Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
You totally missed the point of Dawkin's response to the guy....I've seen the video and I got it as soon as he said something but I don't see how people like you keep missing the point.
Dude, Are you in Japan trying to convert Japanese people. Then I would like to ask you, to leave japanese alone. Why don't you try to convert the fcking muslins that are here in Jp doing a mess in our culture?!
And about dawkins, there's nothing anybody could say to make fool of what he said. Because that s really true. Any stupid could understand.
This video was an incredibly long "scenic route" explaining something that could've been expressed simply with "Because the question was bullsh*t." No further explanation is needed. Even my 5 year old nephew understood how it was fundamentally flawed.
Heres what I think, There is more then what we see, but not a God. There is something much bigger and until we have the soures to prove it......It's wrong !!!!!!
Nice try in defending Dawkins! But no cigar! Poor, poor explanation. The question was what if you are wrong concerning God of the Bible. Even Dawkins understood that she came from a Christian background.
Cheers man. Being in heaven for eternity filled of devote Christians would be pretty boring... If I was God a heaven filled with free thinking Atheists seems far more interesting.
Once again, this does not answer the question "What if you're wrong?" Everybody could be wrong. If you understand that simple thought then what is the point in labeling yourself as an atheist or agnostic if you yourself under that even YOU could be wrong?
Once again, this does not answer the question "What if you're wrong?" Everybody could be wrong. If you understand that simple thought then what is the point in labeling yourself as an atheist or agnostic if you yourself understand that even YOU could be wrong?
Your question makes no sense. Athiesm is defined as a lack of a belief in a god. Even if they turn out to be wrong, it doesn't make their lack of a belief a belief (though I suppose if they find out they're wrong, they would change, but it doesn't change the past or the term). Much the same as you still would have lived as a christian or whatever if you found out you were wrong.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@bustachaina Oh I see what you're doing. Saying that it's me who misunderstands the question, and then saying "leave it be" in a condescending manner, when the real reason is you can't debate your side anymore, you know you can't, you know you're wrong, and so you have to resort to methods like that to get me to let it go, when really, it's you that needs it to go away. No thanks. If you want to leave this discussion because you can't hold your own, that's fine, but by no means am I leaving.
@Pinworm4 Oh, I see what you're doing. You're upset because you can't get a simple thought without being spoon-fed and saying "it makes no sense." But, of course, you'll want to reply with "I'm not upset at all :)" but you really are so obviously by the tone of the last post. So, you use some reverse psychology spouting "You just can't debate anymore.. blah blah blah" to get me to spoon-feed your dumbass. Well, too bad I don't fall for angry dumbfuck antics. Have a good day.
@Pinworm4 dont think you got wat busta was saying as he makes a good point. it's the need to label oneself even as atheist, one who doesnt believe in a god, even though it's kinda paradoxical at the same time to believe you COULD be wrong. especially with people as adamant to discredit religions as dawkins and the many atheists. same with christians, except the difference is if a christian did believe he could be wrong.. then he CANT be called a christian. (btw im not religious at all)
And, Eyedunno, before asking others to do some research on evolution, may you inform others of what research you have done on religion? Because I did not get the impression that you knew all that much about Shinto or Hinduism (and you might be interested in what Hinduism has to say about the nature of the soul, and the nervous system etc).
Rhodri0110, I think you misheard and misunderstood Dawkins. When he speaks of a pink unicorn, he is not using an arbitrary example; he is referring to the mock religion of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU), and he is not saying "doo-doo" at the bottom of the sea, but "juju" - an African word describing a place or thing of mystical power.
My hearing IS terrible - gives me a really hard time practising Japanese - and I may look up IPU (if I can tolerate the tone of the material). But in a sense it doesn't matter so much here.
"Mock religion"? Juju at the bottom of the ocean?
We all know there are problems with religion (although I have to add religions don't kill people - people kill people).
But science at this point in time offers neither an explanation for everything nor disproof of "God."
The tone of the IPU is nothing like Dawkins, it's actually quite humorous. 'Satirical' is probably a better term than 'mock' religion.
"People kill people" is an oversimplification. A great many things define a "person", including their beliefs. Religion cannot directly kill people, but it can indirectly incite violence.
And no, science does not offer an explanation for everything, but this is not positive evidence for God. There is no need to "disprove" God until he is first "proven".
But the fact that God is outside the bounds of current physical science is not proof of, or even suggestive of, his existence. This leads into the 'God of the Gaps' issue.
Further, I don't think we need to be able to understand God scientifically in order to be able to register his presence via science. A scientifically verified miracle, for example, could do the trick.
OrdinaryClay has a good point, but I think such a short response would have been unsatisfactory. Granted, Dawkins should have acknowledged that there *may* be consequences, but he doesn't really know; but such an answer is very ambiguous.
It's like asking someone whether the theory of gravity is correct. Theoretically it could be wrong; thus, "I don't know" is the proper answer, but not the most fulfilling. The best answer acknowledges the low probability of its falsity, and Dawkins did this.
What I meant by the correct answer not being the most fulfilling was that it's so straightforwardly obvious that it has no real meaning. I would have preferred Dawkins to include the 'I don't know answer', but the answer he gave was much more informative.
By 'miracle', I mean something that violates the physical order of the universe and could only be accomplished through divine means. Abiogenesis is possible within the bounds of science.
XD But scientific / theological debate is the most fun!
How in the blue hell is life a 'scientifically verified miracle'. Ignoring the fact that a miracle, by definition, can not be scientifically verifiable, what exactly are you trying to say? How has science proven life to be divine intervention to any degree?
He didn't humilate her. The laughing response from the audiance made it seem that way. Though, she probably does feel humilated because you have to know it's all silly. Like still believing in Santa after you've grown up.
There was no false dichotomy. Either Dawkins is right and there is no God or he is wrong and there is a God. That is a true dichotomy. It is a red herring to sidetrack the question with theistic variations. The correct answer is "If Dawkins is wrong then there are supernatural consequences for him". As a Christian I don't understand why atheists are afraid of saying this unless of course they actually do fear that they may be wrong.
If you presume the supernatural does not exist then they are all equally plausible. If you grant the premise that the supernatural exists then they are not equally plausible.
If you grant the supernatural then it is irrational to believe all the supernatural claims are equally plausible. If the supernatural exists then yes Christ's resurrection is more plausible then other resurrection claims given the evidence.
This list of debates contains a good collection of deductive and inductive arguments. Google william-lane-craig-comprehensive-debate-list
You can keep repeating that, but you have no way of gauging the plausibility of super-natural phenomena. By definition they obey no natural laws, so logic, reason, and experiment will be useless.
I just gave you a list of debates that make logically sound arguments and build the progression I mentioned. The sequence is thus ... does the supernatural exist, what are the characteristics of this supernatural, are all supernatural claims equally plausible.
Obviously a youtube comment section is not suited to discussion. Your posts are just bald claims also.
Haha, you just gave me a link to a site with about 200 debates on them.
You really expect me to watch all of those just so you don't have to make an argument? Sorry, I don't have that much free time.
Let's just do this: for the sake of argument i will grant the first part (though I disagree with it). Explain what the characteristics are or how observational data can be gathered or what laws govern teh supernatural...anything.
I'm expecting you to do some homework and expend some effort other then shallow bald claims. Any genuinely intellectually curious person would. Watching or listening to one debate in each section is sufficient. As is clearly shown in the section on the Resurrection of Jesus there is plausible evidence that a physical resurrection best fits the evidence once you assume a supernatural is possible.
I'm happy to watch someone make the claim you're advancing, but you have to direct me to something specific.
I can't say, "Evolution is true, go read encyclopedias." I would at least give you a letter to begin with.
Either make an argument or direct me to the argument you want to make. I will not watch 200hrs of theist nonsense just to try and figure out what the hell claim you're making.
And there are more recent first hand accounts of rezzes in India.
why did you waste your time making this. dawkins explained the inclusive nature of faith perfectly. the value of any various religious ideology is qualified by your belief in it. the fact that you believe it is the only thing that could make it mean anything, ever. and it only means anything to the person who believes it. why are you talking about shintoism when youre obviously a filthy self centered christian
Yeah you DON'T KNOW! READ: Darwin converted on his death bed?! There is documented proof that Darwin was visited by; Elizabeth Reid Stapleton-Cotton, born 1842 affectionately known as "Lady Hope" This was during his last months before his passing. So can I get you to post a video with sarcasm about this occurrence? You know, "DARWIN" mingling with an evangelical before his death? Woah, looks like Darwin changed his mind right before kicking the bucket!
No, there is absolutely no documentation of Darwin's supposed death-bed conversion. All we have is Elizabeth's claim, which is refuted by Darwin's widow.
You give this Dawkins guy waaay too much credit... he didnt think within 3 seconds of all these things.. i believe he didnt know how to answer so he explained how you would believe in a different "god" if you were born under someone who believes in a different "god" to think alil :\ he could have simply said "If im wrong? well then.. i would be wrong" but he didnt even say that... because he has already decided that he is right and wrong isnt an option lol but sadly he is wrong
out of all of those hundreds and hundreds and thousands of possible gods humans have created through out history, none have stood the test of time. Somehwere, at some point in time someone comes up with a better idea (comparetively). Why should the gods we have now be any different? And how did you come to the conclusion that he was wrong? You didn't expand on that. What's your reasoning? Can you give one without incorporating "faith"?
Why would i give a reason without incorporating faith? you already seem to know why i think he is wrong.. so lets leave it at that :) but if you care to talk send me a PM
Dawkins has proven over and over that skepticism is the only logical position to take - does he have to restate his entire philosophy for a stupid question? Also, Dawkins wasn't asked to prove he was right, he was asked what would happen if he were wrong. The answer basically implied "The same thing that would happen if you were wrong". I'm sorry you are too mentally handicapped to figure that out.
The problem is that the question was itself flawed. "What if you're wrong?" Irrelevant. It is entirely irrational to believe something "just in case". And with this particular issue, the question is downright stupid, because everyone face the exact same "risks" regardless of beliefs. What if there IS a god but your beliefs are wrong? What if the god doesn't care? What if there ISN't a god, but still a hell? What if deeds are important rather than beliefs (which would actually make sense)?
Says the person who said that he already is convinced he's right, and then you end your saying with 'sadly he is wrong' showing that YOU are convinced you are right. Hypocrisy at it's best. How can you say something like that, and then make a statement at the end declaring you more ignorant than him? What give you this extra right?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL YOU'RE SO RIGHT! WE ARE ALL WRONG AND SHOULD ALL THINK THAT WE ARE ALWAYS WRONG YIPOEEE!!! its my opinion you moron.. course i think im right.. DUH i mean really? dont be stupid :( if i were to be asked "what if you'er wrong" then i wouldnt be stupid about it
He never said we should think we are wrong. He basically batted the question right back at her, because it applies just as much to her as him. Her asking that question basically is saying he should be worried if he's wrong. When in turn she should be just as worried because she could equally be wrong with the religion she chose.
Also, a lot of religions have some pretty nasty things in store for people who are non believers. Which one is the right one? Hmm, they all have the same chance to be right. I can't decide. I think I'm gonna decide religion is man made and enjoy my life without having to do tedious rituals or whatnot.
What the facts is, every person is given that choice. Which supports religion being man made whether there is a 'god' or not. The fact that 'god' gave me a draw in the hat choice for religions, I feel to choose neither until they make up their minds and get at least one form of evidence. The fact that someone can talk to god and I can't, and they know what he wants is crazy. Especially when these people were from a time of superstitious mythical stories in their language. Lol So man made
Sorry The question Did not give a religion , but referred to any religion or belief. The Question ask as to just being a Non believer and a God Shows up on earth to Redeam all and not you.
Sorry there was no question of hell or anything of it.
The question was just plain your a non-believer and a GOD of any religion of some kind , shows up.
All I heard from you is dancing about tring to make a no ended answer. You can dance good but not good enough to get out of this one.
The question was NOT "a god of any religion of some kind shows up". The question asked was one that is ONLY asked by tunnel-visionned religious people, who place atheism opposite their own specific religion. The girl's question would be more accurately rendered as, "what if I'm right?"
If his point is that "religion is not true", he's got a long way to go toward proving that, since there's absolutely no way of doing so. Henri Bergson was an accomplished scientist convinced there was a transcendent reality. There's no way to prove otherwise. If religion can be downright evil, take a look at some of the lovely products of the secular arm: the Soviet Union, Mao, Stalin, the list goes on and on. Methinks you need to consider these things, Davey.
That's bullshit. Dawkins has staked his name and reputation on the absurd idea that "religion ruins everything", just like that war mongering drunk Hitchens. He was just another scientist before he started grandstanding. He's a little like the Marilyn Manson of atheism; he tries to shock, but he can't pull it off unless the believer is weak minded or not well read.
Nope. Dawkins does not even contend that "religion ruins everything." His point is that religion is not true, not supported by scientific evidence and yes, that it can be downright evil. But the morality or social effect of religious belief isn't really his focus. It's truth claims that matter.
And no, Dawkins wasn't just another scientist. He was - and is -one of the world's preeminent and most widely read evolutionary biologists.
idunno??? well done, you've added tremendous credibility to you video right from the word GO! lol. you're an intellectual wanna be who can't string together more than half a sentence without the use of an elementary school level script while trying to be philosophically in tune. better stick to playingwith the tassles on your pillow..... at least you didn't start fondling something else. its people like you who really make youtube annoying!
You make youtube annoying! Clearly you did not watch the hole video, you're being dishonest, you did not understand the arguments, or all of the above.
This isn't a question he really wanted to answer, because, in his view it makes no relevance to his point of view. the same way that if you ask me why i am an atheist, my answer would be, because i dont believe in theism. if you were to reword her question, you would say "Why are you an atheist", or some like.
Richard Dawkins is a dimestore skeptic who puts the history of more sophisiticated atheism to shame. As a Catholic I might get be provoked into further thought--though I'm beyond that, having read Thomas Merton, Teilhard De Chardin, etc--into some actual thought. Not by that clown. All he's doing is preying on the consumerist, pathetic little "counterculture" of philosophy undergrads.
He's a biologist, the only reason he cares at all about creationists is because they make his life as a Biologist harder by being insane and trying to disprove evolution with sheer retardation.
He was dragged into this "debate", why don't you learn something before talking about it-- Oh, sorry, must have missed "As a Catholic".
There is no proof of any GOD, therefore you cannot prove that a God does not exist. But we can prove that Man does make up godly figures.
Main example... Santa! A man made god like figure that can see when our children are sleeping and awake and know when they are good and bad. Performs a miracle every year by delivering store bought goods to all good children in 1(one) night.... WOW.
So if man can make up Santa isn't it possible that man made up god??? YES
There are also religions that worship reptiles and amphibians. Religions that worship the sun, moon, etc. and others that worship statues and stones. These are very different from a God in a book. All religions were created by man. All man should be questioned by what they speak and write, especially men from the past that were primal and not so educated.
It was Dawkins intention to humiliate her. But in trying to do it he implied falsely that she (maybe everyone) are only the religion they are raised to be. Of course, we know this is false because people do convert to religions they were not raised. Not only that but Atheists who were raised atheists under communism covert to religious belief. So the insult was not even based on any real fact.
It is a fact that people from different countries usually do convert to the religion that country believes in. I have a simple way of showing it. Look at every kind of country with different religions - dont you think there are more hindu's in India, more muslims in Iran and more christians in England?
Sure thing there are exceptions like you said. But thats how it generally is. The evidents are RIGHT infront of you. AND if you go back say like 500 years there would be A LOT less mixed beliefs.
There is a brilliant video on youtube that shows how religion spred around the world where you can see it for yourself if you havent paid any attention at school in religion or history.
Otherwise educate yourself before making... well before making stupid responses.
Came you imagine asking Rick Warren if "he is wrong" in a similar setting? This question wouldn't even come up. This question is weak cause it has been asked million times before. It is a question that Christians use because lack of faith of Christ leads to hell.
If you believe G*d works in the world. It is very safe to say there is a reason for me born into a particular religious practice. I assume the spirit of G*d is involved in our birth, for we come from G*d. So conversion is false.
It's good you make the point about how pain, memory, and emotions all depend on the brain. We can't imagine what a soul would be, as its a flawed notion to begin with.
The atheist god. Another YouTuber who goes by the name ConstantlyQuestion said something similar in one of his videos. If anyone is interested in checking it out, type "What if the atheists are right?" in the subject bar above.
her question is just that ridiculous. His answer should make one think the obvious, religious traditions are tied to time and cultural identity. They are man made constructions. and as they go through time seem to be ever less properly even understood.
all religions are equally unlikely and many are exclusive in their existence. christians believe that all non-christians will go to hell. muslims believe all non-muslims will go to hell. and so on. for this reason, the question is flawed. what if i'm wrong about WHAT? about my opinion that god does not exist? if he does exist, you still have to show why it is that your choice of god is the correct one. this is another HUGE leap of faith that can't be justified.
Hell is not exclusively for Animists or Atheists. Some already started here serving time early. There will be some preachers burning, also. The dichomatic answer is: Then perhaps you are right. If I CT scan him, can science tell us if he is animist or atheist? So why did ANY scientist say we are apparently built to communicate with a higher power? We didn't choose a god like a Hindu, God chose us.
I'm so freakin' tired of those nostradamians. All of the "prophecies" are bullshit. There's a Randi video where he addresses this with the help of Penn & Teller. You could probably type in "penn and teller nostradamus" into the search and find it. They pwn those idiots. It's pretty funny.
its sad some ppl will categorise hinduism wid judeo -christianic -islamic religion .ppl please read and study hinduism, dont go by the popular notions.we dont believe in peronal god at the true philosophical level.we r so close to atheism it might surprise many!
I don't, while I'd be upset if it's true, I'd want to remain where ever the evidence lies. If evidence suggests there is a horrible spitefully vain god is real, then I'd believe in it. Although, the evidence really does support an atheist point of view ^_^ So I'll see you in hell with Plato, Gandhi, Aristotle, etc.
The Koran says that if you believe in GOD you will "have nothing to regret". How can you be so sure that the basic ideology of all FAITHs is different? Atheism soley stands against this. There is no comparisson.
A brain can do many things, but when it is dead, it is dead. What makes you so sure that suffering and humilation would be absent in an afterlife you don't believe in?
Unseen GOD, Unseen soul: likeness.
Many are ingorant in regards to Evolution. Atheism seems to feed on that.
It would be really neat if God designed the universe to give evidence that God doesn't exist, if only so that the intelligent species could learn to exist on their own rather than lean on higher powers.
Fnog said"why is the title The God Delusion an insult? It IS the truth, afterall."
Well it is my OPINION that the name is meant to insult anyone who is not atheist. His feild in the science isn't psychology last time I checked. That means that his opinions on the subject of religious people mental states are no more legitimate than anyone elses. Neither are your opinion anymore legitimate than anyone else...
Well it was my opinion that the title isn't insulting.... and relgious people will take offense because they are overly self righteous, easily offended, and cannot stand the idea that they may be wrong. Nothing was added to the discussion here so... let the people decide........
Fnog said"Nothing was added to the discussion here so.." How would you know what was added to the discussion. You don't even know what the discussion is!!! Pathetic...
Yo, internet chump. Not everyone is as dumb as you.... no one on friggin youtube quotes the person who replied directly above them.... every damn time!! You dumb ass! So if you can't figure out what I'm talking about even though my reply is directly above your last comment, it's because you are a stupid piece of shit. You miss the "context" of my posts because you are too dumb to figure anything out.
Fnog said"no one on friggin youtube quotes the person who replied directly above them.... " then he ended saying"You miss the "context" of my posts because you are too dumb to figure anything out."
Huh? Dude, your an idiot! The quotes are to put what I'm specifically responding. We over analytical types don't just ramble on off subject. We will let the "PEOPLE" decided though. LOL...Silly child....
oh really? You don't ramble on? I made one single God damned point about the book title not being insulting, and every single other post you have made is a bunch of bullshit whining about absolutely NOTHING!!! Eat the truth, bitch.
Uh, no sir that would be you doing the rambling(and now ranting as THE PEOPLE and myself can see). Whining? I wouldn't whine to you sir. You'd be too simple minded to be of help with anything I had problem with. You wouldn't know the truth if it came up and bit you son.
I don't have a response. I'm just laughing at how low this guy has been beat down. Adn you started off like you actually had something so say. It was off subject but at least you tried. now look at you. What a pity...No your definetly not my therapist Fnog...
Fnog earlier said"Oh I am so done with this thread."
What happen? Thought you were exiting o'Superiorone. OH, I guess that would mean I'm the superior one then huh? I mean just look at what I've reduced reduced you to. Talk about an INTERNET CHUMP! Running about talking trash on youtube post. You have no teeth here CHUMP! Accept it and keep moving...
Fnog said"I made one single God damned point about the book title not being insulting"
AHEM!!!I call the PEOPLE's attention to exibit A(The hisory of post). It can clearly be seen that Fnog indeed did not make any such point. In fact you can see where he himself characterized his statement as a "challenge". You can also see that he was responded to, both politely and appropriately, at all times. Now he's behaving like an "INTERNET CHUMP"...lol...Lets keep this going. I have more...
Fnog says"you should tell these brilliant argumnents to your therapist to show how smart you are"
And they are brilliant arguments aren't they. So brilliant you can't refute any of them. Hence the hissy fit a la Internet Chump tantrum you chose to throw instead of being adult enough to recognize when to go sit down and hush...Weak...ok, I'm done pounding on you now. Take care...
I don't think the book was written to insult religious people-I think it was more to stand up for the rights of atheists.I know in my area, I cannot go to the best 6th form in my area because I am an atheist,even though I am a good student.Also, according to Richard Dawkins documentary(ye ye, tell me its a set up)some american atheists have been given less rights becuase of their beliefs.
Rights? You mean like your constitutional rights have been denied you somewhere because you are an atheist? Who did it? When? Where? I really am curious in knowing...
Nothing "chump" about it o'Mature One. I offered to address you on whatever arguement you wanted, as long as you actually got aquainted with the context of what I(netslosh) said. Now your copping out. You're the chump who is to big of a coward to have an adult conversation. Grow up please! I will address you challenge though don't worry.
yeah, whatever. I just wanted to see what kind of overly analytical internet chump response you would come up with.
I didn't care about the discussion you were having with some internet chump. I took exception to you saying that the title "God Delusion" is insulting. If you don't want to respond, I don't care. People will read my point for themselves and decide whether I made a point or not.
Fnog said"People will read my point for themselves and decide whether I made a point or not."
You mean you self deluded enough to think you have actually made a point. What type of IDIOT did you evolve from? Tell you what the next time you hear grown folks talking, get some where and shut your mouth.
Fnog said "Even when I tell you exactly what I'm doing, you fall right back in to the trap."
You've laid no trap o'Simple one. You lack the attention span it would require. You couldn't handle the heat now your trying to act like you never came in the kitchen. This is your last attempt at pretending you have an ounce of wit. Pathetic!
Fnog said"yeah, whatever. I just wanted to see what kind of overly analytical internet chump response you would come up with."
Oh please COWARD. You made a very weak attempt to engaged me in a battle of wits when you clearly weren't armed. You were to simple minded to put your thoughts in context. Now your just pitching a fit because you got owned.
Fnog said "I took exception to you saying that the title God Delusion is insulting."
Uh, yea...it is. And, given Dawkins expressed views on religion and religious people in general, it was more than likely intended to be so. His prefered tactic in any conversation concerning anything that does not line up with his view point is ad hominem. I'd say it his specialty.
that's great. My point still stands. You really didn't add anything to what was said in the first place.... so.... people will read my original point and let them decide if it's valid. Funny how you went so crazy demanding that I "take your discussion in context", but you finally ended up responding afterall because you realized that I am superior and worthy of a response. You should have just done that in the first place. Lesson learned by you.
Fnog ACTUALLY said"you finally ended up responding afterall because you realized that I am superior and worthy of a response." Really? I thought I was just being candid(do you know what that means). Here it turns out that I had so much respect for your superiority(?) this whole time. Right, keep dreaming.
Fnog said "That's what the book is about, internet chump. Try reading it."
What is what the book is about? That some peoples opinions are valid and others aren't? CONTEXT here would be nice seeing as you insist on ingoring the conversation that was going on before you came to persue a whole other subject.
The question was flawed, though eyedunno doesn't articulate it very well. There are lots of people that could be wrong-and could suffer when they die because they didn't believe in the "right thing".Plus it's a rubbish question,because whatever evidence Rich pull outs, whatever he does,she can always throw back "what if you wrong?"It's like the "why" question posed by young children- it is unanswerable,and allows no room for discussion.
The question isn't rubbish at all. Lots of people always get their panties all in a bunch because they feel Christains think they're right about everything. The question turn the same back on a man who has made a career not of just educating the world about the theory of evolution and relevant scientific findings, but also insulting a lot of other people convictions(i.e.books writing books call the "GOd Delusion").
why is the title "The God Delusion" an insult? It IS the truth, afterall. Or at least a legitimate opinion. Yeah, Christians do often think they're right about everything, and get offended by any other beliefs. Proof of this is found in people like you who take offense to other beliefs. If your faith is so strong, what do you care if someone else doesn't believe? Weak.
First, off to call the title a legitimate opinion(since we have al this talk about fallacies going) is a fallacy. 1. ALL "opinions" are legitimate to the extent that they are opinions. 2. You don't know me or what I get offended by(therefore you have "proof" of nothing)so please get over yourself. I don't know how much of the conversation you actually read before replying to my statement(Hello CONTEXT?).
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
You totally missed the point of Dawkin's response to the guy....I've seen the video and I got it as soon as he said something but I don't see how people like you keep missing the point.
nowthatdayhascome7 7 months ago
Are you missing your lower limbs?
DanDanthechiroman 8 months ago
Dude, Are you in Japan trying to convert Japanese people. Then I would like to ask you, to leave japanese alone. Why don't you try to convert the fcking muslins that are here in Jp doing a mess in our culture?!
And about dawkins, there's nothing anybody could say to make fool of what he said. Because that s really true. Any stupid could understand.
falecomjorge 9 months ago
Dude...
Bikandee 9 months ago
This video was an incredibly long "scenic route" explaining something that could've been expressed simply with "Because the question was bullsh*t." No further explanation is needed. Even my 5 year old nephew understood how it was fundamentally flawed.
Keiichi81 9 months ago
There is nothing wrong with your voice.
manchesterfellow 10 months ago
Comment removed
katiegould3000 10 months ago
Eyedunno why i was watching this....
DaSpudanator 11 months ago
10 MINUTE AND 31 SEC OF ...BULLSHIT.........
sdcorfu 1 year ago
Heres what I think, There is more then what we see, but not a God. There is something much bigger and until we have the soures to prove it......It's wrong !!!!!!
Tom6093 1 year ago
Nice try in defending Dawkins! But no cigar! Poor, poor explanation. The question was what if you are wrong concerning God of the Bible. Even Dawkins understood that she came from a Christian background.
mandarino53 1 year ago
lol what a fag, get a chair.
Muhammadisatroll 1 year ago
Jesus man buy a chair!
Wezzipooh 1 year ago
Atheist God?! - Ok........ no thats a paradox in itself.
Kirogami 1 year ago
nerd in the video...you are too smart for internet trolling..please go cure cancer.
699backstab 1 year ago
“The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ ” Psalms 14:1
SpcMedia21 1 year ago
@SpcMedia21 Oh oh ... I read something similar ... here goes: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is God.' " Internet - Google
Mathill42 1 year ago
Imbecile
kiwimike1000 1 year ago
Trying to get the discussion going again, Pinworm? LOL
Rhodri0110 1 year ago
Cheers man. Being in heaven for eternity filled of devote Christians would be pretty boring... If I was God a heaven filled with free thinking Atheists seems far more interesting.
NYCAustinNYC 1 year ago
Once again, this does not answer the question "What if you're wrong?" Everybody could be wrong. If you understand that simple thought then what is the point in labeling yourself as an atheist or agnostic if you yourself under that even YOU could be wrong?
bustachaina 1 year ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
Once again, this does not answer the question "What if you're wrong?" Everybody could be wrong. If you understand that simple thought then what is the point in labeling yourself as an atheist or agnostic if you yourself understand that even YOU could be wrong?
bustachaina 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The point is anybody can be wrong about their faith or lack thereof.
shanejacobus 1 year ago
Comment removed
Fuggyfug 1 year ago
@shanejacobus that is exactly what busta was saying.. lol wow ppl are crazy slow
ClarkMoi 1 year ago
Your question makes no sense. Athiesm is defined as a lack of a belief in a god. Even if they turn out to be wrong, it doesn't make their lack of a belief a belief (though I suppose if they find out they're wrong, they would change, but it doesn't change the past or the term). Much the same as you still would have lived as a christian or whatever if you found out you were wrong.
Pinworm4 1 year ago
@Pinworm4 I can only spoonfeed a simple question so many times. Leave it be now, dear.
bustachaina 1 year ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@bustachaina Oh I see what you're doing. Saying that it's me who misunderstands the question, and then saying "leave it be" in a condescending manner, when the real reason is you can't debate your side anymore, you know you can't, you know you're wrong, and so you have to resort to methods like that to get me to let it go, when really, it's you that needs it to go away. No thanks. If you want to leave this discussion because you can't hold your own, that's fine, but by no means am I leaving.
Pinworm4 1 year ago
@Pinworm4 Oh, I see what you're doing. You're upset because you can't get a simple thought without being spoon-fed and saying "it makes no sense." But, of course, you'll want to reply with "I'm not upset at all :)" but you really are so obviously by the tone of the last post. So, you use some reverse psychology spouting "You just can't debate anymore.. blah blah blah" to get me to spoon-feed your dumbass. Well, too bad I don't fall for angry dumbfuck antics. Have a good day.
bustachaina 1 year ago 10
@Pinworm4 dont think you got wat busta was saying as he makes a good point. it's the need to label oneself even as atheist, one who doesnt believe in a god, even though it's kinda paradoxical at the same time to believe you COULD be wrong. especially with people as adamant to discredit religions as dawkins and the many atheists. same with christians, except the difference is if a christian did believe he could be wrong.. then he CANT be called a christian. (btw im not religious at all)
chickenlol13 1 year ago 5
@Pinworm4 ouch you got pwned lololololololol
ClarkMoi 1 year ago
And, Eyedunno, before asking others to do some research on evolution, may you inform others of what research you have done on religion? Because I did not get the impression that you knew all that much about Shinto or Hinduism (and you might be interested in what Hinduism has to say about the nature of the soul, and the nervous system etc).
Rhodri0110 2 years ago
Refering to unicorns and dogshit at the bottom of the ocean WAS unneccessary and insulting, and extremely arrogant.
You cannot defend Dawkins from that, and I rather think he is old enough and experienced enough to defend himself.
And show more humility in doing so.
Everyone knows that there are different religions and beliefs - even the girl who asked, I suspect.
Rhodri0110 2 years ago
Rhodri0110, I think you misheard and misunderstood Dawkins. When he speaks of a pink unicorn, he is not using an arbitrary example; he is referring to the mock religion of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU), and he is not saying "doo-doo" at the bottom of the sea, but "juju" - an African word describing a place or thing of mystical power.
Mistwraith99 1 year ago
My hearing IS terrible - gives me a really hard time practising Japanese - and I may look up IPU (if I can tolerate the tone of the material). But in a sense it doesn't matter so much here.
"Mock religion"? Juju at the bottom of the ocean?
We all know there are problems with religion (although I have to add religions don't kill people - people kill people).
But science at this point in time offers neither an explanation for everything nor disproof of "God."
Rhodri0110 1 year ago
The tone of the IPU is nothing like Dawkins, it's actually quite humorous. 'Satirical' is probably a better term than 'mock' religion.
"People kill people" is an oversimplification. A great many things define a "person", including their beliefs. Religion cannot directly kill people, but it can indirectly incite violence.
And no, science does not offer an explanation for everything, but this is not positive evidence for God. There is no need to "disprove" God until he is first "proven".
Mistwraith99 1 year ago
Wow - I wondered why I got kicked out of youtube mid-type :). You replied.
If I recall my research training properly, the issue with God was in science, a hypothesis must be falsifiable - that is, able to be disproven.
He/she is something outside the bounds of current physical science, which is simply the mechanics - the how - of the natural world.
And frankly, if you COULD prove the existence of God, then a whole other can of worms would be opened.
Rhodri0110 1 year ago
BTW - OrdinaryClay makes a good point re. Dawkins answer to the girl's question.
If he is wrong there MAY be supernatural consquences for him.
"I don't know" might also have been a good response - I think it is the most underused sentence in the English language :)
Rhodri0110 1 year ago
But the fact that God is outside the bounds of current physical science is not proof of, or even suggestive of, his existence. This leads into the 'God of the Gaps' issue.
Further, I don't think we need to be able to understand God scientifically in order to be able to register his presence via science. A scientifically verified miracle, for example, could do the trick.
Mistwraith99 1 year ago
OrdinaryClay has a good point, but I think such a short response would have been unsatisfactory. Granted, Dawkins should have acknowledged that there *may* be consequences, but he doesn't really know; but such an answer is very ambiguous.
It's like asking someone whether the theory of gravity is correct. Theoretically it could be wrong; thus, "I don't know" is the proper answer, but not the most fulfilling. The best answer acknowledges the low probability of its falsity, and Dawkins did this.
Mistwraith99 1 year ago
Hmmmm. The correct answer is not the best answer? Because it is not fulfilling?
Sounds like an argument FOR religion.
And LIFE is a scientifically verified miracle - notwithstanding the argument in the IPU video (EdwardCurrent).
Providing it is not all simply an illusion.
In which case, whose illusion?
Maybe all scientific and theological debate should be banned just because it gives me a headache LOL.
Rhodri0110 1 year ago
What I meant by the correct answer not being the most fulfilling was that it's so straightforwardly obvious that it has no real meaning. I would have preferred Dawkins to include the 'I don't know answer', but the answer he gave was much more informative.
By 'miracle', I mean something that violates the physical order of the universe and could only be accomplished through divine means. Abiogenesis is possible within the bounds of science.
XD But scientific / theological debate is the most fun!
Mistwraith99 1 year ago
How in the blue hell is life a 'scientifically verified miracle'. Ignoring the fact that a miracle, by definition, can not be scientifically verifiable, what exactly are you trying to say? How has science proven life to be divine intervention to any degree?
Pinworm4 1 year ago
i think by "beleive" in other entities and such phrase was ment in a way that says dont follow their way, for eg..
ofcourse they exist the bible even speaks of fallen angels.
theyve been corrupting the world for a long time, wars n what not.
masacrist 2 years ago
He didn't humilate her. The laughing response from the audiance made it seem that way. Though, she probably does feel humilated because you have to know it's all silly. Like still believing in Santa after you've grown up.
LooseOnTheLonghorn 2 years ago
Well considering Santa had real roots (aka was a real person), maybe we should determine if God really does have real roots.
Azrael24 2 years ago
There was no false dichotomy. Either Dawkins is right and there is no God or he is wrong and there is a God. That is a true dichotomy. It is a red herring to sidetrack the question with theistic variations. The correct answer is "If Dawkins is wrong then there are supernatural consequences for him". As a Christian I don't understand why atheists are afraid of saying this unless of course they actually do fear that they may be wrong.
OrdinaryClay 2 years ago
That's not true at all.
Religions make mutually exclusive claims. The christian god is incompatable with all other gods because the Bible claims exclusivity.
What if there is a God, but he didn't have anything to do with the Bible and he's pissed that so many people fell for such an obvious fraud?
Maybe the "real" god prefers neutral atheists to people buying into competing religions.
There are a multitude of equally plausible supernatural theoris, you chose one.
TBlake34 2 years ago
"What if there is a God, ..."
Like I said. There is or there isn't and there are supernatural consequences. We will all find out sooner or later.
" ... equally plausible ... "
This is an atheist myth.
OrdinaryClay 2 years ago
All supernatural ideas have the same plausibility.
Is it more plausible for a man to walk on water than it is for Dalai Lama to be reincarnated?
Jesus was the son of a god, Hercules was the son of a god, which one is more plausible?
It's all magical bullshit, all equally impossible.
TBlake34 2 years ago
If you presume the supernatural does not exist then they are all equally plausible. If you grant the premise that the supernatural exists then they are not equally plausible.
OrdinaryClay 2 years ago
So Jehova impregnating Mary is more plausible than Zeus impregnating Leta?
Or Jesus' ressurection is more plausible than the millions of ressurections claimed in India?
Or it's more plausible to walk on water than have a salamander tell you where to find magic plates written by God?
YOu should say, "Once I've decided that one set of fairy tales is literally true, it's easy to complain that the others aren't."
Of course that first step is the height of irrationality.
TBlake34 2 years ago
If you grant the supernatural then it is irrational to believe all the supernatural claims are equally plausible. If the supernatural exists then yes Christ's resurrection is more plausible then other resurrection claims given the evidence.
This list of debates contains a good collection of deductive and inductive arguments. Google william-lane-craig-comprehensive-debate-list
OrdinaryClay 2 years ago
You can keep repeating that, but you have no way of gauging the plausibility of super-natural phenomena. By definition they obey no natural laws, so logic, reason, and experiment will be useless.
All you have is emotional bias, it's pathetic.
TBlake34 2 years ago
I just gave you a list of debates that make logically sound arguments and build the progression I mentioned. The sequence is thus ... does the supernatural exist, what are the characteristics of this supernatural, are all supernatural claims equally plausible.
Obviously a youtube comment section is not suited to discussion. Your posts are just bald claims also.
OrdinaryClay 2 years ago
Haha, you just gave me a link to a site with about 200 debates on them.
You really expect me to watch all of those just so you don't have to make an argument? Sorry, I don't have that much free time.
Let's just do this: for the sake of argument i will grant the first part (though I disagree with it). Explain what the characteristics are or how observational data can be gathered or what laws govern teh supernatural...anything.
TBlake34 2 years ago
I'm expecting you to do some homework and expend some effort other then shallow bald claims. Any genuinely intellectually curious person would. Watching or listening to one debate in each section is sufficient. As is clearly shown in the section on the Resurrection of Jesus there is plausible evidence that a physical resurrection best fits the evidence once you assume a supernatural is possible.
OrdinaryClay 2 years ago
That's a weak cop out.
I'm happy to watch someone make the claim you're advancing, but you have to direct me to something specific.
I can't say, "Evolution is true, go read encyclopedias." I would at least give you a letter to begin with.
Either make an argument or direct me to the argument you want to make. I will not watch 200hrs of theist nonsense just to try and figure out what the hell claim you're making.
And there are more recent first hand accounts of rezzes in India.
TBlake34 2 years ago
why did you waste your time making this. dawkins explained the inclusive nature of faith perfectly. the value of any various religious ideology is qualified by your belief in it. the fact that you believe it is the only thing that could make it mean anything, ever. and it only means anything to the person who believes it. why are you talking about shintoism when youre obviously a filthy self centered christian
tommorello 2 years ago
Yeah you DON'T KNOW! READ: Darwin converted on his death bed?! There is documented proof that Darwin was visited by; Elizabeth Reid Stapleton-Cotton, born 1842 affectionately known as "Lady Hope" This was during his last months before his passing. So can I get you to post a video with sarcasm about this occurrence? You know, "DARWIN" mingling with an evangelical before his death? Woah, looks like Darwin changed his mind right before kicking the bucket!
pitolove71 2 years ago
No, there is absolutely no documentation of Darwin's supposed death-bed conversion. All we have is Elizabeth's claim, which is refuted by Darwin's widow.
Gilmaris 2 years ago
Well done Eyedunno, thanks.
skyzthelimi7 2 years ago
You give this Dawkins guy waaay too much credit... he didnt think within 3 seconds of all these things.. i believe he didnt know how to answer so he explained how you would believe in a different "god" if you were born under someone who believes in a different "god" to think alil :\ he could have simply said "If im wrong? well then.. i would be wrong" but he didnt even say that... because he has already decided that he is right and wrong isnt an option lol but sadly he is wrong
KONGtuffSu 2 years ago
out of all of those hundreds and hundreds and thousands of possible gods humans have created through out history, none have stood the test of time. Somehwere, at some point in time someone comes up with a better idea (comparetively). Why should the gods we have now be any different? And how did you come to the conclusion that he was wrong? You didn't expand on that. What's your reasoning? Can you give one without incorporating "faith"?
nichogue 2 years ago
Why would i give a reason without incorporating faith? you already seem to know why i think he is wrong.. so lets leave it at that :) but if you care to talk send me a PM
KONGtuffSu 2 years ago
Dawkins' answer either implies that
1.belief in any deity is subject to being "wrong;" or 2.his answer simply implies that anybody can be wrong so stop assuming you're right.
answers corresponds to top supposed implications.
1. Any deity is subject to being wrong, so this question is irrelevant since Dawkins don't believe in a deity. So this is throw out the window.
2. Anybody can be wrong, including Dawkins/atheism.
So his answer is insufficient to the question.
FaithisNOTblind 2 years ago
For an answer to suffice for that question, one must assume one's "wrongness" and prove his position as being right. Dawkins fails.
FaithisNOTblind 2 years ago
i agree :) Dawkins fails.
KONGtuffSu 2 years ago
Dawkins has proven over and over that skepticism is the only logical position to take - does he have to restate his entire philosophy for a stupid question? Also, Dawkins wasn't asked to prove he was right, he was asked what would happen if he were wrong. The answer basically implied "The same thing that would happen if you were wrong". I'm sorry you are too mentally handicapped to figure that out.
aamesxdavid 2 years ago
The problem is that the question was itself flawed. "What if you're wrong?" Irrelevant. It is entirely irrational to believe something "just in case". And with this particular issue, the question is downright stupid, because everyone face the exact same "risks" regardless of beliefs. What if there IS a god but your beliefs are wrong? What if the god doesn't care? What if there ISN't a god, but still a hell? What if deeds are important rather than beliefs (which would actually make sense)?
Gilmaris 2 years ago
Says the person who said that he already is convinced he's right, and then you end your saying with 'sadly he is wrong' showing that YOU are convinced you are right. Hypocrisy at it's best. How can you say something like that, and then make a statement at the end declaring you more ignorant than him? What give you this extra right?
Raherin 2 years ago
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL YOU'RE SO RIGHT! WE ARE ALL WRONG AND SHOULD ALL THINK THAT WE ARE ALWAYS WRONG YIPOEEE!!! its my opinion you moron.. course i think im right.. DUH i mean really? dont be stupid :( if i were to be asked "what if you'er wrong" then i wouldnt be stupid about it
KONGtuffSu 2 years ago
He never said we should think we are wrong. He basically batted the question right back at her, because it applies just as much to her as him. Her asking that question basically is saying he should be worried if he's wrong. When in turn she should be just as worried because she could equally be wrong with the religion she chose.
Raherin 2 years ago
Also, a lot of religions have some pretty nasty things in store for people who are non believers. Which one is the right one? Hmm, they all have the same chance to be right. I can't decide. I think I'm gonna decide religion is man made and enjoy my life without having to do tedious rituals or whatnot.
Raherin 2 years ago
that's your choice. i can't make it for you. but be aware there are consequences for our actions and the one you made is pretty important
KONGtuffSu 2 years ago
What the facts is, every person is given that choice. Which supports religion being man made whether there is a 'god' or not. The fact that 'god' gave me a draw in the hat choice for religions, I feel to choose neither until they make up their minds and get at least one form of evidence. The fact that someone can talk to god and I can't, and they know what he wants is crazy. Especially when these people were from a time of superstitious mythical stories in their language. Lol So man made
Raherin 2 years ago
cool for Dawkins; he is trying to sell books. good for him. he doesn't need to coddle. no worries.
sdinger74 2 years ago
Sorry The question Did not give a religion , but referred to any religion or belief. The Question ask as to just being a Non believer and a God Shows up on earth to Redeam all and not you.
Sorry there was no question of hell or anything of it.
The question was just plain your a non-believer and a GOD of any religion of some kind , shows up.
All I heard from you is dancing about tring to make a no ended answer. You can dance good but not good enough to get out of this one.
turtle4aire 2 years ago
The question was NOT "a god of any religion of some kind shows up". The question asked was one that is ONLY asked by tunnel-visionned religious people, who place atheism opposite their own specific religion. The girl's question would be more accurately rendered as, "what if I'm right?"
Gilmaris 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Richard Dawkins if he is really honest, he must admit that he will burn in eternal hell as in the Bible.
He is not honest and is bent on his own ideas .. which he cannot "prove"..
Who cares to take the words of a dishonest fellow like Richard Dawkins ???
somebody answer me ..
bablusagar 2 years ago
If his point is that "religion is not true", he's got a long way to go toward proving that, since there's absolutely no way of doing so. Henri Bergson was an accomplished scientist convinced there was a transcendent reality. There's no way to prove otherwise. If religion can be downright evil, take a look at some of the lovely products of the secular arm: the Soviet Union, Mao, Stalin, the list goes on and on. Methinks you need to consider these things, Davey.
hopkins4545 2 years ago
That's bullshit. Dawkins has staked his name and reputation on the absurd idea that "religion ruins everything", just like that war mongering drunk Hitchens. He was just another scientist before he started grandstanding. He's a little like the Marilyn Manson of atheism; he tries to shock, but he can't pull it off unless the believer is weak minded or not well read.
hopkins4545 2 years ago
Nope. Dawkins does not even contend that "religion ruins everything." His point is that religion is not true, not supported by scientific evidence and yes, that it can be downright evil. But the morality or social effect of religious belief isn't really his focus. It's truth claims that matter.
And no, Dawkins wasn't just another scientist. He was - and is -one of the world's preeminent and most widely read evolutionary biologists.
Methinks though doth protest too much.
hazydavey 2 years ago 2
jones what a great insult.....lol
Ac3rino 2 years ago
idunno??? well done, you've added tremendous credibility to you video right from the word GO! lol. you're an intellectual wanna be who can't string together more than half a sentence without the use of an elementary school level script while trying to be philosophically in tune. better stick to playingwith the tassles on your pillow..... at least you didn't start fondling something else. its people like you who really make youtube annoying!
jonesmrsa 2 years ago
You make youtube annoying! Clearly you did not watch the hole video, you're being dishonest, you did not understand the arguments, or all of the above.
larserka 2 years ago
WORD!
this guy is using false and contrived information. there was sooo much bad data in here. GOD DAMN IT LOL!!!!
MykkaM 2 years ago
This isn't a question he really wanted to answer, because, in his view it makes no relevance to his point of view. the same way that if you ask me why i am an atheist, my answer would be, because i dont believe in theism. if you were to reword her question, you would say "Why are you an atheist", or some like.
tubajedimaster 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@-)--
click on my name for the u r l to see how we won James Randi's Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge...
@-)--
nostradamus2001 2 years ago
Richard Dawkins is a dimestore skeptic who puts the history of more sophisiticated atheism to shame. As a Catholic I might get be provoked into further thought--though I'm beyond that, having read Thomas Merton, Teilhard De Chardin, etc--into some actual thought. Not by that clown. All he's doing is preying on the consumerist, pathetic little "counterculture" of philosophy undergrads.
hopkins4545 2 years ago 3
He's a biologist, the only reason he cares at all about creationists is because they make his life as a Biologist harder by being insane and trying to disprove evolution with sheer retardation.
He was dragged into this "debate", why don't you learn something before talking about it-- Oh, sorry, must have missed "As a Catholic".
ZakFrost 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
!! Click on my name for the U R L to see how we won James Randi's Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge !!
nostradamus2001 2 years ago
There is no proof of any GOD, therefore you cannot prove that a God does not exist. But we can prove that Man does make up godly figures.
Main example... Santa! A man made god like figure that can see when our children are sleeping and awake and know when they are good and bad. Performs a miracle every year by delivering store bought goods to all good children in 1(one) night.... WOW.
So if man can make up Santa isn't it possible that man made up god??? YES
Phantastek 2 years ago
I'm more interested in where you're kneeling than the content of your speech, are you in Japan?
ElJefer 2 years ago
There are also religions that worship reptiles and amphibians. Religions that worship the sun, moon, etc. and others that worship statues and stones. These are very different from a God in a book. All religions were created by man. All man should be questioned by what they speak and write, especially men from the past that were primal and not so educated.
hforthe 3 years ago 2
I love your video my budy!!!
For real, I LOVE IT!!!
entuausencia 3 years ago
where the hell are you in this video?
n1krobe 3 years ago
The question every ATHEIST must answer:
/watch?v=_4SeGelF0vY&feature=PlayList&p=4EB0971B0C2E4019&index=5
/watch?v=Q4H4BPrd4HA
/watch?v=t45wxUddOaM&feature=PlayList&p=452C7D87F4BD0FD9&index=16
SerpentSlayer1 3 years ago
OMFG! You have nervous twitches! And you is smarts. I like you!
intelligentfalling 3 years ago
You lost me at Hello........
Jerzey55 3 years ago
If Dawkins humiliated her she is really thin skinned. Can you imagine how many times Dawkins gets hit with this question?
Just because someone asks you someone a question there under no obligation to answer it the way you want it to be answered.
jdquarg 3 years ago
It was Dawkins intention to humiliate her. But in trying to do it he implied falsely that she (maybe everyone) are only the religion they are raised to be. Of course, we know this is false because people do convert to religions they were not raised. Not only that but Atheists who were raised atheists under communism covert to religious belief. So the insult was not even based on any real fact.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
It is a fact that people from different countries usually do convert to the religion that country believes in. I have a simple way of showing it. Look at every kind of country with different religions - dont you think there are more hindu's in India, more muslims in Iran and more christians in England?
Sure thing there are exceptions like you said. But thats how it generally is. The evidents are RIGHT infront of you. AND if you go back say like 500 years there would be A LOT less mixed beliefs.
Devilsnightforlife 3 years ago
There is a brilliant video on youtube that shows how religion spred around the world where you can see it for yourself if you havent paid any attention at school in religion or history.
Otherwise educate yourself before making... well before making stupid responses.
Devilsnightforlife 3 years ago
Came you imagine asking Rick Warren if "he is wrong" in a similar setting? This question wouldn't even come up. This question is weak cause it has been asked million times before. It is a question that Christians use because lack of faith of Christ leads to hell.
If you believe G*d works in the world. It is very safe to say there is a reason for me born into a particular religious practice. I assume the spirit of G*d is involved in our birth, for we come from G*d. So conversion is false.
jdquarg 3 years ago
It's good you make the point about how pain, memory, and emotions all depend on the brain. We can't imagine what a soul would be, as its a flawed notion to begin with.
diwr 3 years ago
The atheist god. Another YouTuber who goes by the name ConstantlyQuestion said something similar in one of his videos. If anyone is interested in checking it out, type "What if the atheists are right?" in the subject bar above.
shanejacobus 3 years ago
Why would you even bother responding to that nut.
mclwlsh3 3 years ago
I know perfectly well that you cannot reason with people like that, but there's no harm in trying.
shanejacobus 3 years ago
Hello Eyedunno!
Thanks for that. I like it very much.
And thanks for "the atheist god", which is a really nice idea.
Rauskucker 3 years ago
her question is just that ridiculous. His answer should make one think the obvious, religious traditions are tied to time and cultural identity. They are man made constructions. and as they go through time seem to be ever less properly even understood.
zoskiaist 3 years ago
Are you in a Japanese restaurant in this video
syrett76 3 years ago
I think he lives in Japan ;)
TheAntiCreationist 3 years ago
right on the money.
all religions are equally unlikely and many are exclusive in their existence. christians believe that all non-christians will go to hell. muslims believe all non-muslims will go to hell. and so on. for this reason, the question is flawed. what if i'm wrong about WHAT? about my opinion that god does not exist? if he does exist, you still have to show why it is that your choice of god is the correct one. this is another HUGE leap of faith that can't be justified.
mcfly17 3 years ago 2
Well said, mcfly.
shanejacobus 3 years ago
Hell is not exclusively for Animists or Atheists. Some already started here serving time early. There will be some preachers burning, also. The dichomatic answer is: Then perhaps you are right. If I CT scan him, can science tell us if he is animist or atheist? So why did ANY scientist say we are apparently built to communicate with a higher power? We didn't choose a god like a Hindu, God chose us.
HighestRank 3 years ago
Congratulations. You are the first poster whom I have subscribed too.
shanejacobus 3 years ago
I am a athiest. His point being there are some things all people don't believe in. Point explained.
justjessx 4 years ago
Great video, shows the absurdity of choosing any religion because they are all human creations
tominator452 4 years ago 2
You again....
Your cfi nostra link is B.S. I checked the forums and you're the only delusional one there, not Prof. Dawkins. Who the hell are "we" anyway?
Canaximander 4 years ago
I'm so freakin' tired of those nostradamians. All of the "prophecies" are bullshit. There's a Randi video where he addresses this with the help of Penn & Teller. You could probably type in "penn and teller nostradamus" into the search and find it. They pwn those idiots. It's pretty funny.
bigalisme 4 years ago
Good video, subscribed.
TheOptimisticSkeptic 4 years ago
excellent video! and i liked your voice and the whole way you conducted yourself.
TextAndViolence 4 years ago
its sad some ppl will categorise hinduism wid judeo -christianic -islamic religion .ppl please read and study hinduism, dont go by the popular notions.we dont believe in peronal god at the true philosophical level.we r so close to atheism it might surprise many!
manishchoffla 4 years ago
If believing in a unpleasant, jealous....malevolent bully god is right, then I want to remain wrong ok.
lakumbar 4 years ago 3
I don't, while I'd be upset if it's true, I'd want to remain where ever the evidence lies. If evidence suggests there is a horrible spitefully vain god is real, then I'd believe in it. Although, the evidence really does support an atheist point of view ^_^ So I'll see you in hell with Plato, Gandhi, Aristotle, etc.
Killua2001 4 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you look like a GAY BOY
jonaspluss 4 years ago
Then he looks great! Gay is cool. Gay is beautiful
samonedo 4 years ago 6
That's ad hominem you moron. It doesn't count as an argument.
trollunderthebridge 4 years ago
The Koran says that if you believe in GOD you will "have nothing to regret". How can you be so sure that the basic ideology of all FAITHs is different? Atheism soley stands against this. There is no comparisson.
A brain can do many things, but when it is dead, it is dead. What makes you so sure that suffering and humilation would be absent in an afterlife you don't believe in?
Unseen GOD, Unseen soul: likeness.
Many are ingorant in regards to Evolution. Atheism seems to feed on that.
shonaisapunkrocker 4 years ago
o I forgot to put is before my ha ha
elfpants 4 years ago
Paul McCartney was abducted by aliens and turned into lime Jell-O, I'm wrong, period.
that would make me sad cause Paul is no good if he is Jell-O =[ ....even if he my favorite kind of Jell-O
even though I am a Christian If Paul said he was God I would belive him ha ha lol
elfpants 4 years ago
It would be really neat if God designed the universe to give evidence that God doesn't exist, if only so that the intelligent species could learn to exist on their own rather than lean on higher powers.
aleceth 4 years ago
i agree with him, but he just spent 10 and a half mins saying nothing.
ressueh 4 years ago
retard
frankb85 4 years ago
Fnog said"why is the title The God Delusion an insult? It IS the truth, afterall."
Well it is my OPINION that the name is meant to insult anyone who is not atheist. His feild in the science isn't psychology last time I checked. That means that his opinions on the subject of religious people mental states are no more legitimate than anyone elses. Neither are your opinion anymore legitimate than anyone else...
Sheltonsummons 4 years ago
Well it was my opinion that the title isn't insulting.... and relgious people will take offense because they are overly self righteous, easily offended, and cannot stand the idea that they may be wrong. Nothing was added to the discussion here so... let the people decide........
fnog9 4 years ago
Fnog said"Nothing was added to the discussion here so.." How would you know what was added to the discussion. You don't even know what the discussion is!!! Pathetic...
netslosh 4 years ago
The people will decide that. Lol!! Not that many will read it. Oh I am so done with this thread.
fnog9 4 years ago
Fnog said "The people will decide that"
Yea right, like there's gonna be some kinda electoral primary run off decided on what your talking about.
netslosh 4 years ago
Yo, internet chump. Not everyone is as dumb as you.... no one on friggin youtube quotes the person who replied directly above them.... every damn time!! You dumb ass! So if you can't figure out what I'm talking about even though my reply is directly above your last comment, it's because you are a stupid piece of shit. You miss the "context" of my posts because you are too dumb to figure anything out.
fnog9 4 years ago
Fnog said"no one on friggin youtube quotes the person who replied directly above them.... " then he ended saying"You miss the "context" of my posts because you are too dumb to figure anything out."
Huh? Dude, your an idiot! The quotes are to put what I'm specifically responding. We over analytical types don't just ramble on off subject. We will let the "PEOPLE" decided though. LOL...Silly child....
netslosh 4 years ago
oh really? You don't ramble on? I made one single God damned point about the book title not being insulting, and every single other post you have made is a bunch of bullshit whining about absolutely NOTHING!!! Eat the truth, bitch.
fnog9 4 years ago
Fnog asked"You don't ramble on?"
Uh, no sir that would be you doing the rambling(and now ranting as THE PEOPLE and myself can see). Whining? I wouldn't whine to you sir. You'd be too simple minded to be of help with anything I had problem with. You wouldn't know the truth if it came up and bit you son.
netslosh 4 years ago
whine whine whine, bitch bitch bitch. Excellent points you made there.
fnog9 4 years ago
LOL! Fnog said"whine whine whine, bitch bitch bitch"
I don't have a response. I'm just laughing at how low this guy has been beat down. Adn you started off like you actually had something so say. It was off subject but at least you tried. now look at you. What a pity...No your definetly not my therapist Fnog...
netslosh 4 years ago
Fnog earlier said"Oh I am so done with this thread."
What happen? Thought you were exiting o'Superiorone. OH, I guess that would mean I'm the superior one then huh? I mean just look at what I've reduced reduced you to. Talk about an INTERNET CHUMP! Running about talking trash on youtube post. You have no teeth here CHUMP! Accept it and keep moving...
netslosh 4 years ago
Fnog said"I made one single God damned point about the book title not being insulting"
AHEM!!!I call the PEOPLE's attention to exibit A(The hisory of post). It can clearly be seen that Fnog indeed did not make any such point. In fact you can see where he himself characterized his statement as a "challenge". You can also see that he was responded to, both politely and appropriately, at all times. Now he's behaving like an "INTERNET CHUMP"...lol...Lets keep this going. I have more...
netslosh 4 years ago
you should tell these brilliant argumnents to your therapist to show how smart you are.
fnog9 4 years ago
Fnog says"you should tell these brilliant argumnents to your therapist to show how smart you are"
And they are brilliant arguments aren't they. So brilliant you can't refute any of them. Hence the hissy fit a la Internet Chump tantrum you chose to throw instead of being adult enough to recognize when to go sit down and hush...Weak...ok, I'm done pounding on you now. Take care...
netslosh 4 years ago
i'm not your therapist, brilliant one.
fnog9 4 years ago
Fnog said "Well it was my opinion that the title isn't insulting"
Isn't insulting to whom, you? Nevermind, I should stop slaughtering your arguments. Your unarmed and its not fair.
netslosh 4 years ago
I don't think the book was written to insult religious people-I think it was more to stand up for the rights of atheists.I know in my area, I cannot go to the best 6th form in my area because I am an atheist,even though I am a good student.Also, according to Richard Dawkins documentary(ye ye, tell me its a set up)some american atheists have been given less rights becuase of their beliefs.
Mopolop123 4 years ago
Rights? You mean like your constitutional rights have been denied you somewhere because you are an atheist? Who did it? When? Where? I really am curious in knowing...
netslosh 4 years ago
That's what the book is about, internet chump. Try reading it.
fnog9 4 years ago
Fnog said "You are just an internet chump."
Nothing "chump" about it o'Mature One. I offered to address you on whatever arguement you wanted, as long as you actually got aquainted with the context of what I(netslosh) said. Now your copping out. You're the chump who is to big of a coward to have an adult conversation. Grow up please! I will address you challenge though don't worry.
Sheltonsummons 4 years ago
yeah, whatever. I just wanted to see what kind of overly analytical internet chump response you would come up with.
I didn't care about the discussion you were having with some internet chump. I took exception to you saying that the title "God Delusion" is insulting. If you don't want to respond, I don't care. People will read my point for themselves and decide whether I made a point or not.
fnog9 4 years ago
Fnog said"People will read my point for themselves and decide whether I made a point or not."
You mean you self deluded enough to think you have actually made a point. What type of IDIOT did you evolve from? Tell you what the next time you hear grown folks talking, get some where and shut your mouth.
netslosh 4 years ago
have a warm glass of milk and go to bed. You've had enough excitement for one night.
fnog9 4 years ago
Fnog said "Even when I tell you exactly what I'm doing, you fall right back in to the trap."
You've laid no trap o'Simple one. You lack the attention span it would require. You couldn't handle the heat now your trying to act like you never came in the kitchen. This is your last attempt at pretending you have an ounce of wit. Pathetic!
netslosh 4 years ago
Fnog said"yeah, whatever. I just wanted to see what kind of overly analytical internet chump response you would come up with."
Oh please COWARD. You made a very weak attempt to engaged me in a battle of wits when you clearly weren't armed. You were to simple minded to put your thoughts in context. Now your just pitching a fit because you got owned.
netslosh 4 years ago
lol. Even when I tell you exactly what I'm doing, you fall right back in to the trap. Truly an internet chump is you.
fnog9 4 years ago
Fnog said "I took exception to you saying that the title God Delusion is insulting."
Uh, yea...it is. And, given Dawkins expressed views on religion and religious people in general, it was more than likely intended to be so. His prefered tactic in any conversation concerning anything that does not line up with his view point is ad hominem. I'd say it his specialty.
netslosh 4 years ago
that's great. My point still stands. You really didn't add anything to what was said in the first place.... so.... people will read my original point and let them decide if it's valid. Funny how you went so crazy demanding that I "take your discussion in context", but you finally ended up responding afterall because you realized that I am superior and worthy of a response. You should have just done that in the first place. Lesson learned by you.
fnog9 4 years ago
Fnog ACTUALLY said"you finally ended up responding afterall because you realized that I am superior and worthy of a response." Really? I thought I was just being candid(do you know what that means). Here it turns out that I had so much respect for your superiority(?) this whole time. Right, keep dreaming.
netslosh 4 years ago
Fnog said "That's what the book is about, internet chump. Try reading it."
What is what the book is about? That some peoples opinions are valid and others aren't? CONTEXT here would be nice seeing as you insist on ingoring the conversation that was going on before you came to persue a whole other subject.
Sheltonsummons 4 years ago
See Fnog(can I call you Fnog?). I have returned with my username. sheltonsummons still=netlosh though. Hope I haven't confused you.
netslosh 4 years ago
The question was flawed, though eyedunno doesn't articulate it very well. There are lots of people that could be wrong-and could suffer when they die because they didn't believe in the "right thing".Plus it's a rubbish question,because whatever evidence Rich pull outs, whatever he does,she can always throw back "what if you wrong?"It's like the "why" question posed by young children- it is unanswerable,and allows no room for discussion.
Mopolop123 4 years ago
The question isn't rubbish at all. Lots of people always get their panties all in a bunch because they feel Christains think they're right about everything. The question turn the same back on a man who has made a career not of just educating the world about the theory of evolution and relevant scientific findings, but also insulting a lot of other people convictions(i.e.books writing books call the "GOd Delusion").
netslosh 4 years ago
why is the title "The God Delusion" an insult? It IS the truth, afterall. Or at least a legitimate opinion. Yeah, Christians do often think they're right about everything, and get offended by any other beliefs. Proof of this is found in people like you who take offense to other beliefs. If your faith is so strong, what do you care if someone else doesn't believe? Weak.
fnog9 4 years ago
First, off to call the title a legitimate opinion(since we have al this talk about fallacies going) is a fallacy. 1. ALL "opinions" are legitimate to the extent that they are opinions. 2. You don't know me or what I get offended by(therefore you have "proof" of nothing)so please get over yourself. I don't know how much of the conversation you actually read before replying to my statement(Hello CONTEXT?).
Sheltonsummons 4 years ago
BTW, Sheltonsummons=Netlosh
Sheltonsummons