Comments by "Antony Wooster" (@antonywooster6783) on "Q u0026 A: The next wave of counteroffensive" video.

Yes, the point is that you cannot overcome faith with either logic or facts. I once asked a Christian priest: "What is the essence of religion? and without hesitation he replied: "Faith". Since faith means believing things which are not supported by evidence, there is no point in providing evidence to the faithful that their faith is based on nothing or false assumptions. That "don't cut the mustard"!
11
@annarock8966 Britain had an agreement with the Soviet Union to share techniques that would aid the war effort. Britain did not even share penicillin. For evidence of what I am saying, see the 1949 film "The Third Man": Directed by Carol Reed. With Joseph Cotten, Alida Valli, Orson Welles, Trevor Howard.
3
@SvetlanaVladimirova8590 He was smuggling the diluted penicillin across into the Soviet Zone, because the Russians did not have it. They should have been given info on how to make it (if Britain had lived up to their promises) during the war when they had desperate need of it. As to "evidence"; if the Russians had been given knowledge of how to make penicillin during the war the Film would have made no sense. He would have been smuggling something else.
2
Intentional? Whose intention?
1
@olgag6581 I had not heard that. So why was it possible to make a living smuggling penicillin across the East-West border in 1948? Was the Soviet production insufficient?
1
@herrlich1461 That depends on whether the facts contradict the faith or not. If they don't, there is is no reason for the faithful to reject them. Thus, the believers in God almost all believe in the "Big Bang" because it allows them to believe that this was how God created the Universe. They have great difficulty accepting that a lot of evidence suggests that the BB did not happen.
1
@herrlich1461 You don't need to have faith in human laws. It is usually not difficult to find out whether they exist or not. No Lawyer works on faith! Either he knows what he is talking about or he gets drummed out of the profession. There may be uncertainty about whether any given law applies in a particular case, but that again is a matter for argument not faith. "Divine" laws were promulgated, brought to you, by humans. How do you know that they were what God intended? You have faith that they were. I.e. you believe that, with no evidence to support it. Fine. Bully for you! As an Atheist, I prefer to believe things that can be proved, (or at least have supporting evidence) and doubt things which cannot. Many a doubtful thing can be treated as a "working hypothesis" and treated as though it were "true" until something proves that it is not. Animals have evolved to conserve energy. Changing your mind means rewiring circuits in your brain, which takes energy. So, on the whole, people do not lightly change their mind about anything. (Hence the importance of "first impressions" and the reluctance to give up "Faith".)
1
@korhanduranozel ". But G'd the great creator exists, no one can deny G'd s existence, this is a FACT , have faith on this one." This is a typically statement by a faithful. First assert a fact (Without any proof) and then demand that you "believe it! . "no one can deny G'd s existence, this is a FACT" , This is transparently untrue - a lot of people do deny just this.
1
@BertoxolusThePuzzled The universities such as Cambridge and Oxford, Paris, Heidelberg, and Padua were, as you say, founded by the RC Church. However, as they were set up to study everything, not just how to be a priest, they naturally, over time, caused the people in them to question things and spot the contradictions in the Bible. (Which most "ordinary" people did not ever read for themselves). This led to disputes over dogma and eventually to the "Reformation".
1