I have decided to accept Christ into my life, and you played a big part in the Cameron, by being such an honest theist inlet for an atheist perspective, and now that I've accepted Christ, I can enjoy your content even more, God bless you friend.
I love the point about the way everyone mixes up moral epistemology with moral ontology. I get the idea that Dawkins is doing it deliberately for rhetorical affect, but he's probably not philosophically sophisticated enough to understand what he's doing.
Richard Dawkins in his last Australian tour was invited by Creation Ministries International to debate them but he refused, as Dawkins almost always punches down rarely up, which is explained why, when he was decimated by Oxford Professor of Mathematics, Dr. John Lennox, whom also defeated Hitchens, twice.
Love him or hate him, I don’t think anyone can deny that Dawkins has the snark of an evil villain. Personally if I were him I would work on my persona of not exiting the essence of bitter man. That persona preaches to his choir but doesn’t help his arguments in my personal opinion.
@@AWalkOnDirt What specificly caused this, if you have questions, remember to find someone to speak with, you are never too far away for God to bring you back, he loves you Larry, come back to his open arms and rejoice in his prescense!
@@AWalkOnDirt except that all he ever does is ridicule ideas he puts on others, I used to be a fan, and still am of his work in biology and evolution, however, but his theistic arguments leave a lot to be desired, one can not merely hand wave the problem of spirituality away.
Leading Dawkins scholar here. Dawkins has repeatedly stated that for a scientist to believe in miracles is contrary makes to the scientific enterprise. It could be worse. Sam Harris said something like, “If I had a magic wand and could choose between eliminating rape or religion, I would choose the latter every time.”
@@Enzorgullochapin one could say the same to you, yours is the original opinion, I find this funny, you're gonna voice your opinion, but tell others to shut up, you're gross mate.
That's not a universal belief among Christians though. It may be your understanding, but I think it's fair to say there are people who would take issue with that stance.
As John Cleese put it; (imho) Most of the time Dawkins has no idea what he is talking about. But the real thing is that he has no idea that he has no idea about what he is talking. And he always displays confidence and a superior demeaner. - To understand the real Dawkins, one has just to watch Dawkins vs Jon Lenox. And the real Dawkins is revealed there: humbled by the titanic mind of Lenox, respectfully pretending not to understand questions, barely trying to make sentences that could pass the mathematical mid of Lenox... Pitiful. - And in the end, the damage this Dawkins type has done to the Western Civilization and Christian social vales is beyond criminal; to say the least.
And yet, both men have had significant influence in both Australia and New Zealand. Laughter and ridicule is not meaningful in the long run. Laughing at something does not invalidate it or prove it to be untrue. In fact, people resort to ridicule when they don't actually have a valid argument based on facts and evidence.
@@dooglitas There's one born every minute. What is attributed to P.T. Barnum is true. I get some Pacific Island people knocking at my door from time to time evangelizing Moromonism. When I ask them about being white and delightsome back in the 1970s, they tell me they will have to consult their elders and get back to me. People are convinced by whatever evidence floats their boat. Included in the most sincere people I've ever met are Sikhs. Based on your reply, the facts and evidence presented by Guru Nanak should be seriously considered.
@@Simon.the.Likeable I have no idea how our last comment applies to anything I said. I didn't say anything about sincerity. I said that ridicule is not a valid form of argument. The fact that people laughed at young earth creationists is meaningless and has no probative value. Likewise, your entire previous comment has no probative value. If you want to discuss Mormonism or Sikhism, that's a different story. How Mormon missionaries behaved when they visited your home is irrelevant to this discussion. Do you have anything meaningful to say?
@@dooglitas Laughing YEC/anti-evolution out of the public forum is very valuable. They persist despite being proven wrong so laughter is warranted. The examples I gave were of people who were convinced by facts and evidence presented to them. I have no need to discuss whether their conviction was based on what was proven to them. Similarly, you have been convinced by what has been proven to you. Gary Habermas started with over a dozen facts. He is down to around four facts now. Mike Licona uses the fact of voodoo for his proof of the supernatural realm. Life is like that.
@@Simon.the.Likeable Sorry, but YEC has NEVER been "proven" to be wrong. The claim is made that they are wrong. Claiming something is not proving something. In the examples you gave, there was nothing in what you said that indicated that these people had anything "proven" to them by facts and evidence. What "facts" has Gary Habermas presented? I am unfamiliar with such "facts," and "facts" about what? What are you even talking about. YEC has NOT been proven wrong by anyone, certainly not by facts and evidence. The claim of the earth being 4 billion years old has never been "proven." It is a belief based upon flimsy evidence, at best. If you want to discuss facts and evidence, fine, but so far all you've done is say vague and confused things and made claims that are unsubstantiated. What exactly is the point you are trying to make here?
a friendly suggestion guys. some ppl are here just for the reaction and then there are your regular viewers and subscribers who are here whole the whole package of analysis and reaction. what you can do is react to the vid with as few pauses as possible and keep the discussion towards the end, in that way I or ppl like me won't be cursing the youtube algorithm for giving me a discussion vid when I was looking for a simple reaction vid. hope u get my point. cheers guys.
He isn't a "strident atheist"???? LOL - at the "Rally for Reason" on March 24, 2012, on the Mall in Washington, DC, Dawkins screamed at the crowd, instructing, “Mock Christians . . . ridicule them in public. Don’t fall for the convention that we’re all too polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table, religion is not off limits, religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated and challenged, and if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt." Dawkins has become an anathema even to his fellow "scientific atheists" as his science has been disproven, especially by geneticists.
@@Apanblod macro-evolution as in one "kind" arising from another, just as Darwin's own words predicted on page 180 of his own book. There are no transitional fossils in the record, and, Darwin said if no transitional fossils were found, especially in the Cambrian explosion layer, then his "theory" was for not. Dawkins' "science", isn't.
The problem with an old age universe is that there are anomalies that give rise to doubts about what is the actual age. Objects that exist that appear to a billion years older than the rest of the universe. The other problem is that a very specific convention in use today gives rise to an expectation of an old universe. If that convention is wrong and there is no way to determine if the convention is actually correct, we cannot even get to determine an approximate age of the universe.
@@qaz-fi1id You have to be a little more careful than that. You have to be able to provide a means of garnering evidence from the universe around us to support that view. There are various YEC proponents who fail to do this adequately and simply rely on their interpretation of the bible without looking at the abundance of evidence that Almighty God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) has placed around us. You must be able to give reasonable and logical alternative explanations for what we do see and the interpretations that are assigned to that data. For instance, we find that there is a very commonly held view that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is the best explanation for what we see. Interestingly, there are opponents to this theory who point out inconsistencies in the theory (you can find them scattered around the place). This theory posits that space and time are curved and that gravity is a spacial effect of this curvature. Interestingly Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is in direct conflict in that it assumes that space and time are not curved. I have a number of papers regarding errors in Special Relativity. What I found interesting is that one paper strongly suggests that the result of Special Relativity for predicting the motion of Mercury is twice what is generally given. The problem here, for me, is that with Mercury being so close to our sun, we should expect SR to give the wrong results if GR is, in fact, correct that space and time is curved. There are various anomalies that occur in the observations that do not match the expected predictions of GR. I find it interesting that when I have brought these up with professional physicists, they just seem to ignore these anomalies. There are various experiments that we can do in the laboratory (even school science labs) that can provide alternative models. You won't find these alternatives discussed though. Again, I had an interesting response from a University based Physicist over this subject. There is another factor here and that is there are far too many Christians who do not recognise that their view of Almighty God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is way too small. In recent times, I have been suggesting to Christians that they have a look at each of the recorded miracles in both the Old and New Testaments and try to imagine just how powerful Almighty God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is and just how in-comprehensively beyond us He is.
Firstly I’ve never met someone who lived his whole life believing in Santa and in adulthood started believing in Santa I’ve met a lot of people who spent their youth not believing in God and started to believe in God during adulthood. Secondly the so called skeptic morality by the Renaissance philosophers started in Christendom not in atheistic China and Kant said I’m sure of 2 things heaven is above and morality within. Thirdly Romans 2:14-15 NLT Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. [15] They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right. That means that the law is sacred because the soul which is made in God’s image is sacred so that’s why morality comes with our humanity meanwhile the atheist must believe that we are moist robot as Darwin said But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? [To William Graham 3 July 1881] so who would have the wisdom to believe that we are moist robots and that there’s no God and still believe in the sacred of let’s say the sacredness of 1 life or the belief in liberty? Finally Jürgen Habermas said "Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk." (Jürgen Habermas - "Time of Transitions", Polity Press, 2006, pp. 150-151, translation of an interview from 1999). BTW Habermas is the 13th most renowned atheist in the World
I'd love to hear your thoughts on Colin Miller's recent videos about William Lane Craig. Here is the original video (which is currently unlisted, on Colin's channel): Famous Christian Apologist Says Genesis Is A “Myth”!: ua-cam.com/video/QFfL3Gq8S5A/v-deo.html Below is the follow up video that he made, after Mike Winger commented on the original one: Mike Winger CORRECTED Me About William Lane Craig!: ua-cam.com/video/apLL5Bht0Ls/v-deo.html
Larry’s Dilemma: Dawkins is my hero, absolutely. There is one assertion in the video that’s a tad annoying. The claim, that the arguments of Dawkins were a low bar, needs pondered. Just for a moment think of the full ramifications of that claim. Why would the defense or proof of god require a high bar? God is so hidden that its discovery or defense requires a degree in philosophy or the filtering of evidence for god requires tireless scholarship? So which is it? Is the evidence of god written in our hearts or does finding god require a life of weighing the heaviest of arguments? If god requires a high bar then this high bar is surely evidence against god especially if the god wants to be found. If god doesn’t require a high bar then why is the mud being thrown in Dawkins’ direction? In short if god wants found, is loving, then then proving god should be as simple as proving a chair to a reasonable person. The fact it is not an easy proof suggests that god isn’t all loving and or doesn’t want to be found. Yet let’s throw mud at Dawkins anyway...
If a god is going to be all good, they would not punish someone forever. If a human believes fervently in one god and another human believes just as much in another, they cannot both be right. I don't think any god would punish either of them for their belief. Of course, I do not know :)
All Dawkins has is an upper-class English accent, confidence instilled in him by his private education & his charisma, which convinces the masses that he speaks with authority on Science. But his world views and evolutionary ideas can be quickly dismantled by anyone with proper intellect , which is why he won't debate them.
@@tex959 no I’m saying the time before Eve could have been thousands or billions just Adam and God. Was not until sin death came and time for man started slowing down. I’m not saying that’s what it is but who knows? God knows, and 1 day to God is a 1000 years to us.
@@tex959 I’m thinking Adam and Eve started actually aging after sin, before death and sin was a thing, there was no sickness or death. So I would say Adams age was the time since sin began counting all the way to the cross of Christ Jesus.
@@tex959 The Jews speculate that Adam and Eve were 33 when they sinned. I’m just thinking they would have been on eternal time before sin. After sin time probably slowed down then after the flood maybe slowed even more.
At 4:00 thats actually false. This isn't just a matter of admitting your opinion, it's a political trap masquerading as an expose of opinion on science. The reason that's the case is because there's a popular secular rebuttal if he just said it bluntly, and that rebuttal isn't about his private opinion, but I'd couched in the idea that as a policy maker he can't be trusted to make policy since he will clearly impose his beliefs on others VIA policy. That's the modern anti-religion rallying cry in secular circles and I've had to contend with it in my own relationships. The motivation political fear which turns out the vote for some is that religious people are one election away from voting in an anti-science despotic theocracy. That's why he kept replying that people should come to their own conclusions. He's carefully trying to avoid both the embarrassment of admitting to a pariah view, but also answering that his principles on the matter respects that individual citizens can and should come to their own conclusions and that he doesn't want to talk about his opinion in a way that seems proscriptive, because as soon as he boldly says "yes I do" it will immediately be politically spun as proscriptive. No matter how he answers he's in the trap.
I don't understand how Richard Dawkins so called caricature of the atonement is any different from the view defended by William lane Craig. Can anyone explain it to me?
Hey TU! I don’t recall claiming that he caricatured the atonement. I said that he treated his articulation of the atonement as the only available Christian view. I also said (or implied) that he didn’t give any argument that the atonement was morally horrendous-he just kinda said it was.
@@CapturingChristianity thanks for the reply. Yes, caricature is my description and not a word you used. you called the view articulated by Dawkins modalism and described it as a heresy. I just looked that word and it seems to be something along the lines of unitarianism. I don't think the type of identity shared between the Son and the Father is a key part of Dawkins critique. On popular views there is some kind of unity between the Son and Father, enough to make the question of 'why God needs to protect us from what He's going to do to us if we don't accept His protection' a valid question. And yes, Dawkins didn't really articulate an argument, he just appealed to intuition and did so with a lot of attitude, but I think there's something alluded to which is of substance. The only atonement theory which I can make sense of is moral influence theory. One day I'll interview a Christian scholar on this and see if they can give me an alternative understanding which makes sense.
"Alvin Plantinga saying that the set of best feasible worlds that God could have created are the ones with the atonement and incarnation." Well, wasn't that precisely what Dawkins was asking implying it was absurd? The point was if anyone could seriously believe that the almighty powerful God, amongst the set of best possible worlds he could've created, couldn't have saved humanity without the blood and torture sacrifice...
Richard Dawkins gets irritated by "irrationality" but has no idea what that word even means. He gets annoyed by a lot of things he doesn't remotely understand.
28:30 It was a great response by Dawkings. He did not use any fallacy and showed a pragmatist and conversationalist view of ethics. The pragmatist view of ethics makes actually a lot more sense than what Joe said about "intrisic value and dignity" in a naturalist world view. In the pragmatist view, the "foundation" of morality made by the moral ontology is not needed and doesn't make sense.
What is the intrinsic value and dignity I the naturalist worldview? How can a naturalist come up with intrinsic value and dignity in the naturalist worldview without foundation and ontology
@@etincardiaego if that's how you see it, then your statement itself doesn't have a meaning, I wonder why there's a necessity for sense, if your statement are nothing but words in language. If you deny meaning, you shouldn't ask for a meaning because stating something doesn't make sense is begging for meaning
@@vanessac0382 Yes, it does have a meaning. I'm very wittgensteinian, the meaning is its use. It is not self-contradictory, I don't deny that words have meanings
@@vanessac0382 The apologetics response "your statement is self-defeating" only works with naive sophomore relativism, it does not work with developed philosophies that are more "relativistic" or "skeptic"
Is Dawkins trying to imply that self-sacrifice is a bad and/or absurd concept? I think Dawkins may have realized how silly this would have come across so he didn't push the point and let it go.
I would assume only in the context of a maximally powerful deity sacrificing some portion of himself to save humanity from something he himself has inflicted upon them. That doesn't really apply to self-sacrifice in general.
@@Apanblod Yeah, nuance is a real issue with live discussions like this. But I'm unsure if that was what he was trying to get at. Even if it was, well, that distinction would have been difficult to get across in a live conversation since most people intuitively believe that any type of self sacrifice is morally commendable and logically coherent.
@@Apanblod And your own formulation of the objection is a caricature of Christian theology. God doesn't have parts. The Son sacrificed himself. And there's no reason to think Jesus/the Son directly made Adam and Eve sin.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl @Jimmy I don't understand what you mean by 'logically coherent' as it relates to the notion of self-sacrifice. If Jesus isn't one 'part' of the trinity, but instead an integral manifestation of it (as in the notion that all three persons are 100% god), then I don't see how it doesn't follow that the son was also 100% responsible for the preconditions of reality. But I was more so focusing on the father regardless. I realise that saying that Jesus is one part of God is a caricature, at least to some extent, and my intention was admittedly to make the notion sound slightly more ridiculous compared to how a Christian would present it. But, the concept of the trinity is fairly incomprehensible to begin with, and at least as far as I can tell, logically incoherent 😉
@@Apanblod The Father wasn't sacrificing anything during the atonement. That responsibility fell solely on the shoulders of the Son. The Son voluntarily underwent suffering and death for the sake of the elect. That's divine self-sacrifice in a nutshell. And that's why Christianity champions self-sacrifice; the concept is the heart of Christian ethics.
The problem is that the age of the earth being billions of years old is NOT a fact. It is a belief, which is based upon very flimsy evidence. Likewise, evolution is not a fact. It is also a belief that is based upon very flimsy evidence. I don't understand why Christians feel embarrassed to agree with what the Bible clearly states instead of trying to make it fit pagan ideology.
@@matthew_kohai3 I take the Bible as it is meant to be taken. There are many metaphors in the Bible. I take those metaphorically. Historical literature, such as the Book of Genesis, I take literally, as they are meant to be taken. I use the King James Bible, and I use the original Greek and Hebrew as well.
@@jacoblee5796 Well, their "view" is not nonsense and is well grounded in reality. The so-called "science" that says the earth is billions of years old is not based on scientific facts. It is based on assumptions and the alleged age of a meteor. For that reason, Christians have no need to be embarrassed.
Religious fanatic : Show me the evidence of the evolution here and now Dawkins : ._. Also Dawkins : Show me the evidence of The existence of God here and now Theist Philosophers : ._.
The lack of belief thing is fine, the majority of people who lack belief in god believe there is no god as well, so not sure what they are on about around 10:10
Hi Colin, to lack a belief in God implies agnosticism. One lacks a belief in God but doesn't necessarily believe that he doesn't exist. An atheist believes - actively - that the universe exists in a state of Godlessness. That there is no God.
@@CJ-sw8lc That's one of the philosophical definitions which I don't care for. The standard definition is just to lack a belief, since a-theism is NOT theism, so not a belief in god(s). People like to use the other definition as it seems to put atheists on a level footing with theists as they both will have a claim or belief.
@@colinjava8447 I'm not sure. I think a-theism means - actively - "I believe the universe exists in a state of a-theism". Rather than just claiming to not be certain either way. Using the term that way will clear up confusion, give us a tight way to express our ideas (theism, agnosticism and atheism) and also sure - it'll help us to identify a burden of proof. A theist tends to believe in a God but can't be 100% certain. An atheist tends to believe there are no gods but also can't be certain. An agnostic says 'I don't believe in God, nor do I necessarily fully disbelieve." Many self-described atheists seem to occupy that camp. I don't like the usage of the word 'atheism' then, but... I also can't stop anyone doing it 😁
If we believe there is a God that Created everything all powerful ,loving ,just, ect then we shouldn't expect God to be subject to us like a genie in a bottle to prove whatever we want or God would be subject to us then not God then bit us mote then God,God is God.
I think you guys are missing the mark on the clip where you mention that Dawkins doesn't grasp the difference between moral ontology vs. moral epistemology. It is pretty clear that Richard does not believe in an objective morality at least insofar as it is defined as absolute morality (which is how the questioner put it). He then went out to state what his issue is with specific examples of religious morality and how if you believe in objective morality based on religion then you have to confine yourself to these things being correct. Which to him is quite absurd, especially in light of the moral progression we see in today's society. By doing so, did he go beyond the scope of the question? Absolutely. But so what? Also, Cameron, your critique regarding bad things happening under atheist rule is mistaken. Atheism does not prescribe moral truths so anything done by an atheist leader is not in virtue of his atheism, the same cannot always be said about religious rulers.
Please react to this video where Joe Rogan DESTROYS Religious fundamentalism ua-cam.com/video/y5nyyupLskI/v-deo.html (Spoiler alert: He makes New Atheists look philosophically informed)
Dawkins's disregard for Jesus crucifixion shows how foolish he is. The Bible already said that God will catch the "wisemen" in their own craftiness. Dawkins's ego does not allow him to understand the meaning of it and that shows how foolish he is.
2:27 Dawson: "youre a parliamentarian and you..." dont believe in evolutionism. He sounds like a narcissists dictator, not allowing certain people to have jobs, because of their beliefs (ie. if they dare to believe something else than himself). Thank God Dawson is not a politician.
Wouldn’t you be worried if a leader who makes decisions on behalf of your state believed that electricity was made by unicorn farts? Completely ignoring his science advisors explaining to him how Coal and Solar power works. Will he do a good job if he has to vote on energy related bills? This is what it is like to deny the scientific consensus on the age of Earth and Biological Evolution.
@@Tinesthia Well, there is nothing to worry, mate. Most politicians are ALREADY not the smartest people around and your fairy tale example is unrealistic and suggests an irrational standpoint. Belief means to trust a person. In this context, it means "trust in GOD". Youre basically calling to deny "Christians" the right to become politicians and you explain this radical and hateful view with unicorn farts. Whats next? The destruction of female rights because of on aliens? In the middle ages, the "scientific consensus" was significantly different than it is now. In the 1940s, doctors were advertising for cigarettes. Psychology is called science today, just 10 years ago it was called esoteric hocus pocus. Even Hitler based his whole race theory on amaaaazing science... "Scientists" are humans just like you are and they are not infallible all-knowing gods. They make mistakes all the time. People were wrong back then and they are wrong now, that is why it is called "the current state of science", it is changing all the time (and not ALL scientists agree on one theory). Next time the "current scientific consensus" changes, they will call it "a new scientific discovery". They will not say "all the other scientists before us were wrong". How do I know? They do it everyday :) Free yourself from the indoctrination of your science-gods, youre allowed to think on your own!
@@TheEpicProOfMinecraf I don't think many atrocities were done in the name of atheism. The God of Atheism doesn't says to kill those evil people on this land because it was promised to us!
@@TheEpicProOfMinecraf That was for communism...a dictator system. It was not done for atheism. God is the dictator in your system. Commanding Genocide, drowning millions of babies, etc. Atheism is not a dictator system.
@@gabrielteo3636 Ah, so atheism doesn't impact morality or anything like that? Atheist moral judgments are somehow free of that necessity. It's just religious moral judgments that require examination because, as we know, religious people never disagree and are 100% in agreement with whatever you slander them with.
@@matthew_kohai3 Bullsh*t. He makes a living out of denying God. If he can't plausibly explain how evolution can create or sustain life (including why it happens at all), then why does he accept it? Same thing for the origins of life. God apparently is not a plausible reason, but others explanations are plausible? Why?
Jesus's sacrifice is not much of a sacrifice. He made the universe. Surely God can take a little pain. It's not as if it will kill him or anything. I'll tell you what. Jesus allowed himself to be crucified save a people on Earth. I'll volunteer the same to get rid of all baby cancer. God can kill them later as adults with another disease God created. I'm not asking for much.
I have decided to accept Christ into my life, and you played a big part in the Cameron, by being such an honest theist inlet for an atheist perspective, and now that I've accepted Christ, I can enjoy your content even more, God bless you friend.
How tf is that even possible.really?😂😂😂faaaaacking hell mate
@@grogu833 I don't know how to answer that question, it doesn't seem to fit the statement.
@@Babycakex how was it possible for you to accept christ?
@@grogu833 I don't know you so don't see how it's relevant.
@@Babycakex it's my question.it's relevant to me.
..
I love the point about the way everyone mixes up moral epistemology with moral ontology. I get the idea that Dawkins is doing it deliberately for rhetorical affect, but he's probably not philosophically sophisticated enough to understand what he's doing.
Richard Dawkins in his last Australian tour was invited by Creation Ministries International to debate them but he refused, as Dawkins almost always punches down rarely up, which is explained why, when he was decimated by Oxford Professor of Mathematics, Dr. John Lennox, whom also defeated Hitchens, twice.
You two’s friendship makes me so happy.
Love him or hate him, I don’t think anyone can deny that Dawkins has the snark of an evil villain. Personally if I were him I would work on my persona of not exiting the essence of bitter man. That persona preaches to his choir but doesn’t help his arguments in my personal opinion.
I am a former Christian and current atheist largely because of Dawkins
@@AWalkOnDirt
Dawkins fuels my my belief, validity and presupposition of Romans 1
@@AWalkOnDirt What specificly caused this, if you have questions, remember to find someone to speak with, you are never too far away for God to bring you back, he loves you Larry, come back to his open arms and rejoice in his prescense!
@@AWalkOnDirt except that all he ever does is ridicule ideas he puts on others, I used to be a fan, and still am of his work in biology and evolution, however, but his theistic arguments leave a lot to be desired, one can not merely hand wave the problem of spirituality away.
Wow interesting I too found Dawkins convincing, when I was 12…. Now I’m a Christian
When will @majestyofreason drop out and start peddling shirts like everyone wants him to???
Leading Dawkins scholar here. Dawkins has repeatedly stated that for a scientist to believe in miracles is contrary makes to the scientific enterprise.
It could be worse. Sam Harris said something like, “If I had a magic wand and could choose between eliminating rape or religion, I would choose the latter every time.”
Dude, I love you guys! ❤️ keep these videos coming man. 🤙🏽
I honestly feel like Dawkins is the kind of atheist that would bring people closer to Christ with his own insanity
Not at all, have fun in your little echo chamber.
Last time I was this early, it was still "only two weeks to flatten muh curve"
This is the best kind of mindless entertainment.
Man, I love Richard Dawkins.
@capturing christianity PLEASE CONDUCT A DEBATE BETWEEN BART EHRMAN AND GARY HABERMAS 🙏🏻
Gary Habermas once said he is pretty much done doing debates.
"Religion is true for the common people, false for the wise, and useful by the rulers"
-Seneca
Wait false for the wise, that's a matter of opinion, and an unsupported claim.
True for the common people, most atheists are common people, this quote is just folly
@@Babycakex Thank You! for your opinions, they don't matter to me ;)
@@Enzorgullochapin one could say the same to you, yours is the original opinion, I find this funny, you're gonna voice your opinion, but tell others to shut up, you're gross mate.
@@Enzorgullochapin and it a fact that most atheists are common people, that's not an opinion.
If we believe in a Holy Creator God that created the universe, we cannot expect Him to abide by our expectations.
Remember the Holy Spirit is the one who does all the work, so the MOST that you can do is humble yourself and pray.
That's not a universal belief among Christians though. It may be your understanding, but I think it's fair to say there are people who would take issue with that stance.
Gotta say, I did enjoy this one much more than the last one. Good job guys 👌
Love these... kept checking the channel to see when it would be released.
Great episode. Feels like 2015 (the good ol' days?).
Also, those fabulous RED chairs... patent leather! Gloss-tasticK.
THATS MODALISM PATRICK!!! ugh Joe that was so good.
As John Cleese put it;
(imho) Most of the time Dawkins has no idea what he is talking about.
But the real thing is that he has no idea that he has no idea about what he is talking.
And he always displays confidence and a superior demeaner.
-
To understand the real Dawkins, one has just to watch Dawkins vs Jon Lenox.
And the real Dawkins is revealed there: humbled by the titanic mind of Lenox, respectfully pretending not to understand questions, barely trying to make sentences that could pass the mathematical mid of Lenox...
Pitiful.
-
And in the end, the damage this Dawkins type has done to the Western Civilization and Christian social vales is beyond criminal; to say the least.
The edited version of these types of videos is much better than doing it live.
bruh Dawkins’ face when that one girl was talking 🤣🤣🤣 why did he throw his head back like that 💀
B-b-but Richard Dawkins told me that evolution disproves God!!!
It certainly disproves Christianity.
@Robert Andersson no I don’t believe in invisible man in general.
Another debate(Long debate+Q&A ) between WLC and Alex malpass or wes Morriston would be interesting
That Aussie (and Kiwi) laughter at YEC/anti-evolution is why Ken Ham and Ray Comfort hitailed it to the USA. So many more marketing opportunities.
And yet, both men have had significant influence in both Australia and New Zealand. Laughter and ridicule is not meaningful in the long run. Laughing at something does not invalidate it or prove it to be untrue. In fact, people resort to ridicule when they don't actually have a valid argument based on facts and evidence.
@@dooglitas There's one born every minute. What is attributed to P.T. Barnum is true. I get some Pacific Island people knocking at my door from time to time evangelizing Moromonism. When I ask them about being white and delightsome back in the 1970s, they tell me they will have to consult their elders and get back to me. People are convinced by whatever evidence floats their boat. Included in the most sincere people I've ever met are Sikhs. Based on your reply, the facts and evidence presented by Guru Nanak should be seriously considered.
@@Simon.the.Likeable I have no idea how our last comment applies to anything I said.
I didn't say anything about sincerity. I said that ridicule is not a valid form of argument.
The fact that people laughed at young earth creationists is meaningless and has no probative value. Likewise, your entire previous comment has no probative value. If you want to discuss Mormonism or Sikhism, that's a different story. How Mormon missionaries behaved when they visited your home is irrelevant to this discussion. Do you have anything meaningful to say?
@@dooglitas Laughing YEC/anti-evolution out of the public forum is very valuable. They persist despite being proven wrong so laughter is warranted. The examples I gave were of people who were convinced by facts and evidence presented to them. I have no need to discuss whether their conviction was based on what was proven to them. Similarly, you have been convinced by what has been proven to you. Gary Habermas started with over a dozen facts. He is down to around four facts now. Mike Licona uses the fact of voodoo for his proof of the supernatural realm. Life is like that.
@@Simon.the.Likeable Sorry, but YEC has NEVER been "proven" to be wrong. The claim is made that they are wrong. Claiming something is not proving something. In the examples you gave, there was nothing in what you said that indicated that these people had anything "proven" to them by facts and evidence. What "facts" has Gary Habermas presented? I am unfamiliar with such "facts," and "facts" about what? What are you even talking about. YEC has NOT been proven wrong by anyone, certainly not by facts and evidence. The claim of the earth being 4 billion years old has never been "proven." It is a belief based upon flimsy evidence, at best. If you want to discuss facts and evidence, fine, but so far all you've done is say vague and confused things and made claims that are unsubstantiated. What exactly is the point you are trying to make here?
12:08 Cameron with the roasts! 😂
a friendly suggestion guys. some ppl are here just for the reaction and then there are your regular viewers and subscribers who are here whole the whole package of analysis and reaction. what you can do is react to the vid with as few pauses as possible and keep the discussion towards the end, in that way I or ppl like me won't be cursing the youtube algorithm for giving me a discussion vid when I was looking for a simple reaction vid. hope u get my point. cheers guys.
Tom Holland ( Spiderman ) The hoast of Majestry of Reason Is One of the Best apologetics no UA-cam
He isn't a "strident atheist"???? LOL - at the "Rally for Reason" on March 24, 2012, on the Mall in Washington, DC, Dawkins screamed at the crowd, instructing, “Mock Christians . . . ridicule them in public. Don’t fall for the convention that we’re all too polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table, religion is not off limits, religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated and challenged, and if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt." Dawkins has become an anathema even to his fellow "scientific atheists" as his science has been disproven, especially by geneticists.
What science do you mean has been disproven?
"His" science? Which one?
@@Apanblod macro-evolution as in one "kind" arising from another, just as Darwin's own words predicted on page 180 of his own book. There are no transitional fossils in the record, and, Darwin said if no transitional fossils were found, especially in the Cambrian explosion layer, then his "theory" was for not. Dawkins' "science", isn't.
The problem with an old age universe is that there are anomalies that give rise to doubts about what is the actual age. Objects that exist that appear to a billion years older than the rest of the universe.
The other problem is that a very specific convention in use today gives rise to an expectation of an old universe. If that convention is wrong and there is no way to determine if the convention is actually correct, we cannot even get to determine an approximate age of the universe.
It's a young universe made full mature just like tress, animals and Adam.
@@qaz-fi1id You have to be a little more careful than that. You have to be able to provide a means of garnering evidence from the universe around us to support that view. There are various YEC proponents who fail to do this adequately and simply rely on their interpretation of the bible without looking at the abundance of evidence that Almighty God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) has placed around us. You must be able to give reasonable and logical alternative explanations for what we do see and the interpretations that are assigned to that data.
For instance, we find that there is a very commonly held view that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is the best explanation for what we see. Interestingly, there are opponents to this theory who point out inconsistencies in the theory (you can find them scattered around the place). This theory posits that space and time are curved and that gravity is a spacial effect of this curvature. Interestingly Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is in direct conflict in that it assumes that space and time are not curved.
I have a number of papers regarding errors in Special Relativity. What I found interesting is that one paper strongly suggests that the result of Special Relativity for predicting the motion of Mercury is twice what is generally given. The problem here, for me, is that with Mercury being so close to our sun, we should expect SR to give the wrong results if GR is, in fact, correct that space and time is curved.
There are various anomalies that occur in the observations that do not match the expected predictions of GR. I find it interesting that when I have brought these up with professional physicists, they just seem to ignore these anomalies.
There are various experiments that we can do in the laboratory (even school science labs) that can provide alternative models. You won't find these alternatives discussed though. Again, I had an interesting response from a University based Physicist over this subject.
There is another factor here and that is there are far too many Christians who do not recognise that their view of Almighty God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is way too small. In recent times, I have been suggesting to Christians that they have a look at each of the recorded miracles in both the Old and New Testaments and try to imagine just how powerful Almighty God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is and just how in-comprehensively beyond us He is.
This reminds me I need to watch the Q&A episode where John Lennox appeared.
Firstly I’ve never met someone who lived his whole life believing in Santa and in adulthood started believing in Santa I’ve met a lot of people who spent their youth not believing in God and started to believe in God during adulthood. Secondly the so called skeptic morality by the Renaissance philosophers started in Christendom not in atheistic China and Kant said I’m sure of 2 things heaven is above and morality within. Thirdly Romans 2:14-15 NLT
Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. [15] They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right. That means that the law is sacred because the soul which is made in God’s image is sacred so that’s why morality comes with our humanity meanwhile the atheist must believe that we are moist robot as Darwin said But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
[To William Graham 3 July 1881] so who would have the wisdom to believe that we are moist robots and that there’s no God and still believe in the sacred of let’s say the sacredness of 1 life or the belief in liberty?
Finally Jürgen Habermas said "Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk." (Jürgen Habermas - "Time of Transitions", Polity Press, 2006, pp. 150-151, translation of an interview from 1999).
BTW Habermas is the 13th most renowned atheist in the World
i really think creationist just hate spoilers, don't tell them there is no god shh. lmao
Prove to me that santa clause does not exist!
Joe looks like Tobey Maguire from the Spiderman films.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on Colin Miller's recent videos about William Lane Craig.
Here is the original video (which is currently unlisted, on Colin's channel):
Famous Christian Apologist Says Genesis Is A “Myth”!: ua-cam.com/video/QFfL3Gq8S5A/v-deo.html
Below is the follow up video that he made, after Mike Winger commented on the original one:
Mike Winger CORRECTED Me About William Lane Craig!: ua-cam.com/video/apLL5Bht0Ls/v-deo.html
A similar video that you should see is “Richard Dawkins vs Cardinal George Pell on Q&A (10-4-2012)”. It was a very strange discussion.
Larry’s Dilemma:
Dawkins is my hero, absolutely. There is one assertion in the video that’s a tad annoying. The claim, that the arguments of Dawkins were a low bar, needs pondered. Just for a moment think of the full ramifications of that claim. Why would the defense or proof of god require a high bar? God is so hidden that its discovery or defense requires a degree in philosophy or the filtering of evidence for god requires tireless scholarship?
So which is it? Is the evidence of god written in our hearts or does finding god require a life of weighing the heaviest of arguments?
If god requires a high bar then this high bar is surely evidence against god especially if the god wants to be found. If god doesn’t require a high bar then why is the mud being thrown in Dawkins’ direction?
In short if god wants found, is loving, then then proving god should be as simple as proving a chair to a reasonable person. The fact it is not an easy proof suggests that god isn’t all loving and or doesn’t want to be found. Yet let’s throw mud at Dawkins anyway...
If a god is going to be all good, they would not punish someone forever. If a human believes fervently in one god and another human believes just as much in another, they cannot both be right. I don't think any god would punish either of them for their belief. Of course, I do not know :)
This is what happens when you let biologists out of the lab….
12:09 how is this anything like the actus purus thomist conception of God?
2:44 lol 😂
Why does it say "Request contains an invalid argument" when I click the notification bell?
As an atheist. Dawkins irritates me!
All Dawkins has is an upper-class English accent, confidence instilled in him by his private education & his charisma, which convinces the masses that he speaks with authority on Science. But his world views and evolutionary ideas can be quickly dismantled by anyone with proper intellect , which is why he won't debate them.
Are you saying that evolution doesn’t happen?
This one was way better, Joe was his usual careful self
Dawkins called the crucifixion horrible and depraved, yes i would call that disrespectful.
There is no time frame between creation of man and when he sinned. It could had been millions to billions of years. Who knows but God?
I have often wondered the same thing
@@tex959 no I’m saying the time before Eve could have been thousands or billions just Adam and God. Was not until sin death came and time for man started slowing down. I’m not saying that’s what it is but who knows? God knows, and 1 day to God is a 1000 years to us.
@@tex959 I’m thinking Adam and Eve started actually aging after sin, before death and sin was a thing, there was no sickness or death. So I would say Adams age was the time since sin began counting all the way to the cross of Christ Jesus.
It’s all speculation anyway, fun to think about.
@@tex959 The Jews speculate that Adam and Eve were 33 when they sinned. I’m just thinking they would have been on eternal time before sin. After sin time probably slowed down then after the flood maybe slowed even more.
At 4:00 thats actually false.
This isn't just a matter of admitting your opinion, it's a political trap masquerading as an expose of opinion on science.
The reason that's the case is because there's a popular secular rebuttal if he just said it bluntly, and that rebuttal isn't about his private opinion, but I'd couched in the idea that as a policy maker he can't be trusted to make policy since he will clearly impose his beliefs on others VIA policy. That's the modern anti-religion rallying cry in secular circles and I've had to contend with it in my own relationships. The motivation political fear which turns out the vote for some is that religious people are one election away from voting in an anti-science despotic theocracy.
That's why he kept replying that people should come to their own conclusions. He's carefully trying to avoid both the embarrassment of admitting to a pariah view, but also answering that his principles on the matter respects that individual citizens can and should come to their own conclusions and that he doesn't want to talk about his opinion in a way that seems proscriptive, because as soon as he boldly says "yes I do" it will immediately be politically spun as proscriptive.
No matter how he answers he's in the trap.
I don't understand how Richard Dawkins so called caricature of the atonement is any different from the view defended by William lane Craig. Can anyone explain it to me?
Hey TU! I don’t recall claiming that he caricatured the atonement. I said that he treated his articulation of the atonement as the only available Christian view. I also said (or implied) that he didn’t give any argument that the atonement was morally horrendous-he just kinda said it was.
@@CapturingChristianity thanks for the reply. Yes, caricature is my description and not a word you used. you called the view articulated by Dawkins modalism and described it as a heresy. I just looked that word and it seems to be something along the lines of unitarianism. I don't think the type of identity shared between the Son and the Father is a key part of Dawkins critique. On popular views there is some kind of unity between the Son and Father, enough to make the question of 'why God needs to protect us from what He's going to do to us if we don't accept His protection' a valid question.
And yes, Dawkins didn't really articulate an argument, he just appealed to intuition and did so with a lot of attitude, but I think there's something alluded to which is of substance. The only atonement theory which I can make sense of is moral influence theory.
One day I'll interview a Christian scholar on this and see if they can give me an alternative understanding which makes sense.
"Alvin Plantinga saying that the set of best feasible worlds that God could have created are the ones with the atonement and incarnation." Well, wasn't that precisely what Dawkins was asking implying it was absurd? The point was if anyone could seriously believe that the almighty powerful God, amongst the set of best possible worlds he could've created, couldn't have saved humanity without the blood and torture sacrifice...
0:22 that was awkward.
Richard Dawkins gets irritated by "irrationality" but has no idea what that word even means. He gets annoyed by a lot of things he doesn't remotely understand.
So true.
28:30 It was a great response by Dawkings. He did not use any fallacy and showed a pragmatist and conversationalist view of ethics. The pragmatist view of ethics makes actually a lot more sense than what Joe said about "intrisic value and dignity" in a naturalist world view. In the pragmatist view, the "foundation" of morality made by the moral ontology is not needed and doesn't make sense.
What is the intrinsic value and dignity I the naturalist worldview? How can a naturalist come up with intrinsic value and dignity in the naturalist worldview without foundation and ontology
@@vanessac0382 For me, they are nothing but words in a language. And it is enough
@@etincardiaego if that's how you see it, then your statement itself doesn't have a meaning, I wonder why there's a necessity for sense, if your statement are nothing but words in language. If you deny meaning, you shouldn't ask for a meaning because stating something doesn't make sense is begging for meaning
@@vanessac0382 Yes, it does have a meaning. I'm very wittgensteinian, the meaning is its use. It is not self-contradictory, I don't deny that words have meanings
@@vanessac0382 The apologetics response "your statement is self-defeating" only works with naive sophomore relativism, it does not work with developed philosophies that are more "relativistic" or "skeptic"
Is Dawkins trying to imply that self-sacrifice is a bad and/or absurd concept?
I think Dawkins may have realized how silly this would have come across so he didn't push the point and let it go.
I would assume only in the context of a maximally powerful deity sacrificing some portion of himself to save humanity from something he himself has inflicted upon them. That doesn't really apply to self-sacrifice in general.
@@Apanblod Yeah, nuance is a real issue with live discussions like this. But I'm unsure if that was what he was trying to get at. Even if it was, well, that distinction would have been difficult to get across in a live conversation since most people intuitively believe that any type of self sacrifice is morally commendable and logically coherent.
@@Apanblod
And your own formulation of the objection is a caricature of Christian theology. God doesn't have parts. The Son sacrificed himself. And there's no reason to think Jesus/the Son directly made Adam and Eve sin.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl @Jimmy I don't understand what you mean by 'logically coherent' as it relates to the notion of self-sacrifice.
If Jesus isn't one 'part' of the trinity, but instead an integral manifestation of it (as in the notion that all three persons are 100% god), then I don't see how it doesn't follow that the son was also 100% responsible for the preconditions of reality. But I was more so focusing on the father regardless.
I realise that saying that Jesus is one part of God is a caricature, at least to some extent, and my intention was admittedly to make the notion sound slightly more ridiculous compared to how a Christian would present it. But, the concept of the trinity is fairly incomprehensible to begin with, and at least as far as I can tell, logically incoherent 😉
@@Apanblod
The Father wasn't sacrificing anything during the atonement. That responsibility fell solely on the shoulders of the Son. The Son voluntarily underwent suffering and death for the sake of the elect. That's divine self-sacrifice in a nutshell. And that's why Christianity champions self-sacrifice; the concept is the heart of Christian ethics.
I want to return to god.
I would love to answer Dawkins 😂😂
The problem is that the age of the earth being billions of years old is NOT a fact. It is a belief, which is based upon very flimsy evidence. Likewise, evolution is not a fact. It is also a belief that is based upon very flimsy evidence. I don't understand why Christians feel embarrassed to agree with what the Bible clearly states instead of trying to make it fit pagan ideology.
Do you take the bible literally or metaphorically? Which bible do you use?
@@matthew_kohai3 I take the Bible as it is meant to be taken. There are many metaphors in the Bible. I take those metaphorically. Historical literature, such as the Book of Genesis, I take literally, as they are meant to be taken.
I use the King James Bible, and I use the original Greek and Hebrew as well.
@@dooglitas They are embarrassed by it because they know damn well that their view is nonsense and has no grounding in reality.
@@jacoblee5796 Well, their "view" is not nonsense and is well grounded in reality. The so-called "science" that says the earth is billions of years old is not based on scientific facts. It is based on assumptions and the alleged age of a meteor. For that reason, Christians have no need to be embarrassed.
@@dooglitas How does one determine what is to be taken literally and what is only metaphor?
Religious fanatic : Show me the evidence of the evolution here and now
Dawkins : ._.
Also Dawkins : Show me the evidence of The existence of God here and now
Theist Philosophers : ._.
Dawkins is immensely overrated. If you want challenging atheist debator I recommend Christopher Hitchens.
The dead one?
@@tex959 everyone you mentioned is overrated
WLC and Frank Turek are incredibly overrated.
@@tex959 George Carlin (he's overrated too but does make some honestly good observations)
@Robert Andersson "you can't prove there is a God using philosophy."
Lofty claim there, Andersson. And a philosophical one at that. Prove your claim.
The lack of belief thing is fine, the majority of people who lack belief in god believe there is no god as well, so not sure what they are on about around 10:10
Hi Colin, to lack a belief in God implies agnosticism. One lacks a belief in God but doesn't necessarily believe that he doesn't exist. An atheist believes - actively - that the universe exists in a state of Godlessness. That there is no God.
@@CJ-sw8lc That's one of the philosophical definitions which I don't care for.
The standard definition is just to lack a belief, since a-theism is NOT theism, so not a belief in god(s).
People like to use the other definition as it seems to put atheists on a level footing with theists as they both will have a claim or belief.
@@colinjava8447 you contradicted your OP
@@colinjava8447 Yeah it’s all about childishly switching the burden of proof.
@@colinjava8447 I'm not sure. I think a-theism means - actively - "I believe the universe exists in a state of a-theism". Rather than just claiming to not be certain either way. Using the term that way will clear up confusion, give us a tight way to express our ideas (theism, agnosticism and atheism) and also sure - it'll help us to identify a burden of proof. A theist tends to believe in a God but can't be 100% certain. An atheist tends to believe there are no gods but also can't be certain. An agnostic says 'I don't believe in God, nor do I necessarily fully disbelieve." Many self-described atheists seem to occupy that camp. I don't like the usage of the word 'atheism' then, but... I also can't stop anyone doing it 😁
But, Santa Claus does exist 😉
Yes, St.Nicholas really existed xD
@@johnnybrave7443 yes, and Santa Claus still answers the letters of children today 😊
@@jameshenry3583 I don't know what St.Nicholas does today though lol
But he sure is the patron saint for children 😁
@@johnnybrave7443 check out this video from Jonathan Pageau. You'll get what I mean from that.
ua-cam.com/video/fXnef2Ltklg/v-deo.html
Cameron : why don't you verify your UA-cam channel? it already has more than 100 k subs so
Dawkins is not smart, he's just insulting.
If we believe there is a God that Created everything all powerful ,loving ,just, ect then we shouldn't expect God to be subject to us like a genie in a bottle to prove whatever we want or God would be subject to us then not God then bit us mote then God,God is God.
I think you guys are missing the mark on the clip where you mention that Dawkins doesn't grasp the difference between moral ontology vs. moral epistemology. It is pretty clear that Richard does not believe in an objective morality at least insofar as it is defined as absolute morality (which is how the questioner put it). He then went out to state what his issue is with specific examples of religious morality and how if you believe in objective morality based on religion then you have to confine yourself to these things being correct. Which to him is quite absurd, especially in light of the moral progression we see in today's society. By doing so, did he go beyond the scope of the question? Absolutely. But so what?
Also, Cameron, your critique regarding bad things happening under atheist rule is mistaken. Atheism does not prescribe moral truths so anything done by an atheist leader is not in virtue of his atheism, the same cannot always be said about religious rulers.
Please react to this video where Joe Rogan DESTROYS Religious fundamentalism ua-cam.com/video/y5nyyupLskI/v-deo.html (Spoiler alert: He makes New Atheists look philosophically informed)
Dawkins's disregard for Jesus crucifixion shows how foolish he is.
The Bible already said that God will catch the "wisemen" in their own craftiness.
Dawkins's ego does not allow him to understand the meaning of it and that shows how foolish he is.
So basically your rebuttal to almost every point made is “no true Scotsman.” Brilliant. Lol. Just keep splitting hairs if it makes you feel better.
Haha!
2:27 Dawson: "youre a parliamentarian and you..." dont believe in evolutionism.
He sounds like a narcissists dictator, not allowing certain people to have jobs, because of their beliefs (ie. if they dare to believe something else than himself).
Thank God Dawson is not a politician.
Wouldn’t you be worried if a leader who makes decisions on behalf of your state believed that electricity was made by unicorn farts? Completely ignoring his science advisors explaining to him how Coal and Solar power works. Will he do a good job if he has to vote on energy related bills?
This is what it is like to deny the scientific consensus on the age of Earth and Biological Evolution.
*Dawkins
@@Tinesthia Well, there is nothing to worry, mate. Most politicians are ALREADY not the smartest people around and your fairy tale example is unrealistic and suggests an irrational standpoint.
Belief means to trust a person. In this context, it means "trust in GOD". Youre basically calling to deny "Christians" the right to become politicians and you explain this radical and hateful view with unicorn farts. Whats next? The destruction of female rights because of on aliens?
In the middle ages, the "scientific consensus" was significantly different than it is now. In the 1940s, doctors were advertising for cigarettes. Psychology is called science today, just 10 years ago it was called esoteric hocus pocus. Even Hitler based his whole race theory on amaaaazing science... "Scientists" are humans just like you are and they are not infallible all-knowing gods. They make mistakes all the time. People were wrong back then and they are wrong now, that is why it is called "the current state of science", it is changing all the time (and not ALL scientists agree on one theory).
Next time the "current scientific consensus" changes, they will call it "a new scientific discovery". They will not say "all the other scientists before us were wrong". How do I know? They do it everyday :) Free yourself from the indoctrination of your science-gods, youre allowed to think on your own!
19:54 it’s rather discouraging that an agnostic has superior theological intuition than most contemporary evangelicals
First!
HELLO!
So Dawkins made fun of a few views. It's not like he went over to their land and killed them for believing in Jesus...
Huh, it's not like this is a genetic fallacy and that I could point out atheist atrocities.
@@TheEpicProOfMinecraf I don't think many atrocities were done in the name of atheism. The God of Atheism doesn't says to kill those evil people on this land because it was promised to us!
@@gabrielteo3636 Welp, I guess the murderous slaughter of hundreds of millions of people to protect the god of communism doesn't count
@@TheEpicProOfMinecraf That was for communism...a dictator system. It was not done for atheism. God is the dictator in your system. Commanding Genocide, drowning millions of babies, etc.
Atheism is not a dictator system.
@@gabrielteo3636 Ah, so atheism doesn't impact morality or anything like that? Atheist moral judgments are somehow free of that necessity. It's just religious moral judgments that require examination because, as we know, religious people never disagree and are 100% in agreement with whatever you slander them with.
We know there is a possibility that dinosaurs with man now. Seeing how they found bones of T-Rex with soft tissue.
Citation?
How does Dawkins explain life? Or why evolution happens at all?
Sometimes the best answer is we do not know.
@@matthew_kohai3 Bullsh*t.
He makes a living out of denying God.
If he can't plausibly explain how evolution can create or sustain life (including why it happens at all), then why does he accept it?
Same thing for the origins of life. God apparently is not a plausible reason, but others explanations are plausible? Why?
@@zeraphking1407 I don't know.
@@matthew_kohai3 Probably because Dawkins is great at science, a failure at philosophy.
@Robert Andersson Is that comment science or philosophy?
Third comment!!
Oops 4th
You are twisting yourself in argument and scripture. How much easier and more pleasurable to just live.
Jesus's sacrifice is not much of a sacrifice. He made the universe. Surely God can take a little pain. It's not as if it will kill him or anything. I'll tell you what. Jesus allowed himself to be crucified save a people on Earth. I'll volunteer the same to get rid of all baby cancer. God can kill them later as adults with another disease God created. I'm not asking for much.
K. I love you guys but react is not your thing.
Christianity is Myth and False
You are neither rational nor a skeptic.