Darwin's Theory of Evolution is falling apart all over the world as it receives more light and modern, critical study. It just can't stand up to the evidence! Biological evidence when judged critically and impartially, always point to the divine intelligence that gave it birth. Those who still hold to Darwin's theory are advocating a religion of their own. I choose to believe in the True and Living God who created (and continues to create) life.
I get a little bit angry when people try and reconcile this debate. It cannot be done. I've studied dinosaurs and prehistory since I was little and I always assumed that the people against evolution died out a long time ago because it seemed so foolish for such people to exist in the 21st century. When I found out the majority of people were in denial I got angrier still. I felt like the crazy person and no one would believe me. You cannot prove these people wrong.
Williams is a silly man. He's intelligent and articulate, but he has to reconcile reality with fairytales, rather than simply dismissing the fairytales as old stories from an old culture. It's amusing that he recently said atheism was "cool" as if to discredit atheism by implying that it's just a fad. Never mind the fact that clear, rational thought is more defensible than fairies and folklore, nonbelief is just hip and rad to the young folks and they'll grow out of it and return to the church.
I wonder if anyone else notices the similarities between Dawkins' dismissal of relativism and a Christian fundamentalists' dismissal of of the same.Then there is this very fundamentalist notion of "did it happen or didn't it". The fundamentalists are ill equipped to take on materialist atheists because material atheism is the logical conclusion of fundamentalist belief. indeed the world is complex. There are different layers and we can talk spiritually about things...
... this isnt to say that we now turn to relativism. But we do need to recognise that the black and white world in which fundamentalists come from, is ill-equipped in modern times to defend the faith. In fact the whole modern approach to Christianity falls out of the enlightenment. Hence there are only two ways a fundamentalist can go from here: atheism or gnosticism. Atheism affirm only the material and not the spiritual. Whereas gnosticism devalues the material and elevates the spiritual...
... That's why Christian fundamentalists are very close to gnosticism. Look at Jonathon Edwards and his view on matter. He's not completely gnostic, but there are definitely echoes of gnosticism there. Williams and Dawkins are talking past one another. Williams being an orthodox Christian knows that matter is important but so is the spiritual. That these are not opposed as in Puritanism. He speaks "poetically" about God the same way scripture does. A materialist like Dawkins just doesn't get it.
"Rather than just denying the evidence, the Church of England devoloped the most sophisticated strategy to face the challenge of evolution - God could take the credit for getting science started." LOL! Wrong, this "strategy" isn't even a strategy. It was believed that God was behind science for centuries long before the theory of evolution even became a theory Dicknick. Do some historical research before making yourself a fool again.
'I AM NOT SURE WHAT THAT MEANS...' Dawkins at 3.53. Dear Rowan, you dithered and offered him pure faith. I would have made clear that materialism, evolution-ism, philosophy are all on the horizontal. The new creation in Christ, the new body of resurrected humanity that Paul collided with on the road to Emmaus (?) is something that cuts vertically like an axe through those horizontals to a new reality that Christians will never be able justify to Materialists.
@ScottCr3s5 That's because Williams IS smarter than Dawkins - here and everywhere, though how can Williams take the new testament serious is my big beef with Williams and his hedging with his God evolution b.s.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
THIS is the brilliant Richard Dawkins? Good grief. Anyway, I'd love to have heard some of Williams' answers--all the video shows is Williams demonstrating way too much courtesy to the ant pestering him. This is simply the usual braindead spectacle of a crass secularist declaring all of reality the property of science and dissing anyone, including the mouse in the wall, whose concept of existence is more complex, intellectual, or democratic.
@tuanchijui Of course the answers were edited out. Abp. Williams is a gentleman, and much too intelligent to be outsmarted by a troll like Dawkins (who is very intelligent in his own right -- though he relies on cheap bullying techniques).
@usmc1088 I just don't see it. Dawkins simply does not come across as an especially bright or clever person, at least not in print or on camera. Who knows--maybe in private he's a regular Einstein. Minus a media which prefers second-rate intellects and which chronically confuses celebrity with ability, I doubt Dawkins would very often be mistaken for a thinker, let alone an advanced one.
I like Richard Dawkins. He's smart. But is he a good person? Oh... OH FUCK! GIGANTIC SWIRLS OF LOGICAL AND ILLOGICAL WATERS ARE FLUSHING DOWN THE TOILET OF UNDERSTANDING. Between EVERY SINGLE PERSON on this planet, there is a capacity to understand, and relate. Which is better, to understand, or to fight and have war and misconduct and disharmony? I don't get it. FUCK IDEA'S. Look into each others eyes and say 'fuck my idea's about the world, you're here and I can see you"
Great. Edit out Williams' response, and then cut it off when he starts to respond and explain his nuanced point about God acting in noninterventionist ways. Dawkins looks like a secular fundamentalist, in this video at least.
I hate the way Dawkins uses "science" as a synonym for "the natural world" and/or "the laws of nature". Science is the means of discovering these things -- it is not these things per se.
I think that's partly how he gets away with so much "poetic" waffle, because it sounds good coming out in his melliflous voice. However I was quite impressed even he admitted what he said could be seen as a way of wriggling out of answering difficult questions.
you are dictating the rules of the argument via your own personal views. you;ve already made up your mind, and the "something else" is already settled there.
you have done exactly what the religious do. for lack of knowing, you guess based on personal views lacking the say of science. eitherway,you dont know, and the analogy of marys virgin birth and the start of life are similiar.
@giovanone to me it doesn't seem at all like Dawkins wishes there was a God. I think it would be difficult to read the God Delusion and come away with the belief that Dawkins hopes he's wrong.
it seems kind of strange to see dawkins laughing off the virgin birth, yet a virgin birth is exactly what the atheist company line seems to be pushing for the creation of life.
@glennjridge I like it how you instantly assume that I "have no idea what 'your' talking about". Your analogy is still moronic, however. Who are these "scientists" you speak of? Try not to be so generalizing. Also, the scientific community suggests no such thing as "something from nothing" - If you had understood it correctly, you would see that no one really knows what was before the big bang. All we can say is that everything was once condensed before expanding. What was around, no one knows.
@glennjridge "scientists believe everything started with the big bang.there was nothing.....then there was life." no... that's not what scientists believe lol. you need to do more research on what exactly the big bang theory is before you can just spout out inaccurate generalizations about what you think scientists "believe".
@toribjork10 ok,what was before the big bang? what do scientists say was occruing before the big bang? if you dont know.......science believes that life started with that event.
@glennjridge they believe that life on earth could have started with the big bang. but scientist do not believe "everything started with the big bang. there was nothing and then there was life.". scientist don't claim to know how the universe started. you're presenting a misrepresentation of the big bang theory and the scientific community in general. please educate yourself on the subject because you're extremely misinformed.
@toribjork10 calling people misinformed and to educatee ones self is tough talk coming from a guy whose post was essencially an admittence that scientists know zero. so much so you actually admitted they dont even know if it was the big bang. so, please, if you are going to jump in using an argument...and an instrument named science at least have the decency to be able to post something that isnt a wonderfully wrapped slice of "we know zero".
@glennjridge the entire point of science is that it's constantly changing once new information is discovered. that's why some things aren't set it stone. religion is the opposite, it refuses to accept any information that may negate what it says is "truth". again, i ask you to educate yourself on what the big bang theory is and how science works in general. you're taking me saying that you're misinformed as an insult. but it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about.
@toribjork10 you are asking me to educate myself essencially reading a chapter in a science book called "life and big bang"that has no words in it. so,once again, a virgin birth, and where life came from are essencially the same template. what could you say? telling me to educate myself using something that doesnt know fails.
@glennjridge no, actually i'm telling you educate yourself in science before you start stating things that aren't true. clearly you have no idea what the big bang theory is. either someone misinformed you, or you're just don't understand the theory and are making it up as you go along. either way your statements about it are false. and yes there are many books, teachers, and courses that can help your learn more about it so you won't sound so ignorant future conversations or debates.
@glennjridge again as others have pointed out to, but you don't seem to understand, the big bang has NOTHING to do with "something coming from nothing". that's a religious concept. i don't know what else to say to you other than for you to educate yourself on the subject. if you aren't willing to do that, then it's impossible for anyone to debate you because you you're presenting misinformation. you have to do the research in order to appear educated on a subject. b/c now you don't appear.
@toribjork10 you're feigning exasperation to mask the obvious. it irritates you that my virgin birth analogy is in fact correct. heres a hint. if your only talking point is one of "you dont understand.....educate yourself.... presenting misinformation.....yet cant correct me in anyway except those cop outs, you dont know anything yourself.
you are what i was telling the other guy he was. an "internet scientist". that is one who always tells others they dont know,but clearly is in the same boat.
@glennjridge i haven't even acknowledged your virgin birth because there is no evidence that virgin birth can occur. if you can provide evidence, then i'll acknowledge it. a baby can't be conceived from nothing. and you claim this is same principle in which the big bang theory works. but it isn't. and until you understand how the big bang theory works, what is the point in trying to debate with you?
it has nothing to do being an "internet scientist". this is basic high school science.
to put it plainly for you: the big bang occurred when things already in existence formed with other things already in existence to create different things. see? there is no "something coming from nothing". that is SOMETHING coming from SOMETHING.
i really don't know how much more simple i can make it for you. so if you knew anything about the theory, you would know that your "virgin birth" is a false analogy.
so you can understand the "exasperation" in trying to point out the very basic flaw in your argument, which is your claim that "something came from" is the central theme of the big bang.
and again, for the last time, THAT ISN'T WHAT THE BIG BANG THEORY IS.
@glennjridge The major difference is that Mary's supposed virginity was circumvented by a god, according to mythology, and the big bang was started by something else. Scientists don't know what, yet, but they can admit it and keep searching.
The major difference is there, where the credit is laid. Just because it's yet unexplained doesn't mean a deity is there, pulling the strings.
There's a lot of black and white thinking towards religion and science. Obviously both have their bad and good points. Rowan and Dawkins had an extremely polite conversation and very interesting too.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
Not in this video, but most of Dawkins' arguments rely on strawmen and false dichotomies. You see, what many people do, Dawnkins included, when they want to argue against an idea but they don't want to try very hard is that they argue against only the ideas of the most insanely extreme among their opponents and, when the argument is intended to refute the ENTIRE idea, not just the most extreme version of it, it's considered to be a strawman.
I see what you mean, and I agree that simply addressing the extremities is problematic. Let's keep in mind, however, that this is a television show, and that the content is hyperbolic by nature. The principles on which his arguments are ultimately founded are sound.
I think the existence of these kind of people is a powerful argument against religion, since the lack of a god is not considered a valid reason to perpetrate violence.
@pgt1027 Yes, they are also insightful, but they do not change my comment. Richard Dawkins is a brilliant man, but not perfect. It's easy to get upset when a group of people so diligently reject rational thought and the scientific process, just as it's frustrating for the religious to become frustrated when rationally minded people continually reject the existence of a deity.
In short, I do not believe we actually disagree on this topic, more on our level of respect for Dawkins.
That might mean something if Dawkins simply spat out some fallacies in a fit of anger. However, one does not write whole books in a fit of anger, one does not film whole documentaries in a fit of anger. You can't wave off his faulty logic because he got "upset" at people not agreeing with him
No, I don't respect Dawkins at all. He's basically become an atheist version of a Fundamentalist preacher. He actively works to turn atheists into the same screaming fanatics he's so critical of
@pgt1027 You may not agree with his methods, but his voice is never raised, nor does he condemn people to a fiery afterlife. At most he displays repugnance for those who are spiritual, and I find repugnance more tolerable than blind faith, which is because of my personal viewpoint on the matter.
I think "screaming fanatic" is a misnomer, even if he is guilty of being anti-theist.
That's my whole goddamn point. He isn't mad or upset, he makes flawed arguments without the excuse of anger.
I want you to sit back and think for a minute and realize that this is Dawkins making a video raging against religious tolerance.
If he was, instead, a Fundy preacher stating that relativism is bad because everyone should just accept the only truth that Jesus Christ is Lord, guys like you would be screaming that his brash, offensive intolerance is what's wrong with religion
@pgt1027 No, I think it's more likely that we would calmly and rationally point out that the person is deluded (meant in the most clinical sense), and the evidence for why we disagree, without becoming upset, and without "screaming." The point of rationalism is that no amount of "screaming" will make it any more accurate. Evidence either exists or it doesn't, and there is no evidence of a god of any sort, not even one who could damn your point (see what I did there?).
Also, many of Dawnkins' arguments depend upon a false dichotomy of the Straw Religious (who are the easiest to argue against) vs Atheists, which makes atheists look much more reasonable because their only alternative is a cartoonish caricature of the religious. He more or less disregards everyone in the middle of his little dichotomy with half-assed No True Scotsman fallacies.
And when he's forced to recognize the existence and prominence of religious and non-religious theists who aren't extremists, he gets mad and makes hostile videos like the one above.
@pgt1027 i kind of see your point with he whole "he keeps arguing against the extreme examples". but when it comes down to it, all christians believe some pretty "extreme" things based on faith alone. i mean, it's hard to believe anything they say is rational if they believe in a man coming back from the dead, noah's ark, parting of seas, possession. if you believe some parts of the bible literally, then why don't you believe other parts of the bible literally. it's called cherry picking.
Yes, but what does atheism/science have to say about homosexualism? It is a pervasive problem in our society today. It is a 'learned' behaviour that is noy only a bane but a sign of dysfunction to the community in general.
@BillyFeynman atheism is the response to claims by people that a deity exists, that's all.
As for science, it is an approach in how to formulate and investigate a question in order to arrive at a rigorously investigated and tested conclusion of something. For example, you have already prejudged homosexuality as "learned": on what grounds? You have also judged it as "sign of dysfunction": on what grounds? You have labeled it a "problem": on what grounds?
@BillyFeynman First, dont' try to strawman. It's silly. Atheism means the lack of belief in a deity, no matter what your priest told you. As for your "highest authority", please provide evidence that is objective, reproducible and verifiable that your deity exists. Otherwise, I dismiss your deity as an imaginary attempt by you to avoid providing actual justification for your own personal opinions, and will once again ask you, on what grounds?
@BillyFeynman look it up in the dictionary. I'm not here to do your work for you.
Further, as you have failed to provide any evidence of a deity, I now summarily dismiss your assertion that such a thing exists, and further, I conclude that your prejudices regarding homosexuality are your personal opinion based on a lack of information and thus, your whole point is one of an argument from ignorance hiding behind superstitions.
Science is about reality, not about supporting your ignorance.
@Aaron1975melbourne The dictionary? Are you joking? The true meaning of a word is defined by usage, the way the majority of the population uses the word. There are about 1 billion english speakers in the world, all speaking about 120 words a minute, and about 30000 words a day. Thats a total of 30 trillion words a day. It is the consensus of this massive number that defines meaning, certainly not the view of a few academics who write dictionaries, and absolutely not 1 individual like yourself.
@BillyFeynman And you continue to prevaricate, hoping against hope that your dodging and weaving will somehow hide the fact that you have zero evidence for your deity. Thus, my conclusion stands. Science is about real life, not supporting your ignorance.
@Aaron1975melbourne You are arrogant because you pick very easy arguments such as 'prove that God exists', which of course noone can. You then gloat that you have won some great intellectual battle. No doubt you read Hitchens or Dawkins, parrot their arguments as your own, in the hope that you will be viewed as intelligent as them. In reality you are just insecure and want to be regarded as the smartest guy in the room to boost your immature ego.
@Aaron1975melbourne Now who is committing the strawman. I never claimed that I can prove God exists. You cannot defeat my real argument so you erect a fake strawman argument to attack.
@BillyFeynman Me: "please provide evidence that is objective, reproducible and verifiable that your deity exists."
You: "About the grounds for my point, I will respond after you answer the above."
Typical semantic wordgames from a theist trying to avoid the real issue: their total lack of justification for trying to force their personal opinions down other's throats on the basis of imaginary deities.
@Aaron1975melbourne you really are very good at misrepresenting what I say. I said 'I will respond....', you claim that I literally said (quoting) "Oh, I can prove God exists". I am quoting directly, quoting directly is not distorting the dialogue as you suggest. Stop putting false arguments into my mouth that I never made, thats just weak. I responded to you. Now stop dodging my questions, man up and answer like a grown up.
@Aaron1975melbourne But this is going off topic. You asked me what my grounds are for believing a diety exits. Perhaps that is an assumption on my part. But science itself is a set of assumptions. Scientific theories after all are only 'provisionally' true. You make assumptions about the universe just as I do.
@BillyFeynman Typical theistic attempt to conflate terms. That's not evidence of a deity, that's evidence of your ignorance of language, ignorance of science, ignorance of the rules of evidence, and further evidence of your deceitful tactics.
@Aaron1975melbourne I gave you a straight answer that God's existence is an assumption, I see nothing deceitful about that. It is an honest answer. My point is that science is also based on assumptions. Typical arrogant atheist.
Scientific assumption: that if something's real, it leaves evidence of its existence that can be examined and reproduced by others, who will find the same conclusion even as they attempt to disprove it
Religious assumption: that religious tenets, stories, and hope that something is real can be substituted for evidence despite the fact that people create wildly different religions using the method.
@BillyFeynman Don't bother trying those theist tricks. Deities are superfluous to the question of brains in vats. Thus, it's a typical diversionary tactic but desperate theists. Second, theists demand that we believe that there are things happening that cannot be predicted. And that's a measurable claim that has been shown each time it has been attempted to be false. Which is in fact, evidence against the supernatural.
Neither of those things support your imagined deity.
@Aaron1975melbourne Diversionary from what? Again another strawman. I answered you directly, then I put it to you about the assumptions of science and you dodge......again.
@Aaron1975melbourne You are really desperate to avoid a hard argument about the presuppositions of science, and are desperate to get into any easy argument that you cannot lose such as 'prove God exists', then you can walk away convincing yourself that you are an intellectual such as Dawkins. You are copycat, arrogant atheis, period.
@BillyFeynman what hard argument? So far you've failed to even move one step along a line of justifying your beliefs, therefore, your beliefs are summarily dismissed as irrelevant. Thus, we get to look at your commentary on homosexuality. As they're based on unjustified beliefs, they are likewise dismissed as irrational. I'm very sorry you can't understand how reality works, but frankly, it's not my problem: it's yours. After all, you're the one who can't justfity your position.
@Aaron1975melbourne The hard argument of dealing with the presuppositions of science. But you dodge that. You say my beliefs are irrelevant, suggesting that they are based on unprovable assumptions. You suggest that therefore any opinion I have on those grounds can be dismissed as irrelevant.
I put it to you that your science is based also on unprovable assumptions. We can then, also dismiss scientific argument as irrelevant.
@BillyFeynman You have already admitted that your beliefs are unprovable assumptions... in fact, your whole defence is based on your beliefs being unprovable assumptions. That doesn't change now merely because you're realized what an error it was to admit that. We can now assume that you are a fraud, a liar, and a trickster who cannot be taken at their word on anything at all.
@Aaron1975melbourne The difference between us is that I am honest. I admit theism is based on unprovablde assumptions. You will not admit that science is based on unprovable assumptions.
Science cannot prove the morality/immorality of homosexuality. It has nothing to say about morals, God does.
@BillyFeynman You've already made it clear that your beliefs are based on snake oil sales pitches based on nothing and justified by nothing. Thus, any comment you make is suspect and irrelevant to any discussion.
@Aaron7 In essence you have claimed 'some' of your beliefs (as posted on YT) are unverifiable, therefore 'all' of your beliefs are unverifiable. This is absurd. You haven't given enough evidence to prove this absurd claim, you have short-changed me.
I asked you 'on what grounds?' and you just repeated yourself. In essence you said 'none of your beliefs are justified because none of your beliefs are justified'. Now you are being circular.
I thought 'you people' were supposed to be logical?
@Aaron1975melbourne You should also know that hate-speech is against the YT terms of service. I have already flagged your channel and reported you to admin.
@BillyFeynman And I've already checked comments by you on other videos... it's clear you're a troll. I wouldn't even have confidence in concluding that you're a theist. You'll say anything to get people to bite, and I should have recognized that earlier.
And as for "hate speech"... you have a long history of making sterotypical racist and homophobic comments across many videos. So no, your crocodile tears don't hold much stock with me.
@Aaron1975melbourne Absolute rubbish, name one racist statement I have made on another video and post the title. If you cannot, all of the people reading this thread will know that you are simply full of shit.
@BillyFeynman Why bother? YouTube will review your comment history and remove you soon enough. They check both accounts when someone makes a complaint you know.
@Aaron1975melbourne What a cop-out! You can't post any of my so called racist comments because there aren't any! You are a sad man. I put a straight-forward argument to you regarding science. Instead of being mature ad answering, you claim I lied on this thread, contradicted myself, asserted that I posted that all my views were non-scientific. Finally you call me a racist, yet you can post no evidence of any of these things. Your stupidity is spectacular.
@BillyFeynman And if I had.. you would now be busy desperately trying to delete evidence of your hatred. Why would I want to help you avoid closure of your account?
@Aaron1975melbourne You keep claiming 'I have evidence, I have evidence' of your accusations, yet you post none. Your lack of action speaks volumes. You are a stupid little man, but as a Christian I love you. I hold you to my bosom now, cry on my bosom, cry to the Lord as you go back on all your atheistic beliefs as you violate everything you once believed, hush now child. I forgive you.
@BillyFeynman And if I did you would then automatically revert to "Oh, I don't believe that evidence try again" and waste my time. Like I said: there's no reason for me to believe a word you say as you're merely a troll. And on what basis would I trust the comment on your forgiveness? I can't take you at your word.
@Aaron1975melbourne If such racist comments exist then the evidence would be irrefutable. You do not post the evidence, so it is reasonable to assume that it does not exist. You again repeat that everything I say is a lie based on the fact that I am a theist, like I said absurd. And if that is not hate speech, I don't know what is.
@BillyFeynman And again: Anything you say is suspect and unable to be taken at face value. Thus any comment you make is irrelevant to any discussion.
Acknowledging the facts of evolution and science as Rowan Williams does is one good thing but then believing in miracles and the virgin birth as he says seem to me to be at great odds with each other. I think in his head and heart he recognizes this contradiction. These biblical stories are legends and myths meant to convey a spiritual message.
@Animalols But science and faith have different jobs to do - for instance science may or may not be able to cure you of some hideous disease but a scientist would be last person I would want comfort from in order to deal with a horrific diagnosis.
@Thechristiancullen I'd actually prefer a scientist to let me know exactly how many days I have left with whatever ailing may be ending my life than a person that will make me worry about what will happen to me after I die. I am not saying you should not seek for comfort from someone of your own faith by any means. I just would like to have a proper answer about how much time I have left and Faith cannot answer that question. Hopefully your faith won't fail you when the time comes. Take care.
"... there are certain moments when there is an opening in the world, in which the underlying divine action comes through in a fresh way...... Take the birth of Jesus...". Can we get any other example of where this divine action has come in through in such a "fresh" way?
My analogy would be to take the evolution of the automobile..over the past 120 years or so it has evolved...cars are now safer, faster, more efficient, more aerodynamic, etc...it didn't happen by itself...engineers and designers made it better over time...relatively slowly. The same with all life on earth, organic or otherwise...maybe this organic life has an intelligence of its own telling it to evolve...that is an intelligence in itself.
Yes..very True...Gravity is the truth...that is the Laws of Gravity are understood....but why it works is not understood. Physics explain how things work, but not how they came to be.
@kyleroberts3000 Revised: I’d like to think it’s an ignorant mistake, but that goes back to the Protestant Reform. No. I’ve never been to an Episcopalian Church. Wait a minute. Whose moral flaw? I can’t tell if you’re talking about the church’s or Dawkins. There’s warning against ‘false christs’ in the bible, so I see no reason to even bother. There’s also recommendations for tents made w/ rams’ skin & goat hair.
@666caimbirdofhell Speaking of women & the CoE, Henry the 8th was trying to bend the rules in order to marry and later behead Anne Boleyn. If that’s referring to the church, yeah, I’d say that’s a highly moral flaw on their behalf and an ignorant one on Dawkins’.
@666caimbirdofhell Plans weren't to eventually behead Anne Boleyn after their marriage. She was beheaded due to her inability to birth a male child and Henry VIII's yearn for a son to pass on the family bloodline.
Gravity is just a theory too, but no one argues against it. The evidence is compelling. If God wanted to really make a statement, he would have sent his salesmen out in the 21 century rather than dropping them into the bronze age to scare illiterate, intellectually stunted shepherds. That being said, believe what you want but try to enjoy life and when possible, try to make someone else's a bit better.
That makes it occult by definition. It’s hidden from man’s naked eyes. I’ll sprout a pair of siren-wings, and fly quite naturally Dawkins. Don’t worry about me and the window.
Invalid. The man’s obviously a heretic whose church allows women to become priests against the bible’s decree. I’m not trying to be a scabbed-prick about it, I’m trying to make a point. Try orthodoxy first.
Well the miracles God supposedly creates could still have been something that was all part of the design, just that its not currently known by science. Maybe aspects such as the soul exist, and by design were meant to create jesus at that time. haha! yes :) Answered the question with a vague allusion.
@HedgecockFamily "atheists" aren't a monolithic group of people with common dogmatic rules and beliefs. This matter will depend on each individual atheists' opinion.
@SuperAnimalDrummer All the logic needed is in my very statement. There is no set of rules or beliefs that define atheists as they are not a group, or, a set of people. They are all the people that do not belong to the set of people who are theists. The only thing that binds them is their disbelief in, or rather belief in the nonexistence of a, or the god. To say they do is akin to saying people who don't believe in Santa Clause have a similar set of beliefs.
are people on this forum really argue the bible is more barbaric than bin laden? pretty ridiculous if you ask me. The bible doesn't advocate to kill innocent people. Now i know people are gonna try and bring verses leviticus, joshua, Deuteronomy and Judges, because thats what atheists i talk to tend to do. I'd be glad to respond
The Bible clearly does suggest that the murder of innocents is a moral and just thing, in that it holds YHVH as the pinnacle of morality, and YHVH engages in the murder of innocents regularly.
@jamaicanification it's not just atheists (personally I don't like the term i'd rather those who seek reason and are in command of their critical faculties that could include humanists, secularists, scientists etc but the labeling is unimportant) who would believe that the bible instructs people to kill, it is your god himself. Do you believe the bible is the word of god? Then the flood was the biggest single act of genocide and destruction of flora and fauna ever. There is no response ot that.
I hate how this doesn't show William's response to the last thing Dawkins says. I wonder if Dawkins didn't want to show it because he looks better getting the last word.
@BrighamHB so true. he puts dawkins to shame in this interview. i've seen the full version although i can't find it anymore. it exposes dawkins as a shit stirring attention seeker. he is clearly hoping and waiting for williams to slip up and say something stupid but it just doesnt happen.
I can't stand Dawkins but he's right on this account.
imshippyupup 2 days ago
Rowan Williams > Richard Dawkins
TheFunkyTheist 1 week ago
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is falling apart all over the world as it receives more light and modern, critical study. It just can't stand up to the evidence! Biological evidence when judged critically and impartially, always point to the divine intelligence that gave it birth. Those who still hold to Darwin's theory are advocating a religion of their own. I choose to believe in the True and Living God who created (and continues to create) life.
Borzoi86 1 month ago
@Borzoi86 Oh you brainwashed moron.
DeterminationForever 3 weeks ago
@Borzoi86 LOL!
dkthg 3 weeks ago
I get a little bit angry when people try and reconcile this debate. It cannot be done. I've studied dinosaurs and prehistory since I was little and I always assumed that the people against evolution died out a long time ago because it seemed so foolish for such people to exist in the 21st century. When I found out the majority of people were in denial I got angrier still. I felt like the crazy person and no one would believe me. You cannot prove these people wrong.
Rainfish14 1 month ago
Williams is a silly man. He's intelligent and articulate, but he has to reconcile reality with fairytales, rather than simply dismissing the fairytales as old stories from an old culture. It's amusing that he recently said atheism was "cool" as if to discredit atheism by implying that it's just a fad. Never mind the fact that clear, rational thought is more defensible than fairies and folklore, nonbelief is just hip and rad to the young folks and they'll grow out of it and return to the church.
Ceenymeeny 1 month ago
I'm a fervent Muslim, and i say this with absolute honesty: Rowan Williams is amongst the most wonderful people that exist on earth.
I think the respect he shows, his demeanour and patience serves to make this planet a better place. Kudos to you Mr. Williams, you have my respect.
jstsurreal 1 month ago
Dr. Dawkins, for your next video series, PLEASE find a better way to film both people, the switching of the cameras makes me feel nauseas.
kubrox91 1 month ago
Why is Richard Dawkins look so angry? =P
amrascarpathia 1 month ago
I wonder if anyone else notices the similarities between Dawkins' dismissal of relativism and a Christian fundamentalists' dismissal of of the same.Then there is this very fundamentalist notion of "did it happen or didn't it". The fundamentalists are ill equipped to take on materialist atheists because material atheism is the logical conclusion of fundamentalist belief. indeed the world is complex. There are different layers and we can talk spiritually about things...
brendos444 2 months ago
... this isnt to say that we now turn to relativism. But we do need to recognise that the black and white world in which fundamentalists come from, is ill-equipped in modern times to defend the faith. In fact the whole modern approach to Christianity falls out of the enlightenment. Hence there are only two ways a fundamentalist can go from here: atheism or gnosticism. Atheism affirm only the material and not the spiritual. Whereas gnosticism devalues the material and elevates the spiritual...
brendos444 2 months ago
... That's why Christian fundamentalists are very close to gnosticism. Look at Jonathon Edwards and his view on matter. He's not completely gnostic, but there are definitely echoes of gnosticism there. Williams and Dawkins are talking past one another. Williams being an orthodox Christian knows that matter is important but so is the spiritual. That these are not opposed as in Puritanism. He speaks "poetically" about God the same way scripture does. A materialist like Dawkins just doesn't get it.
brendos444 2 months ago
Dawkins wants to be angry.
HowlingSpirit7 2 months ago in playlist Richard Dawkins
"Rather than just denying the evidence, the Church of England devoloped the most sophisticated strategy to face the challenge of evolution - God could take the credit for getting science started." LOL! Wrong, this "strategy" isn't even a strategy. It was believed that God was behind science for centuries long before the theory of evolution even became a theory Dicknick. Do some historical research before making yourself a fool again.
gr8vibes2 2 months ago
'I AM NOT SURE WHAT THAT MEANS...' Dawkins at 3.53. Dear Rowan, you dithered and offered him pure faith. I would have made clear that materialism, evolution-ism, philosophy are all on the horizontal. The new creation in Christ, the new body of resurrected humanity that Paul collided with on the road to Emmaus (?) is something that cuts vertically like an axe through those horizontals to a new reality that Christians will never be able justify to Materialists.
BachEmotion 2 months ago
Dawkins is an intellectual coward who will only appeal to the lowest base. Please 'interview' Stephen Meyer.
Seigu007 3 months ago
Clash of the eyebrows
strangemoosh 3 months ago
Wow... Can we listen to what he has to say Dawkins?
owchywawa 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard looks as if he wants to kill William!
convanjo 3 months ago
I just invited Rowan Williams to be the front singer of my death metal band.
guitar789 3 months ago
God Damn Williams looks much smarter than Dick right here
ScottCr3s5 3 months ago
@ScottCr3s5 That's because Williams IS smarter than Dawkins - here and everywhere, though how can Williams take the new testament serious is my big beef with Williams and his hedging with his God evolution b.s.
gr8vibes2 2 months ago
So... since when did understand gravity? I missed that memo.
iMentieth 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
Why did Dr Williams have his answer cut off? What did he say? Did the answer displease Mr Dawkins?
bored1980 3 months ago
Tell me how evolution disproves a higher power??
Or better yet explain this
10^600
That's the chance of dna randomly
-----------------------------------------------------------
10^18
That's the number of seconds since the universe began 42 billion years ago
Freinds, you ignore logic and reason by ignoring overwhelming facts.
iPumpIron4Fun 3 months ago
@iPumpIron4Fun i love you
Seigu007 3 months ago
@iPumpIron4Fun "that's the chance of dna randomly!"
sir, you deserve a nobel prize.
joe80dmanizanerd 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
THIS is the brilliant Richard Dawkins? Good grief. Anyway, I'd love to have heard some of Williams' answers--all the video shows is Williams demonstrating way too much courtesy to the ant pestering him. This is simply the usual braindead spectacle of a crass secularist declaring all of reality the property of science and dissing anyone, including the mouse in the wall, whose concept of existence is more complex, intellectual, or democratic.
ismarythere 4 months ago
Rowan Williams looks eerily like Pedobear
ProjectFreeSelf 4 months ago
I would like to hear all of Dr.Williams responses, it seems his answers were edited out.
tuanchijui 4 months ago
@tuanchijui not sure if this one is there, but dawkins usually put out all the "uncut" interviews on his channel.
fjoo 4 months ago
@tuanchijui Of course the answers were edited out. Abp. Williams is a gentleman, and much too intelligent to be outsmarted by a troll like Dawkins (who is very intelligent in his own right -- though he relies on cheap bullying techniques).
usmc1088 4 months ago
@usmc1088 I just don't see it. Dawkins simply does not come across as an especially bright or clever person, at least not in print or on camera. Who knows--maybe in private he's a regular Einstein. Minus a media which prefers second-rate intellects and which chronically confuses celebrity with ability, I doubt Dawkins would very often be mistaken for a thinker, let alone an advanced one.
ismarythere 4 months ago
Rowan takes being OWNED very well. In that sense as you can say, Rowan is great!
AcaiAdvantage 5 months ago
Rowan is great.
brucefetter 5 months ago
I like Richard Dawkins. He's smart. But is he a good person? Oh... OH FUCK! GIGANTIC SWIRLS OF LOGICAL AND ILLOGICAL WATERS ARE FLUSHING DOWN THE TOILET OF UNDERSTANDING. Between EVERY SINGLE PERSON on this planet, there is a capacity to understand, and relate. Which is better, to understand, or to fight and have war and misconduct and disharmony? I don't get it. FUCK IDEA'S. Look into each others eyes and say 'fuck my idea's about the world, you're here and I can see you"
maxwellpassion 5 months ago
@maxwellpassion Brother you are a wise man
thebloads 4 months ago
Great. Edit out Williams' response, and then cut it off when he starts to respond and explain his nuanced point about God acting in noninterventionist ways. Dawkins looks like a secular fundamentalist, in this video at least.
Opie2334 5 months ago 14
I hate the way Dawkins uses "science" as a synonym for "the natural world" and/or "the laws of nature". Science is the means of discovering these things -- it is not these things per se.
Sloppy, sloppy philosopher.
coleridgeboy 5 months ago
Rowan Williams has a great voice :D
Damnated6mil 5 months ago 27
@Damnated6mil
I think that's partly how he gets away with so much "poetic" waffle, because it sounds good coming out in his melliflous voice. However I was quite impressed even he admitted what he said could be seen as a way of wriggling out of answering difficult questions.
orlando098 4 months ago
you are dictating the rules of the argument via your own personal views. you;ve already made up your mind, and the "something else" is already settled there.
you have done exactly what the religious do. for lack of knowing, you guess based on personal views lacking the say of science. eitherway,you dont know, and the analogy of marys virgin birth and the start of life are similiar.
glennjridge 5 months ago
Jokes on them..they are both wrong...bwhaha :D
Nokturne1 5 months ago
@Nokturne1 What makes you say that? I ask purely out of curiousity.
DwiteTheSpriteKnight 5 months ago
I honestly believe Mr. Dawkins wants to believe in God.
giovanone 5 months ago
@giovanone to me it doesn't seem at all like Dawkins wishes there was a God. I think it would be difficult to read the God Delusion and come away with the belief that Dawkins hopes he's wrong.
DwiteTheSpriteKnight 5 months ago
@giovanone You are honestly willing to believe anything.
skyerune 5 months ago
it seems kind of strange to see dawkins laughing off the virgin birth, yet a virgin birth is exactly what the atheist company line seems to be pushing for the creation of life.
glennjridge 5 months ago
@glennjridge Wow, that was super lame. *facepalm*
bbkingzor 5 months ago
@bbkingzor you have no idea what your even talking about its almost like you answered the wrong post.
scientists believe everything started with the big bang.there was nothing.....then there was life.
a virgin birth.
glennjridge 5 months ago
@glennjridge I like it how you instantly assume that I "have no idea what 'your' talking about". Your analogy is still moronic, however. Who are these "scientists" you speak of? Try not to be so generalizing. Also, the scientific community suggests no such thing as "something from nothing" - If you had understood it correctly, you would see that no one really knows what was before the big bang. All we can say is that everything was once condensed before expanding. What was around, no one knows.
bbkingzor 5 months ago
@glennjridge "scientists believe everything started with the big bang.there was nothing.....then there was life." no... that's not what scientists believe lol. you need to do more research on what exactly the big bang theory is before you can just spout out inaccurate generalizations about what you think scientists "believe".
toribjork10 5 months ago
@toribjork10 ok,what was before the big bang? what do scientists say was occruing before the big bang? if you dont know.......science believes that life started with that event.
glennjridge 5 months ago
@glennjridge they believe that life on earth could have started with the big bang. but scientist do not believe "everything started with the big bang. there was nothing and then there was life.". scientist don't claim to know how the universe started. you're presenting a misrepresentation of the big bang theory and the scientific community in general. please educate yourself on the subject because you're extremely misinformed.
toribjork10 5 months ago
@toribjork10 calling people misinformed and to educatee ones self is tough talk coming from a guy whose post was essencially an admittence that scientists know zero. so much so you actually admitted they dont even know if it was the big bang. so, please, if you are going to jump in using an argument...and an instrument named science at least have the decency to be able to post something that isnt a wonderfully wrapped slice of "we know zero".
glennjridge 5 months ago
@glennjridge the entire point of science is that it's constantly changing once new information is discovered. that's why some things aren't set it stone. religion is the opposite, it refuses to accept any information that may negate what it says is "truth". again, i ask you to educate yourself on what the big bang theory is and how science works in general. you're taking me saying that you're misinformed as an insult. but it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about.
toribjork10 5 months ago
@toribjork10 you are asking me to educate myself essencially reading a chapter in a science book called "life and big bang"that has no words in it. so,once again, a virgin birth, and where life came from are essencially the same template. what could you say? telling me to educate myself using something that doesnt know fails.
glennjridge 5 months ago
@glennjridge no, actually i'm telling you educate yourself in science before you start stating things that aren't true. clearly you have no idea what the big bang theory is. either someone misinformed you, or you're just don't understand the theory and are making it up as you go along. either way your statements about it are false. and yes there are many books, teachers, and courses that can help your learn more about it so you won't sound so ignorant future conversations or debates.
toribjork10 5 months ago
@glennjridge again as others have pointed out to, but you don't seem to understand, the big bang has NOTHING to do with "something coming from nothing". that's a religious concept. i don't know what else to say to you other than for you to educate yourself on the subject. if you aren't willing to do that, then it's impossible for anyone to debate you because you you're presenting misinformation. you have to do the research in order to appear educated on a subject. b/c now you don't appear.
toribjork10 5 months ago
@toribjork10 you're feigning exasperation to mask the obvious. it irritates you that my virgin birth analogy is in fact correct. heres a hint. if your only talking point is one of "you dont understand.....educate yourself.... presenting misinformation.....yet cant correct me in anyway except those cop outs, you dont know anything yourself.
you are what i was telling the other guy he was. an "internet scientist". that is one who always tells others they dont know,but clearly is in the same boat.
glennjridge 5 months ago
@glennjridge i haven't even acknowledged your virgin birth because there is no evidence that virgin birth can occur. if you can provide evidence, then i'll acknowledge it. a baby can't be conceived from nothing. and you claim this is same principle in which the big bang theory works. but it isn't. and until you understand how the big bang theory works, what is the point in trying to debate with you?
it has nothing to do being an "internet scientist". this is basic high school science.
toribjork10 5 months ago
to put it plainly for you: the big bang occurred when things already in existence formed with other things already in existence to create different things. see? there is no "something coming from nothing". that is SOMETHING coming from SOMETHING.
i really don't know how much more simple i can make it for you. so if you knew anything about the theory, you would know that your "virgin birth" is a false analogy.
toribjork10 5 months ago
so you can understand the "exasperation" in trying to point out the very basic flaw in your argument, which is your claim that "something came from" is the central theme of the big bang.
and again, for the last time, THAT ISN'T WHAT THE BIG BANG THEORY IS.
toribjork10 5 months ago
@glennjridge The Big Bang had nothing to do with sexual reproduction. Read about the theory. I makes a lot of sense.
skyerune 5 months ago
@skyerune you didnt understand the point. in the bible account... life came about miraculously from nothing in marys body.
in the same way life came about from essecnially nothing with the big bang. its a essencially the same model.
a virgin birth of sorts.
glennjridge 5 months ago
@glennjridge The major difference is that Mary's supposed virginity was circumvented by a god, according to mythology, and the big bang was started by something else. Scientists don't know what, yet, but they can admit it and keep searching.
The major difference is there, where the credit is laid. Just because it's yet unexplained doesn't mean a deity is there, pulling the strings.
skyerune 5 months ago
@cityfan22
Yes, I'm a blithering idiot for calling Dawkins out on logical fallacies.
If I was intelligent, I'd agree with everything he said unquestioningly.
pgt1027 5 months ago
There's a lot of black and white thinking towards religion and science. Obviously both have their bad and good points. Rowan and Dawkins had an extremely polite conversation and very interesting too.
lotusflower281 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
Dawkins hates it when people try to deny him his Strawmen and False Dichotomies.
pgt1027 6 months ago
@pgt1027 LOL ur funny
Haseeebo 5 months ago
@pgt1027 Please point out how he perpetrated these fallacies.
skyerune 5 months ago
@skyerune
Not in this video, but most of Dawkins' arguments rely on strawmen and false dichotomies. You see, what many people do, Dawnkins included, when they want to argue against an idea but they don't want to try very hard is that they argue against only the ideas of the most insanely extreme among their opponents and, when the argument is intended to refute the ENTIRE idea, not just the most extreme version of it, it's considered to be a strawman.
pgt1027 5 months ago
@pgt1027
I see what you mean, and I agree that simply addressing the extremities is problematic. Let's keep in mind, however, that this is a television show, and that the content is hyperbolic by nature. The principles on which his arguments are ultimately founded are sound.
I think the existence of these kind of people is a powerful argument against religion, since the lack of a god is not considered a valid reason to perpetrate violence.
skyerune 5 months ago
@skyerune
The other two comments are also intended for you, but I accidentally linked them to myself for some reason.
pgt1027 5 months ago
@pgt1027 Yes, they are also insightful, but they do not change my comment. Richard Dawkins is a brilliant man, but not perfect. It's easy to get upset when a group of people so diligently reject rational thought and the scientific process, just as it's frustrating for the religious to become frustrated when rationally minded people continually reject the existence of a deity.
In short, I do not believe we actually disagree on this topic, more on our level of respect for Dawkins.
skyerune 5 months ago
@skyerune
That might mean something if Dawkins simply spat out some fallacies in a fit of anger. However, one does not write whole books in a fit of anger, one does not film whole documentaries in a fit of anger. You can't wave off his faulty logic because he got "upset" at people not agreeing with him
No, I don't respect Dawkins at all. He's basically become an atheist version of a Fundamentalist preacher. He actively works to turn atheists into the same screaming fanatics he's so critical of
pgt1027 5 months ago
@pgt1027 You may not agree with his methods, but his voice is never raised, nor does he condemn people to a fiery afterlife. At most he displays repugnance for those who are spiritual, and I find repugnance more tolerable than blind faith, which is because of my personal viewpoint on the matter.
I think "screaming fanatic" is a misnomer, even if he is guilty of being anti-theist.
skyerune 5 months ago
@skyerune
That's my whole goddamn point. He isn't mad or upset, he makes flawed arguments without the excuse of anger.
I want you to sit back and think for a minute and realize that this is Dawkins making a video raging against religious tolerance.
If he was, instead, a Fundy preacher stating that relativism is bad because everyone should just accept the only truth that Jesus Christ is Lord, guys like you would be screaming that his brash, offensive intolerance is what's wrong with religion
pgt1027 5 months ago
@pgt1027 No, I think it's more likely that we would calmly and rationally point out that the person is deluded (meant in the most clinical sense), and the evidence for why we disagree, without becoming upset, and without "screaming." The point of rationalism is that no amount of "screaming" will make it any more accurate. Evidence either exists or it doesn't, and there is no evidence of a god of any sort, not even one who could damn your point (see what I did there?).
skyerune 5 months ago
@pgt1027
You're just falling into the common trap of perceiving any kind of rigorous criticism of religion as "aggression", or totalitarian "fundamentalism".
Come back when you've crawled out of it.
twooffour 4 months ago
@pgt1027
Also, many of Dawnkins' arguments depend upon a false dichotomy of the Straw Religious (who are the easiest to argue against) vs Atheists, which makes atheists look much more reasonable because their only alternative is a cartoonish caricature of the religious. He more or less disregards everyone in the middle of his little dichotomy with half-assed No True Scotsman fallacies.
pgt1027 5 months ago
@pgt1027
And when he's forced to recognize the existence and prominence of religious and non-religious theists who aren't extremists, he gets mad and makes hostile videos like the one above.
pgt1027 5 months ago
@pgt1027 i kind of see your point with he whole "he keeps arguing against the extreme examples". but when it comes down to it, all christians believe some pretty "extreme" things based on faith alone. i mean, it's hard to believe anything they say is rational if they believe in a man coming back from the dead, noah's ark, parting of seas, possession. if you believe some parts of the bible literally, then why don't you believe other parts of the bible literally. it's called cherry picking.
toribjork10 5 months ago
Comment removed
sooperfukker 6 months ago
NO TOP COMMENTS ? I WILL POST ONE HERE : DAWKINS IS THE BEST !!!
zrinkalebo 6 months ago
Where is the long uncut debate that was several parts long? It's way better then this.
rhslinebacker33 6 months ago
@rhslinebacker33
Maybe you mean this one:
v=po0ZMfkSNxc
sooperfukker 6 months ago
@sooperfukker I can't access that link
rhslinebacker33 6 months ago
3:39 "And then something fresh happens...."
leemthompo 6 months ago
Yes, but what does atheism/science have to say about homosexualism? It is a pervasive problem in our society today. It is a 'learned' behaviour that is noy only a bane but a sign of dysfunction to the community in general.
BillyFeynman 7 months ago
@BillyFeynman atheism is the response to claims by people that a deity exists, that's all.
As for science, it is an approach in how to formulate and investigate a question in order to arrive at a rigorously investigated and tested conclusion of something. For example, you have already prejudged homosexuality as "learned": on what grounds? You have also judged it as "sign of dysfunction": on what grounds? You have labeled it a "problem": on what grounds?
They're judgments, not questions.
Aaron1975melbourne 6 months ago
@Aaron1975melbourne On what grounds? On the highest authority there is, the word of God.
As for you definition of atheism. atheism is an abstract concept which means far more than what you believe.
BillyFeynman 6 months ago
@BillyFeynman First, dont' try to strawman. It's silly. Atheism means the lack of belief in a deity, no matter what your priest told you. As for your "highest authority", please provide evidence that is objective, reproducible and verifiable that your deity exists. Otherwise, I dismiss your deity as an imaginary attempt by you to avoid providing actual justification for your own personal opinions, and will once again ask you, on what grounds?
Aaron1975melbourne 6 months ago
@Aaron1975melbourne Prove to me that Atheism means 'lack of belief in a deity' in your next comment.
About the grounds for my point, I will respond after you answer the above.
BillyFeynman 6 months ago
@BillyFeynman look it up in the dictionary. I'm not here to do your work for you.
Further, as you have failed to provide any evidence of a deity, I now summarily dismiss your assertion that such a thing exists, and further, I conclude that your prejudices regarding homosexuality are your personal opinion based on a lack of information and thus, your whole point is one of an argument from ignorance hiding behind superstitions.
Science is about reality, not about supporting your ignorance.
Aaron1975melbourne 6 months ago
@Aaron1975melbourne The dictionary? Are you joking? The true meaning of a word is defined by usage, the way the majority of the population uses the word. There are about 1 billion english speakers in the world, all speaking about 120 words a minute, and about 30000 words a day. Thats a total of 30 trillion words a day. It is the consensus of this massive number that defines meaning, certainly not the view of a few academics who write dictionaries, and absolutely not 1 individual like yourself.
BillyFeynman 6 months ago
@BillyFeynman And you continue to prevaricate, hoping against hope that your dodging and weaving will somehow hide the fact that you have zero evidence for your deity. Thus, my conclusion stands. Science is about real life, not supporting your ignorance.
Aaron1975melbourne 6 months ago
@Aaron1975melbourne You are arrogant because you pick very easy arguments such as 'prove that God exists', which of course noone can. You then gloat that you have won some great intellectual battle. No doubt you read Hitchens or Dawkins, parrot their arguments as your own, in the hope that you will be viewed as intelligent as them. In reality you are just insecure and want to be regarded as the smartest guy in the room to boost your immature ego.
BillyFeynman 6 months ago
@BillyFeynman Let's expose your tricks and deceit in their entirety:
First, you ask "what can science say about X"... followed by claiming "Science is just assumptions"
Second, you claim that "Oh, I can prove god exists"... followed by "Oh, it's an assumption too"
Third, you demand proof of the definition of "atheism"... followed by "Oh, it's just what people commonly use it to mean"
And now, you now claim that your deity leaves no evidence, contradicting two.
Typical theist fraudster.
Aaron1975melbourne 6 months ago
@Aaron1975melbourne Now who is committing the strawman. I never claimed that I can prove God exists. You cannot defeat my real argument so you erect a fake strawman argument to attack.
BillyFeynman 6 months ago
@BillyFeynman Me: "please provide evidence that is objective, reproducible and verifiable that your deity exists."
You: "About the grounds for my point, I will respond after you answer the above."
Typical semantic wordgames from a theist trying to avoid the real issue: their total lack of justification for trying to force their personal opinions down other's throats on the basis of imaginary deities.
Aaron1975melbourne 6 months ago
@Aaron1975melbourne you really are very good at misrepresenting what I say. I said 'I will respond....', you claim that I literally said (quoting) "Oh, I can prove God exists". I am quoting directly, quoting directly is not distorting the dialogue as you suggest. Stop putting false arguments into my mouth that I never made, thats just weak. I responded to you. Now stop dodging my questions, man up and answer like a grown up.
BillyFeynman 6 months ago
@Aaron1975melbourne But this is going off topic. You asked me what my grounds are for believing a diety exits. Perhaps that is an assumption on my part. But science itself is a set of assumptions. Scientific theories after all are only 'provisionally' true. You make assumptions about the universe just as I do.
BillyFeynman 6 months ago
@BillyFeynman Typical theistic attempt to conflate terms. That's not evidence of a deity, that's evidence of your ignorance of language, ignorance of science, ignorance of the rules of evidence, and further evidence of your deceitful tactics.
Aaron1975melbourne 6 months ago
@Aaron1975melbourne I gave you a straight answer that God's existence is an assumption, I see nothing deceitful about that. It is an honest answer. My point is that science is also based on assumptions. Typical arrogant atheist.
BillyFeynman 6 months ago
@BillyFeynman Well then... let's examine these:
Scientific assumption: that if something's real, it leaves evidence of its existence that can be examined and reproduced by others, who will find the same conclusion even as they attempt to disprove it
Religious assumption: that religious tenets, stories, and hope that something is real can be substituted for evidence despite the fact that people create wildly different religions using the method.
Once again, your ignorance is exposed.
Aaron1975melbourne 6 months ago
@Aaron1975melbourne That is not the assumption I am talking about.
Science assumes that an objective reality exists, this is impossible to prove, we could all be brains in a vat.
Science assumes with its laws that the results of a future experiment will be consistent with past results. ('the problem of induction').
BillyFeynman 6 months ago
@BillyFeynman Don't bother trying those theist tricks. Deities are superfluous to the question of brains in vats. Thus, it's a typical diversionary tactic but desperate theists. Second, theists demand that we believe that there are things happening that cannot be predicted. And that's a measurable claim that has been shown each time it has been attempted to be false. Which is in fact, evidence against the supernatural.
Neither of those things support your imagined deity.
Aaron1975melbourne 6 months ago
@Aaron1975melbourne Diversionary from what? Again another strawman. I answered you directly, then I put it to you about the assumptions of science and you dodge......again.
BillyFeynman 6 months ago
@Aaron1975melbourne You are really desperate to avoid a hard argument about the presuppositions of science, and are desperate to get into any easy argument that you cannot lose such as 'prove God exists', then you can walk away convincing yourself that you are an intellectual such as Dawkins. You are copycat, arrogant atheis, period.
BillyFeynman 6 months ago
@BillyFeynman what hard argument? So far you've failed to even move one step along a line of justifying your beliefs, therefore, your beliefs are summarily dismissed as irrelevant. Thus, we get to look at your commentary on homosexuality. As they're based on unjustified beliefs, they are likewise dismissed as irrational. I'm very sorry you can't understand how reality works, but frankly, it's not my problem: it's yours. After all, you're the one who can't justfity your position.
Aaron1975melbourne 6 months ago
@Aaron1975melbourne The hard argument of dealing with the presuppositions of science. But you dodge that. You say my beliefs are irrelevant, suggesting that they are based on unprovable assumptions. You suggest that therefore any opinion I have on those grounds can be dismissed as irrelevant.
I put it to you that your science is based also on unprovable assumptions. We can then, also dismiss scientific argument as irrelevant.
You are obviously a homosexual.
BillyFeynman 6 months ago
@BillyFeynman You have already admitted that your beliefs are unprovable assumptions... in fact, your whole defence is based on your beliefs being unprovable assumptions. That doesn't change now merely because you're realized what an error it was to admit that. We can now assume that you are a fraud, a liar, and a trickster who cannot be taken at their word on anything at all.
You're dismssed.
Aaron1975melbourne 6 months ago
@Aaron1975melbourne The difference between us is that I am honest. I admit theism is based on unprovablde assumptions. You will not admit that science is based on unprovable assumptions.
Science cannot prove the morality/immorality of homosexuality. It has nothing to say about morals, God does.
BillyFeynman 6 months ago
@BillyFeynman Anything you say is suspect and unable to be taken at face value. Thus any comment you make is irrelevant to any discussion.
Aaron1975melbourne 6 months ago
@Aaron1975melbourne I would ask you on what grounds?
You erroneously claim that I have lied. Which anyone can see that I haven't.
You assert that because I have 'some' beliefs that cannot be verified (religious), then 'all' of what I say is false.
Your sample of my unverifiable beliefs is too small to represent the population of 'all' of my beliefs.
You are committing a rather obvious statistical fallacy.
How does it feel to be owned by a God-fearing Christian?
BillyFeynman 6 months ago
@BillyFeynman You've already made it clear that your beliefs are based on snake oil sales pitches based on nothing and justified by nothing. Thus, any comment you make is suspect and irrelevant to any discussion.
Aaron1975melbourne 6 months ago
@Aaron7 In essence you have claimed 'some' of your beliefs (as posted on YT) are unverifiable, therefore 'all' of your beliefs are unverifiable. This is absurd. You haven't given enough evidence to prove this absurd claim, you have short-changed me.
I asked you 'on what grounds?' and you just repeated yourself. In essence you said 'none of your beliefs are justified because none of your beliefs are justified'. Now you are being circular.
I thought 'you people' were supposed to be logical?
BillyFeynman 6 months ago
@Aaron1975melbourne You should also know that hate-speech is against the YT terms of service. I have already flagged your channel and reported you to admin.
You are a homosexual and you are going to hell.
BillyFeynman 6 months ago
@BillyFeynman And I've already checked comments by you on other videos... it's clear you're a troll. I wouldn't even have confidence in concluding that you're a theist. You'll say anything to get people to bite, and I should have recognized that earlier.
And as for "hate speech"... you have a long history of making sterotypical racist and homophobic comments across many videos. So no, your crocodile tears don't hold much stock with me.
Aaron1975melbourne 6 months ago
@Aaron1975melbourne Absolute rubbish, name one racist statement I have made on another video and post the title. If you cannot, all of the people reading this thread will know that you are simply full of shit.
BillyFeynman 6 months ago
@BillyFeynman Why bother? YouTube will review your comment history and remove you soon enough. They check both accounts when someone makes a complaint you know.
Aaron1975melbourne 6 months ago
@Aaron1975melbourne What a cop-out! You can't post any of my so called racist comments because there aren't any! You are a sad man. I put a straight-forward argument to you regarding science. Instead of being mature ad answering, you claim I lied on this thread, contradicted myself, asserted that I posted that all my views were non-scientific. Finally you call me a racist, yet you can post no evidence of any of these things. Your stupidity is spectacular.
BillyFeynman 6 months ago
@BillyFeynman And if I had.. you would now be busy desperately trying to delete evidence of your hatred. Why would I want to help you avoid closure of your account?
Aaron1975melbourne 6 months ago
@Aaron1975melbourne You keep claiming 'I have evidence, I have evidence' of your accusations, yet you post none. Your lack of action speaks volumes. You are a stupid little man, but as a Christian I love you. I hold you to my bosom now, cry on my bosom, cry to the Lord as you go back on all your atheistic beliefs as you violate everything you once believed, hush now child. I forgive you.
BillyFeynman 6 months ago
@BillyFeynman And if I did you would then automatically revert to "Oh, I don't believe that evidence try again" and waste my time. Like I said: there's no reason for me to believe a word you say as you're merely a troll. And on what basis would I trust the comment on your forgiveness? I can't take you at your word.
Aaron1975melbourne 6 months ago
@Aaron1975melbourne If such racist comments exist then the evidence would be irrefutable. You do not post the evidence, so it is reasonable to assume that it does not exist. You again repeat that everything I say is a lie based on the fact that I am a theist, like I said absurd. And if that is not hate speech, I don't know what is.
You are a homosexual, I will pray for you.
BillyFeynman 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BillyFeynman And again: Anything you say is suspect and unable to be taken at face value. Thus any comment you make is irrelevant to any discussion.
Aaron1975melbourne 6 months ago
@BillyFeynman Adults with imaginary friends... makes me lol :D
Murdulo 5 months ago
dem eyebrows
JT5718x 7 months ago
Acknowledging the facts of evolution and science as Rowan Williams does is one good thing but then believing in miracles and the virgin birth as he says seem to me to be at great odds with each other. I think in his head and heart he recognizes this contradiction. These biblical stories are legends and myths meant to convey a spiritual message.
TheEnlightened77 7 months ago
Half way through the video i realized they were arguing with each other
MrEbalderrama 7 months ago
@Animalols But science and faith have different jobs to do - for instance science may or may not be able to cure you of some hideous disease but a scientist would be last person I would want comfort from in order to deal with a horrific diagnosis.
Thechristiancullen 7 months ago
@Thechristiancullen I'd actually prefer a scientist to let me know exactly how many days I have left with whatever ailing may be ending my life than a person that will make me worry about what will happen to me after I die. I am not saying you should not seek for comfort from someone of your own faith by any means. I just would like to have a proper answer about how much time I have left and Faith cannot answer that question. Hopefully your faith won't fail you when the time comes. Take care.
Obscureflection 7 months ago
@Obscureflection I agree - Science is not exclusive to atheism.
Thechristiancullen 7 months ago
@Animalols Science is not exclusive to atheists thanks very much!
Thechristiancullen 7 months ago
"... there are certain moments when there is an opening in the world, in which the underlying divine action comes through in a fresh way...... Take the birth of Jesus...". Can we get any other example of where this divine action has come in through in such a "fresh" way?
85zeitgeist 8 months ago
My analogy would be to take the evolution of the automobile..over the past 120 years or so it has evolved...cars are now safer, faster, more efficient, more aerodynamic, etc...it didn't happen by itself...engineers and designers made it better over time...relatively slowly. The same with all life on earth, organic or otherwise...maybe this organic life has an intelligence of its own telling it to evolve...that is an intelligence in itself.
MarkFFHH 8 months ago
Yes..very True...Gravity is the truth...that is the Laws of Gravity are understood....but why it works is not understood. Physics explain how things work, but not how they came to be.
MarkFFHH 8 months ago
@kyleroberts3000 Revised: I’d like to think it’s an ignorant mistake, but that goes back to the Protestant Reform. No. I’ve never been to an Episcopalian Church. Wait a minute. Whose moral flaw? I can’t tell if you’re talking about the church’s or Dawkins. There’s warning against ‘false christs’ in the bible, so I see no reason to even bother. There’s also recommendations for tents made w/ rams’ skin & goat hair.
666caimbirdofhell 8 months ago
@666caimbirdofhell Speaking of women & the CoE, Henry the 8th was trying to bend the rules in order to marry and later behead Anne Boleyn. If that’s referring to the church, yeah, I’d say that’s a highly moral flaw on their behalf and an ignorant one on Dawkins’.
666caimbirdofhell 8 months ago
@666caimbirdofhell Plans weren't to eventually behead Anne Boleyn after their marriage. She was beheaded due to her inability to birth a male child and Henry VIII's yearn for a son to pass on the family bloodline.
85zeitgeist 8 months ago
Comment removed
666caimbirdofhell 8 months ago
Comment removed
666caimbirdofhell 8 months ago
@ergotrof ...huh?
Gravity is just a theory too, but no one argues against it. The evidence is compelling. If God wanted to really make a statement, he would have sent his salesmen out in the 21 century rather than dropping them into the bronze age to scare illiterate, intellectually stunted shepherds. That being said, believe what you want but try to enjoy life and when possible, try to make someone else's a bit better.
FrodoDojo 8 months ago
That makes it occult by definition. It’s hidden from man’s naked eyes. I’ll sprout a pair of siren-wings, and fly quite naturally Dawkins. Don’t worry about me and the window.
666caimbirdofhell 8 months ago
Invalid. The man’s obviously a heretic whose church allows women to become priests against the bible’s decree. I’m not trying to be a scabbed-prick about it, I’m trying to make a point. Try orthodoxy first.
666caimbirdofhell 8 months ago
Comment removed
666caimbirdofhell 8 months ago
the interview is not complete.... why not?...
Lunatango1 8 months ago
Well the miracles God supposedly creates could still have been something that was all part of the design, just that its not currently known by science. Maybe aspects such as the soul exist, and by design were meant to create jesus at that time. haha! yes :) Answered the question with a vague allusion.
radscorpion8 8 months ago
@HedgecockFamily "atheists" aren't a monolithic group of people with common dogmatic rules and beliefs. This matter will depend on each individual atheists' opinion.
StevenBee2 8 months ago
@StevenBee2 Can you provide examples of athiets 'rules and beliefs?' You're claim is wholly nonsensical.
SuperAnimalDrummer 8 months ago
@SuperAnimalDrummer All the logic needed is in my very statement. There is no set of rules or beliefs that define atheists as they are not a group, or, a set of people. They are all the people that do not belong to the set of people who are theists. The only thing that binds them is their disbelief in, or rather belief in the nonexistence of a, or the god. To say they do is akin to saying people who don't believe in Santa Clause have a similar set of beliefs.
StevenBee2 8 months ago
@SuperAnimalDrummer
idiot, you missed the "aren't"
magucheapololkop 8 months ago
@magucheapololkop Whoops... my bad
SuperAnimalDrummer 8 months ago
"Rowan Williams does the most perfect impression of a Welsh sheep" - Christopher Hitchens
StevenBee2 8 months ago
God and science cant go hand in hand, lol? Really, the greatest scientist have been theist.
jpop1321 8 months ago
For fuck's sake, let him talk. Don't edit your voice over his, that's silly.
Phelan666 8 months ago 2
are people on this forum really argue the bible is more barbaric than bin laden? pretty ridiculous if you ask me. The bible doesn't advocate to kill innocent people. Now i know people are gonna try and bring verses leviticus, joshua, Deuteronomy and Judges, because thats what atheists i talk to tend to do. I'd be glad to respond
jamaicanification 9 months ago
@jamaicanification
I'll bite.
The Bible clearly does suggest that the murder of innocents is a moral and just thing, in that it holds YHVH as the pinnacle of morality, and YHVH engages in the murder of innocents regularly.
Go.
ModernQuixote 9 months ago
@jamaicanification it's not just atheists (personally I don't like the term i'd rather those who seek reason and are in command of their critical faculties that could include humanists, secularists, scientists etc but the labeling is unimportant) who would believe that the bible instructs people to kill, it is your god himself. Do you believe the bible is the word of god? Then the flood was the biggest single act of genocide and destruction of flora and fauna ever. There is no response ot that.
tubalooney 8 months ago
I hate how this doesn't show William's response to the last thing Dawkins says. I wonder if Dawkins didn't want to show it because he looks better getting the last word.
BrighamHB 9 months ago
@BrighamHB so true. he puts dawkins to shame in this interview. i've seen the full version although i can't find it anymore. it exposes dawkins as a shit stirring attention seeker. he is clearly hoping and waiting for williams to slip up and say something stupid but it just doesnt happen.
heesakkersj 9 months ago
@heesakkersj
I think Rowan Williams did slip up to quote him directly
"but nature opening up to it's own depths"
poetic language or
"a way of wriggling out of difficult questions"
I would call that shameful and pathetic reasoning. You call Richard Dawkins a shit stirring attention seaker for posing simple and direct questions?
tubalooney 9 months ago
@heesakkersj rubbish, the A B of C is floundering in a intellectual mire of contorted contradictory myths abd pseudo science. Shame on him
tubalooney 9 months ago