Rabbi Shmuley Debates Richard Dawkins - Vote Tally

[adey5]

It seems like the rabbi is ranting at one person rather than adressing the audience. He is rather shouty!

[robbylafont]

Did I hear rabbi right?

We dont cherry pick the good parts... And that...those were the laws and commands god provided for that particular time and culture.

It makes more sense that man has changed because culture has changed. We (western culture) no longer live in tribes.

I thought god was perfect! Why would he change his ways to fit modern man? It makes more sense that man's idea of god changed as western society improved technologically. Yes that's right--idea! That's all god is anyw

[netam1000]

rabbi Shmuley is only protecting mambo jumbo which makes him money using religious freaks, that's it

[extazy17]

I somewhat agree that we should follow reason and evidence. That is why people should follow Judaism (or at least the 7 universal laws of Noah). "Judaism" which is really the Torah is based on scientific evidence. Check on youtube- "Rabbi Mizrachi Torah and Science , or Divineinformation". please comment back AFTER watching it.

[XeliosX]

Ya'll have a good new year's eve and happy new year's as well. I'm done here.

[XeliosX]

Shmuley always pulls the hitler card, doesn't he..?

I've yet to see a video of him 'debating' in which he didn't bring up Hitler...

[SuperShuki]

The "Hitler Card" is a logical argument. If God doesn't exist, what is wrong with a Hitlerian society?

[XeliosX]

Is this the "You can't say nothing's immoral if you don't believe in God" tomfoolery again? Life is only sacred in-sofar that people don't want to die. As such, people are generally against murder. Even non-believers are against murder because they don't want to die either. Now, that being said, what's "wrong" with Hitler's methods of developing society is PRECISELY things like the holocaust. By the way -- 1.5m people killed in the Crusades. How is that different from Hitler?

[SuperShuki]

The Jews didn't want to die. But the Germans wanted the Jews to die. Why is one correct and one not? From a German perspective, why shouldn't they kill the Jews?

About the Crusades: I'm not a Christian, and I don't believe that the Crusades were God's will. I'm a Jew. So is Rabbi Shmuley, by the way.

[SuperShuki]

Let me restate that- I don't believe that God told the Crusaders to go on the Crusades.

[XeliosX]

Look, i'm not going to waste my time here. It's new year's eve. From the HITLER perspective, no, there was no reason to not kill the jews. A number of german soldiers did what they did because they themselves didn't want to die. Maybe it was some fundy idea that 'all' life is sacred that kept one brave soul from turning the gun on Hitler. Whatever the case, no, Hitler had no reason to not kill the jews, but HITLER WAS BATSHIT CRAZY TO START. No normal society would follow that society.

[SuperShuki]

Hitler was not crazy, and neither was German society. The Germans who committed the Holocaust were rational, thinking individuals. Rabbi Shmuley quoted from Goldhagen's book "Hitlers Willing Exocutioners" saying as much. I have the book. I suggest you get it too.

Additioinally, the Germans were helped in their task by the populations under their control, in Poland, the Ukraine, and many other places. In fact, the exceptions were the places which didn't help the Germans commit the Holocaust.

[XeliosX]

@SuperShuki You wanna kill people because you're doing "God's" work? You're crazy. No, y'know what. you -wanna- kill people? You're crazy!  Perfectly reasonable men can STILL be insane.

I'm not denying the holocaust. I'm saying that Schmuckly over here tends to rely pretty heavily on the holocaust for sympathy points.

On that note: i truly am done here. I'm going to go enjoy my new year's eve. Say whatever you want.

[SuperShuki]

The Germans were no crazier than you or I. Just stating that they were crazy doesn't make it so.

[SuperShuki]

And stating that whoever disagrees with you (in this case, the Germans) is crazy doesn't make it so either.

[SuperShuki]

I'll be happy to read your reply after you finish celebrating.

[XeliosX]

@SuperShuki

No, there will be no reply. I'm not going to get caught up in this nonsense on a 'dead' video anyway.

Reasonable men can still be insane, for the exact reason that a smart, logically functioning person can -still- want to kill people. For the same reason your perfectly reasonable buddy Jim at work might have a closet full of decaying child skeletons in the crawlspace of his house.

That's IT. It's OVER. It's DONE.

[SuperShuki]

And therefore, by that reasoning, it's OK for someone to kill people. After all, they want to . . . and who's to deny them their legitimate wants?

[SuperShuki]

The whole basis of the arguments of Richard Dawkins and company is that athiesm is based on reason.

[Pirochiro]

@SuperShuki

Yes, because humans can't decide for themselves that killing people who don't fit your ideal society is probably not fair on those people.

[SuperShuki]

@Pirochiro

Who says that it's not "fair"? The Germans? The Ukrainians? The Austrians? The Poles? All these nations, and many more, felt that it was "fair" to murder the Jews.

[Pirochiro]

@SuperShuki

Modern society says that it's not fair. Totalitarianist governments are not modern socities.

You don't need a deity to put your self in someone elses shoes.

[SuperShuki]

@Pirochiro

Why is "modern society", or any society, entitled to tell me what is right and what is wrong? That smacks of fascism. And who defines what is a "modern society"? There are many totalitarian regimes still existing today. What makes them less "modern" than any other society?

[Pirochiro]

@SuperShuki

You're joking, right? You do realise that being pedantic and feigning ignorance doesn't make you right, right? Jesus Christ, man, you've got Google, try using it.

'Modern society' isn't called that just because it's modern, it's just the name for a society that has moved beyond certain boundaries. Look up 'Modernity' for a detailed description.

[SuperShuki]

@Pirochiro

I'm not feigning ignorance, enlighten me.

Why does calling something a "modern society" make it the arbiter of morality?

[Pirochiro]

@SuperShuki

Enlighten yourself. I told you, you have Google, try using it. Why should I continue here if you're just going to say "well I don't know what that is"?

[SuperShuki]

@Pirochiro

Hey, no one is forcing you to reply. But if you're going to make an argument, you should be able to make it in your own words, instead of referring to somewhere else . . .

[Pirochiro]

@SuperShuki

You know precisely what I'm talking about. As I said before, you'd just being pedantic.

[SuperShuki]

@Pirochiro

No I don't, I really don't. I googled "modernity" and I looked on wikipedia. So far as I can tell, the term "modern society" is completely subjective and arbitrary. Why don't you explain what you mean yourself? After all, wikipedia and google aren't posting in this comments section, you are.

[JamieJourney]

unfeeling/callous/boring lecture? Or someone with passion? I choose the person with passion. Not because of the passion though, because he makes more valid points.

[NoCrispin]

Of course since followers are more inclined to follow emotion than think for themselves.

[GrandSupremeDaddyo]

Schmuley - intellectually engaging scholar or raving preacher?

I think it's pretty obvious.

[yistackness]

This would have been better if they took a private vote. Meaning no one else could see the other's vote. Some may simply be "following the crowd" so-to-speak. Some may feel pressured to "go along".

[JamieJourney]

yistackness - "following the crowd" Are you saying the religious people are leaders, and atheists are followers? :) I agree. Atheists tend to follow the crowd :).

[yistackness]

Well, I guess what I'm saying is that atheists want to believe they are "free" from religion. But really they want to be slaves. All matter follows universal laws of cause/effect. Our brains are made up of matter. Therefore, our brains are slave to these universal laws. It means you have no freewill. Atheists will mock you for believing in God while ignoring the fact thay they personallly believe you had no "choice" in the matter. To an atheist, murder is just spilled milk - morality isn't real.

[JamieJourney]

Yes, you have to have a spirit to have a free will. Those who do not believe we are spiritual beings label everyone in terms of their DNA/environment. Racism is the belief that race (DNA/nature/nurture) is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities.

[sepelester]

Do I want to be a slave? Am I immoral simply because I have a lack of faith? Arrogance, hypocrisy and prejudice, wrapped up in a small comment. Those traits clash with the notion of morals you claim to represent. Atheists tend to believe in the good in all men, I wish "people of faith" would too, instead of accusing people with other beliefs of inherently being evil and/or worthy of an eternity of pain and suffering. (btw, I'm not sure I'd like to call myself an atheist, but you probably would).

[JamieJourney]

Sepelester - we are all immoral. We are all selfish, subject to the ills of human nature ;). Those who lean on a loving God have more resources to help them break away from their human nature.

[yistackness]

sepelester: From an atheist's point of view, all there is is matter and energy in various combinations that result in either inate or "intelligent" beings. "Morality" is merely a by-product of that intelligence. It is not a universal law, neither is it required for existance. It's great to hear about your wishfull thinking that all men are good. But to me, good only comes from God. BTW: The original meaning for Hell was simply non-existance. Don't assume to know what I believe.

[sepelester]

yistackness - You're assuming I want to be a slave. And you're saying I'm evil and that I have no morals.

[yistackness]

No, sepelester, I'm not saying you are evil or immoral. What I'm saying is you don't believe there is such a thing as "evil" (how would you define it?), I'm also saying that morality, to an atheist, is simply an option and not a must. I cannot judge you and say that you are evil when, for all I know, you may very well be a better person than me. But that doesn't take away the FACT that there could be a God, and that there could be moral standards which have consequences when breeched. God bless

[leorklier]

does shouting hitler repeatedly prove the existence of god, or does it prove that some moron can shout the word hitler repeatedly?

[Nades129]

If u dont have a convincing argument, shout it out! SHOUT IT OUT RABBI!

[SuperShuki]

Rabbi Shmueley's mode of argument is just a product of the Beit Midrash, the Jewish Study hall. It doesn't have anything to do with the worth of his argument. If you ever visit a real Jewish Study hall, and have seen Jews argue over a page of Talmud, you'd know what I mean.

[XeliosX]

@SuperShuki and I don't give two craps about the strength of his validity. Several times I've seen Schmuckly play the holocaust card, but he always tends to play it when he's losing.

The way I see it, it has nothing to do with some "valid argument" it has everything to do with "Feel sorry for me, 'cause I'm a Jew, and my ancestors were killed in the holocaust"

It's kinda like these country songs that made a million dollars with the post 9/11 songs. Exploitation. Pure and simple.

[RPFS2008]

jeeez, the Rabbi dude is fuckin annoying.

[akamola]

Jeez, I feel sorry for his family. How the fuck can they bear him ?? I would kill myself if I was in his company !!!!

[SuperPatrick777]

why , because he speaks the truth ,

patrick .

[RPFS2008]

No, definitely not.

[SuperPatrick777]

ravi zacarias was right , this is not a interlectual debate , this is a moral one people say they search for truth but they can't handle it ,

patrick .

[RPFS2008]

Save me your incoherent mumblings.

[SuperPatrick777]

WHAT SORT OF ANSWER IS THAT ,

PATRICK .

[RPFS2008]

I didn't realise you had asked a question...

Looks like you've got a capslock malfunction btw.

[SuperPatrick777]

you can answer statements as well as questions , by the way , what do you mean by capslock malfuntion btw ? ,

patrick .

[RPFS2008]

Do I really need to explain my "caplock" post to you?

I'm bored of you. Bye.

[RPFS2008]

"capslock"*

[SuperPatrick777]

you are one ignorant man ,

patrick .

[ak99uk]

@RPFS2008 He's very loud, therefore he must be right...

[MrFluffytoilet]

@RPFS2008 thats because all jewish people are arrogant.

[RPFS2008]

@MrFluffytoilet

and they all smell of poop, don't forget that.

[MrFluffytoilet]

@RPFS2008 yeah haha you speak such truth! ;)

[mollutje]

this guy needs ritalin-_-

[markisagenius]

If there is no God or creator or existance after life.. what is your higher purpose? Can you just stop responding. I've tried to end this convo like a thousand times. Go role play, or listen to therion you magic card playing nerd. I'm moving on to posts where people don't sling rhetoric, and are willing to debate.. not argue.

[ixamraxi]

A "higher purpose" is a baseless self imposed assertion with no objective validation. If you cant find meaning to life without surrendering yourself to an improvable entity, I cant help you.

You claim to be trying to end this conversation, yet you persist in responding (which is not helping you).

Also, I love the blind assumption that you "know me" well enough to make such an ignorant contention. Proving you are a stereotyping hypocrite.

You aren't debating, your whining.

[markisagenius]

Dude I promise I'll stop responding.. so long as you promise not to kill me with your 23rd level troll minion. You're probably still living in your parent's basement, having never gone to college you overcompensate with strange sentence structures on youtube comment sections, to make people who don't know any better believe you're really smart. Having a God would just make you a lemming like all the other less sophisticated scum. You however have beaten final fantasy 34 times. So you are God.

[ixamraxi]

Lets see... condescending, arrogant, blatantly ignorant, insulting, self diluted... Yep. Definitely a prime example of a typical Christian who has never even read the Bible they put faith into.

If you want to know about me, you could just ask. It generally works better then fulfilling and maintaining negative stereotypes.

Honestly, I dont even need to insult you, you have already insulted yourself far better then I care to waste my time doing. In fact, I almost pity you... almost.

[markisagenius]

O stop with the pretensious bullshit. Who grants you the authority to decide who wins or loses these retarded youtube fights? You can assume I'm with any religion you'd like, you'd be wrong, but you can do as you wish. However I am not wrong about you being a lonely dungeon master with posters of wizards on your wall. Go take a shower for God's sake. Or are you going pull your trenchcoat over your crying eyes and sob a bit more.

[ixamraxi]

Im not sure if I should commend you for proving my point, or ridicule you for your tactless whining and grade-school insults.

In either situation, I rest my case. I dont need to claim that I won, the fact that you have resorted to such infantile behavior speaks volumes about the content of your character.

Personally, I am glad your not an Atheist, Considering how bad as you make the typical Christian look.

[markisagenius]

I never once attacked someone's personal atheist beliefs. I've attacked you because I think you're an idiot, but never your personal beliefs. That is what I have taken issue with from the get go. Christians want open debate, atheists want to spread hate and act as if they are right because of their smug stench of pretensiousness. I've never known an atheist with a kind heart, or a sense of humor. It's sad. Plenty of muslims, christians, and agnostics. But never an atheist.

[ixamraxi]

So, Instead you just generalize all atheists into hate spreading, smug, pretentious, elitists. Then say that you have never attacked an atheists beliefs. And what personal beliefs are they?

If YOU have never met a kind hearted atheist with a sense of humor, its likely they avoid you. You're a condescending, self righteous, diluted, arrogant simpleton who apparently believes his personal experiences are the basis of comparison for all society.

That demonstrates your character, not mine.

[markisagenius]

You know what, you're right. I'm all of those things. Argument over.. you win! There is no creator. Space dust, and questions that will never be answered. What joy that brings. I'm going to go find others to annoy and be annoyed by now.

[ixamraxi]

I should hope that space dust is not on peoples top ten list of things that bring them Joy. I doubt truly honest people have God on that list either.

Friends, Family, Love, the list of things that incite positive emotion is as diverse as it is long. You cant attempt to imply that list to be invalid simply because I didnt put God on that list. That would be far more pretentious then anything I have said.

:: rolls a D20 :: Oh, a 1. Looks like you cast sarcasm, but it was not effective.

[markisagenius]

Good argument. You win!

[ixamraxi]

There is no such thing as "winning" an argument, the best you can hope for is that both people walk away from it with a better understanding of each other. If that happens we both win, if it doesn't, we both lose.

[Aphex217Twin]

So you're a christian? Well ...

Whoever Says "You Fool!"

Shall Be in Danger of Hell Fire

Matthew 5:22

Whatever happened to "turn the other cheek"? "let people insult you" , and all the stuff Jesus said about being nice to your enemy, but christians like you get on youtube and call everybody fools! But aren't you a fool in doing so because you are in danger of HELLFIRE!?

There's a reason why they call it Hypochristianity

[markisagenius]

Are you like 12 just routing through a dictionary for big words. Background radiation, brightness of supernova's and the (guessing) of the age of stars mean NOTHING, until we can see to the end of the universe. For all we know, it's infinite and those things may vary infinitely, just beyond our scope of sight. Can we please just end this stupid argument. If you'd like... YOU WIN

[ixamraxi]

Did you really just complain about semantics in an attempt to insult my intelligence? Weak.

Still, the evidence does mean something. The "big bang" is a unifying theory that encompasses, explains and works contingently well with all of these phenomenon.

As to whether the universe is infinite is irrelevant to the argument of the Big Bang, and is nothing more then an attempt to interject a "we dont know so obviously I could be right" clause.

Im not arguing, Im trying to help you understand.

[markisagenius]

The matter of infinity was used to make the argument that your "evidence" is useless in debate. It's like being a dust particle in a bottle on a Utah farm, and using the data around you to theorize what the dust in Australia may be doing. It's all a big guess. Everyone is allowed an opinion. No matter how hard we try to make others "understand" our own. I personally believe in God. As did Copernicus, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Descartes, Kelvin, Einstein. I simply want imagination back in science.

[ixamraxi]

But it does NOT make the evidence useless. All it does it attempts to use an argument from ignorance. You ask "why" long enough eventually you end up with a question you cant answer, and you have simply immediately jumped to that fringe and said "see, we dont know, so I could be right!".

Most of your examples where either Pantheists, Deists or believed in Spinozas God, the others were raised with no alternative explanation and so claiming them as believers is blatant distortion of truth.

[markisagenius]

See.. we don't know.. I could be right!!  Those words are true. So why should I not say them if I feel like it. Just go on believing in no higher purpose or entity.. and I'll believe as I do. Seriously. You haven't given me what I originally asked for. If you can't do so, then I have nothing further to say to you. Again.. Good day. Meaning end of convo.

[ixamraxi]

Did you really just attempt to use your ignorance as support for gods existence?

Second, believing no higher purpose? How did you leap from "God" to "purpose", the two are entirely unrelated. To claim otherwise is ignorant.. oh wait.. never mind.

You haven't asked for anything since the Big Bang question and I already answered that. You just didn't like the answer because it applies to your assertion equally well. Asking questions is pointless if you are going to dismiss the answer.

[markisagenius]

Everybody here is attacking his passion, yet not his point. If someone can explain what came before the big bang... I will switch my views instantly

[ixamraxi]

That doesnt make sense. You can no more ask what came before the big bang then you can ask what God was doing before deciding to create the universe and the world. Its an empty question. Either something changed inside an eternally existing singularity to cause the Big Bang, or an something changed an eternally existing God to incite him to create. You cannot assert that one of these is paradox and the other is not. The only difference is the Big Bang has less unknowns.

[markisagenius]

People who belive in a higher entity don't have to back up their opinions about creation with facts.. their faith is based on Love and spiriuality. Whereas Atheists believe in no supreme creator. And therefore simply follow science. But until science is without flaw, I say that all opinions and theories should be allowed into the debate.

[markisagenius]

Yet that's not really the case in most colleges and scientific think tanks. Intelligant Design is "Junk Science", yet somehow thinking that a big bang came from a small singularity, which floated in an infinite nothingness (even though nothing is something).. is perfectly ok.

[ixamraxi]

Once again you make an assertion of failed understanding. If you ever actually read books on the subject, you will find that no scientist (note i said scientist, not atheist) ever makes the assertion that there ever existed a vast nothingness outside of the Big Bang. But not having an answer is not a valid case for dismissing the mountains of evidence that support a "Big Bang" type phenomenon. Not to mention the fact that this is only one of many explanations based on the available evidence.

[ixamraxi]

Thats actually entirely untrue, and shows a complete lack of understanding. Atheists are simply people who arent theists. There is no set definition or set of tenants for what an Atheist believes. There are atheists who believe pseudo-science or almost idiotic ideas just as there are creationists that do so.

Furthermore, science never claims to be "perfect" because it is an evolutionary process that changes over time to correct itself as more information comes available, unlike creation.

[markisagenius]

Are you serious with lines like "assertion of failed understanding"? I have read MANY books on the subject, and there are hundreds of varied opinions. You speak as if you're the authority. You also stated "mountains of evidence"... again is this a joke? The only evidence they have is theoretical. Fuzzy sounds, and attempts to chart the progression of stars. I enjoy debate, though not of the mean spirited kind. Good day.

[ixamraxi]

Please try to use more "reading comprehension", and less "myopic malcontent".

I stated directly that the Big Bang is only one of many explanations based on the available evidence, so your assertion is baseless.

Theoretical!? How about homogeniety, background radiation, structure, consistency, age of stars, time dialation in brightness of supernova, tolman tests, red shift, and the sachs-wolfe effect for starters.

...and the joke? That would be your strawman argument and ad hominem.

[jammyjo610]

where is Dawkins I only see Shmuley in all the clips..is he debating an invisible Dawkins

[markisagenius]

Dawkins comes in towards the end of the video

[jrwhisky]

I like how all the responses are only capable of insulting the behavior of Shmuley and not the argument. As if Peter Akins wasn't insanely pointing his face in every direction for no apparent reason.

I'll stand by each presenter and state that each had outstanding arguments that have been regrettably restrained. To properly argue each side one would need at a least a week or a semester of class of each point of view to grasp a full understanding of actual debate.

I enjoyed the videos.

[lc237]

Rabbi Shmuley must feel that he needs to shout and wave his arms about to make his point. He preaches at people. His behavior is that of a bully. I keep waiting for him to foam at the mouth. Lois/non-theist/atheist

[drumminjim22]

Shmuley is a loud bastard whom is all wrong!

[Wasd3r]

The rabbi should have left his screaming in his synagogue.

[Birdieupon]

Agreed, pointless shouting and screeching. Use the words and the words alone.

[Q8hypermania]

dawkins can't be beaten your way!

[markisagenius]

Ben Stein did. Rent "Expelled"

[bricology]

Ben Stein did NOT "beat" Dawkins. Ben Stein demonstrated that he didn't understand Dawkins at all. Look at the critical reviews of "Expelled" even by theists -- nearly every review in the media says it failed miserably to make its case (even BeliefNet said so!).

[maluslokus]

schmuley shouts like hitler

[szoregi]

Dawkins great, Shmuley suxxx

[Subfightr]

that guy is a shouting dipshit

[CrucieFiction]

So big-mouth Shmuley presents a blatant lie every time he asserts that Dawkins lost this debate.

[ibdbddbd]

Actually, it seems like more people voted for Professor Dawkins, if you look closely. So Mr Shmuley needs to increase the prescription of his glasses.

[samlowry1971]

This is the "vote" Mr. Shmuley was bragging about, on his site? First, it of course means nothing at all. Second, it's clear the room was divided pretty much 50/50 -- in direct contradiction to Mr. Smuley's claims.

What a silly twit.

[HimmuraTube]

Dawkins is awesome.

[kazuya1196]

Dawkins is a condescending prick. He did a lot of ad hominem arguments.

[sciencedoggy]

Liar.

[kazuya1196]

nuh-uh.

[sciencedoggy]

Where's your evidence? Let's see it, sport.

[kazuya1196]

You first, I dare you.

[shaxanth27]

Uh huh. And you're lying prick, kayuza

[kazuya1196]

Nuh-uh only atheists lie.

[IvetMeans]

religion is lies dumbdumb