religion are compatible.”The head of the human genome project had no issues. MLK and Desmond Tutu had no issues.Gould is absolutely correct. Because most people like you base you take 100% on expecting religion to provide scientific truths. It doesn’t. And thinking that it should is almost as dumb as thinking that it does.
n whats neo atheist about brian coxs take?
I didn’t say anything was. I was replying on this thread, which was citing fucking Richard Dawkins in an argument that there is no “edgelord” angle to contemporary atheism. Brian Cox’s position doesn’t align with that, although, yeah, calling Bronze Age literature bad because it reflects Bronze Age values is kind of silly. It also largely suggests that the Bible is meant to be taken literally, which is the position that unites fundamentalist Christians and many atheists but not really any other people who use the Bible.To be clear, I agree with his ethical take on Bronze Age ethics; I just don’t think that makes it a bad book. Any critique of the Bible as a book that could serve as well as a critique of nearly all literature isn’t that useful.
“It also largely suggests that the Bible is meant to be taken literally, which is the position that unites fundamentalist Christians and many atheists but not really any other people who use the Bible.”This is the biggest issue I have with other atheists. They treat the Bible the same way fundamentalists do. They think about religion the exact same way. And that way of thinking about religion is so incredibly flawed.I have never had an edgelord type atheist explain to me how MLK’s faith was bad.
100% It’s always focused on white evangelism. So many of the “arguments” you see could double as arguments for why all literature is bad.” I think those two supposedly antithetical groups have so much in common: an inability to understand figurative language.
I think you’re asking the wrong question there. MLK’s faith was good, because it was all about helping people, and forgiving the wicked, and all the good things people say about religion. HIS faith was good. The problem is that the Bible contradicts itself, and is not a coherent philosophy. So while MLK is following his interpretation of Christianity, he’s also ignoring other parts of it. So is the KKK. For every “love thy neighbour” there’s a “stone the apostates.”
Nothing. Multitudes just loves to defend religion, while claiming to be an atheist.
This exactly. Not believing in God is fine and dandy. It’s when you start calling other stupid for doing it or trying to “prove” God isn’t real that you start sounding like a prick. It’s honestly just as bad as religious people that go out of their way to try to prove God is real with bad understandings of science.
Considering the number of atrocities done in God’s name, perhaps we need more prick’s willing to admit that believing in a old man in the clouds is ultimately bad for human evolution.
You seem shaky as fuck on what Christians believe, how evolution works, and how to make nouns plural in English.Are you okay?
lol.That’s not what religion is for the vast majority of adherents. In part because you seem to think only the Judeo-Christian god matters, and also that most people don’t believe in a literal man in the sky.Also, that’s not how evolution works.
Communist China and Soviet Russia show that atheist can also do atrocities. I don’t think that is a God thing and sadly is just a human thing
I’m just saying, have we done a cost/benefit analysis lately?
There’s a huge gulf separating your standard “I don’t believe in God” atheist from your obnoxious “me not believing in God marks me as an super being with intelligence far beyond anyone religious, ever.” Adults who don’t believe in fairy tales are smarter than adults who do believe in fairy tales. This isn’t complicated. There’s no defending believing in bullshit. Religion has done more harm to humanity than anything else in history.
To paraphrase Stephen Jay Gould, anyone who tells you that science and religion are in conflict is bad at both. Bullshit. Science is based on believing in facts proven by evidence. Religion is based on faith, which is believing despite all evidence to the contrary. They are incompatible.
Adults probably know that taking ANY position on something that is not falsifiable is not scientific; it’s a religious position. From the POV of actual science, theism and atheism are equally valid, which is to say, neither is scientific. Agnosticism is the scientific approach to things that are outside the realm of science.One important part of this is that neo-atheist sophomores and relgious fundamentalists have more in common than either does with the vast majority of religious people. It’s totally true that science wins over Old Testament literalism, but most believers don’t take that book literally. Outside of evangelicalism, religion has backed off any territory properly addressed by science (which it only claimed because it predates science by millenia). But for either type of fundamentalist (theist or atheist) literalism without nuance puts people into extreme positions and gives them an inflated sense of self-worth.It’s Dunning-Kruger stuff.
“Adults who don’t believe in fairy tales are smarter than adults who do believe in fairy tales.”No they aren’t. They have a more defensible opinion on one topic.“Religion is based on faith, which is believing despite all evidence to the contrary.”You’ve proven Gould right. Because this is doing religion badly.
Wow. Your take is spot on! You must be some kind of super being with intelligence far beyond anyone, period! “Progressive” or “Woke” idealism, whatever you want to call it, is the only social philosophy arrogant enough to condemn speech because of the identity of the speaker even when they agree with the speech itself. How do you function in the real world viewing everything in strictly black and white?
What are you even on about? Where do politics come into any of this? Where did I talk about anyone’s identity? How the fuck do those last two sentences work together (critiquing something you mostly agree with is the fucking absolute of viewing everything in black and white)? But did I even do that?Did you really get this fucking mad because I pointed out that atheism doesn’t necessarily align with genius? Otherwise, I literally cannot understand where the fuck this nonsense is coming from.Are you okay?
lol wut.It takes a special kind of dumb to think “Science and religion can coexist” is black and white thinking.
This comment is so f**king stupid on so many different levels that I don’t even know where to begin…
The whiplash exists purposefully to say everything while examining nothing, for clicks. It’s a schtick that bad modern bloggers use as a replacement for substance.
Being an athiest doesn’t make you an edgelord, but ridiculing others for believing in god does.
I also got whiplash from the way this article seemed to keep pivoting back and forth on whether the author thought it was the worst take, a legit take, a weird take, etc.- The AV Club Style Guide
They only recognized the name from their social media JK Rowling TERF algorithm as clickbait worthy.
He’s just saying what all rational people already know, but bloggers need to frame it in the “Brian Cox Says a Thing” trend that drives so many clicks.The drivel that is this article is the result.
Mr. Cox is settling comfortably into his new role as “America’s Favorite Grumpy Old Sayer of Things”.
I don’t know about edgelords, but atheists are funny in that they’re making the same mistake as religious people.
How?
Certainty without proof.
Atheism has nothing to do with certainty. Agnostic atheists are by definition uncertain if God exists or not. People like to extract agnostic people like they’re not part of the atheism/theism dichotomy, but agnosticism falls under atheism, just like monotheism (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) and polytheism fall under theism. It doesn’t mean they are all the same.Some atheists claim that they are certain that God doesn’t exist, but it’s not a defining characteristic of atheism.All wolves are dogs; not all dogs are wolves.
How so?
The evidence that God exists and the evidence that God doesn’t exist are both currently non-existent.
atheism isnt knowing theres no god its a lack of belief in godits like money you either have it or you dontnot having money doesnt mean youre antimoney it just means youre brokeSOME atheists insist they can prove god doesnt exist or whatever but that doesnt define all atheists
As I said in my other comment – nobody can prove the non-existence of a thing. So any atheist who says that they can prove that god(s) don’t exist is making a logical fallacy. What they need to remember is that we can’t and, more importantly, don’t need to prove non-existence. The onus of proof is on those who do believe.
i never said anyone should listen to those atheists
You can absolutely prove the non-existence of a thing if the thing has enough defining characteristics. If I say there is a such a thing as a “blork,” a visible creature that obeys the laws of physics, only exists in my house, doesn’t move, and is bigger than an elephant, then it only takes a quick examination of all the bigger-than-an-elephant spaces in my house to prove it doesn’t exist.
The problem is that god is so vague in concept that there’s nothing to test. It’s not a predictive hypothesis. “An invisible, omnipotent creature is doing unclear stuff based on reasoning that is incomprehensible to humans” is indistinguishable from chaos. There’s nothing that could happen that couldn’t theoretically fall under that purview, which seem like it’s probably the point..
That is the wrong argument. You can never, ever prove the non-existence of a thing. I cannot be done because that’s not how evidence works. Can I prove that there are no unicorns? No. I can say that there is no evidence that there are unicorns and that’s it. However, if you DO believe that a thing exists, then the onus is on you to provide evidence that it does exist. If you believe in unicorns, you have to provide evidence of existence. Now, it is true that some people take absence of evidence as indicating evidence of absence, but that is a logical error. So “making the same mistake” is wrong. As an atheist, I simply don’t believe in supernatural beings – I have no evidence that they exist and thus have no reason to assume that they do. Do I *know for certain* that they don’t exist? Of course not – again, can’t prove non-existence. The onus is on believers, not non-believers.
If you don’t like “same mistake”, I’m open to “both fucking stupid”.
Sorry, if the people who believe in God and the people who don’t believe in God are both fucking stupid, who’s not fucking stupid? Polytheists?You cannot prove that unicorns exist, but there’s no evidence that they don’t exist either. Are people who believe in unicorns and people who don’t believe in unicorns both fucking stupid too?
Of course they are. What a silly question.
Do you believe in unicorns?
Here’s what’s wrong with you “beeliving in fairytales makes me super smart theory.You’ve disgareed with everything I’ve said.But if I say I don’t believe in unicorns (fairytales) you have to admit I’m super smart.So am I smart or am I dumb?Your feelings say I’m dumb, but your argument says I’m really smart for being opposed to fairytales.
Here’s what’s wrong with you “beeliving in fairytales makes me super smart theory.1) That is not my theory.2) I emphatically reject the premise that believing in fairy tales has significant correlation, much less causation with intelligence, knowledge, or wisdom, full stop. You’ve disgareed with everything I’ve said.How? I saw that you replied to like two or three of my other comments, but this comment I’m writing right now is my first reply to you in this comments section.But if I say I don’t believe in unicorns (fairytales) you have to admit I’m super smart.No I don’t. I was replying to someone who is arguing that people who believe in God and people who don’t believe in God are “both fucking stupid.”That’s everyone. Everyone is fucking stupid by this logic. No one is super smart.My point with the unicorn example is that a lack of belief in unicorns is not an indicator of intelligence.People who think unicorns are real when they were children aren’t presented with evidence that unicorns don’t exist, because that evidence does not exist. They are either flat-out told that unicorns are made-up creatures (and they accept this without proof because they trust the person who told them), or they realize over time that unicorns are only mentioned in fictional works.The overwhelming majority of people who don’t believe in unicorns also don’t devote time or mental energy to proving the non-existence of unicorns, or even have a proactive belief that unicorns don’t exist. Someone who has never even heard of unicorns can’t “believe” in unicorns because they have no concept of unicorns.Therefore, atheism is NOT a belief that God does not exist, as some Christians I’ve met insist. By definition, atheism is not holding the belief that God exists.Within the entire population of atheists, yes, there are some who believe God doesn’t exist, but that is not representative of all atheists, nor does it have anything to do with how super smart or how fucking stupid you are.
I apologize; I wrote a reply saying, “No argument from me here, but Buttsoup Barnes is implying that all people who believe in God and all people who don’t believe in God are both fucking stupid by not qualifying either group.” I meant Captain Splendid, not you, but the edit window for that comment is closed. Sorry, got your user names mixed up.
Of course I do, it’s our national animal.
What you are saying then is that literally everyone is stupid regardless of beliefs. Fantastic point
It people are fighting over whether a hot dog is a sandwich or not… both groups can, in fact, be stupid.Why is this different for the fake science vs religion fight?More to the point. Most humans are idiots. So, more atheists and most religious folks will be idiots.And just because someone is right about one thing doesn’t mean they a re smart, full stop. See: Ben Carson, Dr Oz. It is perfectly possible to say, be an atheist and a racist at the same time. Not that modern atheism has any examples of that.
Because you’re creating a conflict. Atheism is not an inherently fight with religion.It’s like that other poster pointed out; not having something does not mean you’re against it.You’re looking at atheists like Ricky Gervais and concluding that all atheists are anti-religion. Many are, because if you don’t believe in God, then all of the terrifying things people have done throughout history in the name of God were actually done for selfish reasons. But not everyone who believes in God practices religion.That is the actual dichotomy you are ignoring: believing in God vs not believing in God, not science vs religion.More to the point. Most humans are idiots. So, more atheists and most religious folks will be idiotsNo argument from me here, but Buttsoup Barnes is implying that all people who believe in God and all people who don’t believe in God are both fucking stupid by not qualifying either group.The fact that most humans are idiots alone suggests believing or not believing in God has nothing to do with intelligence.
I’m just loving that the overall discourse in this subthread is proving your point. It’s dueling dogmas.
In the sense that someone said something wrong and that person is ignoring explanations for how they are demonstrably wrong, sure. But it’s also like saying that the people who believe the 2020 election was stolen and the countless election officials who have confirmed that it was not are “dueling dogmas”. And to be clear, what Captain Splendid is wrong about is not whether God does or does not exist but the definition of the word “atheism.”
“You can never, ever prove the non-existence of a thing.”And yet many of my fellow atheists insist God doesn’t exist, with certainty.
Just overconfidence in an especially high probability.
The evidence that God exists and the evidence that God doesn’t exist are both currently non-existent.
You can’t prove a negative. I don’t have to prove that God doesn’t exist. It’s up to believers to prove that God does exist. They’ve had thousands of years to do it, and they haven’t been able to.
That’s not how evidence works
I’m agnostic, but I’ll take athesists over fundamentalists any day.
This is the coldest take ever.
I’m an atheist and I’ll take anyone over fundamentalists.That doesn’t mean most atheists are normal dumb dogmatic humans, too.
I mean, they kind of are when they largely revolve around “other people are so stupid, why can’t they be more like me?” There’s a mix of thoughtfulness and “old man yells at cloud” going on in Brian Cox’s remarks (having watched some of the interview), and while edgelord may not be the best term, it also isn’t the worst.
Did Cox really need to call The Bible one of the worst books ever? No. Does he really think misogyny started with the story of Adam’s rib, even though there were already patriarchal societies before that? Probably not. Does he visibly enjoy saying so? Yeah.
That’s not what the article says at all
What does the article say?
I’m sorry, but what makes his take “edgelord”?It’s the AV Club’s need to snark on everything, even if it doesn’t make any sense. It makes one wonder, who edges the edgelords?
Are all atheist takes edgelord? Nah. I appreciate the takes that actually wrangle with the idea of metaphysics.The takes that are basically designed to foment stupid, useless “discussions”/slap fights online, usually with some blithering fundies on the other side? If not “edgelord,” they’re certainly stupid dogma fights that do nothing to move any needle in any particular direction. It’s windmilling punches for no other reason or effect than a dopamine hit and a pride boost (if that).I have absolutely no use for American, Christian fundies. I similarly have no use for basement-level crust chuds doing their best “lol metafisics is stupid go hug ur sky daddy lol.” Two flavors of dipshit I can live without.
There are a lot of “edge lord” atheists, but this take isn’t that.
This is a weird piece.
I am an atheist. Yes, most atheists are edgelords. Most aren’t any smarter than people who go to church on Sunday.
According to most people I see online when confronted with an atheist being vocal about their (lack of) beliefs, yes. Most of them will condescendingly just comment “Edgy” or “Cringe” or some variation thereof. I’ve never been a fan of evangelical atheism, and I’ve never felt the need to read Dawkins to fuel my insecurity about my world outlook. But I have noticed the disgusting way that atheists are treated in any public space when they voice their opinions no matter how aggressively.
Well, obviously it’s provocative and not nice to call a book many people cherish “one of the worst books ever” and call many of those people “stupid”. Is that “edgelord”? I don’t know.
Bottomline, if you find comfort in anything, religion, personal spirituality, bingo nights, booze and cigarettes, then that’s your personal choice and right. It’s pushing it on other people that’s the problem. Should go without saying.
It’s ‘contrarian’ and ‘edgelord’ to champion critical thinking skills now? Sounds like something a rib bone would say.
In America? Apparently yes… yes it is.
It’s probably Woke and DEI here too.Also (((Cultural Marxism))) for certain groups of people
Being a knee-jerk atheist isn’t championing critical thinking. It is championing having the same beliefs as me.Have you listened to atheists argue their case. They may have the right conculsion. But A LOT of them aren’t getting there based on logical reasoning.
It is 100% critical thinking to examine all the “evidence” for an omnipotent creator and come to the conclusion that the claims are false. That’s not belief, so trying to frame it in a “both sides” way is fundamentally flawed. Hope this helps clear it up for you.
I did indeed have to briefly think “Which?” when I read the headline. Pleasantly(?) surprised(?).
You’re never too old to be an edgelord.
Go suck a crucifix
LMAO OF COURSE YOU HAVE THE WORST TASTE IN MUSIC🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Just as I finished buckling in, I realized I agreed with him. What a lame ride!
Oh FFS.The Bible is an ANTHOLOGY; it’s not one single book. You’ve got a creation tale, an origin story for a minor tribe from the Eastern Mediterranean, legal documents, more history about that society, some philosophy, poetry, and sermons – and that’s just the Old Testament. The New Testament contains biographies of a radical rabbi, how his followers turned his teachings into a new religion, and then an apocalyptic vision (a.k.a. John has this crazy dream he’d like to tell you about).You can take all the miracles and “god” stuff out of it, and it’s still an important and readable collection.
I agree with youHOWEVERthat is NOT how the vast majority of bible readers and believers VIEW IT. thousands upon thousands of evangelical churches believe similar to this: “We believe the Bible to be the complete Word of God; that the sixty-six books, as originally written, comprising the Old and New Testaments were verbally inspired by the Spirit of God and were entirely free from error; that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice and the true basis of Christian union.”The “inerrant god-breathed scripture” belief is dominant; ergo, the bible is a problem. The idea of it as “anthology” is uncommon and generally not what people are talking about when discussing validty or lack thereof.It’s unfortunate. While I have now left the faith, accepting the book as an anthology was a boon. I mean, it’s historically true. Too many christians have a faith as flimsy as a house of cards… accepting that different people, in different eras, wrote different versions of similar/same stories… it’s too much. It’s either “all true, or none of it is true.”
The “inerrant god-breathed scripture” belief is dominant; It’s also ridiculous on its face, given how often it contradicts itself.It’s literally impossible for everything in it to be true.
The Bible, not unlike AVClub, desperately needs more proofreading.
The mental gymnastics to explain alway, say, differences in the Gospels rather than accept that they were written by different people, at different times… We don’t even need to get into things like the x gospel. Just the simple truth that when multiple humans tell a story, the details differ. It doesn’t make the stories right or wrong. Just different.
Isn’t The X Gospel Mia Goth’s next project?
COME, all you weary.
The Bible, not unlike AVClub, desperately needs more proofreading.Shut up, you fool! The AI chatbots already had a go at priesthood in an established religion, if you start giving them ideas like “AVC is basically the Bible,” they’re going to make their own and force us to worship them!https://metro.co.uk/2024/04/30/ai-priest-defrocked-saying-babies-baptised-gatorade-20748044/
“that is NOT how the vast majority of bible readers and believers VIEW IT.”Citation needed.“The “inerrant god-breathed scripture” belief is dominant; ergo”Citation needed.“The idea of it as “anthology” is uncommon”Citation needed.
Are you positing that it is a historical anthology? You missed “and full of nonsensical parables and lessons.”
Important, yes, readable in only the most technical sense. Like most anthologies, it’s very uneven. No non-specialist would ever crack the Book of Numbers if they didn’t believe god wrote it.
Jesus was also apocalyptic, he told his followers they would all see the end and the resurrection of everyone. So when he died they had to do some MAJOR reinterpretations of his words.
I’ve read two versions. Narratively, it’s somehow simultaneously disjointed and overindulgent dogshit. It’s a massive, convoluted fucking lore dump that’d make Tetsuo Nomura blush.The ideas are there, in terms of throughlines (kinda – the line of demarcation between OT warrior/psychopath God and detached paternalist God could stand to be clearer, not that it matters) but there’s a reason you tend to see the same handful of verses thrown about, usually devoid of the surrounding context.Funniest bit: I’ve had fundamentalists bend over backwards to tell me how various ecumenical councils and scholars have invalidated OT God’s barbarism, as well as the more ludicrous proclamations in Leviticus, but somehow the incredibly dubious anti-gay claims (translation issues) are still A-OK valid, because most modern fundamentalists don’t have or value intellectual consistency.Anyhow, the bones are there, but the meat is putrid as fuck, and hasn’t exactly benefited from a new class of grifters looking to turn it into a slurry.
very much! so many evangelicals will go on and on about the “new covenant in christ, he fulfilled the law, sooooo”and then run to the “OT” for every gay-bashing verse they can find, or delight in “judgment”. fucking horseshit. Either the levitical laws are no longer applicable cos of Christ on the cross, or they’re ALL applicable. cunts.
Reminds me of the Louis Black bit about how “The old testament if for us Jews” and that the Christians couldn’t handle the scary and vindictive OG and had to bring in “the nice young man who talked about love and peace.”
Holy shit, I need to find this setlol
Starts about 1:25
Them using the “fulfill” quote as an abolishment of OT law makes no sense to me, especially given the context of the full passage and even moreso the one after – Matthew 5:17-18: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the laws of Moses or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. In truth I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest stroke of a letter will pass away from The Law.”
Even in the context of the first passage alone, fulfill is obviously meant to mean the opposite of abolish; and even without that, the second passage is even more concrete.
Christians are generally idiots.
Humans are generally idiots.
yes, but…It’s a bit like Field of Dreams. The Voice says “If you build it he will come”. And the whole movie (OT) you think it means Shoeless Joe. But then you find out what it really meant was (NT) that the main character’s dad would return.The message wasn’t abolished. But it didn’t change either. Even though at the end we have a much better idea of what the actual message was all along.
the line of demarcation between OT warrior/psychopath God and detached paternalist GodYeah, I get why Jesus’ “Let he without sin throw the first stone” thing’d be hard to swallow.If the OT God’s law tells you to murder somebody, you best get to murdering without question, or he’ll wipe you out. Maybe you’re whole family. Maybe worse.God said to Abraham, “Kill me a son”
Abe said, “Man, you must be puttin’ me on”
God said, “No”, Abe said, “What?”
God said, “You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin’ you better run”
Abe said, “Where do you want this killin’ done?” -Bob Dylan
That really is a great lyric.
“moveable sperm banks that walk around and come and go”Logan Roy, is that you?
I feel ashamed for doing this, but…
Seriously. I know he can afford therapy.
I disagree. Stupid people need stupid lies and there are a lot of stupid people. Ethical and social arguments don’t work on people who can’t understand them. So you scare them with Hell and damnation. Also there is little evidence for matriarchies existing in human history let alone them being widespread and converting to paternalism at some point. While possible this idea is usually advanced by people who value ideology over evidence. What’s funny about it is it’s just another version of the Eden myth, a paradigm we can’t seem to get away from.
It is interesting that a common secular refrain is that religious people need the threat of damnation and the promise of eternal deserts to act good. But it’s also a common complaint that we’d all be better off without this safety guard, which is apparently the only thing keeping billions of people holding to even the most marginal moral codes.
Atheists are humans, too. It’s why most of them such at logic, too.
This presumes people en masse are basing their lives on a good faith reading of the text and not interpreting the text in such a way that it gives a divine seal of approval to whatever they already think.
Where did Brian Cox say matriarchies used to exist widespread but converted to paternalism at some point?
“Also there is little evidence for matriarchies existing in human history…” Wow you said that with SUCH authority it was breathtaking. Also you are dead wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy#:~:text=The%20Mosuo%20people%20are%20an,the%20family%20are%20still%20daughters.Matriarchies and matrilineal cultures not only have existed since the beginning of humanity, they STILL exist. Despite your aggressive assurances to the contrary.
Eh, he’s right, I can’t even date a religious woman because I know I’ll look down at her having silly superstitions, but there’s way more interesting observations to make about how the bibble is a stupid and bad book. One of my favorites is how wise King Solomon was like, “I’ll chop your baby in half,” and one potential parent is like, “Yeah, that sounds right, do that,” and the other one starts squealing in an old school Adam Sandler woman’s voice, “No, you can’t do that, the baby will die! Don’t chop the baby in half!” Another favorite is when the god trolls Abraham and says, “Hey. Psst. Kill your son. You have to because I said so. Do it. Kill your son. Nevermind jk kill a goat lawl.”
I don’t think it’s edgy to criticize a cult. People say and do awful things in the name of religion every day. And fuck those people, right? Right?
It goes to show, if you want your superstition taken seriously, send knights to slaughter millions of innocent people until legitimacy is attained.
To paraphrase, “a cult is something too small to be a minority.”
“Ronald McDonald did not return calls for comment by press time. Ba-duh-ba-ba-bahh.”
Just a warning, one of the folks here “defending” belief and trying to be edgy in championing his Southern Republican version of Christianity has already shown his ability to post pages upon pages of scat-porn over on Jezebel.
“I believe you mean snuff-porn.” – Emma Keates
I haven’t seen that yet but there were two of them – mostly likely the same person with two account.
Culturally and socially, I can see why reasonable people can enjoy the church going experience, much like I can enjoy an MCU film. But, man, if you start acting like this either of those things are real, we can’t be friends.
Funny that a psuedoscience like psychiatry has such a grip on the populace (and it relies on plenty of myths, like “normalcy”). But it’s perfectly normal to believe in a sky bully who grants wishes (prayer hands emoji), wins wars for you, and it’s not weird at all to openly talk to someone who isn’t there.
What a freakin’ world we live in.
Having had extensive experiences with religion and psychiatry, I can say with some confidence that the latter is a helluva lot more effective, generally, than the former.
And truly awful: the state of our economy is such that more and more people are having to rely on “services” provided by Christians churches. We’re back to the Middle ages where a few owned everything and everyone else had to appeal to the churches for basic needs.
THIS IS FUCKING GLORIOUS! I mean, at this point Brian Cox has to be trolling right? Because it’s too perfect: one moment he was bashing “woke culture”, with every goddamn conservative nutjob praising him with accolades of “redpilled”, “our guy”, and all that bullshit. And then, immediately after…I think religion does hold us back…
We’ve created that idea of God, and we’ve created it as a control issue, and it’s also a patriarchal issue… We haven’t given enough scope to the matriarchy and I think we need to move matriarchically fathers are “too bloody selfish,” and men are “moveable sperm banks that walk around and come and go… The Bible is one of the worst books ever… And they’ll believe it. ’Cause they’re stupid. You can’t make this up! Right-wing religious, MRAs, Trumpists, et caterva, all BTFO, as they say…
I mean, he’s 77 and Scottish. I enjoy the idea of right-wing culture warriors getting whiplash from his comments, but it’s not hard to believe his views are genuine and he’s too old to give a fuck what people online think.
So, he’s been purposely alienating the left, & now he’s purposely alienating the right? Bold strategy, Cotton,….
“the all-time master of curmudgeonly ranting”?I’m surprised Harlan Ellison hasn’t risen from the dead just to take issue with that statement.
Expect posthumous litigation shortly.
his name was George Carlin
I have no problem with anyone’s personal religious views. But I can guarantee you that if Cox did the same thing about another religious book, say the Qur’an, people in here would be up in arms at how offensive it his for him to say such things.
bc ppl have been saying the same thing about the quran to villify n attack muslim ppl muslims r a minority in most of the places where ppl in here liveanything cox couldve said about the quran would equally apply to the bible funny thing is the ppl who would get on fox news to say muslims wanted to impose sharia law realized they actually really like the idea of sharia law they just want to use the bible instead of the quran
Nah fuck em all
Why are you making out that his opinion is curmudgeonly and ‘edgelord’. Religion is bad. It had a use years ago before we knew stuff but is redundant now. We are shaking it off slowly and need to keep it away from government, education and life in general. There is no good reason for any religion to have any sway over people’s minds and we’ll be happier when its misogynist, oppressive, hateful effects are gone.
It’s right there in the article. It’s because he once defended Rowling, and he used the term “woke culture.” He’s now the wrestling heel.He could open the Brian Cox School for Trans Theory and he’d still get snark from here. He’s in the database.
Now this is the true edgelord opinion right here. You can’t see the good in something that’s been around for thousands of years, probably because you’re too smart for it, right? Gotta show the Internet just how amazing you are over all the other people out there. Does it make you feel big, looking down at religious people from your high horse? Or do you genuinely not get that the universe is too complicated for one person to understand, so some people turn to a common understanding to make sense of it?
Longevity ≠ good
It made sense in the past, when our understanding of how the universe worked was limited, but thats no excuse now. Don’t you think that for most of human history the religious, and those at the head of religion, looked down on everyone as less than them? And oppressed them or used thier “divine knowledge” to control them? Why was that OK?
WTactual? His points on religious idiocy are well stated. Full disclosure: Raised in a fairly progressive Protestant denomination. Arguing meanings and various translations (of a BOOK written BY MEN to control other MEN) comes naturally. The basis of any faith is love and the golden rule. Evangelicals are so far past missing that point it’s laughable.
I thought he was going to like “review” The Bible; like “it’s poorly written and contradicts itself!”
Is “Shit Brian Cox Hates” the new feature here at the AV Club?
I say his publicist did their job. I mean they got you to write an whole entire article on this guy and his latest take.
“That’s how it started and it’s essentially patriarchal. We haven’t
given enough scope to the matriarchy and I think we need to move
matriarchically.”Ugh Brian Cox going woke now.
“One of the main characters dies, then he comes back to life again! And a woman gets pregnant from riding a donkey! Who writes this shit?!” (I have to say, I agree with basically everything he said in that clip. Not sure what’s supposed to be so outrageous about it. He doesn’t believe it. I don’t either.)
Have you actually read the Bible? It’s boring as shit and poorly written too.
“Poorly written”? Which part? The Hebrew poetry or the philosophy of Paul? Or maybe the legal texts, or the prophecy? I’d venture to say you don’t read Hebrew or Koine Greek, so you’re reading a translation anyway, which doesn’t always suit the “readability” of a text.
God isn’t going to fuck you dude
Finally we get someone to put the Bible in its place. Can I get a *Hell Yeah* for our master rhetorician…uh Brian Cox??
Brian Cox is such a loveable curmudgeon speaking the straight truth.
I think everyone should read a little bit of the Bible every day. I usually stick to a few of the “begats” as they’re less controversial.
I’m not an Edgelord; I am the LORD!