I like the way that a debate which only really exists in America is argued primarily by two Englishman. Can America not produce it's own reasonable, intelligent theists and atheists?
further to point out that there's knowledge that's meaningful, relevant and BEYOND THE PERVIEW OF SCIENCE. for that you call me 'stupid'. Read T.S Elliot. Read Gulag Arhipelago. Read SOMETHING and understand that pursuit of science is fantastic, but just because something (poem, for instance) has nothing to say about science and the physical world that you consider 'real', doesn't make it valueless
of the 20th century (Communism, Fascism, Maoism etc.) were profoundly anti-religious and were run by atheists. Period. Read the history if you don't believe me (you don't, but won't). Not that all atheists are fascists, but it puts to bed the nonsense that only religious are intollerant ("Oh Liberty, what crimes have been done in your name"). In terms of your other point..the only one I can discern is that you believe the Bible has no part in the pursuit of science. I agree with you. But I go
Alright. Hitler=atheist. I told you to read Kernshaw (best biographer of Hitler at the moment) or Bullock.Nazi persecution of churches is too long to cite, but if you're too stupid to look up a single example, let me know and I'll spoon feed you one, you fucking baby. I get the impression your opinions come from the web, so google Cardinal Faulhaber. The idea that Hitler was a catholic...you obviously have NO history (and yet you call me the pseudo intellectual). Look, the rationalist movements
why does it call come down to either there is a designer or we are here by chance. there are other options, for example, hypothetically, if we discovered that the universe was infinite years old, than everything that happens or could happen must happen. I'm not saying this hypothesis is true but its an example of no divine designer/designers and no chance happenings.
@sweetmovie07 Atheist meaning - I am a person who does not restrict my life to an imaginary greater "thing", I am not so pathetic that the only point in life I can see is worshipping an imaginary god.
@steelyman40 just trying to bring some derision in this gigantic trolling festival... Oh sorry, now I'm feeding a troll... dammit. OK just go straight to the Godwin point and call me a nazi and that way we can call this argument over. Agreed?
@steelyman40 Should I infer from your reaction that all *insert your particular religion here* have no sense of humor whatsoever? Relax a bit man, at least I wasn't bashing... and seriously, get a life. Peace.
@soOodAkAh It's been about 2 months...have you been carrying this all that time? I'd ask you to get a life if you need to reply to it after all this time...Anyway, you're the person who talked about the finding of a sober Irishman was a miracle. When I call you on it, you say I've got no sense of humour. Alright, then. If Irish=drunk is alright, then bring on the nigger, kyke, redskin, limey, wop, pollock humour. Got any good 'chink' jokes or anything about poor women drivers?Get out of the 70s
@steelyman40 Haha so me not immediately answering to you on YouTube makes me the one that needs to get a life? Anyway, I'm not gonna start justifying myself to you about my sense of humor. As a French comedian said "you can laugh about anything, just not with anyone".
I hope everything's OK for you, have a good life, enjoy yourself, and stop sermoning people over the internet, 'cause you know, people are not being serious here.
You consider the guy who says that the excessively well-supported science that we use to understand how reality works doesn't work well enough when you consider the fact that superstitious iron age Sun-worshipers put a bunch of nonsense about a magical invisible man in the sky into a book and made him reconsider his viewpoint... smart?
Should we start handing out doctorates to concussed puppies now, too?
@EdwardHowton A couple of problems with what you've said. One, you're presumably criticizing the Bible because of its age (it came from the pre-modern). Using that as a basis for criticism is incredibly arrogant and misses many points (not least is the fact that supposedly "modern" views are often wrongheaded). More fundamentally, though, you seem to be engaging in the same tired old straw-man that many atheists employ: you build an extremely oversimplified version of McGrath and then attack it
@EdwardHowton Assuming you're honest about any of this, I'd start looking for people who can point you to the incredibly rich intellectual tradition of these believers (Jordan Peterson's stuff on Evil)It's not just bronze age superstition. Finally, there's so much that honest scientists acknowledge cant be answered by science...that's not a reason to turn away from it, or to denegrate 'science' but it has limitations. So if you want to know how reality works, it'll get you part of the way only
@steelyman40 No, I'm not criticizing the bible's age.
I'm criticizing the fact that the bible contains a bunch of nonsense, because at the time people had no idea of how to properly investigate reality, and that McGrath fails to take this into account in his brain-fart conversion.
What you've done is strawmanned my comment and set fire to it, and followed up with a couple non sequiturs for good measure. Rich intellectual tradition of believers regarding what? Secular things, not religious.
@EdwardHowton Because they didn't know how to, for example, measure the weight of the Sun, doesn't mean they didn't investigate a different type of reality. One that is relevant, but outside what can be discovered by the scientific method. If you examine your own life--whats important to you--I think you'll see stuff there that is not possible to explain rationally or using the broad brush of 'science'. (And dont try to appeal to that discredited nonsense, the "meme" to do it. review honestly).
@EdwardHowton Idiotic. I agree that the Bible was written before the discovery of the Scientific Method. Your very crude belief that because they couldn't, say, tell you the volume of the oceans that their insights are non-existant expresses an incredible ignorance and arrogance. How did I strawman your argument? You critique Bible because it doesn't give any tools for the investigation of one type of reality. There are many types of reality, but you're too young, naive or stupid to get that.
@steelyman40 Even more incredibly, you admit that science works, but then add a completely idiotic comment that trying to understand how reality works on reality's terms can only get you so far, and after that you have to turn to superstition, fanciful stories, and utter nonsense spewed by the critical equivalent of some guy sitting next to you at the pub.
Sorry, but no, if you want to know how things actually work, you don't make up imaginary friends with magic powers to explain them.
@EdwardHowton Yes. Great. Science has incredible explanatory power. But I think your failure to understand is indicated by your comment "understand how reality works on reality's terms" It presupposes that the only 'reality' is one that can be analysed by science. The point I was making before is that there are very legitimate scientists who point out that 'reality' can't simply be encapsulated by the measureable. eg "what is the good life"? is REAL for most people but science can't address it.
@steelyman40 Yes, because hypothetical and rhetorical questions about arbitrary things that have no answer advance our understanding so much.
The fact that you suggest two competing kinds of "reality" tells me everything anyone needs to know about you, which is that you're an idiot.
So, I'll pat you on the head as the figurative aforementioned concussed puppy in this discussion, and let you carry on pondering the sound of one hand golf-clapping.
@EdwardHowton LOL! Awesome. You've concluded that I'm an idiot based on 4 or 5 paragraphs from me. In my experience the idiots I've met all have an arrogant, smug certitude. Not being an asshole myself, I'll not stoop to your level and just point out that if you believe the only reality is what can be proven with the scientific method then you're confused. Nothing about a God or the hereafter...it's here and right in front of you, but you ignore it because you can't measure it. Fool.
@steelyman40 "You've concluded that I'm an idiot based on 4 or 5 paragraphs from me"
Yes, I have. And you continue to prove me right.
"the great atheistic movements of the 20th century (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc)"
Hitler was a catholic. Stalin was a fascist communist. Mao was much the same. None of these have anything to do with atheism, nor were they atheistic movements.
"no war between science and religion, they simply deal with different types of truth"
@EdwardHowton Your ignorance seems boundless based on your reply. Re; Hitler-read Kernshaw. re Stalin and the rationalism of communism--read Riasanofsky. Mao was an atheist who despised religion. Anyway, it's irrelevant. Those seem above you. Try this different reality. Imagine your parents die after you've left home and no longer rely on them. Rationally (the reality of science), you shouldn't mourn them. They perpetrated their genes in you, you'll do the same, they should go and not be mourned
@EdwardHowton Yet I KNOW that you would mourn them for reasons that have absolutely 0 to do with science. There is a reality that can't be measured (your feelings for parents for example) and denying that makes you sound like a wilfully blind arrogant kid. No matter. You never bothered to ask my perspective: I have no problem with atheists or atheism..I do have a problem with fundamentalism and with the nonsense Dawkins spews--he does more harm to the atheist side than good. Anyway, goodnight.
@steelyman40 Are you still talking? Look, troll, crawl back into your burrow and feast on the lice that thrive in your pubes and leave us adults along to be significant and productive members of reality, thanks.
"There is a reality that can't be measured (your feelings for parents for example)"
Two words: evolutionary psychology. Now shut up, you tiresome bit of pseudo-intellectual handwaving trash and realize that superstitious stories of shepherds aren't worth shit in science.
@EdwardHowton "shut up". Love it. Always the death nell for an argument. Your reply is mostly tiresome vitriol (to be expected), but you do mention something interesting: evolutionary psychology.If you took your evolutionary psychology serious (or were even aware of any of it), you'd agree with me. Which researchers do you follow? Which journals do you read?I'm going to press the point because you obviously don't have a real answer. Where do feelings for the evolutionarily irrelevant come from?
@EdwardHowton Last thing..can't resist making this point: Aren't the atheists supposed to be paragons of reason and sanity and the superstitious believers are supposed to be the frothy assholes? Your behaviour has demonstrated to everyone who reads this that knee jerk fundamentalism itself is the problem. You're a (loud, obnoxious, cowardly) fundamentalist who doesn't even read the responses of those who disagree with him. You're an all too typical 'new atheist'. keep up the good work
@steelyman40 Atheists aren't the paragons of reasons and sanity. Skeptics might be, rationalists are or should be. Nothing about any of those demands that we be paragons of patience and coddle ignoramuses like yourself.
Pseudo-intellectual twits like you are just irritating, and I lose my patience easily when exposed to stupidity. I have read your "points", they're just bad, like your Hitler = atheist comment. You haven't answered any of mine, why should I dignify your vapid, fallacious ones?
@EdwardHowton I'll go now through each of your responses, on the assumption that you won't do the same as you have no responses. I think my response to your Hitler=atheist comment speaks volumes. You consider it "stupid" because it doesn't fit into your little "science and nothing else" world. Ok. Taking apart the rest of your nonsense should be pretty quick...
@EdwardHowton Thx for the suggestion that I answer your points (I think there was one about the Bible being of zero value in answering scientific questions--a point where we agree, actually. Then a great deal of awful grammar and spelling). I have to say I enjoyed that. I don't know what a pseudo-intellectual is, exactly, but I suspect it's someone like you. Some dumb kid who can't reply in the way that I have with scholarly sources. Again, it's been fun kicking your dumbass around. thx again
@EdwardHowton I'm the idiot? Ok...well, I can riff all night on a gem that you came up with earlier.before mommy edited it, it might have read something like ..."this arbitrary thing that don't mean no thing that advance understanding not so much like our ways with science can I think" I'm the idiot. I, at least, don't insult the language. Here it is, dumbass...I've cited at least two other scholarly sources and have directed you to some research. What have you done? What have you got to offer?
@EdwardHowton They're not 'competing' realities (again with your strange dychotomy). I owe you an example. Both atheists and people of faith know clearly that the great atheistic movements of the 20th century (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc) were wrong after the fact. You seem to suggest that there's no "reality" to the statement that genocide is morally wrong because the scientific method would itself be silent on the issue ('it might be culturally sanctioned violence', would say a rationalists...)
@EdwardHowton Not sure about this one. Here you seem to denegrate questions that can't be answered by science as "arbitrary...ahem...'things' (nice!)...that have no answer advance our understanding so much"....ok, meat sandwhich...why don't you go back and have your mommy write out a real sentence for you? This makes no sense. I also might recommend "hooked on phonics". No need to deal with the rest of this as it's just your usual ad hominem nonsense. Idiot.
@EdwardHowton Why do you find it 'incredible' that I accept science and can have faith? There's a false dychotomy here--there is no war between science and religion, actually, they simply deal with different types of truth and a good many scientists acknowledge this.Also, friend, you're clearly ignorant of the historical, legal, poetic etc. elements of the Bible if you call 'utter nonsense'. I'd urge you to get intellectually honest and go review what youre critiquing. Dawkins obviously isn't.
@EdwardHowton I replied to the 'reality on reality's terms' point already. No one ever suggested you need God to explain how physical phenomena work, so ANOTHER STRAW MAN FROM THE DUMBASS!
I agree with the discussion so far, but the probability of a supernatural being seems less probable, since it relies on no evidence other than the fact that we are here. Maybe the cosmos was always doing what it's doing, or maybe there are many gods, surely the probability of one god isn't so different to the probability of two or more gods?
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
@ngimangi He isn't angry because alister mcgrath is actually a humble, very intelligent man who is able to challenge him intellectually. And I think Dawkins respects that as much as I
I love the honest discussion and reasoning here. I wish all conversations between differing views, especially on theology, philosophy, etc went like this. No name-calling, labeling, or yelling. Though I find myself agreeing with Alister McGrath, this is a wonderful display of reasonable discourse from both men. Well done. Thank you to whoever posted this.
I have to say that this is exactly the way that dialogue between people of conflicting viewpoints should discuss. I find myself on the side of Alister McGrath, but I greatly appreciate Dawkins in this form as opposed to other times I've seen him. This is great honest dialogue. I really wish more and more people, including myself sometimes, could reason in this way with no bad-mouthing, labeling, or name-calling.
Embrace me darkened one, strengthen my soul. Spew thy darkness into our world. And through the rotting gates heaven. Shadowy wisps will heal my wounds. Shadowy wisps will wound their prayers. Send me the loving peace of Lucifer. Send me the battered pieces of jesus christ. It is now time, we begin to move forward. Hordes of terror are waiting to strike them. Following a great leader into his war. With hoofs of steel, he'll crush thy body. You will give in to the might of Satan.
What? Nobody can be certain that there is a God? Speak for yourself, fool! We most certainly believe there is a God because nature speaks it, our consciences reveal him and the Bible ultimately confirms it. People don't let these two fools Hitchens and Dawkins rob you of eternal life because they don't believe. "A fool has said in his heart there is no God" the Jewish Psalmist said and we are knocking on eternities door. To barter with you eternal soul with unbelief is the ultimate unrational.
I just realized Dawkins really does blink a lot. Especially the more excited or agitated he gets. "Excuse me sir, are you saying we really came from apes?" blink-blink-blink-blink-blink...
What did MaGrath say? It's a 50/50 situation that God exists or not (3.30) ?? Does that mean there's a 50 percent chance that Unicorns exist or any other fictional being you care to mention?
Mankind has worshipped 10,000 gods through history, all of them equally improbable and not one with an iota of tangible evidence. Yahweh is merely the most recent and popular.
For top philosophy of religion & sceptical analysis of Bible & religion try Robert M Price, John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Victor J. Stenger. E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', Thomas Paine, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg, Richard Carrier, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
I am not regurgitating anything your the one regurgitating this bs macro micro lets look at definitions micro small macro large if by that you mean the same then I question your ability to think rationally maybe you need to read a book on common english and the meaning of words they are different micro small evolutionary steps been proven so called macro evolution collection of small steps over time not proven and is bs atheist like to push.
@glendaweil Micro: Common prefix in physics to denote the 10^-6 th part of a certain unit. Macro: Among other definitions, a type of camera lens. But anyway.
Evolution is small gradual steps over long times leading to huge changes. And the evidence for that is overwhelming. Read Dawkins, Coyne or Mayr.
@glendaweil Good god, learn some grammar or some basic punctuation rules. Macro and micro-evolution are the same thing, by the way. Macro-evolution is just a longer series of micro-evolution taking place.
lol seriously another interruption?! almost every dawkins interview i watch, there is some random interruption that they have to cut out of the video!! it actually makes me laugh now
Dawkins cannot disprove God and he cannot prove macro evolution so he is left with micro and hating christians how very very sad for him and his athiest buddies.
@glendaweil Dawkins does NOT hate christians. you might say he hates christrianity, but that's not the same thing at all. it's pretty clear that many christians hate dawkins... a la you
@glendaweil show me one single line dawkins has ever said that suggests he hates christians. you can't. he is against the idea, not the people that follow it.
"leading ahteist idiot"... wow
1. Atheism doesn't have a leader, it's not an organization or even a movement, it's just the the rejection of all gods, whereas monotheism is the rejection of all but one deity (or confusingly, three, if you're christian).
2. Idiot? what makes him an idiot? Rationality? requiring evidence? his PHD?
@glendaweil umm it's hard to describe, is there some scale of dumbness? i'll just go with not very dumb. What do you know about what how much of christianity he hates? I'm sure he's fine with some parts: reforming criminals... pulling communities together.
Anyway, that is ridiculously beside the point. read my comment and try again. Unless you didn't get it, in which case, I'll just consider all the points you didn't address awarded to me. thanks for playing.
@NiNJack He is only the leading proponent of atheism on the planet yea right he does not hate christainity and christians he is full of love for everybody RIGHT dream on dreamer.
@glendaweil I hardly even have to say anything at this point. How wrong you are is just so blatant. You have not provided anything to counters my points at all, that's a forfeit bud.
"only leading proponent of atheism on the planet"... wow, have you not heard of at LEAST the mainstream hitchens, harris and dennett? read or listen to their arguments (with something of an open mind), you just might learn or realize something.
just read your comment over again and realize how it doesn't follow.
@NiNJack Right take things out of context why don't you he is (only) the leading proponent I never said he is the only idiot out here spouting such garbage I know there are more and my comments follow as night does day looks like you forfeit Bud..
@glendaweil if you want to even contend with me you gotta finish addressing all my points. go back and start bud cuz you are definitely losing this argument.
your arrogance is pissing me off, if you want to talk, then actually talk about the issues I bring up and don't run away and say something else.
@NiNJack Look cuz I do not have to do anything and if I piss you off then that is fine by me, dennet harris and dawkins are all idiotic atheist if you want to identify with them fine your choice.
@glendaweil then theres no point talking to a wall which won't absorb a word. I've given you more than you deserve. have fun with joshua and all the dead people!
@NiNJack I absorb I disagree thats all not all people believe this macro crap like you do so have fun talking to a cow like creature who evolves into a whale after 3 or 4 billion years. I have a friend named josh but I do not know why the reference to dead people are you on drugs or what.
@glendaweil There is micro (10^-6) and there is macro (a ryp of lens). However, there is no micro or macro evolution. Don't just regurgitate what your preacher man has been blabbering about, read a fucking book on it.
@glendaweil A) There is no macro or micro evolution. It's all evolution. And it has been proven. Go read a book, instead of sticking your fingers oin your ear.
B) It is for theists to prove theor often outrageuos claims. So far they have falied miserably. Until they do, God has to be relegated with pink unicorns and teapots in orbit of Mars.
Faith tries to make the best possible sense of things? No. Faith does not make sense. It is to blindly accept something as true without evidence solely based on the argument of "but I wanna, I wanna, I wanna." Faith is childish.
@TomFynn I disagree. You can't have faith in something if you already know its true. So far, only people who experience death can know for sure, because that is the only way one can determine whether it's true or not. I think Atheism can be classified as faith in a way, because it's a belief that deny's the existence of any deity. Religious people however, do believe in a deity. Believing or not believing in a deity doesn't make you any smarter. Even Atheists have faith in something.
@cosmoS10139 Atheism is the position that the claim of a supernatural entity watching out for us is not supported by any open, demonstrable evidence and can therefore be disregarded as can claims about pink unicorns and teapots in orbit of Mars. Faith is not required.
This poor imbecile's whole argument is "i'm going to go with christianity because i makes sense to me and makes me feel good and answers my existencial voids". Talk about skeptical and rigorous minds!
@seraphim1250 I'm pleased that we are in consensus as to the eloquence Dawkins. Though, just so you know, it's best not to use the phrase 'in the same vein' unless you are making an explicit mention of the said 'same vein'. Wishing that all atheists 'were in the same vein as Dawkins' is incorrect terminology.
Alister McGrath is a better wordsmith than the typical religous person but what he is saying is no more rational and still ultimetly just assumes his apriori assumptions as truth....faith
Although a religious person, I believe that if all athiests were in the same vein as Richard Dawkins, many of the world's afflictions would be subdued.
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
Dawkins: "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane...."
@Phavonic Does Alister McGrath ever directly say he does not believe in Evolution? He believes in God, but the two are not mutually exclusive. I do not know much about Alister McGrath, so if he does say that he does not believe in Evolution, can you point me to a source?
@Phavonic McGrath espouses evolutionary creation, still I don't see why he needs to associate one of the most natural things of time as being created-by "god"
@Phavonic You forgot unwilling... Not everyone wants or needs to know about evolution. My grandmother, for example: scoffs at it and when we've tried to simplify it for her she begged us to stop. In my line of work (computer technician) I get all sorts of users who are technophobes, doing just the amount needed to do their job... the printer gets jammed and they throw a fit, call help desk, and they take care of it. That's not a perfect analogy but it is close.
@SonicTheEggNog The single most simple definition of having an open mind and an exercise of rational and reasonable thought is to consider the possibility of your thoughts and opinions as erred and wrong. The best atheists and the most "evolved" (for lack of a better word) christians at least have this mindset in common when the situation for civil dialogue necessitates it. Your response is no better than that of the leaders who ordered the crusades.
@tastytasters Why in the world would I open my mind to verifiable stupidity? I open my mind to science. Science is the very essence of open-mindedness, because scientists are willing to change their theories according to new data. They are constantly trying to DISPROVE THEMSELVES in order to get closer to the truth. Christianity NEVER CHANGES. Christians have no interest in acquiring new data because they believe they have a book that contains everything they need to know.
@tastytasters Scientists get information from many sources, anthropology, biology, astronomy, quantum physics, etc. They don't have very many "facts". They have "theories" that are waiting to be improved upon or proven incorrect. Sounds like the very definition of open-mindedness to me!
Christians (I know this, because I was one for 20 years) only operate in facts. They believe everything in ONE BOOK without questioning it. Then they ignore all data that disproves their unquestionable FAITH!
@tastytasters You seem to think I am being harsh and closed minded, because I won't give every nut-job with a crack-pot theory the time of day.
Tell me, if a guy came up to you on the street and said "I AM GOD! FOLLOW ME TO MY APARTMENT AND I WILL GIVE YOU ETERNAL LIFE!" would you do it?
If you said no, then you are no better that the leaders who ordered the crusades. Who are you to say that you know better than him? That's very closed minded of you.
@SonicTheEggNog Yeah, that's true, But the first five words of your previous post "I don't care how civil" is what concerns me. Being polite can only take you so far, not quite the same case with being civil. Yes i seem to think you are indeed close-minded. I say no to preserve and support my integrity, not to diminish another person's credibility. There's a difference with that kind of disagreement and outright shunning an individual.
@SonicTheEggNog Nah you just dont wanna learn truth bc you dont wanna see/show how evil you are
1. If someone came up and said that to me id be curious(wanting to learn) and ask him questions and perhaps help him. But alas its apples and oranges bc Jesus did miracles to back his claims.
2. The crusades and other religous wars were done by false believers. Even the Jews of the OT were not traveling to foriegn lands to convert people by force. Once in the land they left outsiders alone.
@j919or Nah, I was a Christian for 20 years. So I spent 20 years thinking that I was evil and worthless without god. But then I got smart and broke free. I know exactly how evil I'm supposed to think I am.
1. I know what curious means. I'm an atheist which means, statistically, I have a larger vocabulary and a higher IQ than you. And stop lying.
2. Whatever. Any time a Christian does something bad, you refer to them as false christians/believers.
Correction: It is not required that we know or understand our creator and we likely lack the intellect to do so just as a computer does not know or understand its creator.
It is impossible that a cell phone or computer or a car exist, until we factor in a creator. it is not required that we know or understand that creator as we may not even have the intellect to do so.
Jeebus Chris!!! It must be a European thing, to be so neat and proper! I really do so much admire the manner of speaking that these two men possess, and as an American feel it as a bit of ancestral duty to follow suit and try to emulate such manners.
What make this an interesting and civil debate is the fact they're talking in a more philosophical way than most of the arguments you see in general. McGrath didn't reach theism from a controlled environment like a family. He studied and think things through, so he made a mistake, but at least an educated one.
Allister is strange ,i would say hes never bought a round ,in his life, in fact, he wouldn't even know anything about life ....BTW hes got a muscular neck hahaha
Im a Christian, and i admit when the discussion is vague (with faith, probabilities and the such), both arguments seem viable. However, if you bring it to the bible (miracles, murder, incest and so on), which is more specific, the argument of a Christian breaks down :/
i noticed something about these interviews in this movie is that the camera never stops therefore theres no edits,creationists cant say that they will cut it into what they want it to be
What's all this yadda yadda about probability? It nullifies the debate entirely! Atheists can't disprove God. Religion can't prove God. But!... one piece of truism remains - lack of evidence is evidence itself. Creationists believe there's an order to things. There is no order - only chaos. That chaos over time (12 BILLION YEARS) has created pockets of temporary stability, such as our solar system, but it won't last forever. Also, we are not improbable. There are hundreds of trillions of stars!
@informationsponge hmmmm...... mathematics, physics, and the attempt to find a T.O.E would beg to differ with you and the statement on chaos you made. There is a pattern to everything even if it appears to be chaos. I'm not arguing for or against a belief in God in this statement, but it would be untrue to state that there is no order only chaos if in fact you are trying to take the thought provoking scientific approach.
McGrath is obviously a phony though-he's just spewing stuff to defend himself and is just trying to make a point of being a nicer christian than most.
so good. though it only reminds me that I was accepted to study with Mcgrath at King's. there is, unfortunately, very little funding for an American student who wishes to study in Britain...
This is such an interesting conversation I love watching these two brilliant minds calmly discuss opposing views like adults without ripping each others throats appart. Though I disagree with Dr. McGrath here, I immensely respect the man for his hard work and his obviously rational sensabilities.
who are your parents ? they was just a way for you to get here . so it took sperm to make you but who put life in that sperm ? isnt it like frankenstein ! you have the body but you need something to bring that body to life . so your parents gave you the body threw sperm . but were did the life come from ? so i think it,s finaly time to shut you down we ben at it to long . can science take a dead body and bring it back to life .NO .so were dose the life source come from . by !
i will say that this is one of the most respectable christians ive ever seen as far as having a civil debate goes for with this kind of subject....this is a kind of guy who isnt gonna plug his ears and say "lalalalalalalalalala"
@wheresmywhiskey85 In my personal experience most theists (and atheists) in general are like this (I'm not a particularly devout theist myself) in that they discuss things and if they can't agree they effectively say "I don't agree; but you're point is as valid as mine" - its just a shame that the media only gives voices to the extreme idiots. Me - I'm from the "can't we all just get along?" school of life ;=)
@wheresmywhiskey85 This is the way most Christians are my friend, particularly those of the "old school" (by which I mean the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Anglicans etc.). The television will present a different image of course, but hey, 'the loudest shouter is heard in the crowd', and they tend to be the ones who are incorrect and give their belief system, be it Christian, Atheist, theist, deist or whatever, a very bad name.
@matrix4022 really late reply, my apologies, i dont check my inbox for any replies often, as you can tell, but this has not been my personal experience, not from what the media will show, but what ive been through, now, i currently live in georgia and have for quite a few years now, so in that sense, i havnt had the chance to debate in person with those you speak of, most of the christians i speak of, just straight deny, dont want to hear it and think im a horrible person and damned to hell
@wheresmywhiskey85 I will say that this is one of the most respectable atheists I've ever seen with regards to civil debate over the subject of religion. This kind of fellow will not plug his ears and say. "Lalalalalalala..."
This is how all debates should be. Intelligent, well reasoned and gentlemanly.
sEaNoYeAh 2 weeks ago
It's improbable that I'm going to come away from watching this debate any the wiser LOL!
WotchDis 2 weeks ago
I like the way that a debate which only really exists in America is argued primarily by two Englishman. Can America not produce it's own reasonable, intelligent theists and atheists?
Gouldsonuk 3 weeks ago
Great discussion. Thanks for posting.
jcook51 1 month ago in playlist More videos from sophiasaurus
Stupid Channel 4 edgy filming shit....
paulo101 1 month ago
how completly refreshing.two smart men having a very interesting and in depth debate,very rare,especially on youtube!lol
reeceyhigs 1 month ago
dont look any further, huuuge comments written below, better read a damm book instead..
nextblain 2 months ago 2
further to point out that there's knowledge that's meaningful, relevant and BEYOND THE PERVIEW OF SCIENCE. for that you call me 'stupid'. Read T.S Elliot. Read Gulag Arhipelago. Read SOMETHING and understand that pursuit of science is fantastic, but just because something (poem, for instance) has nothing to say about science and the physical world that you consider 'real', doesn't make it valueless
steelyman40 2 months ago
Comment removed
steelyman40 2 months ago
of the 20th century (Communism, Fascism, Maoism etc.) were profoundly anti-religious and were run by atheists. Period. Read the history if you don't believe me (you don't, but won't). Not that all atheists are fascists, but it puts to bed the nonsense that only religious are intollerant ("Oh Liberty, what crimes have been done in your name"). In terms of your other point..the only one I can discern is that you believe the Bible has no part in the pursuit of science. I agree with you. But I go
steelyman40 2 months ago
Alright. Hitler=atheist. I told you to read Kernshaw (best biographer of Hitler at the moment) or Bullock.Nazi persecution of churches is too long to cite, but if you're too stupid to look up a single example, let me know and I'll spoon feed you one, you fucking baby. I get the impression your opinions come from the web, so google Cardinal Faulhaber. The idea that Hitler was a catholic...you obviously have NO history (and yet you call me the pseudo intellectual). Look, the rationalist movements
steelyman40 2 months ago
why does it call come down to either there is a designer or we are here by chance. there are other options, for example, hypothetically, if we discovered that the universe was infinite years old, than everything that happens or could happen must happen. I'm not saying this hypothesis is true but its an example of no divine designer/designers and no chance happenings.
jinofthethunder 3 months ago
@Eamonoregan I hope you find God before it's to late. Time is running out for you..
sweetmovie07 3 months ago
Atheist meaning- I am just a primate living in a pointless world of make believe values and self delusional meaning and I feel super!
sweetmovie07 3 months ago
@sweetmovie07 Atheist meaning - I am a person who does not restrict my life to an imaginary greater "thing", I am not so pathetic that the only point in life I can see is worshipping an imaginary god.
EamonOregan 3 months ago
I got here as an atheist, and then saw a sober irishman. Now I believe in miracles!
soOodAkAh 3 months ago
@soOodAkAh should I infer from your 'joke' that all atheists are ignorant biggots, then?
steelyman40 2 months ago
@steelyman40 just trying to bring some derision in this gigantic trolling festival... Oh sorry, now I'm feeding a troll... dammit. OK just go straight to the Godwin point and call me a nazi and that way we can call this argument over. Agreed?
soOodAkAh 1 month ago
@steelyman40 Should I infer from your reaction that all *insert your particular religion here* have no sense of humor whatsoever? Relax a bit man, at least I wasn't bashing... and seriously, get a life. Peace.
soOodAkAh 1 week ago
@soOodAkAh Damn you, youtube... I fed the troll again!
soOodAkAh 1 week ago
@soOodAkAh It's been about 2 months...have you been carrying this all that time? I'd ask you to get a life if you need to reply to it after all this time...Anyway, you're the person who talked about the finding of a sober Irishman was a miracle. When I call you on it, you say I've got no sense of humour. Alright, then. If Irish=drunk is alright, then bring on the nigger, kyke, redskin, limey, wop, pollock humour. Got any good 'chink' jokes or anything about poor women drivers?Get out of the 70s
steelyman40 1 week ago
@steelyman40 Haha so me not immediately answering to you on YouTube makes me the one that needs to get a life? Anyway, I'm not gonna start justifying myself to you about my sense of humor. As a French comedian said "you can laugh about anything, just not with anyone".
I hope everything's OK for you, have a good life, enjoy yourself, and stop sermoning people over the internet, 'cause you know, people are not being serious here.
soOodAkAh 1 week ago
@soOodAkAh No problem. You too. Good luck to you.
steelyman40 6 days ago
just two smart english dudes sounding smart. I love it
xmoopzx 3 months ago 22
@xmoopzx Two smart english dudes?
You consider the guy who says that the excessively well-supported science that we use to understand how reality works doesn't work well enough when you consider the fact that superstitious iron age Sun-worshipers put a bunch of nonsense about a magical invisible man in the sky into a book and made him reconsider his viewpoint... smart?
Should we start handing out doctorates to concussed puppies now, too?
EdwardHowton 3 months ago in playlist Dawkins Debate
@EdwardHowton A couple of problems with what you've said. One, you're presumably criticizing the Bible because of its age (it came from the pre-modern). Using that as a basis for criticism is incredibly arrogant and misses many points (not least is the fact that supposedly "modern" views are often wrongheaded). More fundamentally, though, you seem to be engaging in the same tired old straw-man that many atheists employ: you build an extremely oversimplified version of McGrath and then attack it
steelyman40 2 months ago
@EdwardHowton Assuming you're honest about any of this, I'd start looking for people who can point you to the incredibly rich intellectual tradition of these believers (Jordan Peterson's stuff on Evil)It's not just bronze age superstition. Finally, there's so much that honest scientists acknowledge cant be answered by science...that's not a reason to turn away from it, or to denegrate 'science' but it has limitations. So if you want to know how reality works, it'll get you part of the way only
steelyman40 2 months ago
@steelyman40 No, I'm not criticizing the bible's age.
I'm criticizing the fact that the bible contains a bunch of nonsense, because at the time people had no idea of how to properly investigate reality, and that McGrath fails to take this into account in his brain-fart conversion.
What you've done is strawmanned my comment and set fire to it, and followed up with a couple non sequiturs for good measure. Rich intellectual tradition of believers regarding what? Secular things, not religious.
EdwardHowton 2 months ago
@EdwardHowton Because they didn't know how to, for example, measure the weight of the Sun, doesn't mean they didn't investigate a different type of reality. One that is relevant, but outside what can be discovered by the scientific method. If you examine your own life--whats important to you--I think you'll see stuff there that is not possible to explain rationally or using the broad brush of 'science'. (And dont try to appeal to that discredited nonsense, the "meme" to do it. review honestly).
steelyman40 2 months ago
@EdwardHowton Idiotic. I agree that the Bible was written before the discovery of the Scientific Method. Your very crude belief that because they couldn't, say, tell you the volume of the oceans that their insights are non-existant expresses an incredible ignorance and arrogance. How did I strawman your argument? You critique Bible because it doesn't give any tools for the investigation of one type of reality. There are many types of reality, but you're too young, naive or stupid to get that.
steelyman40 2 months ago
@steelyman40 Even more incredibly, you admit that science works, but then add a completely idiotic comment that trying to understand how reality works on reality's terms can only get you so far, and after that you have to turn to superstition, fanciful stories, and utter nonsense spewed by the critical equivalent of some guy sitting next to you at the pub.
Sorry, but no, if you want to know how things actually work, you don't make up imaginary friends with magic powers to explain them.
EdwardHowton 2 months ago
@EdwardHowton Yes. Great. Science has incredible explanatory power. But I think your failure to understand is indicated by your comment "understand how reality works on reality's terms" It presupposes that the only 'reality' is one that can be analysed by science. The point I was making before is that there are very legitimate scientists who point out that 'reality' can't simply be encapsulated by the measureable. eg "what is the good life"? is REAL for most people but science can't address it.
steelyman40 2 months ago
@steelyman40 Yes, because hypothetical and rhetorical questions about arbitrary things that have no answer advance our understanding so much.
The fact that you suggest two competing kinds of "reality" tells me everything anyone needs to know about you, which is that you're an idiot.
So, I'll pat you on the head as the figurative aforementioned concussed puppy in this discussion, and let you carry on pondering the sound of one hand golf-clapping.
"Legitimate scientists", he says. Hah!
EdwardHowton 2 months ago
@EdwardHowton LOL! Awesome. You've concluded that I'm an idiot based on 4 or 5 paragraphs from me. In my experience the idiots I've met all have an arrogant, smug certitude. Not being an asshole myself, I'll not stoop to your level and just point out that if you believe the only reality is what can be proven with the scientific method then you're confused. Nothing about a God or the hereafter...it's here and right in front of you, but you ignore it because you can't measure it. Fool.
steelyman40 2 months ago
@steelyman40 "You've concluded that I'm an idiot based on 4 or 5 paragraphs from me"
Yes, I have. And you continue to prove me right.
"the great atheistic movements of the 20th century (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc)"
Hitler was a catholic. Stalin was a fascist communist. Mao was much the same. None of these have anything to do with atheism, nor were they atheistic movements.
"no war between science and religion, they simply deal with different types of truth"
Two realities again. Fail.
EdwardHowton 2 months ago
@EdwardHowton Your ignorance seems boundless based on your reply. Re; Hitler-read Kernshaw. re Stalin and the rationalism of communism--read Riasanofsky. Mao was an atheist who despised religion. Anyway, it's irrelevant. Those seem above you. Try this different reality. Imagine your parents die after you've left home and no longer rely on them. Rationally (the reality of science), you shouldn't mourn them. They perpetrated their genes in you, you'll do the same, they should go and not be mourned
steelyman40 2 months ago
@EdwardHowton Yet I KNOW that you would mourn them for reasons that have absolutely 0 to do with science. There is a reality that can't be measured (your feelings for parents for example) and denying that makes you sound like a wilfully blind arrogant kid. No matter. You never bothered to ask my perspective: I have no problem with atheists or atheism..I do have a problem with fundamentalism and with the nonsense Dawkins spews--he does more harm to the atheist side than good. Anyway, goodnight.
steelyman40 2 months ago
@steelyman40 Are you still talking? Look, troll, crawl back into your burrow and feast on the lice that thrive in your pubes and leave us adults along to be significant and productive members of reality, thanks.
"There is a reality that can't be measured (your feelings for parents for example)"
Two words: evolutionary psychology. Now shut up, you tiresome bit of pseudo-intellectual handwaving trash and realize that superstitious stories of shepherds aren't worth shit in science.
EdwardHowton 2 months ago
@EdwardHowton "shut up". Love it. Always the death nell for an argument. Your reply is mostly tiresome vitriol (to be expected), but you do mention something interesting: evolutionary psychology.If you took your evolutionary psychology serious (or were even aware of any of it), you'd agree with me. Which researchers do you follow? Which journals do you read?I'm going to press the point because you obviously don't have a real answer. Where do feelings for the evolutionarily irrelevant come from?
steelyman40 2 months ago
@EdwardHowton Last thing..can't resist making this point: Aren't the atheists supposed to be paragons of reason and sanity and the superstitious believers are supposed to be the frothy assholes? Your behaviour has demonstrated to everyone who reads this that knee jerk fundamentalism itself is the problem. You're a (loud, obnoxious, cowardly) fundamentalist who doesn't even read the responses of those who disagree with him. You're an all too typical 'new atheist'. keep up the good work
steelyman40 2 months ago
@steelyman40 Atheists aren't the paragons of reasons and sanity. Skeptics might be, rationalists are or should be. Nothing about any of those demands that we be paragons of patience and coddle ignoramuses like yourself.
Pseudo-intellectual twits like you are just irritating, and I lose my patience easily when exposed to stupidity. I have read your "points", they're just bad, like your Hitler = atheist comment. You haven't answered any of mine, why should I dignify your vapid, fallacious ones?
EdwardHowton 2 months ago
@EdwardHowton I'll go now through each of your responses, on the assumption that you won't do the same as you have no responses. I think my response to your Hitler=atheist comment speaks volumes. You consider it "stupid" because it doesn't fit into your little "science and nothing else" world. Ok. Taking apart the rest of your nonsense should be pretty quick...
steelyman40 2 months ago
@EdwardHowton Thx for the suggestion that I answer your points (I think there was one about the Bible being of zero value in answering scientific questions--a point where we agree, actually. Then a great deal of awful grammar and spelling). I have to say I enjoyed that. I don't know what a pseudo-intellectual is, exactly, but I suspect it's someone like you. Some dumb kid who can't reply in the way that I have with scholarly sources. Again, it's been fun kicking your dumbass around. thx again
steelyman40 2 months ago
@EdwardHowton I'm the idiot? Ok...well, I can riff all night on a gem that you came up with earlier.before mommy edited it, it might have read something like ..."this arbitrary thing that don't mean no thing that advance understanding not so much like our ways with science can I think" I'm the idiot. I, at least, don't insult the language. Here it is, dumbass...I've cited at least two other scholarly sources and have directed you to some research. What have you done? What have you got to offer?
steelyman40 2 months ago
@EdwardHowton They're not 'competing' realities (again with your strange dychotomy). I owe you an example. Both atheists and people of faith know clearly that the great atheistic movements of the 20th century (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc) were wrong after the fact. You seem to suggest that there's no "reality" to the statement that genocide is morally wrong because the scientific method would itself be silent on the issue ('it might be culturally sanctioned violence', would say a rationalists...)
steelyman40 2 months ago
@EdwardHowton Not sure about this one. Here you seem to denegrate questions that can't be answered by science as "arbitrary...ahem...'things' (nice!)...that have no answer advance our understanding so much"....ok, meat sandwhich...why don't you go back and have your mommy write out a real sentence for you? This makes no sense. I also might recommend "hooked on phonics". No need to deal with the rest of this as it's just your usual ad hominem nonsense. Idiot.
steelyman40 2 months ago
@EdwardHowton Why do you find it 'incredible' that I accept science and can have faith? There's a false dychotomy here--there is no war between science and religion, actually, they simply deal with different types of truth and a good many scientists acknowledge this.Also, friend, you're clearly ignorant of the historical, legal, poetic etc. elements of the Bible if you call 'utter nonsense'. I'd urge you to get intellectually honest and go review what youre critiquing. Dawkins obviously isn't.
steelyman40 2 months ago
@EdwardHowton I replied to the 'reality on reality's terms' point already. No one ever suggested you need God to explain how physical phenomena work, so ANOTHER STRAW MAN FROM THE DUMBASS!
steelyman40 2 months ago
@xmoopzx One smart English dude. And then Alister McGrath.
BarryDong 1 month ago
its sad to know dawkins went from being a plesing person like this, to being a no show ad hominem from his website kind of person.
Falcondick69 4 months ago
I agree with the discussion so far, but the probability of a supernatural being seems less probable, since it relies on no evidence other than the fact that we are here. Maybe the cosmos was always doing what it's doing, or maybe there are many gods, surely the probability of one god isn't so different to the probability of two or more gods?
axolotl5 4 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 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
wow its a miracle! Dawkins is not angry! :)
ngimangi 4 months ago 12
@ngimangi He isn't angry because alister mcgrath is actually a humble, very intelligent man who is able to challenge him intellectually. And I think Dawkins respects that as much as I
generosos87 1 month ago 4
@ngimangi Is he ever, really?
bgiv2010 1 month ago
@ngimangi He must be one the calmest man alive
MrBuffaloGrill 1 month ago
@sophiasaurus
Thank you for uploading this because i am studying these two for my A level :) thank you :)
16nwb1 4 months ago
@16nwb1
hi. what course are you doing?
wirechair 4 months ago
@wirechair
Philosiphy and Ethics :)
16nwb1 4 months ago
I love the honest discussion and reasoning here. I wish all conversations between differing views, especially on theology, philosophy, etc went like this. No name-calling, labeling, or yelling. Though I find myself agreeing with Alister McGrath, this is a wonderful display of reasonable discourse from both men. Well done. Thank you to whoever posted this.
jtmac5 5 months ago
Comment removed
jtmac5 5 months ago
I have to say that this is exactly the way that dialogue between people of conflicting viewpoints should discuss. I find myself on the side of Alister McGrath, but I greatly appreciate Dawkins in this form as opposed to other times I've seen him. This is great honest dialogue. I really wish more and more people, including myself sometimes, could reason in this way with no bad-mouthing, labeling, or name-calling.
jtmac5 5 months ago
Comment removed
jtmac5 5 months ago
Comment removed
jtmac5 5 months ago
TheDarkLordLucifer 5 months ago
What? Nobody can be certain that there is a God? Speak for yourself, fool! We most certainly believe there is a God because nature speaks it, our consciences reveal him and the Bible ultimately confirms it. People don't let these two fools Hitchens and Dawkins rob you of eternal life because they don't believe. "A fool has said in his heart there is no God" the Jewish Psalmist said and we are knocking on eternities door. To barter with you eternal soul with unbelief is the ultimate unrational.
fothgt 5 months ago
Comment removed
Skedarking85 5 months ago
I just realized Dawkins really does blink a lot. Especially the more excited or agitated he gets. "Excuse me sir, are you saying we really came from apes?" blink-blink-blink-blink-blink...
Skedarking85 5 months ago
@Skedarking85 True.I also notised he shakes his head a lot and sometimes he raises one eyebrow only.Human body language is wonderful, isn't it?:P
SnitchSeeker 5 months ago
What did MaGrath say? It's a 50/50 situation that God exists or not (3.30) ?? Does that mean there's a 50 percent chance that Unicorns exist or any other fictional being you care to mention?
simpsonmark 5 months ago
Wow so this McGrath gives words their own meaning then throws them around to make a point. Highly pro.
Dandramere 5 months ago
Mankind has worshipped 10,000 gods through history, all of them equally improbable and not one with an iota of tangible evidence. Yahweh is merely the most recent and popular.
lewisner 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For top philosophy of religion & sceptical analysis of Bible & religion try Robert M Price, John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Victor J. Stenger. E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', Thomas Paine, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg, Richard Carrier, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
zytigon 5 months ago
I am not regurgitating anything your the one regurgitating this bs macro micro lets look at definitions micro small macro large if by that you mean the same then I question your ability to think rationally maybe you need to read a book on common english and the meaning of words they are different micro small evolutionary steps been proven so called macro evolution collection of small steps over time not proven and is bs atheist like to push.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil Micro: Common prefix in physics to denote the 10^-6 th part of a certain unit. Macro: Among other definitions, a type of camera lens. But anyway.
Evolution is small gradual steps over long times leading to huge changes. And the evidence for that is overwhelming. Read Dawkins, Coyne or Mayr.
TomFynn 5 months ago
@TomFynn Why would I want to read dawkins oany other of the atheist idiots you liste I believee evolution micro not macro.
glendaweil 5 months ago in playlist Atheism, Skepticism, Richard Dawkins, etc.
@glendaweil You are an IDiot. Do try to read up on facts. Not just what your preacher man told you.
TomFynn 5 months ago
@TomFynn Don't have a preacher man genius know how evolution works already do not believe macro get it GOOD!
glendaweil 5 months ago in playlist Atheism, Skepticism, Richard Dawkins, etc.
@glendaweil Good god, learn some grammar or some basic punctuation rules. Macro and micro-evolution are the same thing, by the way. Macro-evolution is just a longer series of micro-evolution taking place.
ZerenMoviari 5 months ago
@ZerenMoviari BS micro is real macro is a fantasy so they are not the same.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil When you do not believe "macro" you do not understand how evolution works.
TomFynn 5 months ago
@TomFynn Dumbass I understand how evolution works that is why I do not believe macro because it is an atheist fantasy.
glendaweil 5 months ago in playlist Atheism, Skepticism, Richard Dawkins, etc.
@glendaweil Again, there is no micro or macro evolution. It is all evolution.
TomFynn 5 months ago
lol seriously another interruption?! almost every dawkins interview i watch, there is some random interruption that they have to cut out of the video!! it actually makes me laugh now
aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy 6 months ago
Dawkins cannot disprove God and he cannot prove macro evolution so he is left with micro and hating christians how very very sad for him and his athiest buddies.
glendaweil 6 months ago
@glendaweil Dawkins does NOT hate christians. you might say he hates christrianity, but that's not the same thing at all. it's pretty clear that many christians hate dawkins... a la you
NiNJack 6 months ago
@NiNJack Yes he hates christians and christianity he is the leading ahteist idiot on the planet an your following him good luck with that path.
glendaweil 6 months ago
@glendaweil show me one single line dawkins has ever said that suggests he hates christians. you can't. he is against the idea, not the people that follow it.
"leading ahteist idiot"... wow
1. Atheism doesn't have a leader, it's not an organization or even a movement, it's just the the rejection of all gods, whereas monotheism is the rejection of all but one deity (or confusingly, three, if you're christian).
2. Idiot? what makes him an idiot? Rationality? requiring evidence? his PHD?
NiNJack 6 months ago
@NiNJack How dumb are you he hates everything about christianity dummy that is as plain as the nose on your face.
glendaweil 6 months ago
@glendaweil umm it's hard to describe, is there some scale of dumbness? i'll just go with not very dumb. What do you know about what how much of christianity he hates? I'm sure he's fine with some parts: reforming criminals... pulling communities together.
Anyway, that is ridiculously beside the point. read my comment and try again. Unless you didn't get it, in which case, I'll just consider all the points you didn't address awarded to me. thanks for playing.
NiNJack 6 months ago
@NiNJack He is only the leading proponent of atheism on the planet yea right he does not hate christainity and christians he is full of love for everybody RIGHT dream on dreamer.
glendaweil 6 months ago
@glendaweil I hardly even have to say anything at this point. How wrong you are is just so blatant. You have not provided anything to counters my points at all, that's a forfeit bud.
"only leading proponent of atheism on the planet"... wow, have you not heard of at LEAST the mainstream hitchens, harris and dennett? read or listen to their arguments (with something of an open mind), you just might learn or realize something.
just read your comment over again and realize how it doesn't follow.
NiNJack 6 months ago
@NiNJack Right take things out of context why don't you he is (only) the leading proponent I never said he is the only idiot out here spouting such garbage I know there are more and my comments follow as night does day looks like you forfeit Bud..
glendaweil 6 months ago
@glendaweil if you want to even contend with me you gotta finish addressing all my points. go back and start bud cuz you are definitely losing this argument.
your arrogance is pissing me off, if you want to talk, then actually talk about the issues I bring up and don't run away and say something else.
NiNJack 6 months ago
@NiNJack Look cuz I do not have to do anything and if I piss you off then that is fine by me, dennet harris and dawkins are all idiotic atheist if you want to identify with them fine your choice.
glendaweil 6 months ago
@glendaweil then theres no point talking to a wall which won't absorb a word. I've given you more than you deserve. have fun with joshua and all the dead people!
NiNJack 6 months ago
@NiNJack I absorb I disagree thats all not all people believe this macro crap like you do so have fun talking to a cow like creature who evolves into a whale after 3 or 4 billion years. I have a friend named josh but I do not know why the reference to dead people are you on drugs or what.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil There is micro (10^-6) and there is macro (a ryp of lens). However, there is no micro or macro evolution. Don't just regurgitate what your preacher man has been blabbering about, read a fucking book on it.
TomFynn 5 months ago
@glendaweil A) There is no macro or micro evolution. It's all evolution. And it has been proven. Go read a book, instead of sticking your fingers oin your ear.
B) It is for theists to prove theor often outrageuos claims. So far they have falied miserably. Until they do, God has to be relegated with pink unicorns and teapots in orbit of Mars.
TomFynn 5 months ago
@TomFynn There is micro and macro you idiotic atheist want it all te same but it is not micro is a fact macro no.
glendaweil 5 months ago
Faith tries to make the best possible sense of things? No. Faith does not make sense. It is to blindly accept something as true without evidence solely based on the argument of "but I wanna, I wanna, I wanna." Faith is childish.
TomFynn 6 months ago
@TomFynn I disagree. You can't have faith in something if you already know its true. So far, only people who experience death can know for sure, because that is the only way one can determine whether it's true or not. I think Atheism can be classified as faith in a way, because it's a belief that deny's the existence of any deity. Religious people however, do believe in a deity. Believing or not believing in a deity doesn't make you any smarter. Even Atheists have faith in something.
cosmoS10139 6 months ago
@cosmoS10139 Atheism is the position that the claim of a supernatural entity watching out for us is not supported by any open, demonstrable evidence and can therefore be disregarded as can claims about pink unicorns and teapots in orbit of Mars. Faith is not required.
TomFynn 6 months ago
This poor imbecile's whole argument is "i'm going to go with christianity because i makes sense to me and makes me feel good and answers my existencial voids". Talk about skeptical and rigorous minds!
sirdelrio 6 months ago
@seraphim1250 I'm pleased that we are in consensus as to the eloquence Dawkins. Though, just so you know, it's best not to use the phrase 'in the same vein' unless you are making an explicit mention of the said 'same vein'. Wishing that all atheists 'were in the same vein as Dawkins' is incorrect terminology.
pelsis10 6 months ago
Alister McGrath is a better wordsmith than the typical religous person but what he is saying is no more rational and still ultimetly just assumes his apriori assumptions as truth....faith
funcpl2741054 6 months ago
Although an atheist, I believe that if all religious people thought in the same vein as McGrath, many of the world's afflictions would be subdued.
pelsis10 6 months ago
@pelsis10 Although a religious person, I do believe that if all atheists were like Richard Dawkins, many of the world's problems would be subdued.
seraphim1250 6 months ago
Although a religious person, I believe that if all athiests were in the same vein as Richard Dawkins, many of the world's afflictions would be subdued.
seraphim1250 6 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 6 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 6 months ago
1:40 Dawkins was like... :-O
Ambush083 6 months ago
God is 100% God.
psalmistjohn 7 months ago
Dawkins: "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane...."
Which would he call Alister McGrath?
Phavonic 7 months ago
@Phavonic Does Alister McGrath ever directly say he does not believe in Evolution? He believes in God, but the two are not mutually exclusive. I do not know much about Alister McGrath, so if he does say that he does not believe in Evolution, can you point me to a source?
dragonfiremalus 7 months ago
@Phavonic McGrath espouses evolutionary creation, still I don't see why he needs to associate one of the most natural things of time as being created-by "god"
man444utd 7 months ago
@Phavonic You forgot unwilling... Not everyone wants or needs to know about evolution. My grandmother, for example: scoffs at it and when we've tried to simplify it for her she begged us to stop. In my line of work (computer technician) I get all sorts of users who are technophobes, doing just the amount needed to do their job... the printer gets jammed and they throw a fit, call help desk, and they take care of it. That's not a perfect analogy but it is close.
RayTech70 6 months ago
@MatsEP yeah i thought so too
Wadupbeyotch1 7 months ago
I respect the guy, but his eye contact is killing. Not a single moment of breaking eye contact....
MatsEP 7 months ago
This debate needs background music. Intense, lord of the rings final battle kind of background music.
Lairdesangfroid 8 months ago
I don't care how civil and polite this christian is. Don't forget that he is still a fucking delusional idiot.
SonicTheEggNog 8 months ago
@SonicTheEggNog The single most simple definition of having an open mind and an exercise of rational and reasonable thought is to consider the possibility of your thoughts and opinions as erred and wrong. The best atheists and the most "evolved" (for lack of a better word) christians at least have this mindset in common when the situation for civil dialogue necessitates it. Your response is no better than that of the leaders who ordered the crusades.
tastytasters 7 months ago
@tastytasters Why in the world would I open my mind to verifiable stupidity? I open my mind to science. Science is the very essence of open-mindedness, because scientists are willing to change their theories according to new data. They are constantly trying to DISPROVE THEMSELVES in order to get closer to the truth. Christianity NEVER CHANGES. Christians have no interest in acquiring new data because they believe they have a book that contains everything they need to know.
SonicTheEggNog 7 months ago
Comment removed
SonicTheEggNog 7 months ago
@tastytasters Scientists get information from many sources, anthropology, biology, astronomy, quantum physics, etc. They don't have very many "facts". They have "theories" that are waiting to be improved upon or proven incorrect. Sounds like the very definition of open-mindedness to me!
Christians (I know this, because I was one for 20 years) only operate in facts. They believe everything in ONE BOOK without questioning it. Then they ignore all data that disproves their unquestionable FAITH!
SonicTheEggNog 7 months ago
@tastytasters You seem to think I am being harsh and closed minded, because I won't give every nut-job with a crack-pot theory the time of day.
Tell me, if a guy came up to you on the street and said "I AM GOD! FOLLOW ME TO MY APARTMENT AND I WILL GIVE YOU ETERNAL LIFE!" would you do it?
If you said no, then you are no better that the leaders who ordered the crusades. Who are you to say that you know better than him? That's very closed minded of you.
SonicTheEggNog 7 months ago
@SonicTheEggNog Yeah, that's true, But the first five words of your previous post "I don't care how civil" is what concerns me. Being polite can only take you so far, not quite the same case with being civil. Yes i seem to think you are indeed close-minded. I say no to preserve and support my integrity, not to diminish another person's credibility. There's a difference with that kind of disagreement and outright shunning an individual.
tastytasters 7 months ago
@SonicTheEggNog Nah you just dont wanna learn truth bc you dont wanna see/show how evil you are
1. If someone came up and said that to me id be curious(wanting to learn) and ask him questions and perhaps help him. But alas its apples and oranges bc Jesus did miracles to back his claims.
2. The crusades and other religous wars were done by false believers. Even the Jews of the OT were not traveling to foriegn lands to convert people by force. Once in the land they left outsiders alone.
j919or 7 months ago
@j919or Nah, I was a Christian for 20 years. So I spent 20 years thinking that I was evil and worthless without god. But then I got smart and broke free. I know exactly how evil I'm supposed to think I am.
1. I know what curious means. I'm an atheist which means, statistically, I have a larger vocabulary and a higher IQ than you. And stop lying.
2. Whatever. Any time a Christian does something bad, you refer to them as false christians/believers.
SonicTheEggNog 7 months ago
Correction: It is not required that we know or understand our creator and we likely lack the intellect to do so just as a computer does not know or understand its creator.
freddyvoetsch 8 months ago
@freddyvoetsch Good point! However, we are rational, thinking and self aware beings whereas the computer is not.
miashalala 8 months ago
It is impossible that a cell phone or computer or a car exist, until we factor in a creator. it is not required that we know or understand that creator as we may not even have the intellect to do so.
freddyvoetsch 8 months ago
Jeebus Chris!!! It must be a European thing, to be so neat and proper! I really do so much admire the manner of speaking that these two men possess, and as an American feel it as a bit of ancestral duty to follow suit and try to emulate such manners.
gregonamus 8 months ago
What make this an interesting and civil debate is the fact they're talking in a more philosophical way than most of the arguments you see in general. McGrath didn't reach theism from a controlled environment like a family. He studied and think things through, so he made a mistake, but at least an educated one.
ProjectPlatfus 8 months ago
Allister is strange ,i would say hes never bought a round ,in his life, in fact, he wouldn't even know anything about life ....BTW hes got a muscular neck hahaha
badslabber 8 months ago
THIS is what you call a debate. Not the"...tide's go in, tide's go out. Never a miscommunication..."-BULLCRAP.
Senni7 8 months ago
"even stephen" HAHAHA that is great
SlowrThanThe2ndComin 8 months ago
Im a Christian, and i admit when the discussion is vague (with faith, probabilities and the such), both arguments seem viable. However, if you bring it to the bible (miracles, murder, incest and so on), which is more specific, the argument of a Christian breaks down :/
wallofjustin 8 months ago
lets break this down
both sides believe something has come from nothing
evolutionists say it was the universe
creationists say it was god
neither will ever win because we will never prove that there is or is not
coltsrule5150 9 months ago
@coltsrule5150 You really mix things together here.
bbkingzor 9 months ago
i noticed something about these interviews in this movie is that the camera never stops therefore theres no edits,creationists cant say that they will cut it into what they want it to be
coltsrule5150 9 months ago
i see a ligth on dawkins face:) really he is true i see the ligth.
esraretin 9 months ago
I wish I could carry on an argument in that fashion. Wow. Two very highly respected gentlemen.
xxembrassemoixx 9 months ago
Comment removed
xxembrassemoixx 9 months ago
@ 1:50.. wait, what was that?
Superlativesweetie 10 months ago
Why is McGrath's head tilted almost the entire time? :P
baughskeet 10 months ago
thats how christians should conduct themselves. shouting "god hates fags" is totally ruining our street cred. god loves urbody fool.
son12509 10 months ago
Great conversation - but why not grab a couple chairs and move somewhere with less echo? ;)
twstdelf 10 months ago
What's all this yadda yadda about probability? It nullifies the debate entirely! Atheists can't disprove God. Religion can't prove God. But!... one piece of truism remains - lack of evidence is evidence itself. Creationists believe there's an order to things. There is no order - only chaos. That chaos over time (12 BILLION YEARS) has created pockets of temporary stability, such as our solar system, but it won't last forever. Also, we are not improbable. There are hundreds of trillions of stars!
informationsponge 10 months ago
@informationsponge hmmmm...... mathematics, physics, and the attempt to find a T.O.E would beg to differ with you and the statement on chaos you made. There is a pattern to everything even if it appears to be chaos. I'm not arguing for or against a belief in God in this statement, but it would be untrue to state that there is no order only chaos if in fact you are trying to take the thought provoking scientific approach.
mellybellyjf 10 months ago
McGrath is obviously a phony though-he's just spewing stuff to defend himself and is just trying to make a point of being a nicer christian than most.
Pullmanfan7 11 months ago
if only they were on the same side, they would be able to hug, kiss and make love like we all should! hahaha
MrWiggiJ 11 months ago
so good. though it only reminds me that I was accepted to study with Mcgrath at King's. there is, unfortunately, very little funding for an American student who wishes to study in Britain...
parentheticalremarx 11 months ago
This is such an interesting conversation I love watching these two brilliant minds calmly discuss opposing views like adults without ripping each others throats appart. Though I disagree with Dr. McGrath here, I immensely respect the man for his hard work and his obviously rational sensabilities.
generosos87 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
who are your parents ? they was just a way for you to get here . so it took sperm to make you but who put life in that sperm ? isnt it like frankenstein ! you have the body but you need something to bring that body to life . so your parents gave you the body threw sperm . but were did the life come from ? so i think it,s finaly time to shut you down we ben at it to long . can science take a dead body and bring it back to life .NO .so were dose the life source come from . by !
thinkalott33 11 months ago
wouldn't this just be like shooting an arrow then painting the bulls-eye around it? The reason we are here is because we can be here nothing more.
alex39977 1 year ago
i will say that this is one of the most respectable christians ive ever seen as far as having a civil debate goes for with this kind of subject....this is a kind of guy who isnt gonna plug his ears and say "lalalalalalalalalala"
wheresmywhiskey85 1 year ago 55
@wheresmywhiskey85 In my personal experience most theists (and atheists) in general are like this (I'm not a particularly devout theist myself) in that they discuss things and if they can't agree they effectively say "I don't agree; but you're point is as valid as mine" - its just a shame that the media only gives voices to the extreme idiots. Me - I'm from the "can't we all just get along?" school of life ;=)
barrry9 10 months ago
@wheresmywhiskey85 This is the way most Christians are my friend, particularly those of the "old school" (by which I mean the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Anglicans etc.). The television will present a different image of course, but hey, 'the loudest shouter is heard in the crowd', and they tend to be the ones who are incorrect and give their belief system, be it Christian, Atheist, theist, deist or whatever, a very bad name.
matrix4022 8 months ago
@matrix4022 really late reply, my apologies, i dont check my inbox for any replies often, as you can tell, but this has not been my personal experience, not from what the media will show, but what ive been through, now, i currently live in georgia and have for quite a few years now, so in that sense, i havnt had the chance to debate in person with those you speak of, most of the christians i speak of, just straight deny, dont want to hear it and think im a horrible person and damned to hell
wheresmywhiskey85 7 months ago
@wheresmywhiskey85 it's because he's British, American christians are nutters.
Eregost2 8 months ago
@wheresmywhiskey85 I will say that this is one of the most respectable atheists I've ever seen with regards to civil debate over the subject of religion. This kind of fellow will not plug his ears and say. "Lalalalalalala..."
seraphim1250 6 months ago
@wheresmywhiskey85 he still avoids the questions and answers the questions he wished dawkins asked.
NiNJack 6 months ago
still waiting for the evidence.......yawn....
m1ll10n1977 1 year ago