It's really both sad and amusing to hear hear the creature boldly denying the existence of the One who created him. You have sinned against God, and you stand guilty before Him. Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners. Turn to Him. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He is your only hope. Please don't be angry and defensive. There's no need to respond back with belittling insults. Sorry about the mess I made of your chess board.
@loveYehoshua You would seem to be genuinely concerned for my well being, and for that I can honestly say that I'm grateful. You may believe me or not, as you see fit.
However it is not enough to merely claim that sin, gods, and creation myths are fact. There must be substance and evidence to back them. Were someone to provide credible evidence that these things *were* fact, then I'd have no choice but to accept them. Unfortunately, this evidence hasn't been forthcoming.
@loveYehoshua You can't hate something that doesn't exist. Asserting that I hate gods is precisely equivalent to claiming that you hate invisible orange jackalopes. However you most certainly can hate religion for its abuses.
Why do you hate education? (Cue the kicking of pieces.)
You call yourself a philosopher. I assume that which appears on the wall behind you is a degree (or two). O.K., so you took some classes and passed some tests. Now you call yourself a "philosopher". Sadly, whatever knowledge you have is temporal. It is of little or no value when compared to the knowledge of God. Man's relationship with God, and knowledge of Him, is the only thing in this life that has any lasting value. I pray God one day gives life to the dead spirit within you.
@loveYehoshua I honestly don't care what you think. Having a discussion with you is like playing chess with a pigeon - no matter how good a player I am, you're just going to knock over the pieces, shit on the board, and strut around like you think you've won. You don't even know what you don't know. Your world is small, and I leave you to it.
In scientific research you do not attempt to prove a hypothesis. you attempt to prove it wrong, and then if you are not able to prove it wrong then you say that it is a theory that you feel confident, based on testing, that is true.
for this girl to ask him if he was wrong was not an insult because that is something that every scientist and theologian should ask themselves all the time. otherwise they are relying on blind faith
@DanPumpkinNickle Interesting idea. Let's explore it. Would you say that Ms. Moore's question was a scientific question or a theological/philosophical one?
Also, I thought the Christian religions held up blind faith as the best thing ever. (Blessed is he who believes without seeing - Sermon on the Mount IIRC).
@vicachcoup The exchange between Dawkins and Ms. Moore was far more subtle than you may realize. As a native English speaker, (and a philosopher), I can assure you it was in fact calling his familiarity with reality into question.
I find your last statement curious. Do you believe God's existence to be knowledge or speculation?
being a native english speaker [?!?] doesn't entitle you to presume what she meant by the question - you may be right - you may be wrong. Being a philospher doesn't either. If you were psychic then I may consider your opinion on what she intended as relevant.
The discussion here is about Dawkins - you should find it more interesting that he strays from knowledge to opinion - as a philosopher [and a native English speaker] that should particularly interest you.
@vicachcoup Would you kindly outline for me why you are being so hostile? Based on your initial post I assumed English was a second language for you. My apologies if I was incorrect.
About philosophy, being a philosopher rather does qualify me to recognize an old-hat philosophical argument and its rebuttal. In this case it was Pascal's Wager. It was done very subtly, but it was still done. Or is there some other meaning of "What if you're wrong" when discussing God that I'm unaware of?
@vicachcoup Your first message ended with the odd question: "You learn well?". That doesn't make sense and I was honestly curious if you were a native speaker because of it, along with your name.
Your powers of comprehension are rivaled only by your sense of politeness it seems. I believe you are intentionally misunderstanding me and being facetious, so I must ask - where did you get your degrees in Biology and/or Philosophy? You're obviously some kind of expert.
''Your first message ended with the odd question: "You learn well?". That doesn't make sense and I was honestly curious if you were a native speaker because of it, along with your name.''
Yeah yeah
Squeezing grammar into short posts is not one of my interests.
I could indulge you in the story behind my name but I really do not intend to continue an exchange with someone who is clearly prejudiced.
So again - good bye - au revoir - tot siens - auf wiedersehn - wasalaam - shalom -
@vicachcoup Nice ad-hominem attack. You appear to be an angry fellow who can't have a polite discussion. I will remind you that it was you, sir, who opened this conversation with the belittling of my mental faculties. I honestly tried being nice all the while you were being hostile. I pity you.
And that's not prejudice. That's a response to your douchebaggery which you've gone out of your way to display. So aloha, sayonara, adios, ciao, and other words you looked up on Google.
@vicachcoup No sir, my entire issue with you stems from your abrasive and hostile attitude. I grow weary of your baseless accusations and insults, and they *will* come to an end. Now let me lay out your options for you.
1) You can set aside your hubris and get over yourself so we can have a civil discussion.
2) You can leave and never come back.
3) You can continue this childish behavior and I'll bring the ban hammer down on your nuts.
@vicachcoup Or it could be that you're just an asshole and a mental midget who takes offense first and comprehends third or fourth ... if at all.
You confidently proclaim what I can only assume you believe are soul-crushing arguments from a position of almost certain ignorance, and I find it despicable. You're an anti-intellectual and a mighty clod who rejects correction and assistance from precisely the people who could best give it to you.
@roxfoot I find your self-righteous assurances that you are not in any way better than me, (see your first post on my "MUST SEE" video), rather amusing. I also get a giggle out of "We Christians rise above ignorance", which implies that just being in the club somehow grants you and you alone the ability to learn things.
As to the rest, I think you've missed the point. Kind of undoes that "overcoming ignorance" thing, doesn't it?
your comment was the proof our spirit is the force within in you that guides your every action ,there is something in yours that is not ment to be there and its eating you like a cancer ,and i can see it ,like a dog can smell fear ,there is something your doing that is going to kill you ,this is why we "serf" prostrate (lol) ourselves before GOD ,because he will guide us to life ,our own self will guide us unto death
@roxfoot I hate to point this out, but you've not really answered anything I've asked. What you just did was take a valid criticism of your assertion, twist it around, and insist the whole thing was my fault. You are not making sense.
Riddle me this: How do you know the things you claim to know? And is there any possibility at all that you could be mistaken?
@roxfoot You have done nothing of the kind. All your posts amount to *wink wink, nudge nudge, I know your secret*. I find this style of argumentation to be empty, intellectually vapid, and a nuisance.
our discussion has not concluded ,your trying to ignore what i see written all over your face ,and though you may say this that or the other ,there is ,and we both know something ,a false god that stands between you and the truth ,if i was to insult you ,i would not try and point out to you , that which is keeping you from the truth which you claim to be seeking ,John 6-47 i will leave you be now GOD bless
Y'know I totally agree with what you said with one exception (and that is just to play devils advocate). Athiests are guilty of the same crime when it comes to walking up to preachers and disrespecting there intelligence. After all preachers spend their entire lives studying scripture and philosophy. They may be ignorant to the scientific method just as Dawkins is ignorant to the moral philosophies of faith. It works both ways. Respect people even if you don't respect thier ideologies.
@MrLittletomdj I totally agree. I've said before that this wasn't the best argument that could have been laid, and were I to do it again I would focus more on Dawkins' insistence on evidence. Then again, it may be tailored to the intended audience better the way it is as this kind of logic is common among believers.
I also don't know that I'd say Dawkins was ignorant of the philosophy of religion, (seems to know enough to handle himself), but there are doubtless who've memorized more scripture.
@Larian1975 Hitchens & Dawkins often make moral judgements about religion like "it's wicked & evil". But as they don't believe in god they have to accept thier morality is subjective to themselves. So that's not a statement of objective fact. The religious can argue that there's an objective Purpose and thus things can be objectively moral. If scriptures are read purely metaphorically their maybe objective moral truths in them. But that arguement falls apart when the stories are taken literally.
@Larian1975 Hitchens & Dawkins often make moral judgements about religion like "it's wicked & evil". But as they don't believe in god they have to accept thier morality is subjective to themselves. So that's not a statement of objective fact. The religious can argue that there's an objective Purpose and thus things can be objectively moral. If scriptures are read purely metaphorically their maybe objective moral truths in them. But that arguement falls apart when the stories are taken literally.
Dawkins is an arrogant person - this is indisputable, but what gets my crank is that evolution scientist have STILL GOT NO PROOF for evolution and yet expect us to believe that all the wonders of life happened by themselves. You are a stubborn lot! Anyway, DNA has finally put the nail in the coffin of evolution, many scientists are now abandoning it.
@jbooks888 Not at my university we're not. Are you actually trying to convince me otherwise?
The only thing wrong with what you just said is everything you just said. Evolution is an observed phenomenon, and every single piece of evidence we have supports the idea that it has happened. We've even observed it in the laboratory. The entirety of your post concerning science is a lie.
@Uberlaser I agree. The posts you have left on this video are utter nonsense. To suggest there is no evidence for the science of Biology and then running to some misbegotten understanding of DNA to back up your claim is ludicrous. Where did you get your biology degree?
@jbooks888 The evidence is all around us that we have been evolving within technology' its shapes our world and in return it shapes our minds' watch the movie 10000Bc the most recent one and then imagine not being conditioned by the material comforts' Dawkins has valid points but how can anyone pull it all together all at once?? Are you refering to the concept that we evolved from monkeys or apes? obviously we are human beings and not monkeys but we act like monkeys who cant just get along'
"If I meet somebody from India, I am going to assume that they are hindu...it's just the way things are...that is normal...it is a reasonable expectation"
What if you're wrong (and you can be)?
"..their entire life's work is possibly a bunch of crap"
Evolution is a theory. There are no facts, no evidence (which athiests require) - no creature, as long as we have known, has evolved, no creature lives that long to evolve (dead things don't evolve).
@Truth1sTruth If it is demonstrated that I hold an incorrect or illogical position, and I am convinced that this is the case, I abandon my position of error and adopt a new one in line with the evidence at hand. This happens to me at least twice a day.
When you say the words theory and evolve, I don't believe that you are using them in the same way that science uses them. You are correct that no individual organism has transmogrified itself Pokemon style. Individuals do not evolve - species do.
They truly can't handle anything being "thrown back at them." Go look at anyone on Youtube arguing for the bible. They always have comments and ratings disabled. They refuse to accept that anyone out there could have a disagreement with them. And being presented with facts shakes their faith to the point where they need to shut out the real truth.
dawkins was not insulting...the first thing he said was "we could all be wrong." he's trying to show her that she beleives that people of other faiths (for ex. those who beleive in the figurative "juju" monster) are wrong and that she could be wrong as well because essentially what many (if not all) religions contain is an element of blind faith where something is accepted in spite of evidence (or lack thereof). the differences is that dawkinds accepts nothing blindly
@KatTheFrog Thanks for the kind words and thanks for watching. I'd also like to take this time, if I may, to apologise for my poor attempt at speaking proper English. ;-)
@JvilleHD Sad to see you removed your comment. This video was actually directed at White, but I made it public. Even he pulled it when he saw nothing was going his way. But I digress.
Dawkins actually gave the correct rebuttal for Ms. Moore's question. As I've explained before (don't expect you to dig through hundreds of posts for it), Moore's argument was a variant of Pascal's Wager. Dawkins merely replied "Which god?"
I* dont see anything 'intellectual 'about Dawkins really he s just a mere zoologist,.Evolution has its roots in Ancient pagan Greece,and in Jewish Kabbalism
@SonofJaphet Are you crazy or something... "Evolution,.. is a fable disguised as science". No it isn't, evolution has a whole library of hundreds of years worth of empirical, irrefutable hard evidence.
You are ignoring all of that in favor of a totally unsubstantiated dark age, middle eastern story about a 'believe or I'll thump you' deity.
@SonofJaphet: 'I don't see anything intellectual about Dawkins'. Probably because your an ignorant arseclown. A mere Zoologist indeed, with a Masters Degree and Doctorate of Philosophy. Former asst Professor of Zoology at Berkley & lecturer at Oxford University amongst many. Multi-scientific and humanist award winner. Published author for numerous magazines & scientific journals, not to mention best selling author and founder of a non-profit charity. By the way, xmas is a trad pagan holiday.
Well, the evidence is there and I would be willing to point you to it. But sarcastically denying an overwhelming body of evidence only hurts you. I wish you'd reconsider.
@VanDoodah You dont have a sense of humor and you dont know the Bible :there was never a creature that changed to another one ,thats your recycled mythology not mine
@SonofJaphet It is not a fable. Even the catholic church has acknowledged evolution. There a so many hints that life has evolved on this planet, that it can't be wrong.
My father has laboured all his life to maintain his christian faith. Now he´s old and will die soon. I won´t try to convince him of the futility of his faith, since it´s the crutch he´s been leaning on to get himself through decades of ill health. I myself think that there´s nothing more awaiting us on the other side than the infinite black void. It´s not a comforting thought, but at least I see clear. I won´t be disappointed...
@peterikarlstad The biblical heaven is described as nonstop fawning for all eternity, and hell as eternal torture.... Sounds like both are an eternal torture to me. Give me sweet oblivion, it sounds by far the best option. lolz
Arrogant atheist..."reasonable expectation" stereotype is what you mean. Atheist constantly tell theist that they are idiots..as you implied several times yourself. If someone tells you that you will burn in hell why would it bother you. You don't believe in hell (neither do I by the way) My point is that atheist do nothing but call people who have different beliefs stupid,uneducated,superstitious,moronic. Practice what you preach. (pardon the pun)
@sissum71 "If someone tells you that you will burn in hell, why would it bother you?"
I don't take kindly to threats, that's why. And should someone insist on threatening me with things which do not conform to reality, (such as eternal torment in hellfire), I'm going to let them know why they're an idiot.
@Larian1975 Wouldn't it be more effective to laugh and walk away? Just a thought...do what you want but, you know people like that will only enjoy getting a response out of you. Why bother ? Why give them the satisfaction? Like i said, do what you want , just be careful.While we may not agree on certain things,I do care about you as a human being.Fundamentalist are insane and dangerous at times.
@sissum71 I don't think it would be more effective. Silence gets mistaken for acquiescence. Essentially you're asking me why stand up for the things I believe to be true and valid. All I can say is I do so because I have to. Clamming up and walking away leads to the Dark Ages, where the loudest people with the right kind of Jesus held tyrrany over the masses.
@Larian1975 Like I said,do what you want. I don't give assholes like that the satisfaction.In my opinion,there are many ways to stand up for yourself. It's been my experience that ignoring it and walking away laughing really gets under that kind of person's skin.Of course, if you have to defend yourself..do what you feel you need to do. I can see your point also.
@sissum71 Atheists tell theists they are stupid, theists tell atheists they will be tortured for all of time for not believing what they believe. Pardon me if I am wrong, but that seems like a threat, not criticism.
@AthiestSoldier Thanks! It could've been better, but that's what happens when you don't script stuff. Thanks for watching, and don't keep the faith! =)
@Bikandee Do you mean it is good that I am looking for something worthwhile or that I am casting about for meaning? If you mean the former, then I thank you. If you mean the latter, I'm not sure I understand.
As for the hypocrisy aspect, I believe this is a problem with the Christian faith. I disagree with the claim that Christianity as a faith and religion is hypocritical. I believe it only comes off that way because we as Christians fall short and are sinners. The center of the Christian faith is NOT condemnation. And if we sound that way, i apologize. The center of our faith is the truth which is LOVE. I just wanted to let that be known.
@bballdragon5 Then you would appear to have broken with some fundamental aspects of your sacred text. It was Jesus who introduced the concept of eternal punishment in fiery torment - a thing never found in the Old Testament to my knowledge. I fail to see how condemning people to eternal suffering equates to an act of love by some omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent deity.
Clearly you don't get the statement in the question. Sometimes a question has this built in. You obviously have no time for God and are happy living your life the way you feel with out consiquence. May God bless you friend
It doesn't matter if he has a Phd... Anyone can be wrong!
But if what you said is logical then when I get my honours, I can go around saying whatever I want because I have an honours degree I can't be wrong...
Do you see the illogical conecpt you have delved into here. No-one is perfect, no matter how idolised you make him or her out to be.
@Gilbertus1986 You're absolutely right. This point was raised much earlier (and I don't think it's reasonable to ask you to sort through 350+ comments to find this out.)
My arguments here were not scripted, but off the top of my head. Were I to do this video over, I would not frame things as I did about Dawkins' PhD and making it sound as if this alone granted verisimilitude to his artument, but instead focus on his display of logic and his insistence upon evidence.
@Gilbertus1986 Were you to get that honors degree, I would likely defer to you in areas which your degree covered. In Dawkins' case, evolutionary biology and all related subjects are his forte. The age of the Earth and a background in critical thinking come with that.
In a side note, I found Ms. Moore's argument to be weak and have said so many times. I find "Dr" Oakley's rant which inspired this video to be more so.
The thing about evo biology is we can't really prove anything. We can't do an experiment and explain evolution. We can't observe it. All we know is from fossil evidence, which has many gaps. I'm sure this is a typical Christian response, but the one thing about science is we are trying to answer all these questions of WHY? but in the end we never answer these questions. All we can explain is how. I think people are religious because religion gives answers to the question: why?
@bballdragon5 I think I see the flaw in the slaw here. We do not explain the theory of evolution via natural selection, but rather the theory is the explanation for the evidence we have. And that evidence is enormous in scale and scope. There are no "gaps" in the fossil record in the way I believe you mean the term.
And we do observe evolution taking place in that fossil record. We've also observed it in both bacteria mutation and a species of mosquito in the Tubes of London.
Honestly, "answering" this very abstract, profound question of "why do we exist" with a cheap "God created us and he had this and that in mind..." cop-out, basically nullifies and cheapens the question and sucks out all of inquiry and wonder out of the topic.
@AlphaBravoCharly12 So if you're willing to emulate my judgement I can only assume that you find it valid. Glad to hear you agree with me. Why did you remove two of your comments?
key word assume,when people assume they show their ignorance ,and her question was simple ,he gave no answer and went into a rant about jujus at the bottom of the sea,he show straight forward disrespect for that girl, and anyone with an opposing viewpoint , i really worries me that noone has a problem with the disrespect that dawkins shows. :) my 2 cents peace
@lucifer948 Actually sir, he did answer her question properly. The point and thrust here is rather subtle and easily missed. She posed a variant of a classic argument known as Pascal's Wager and Dawkins gave the classic reply.
Also, in academic circles, there is no such thing as rude. We frequently tear long strips of hide off one another in Q&A sessions after talks. It's expected and welcomed.
@lucifer948 I give this anology alot, but here it is again. in the childs book, the "emporers new clothes" the king KNOWS he is wearing clothes. if you see him naked and ask him why he isnt wearing clothes, have you disrespected him? when he calls you a fool, has he disrespected you? who is truely the fool in that story? look at dawkins as the boy that convinced the town that the weavers were con artists. i think she should be thanking him as well as all christians who are......................
@SuperAthiest1 like the king continueing the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldnt see his clothes was either stupid or incompetent. And he stood stiffly on his carriage, while behind him a page held his imaginary mantle
@Xenophile665 Wow! I didn't see this response as YouTube ate it and didn't forward a copy to my inbox. But thank you for the compliment. Hope to see you around again soon.
Larian1975 -- nice response. And thank you for beinig honest about yourself.
Religious people get upset with Dawkins because he doesn't give them the answer they want. Christians, iin this case, automatically assume moral superiority in every discussion, so when you fail to play along with them, they become morally indigant. That's when the "he's rude" "he's ignorant" "he has insulted my faith" comes out -- they have nothing else to say.
2. If I hated you, wanted to "insult you", I would leave you alone, let you think that there is nothing wrong with the carnality in which you live. But it is out of LOVE that any Christian would reach out and try to spread their faith. And,if it isn't out of pure love that a person does so, I would go as far as saying that they do not truly believe. I'm sorry that you can't see past the hypocrisy created by so many "professing Christians" , but if you could, you wouldn't think it was insulting.
@Tylerboban I should wonder at the love poured out by this creator who would set me on fire if I don't believe he exists. It would appear you are trying to save me *from* your god.
It's not that I'm angry with you, it's that I believe you're wasting your time. Much ado about nothing. I've seen no evidence, none, that the god you are trying to save me from exists. And boy I've looked. In this regard he's kind of like the boogeyman.
@Larian1975 Not trying to save you from my God, trying to save you from yourself. The biggest problem God faces in the Bible, is that he is a Just God, and this clashes with his "love". God hates sin, and when we sin, we deserve hell. That is justice from a perfect God. But when we repent, we receive mercy. There is no injustice. It is by LOVE that we are able to receive mercy over justice.
@Tylerboban Well then I thank you for your heartfelt effort. I'm always grateful to those who attempt to do me a favor, even if I don't want it. That said, why should I believe your god is any more real than Zeus or Ares? (I don't think they're real either.)
@Larian1975 Don't mention it, I'm not about to go try to Bible bash you into anything. And it would take a lot more than a youtube comment to answer your question. But for starters, the bible is corroborated by over 25,000 manuscripts, which is substantially more than any Greek train of thought (Plato, Aristotle). Also, whats indicated in the bible, has been shown to be historically accurate (places, kings etc), including the existence of Jesus himself. Why is it so hard to believe in God?
@Tylerboban Well, he's logically inconsistent and nobody can point to him. If convincing evidence for his being real was there, it should be a trivial matter to produce. (Instead I tend to get "you gotta have faith before you get the proof", which isn't going to work if you're trying to convince me of anything.) I believe in the existence of many things which are invisible to us, such as subatomic particles and electric fields, and it's because of the ready evidence on hand.
As for your "King of Insults" rant at the end, it's unfortunate if that is the kind of Chrisitans you have come across. It is sad that you can't see that it is from a place of love that someone would tell you that "yes, you will burn in hell if you don't turn from your sins", not a place of insult. It's sad that you see an superior/inferior hierarchy, when it is by Christ and Christ alone we are saved, so that NO MAN can boast.
Second, you mentioned how her question was rude, so he was justified by answering rudely, but in the beginning you mentioned how Dawkins has a Phd. in Evolutionary Biology. If she was such a brat by asking that kind of question to a man of that stature, why did he respond in the same way? Shouldn't a doctor be able to say "If I am wrong then.....but if I am right, as my studies show I am, then....." and properly put her in her place? Thank you for your time, sir.
@Larian1975 I am sure many atheist have been asked in their lives. I am a man of facts. I have my beliefs, yes, but they are beliefs. Christians, atheists, Dawkins, and everyone else only has beliefs, as no one has all the answers, I think we can all agree. I think that Dawkins did a disservice to the atheist and scientific community by deflecting the question rather than posing an intelligent response to a girl that I am sure he could have taken on intellectually. Thank you again for your time.
@moredoughnuts01 Perhaps Dawkins could have phrased his response in a less sharp manner, although I maintain this type of question, by and large, still deserves the category of answer it got.
Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment. Happy holidays!
@moredoughnuts01 This is all a fancy way of asking "What if you're wrong." (See what she did there?) I call this a Christian argument because I've never seen this argument used by a non Christian, and in fact it was originally intended to be a proof of the Christian god, although it could apply equally to any god.
One of the counters to this argument is to ask "which god", as Dawkins did in a roundabout way. The wager has other problems too which I might detail if you really want. (more)
@moredoughnuts01 Part 3: The real problem with the entire thing is that Pascal's Wager looks good at first glance, and the fact that this exchange was so subtle and had the appearance of an old man being crotchety toward a young girl instead of being the philosophical point-and-thrust that it was is lost on many.
Is that what you were asking? (It's kind of late and I'm punchy.)
@Larian1975 Yes, I see your point. For the record, I am not going to take a theistic side here, I just wanted to point out a less theistic point that Dr. Oakley was trying to make in his video, which is this: As a Christian, it would have been beneficial to hear what Dawkins had to say about the other side of his argument in his own words, without someone else mincing him, and as an atheist, it would also help to see that someone as qualified as Dawkins could respond to a question that (cont.)
First, I am sure that Einstein, Darwin, Tesla, and all the other great thinkers in history have been asked "What if you're wrong?" And I am sure, having studied and examined all of the possibilities, they could answer that question with research and scientific findings. You should never take someone's full word for something! Question with boldness everything! Yes, even the Bible. Ask yourself and anyone else, "What if this is wrong?" Christians should ask themselves that every day.
religious people are so over sensitive whenever their religious beliefs are challenged in even the slightest. They can't even deal with the slightest possibility that their dogmatic beliefs could be wrong yet they believe they are right no matter what and everybody else is wrong. That's blatant hypocrisy. I don't have another way to describe it.
@supersmash43 I'm not sure religion has cornered the market on the unexamined belief you describe. However it is one of the more visible examples. I've seen similar behavior regarding sports teams and choice of computer hardware/software.
When you wrap your identity up in an idea, it seems natural to take offense when that idea is challenged, as the attack upon said idea becomes a de-facto attack upon you. This is dumb, but nobody said we, as a species, were intelligent and meant it.
@Larian1975 I think people take their religious beliefs too personally but they shouldn't when considering the religious beliefs likely don't represent what they actually believe about reality.
enjoyed your response. I like how you were respectful. I am a christian myself (though I am in a process of questioning everything I stand for). It is nice to see a response that isn't just tongue lashing at everything, instead I see a nice break down of what was said about Dawkins. Breath of fresh air
@Jcliveshere It's rare that I'm cited for being respectful. A healthy portion of the comments to date question my familiarity with reality and accuse me of being everything from your garden-variety idiot to a pedophile.
It's kind of nice for someone to accuse me of being decent every now and again.
Thanks for watching, and I hope to see you around again.
Can I make it clear that I'm not trying to be a troll. If all his work is completely true, then why is everyone so offended that she asked the question? If he's right, what's wrong with answering it? I'm digressing.
@AbStar921 That's a fair question and it deserves an answer. I'll try my best.
I don't believe it was the act of her asking him a question that was the offense, but the type of question she asked.
Okay, so what do I mean?
"What if you're wrong," in this context, is a variant of something known as Pascal's Wager. First of all, it's simply not a very good argument for one's favorite deity, and it's also an argument for any gods it permits to be incredibly stupid and naive. (more)
At the outset, PW looks nice. But what keeps it from applying to every other god man has ever worshiped? ...not much. It's an infantile argument that can't get past the end of its nose. And even worse, you have to accept the notion that the all powerful creator of the Universe is so stupid that you can be a total jerk at heart and have faith just because you don't want to be tortured and he won't notice.
Moreover, Dawkins did answer her by pointing all this out. (One more)
@AbStar921 As to offense, mine was directed mostly toward this "Dr." Oakley I made the video for. I really shouldn't speculate as to why others were miffed. But I have been told that Ms. Moore was part of a "spoiling squad" from Liberty University (a Baptist bible college), and their purpose there was to ask variants of the "what if you're wrong" question and give the speaker grief for Jesus. Not sure if that's true, but if so, I think it explains a lot.
@Larian1975 Thankyou for the response. :) I understand where you're coming from. It was just that when I watched the video, I didn't think her question was in any way insulting, and I didn't understand Dawkin's answer....but that was just my opinion. Thankyou for explaining it some more.
You have a gross misunderstanding of the nature of our relationship with God. Unfortuneately, most of the church has the same misunderstanding. Brush up on your theology and you might understand things better about, "your qurestion." Real Christians don't claim to be "better than you" nor is that why we are saved. You don't understand the nature of grace, look it up, educate yourself. "Didn't check anything out for myself." Obviously, and he leaves with an insult, classy.
@voted4bush You appear to have a gross misunderstanding of the purpose of this video. I made it for "Dr" Oakley specifically as a response to his original posting which I can only describe as a whine.
For someone who doesn't think themselves better than me, you sure talk down to me a lot.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! this guy is claiming that Dr. James White (BA. MA. Th.M. Th.D. and D.Min., professor of Greek, Hebrew, and Systemic Theology among other areas of apologetics) doesn't know how to debate! Dr. White has been involved in over 100 FORMAL debates and counting, the kind with two or more people, the kind that Dawkins is too scared to do. Dawkins doesn't debate, he monologues. Please...you obvously haven't watched a James White debate.
@voted4bush About his Th.D. and upper level degrees, I don't recognize them. They're shady as all get-out, and could only be more laughable if they were written in crayon. I've checked. That Th.D. is from a non accredited university, and others are the result of correspondence courses.
I don't care how many debates he's supposed to have joined, his argument here sucks. It's bad. I assure you he's fallable.
So do you know how to debate? Can you recognize a flawed argument?
@Larian1975 So learning about theology, something that was determined nearly 2000 years ago can't be done through corresponence? That's because books evolve right? "...his argument sucks.." Okay, why? I never said he's infallable, I'm not Catholic. You claim Dr. White's video is a, "whine" but then you say, "you sure talk down to me a lot." Okay, where? Finally, you didn't cover your lack of knowledge about theology, how do expect to understand Dr. White if you don't even have a base?
@voted4bush His argument is bad because he fails to recognize or acknowlege the logical fallacy inherent in Ms. Moore's question. Dawkins was right to answer in the manner he did. It wasn't rude, it was proper.
Your other questions in order:
1) No.
2) No.
3) He doesn't understand formal logic.
4) Almost everything you've said to me so far.
5) I've more than read the Bible. White is a charlatan and attention whore to brag of these "degrees" with the exception of his BA which seems legit.
@Larian1975 You are still completely surface level, you haven't backed up a single one of your claims. 3) It's clear you haven't watched any of White's debates or other videos (maybe you just didn't understand his response because you don't understand the Bible you claim to have, "more than read") 4) Really? Grow up and be a man, I've done zero "talking down to" 5) Still astonishing considering his track record. Watch, read, learn, then you might not make such absurd assertions.
@voted4bush I would consider someone advising me to "grow up and be a man" to be talking down to me. You speak to me as a superior to an inferior, and I find this rather rude. In short, I don't like your tone.
Moreover, I most surely did answer your objections. Your inablility to accept my answers is not a fault for which I should be held accountable. If you want clarification of any said answer, try asking politely. You never know, it might just work. You certainly haven't tried it yet.
@Larian1975 Yet again, you still haven't backed up any of your claims. Yes, I'll admit the "Be a man..." may come across condescending (if you read it that way) but frankly I'm tired of YOUR whining. You're acting like a victim for no reason. Where you come from, you may be able to get away with this weak, surface level "answers," but here in the land of academia, we need support. Try again.
It's really both sad and amusing to hear hear the creature boldly denying the existence of the One who created him. You have sinned against God, and you stand guilty before Him. Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners. Turn to Him. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He is your only hope. Please don't be angry and defensive. There's no need to respond back with belittling insults. Sorry about the mess I made of your chess board.
loveYehoshua 1 week ago
@loveYehoshua You would seem to be genuinely concerned for my well being, and for that I can honestly say that I'm grateful. You may believe me or not, as you see fit.
However it is not enough to merely claim that sin, gods, and creation myths are fact. There must be substance and evidence to back them. Were someone to provide credible evidence that these things *were* fact, then I'd have no choice but to accept them. Unfortunately, this evidence hasn't been forthcoming.
Larian1975 1 week ago
Just the response I would expect. Why do you hate something you don't believe in?
loveYehoshua 1 week ago
@loveYehoshua You can't hate something that doesn't exist. Asserting that I hate gods is precisely equivalent to claiming that you hate invisible orange jackalopes. However you most certainly can hate religion for its abuses.
Why do you hate education? (Cue the kicking of pieces.)
Larian1975 1 week ago
You call yourself a philosopher. I assume that which appears on the wall behind you is a degree (or two). O.K., so you took some classes and passed some tests. Now you call yourself a "philosopher". Sadly, whatever knowledge you have is temporal. It is of little or no value when compared to the knowledge of God. Man's relationship with God, and knowledge of Him, is the only thing in this life that has any lasting value. I pray God one day gives life to the dead spirit within you.
loveYehoshua 1 week ago
@loveYehoshua I honestly don't care what you think. Having a discussion with you is like playing chess with a pigeon - no matter how good a player I am, you're just going to knock over the pieces, shit on the board, and strut around like you think you've won. You don't even know what you don't know. Your world is small, and I leave you to it.
What a waste of a life.
Larian1975 1 week ago
im in love with this man, and Im a heterosexual male myself
nickallah 1 month ago in playlist More videos from Larian1975
In scientific research you do not attempt to prove a hypothesis. you attempt to prove it wrong, and then if you are not able to prove it wrong then you say that it is a theory that you feel confident, based on testing, that is true.
for this girl to ask him if he was wrong was not an insult because that is something that every scientist and theologian should ask themselves all the time. otherwise they are relying on blind faith
DanPumpkinNickle 3 months ago
@DanPumpkinNickle Interesting idea. Let's explore it. Would you say that Ms. Moore's question was a scientific question or a theological/philosophical one?
Also, I thought the Christian religions held up blind faith as the best thing ever. (Blessed is he who believes without seeing - Sermon on the Mount IIRC).
Larian1975 3 months ago
You an expert in the art of assumption?
.
She was insulting his intellect when she asked the question??
Is that the only conclusion you could come to?
.
Use your brain. What she was probably questioning was his opinion about the existence of God - which doesn't depend on his knowledge of biology.
In fact, in his opinions on existence of God, he strays from knowledge to opinionated speculation.
You learn well?
vicachcoup 4 months ago
@vicachcoup The exchange between Dawkins and Ms. Moore was far more subtle than you may realize. As a native English speaker, (and a philosopher), I can assure you it was in fact calling his familiarity with reality into question.
I find your last statement curious. Do you believe God's existence to be knowledge or speculation?
Larian1975 4 months ago
@Larian1975
being a native english speaker [?!?] doesn't entitle you to presume what she meant by the question - you may be right - you may be wrong. Being a philospher doesn't either. If you were psychic then I may consider your opinion on what she intended as relevant.
The discussion here is about Dawkins - you should find it more interesting that he strays from knowledge to opinion - as a philosopher [and a native English speaker] that should particularly interest you.
vicachcoup 4 months ago
@vicachcoup Would you kindly outline for me why you are being so hostile? Based on your initial post I assumed English was a second language for you. My apologies if I was incorrect.
About philosophy, being a philosopher rather does qualify me to recognize an old-hat philosophical argument and its rebuttal. In this case it was Pascal's Wager. It was done very subtly, but it was still done. Or is there some other meaning of "What if you're wrong" when discussing God that I'm unaware of?
Larian1975 4 months ago
@Larian1975
''Would you kindly outline for me why you are being so hostile?''
OK try this
''on your initial post I assumed English was a second language for you''
That is enough to warrant hostility imo
''In this case it was Pascal's Wager''
Yep. Philosophical question which has nothing to do with his knowledge of biology. So your video attacks her incorrectly.
You are opinionated in excess of your intellectual abilities so au revoir
vicachcoup 4 months ago
@vicachcoup Your first message ended with the odd question: "You learn well?". That doesn't make sense and I was honestly curious if you were a native speaker because of it, along with your name.
Your powers of comprehension are rivaled only by your sense of politeness it seems. I believe you are intentionally misunderstanding me and being facetious, so I must ask - where did you get your degrees in Biology and/or Philosophy? You're obviously some kind of expert.
Larian1975 4 months ago
@Larian1975
''Your first message ended with the odd question: "You learn well?". That doesn't make sense and I was honestly curious if you were a native speaker because of it, along with your name.''
Yeah yeah
Squeezing grammar into short posts is not one of my interests.
I could indulge you in the story behind my name but I really do not intend to continue an exchange with someone who is clearly prejudiced.
So again - good bye - au revoir - tot siens - auf wiedersehn - wasalaam - shalom -
vicachcoup 4 months ago
@vicachcoup Nice ad-hominem attack. You appear to be an angry fellow who can't have a polite discussion. I will remind you that it was you, sir, who opened this conversation with the belittling of my mental faculties. I honestly tried being nice all the while you were being hostile. I pity you.
And that's not prejudice. That's a response to your douchebaggery which you've gone out of your way to display. So aloha, sayonara, adios, ciao, and other words you looked up on Google.
Larian1975 4 months ago
@Larian1975
your douchebagger
Nice ad-hominem attack
and other words you looked up on Google.
Yes a lot of writing is autobiography
vicachcoup 4 months ago
@vicachcoup I'm glad you took the time to look up what "ad-hominem" meant. Weren't you leaving? :)
Larian1975 4 months ago
@Larian1975
There is little worse than meeting a mediocre intellect with a sense of intellectual superiority.
Your comments surely show that you had an issue about your intelligence.
Were you considered thick at school?
vicachcoup 4 months ago
@vicachcoup No sir, my entire issue with you stems from your abrasive and hostile attitude. I grow weary of your baseless accusations and insults, and they *will* come to an end. Now let me lay out your options for you.
1) You can set aside your hubris and get over yourself so we can have a civil discussion.
2) You can leave and never come back.
3) You can continue this childish behavior and I'll bring the ban hammer down on your nuts.
I hope you'll pick #1, but I'm anticipating #3.
Larian1975 4 months ago
@vicachcoup Or it could be that you're just an asshole and a mental midget who takes offense first and comprehends third or fourth ... if at all.
You confidently proclaim what I can only assume you believe are soul-crushing arguments from a position of almost certain ignorance, and I find it despicable. You're an anti-intellectual and a mighty clod who rejects correction and assistance from precisely the people who could best give it to you.
Being as stupid as you are ought to hurt.
Larian1975 4 months ago
so he was justified in his ignorance because of ignorance ,were he a moral person he would rise above ignorance ,as christians do ,
and if he is offended so easily ,maybe he should consider a career change ,
and christians don't believe their better ,what Bible did you read
,its not hypocrisy to love one another ,
dawkins assumed her history hope his research has more substance
roxfoot 5 months ago
@roxfoot I find your self-righteous assurances that you are not in any way better than me, (see your first post on my "MUST SEE" video), rather amusing. I also get a giggle out of "We Christians rise above ignorance", which implies that just being in the club somehow grants you and you alone the ability to learn things.
As to the rest, I think you've missed the point. Kind of undoes that "overcoming ignorance" thing, doesn't it?
P.S. What the hell is wrong with your keyboard?
Larian1975 5 months ago
@Larian1975
thanks ,that comment above has proved to me that there is some toxin controlling your spirit
i have been around enough to recognise the tune your singing
roxfoot 5 months ago
@roxfoot How is your missing the point proof of anything on my part? And spirit? Are you saying you believe in ghosts?
Larian1975 4 months ago
@Larian1975
your comment was the proof our spirit is the force within in you that guides your every action ,there is something in yours that is not ment to be there and its eating you like a cancer ,and i can see it ,like a dog can smell fear ,there is something your doing that is going to kill you ,this is why we "serf" prostrate (lol) ourselves before GOD ,because he will guide us to life ,our own self will guide us unto death
roxfoot 4 months ago
@roxfoot I hate to point this out, but you've not really answered anything I've asked. What you just did was take a valid criticism of your assertion, twist it around, and insist the whole thing was my fault. You are not making sense.
Riddle me this: How do you know the things you claim to know? And is there any possibility at all that you could be mistaken?
Larian1975 4 months ago
@Larian1975
i did answer your questions ,only you have not understood ,simple explanation
you have something between you and GOD that controls you and that will kill you
you know what it is
roxfoot 4 months ago
@roxfoot You have done nothing of the kind. All your posts amount to *wink wink, nudge nudge, I know your secret*. I find this style of argumentation to be empty, intellectually vapid, and a nuisance.
Our discussion has concluded.
Larian1975 4 months ago
@Larian1975
our discussion has not concluded ,your trying to ignore what i see written all over your face ,and though you may say this that or the other ,there is ,and we both know something ,a false god that stands between you and the truth ,if i was to insult you ,i would not try and point out to you , that which is keeping you from the truth which you claim to be seeking ,John 6-47 i will leave you be now GOD bless
roxfoot 4 months ago
Y'know I totally agree with what you said with one exception (and that is just to play devils advocate). Athiests are guilty of the same crime when it comes to walking up to preachers and disrespecting there intelligence. After all preachers spend their entire lives studying scripture and philosophy. They may be ignorant to the scientific method just as Dawkins is ignorant to the moral philosophies of faith. It works both ways. Respect people even if you don't respect thier ideologies.
MrLittletomdj 5 months ago
@MrLittletomdj I totally agree. I've said before that this wasn't the best argument that could have been laid, and were I to do it again I would focus more on Dawkins' insistence on evidence. Then again, it may be tailored to the intended audience better the way it is as this kind of logic is common among believers.
I also don't know that I'd say Dawkins was ignorant of the philosophy of religion, (seems to know enough to handle himself), but there are doubtless who've memorized more scripture.
Larian1975 5 months ago
@Larian1975 Hitchens & Dawkins often make moral judgements about religion like "it's wicked & evil". But as they don't believe in god they have to accept thier morality is subjective to themselves. So that's not a statement of objective fact. The religious can argue that there's an objective Purpose and thus things can be objectively moral. If scriptures are read purely metaphorically their maybe objective moral truths in them. But that arguement falls apart when the stories are taken literally.
MrLittletomdj 5 months ago
@Larian1975 Hitchens & Dawkins often make moral judgements about religion like "it's wicked & evil". But as they don't believe in god they have to accept thier morality is subjective to themselves. So that's not a statement of objective fact. The religious can argue that there's an objective Purpose and thus things can be objectively moral. If scriptures are read purely metaphorically their maybe objective moral truths in them. But that arguement falls apart when the stories are taken literally.
MrLittletomdj 5 months ago
There is no point to God' it simply cant be proven either way'
DrFruedienslip 6 months ago
This is wonderful reply.
There is more value in what this guy is saying, than in the edited video he is commenting on.
Uberlaser 6 months ago
Dawkins is an arrogant person - this is indisputable, but what gets my crank is that evolution scientist have STILL GOT NO PROOF for evolution and yet expect us to believe that all the wonders of life happened by themselves. You are a stubborn lot! Anyway, DNA has finally put the nail in the coffin of evolution, many scientists are now abandoning it.
jbooks888 6 months ago
@jbooks888 Not at my university we're not. Are you actually trying to convince me otherwise?
The only thing wrong with what you just said is everything you just said. Evolution is an observed phenomenon, and every single piece of evidence we have supports the idea that it has happened. We've even observed it in the laboratory. The entirety of your post concerning science is a lie.
Larian1975 6 months ago
@Larian1975 Good.
You have a wonderful day now.
jbooks888 6 months ago
@jbooks888 Now where have I hard this before ... ? :D
Larian1975 6 months ago
@jbooks888 What utter nonsense
Uberlaser 6 months ago
@Uberlaser I agree. The posts you have left on this video are utter nonsense. To suggest there is no evidence for the science of Biology and then running to some misbegotten understanding of DNA to back up your claim is ludicrous. Where did you get your biology degree?
Larian1975 6 months ago
@jbooks888 The evidence is all around us that we have been evolving within technology' its shapes our world and in return it shapes our minds' watch the movie 10000Bc the most recent one and then imagine not being conditioned by the material comforts' Dawkins has valid points but how can anyone pull it all together all at once?? Are you refering to the concept that we evolved from monkeys or apes? obviously we are human beings and not monkeys but we act like monkeys who cant just get along'
DrFruedienslip 6 months ago
Speaking of insults...do you realise that to say the Torah/Bible is not real, is to wipe out the history of Israel.
Do stop to think - how is it that the language that it was written in is still read till this day?
Why is it that Rome, who persecuted Christians (followers of Jesus Christ), encouraged 'Christianity' (If this 'Jesus' did not exist)?
Why is there BC and AD?
How could Daniel's (in the Bible) vision of Greece defeating Persia come to pass if it not for God?
Truth1sTruth 7 months ago
@Truth1sTruth You've asked me 5 questions here, so here are my answers in order. (I'll elaborate if you wish.)
1: Not really. It's the supernatural magic stuff that I scoff at.
2: It was kept alive because people still speak it.
3: The empire was breaking apart and Emperor Constantine and his court decided on a monotheistic religion to help hold the empire together.
4: That calendar was adopted by the Roman Empire. See also August and July.
5: That coincidence could be just made up afterward.
Larian1975 7 months ago
"If I meet somebody from India, I am going to assume that they are hindu...it's just the way things are...that is normal...it is a reasonable expectation"
What if you're wrong (and you can be)?
"..their entire life's work is possibly a bunch of crap"
Evolution is a theory. There are no facts, no evidence (which athiests require) - no creature, as long as we have known, has evolved, no creature lives that long to evolve (dead things don't evolve).
To be an athiest you need faith.
Truth1sTruth 7 months ago
@Truth1sTruth If it is demonstrated that I hold an incorrect or illogical position, and I am convinced that this is the case, I abandon my position of error and adopt a new one in line with the evidence at hand. This happens to me at least twice a day.
When you say the words theory and evolve, I don't believe that you are using them in the same way that science uses them. You are correct that no individual organism has transmogrified itself Pokemon style. Individuals do not evolve - species do.
Larian1975 7 months ago
larian1975 Very well said.
SpaceOdyssey56 7 months ago
They truly can't handle anything being "thrown back at them." Go look at anyone on Youtube arguing for the bible. They always have comments and ratings disabled. They refuse to accept that anyone out there could have a disagreement with them. And being presented with facts shakes their faith to the point where they need to shut out the real truth.
Nice vid bro.
lostinpgh 7 months ago
touché
swaleszoo 7 months ago
dawkins was not insulting...the first thing he said was "we could all be wrong." he's trying to show her that she beleives that people of other faiths (for ex. those who beleive in the figurative "juju" monster) are wrong and that she could be wrong as well because essentially what many (if not all) religions contain is an element of blind faith where something is accepted in spite of evidence (or lack thereof). the differences is that dawkinds accepts nothing blindly
carlose0318 8 months ago
hey look every one. some one with common sense
sonisphere098 8 months ago
@DethMetal4All101 Yes, that's it! You are so keen.
AlphaBravoCharly12 8 months ago
if just said exactly what i was thinking. btw nice winking :-D
KatTheFrog 8 months ago
@KatTheFrog Thanks for the kind words and thanks for watching. I'd also like to take this time, if I may, to apologise for my poor attempt at speaking proper English. ;-)
Hope to see you around again!
Larian1975 8 months ago
Comment removed
JvilleHD 8 months ago
@JvilleHD Sad to see you removed your comment. This video was actually directed at White, but I made it public. Even he pulled it when he saw nothing was going his way. But I digress.
Dawkins actually gave the correct rebuttal for Ms. Moore's question. As I've explained before (don't expect you to dig through hundreds of posts for it), Moore's argument was a variant of Pascal's Wager. Dawkins merely replied "Which god?"
Thanks for watching anyway.
Larian1975 8 months ago
Comment removed
JvilleHD 8 months ago
Thinking christian =oxymoron
alias41100 8 months ago
Great reply. Thanks for the vid.
And i want to add from the dictionary
intellectual:
someone who is well educated and interested in art, science, literature, etc. at an advanced level.
somethinguseful100 8 months ago
'happy clappy'
I lol'd
chuckfarlieAUS 9 months ago
I* dont see anything 'intellectual 'about Dawkins really he s just a mere zoologist,.Evolution has its roots in Ancient pagan Greece,and in Jewish Kabbalism
.Yes it is a fable disguised as science
SonofJaphet 9 months ago
@SonofJaphet Are you crazy or something... "Evolution,.. is a fable disguised as science". No it isn't, evolution has a whole library of hundreds of years worth of empirical, irrefutable hard evidence.
You are ignoring all of that in favor of a totally unsubstantiated dark age, middle eastern story about a 'believe or I'll thump you' deity.
Valthepixie 9 months ago
@SonofJaphet: 'I don't see anything intellectual about Dawkins'. Probably because your an ignorant arseclown. A mere Zoologist indeed, with a Masters Degree and Doctorate of Philosophy. Former asst Professor of Zoology at Berkley & lecturer at Oxford University amongst many. Multi-scientific and humanist award winner. Published author for numerous magazines & scientific journals, not to mention best selling author and founder of a non-profit charity. By the way, xmas is a trad pagan holiday.
chuckfarlieAUS 9 months ago
@SonofJaphet Actually it's an observed and well documented phenomenon.
Larian1975 8 months ago
@Larian1975 Alright so we observed a slug turning into a fish ok im a an evolutionist now i believe in pseudo scientific fairy tales
SonofJaphet 8 months ago
@SonofJaphet You really don't care do you? Hmm.
Well, the evidence is there and I would be willing to point you to it. But sarcastically denying an overwhelming body of evidence only hurts you. I wish you'd reconsider.
Larian1975 8 months ago
@SonofJaphet The theory of evolution doesn't state that a slug ever turned into a fish. That's the kind of story that you'd find in the Bible.
VanDoodah 8 months ago
@VanDoodah You dont have a sense of humor and you dont know the Bible :there was never a creature that changed to another one ,thats your recycled mythology not mine
SonofJaphet 8 months ago
@SonofJaphet The Bible does have talking donkeys, seven-headed dragons, griffins, giants, a talking serpent and a magic man in the sky, though.
VanDoodah 8 months ago
@SonofJaphet It is not a fable. Even the catholic church has acknowledged evolution. There a so many hints that life has evolved on this planet, that it can't be wrong.
TheLi0nnnn 8 months ago
@SonofJaphet Go to Harvard's evolutionary biology department online and read up fool
iliveon 8 months ago
My father has laboured all his life to maintain his christian faith. Now he´s old and will die soon. I won´t try to convince him of the futility of his faith, since it´s the crutch he´s been leaning on to get himself through decades of ill health. I myself think that there´s nothing more awaiting us on the other side than the infinite black void. It´s not a comforting thought, but at least I see clear. I won´t be disappointed...
peterikarlstad 9 months ago
@peterikarlstad The biblical heaven is described as nonstop fawning for all eternity, and hell as eternal torture.... Sounds like both are an eternal torture to me. Give me sweet oblivion, it sounds by far the best option. lolz
Valthepixie 9 months ago
Frogball LoL nice vid
AnbuKillerBeePro 9 months ago
Arrogant atheist..."reasonable expectation" stereotype is what you mean. Atheist constantly tell theist that they are idiots..as you implied several times yourself. If someone tells you that you will burn in hell why would it bother you. You don't believe in hell (neither do I by the way) My point is that atheist do nothing but call people who have different beliefs stupid,uneducated,superstitious,moronic. Practice what you preach. (pardon the pun)
sissum71 9 months ago
@sissum71 "If someone tells you that you will burn in hell, why would it bother you?"
I don't take kindly to threats, that's why. And should someone insist on threatening me with things which do not conform to reality, (such as eternal torment in hellfire), I'm going to let them know why they're an idiot.
Larian1975 9 months ago
@Larian1975 Wouldn't it be more effective to laugh and walk away? Just a thought...do what you want but, you know people like that will only enjoy getting a response out of you. Why bother ? Why give them the satisfaction? Like i said, do what you want , just be careful.While we may not agree on certain things,I do care about you as a human being.Fundamentalist are insane and dangerous at times.
sissum71 9 months ago
@sissum71 I don't think it would be more effective. Silence gets mistaken for acquiescence. Essentially you're asking me why stand up for the things I believe to be true and valid. All I can say is I do so because I have to. Clamming up and walking away leads to the Dark Ages, where the loudest people with the right kind of Jesus held tyrrany over the masses.
Larian1975 9 months ago
@Larian1975 Like I said,do what you want. I don't give assholes like that the satisfaction.In my opinion,there are many ways to stand up for yourself. It's been my experience that ignoring it and walking away laughing really gets under that kind of person's skin.Of course, if you have to defend yourself..do what you feel you need to do. I can see your point also.
sissum71 9 months ago
@Larian1975 Nice video. You said what exactly what I wanted to say ; )
adler2adler 9 months ago
@sissum71 Atheists tell theists they are stupid, theists tell atheists they will be tortured for all of time for not believing what they believe. Pardon me if I am wrong, but that seems like a threat, not criticism.
mercifulkyle 7 months ago
i think this is 1 of the best reply i ever seen.
AthiestSoldier 9 months ago
@AthiestSoldier Thanks! It could've been better, but that's what happens when you don't script stuff. Thanks for watching, and don't keep the faith! =)
Larian1975 9 months ago
High five man break the cycle
iamajames 9 months ago
The first is correct...I believe that everyone is looking for the meaning of life. I hope that you find your way.
Bikandee 10 months ago
You're searching for something real in this life which is good.
Bikandee 10 months ago
@Bikandee Do you mean it is good that I am looking for something worthwhile or that I am casting about for meaning? If you mean the former, then I thank you. If you mean the latter, I'm not sure I understand.
Larian1975 10 months ago
As for the hypocrisy aspect, I believe this is a problem with the Christian faith. I disagree with the claim that Christianity as a faith and religion is hypocritical. I believe it only comes off that way because we as Christians fall short and are sinners. The center of the Christian faith is NOT condemnation. And if we sound that way, i apologize. The center of our faith is the truth which is LOVE. I just wanted to let that be known.
bballdragon5 10 months ago
@bballdragon5 Then you would appear to have broken with some fundamental aspects of your sacred text. It was Jesus who introduced the concept of eternal punishment in fiery torment - a thing never found in the Old Testament to my knowledge. I fail to see how condemning people to eternal suffering equates to an act of love by some omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent deity.
Larian1975 10 months ago
Clearly you don't get the statement in the question. Sometimes a question has this built in. You obviously have no time for God and are happy living your life the way you feel with out consiquence. May God bless you friend
Bikandee 10 months ago
@Bikandee Oh I get the thinly veiled threat implicit in the question all right. I also get the variation of Pascal's Wager as well.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It probably should be too...
Thanks for watching. May your god not cover you in sores and boils.
Larian1975 10 months ago
"What if you're wrong?"
Bikandee 10 months ago
@Bikandee Do you really want an answer or are you just trolling everyone who disagrees with Oakley?
Larian1975 10 months ago
It doesn't matter if he has a Phd... Anyone can be wrong!
But if what you said is logical then when I get my honours, I can go around saying whatever I want because I have an honours degree I can't be wrong...
Do you see the illogical conecpt you have delved into here. No-one is perfect, no matter how idolised you make him or her out to be.
Gilbertus1986 10 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 You're absolutely right. This point was raised much earlier (and I don't think it's reasonable to ask you to sort through 350+ comments to find this out.)
My arguments here were not scripted, but off the top of my head. Were I to do this video over, I would not frame things as I did about Dawkins' PhD and making it sound as if this alone granted verisimilitude to his artument, but instead focus on his display of logic and his insistence upon evidence.
(more)
Larian1975 10 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 Were you to get that honors degree, I would likely defer to you in areas which your degree covered. In Dawkins' case, evolutionary biology and all related subjects are his forte. The age of the Earth and a background in critical thinking come with that.
In a side note, I found Ms. Moore's argument to be weak and have said so many times. I find "Dr" Oakley's rant which inspired this video to be more so.
Thanks for watching, and good catch!
Larian1975 10 months ago
@Larian1975
The thing about evo biology is we can't really prove anything. We can't do an experiment and explain evolution. We can't observe it. All we know is from fossil evidence, which has many gaps. I'm sure this is a typical Christian response, but the one thing about science is we are trying to answer all these questions of WHY? but in the end we never answer these questions. All we can explain is how. I think people are religious because religion gives answers to the question: why?
bballdragon5 10 months ago
@bballdragon5 I think I see the flaw in the slaw here. We do not explain the theory of evolution via natural selection, but rather the theory is the explanation for the evidence we have. And that evidence is enormous in scale and scope. There are no "gaps" in the fossil record in the way I believe you mean the term.
And we do observe evolution taking place in that fossil record. We've also observed it in both bacteria mutation and a species of mosquito in the Tubes of London.
Larian1975 10 months ago
@bballdragon5
Yes - cheap, made-up answers.
Honestly, "answering" this very abstract, profound question of "why do we exist" with a cheap "God created us and he had this and that in mind..." cop-out, basically nullifies and cheapens the question and sucks out all of inquiry and wonder out of the topic.
twooffour 10 months ago
Thank you for posting this. Wonderful response.
Nonefrog 10 months ago
@Nonefrog Glad you liked it. Feel free to come back anytime, eh?
Thanks for watching.
Larian1975 10 months ago
@Larian1975 Subscribed, so I will definitely be back :)
Nonefrog 10 months ago
Why do you speak when you know nothing?
AlphaBravoCharly12 10 months ago
@AlphaBravoCharly12 That's kind of a harsh judgement, wouldn't you say?
Larian1975 10 months ago
@Larian1975 No, it is just the same kind of judgement that you use.
AlphaBravoCharly12 8 months ago
@AlphaBravoCharly12 So if you're willing to emulate my judgement I can only assume that you find it valid. Glad to hear you agree with me. Why did you remove two of your comments?
Larian1975 8 months ago
Comment removed
AlphaBravoCharly12 10 months ago
Comment removed
AlphaBravoCharly12 10 months ago
Way to go!!! Free thinkers unite!
declanp1 11 months ago
Your right it was a silly question, rhetorical if anything so his answer was justified.
toweronepower 1 year ago
key word assume,when people assume they show their ignorance ,and her question was simple ,he gave no answer and went into a rant about jujus at the bottom of the sea,he show straight forward disrespect for that girl, and anyone with an opposing viewpoint , i really worries me that noone has a problem with the disrespect that dawkins shows. :) my 2 cents peace
lucifer948 1 year ago
@lucifer948 Actually sir, he did answer her question properly. The point and thrust here is rather subtle and easily missed. She posed a variant of a classic argument known as Pascal's Wager and Dawkins gave the classic reply.
Also, in academic circles, there is no such thing as rude. We frequently tear long strips of hide off one another in Q&A sessions after talks. It's expected and welcomed.
Thanks for watching!
Larian1975 1 year ago
@lucifer948 I give this anology alot, but here it is again. in the childs book, the "emporers new clothes" the king KNOWS he is wearing clothes. if you see him naked and ask him why he isnt wearing clothes, have you disrespected him? when he calls you a fool, has he disrespected you? who is truely the fool in that story? look at dawkins as the boy that convinced the town that the weavers were con artists. i think she should be thanking him as well as all christians who are......................
SuperAthiest1 11 months ago
@SuperAthiest1 like the king continueing the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldnt see his clothes was either stupid or incompetent. And he stood stiffly on his carriage, while behind him a page held his imaginary mantle
SuperAthiest1 11 months ago
Very cogently explained. Thank you, Larian1975.
Xenophile665 1 year ago
@Xenophile665 Wow! I didn't see this response as YouTube ate it and didn't forward a copy to my inbox. But thank you for the compliment. Hope to see you around again soon.
Larian1975
Larian1975 1 year ago
Great response .
TheDylan11234 1 year ago
Larian1975 -- nice response. And thank you for beinig honest about yourself.
Religious people get upset with Dawkins because he doesn't give them the answer they want. Christians, iin this case, automatically assume moral superiority in every discussion, so when you fail to play along with them, they become morally indigant. That's when the "he's rude" "he's ignorant" "he has insulted my faith" comes out -- they have nothing else to say.
influxrift 1 year ago
@influxrift I think you may be on to something there. At the very least it would seem to explain a lot.
Thanks for watching!
Larian1975 1 year ago
Smart guy.
abovestand 1 year ago
2. If I hated you, wanted to "insult you", I would leave you alone, let you think that there is nothing wrong with the carnality in which you live. But it is out of LOVE that any Christian would reach out and try to spread their faith. And,if it isn't out of pure love that a person does so, I would go as far as saying that they do not truly believe. I'm sorry that you can't see past the hypocrisy created by so many "professing Christians" , but if you could, you wouldn't think it was insulting.
Tylerboban 1 year ago
@Tylerboban I should wonder at the love poured out by this creator who would set me on fire if I don't believe he exists. It would appear you are trying to save me *from* your god.
It's not that I'm angry with you, it's that I believe you're wasting your time. Much ado about nothing. I've seen no evidence, none, that the god you are trying to save me from exists. And boy I've looked. In this regard he's kind of like the boogeyman.
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 Not trying to save you from my God, trying to save you from yourself. The biggest problem God faces in the Bible, is that he is a Just God, and this clashes with his "love". God hates sin, and when we sin, we deserve hell. That is justice from a perfect God. But when we repent, we receive mercy. There is no injustice. It is by LOVE that we are able to receive mercy over justice.
Tylerboban 1 year ago
@Tylerboban Well then I thank you for your heartfelt effort. I'm always grateful to those who attempt to do me a favor, even if I don't want it. That said, why should I believe your god is any more real than Zeus or Ares? (I don't think they're real either.)
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 Don't mention it, I'm not about to go try to Bible bash you into anything. And it would take a lot more than a youtube comment to answer your question. But for starters, the bible is corroborated by over 25,000 manuscripts, which is substantially more than any Greek train of thought (Plato, Aristotle). Also, whats indicated in the bible, has been shown to be historically accurate (places, kings etc), including the existence of Jesus himself. Why is it so hard to believe in God?
Tylerboban 1 year ago
@Tylerboban Well, he's logically inconsistent and nobody can point to him. If convincing evidence for his being real was there, it should be a trivial matter to produce. (Instead I tend to get "you gotta have faith before you get the proof", which isn't going to work if you're trying to convince me of anything.) I believe in the existence of many things which are invisible to us, such as subatomic particles and electric fields, and it's because of the ready evidence on hand.
Larian1975 1 year ago
Part 1:
As for your "King of Insults" rant at the end, it's unfortunate if that is the kind of Chrisitans you have come across. It is sad that you can't see that it is from a place of love that someone would tell you that "yes, you will burn in hell if you don't turn from your sins", not a place of insult. It's sad that you see an superior/inferior hierarchy, when it is by Christ and Christ alone we are saved, so that NO MAN can boast.
Tylerboban 1 year ago
Second, you mentioned how her question was rude, so he was justified by answering rudely, but in the beginning you mentioned how Dawkins has a Phd. in Evolutionary Biology. If she was such a brat by asking that kind of question to a man of that stature, why did he respond in the same way? Shouldn't a doctor be able to say "If I am wrong then.....but if I am right, as my studies show I am, then....." and properly put her in her place? Thank you for your time, sir.
moredoughnuts01 1 year ago
@moredoughnuts01 Okay, that's a fair question.
Ms. Moore's question was a variant of an argument known as Pascal's Wager, and it goes like this:
Either God exists or he does not, and people believe or do not.
*If God exists, the believer gains everything.
*If God does not exist, the believer loses nothing
*If God does not exist, the non-believer loses nothing
*If God exists, the non-believer loses everything.
Therefore it is safer to believe.
(cont.)
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 I am sure many atheist have been asked in their lives. I am a man of facts. I have my beliefs, yes, but they are beliefs. Christians, atheists, Dawkins, and everyone else only has beliefs, as no one has all the answers, I think we can all agree. I think that Dawkins did a disservice to the atheist and scientific community by deflecting the question rather than posing an intelligent response to a girl that I am sure he could have taken on intellectually. Thank you again for your time.
moredoughnuts01 1 year ago
@moredoughnuts01 Perhaps Dawkins could have phrased his response in a less sharp manner, although I maintain this type of question, by and large, still deserves the category of answer it got.
Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment. Happy holidays!
Larian1975 1 year ago
@moredoughnuts01 This is all a fancy way of asking "What if you're wrong." (See what she did there?) I call this a Christian argument because I've never seen this argument used by a non Christian, and in fact it was originally intended to be a proof of the Christian god, although it could apply equally to any god.
One of the counters to this argument is to ask "which god", as Dawkins did in a roundabout way. The wager has other problems too which I might detail if you really want. (more)
Larian1975 1 year ago
@moredoughnuts01 Part 3: The real problem with the entire thing is that Pascal's Wager looks good at first glance, and the fact that this exchange was so subtle and had the appearance of an old man being crotchety toward a young girl instead of being the philosophical point-and-thrust that it was is lost on many.
Is that what you were asking? (It's kind of late and I'm punchy.)
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 Yes, I see your point. For the record, I am not going to take a theistic side here, I just wanted to point out a less theistic point that Dr. Oakley was trying to make in his video, which is this: As a Christian, it would have been beneficial to hear what Dawkins had to say about the other side of his argument in his own words, without someone else mincing him, and as an atheist, it would also help to see that someone as qualified as Dawkins could respond to a question that (cont.)
moredoughnuts01 1 year ago
First, I am sure that Einstein, Darwin, Tesla, and all the other great thinkers in history have been asked "What if you're wrong?" And I am sure, having studied and examined all of the possibilities, they could answer that question with research and scientific findings. You should never take someone's full word for something! Question with boldness everything! Yes, even the Bible. Ask yourself and anyone else, "What if this is wrong?" Christians should ask themselves that every day.
moredoughnuts01 1 year ago
Great points, dude.
baikinmon 1 year ago
@baikinmon Thankee!
Larian1975 1 year ago
Well put. BTW, I've been told there's a sizable Sikh community in Frogballs, Arkansas.
tctheunbeliever 1 year ago
@tctheunbeliever I thought that was the Rotary club. XD
Larian1975 1 year ago
religious people are so over sensitive whenever their religious beliefs are challenged in even the slightest. They can't even deal with the slightest possibility that their dogmatic beliefs could be wrong yet they believe they are right no matter what and everybody else is wrong. That's blatant hypocrisy. I don't have another way to describe it.
supersmash43 1 year ago
@supersmash43 I'm not sure religion has cornered the market on the unexamined belief you describe. However it is one of the more visible examples. I've seen similar behavior regarding sports teams and choice of computer hardware/software.
When you wrap your identity up in an idea, it seems natural to take offense when that idea is challenged, as the attack upon said idea becomes a de-facto attack upon you. This is dumb, but nobody said we, as a species, were intelligent and meant it.
Cheers!
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 I think people take their religious beliefs too personally but they shouldn't when considering the religious beliefs likely don't represent what they actually believe about reality.
supersmash43 1 year ago
hey mate,
enjoyed your response. I like how you were respectful. I am a christian myself (though I am in a process of questioning everything I stand for). It is nice to see a response that isn't just tongue lashing at everything, instead I see a nice break down of what was said about Dawkins. Breath of fresh air
Jcliveshere 1 year ago
@Jcliveshere It's rare that I'm cited for being respectful. A healthy portion of the comments to date question my familiarity with reality and accuse me of being everything from your garden-variety idiot to a pedophile.
It's kind of nice for someone to accuse me of being decent every now and again.
Thanks for watching, and I hope to see you around again.
Larian1975 1 year ago
Can I make it clear that I'm not trying to be a troll. If all his work is completely true, then why is everyone so offended that she asked the question? If he's right, what's wrong with answering it? I'm digressing.
AbStar921 1 year ago
@AbStar921 That's a fair question and it deserves an answer. I'll try my best.
I don't believe it was the act of her asking him a question that was the offense, but the type of question she asked.
Okay, so what do I mean?
"What if you're wrong," in this context, is a variant of something known as Pascal's Wager. First of all, it's simply not a very good argument for one's favorite deity, and it's also an argument for any gods it permits to be incredibly stupid and naive. (more)
Larian1975 1 year ago
@AbStar921 Pascal's Wager reads thusly:
There are four possibilities concerning belief. Either God exists or he does not, and people believe or do not.
If God exists, the believer gains everything.
If God does not exist, the believer loses nothing
If God does not exist, the non-believer loses nothing
If God exists, the non-believer loses everything.
Therefore it is better to believe because the risk/reward system is stacked toward the believer.
Sounds good huh? (more)
Larian1975 1 year ago
@AbStar921
At the outset, PW looks nice. But what keeps it from applying to every other god man has ever worshiped? ...not much. It's an infantile argument that can't get past the end of its nose. And even worse, you have to accept the notion that the all powerful creator of the Universe is so stupid that you can be a total jerk at heart and have faith just because you don't want to be tortured and he won't notice.
Moreover, Dawkins did answer her by pointing all this out. (One more)
Larian1975 1 year ago
@AbStar921 As to offense, mine was directed mostly toward this "Dr." Oakley I made the video for. I really shouldn't speculate as to why others were miffed. But I have been told that Ms. Moore was part of a "spoiling squad" from Liberty University (a Baptist bible college), and their purpose there was to ask variants of the "what if you're wrong" question and give the speaker grief for Jesus. Not sure if that's true, but if so, I think it explains a lot.
Is that what you were asking?
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 Thankyou for the response. :) I understand where you're coming from. It was just that when I watched the video, I didn't think her question was in any way insulting, and I didn't understand Dawkin's answer....but that was just my opinion. Thankyou for explaining it some more.
AbStar921 1 year ago
@AbStar921 Not a problem. Thanks for watching, and I hope to see you around again.
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 I watched because I wanted to see all the views on it. :)
AbStar921 1 year ago
You have a gross misunderstanding of the nature of our relationship with God. Unfortuneately, most of the church has the same misunderstanding. Brush up on your theology and you might understand things better about, "your qurestion." Real Christians don't claim to be "better than you" nor is that why we are saved. You don't understand the nature of grace, look it up, educate yourself. "Didn't check anything out for myself." Obviously, and he leaves with an insult, classy.
voted4bush 1 year ago
@voted4bush You appear to have a gross misunderstanding of the purpose of this video. I made it for "Dr" Oakley specifically as a response to his original posting which I can only describe as a whine.
For someone who doesn't think themselves better than me, you sure talk down to me a lot.
Larian1975 1 year ago
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! this guy is claiming that Dr. James White (BA. MA. Th.M. Th.D. and D.Min., professor of Greek, Hebrew, and Systemic Theology among other areas of apologetics) doesn't know how to debate! Dr. White has been involved in over 100 FORMAL debates and counting, the kind with two or more people, the kind that Dawkins is too scared to do. Dawkins doesn't debate, he monologues. Please...you obvously haven't watched a James White debate.
voted4bush 1 year ago
@voted4bush About his Th.D. and upper level degrees, I don't recognize them. They're shady as all get-out, and could only be more laughable if they were written in crayon. I've checked. That Th.D. is from a non accredited university, and others are the result of correspondence courses.
I don't care how many debates he's supposed to have joined, his argument here sucks. It's bad. I assure you he's fallable.
So do you know how to debate? Can you recognize a flawed argument?
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 So learning about theology, something that was determined nearly 2000 years ago can't be done through corresponence? That's because books evolve right? "...his argument sucks.." Okay, why? I never said he's infallable, I'm not Catholic. You claim Dr. White's video is a, "whine" but then you say, "you sure talk down to me a lot." Okay, where? Finally, you didn't cover your lack of knowledge about theology, how do expect to understand Dr. White if you don't even have a base?
voted4bush 1 year ago
@voted4bush His argument is bad because he fails to recognize or acknowlege the logical fallacy inherent in Ms. Moore's question. Dawkins was right to answer in the manner he did. It wasn't rude, it was proper.
Your other questions in order:
1) No.
2) No.
3) He doesn't understand formal logic.
4) Almost everything you've said to me so far.
5) I've more than read the Bible. White is a charlatan and attention whore to brag of these "degrees" with the exception of his BA which seems legit.
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 You are still completely surface level, you haven't backed up a single one of your claims. 3) It's clear you haven't watched any of White's debates or other videos (maybe you just didn't understand his response because you don't understand the Bible you claim to have, "more than read") 4) Really? Grow up and be a man, I've done zero "talking down to" 5) Still astonishing considering his track record. Watch, read, learn, then you might not make such absurd assertions.
voted4bush 1 year ago
@voted4bush I would consider someone advising me to "grow up and be a man" to be talking down to me. You speak to me as a superior to an inferior, and I find this rather rude. In short, I don't like your tone.
Moreover, I most surely did answer your objections. Your inablility to accept my answers is not a fault for which I should be held accountable. If you want clarification of any said answer, try asking politely. You never know, it might just work. You certainly haven't tried it yet.
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 Yet again, you still haven't backed up any of your claims. Yes, I'll admit the "Be a man..." may come across condescending (if you read it that way) but frankly I'm tired of YOUR whining. You're acting like a victim for no reason. Where you come from, you may be able to get away with this weak, surface level "answers," but here in the land of academia, we need support. Try again.
voted4bush 1 year ago