Morality is incompatible with atheism. If atheism is true, then all normative moral beliefs are false.
Why? Because Divine Command Theory is teh most plausible metaethical view, and the truth of Divine COmmand Theory entails that if God does not exist, nor does morality.
To challenge Richard Dawkins' wit and defense is utterly difficult, especially when you are a firm believer... Genius,Extravagantly Witty and the most undefeatable debater !
The bible was inspired by God with that being said My bible says "thou shalt not kill".Man stoned women Jesus said he who is without sin cast the first stone. In my Bible God said that it was no longer acceptable to sacrifice animals-is this guy a vegan?Animals are being "sacrificed" every single day for our bellies. Yum, yum right?God told Pharaoh to let my people go when they were enslaved.I've learned that those who are for or against the bible can twist it to fit their desired view point.
(assuming you believe in the christian faith). You can believe in what you call "modern thinking" but you cannot call yourself a believer in the christian faith and claim christianity as your religion. You need to start a new religion. Because your view are skewed to modern times im assuming. You dont entirely believe in the specific teachings of the bible.
[*from the old testament new testament was made to adjust with the times because god was ,I guess to harsh t
So you have to cherry pick the verses that support "modern" thinking? Sort of like how you have to cherry pick the verses that make religion sound bad just so that you have something to insult? Never mind that the ancient would would have been just as bad, if not worse, without religion, and that modern morals came from theistic societies. Maybe people would take your arguments more seriously if they didn't derive from hate (see the title of this video).
So you have to cherry pick the verses that support "modern" thinking? Sort of like how you have to cherry pick the verses that make religion sound bad just so that you have something to insult? Never mind that the ancient would would have been just as bad, if not worse, without religion, and that modern morals came from theistic societies. Maybe people would take your arguments more seriously if they didn't derive from hate (see the title of this video).
@BloobFace Yeah, except the problem there are SO many verses of morally questionable acts in the bible. While in modern society there are SO many examples of our morality improving. It's undeniable that there is more hate towards minorities in religious societies compared to modern societies.
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
@freedomrace1 even if there is absolute morality, we don't have the means to find out. Even among Christians or Muslims there are hundreds of domination each with their own interpretation of the holy texts. There is no conclusive way to determine which side has the correct interpretation. Absolute morality is a good thing to have, but until we meet God (if he does exist), there is no way we can figure out what it is for sure.
@shedpocalypso Actually... The bible told us to. In John 8, if I'm not mistaken. The bible told us that even if adultery is really a deed for which you should be stoned to death, we should maybe not kill people for it anyway. There is such a thing as mercy, and the church of Jesus has always known it.
I think it is funny how the man asking the question didn't use atheism's worst examples when posing the question but Dawkins couldn't help but poke at generalities. When was the last time you saw someone stoned to death for adultery?
@axpence Happens all the time in the Middle East. Even more if you include girls who are stoned to death because they didn't "fight hard enough" while being raped.
@axpence Have you never heard of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Women get stoined to death their for adultery all thi time. One woman as recently as September look it up.
In all honesty, it isn't an "atheist" morality, Atheism isn't a worldview, and thus doesn't have any kind of doctrine to guide morality.If anything, it's a secular humanist morality.
Richard dawkins used morality in which to make his argument...he points to the things in scripture he finds to be immoral. What's his justification finding anything in scripture to be immoral? Why does it matter...& who sets the standard for morality? If it's God...he holds the right to set punishments as well.
The proper interpretation of Old Testament moral decisions is contextual. Jesus refers to this in Mark 10:5 -- it is because of the hardness of the hearts of the people, not God's heart, that certain actions were permitted. God could not get more goodness out of the people than what he got at the time. Today, perhaps, he is getting more goodness out of the people. How is that explanation not reasonable?
The contribution of "secular moral philosophy" to the global moral discussion is embraced by reasonable religions (within Catholic teaching for example, which also gives reasonable interpretation to the Bible), not because the contribution is secular, but because it is reasonable. Faith and reason can harmoniously coexist, and has done so for ages. However, atheism has yet to show itself to be a reasonable position .. continued.
I think it's a wonderful opportunity to bring up other kinds of indoctrination systems, systems that are even more effecient than religion, all masked within society today with only a few people aware of it, and that is media for example. I personally believe that Mr.Dawkins here isn't even aware of that himself.
I think it's time for him to go back to his microscope where this madman belongs.
Yet another delusional ridiculous (b)rit without any real extensive knowledge about real human affairs other than the empirical facts which one sees in a microscope, who's madly in love with the scientific discourses, primarily living in a dreamworld in which religion is being generalized and opposed quite harshly. Listening to this madman talking about indoctrination...
The only fool is RICHARD DAWKINS and the idiots who pay him big bucks for his stupid books. He is laughing all the way to the bank while you buffoons slop up his trash. The blind have led the blind into the pit. LOL
@westside1love You care to put your big mouth of proof into action by producing the facts and evidence to substantiate there is no God creator of the Universe and man? The whole world is waiting for your NEW DISCOVERY and startling revelation. The printing presses are ready!!!!!!!!!
@badzulu44 To authenticate your delusional comic book fairy tales concerning the premise of man descending from lower life forms (EVOLUTION). This will never happen.
@Jehovahourgod You say that nonbelievers need to substantiate evidence for the idea that there is no God. Well I'm sorry to say, but you do in fact carry the burden of proof, seeing as though you are the one making the claim that there is a God. Do I need to prove that Santa Clause doesn't exist in order to justify my non-belief in him? No of course not. Secondly, what makes you think that Christianity is correct? If you were born in Pakistan, who's to say you wouldn't be a Muslim?
@badzulu44 Convoluted logic and random sporadic rhetoric is typically and frequently commented by evolutionist atheists. Santa Clause, fairies, tooth fairy, spaghetti monster, unicorns have never been attributed to the creation of the universe and all life on our planet have they? So why use them as a analogy for the existence of Jehovah God? All these fables of mythical figures have been attributed to Satan the Devil because he knew fools like you would use them as a poor argument of no God.
@cloudstone123 First I looked up your age, 36, still in the state of mind that you are immortal and death is still out of mindset. Death comes to us all, but, as the Bible states, "The world is passing away and so is it's desrie, but he that does the will of Jehovah will REMAIN FOREVER." There is your answer in a nutshell. Richard Dawkins, a blind guide controlled by Satan the Devil, gives no one any hope of eternal life only death. Your choice, follow a egotistical greedy money grabber or God.
@Jehovahourgod That is quite funny. The problem with what you said is that I suffer from anxiety, now medicated for it, that was triggered initially by a fear of death and the unknown factor of it. It happened suddenly much like it did to my mother and grandmother. So I am quite well aware of my own mortality. And also given that my family has a long history of cancer and I have radically changed my diet and worked on myself physically also shows I am well aware of my own mortality.
@Jehovahourgod Now I could follow god but why would I want to follow a sadomasicist being who was willing to have his son tortured to death because 4000 years ago Adam was disobedient and also engineered a book laced with inaccuracies and contradictions, all so I could go to heaven and worship him for all eternity? Personally, I would rather face oblivion after the first couple of hours of that and not want to spend trillions of years doing it.
@Jehovahourgod What you just said could also be used if I was a believer a god and the bible. Or if I was a believer in Mohammad and the Quran. Then it could be said 'Stop quoting holy scripture and think for yourself'. We are all influenced by others.
So seeing how I just invalidated your first point that I do not think about death, how does what you now say invalidate what is being said at all? You are not making any sense.
@cloudstone123 Believe what you want to believe. It is your life and your eternal destiny, do with it what you want, exercising your own free will. You be held accountable for the decisions you make. BYE!
@Jehovahourgod Held accountable by God who seems to change his mind on what is moral or not depending on which testament is read? Assuming that he does exist and I am held accountable, I will be sure to ask him why he hasn't said anything or clarified the bible in the last 2000 years.
@cloudstone123 "I will be sure to ask him why he hasn't said anything or clarified the bible in the last 2000 years." You have a point! Which has led much to confusion. It seems if Jehovah God would clarify the truth from falsehood it would simplify everything. Which doctrines are false and which are true. The Bible should have been written so even a five year old child could understand. After all, the Bible states he desires "all to come repentance and have eternal life."
@westside1love LOL, your a fool. Who do you think created science, Jehovah God. Subsequently, God created man and his brain to discover the science that God created. Your blinded by blind guides and Satan.
@warrior4uk You my friend have not only missed the point of this video but also quite a few general science classes where the explanation behind the "Spontaneous Generation" theory is discussed. Creation of single cell organisms from chemical presence has been extensively proven to be possible in controlled environments, so no he is not a moron for thinking that nor is any other athiest because it is infact possible. Now, just because it is possible doesnt mean it happened that way, granted.
@warrior4uk People like you, however, who have a self serving bias when it comes to religion are the people he is talking about in this video. He is not demeaning any individual or religion he is just pointing out that harm can be done by ppl who become fanatical about religion in general. Calling him a moron serves no purpose yet you feel compelled to say he is. Religion is ones food for the soul; you are eating a hamburger, he is eating a pizza. Who cares which tastes better, just enjoy it.
Why should we even accept the premise that morality is absolute? At what point in history did we nail down morality and say,"There we've got it figured out?" Certainly not during the time of the old Testament. Not with the ideas of the New Testament. Obviously the Koran didn't work out all the kinks.
At what point in the future will we stop searching for better answers to moral dilemmas? I hope not during my life-time.
Atheist Objective Morality? ok, first the should nots: actions that tend to cause suffering seem to be actions inflicting force upon people or the property thereof without their consent so we get a social-contract based law, where consent is the standard of legality of interpersonal actions.
naturally there should be caveats that allow for such non-consensual force to be used only to suppress the above offense but it should be limited to the extent required to do so.
Information is important, so lying would be considered wrong. in cases where the truth has important impact, then lying would be penalized.
and the utilitarian standard of morality, (greatest positive outcomes for the greatest number of people involved) which has had all the nastier criticisms of it clipped out by the prohibitions above.
as for priority, the people more intimate to you should go before those less intimate.
Several Problems with religion. 1. The assumption ethics came from god when it was clearly written by men. 2. Absolute right and wrong does not exist in several religions (Example: do not kill, but god murders people in a flood-including children). 2. Its Region specific, what might have work before does not work now (Example: Women and children were property because work was very labor intensive). 4. Refuses to change with evidence to the contrary (example: 6000 yrs versus 3.4 billion yrs)
here is your christian moral compass They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves
Thus both of Lot’s daughters were with child by their father.
@andy130109 What an idiot you are! No one must die just their way of thinking must change. Clearly you are one of those religious people with christian dogma clouding your judgement..No on has to die because they believe differently from a group of other people..What a great deal your "religion" has taught you! Dawkins is merely expressing what everyone else feels deep down but are too scared to admit.
as an atheist i dont need to believe in the existence of a god to know right from wrong. this is were christians fail. they are basically saying that without some belief in a deity they would run around shooting and stabbing people because they wont have there belief to restrain them...how fucking retarded can you get.
Again atheists fail to have any sort of knowledge about morality. Dawkin's thinks that He can condemn God using a subjective form of morality, which is logically impossible and his views are simply insignificant. There is no point here at all. 'Oh no! Stoning for adultery!!' - Well IF (I'm not saying it's true) this WAS part of an objective morality, then Dawkin's subjective views of it being wrong are illogical and untrue. It would be morally just. Meta-ethics can easily prove this LOL
@TheHumpadump There is no such thing as "knowledge" about morality. Morality is not something like mathematics, with ONE exact solution for every possible situation. But we have human emotions, and we know that people experience comparable feelings in comparable sitiations, and when we recognise suffering as a negative thing, and I think all non-psychopaths do, we can weigh morality on it's conesquence for other people, instead of using a selfish personal "afterlife" interest to judge others.
@Skoda130 A consequentialist are we? Well I believe in an objective morality, and so I believe there are indeed absolutes in morality (the 'knowledge' of which you speak). You are simply talking from your own views about morality, which is consequentialist in nature.
@TheHumpadump "Believing" in something to be "objective and absulote" in fact is an oxymoron. If morality is a product of knowledge, we're no longer talking about beliefs, but about facts. But since I've never seen absolute morality supported by any evidence, I can only come to the conclusion that what you're really talking about, is absolutist morality, rather than absolute morality. This basically means you're just digging yourself in at a point of preference. Still no objective moral.
@Skoda130 Yes I have indeed heard of Sober's criticisms. However, Utilitarianism fails at its core because happiness does not equate to what is morally good. It may be a good way to run society but does not qualify as a good system of morality. You can't get an 'ought' from an 'is', but I'm sure you know all about Hume's Guillotine.
@TheHumpadump Yes, but I do not see the problem. I think that ethics do not bite Hume's Guillotine, since "ought's" only exist by the grace of goals. "Ought's" have no qualities, if they do not have a clear purpose. And if they HAVE a purpose, the purpose is subjected to discussion('s). If we take utilitarianism, and we want as many people as possible to be happy, we "ought" to do some things to achieve that goal.
what religion offers is not moral compas. its obey or die. morality is individual, but bechose hardware of humans and animals is similar their moral needs are similar. morality is set of personal prinsipales. not set of commands.
"Stoning for Adultery, Death for apostasy, punishment for breaking the sabbath"... These seem to be examples of things Jesus opposed are they not?
Good bits in religion - the whole new testament? (Granted the old one can be depressing)
Delusion affects 0.03% of the population, 30% population are Christian - take a lower limit of 1 in 10 Christians, that's 3%, claim to have felt the undeniable, unexplainable power of Christ (rich, poor, smart, thick) 3 >>> 0.03 thats just maths
@watercurl7 "Good bits in religion - the whole new testament? (Granted the old one can be depressing)"
But what about one absolute morality, if the morality in the bible is ought to be subjected to historical situations? In that case the biblical morality suffers from the same "shortcomings" as secularism: A lack of beïng absolute and objective.
That. Was. Epic. Holy shit. Richard Dawkins is the man. I like his facial expression immediately after the question was posed. He was baffled by such an irrational question. Atheism = amorality. True misconception most have of us.
@nitecourse1 I admire the Muslim faith more just because more Muslims tend to be more compassionate towards animals. Many Muslims become vegetarians for ethical concerns towards animals. That's awesome.
I don't think it was the first time we came across animal rights in the world though. It was probably the first time animal rights concerns came up in the Middle East. But in places like India, there were already concerns about animals from Hindus and Buddhists.
@skieranm Remember the part of the video where he talked about finding the good bits of the bible? Those people you named are the good bits of the Christian community. Not to say there are few, there are plenty.
Richard Dawkins has obviously not actually read the Bible. All the good things he says must be "cherry-picked" out are absolutely littered throughout the entire bible and some are foundational to Christian faith. "Very little basis in biblical scripture" ??- please
@davitodude this whole theory that it is only imagery is bs, then why can't the story of jesus be just another fable about love. Why does that story suddenyl have to be literal
What is a definition of absolute morality? Perhaps Leonardo da Vinci came as close as anyone with his succinct observation that "Evil is pain." The more you think about it, the more it makes sense. If causing pain is not a form of evil, then what is?
Dawkins makes quick work of this jerk. It is ironic that the religious are always inadvertently admitting their own lack of morals by asserting that only through religion, with its promise reward [Heaven] and threats of punishment [Hell], can they be coerced into doing good rather than evil. Atheists rely upon an innate sense of morality to guide them and it is noteworthy that fewer than one percent of prison inmates claim to be Atheists. Most convicts claim some religious affiliation.
dawkins is cherry picking the 'good' parts of humanity... he says we find slavery wrong and etc.... but we are still selfish materialistic bourgeois pigs. He is choosing to bring out 'good' parts of humanity and saying we basically 'evolved' to be moral. Not to mention he is just mentioning facts. It is a fact that people tend to find slavery wrong these days. That doesn't make slavery immoral, it's just the way it is! Morality is about what ought to be, not what 'is.'
@andreasox23 You are a master of incomprehensible gibberish. He did not "cherry pick" the good aspects of humanity, he illustrated some barbaric activities instigated by religious belief and described how secularism combated them. Then you go on to complain that he is using "facts" to support his argument, like that's a bad thing? Finally you indicate that you believe there is no inherent immorality about slavery. Not surprising, as you are obviously a mental slave to Christian irrationality.
@andreasox23 Sorry, but the somewhat awkward syntax of your opening sentence and the structure of the paragraph you had posted made it a little unclear as to what your actual point was. Perhaps I misinterpreted your meaning. If I inaccurately assumed that you are a Christian rather than a rational free-thinking individual, for that you have my humble apologies.
@libetta Afraid to have teachings? The teachings of Atheism are that there is no belief in religious teachings. What have you been smoking? Also, the only reason I am attacking you and "your party" is because you keep reffering to Atheism as a curse, when most of the Atheists in the world today are highly beneficial for societies all over.
you atheists are just extremely extreme against us christians. get out of your computer and make friends with people outside, christian or not.
ps. it would be lovely if atheism begins to teach things (which most of you atheists, do). your philosophy that religon is unecessary because people only need to know what's right, is extremely unsubstantial. could you tell any serial killer or terrorist about that? i doubt it!
@libetta I have plenty of christian friends so don't talk like you know everything about me. At least I don't force you to become an atheist or I kill you unlike what the LRA does to atheists in Africa. Atheists never kill in the name of atheism. Christians and Muslims, some of them do.
What atheism teaches is above all love and respect for human beings. Do you know that most serial killers and terrorists are very religious? Maybe that has something to do with the extreme nature of 'em eh?
I don't want to argue with you, believe me, but when I see a comment like "atheism must die for the human species to live" I get really irritated so I, in your words "argue".
It doesn't have a DOGMA, meaning religious teachings. It teaches you that all people are the same, no matter what they believe or how they act. That you shouldn't hate Jews for believing in a different god, just because your holy book tells you so. THAT IS A GOOD THING.
i'm just as irritated when seeing a comment like RELIGION MUST DIE FOR THE HUMAN SPECIES TO LIVE.
oh did i say DOGMA? i said TEACHINGS. it doesn't always have to be a DOGMA, you know. great, generalizing again. i don't hate jews at all. in fact, a lot of the artists i admire are JEWISH or GAYS. (classical piano)
@libetta I didn't say you did either, but certain religions certainly do thrive on hating other religions and that is why I don't like them. Well that and the old fundamentalist way of thinking that automatically comes along with religion.
You are right, you never said DOGMA, but that was how I first read your post (so that's a misconception on my part). But Humanitarianism goes pretty much hand in hand with atheism (mostly anyway).
let me ask you (i live in a catholic country in asia so i don't know much), is fundamentalist view still prevalent in your place? or anywhere you know.
@libetta Not in my place (Norway) "thank god". But it is very fundamentalistic in south america and Africa still. The more 'undeveloped' a country is (I hate that phrase) the more fundamentalistic it usaully is.
i think it has to do with the monopolizing countries am i right? being under spain for more than 300 years i know all the killings justified by religion for their own good.
@libetta Pretty much. Spain colonized pretty much all of south america and as a result the population there today is still very catholic (atleast in demograpics).
What I really hate though is that the Norwegian state church says it has a lot of members and that Norway is a very christian country. In norway pretty much every religious person is a moderate secularist, so there isn't much of a problem with extremism here.
i meant colonizing countries. anyway, same meaning.
what i don't get is why they still live like spain treated them in the 1800's. i don't think there's ever a fundamentalist group here in the philippines.
being secular doesn't mean you can't be religious. they are not always contradictory to each other.
@libetta That was not what I meant by secularist. The problem with fundamentalism is that it usually slows down scientific progress and limits freedoms for it's inhabitants. A state church in itself is a testament to "the state says this religion is best", which is why societies should be secular in my opinion. Secularism usually stops extremism and fundamentalism in that all religions and views are accepted equally in one place.
sure, they are very RELIGIOUS. not Godly. what did God say- you shall not kill. you shall not steal. you shall not lie. but when we do abide with those things you mock us for "not following god's laws", but when some religious people do kill, steal, lie, etc., you spew all the hatred and blame it all to god. What the heck is the matter with you!? why not tell them "didn't your god tell you not to kill, steal, lie,? etc.".
@libetta God also said "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.", do you agree with that? You can tell someone that they shouldn't steal because someone else is stolen from. Use the golden rule. Saying that "God will punish you if you do it" is not really what I think is appropriate.
God clearly said You shall not kill. when he said "shall surely be put to death"- was He implying that people should execute the sinner? no, clearly not.
@libetta That is exactly what 'he' (the people who wrote Leviticus, not really god) said. Just because the bible has statements which oppose each other doesn't mean that it only means what we consider to be 'good' at this time.
Am I the only one that noticed that Dawkins doesn't answer the question he is asked and kind of goes off on a tangent?
He talks about cherry picking in religion, but doesn't mention any of the "social-ills" that have plagued and will continue to plague "secular, intelligent, discussion-based" societies. He also mentions that people have suddenly "grown out" of a medieval mind state. Really? So, in a matter of 300 years, people have suddenly become different from how they were for 1.8mil years?
And as far as Slavery goes; after your country and society has benefited wildly from slavery, then it's okay to talk down about it, if only to make sure no one else gets to become as wealthy as you.
Population is rising and resources and wealth are dwindling; who wants to bet that Europeans won't bring back slavery in the next 400 years?
@currymakersuperfly If Europe re-introduced slavery within 400 years, it will not be caused by atheism itself, since atheism does not pick sides in the matter. Humanism on the other hand (which I suspect most atheists subscribe to) will actively denounce all forms on slavery based on humanitarian grounds. I'm also pretty convinced that slavery is not *ultimately* profitable in economic terms. If you want to get rich, start by choosing reason over faith.
next stupid question please...
sKyLif3 1 week ago
ask a stupid question.....
choongd 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Morality is incompatible with atheism. If atheism is true, then all normative moral beliefs are false.
Why? Because Divine Command Theory is teh most plausible metaethical view, and the truth of Divine COmmand Theory entails that if God does not exist, nor does morality.
Clear404 3 weeks ago
To challenge Richard Dawkins' wit and defense is utterly difficult, especially when you are a firm believer... Genius,Extravagantly Witty and the most undefeatable debater !
sunisshiningat7 4 weeks ago
bit harsh of a title. agreed with the message though
69sico96 4 weeks ago
The bible was inspired by God with that being said My bible says "thou shalt not kill".Man stoned women Jesus said he who is without sin cast the first stone. In my Bible God said that it was no longer acceptable to sacrifice animals-is this guy a vegan?Animals are being "sacrificed" every single day for our bellies. Yum, yum right?God told Pharaoh to let my people go when they were enslaved.I've learned that those who are for or against the bible can twist it to fit their desired view point.
cindyarowe 4 weeks ago
When a challenge comes up, Dawkins shows it isn't desirable and likely not true, and manages to throw a joke. Genius.
Thenextworldwar 1 month ago
@bloobface "modern thinking"
(assuming you believe in the christian faith). You can believe in what you call "modern thinking" but you cannot call yourself a believer in the christian faith and claim christianity as your religion. You need to start a new religion. Because your view are skewed to modern times im assuming. You dont entirely believe in the specific teachings of the bible.
[*from the old testament new testament was made to adjust with the times because god was ,I guess to harsh t
DaddyFatSzack 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So you have to cherry pick the verses that support "modern" thinking? Sort of like how you have to cherry pick the verses that make religion sound bad just so that you have something to insult? Never mind that the ancient would would have been just as bad, if not worse, without religion, and that modern morals came from theistic societies. Maybe people would take your arguments more seriously if they didn't derive from hate (see the title of this video).
BloobFace 1 month ago
So you have to cherry pick the verses that support "modern" thinking? Sort of like how you have to cherry pick the verses that make religion sound bad just so that you have something to insult? Never mind that the ancient would would have been just as bad, if not worse, without religion, and that modern morals came from theistic societies. Maybe people would take your arguments more seriously if they didn't derive from hate (see the title of this video).
BloobFace 1 month ago
@BloobFace Yeah, except the problem there are SO many verses of morally questionable acts in the bible. While in modern society there are SO many examples of our morality improving. It's undeniable that there is more hate towards minorities in religious societies compared to modern societies.
BostonSportsGuy567 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 1 month ago
even the audience at 0:24 know that when Dawkins takes off the glasses...a very big BURRN is coming their way...
mchief190 1 month ago
well, if he doesn't want an absolute morality than I want nothing to do with the world he wishes to create.
freedomrace1 2 months ago
@freedomrace1 even if there is absolute morality, we don't have the means to find out. Even among Christians or Muslims there are hundreds of domination each with their own interpretation of the holy texts. There is no conclusive way to determine which side has the correct interpretation. Absolute morality is a good thing to have, but until we meet God (if he does exist), there is no way we can figure out what it is for sure.
Casshyr 1 month ago
God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom! xD
CaddyNerd 2 months ago
I wish this was more so the standard of thought....
inputverifier 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Religion is based on belief in written and spoken stories!
Science is based on facts of things you can see, hear, touch, taste and smell!
EGMAG 2 months ago
Repent! For the end is near!
TheFishfinderman 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Christian: Claim after claim after baseless claim
Atheist: Unconvinced
Christian: You deserve to be tortured for all eternity
Who really has the problem with morality?
drche420 2 months ago
@axpence - exactly his point. We grew out of it. Not because the bible told us to, but because we worked out it was wrong.
shedpocalypso 2 months ago
@shedpocalypso Actually... The bible told us to. In John 8, if I'm not mistaken. The bible told us that even if adultery is really a deed for which you should be stoned to death, we should maybe not kill people for it anyway. There is such a thing as mercy, and the church of Jesus has always known it.
pianofriken 2 months ago
I think it is funny how the man asking the question didn't use atheism's worst examples when posing the question but Dawkins couldn't help but poke at generalities. When was the last time you saw someone stoned to death for adultery?
axpence 2 months ago
@axpence Prehaps you should try google before commenting?
manxkiwi 2 months ago
@axpence Happens all the time in the Middle East. Even more if you include girls who are stoned to death because they didn't "fight hard enough" while being raped.
Xiricon 2 months ago
@axpence Have you never heard of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Women get stoined to death their for adultery all thi time. One woman as recently as September look it up.
Rayman77792 2 months ago
the removal of glasses is the academic's equivalent of rolling up the sleeves - shit just got real, bitch, and you have no-one but yourself to blame.
18Hongo 2 months ago
Glasses off: You're about to get schooled, son. It's one step away from pointing at you with a pipe..
solkatlol 2 months ago 4
In all honesty, it isn't an "atheist" morality, Atheism isn't a worldview, and thus doesn't have any kind of doctrine to guide morality.If anything, it's a secular humanist morality.
jordaniac89 2 months ago
Glasses come off: Shit just got real.
xmbomagic 2 months ago
Oh shit the glasses came off.
100littlecurses 2 months ago 3
I don't see a link between religion and morality. Apparently following a deity blindly and out of fear makes you a morally superior person.
ChrisHartig44 2 months ago 22
@ChrisHartig44 all of your morals have a religious basis
kobeballer 1 month ago
Comment removed
HellomynameisCohl 1 month ago
@ChrisHartig44 Jesus is the son of God but was not a deity when he came to save us from yours and my sins.
HellomynameisCohl 1 month ago
if relgion has morals, why is it preists who are child molesting?
Disc0d 3 months ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
@Disc0d They're crash-testing the paradigms...
allieron 3 months ago
@Disc0d
Priests aren't the only people who molest children, fyi, it's just more shocking when they do because they stand on a platform of "faith".
feralpandy 2 months ago
@feralpandy also worth noting that molestation perpetrated by the clergy can be a result of them being in a position of trust which they betray.
NBrown48 2 months ago
@feralpandy While that is true you still have not answered his question. Why do so many priests rape children and why does the pope cover it up?
PicklesReallySuck 2 months ago
@PicklesReallySuck rape
they sin just like everyone else
EGMAG 2 months ago
If only, IF ONLY his other replies could be this good!
choongd 3 months ago
Prof. Dr. Richard Dawkins is GOD!
chanbuddhist 4 months ago
Oh Richard... if only I was 50 years older..
sageclem 4 months ago
Richard dawkins used morality in which to make his argument...he points to the things in scripture he finds to be immoral. What's his justification finding anything in scripture to be immoral? Why does it matter...& who sets the standard for morality? If it's God...he holds the right to set punishments as well.
newj34 4 months ago
@newj34 the consequences of our actions = morality
badzulu44 4 months ago
Richard Dawkins for Master of the Universe.
ApexIXMR 4 months ago
The proper interpretation of Old Testament moral decisions is contextual. Jesus refers to this in Mark 10:5 -- it is because of the hardness of the hearts of the people, not God's heart, that certain actions were permitted. God could not get more goodness out of the people than what he got at the time. Today, perhaps, he is getting more goodness out of the people. How is that explanation not reasonable?
patientthomist 5 months ago
The contribution of "secular moral philosophy" to the global moral discussion is embraced by reasonable religions (within Catholic teaching for example, which also gives reasonable interpretation to the Bible), not because the contribution is secular, but because it is reasonable. Faith and reason can harmoniously coexist, and has done so for ages. However, atheism has yet to show itself to be a reasonable position .. continued.
patientthomist 5 months ago
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
gatorbroe 5 months ago
so atheism is a religion like islam ... buddhism and christianity.......HAHAHAHAAA
he is crazy.......
tusi1390 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think it's a wonderful opportunity to bring up other kinds of indoctrination systems, systems that are even more effecient than religion, all masked within society today with only a few people aware of it, and that is media for example. I personally believe that Mr.Dawkins here isn't even aware of that himself.
I think it's time for him to go back to his microscope where this madman belongs.
AleichemSholem 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yet another delusional ridiculous (b)rit without any real extensive knowledge about real human affairs other than the empirical facts which one sees in a microscope, who's madly in love with the scientific discourses, primarily living in a dreamworld in which religion is being generalized and opposed quite harshly. Listening to this madman talking about indoctrination...
AleichemSholem 5 months ago
You knew shit was going down when he took his glasses off.
daisy4cuti 6 months ago 171
@daisy4cuti I was about to post the same thing lol
testnumberone1 2 weeks ago
The only fool is RICHARD DAWKINS and the idiots who pay him big bucks for his stupid books. He is laughing all the way to the bank while you buffoons slop up his trash. The blind have led the blind into the pit. LOL
Jehovahourgod 6 months ago
@Jehovahourgod LOL. You believe in a fairy tale. Denial much?
westside1love 5 months ago
@westside1love Like Charles Darwin comic book "The Origin of the Species" is not a fairy tale, get real.
Jehovahourgod 5 months ago
@Jehovahourgod Least there is piles and piles of physical evidence. Science 43535434367658647536423544314326547658969 - God / fairy tale afterlife 0
westside1love 4 months ago
@westside1love You care to put your big mouth of proof into action by producing the facts and evidence to substantiate there is no God creator of the Universe and man? The whole world is waiting for your NEW DISCOVERY and startling revelation. The printing presses are ready!!!!!!!!!
Jehovahourgod 4 months ago
@Jehovahourgod why would anyone need to prove there isn't a God?
badzulu44 4 months ago
@badzulu44 To authenticate your delusional comic book fairy tales concerning the premise of man descending from lower life forms (EVOLUTION). This will never happen.
Jehovahourgod 4 months ago
@Jehovahourgod Wow, no need to be a jerk.
badzulu44 4 months ago
@badzulu44 That is relative. To me you are the foolish jerk.
Jehovahourgod 4 months ago
@Jehovahourgod You say that nonbelievers need to substantiate evidence for the idea that there is no God. Well I'm sorry to say, but you do in fact carry the burden of proof, seeing as though you are the one making the claim that there is a God. Do I need to prove that Santa Clause doesn't exist in order to justify my non-belief in him? No of course not. Secondly, what makes you think that Christianity is correct? If you were born in Pakistan, who's to say you wouldn't be a Muslim?
badzulu44 4 months ago
@badzulu44 Convoluted logic and random sporadic rhetoric is typically and frequently commented by evolutionist atheists. Santa Clause, fairies, tooth fairy, spaghetti monster, unicorns have never been attributed to the creation of the universe and all life on our planet have they? So why use them as a analogy for the existence of Jehovah God? All these fables of mythical figures have been attributed to Satan the Devil because he knew fools like you would use them as a poor argument of no God.
Jehovahourgod 4 months ago
@Jehovahourgod I have a question about this. Why do you need god? What is the purpose of needing god?
cloudstone123 3 months ago
@cloudstone123 First I looked up your age, 36, still in the state of mind that you are immortal and death is still out of mindset. Death comes to us all, but, as the Bible states, "The world is passing away and so is it's desrie, but he that does the will of Jehovah will REMAIN FOREVER." There is your answer in a nutshell. Richard Dawkins, a blind guide controlled by Satan the Devil, gives no one any hope of eternal life only death. Your choice, follow a egotistical greedy money grabber or God.
Jehovahourgod 3 months ago
@Jehovahourgod That is quite funny. The problem with what you said is that I suffer from anxiety, now medicated for it, that was triggered initially by a fear of death and the unknown factor of it. It happened suddenly much like it did to my mother and grandmother. So I am quite well aware of my own mortality. And also given that my family has a long history of cancer and I have radically changed my diet and worked on myself physically also shows I am well aware of my own mortality.
cloudstone123 3 months ago
@Jehovahourgod Now I could follow god but why would I want to follow a sadomasicist being who was willing to have his son tortured to death because 4000 years ago Adam was disobedient and also engineered a book laced with inaccuracies and contradictions, all so I could go to heaven and worship him for all eternity? Personally, I would rather face oblivion after the first couple of hours of that and not want to spend trillions of years doing it.
cloudstone123 3 months ago
@cloudstone123 Your just parroting your real GODS, "CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS and RICHARD DAWKINS, think for yourself and stop being a puppet.
Jehovahourgod 3 months ago
@Jehovahourgod What you just said could also be used if I was a believer a god and the bible. Or if I was a believer in Mohammad and the Quran. Then it could be said 'Stop quoting holy scripture and think for yourself'. We are all influenced by others.
So seeing how I just invalidated your first point that I do not think about death, how does what you now say invalidate what is being said at all? You are not making any sense.
cloudstone123 3 months ago
@cloudstone123 Believe what you want to believe. It is your life and your eternal destiny, do with it what you want, exercising your own free will. You be held accountable for the decisions you make. BYE!
Jehovahourgod 3 months ago
@Jehovahourgod Held accountable by God who seems to change his mind on what is moral or not depending on which testament is read? Assuming that he does exist and I am held accountable, I will be sure to ask him why he hasn't said anything or clarified the bible in the last 2000 years.
cloudstone123 3 months ago
@cloudstone123 "I will be sure to ask him why he hasn't said anything or clarified the bible in the last 2000 years." You have a point! Which has led much to confusion. It seems if Jehovah God would clarify the truth from falsehood it would simplify everything. Which doctrines are false and which are true. The Bible should have been written so even a five year old child could understand. After all, the Bible states he desires "all to come repentance and have eternal life."
Jehovahourgod 3 months ago
@westside1love LOL, your a fool. Who do you think created science, Jehovah God. Subsequently, God created man and his brain to discover the science that God created. Your blinded by blind guides and Satan.
Jehovahourgod 4 months ago
I think his name should be professor DAWK !
along with every other athiest belivieng that life can instantly form from none-life
Morons
warrior4uk 6 months ago
@warrior4uk You my friend have not only missed the point of this video but also quite a few general science classes where the explanation behind the "Spontaneous Generation" theory is discussed. Creation of single cell organisms from chemical presence has been extensively proven to be possible in controlled environments, so no he is not a moron for thinking that nor is any other athiest because it is infact possible. Now, just because it is possible doesnt mean it happened that way, granted.
rotciv149 6 months ago
@warrior4uk People like you, however, who have a self serving bias when it comes to religion are the people he is talking about in this video. He is not demeaning any individual or religion he is just pointing out that harm can be done by ppl who become fanatical about religion in general. Calling him a moron serves no purpose yet you feel compelled to say he is. Religion is ones food for the soul; you are eating a hamburger, he is eating a pizza. Who cares which tastes better, just enjoy it.
rotciv149 6 months ago
Dawkins nos no thing about religion. Why dos he try to pretend he even does. I love God. That's all that matters.
Holydavid777 6 months ago
I love this man.
xCroB93x 7 months ago
Here here.
Why should we even accept the premise that morality is absolute? At what point in history did we nail down morality and say,"There we've got it figured out?" Certainly not during the time of the old Testament. Not with the ideas of the New Testament. Obviously the Koran didn't work out all the kinks.
At what point in the future will we stop searching for better answers to moral dilemmas? I hope not during my life-time.
Theists seem to be stuck philosophically.
HellRehab 7 months ago
Atheist Objective Morality? ok, first the should nots: actions that tend to cause suffering seem to be actions inflicting force upon people or the property thereof without their consent so we get a social-contract based law, where consent is the standard of legality of interpersonal actions.
naturally there should be caveats that allow for such non-consensual force to be used only to suppress the above offense but it should be limited to the extent required to do so.
EVERYVERSER 6 months ago
now, the shoulds, the positive values for people.
Information is important, so lying would be considered wrong. in cases where the truth has important impact, then lying would be penalized.
and the utilitarian standard of morality, (greatest positive outcomes for the greatest number of people involved) which has had all the nastier criticisms of it clipped out by the prohibitions above.
as for priority, the people more intimate to you should go before those less intimate.
EVERYVERSER 6 months ago
these prohibitions would be the basis for laws, and immoral actions.
these positive values would be the basis for moral actions.
EVERYVERSER 6 months ago
I LOVE how he begins by removing his glasses. and then how he uses "intelligent design".
numbersCH31vs17 7 months ago
Goddammit. Why couldn't god make us more like richard dawkins ??
MrBeautifulba1 8 months ago 54
@andy130109 that's something judeochristians would say. You're on the money.
overether 8 months ago
Several Problems with religion. 1. The assumption ethics came from god when it was clearly written by men. 2. Absolute right and wrong does not exist in several religions (Example: do not kill, but god murders people in a flood-including children). 2. Its Region specific, what might have work before does not work now (Example: Women and children were property because work was very labor intensive). 4. Refuses to change with evidence to the contrary (example: 6000 yrs versus 3.4 billion yrs)
ManyInfiniteComments 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
add me as friend Anti1Theist i like ur vids!
xcutekatie18x 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
here is your christian moral compass They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves
Thus both of Lot’s daughters were with child by their father.
rape murder incest book to live by
jacktheripper989 8 months ago
atheist's must die for human species to live
andy130109 8 months ago
@guti2011 you are so right
andy130109 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@guti2011 you are so right
andy130109 8 months ago
@andy130109 why?
madmanhunter 8 months ago
@andy130109 What an idiot you are! No one must die just their way of thinking must change. Clearly you are one of those religious people with christian dogma clouding your judgement..No on has to die because they believe differently from a group of other people..What a great deal your "religion" has taught you! Dawkins is merely expressing what everyone else feels deep down but are too scared to admit.
saffiyahissoapy 7 months ago
@andy130109 I'd love to see you try to back up this statement. lol
JDivinorumVideo 7 months ago
as an atheist i dont need to believe in the existence of a god to know right from wrong. this is were christians fail. they are basically saying that without some belief in a deity they would run around shooting and stabbing people because they wont have there belief to restrain them...how fucking retarded can you get.
trampledone 8 months ago
Again atheists fail to have any sort of knowledge about morality. Dawkin's thinks that He can condemn God using a subjective form of morality, which is logically impossible and his views are simply insignificant. There is no point here at all. 'Oh no! Stoning for adultery!!' - Well IF (I'm not saying it's true) this WAS part of an objective morality, then Dawkin's subjective views of it being wrong are illogical and untrue. It would be morally just. Meta-ethics can easily prove this LOL
TheHumpadump 8 months ago
@TheHumpadump There is no such thing as "knowledge" about morality. Morality is not something like mathematics, with ONE exact solution for every possible situation. But we have human emotions, and we know that people experience comparable feelings in comparable sitiations, and when we recognise suffering as a negative thing, and I think all non-psychopaths do, we can weigh morality on it's conesquence for other people, instead of using a selfish personal "afterlife" interest to judge others.
Skoda130 8 months ago
@Skoda130 A consequentialist are we? Well I believe in an objective morality, and so I believe there are indeed absolutes in morality (the 'knowledge' of which you speak). You are simply talking from your own views about morality, which is consequentialist in nature.
TheHumpadump 8 months ago
@TheHumpadump "Believing" in something to be "objective and absulote" in fact is an oxymoron. If morality is a product of knowledge, we're no longer talking about beliefs, but about facts. But since I've never seen absolute morality supported by any evidence, I can only come to the conclusion that what you're really talking about, is absolutist morality, rather than absolute morality. This basically means you're just digging yourself in at a point of preference. Still no objective moral.
Skoda130 8 months ago
@TheHumpadump "A consequentialist are we?" Utilitarianist, to be more specific.
For the greatest possible happiness, for the greatest possible number of people.
Skoda130 8 months ago
@Skoda130 LOLOLOLOL Utilitarianism fails dude. The experience machine? Robert Nozik? Look it up. Utilitarianism is a flawed system of morality.
TheHumpadump 8 months ago
@TheHumpadump That's okay.. If you read the criticism towards Nozick's experiment by Elliott Sober. ;-)
Skoda130 8 months ago
@Skoda130 Yes I have indeed heard of Sober's criticisms. However, Utilitarianism fails at its core because happiness does not equate to what is morally good. It may be a good way to run society but does not qualify as a good system of morality. You can't get an 'ought' from an 'is', but I'm sure you know all about Hume's Guillotine.
TheHumpadump 8 months ago
@TheHumpadump Yes, but I do not see the problem. I think that ethics do not bite Hume's Guillotine, since "ought's" only exist by the grace of goals. "Ought's" have no qualities, if they do not have a clear purpose. And if they HAVE a purpose, the purpose is subjected to discussion('s). If we take utilitarianism, and we want as many people as possible to be happy, we "ought" to do some things to achieve that goal.
Skoda130 8 months ago
what religion offers is not moral compas. its obey or die. morality is individual, but bechose hardware of humans and animals is similar their moral needs are similar. morality is set of personal prinsipales. not set of commands.
gooddarkjedi 8 months ago
"Stoning for Adultery, Death for apostasy, punishment for breaking the sabbath"... These seem to be examples of things Jesus opposed are they not?
Good bits in religion - the whole new testament? (Granted the old one can be depressing)
Delusion affects 0.03% of the population, 30% population are Christian - take a lower limit of 1 in 10 Christians, that's 3%, claim to have felt the undeniable, unexplainable power of Christ (rich, poor, smart, thick) 3 >>> 0.03 thats just maths
watercurl7 9 months ago
@watercurl7 "Good bits in religion - the whole new testament? (Granted the old one can be depressing)"
But what about one absolute morality, if the morality in the bible is ought to be subjected to historical situations? In that case the biblical morality suffers from the same "shortcomings" as secularism: A lack of beïng absolute and objective.
Skoda130 8 months ago
I think a better question would be where is the finite moral incentive in atheism?
Dawahcorp 10 months ago
That. Was. Epic. Holy shit. Richard Dawkins is the man. I like his facial expression immediately after the question was posed. He was baffled by such an irrational question. Atheism = amorality. True misconception most have of us.
imaking42 10 months ago 2
That applause at 1:04 says it all, really.
EdNortonisMineLol 10 months ago
0:23
Shit's about to go down.
KieRanRanaRan 11 months ago 6
What a boss.
TheEthanwashere 11 months ago 58
the first time we come across animal rights in the world is from authentic hadiths of the prophet muhammad...fact.... dawkins talking rubbish
nitecourse1 11 months ago
@nitecourse1 I admire the Muslim faith more just because more Muslims tend to be more compassionate towards animals. Many Muslims become vegetarians for ethical concerns towards animals. That's awesome.
I don't think it was the first time we came across animal rights in the world though. It was probably the first time animal rights concerns came up in the Middle East. But in places like India, there were already concerns about animals from Hindus and Buddhists.
animals0feel1pain2 11 months ago
@animals0feel1pain2 yeah that's a good point alright, cheers
nitecourse1 11 months ago
Also!
...
William Wilberforce - the British politician who campaigned against slavery for 26 years - committed Christian
Martin Luther King Jr - Activist for and prominent leader of the African-American Civil Rights Movement - Christian Minister
And
Many of the leading figures in the Women's Suffrage movement were... surprise surprise, Christian!!
skieranm 11 months ago
@skieranm Remember the part of the video where he talked about finding the good bits of the bible? Those people you named are the good bits of the Christian community. Not to say there are few, there are plenty.
TheCurtmiester 11 months ago
Comment removed
skieranm 11 months ago
Richard Dawkins has obviously not actually read the Bible. All the good things he says must be "cherry-picked" out are absolutely littered throughout the entire bible and some are foundational to Christian faith. "Very little basis in biblical scripture" ??- please
skieranm 11 months ago
All these things he talks about are all allegorical stories in the bible. Nothing in the bible says you should stone or keep someone as your slave.
davitodude 11 months ago
@davitodude this whole theory that it is only imagery is bs, then why can't the story of jesus be just another fable about love. Why does that story suddenyl have to be literal
moroney1 11 months ago
What is a definition of absolute morality? Perhaps Leonardo da Vinci came as close as anyone with his succinct observation that "Evil is pain." The more you think about it, the more it makes sense. If causing pain is not a form of evil, then what is?
JackKangaroo1 11 months ago
Dawkins makes quick work of this jerk. It is ironic that the religious are always inadvertently admitting their own lack of morals by asserting that only through religion, with its promise reward [Heaven] and threats of punishment [Hell], can they be coerced into doing good rather than evil. Atheists rely upon an innate sense of morality to guide them and it is noteworthy that fewer than one percent of prison inmates claim to be Atheists. Most convicts claim some religious affiliation.
JackKangaroo1 11 months ago
dawkins is cherry picking the 'good' parts of humanity... he says we find slavery wrong and etc.... but we are still selfish materialistic bourgeois pigs. He is choosing to bring out 'good' parts of humanity and saying we basically 'evolved' to be moral. Not to mention he is just mentioning facts. It is a fact that people tend to find slavery wrong these days. That doesn't make slavery immoral, it's just the way it is! Morality is about what ought to be, not what 'is.'
andreasox23 11 months ago
@andreasox23 You are a master of incomprehensible gibberish. He did not "cherry pick" the good aspects of humanity, he illustrated some barbaric activities instigated by religious belief and described how secularism combated them. Then you go on to complain that he is using "facts" to support his argument, like that's a bad thing? Finally you indicate that you believe there is no inherent immorality about slavery. Not surprising, as you are obviously a mental slave to Christian irrationality.
JackKangaroo1 11 months ago
@JackKangaroo1 I'm an atheist. Why are you calling me a Christian?
andreasox23 11 months ago
@andreasox23 Sorry, but the somewhat awkward syntax of your opening sentence and the structure of the paragraph you had posted made it a little unclear as to what your actual point was. Perhaps I misinterpreted your meaning. If I inaccurately assumed that you are a Christian rather than a rational free-thinking individual, for that you have my humble apologies.
JackKangaroo1 11 months ago
Give a man a reason, he'll follow blindly.
Teach a man to reason, he'll think for a lifetime.
imperator332 1 year ago 2
Does Dawkins assume that absolute morality can only come from holy books?
bander87 1 year ago
dawkins is a fool
keeyk118b 1 year ago
@keeyk118b Hows that ?
RatedRMatt 1 year ago
religion must die for the human species to live
robelstable 1 year ago 91
@robelstable Spot on my friend
RatedRMatt 1 year ago
@robelstable 4000 years have passed and we're still here
gamemaster47 10 months ago
@robelstable
atheism must die for the human species to live
libetta 9 months ago
@libetta And this is based on what? The millions of deaths comitted in the name of Atheism? No wait... Those are in the name of religion, my bad.
Xebioz 9 months ago
@Xebioz
because your atheism is afraid to have its teachings. funny you can't defend yourselves as well as how you mock the opposite party
libetta 9 months ago
@libetta Afraid to have teachings? The teachings of Atheism are that there is no belief in religious teachings. What have you been smoking? Also, the only reason I am attacking you and "your party" is because you keep reffering to Atheism as a curse, when most of the Atheists in the world today are highly beneficial for societies all over.
Xebioz 9 months ago
@Xebioz
you atheists are just extremely extreme against us christians. get out of your computer and make friends with people outside, christian or not.
ps. it would be lovely if atheism begins to teach things (which most of you atheists, do). your philosophy that religon is unecessary because people only need to know what's right, is extremely unsubstantial. could you tell any serial killer or terrorist about that? i doubt it!
libetta 9 months ago
@libetta I have plenty of christian friends so don't talk like you know everything about me. At least I don't force you to become an atheist or I kill you unlike what the LRA does to atheists in Africa. Atheists never kill in the name of atheism. Christians and Muslims, some of them do.
What atheism teaches is above all love and respect for human beings. Do you know that most serial killers and terrorists are very religious? Maybe that has something to do with the extreme nature of 'em eh?
Xebioz 9 months ago
@Xebioz
so what's the use of going in youtube to argue with christians, what are you trying to prove? and why do you want to prove your point?
gee, i thought atheism DOESN'T teach anything? how can an absence of belief teach something for humans? couldn't a BELIEF teach something as nice?
libetta 9 months ago
@libetta To your first reply:
I don't want to argue with you, believe me, but when I see a comment like "atheism must die for the human species to live" I get really irritated so I, in your words "argue".
It doesn't have a DOGMA, meaning religious teachings. It teaches you that all people are the same, no matter what they believe or how they act. That you shouldn't hate Jews for believing in a different god, just because your holy book tells you so. THAT IS A GOOD THING.
Xebioz 9 months ago
@Xebioz
i'm just as irritated when seeing a comment like RELIGION MUST DIE FOR THE HUMAN SPECIES TO LIVE.
oh did i say DOGMA? i said TEACHINGS. it doesn't always have to be a DOGMA, you know. great, generalizing again. i don't hate jews at all. in fact, a lot of the artists i admire are JEWISH or GAYS. (classical piano)
libetta 9 months ago
@libetta I didn't say you did either, but certain religions certainly do thrive on hating other religions and that is why I don't like them. Well that and the old fundamentalist way of thinking that automatically comes along with religion.
You are right, you never said DOGMA, but that was how I first read your post (so that's a misconception on my part). But Humanitarianism goes pretty much hand in hand with atheism (mostly anyway).
Xebioz 9 months ago
@Xebioz
let me ask you (i live in a catholic country in asia so i don't know much), is fundamentalist view still prevalent in your place? or anywhere you know.
libetta 9 months ago
@libetta Not in my place (Norway) "thank god". But it is very fundamentalistic in south america and Africa still. The more 'undeveloped' a country is (I hate that phrase) the more fundamentalistic it usaully is.
Xebioz 9 months ago
@Xebioz
i think it has to do with the monopolizing countries am i right? being under spain for more than 300 years i know all the killings justified by religion for their own good.
libetta 9 months ago
@libetta Pretty much. Spain colonized pretty much all of south america and as a result the population there today is still very catholic (atleast in demograpics).
What I really hate though is that the Norwegian state church says it has a lot of members and that Norway is a very christian country. In norway pretty much every religious person is a moderate secularist, so there isn't much of a problem with extremism here.
Xebioz 9 months ago
@Xebioz
i meant colonizing countries. anyway, same meaning.
what i don't get is why they still live like spain treated them in the 1800's. i don't think there's ever a fundamentalist group here in the philippines.
being secular doesn't mean you can't be religious. they are not always contradictory to each other.
libetta 9 months ago
@libetta That was not what I meant by secularist. The problem with fundamentalism is that it usually slows down scientific progress and limits freedoms for it's inhabitants. A state church in itself is a testament to "the state says this religion is best", which is why societies should be secular in my opinion. Secularism usually stops extremism and fundamentalism in that all religions and views are accepted equally in one place.
Xebioz 9 months ago
@Xebioz
sure, they are very RELIGIOUS. not Godly. what did God say- you shall not kill. you shall not steal. you shall not lie. but when we do abide with those things you mock us for "not following god's laws", but when some religious people do kill, steal, lie, etc., you spew all the hatred and blame it all to god. What the heck is the matter with you!? why not tell them "didn't your god tell you not to kill, steal, lie,? etc.".
libetta 9 months ago
@libetta God also said "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.", do you agree with that? You can tell someone that they shouldn't steal because someone else is stolen from. Use the golden rule. Saying that "God will punish you if you do it" is not really what I think is appropriate.
Xebioz 9 months ago
@Xebioz
God clearly said You shall not kill. when he said "shall surely be put to death"- was He implying that people should execute the sinner? no, clearly not.
libetta 9 months ago
@libetta That is exactly what 'he' (the people who wrote Leviticus, not really god) said. Just because the bible has statements which oppose each other doesn't mean that it only means what we consider to be 'good' at this time.
Xebioz 9 months ago
@robelstable I wouldn't go that far. That's way too extreme.
disinterested22 5 months ago in playlist disinterested22's Favorited Videos
I love this guy
bbphnix 1 year ago
0:23 FIGHT!
ThallesNinja 1 year ago
Richard Dawkins is the intellectual equivalent of Mike Tyson.
Greatkingrat88 1 year ago
Am I the only one that noticed that Dawkins doesn't answer the question he is asked and kind of goes off on a tangent?
He talks about cherry picking in religion, but doesn't mention any of the "social-ills" that have plagued and will continue to plague "secular, intelligent, discussion-based" societies. He also mentions that people have suddenly "grown out" of a medieval mind state. Really? So, in a matter of 300 years, people have suddenly become different from how they were for 1.8mil years?
currymakersuperfly 1 year ago
@currymakersuperfly
And as far as Slavery goes; after your country and society has benefited wildly from slavery, then it's okay to talk down about it, if only to make sure no one else gets to become as wealthy as you.
Population is rising and resources and wealth are dwindling; who wants to bet that Europeans won't bring back slavery in the next 400 years?
currymakersuperfly 1 year ago
@currymakersuperfly If Europe re-introduced slavery within 400 years, it will not be caused by atheism itself, since atheism does not pick sides in the matter. Humanism on the other hand (which I suspect most atheists subscribe to) will actively denounce all forms on slavery based on humanitarian grounds. I'm also pretty convinced that slavery is not *ultimately* profitable in economic terms. If you want to get rich, start by choosing reason over faith.
josteinaj 1 year ago
@josteinaj
Atheists are such a small minority in the world, that your opposition to slavery or anything don't really matter.
And "reason" makes you rich? Go read up on Long Term Capital Management and how much money Newton lost in the South Sea bubble.
currymakersuperfly 1 year ago