DAWKINS AKHBAR! Atheist Battlecry of the Faithful.

[jfhsansei]

By adding in your questions in that fashion, then you are being somewhat disingenuous. It works the same as creative editing. Those questions are something that Dawkins would be unable to respond to since he is unavailable to answer them. Whether your are an atheist or theist, or agnostic for that matter, you shouldn't try sway your viewers with this type of questioning and rather ask a question of your viewers and see what their responses result in on your comments.

[MrZemme]

Yes it is too much to ask whether he should be "sure" that the world without religion would be better off. For one thing, there are too many damn variables (i.e. get two people, let alone ten thousand, let along six billion to agree what "better" means).

Also and, truthfully, far more importantly, Richard Dawkins has not dedicated his life to destroying religion. He has dedicated his life to educating people about science. If that destroys your belief in religion, welcome to the club.

[fotm1]

@MrZemme Sorry. Wrong answer. He is not known all over the world as a cheerleader of the sciences. His book is not, "Why Science is COOL!" His book is, "The God Delusion." He is not known as a "pro-science-ist" - he is known as an "A-theist." You're dodging disingenuously.

Furthermore, he's a trained BIOLOGIST, not a philosopher or theologian. He's speaking OUTSIDE his field of expertise. That's why he's scared to death of Dr. William Lane Craig and won't debate a real philosopher.

[SaudaraLink]

Christians call God 'Allah' in Arabic and Indonesian. The title of the video is blasphemy in Arabic. I'm not sure if the grammar is right though.

[RascalFascal]

you fucking cocksucker...dawkins does not want to destroy religion.he just wants people to be independent minded thinkers and educated and shit.what the fuck is wrong with thinking for yourself,having a good job and be smart??? fucking asshole cocksucker you!!!

[christoph2005]

fotm1, you are a retard.

Fact remains... Not 1 person has ever been killed "in the name of Atheism".

Without religion good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things.

Study more.

[fotm1]

@christoph2005 Wrong answer. Look up "Enver Hoxha" for starters. In fact, atheists have killed over 100 MILLION in the last 100 years. Go to Romania or Russia or China and as the persecuted church if anybody has been killed "in the name of atheism" - they'll tell you the REAL story. You're taking too many things on FAITH - cause it's what you WANT to believe.

[christoph2005]

@fotm1 I looked him up... my point stands.

He didn't do the things he did in the name of atheism (the lack of a belief in god(s)).

He did the things he did because he believed that religion was harmful to the health of his nation. Just read wikipedia and you can understand this.

You say atheists have killed over 100 million in the last 100 years? Wheres your data?

I'm fairly certain that your misinterpreting the data in order to say such a thing.

[fotm1]

@christoph2005 Nope. Numbers are good. Russia, China, Pol Pot, North Korea - right there you have 100 million in the last 100 years. vvvvvv (d0t} conservapedia (d0t} c0m/ Atheism_and_Mass_Murder

[christoph2005]

@fotm1

It is absolutely unacceptable for you to quote conservapedia if you want me to take you seriously.

You'll have to do better than that.

Since conservapedia is by nature a biased source, you haven't presented ANY data towards your argument.

[fotm1]

@christoph2005 Look it up yourself. I pulled the first thing at the top of a google search that listed them out. Do you think Dawkins is an unbiased source? He's already been accused of revisionism. The numbers of dead by those regimes is WAY over 100 million by nearly any source I've ever found - except the most rabid deniers. The article I quoted CITES research from non-biased sources - in fact, friendly sources that still total up the same. Did you even LOOK at it?

[christoph2005]

@fotm1

1) I didn't cite Dawkins as a source.

2) It is not your listener's job to prove your case.

If you say something unbelievable, then my stance is not to believe it, the listener's duties go no further than that. But if I want to give you the time of day I would ask you, "Can you give a reliable source.".

And you have not given a reliable source.

3) The Burden Of Proof lies on the shoulders of the one making a claim.

You have made the claim.

[fotm1]

@christoph2005 And I have told you that the citations for those statistics are listed in that article and they are NOT 'conservative' resources.

[fotm1]

@christoph2005 And I forgive you for calling me a retard. ;-)

[christoph2005]

@fotm1

Try to understand fotm1. If I were to tell you, "It is a fact that God doesn't exist".

You would probably ask me for my source.

If I were to then say, "Sure here it is, vvvvv [d0t} I super hate god {d0t] c0m" would you take my source seriously? Regardless of who that website cites in it's articles, it would not be an acceptable source.

[fotm1]

@christoph2005 I would still look it up, test it, evaluate it and try to have a conversation with you - just in case I was wrong. I wouldn't dismiss it all out of hand because of a name on a page. I think you're the one being intellectually dishonest. How many people do YOU think were killed by atheistic governments in the last 100 years?

[christoph2005]

@fotm1 (followup)

I would love to research this topic in full, but I don't currently have the time to devote to such efforts.

If you have the time, I think it would be a healthy exercise for you to try to research this as I have in the past. If you try to be honest about the numbers, you'll see why it's not a very good argument to make.

[H2OorHELL]

HUG

[fotm1]

@H2OorHELL HUG back.

[ndyt]

Where is your scientific resurrect? How about some references? No, you cant be bothered by that but you can point the finger at Dawkins because it's easy. You are just a tard.

[acippico]

Very good. Really funny to see Dawkins' nonsense exposed. Here's a question that should have been asked: Why does Dawkins keep referring to Hitler and Stalin as being 'evil'? Doesn't this tacitlly acknowledge religious teachings?

[Ulrna]

Most people have no idea what (abrahamic) religion is really about, and have even less understanding of its historical significance.

Off course the outcome of these debates is of no value whatsoever, but the lengths which people go through to try and get there is amusing. :)

[warren52nz]

This video is stupid.

"How many would be dead worldwide without Christian hospitals?"

Well if the Christian hospitals used the kind of "medicine" proposed by the Bible, MOST of them.

But of course they use modern techniques discovered by Biologists, the same crowd that showed we evolved from simple organisms. Oh yeah, they trust the science with their LIVES until it discovers something that crosses their religion, then science is evil and 100% wrong.

Such hypocrites!!!

[masala505]

What a dumb video - let's doctor and twist the truth - why do Christians have to do this baby stuff?

[PimpMyParadigm]

people will do anything to protect their imaginary friend! ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION!!!

[RoninMiyamotoMusashi]

Death to the brainwashing desert death cults!

[fotm1]

@RoninMiyamotoMusashi Be careful. Your "not-collecting stamps" non-belief is looking more like something that might motivate you to actually DO something.

[RoninMiyamotoMusashi]

@fotm1 This was in reply to the provocative title of your video. Yes it might motivate me to DO something: by death to the cults, I mean exactly that - I wish all religions could disappear progressively from the landscape. Do not worry, these objectives will be met through education and not militant fundamentalism.

[fotm1]

@RoninMiyamotoMusashi You mean conversion to your faith, right? ;-) My point remains, it's MORE than a simple non-belief when it motivates people to convince other people to have the same non-belief. Through education or otherwise. In fact, you have a belief - that religion is bad and needs to be eradicated. Perhaps even that there IS no God. Then it's not a negative. It's an affirmative statement that you have to PROVE. You have to prove that atheism is better for the planet than theism.

[RoninMiyamotoMusashi]

@fotm1 Absolutely in agreement with the first part - as Christopher Hitchens said it's not Atheism (it has been around for a LONG time) that is needed but Anti-Theism -> yes more than a simple non-belief.

"religion is bad and needs to be eradicated" is definitely a belief but however one that is substantiated with lots of evidence. As for proof of God's existence, the burden of proof lies on YOU. For me absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. When u come up with evidence, I'll reconsider.

[fotm1]

@RoninMiyamotoMusashi Likewise, you need to prove that the world is better off with anti-theism. In fact, anti-theism killed over 100 million people in the last 100 years. So I'm not so sure you have any good basis to claim that religion is MORE dangerous than anti-theism was. And if you become religious in your desire to crush religion, you'll have to point back at yourself.

As for God's existence, He proved it to me. It's not my job to prove Him to you - that's His job.

[RoninMiyamotoMusashi]

@fotm1 You are probably referring to communism here. Anti-theism is only part of their ideology, not the whole thing. I would even say that it was not communism that caused those deaths but power-hungry tyrants and dictators.

[fotm1]

@RoninMiyamotoMusashi Of course you would say that. You folks ALWAYS say that.

And I would say the crusades, the inquisition and all the other horrors you blame on religion were actually just power-hungry tyrants and dictators. Jesus Christ had NOTHING to do with it.

[CDLXXVIAD]

Where is the real interview. This is ridiculous. At least let people interpret the interview without your dumb inputs. 

[fotm1]

@CDLXXVIAD I put a dumb link right there in the dumb comments to the dumb real interview.

[CDLXXVIAD]

@fotm1 Your vid is shit.

[fotm1]

@CDLXXVIAD OUCH! You've hurt me deeply. I'm not sure I can go on now.

[miket1m]

1.

Dawkins is an idiot who writes books for other idiots to buy and make him richer. Wait.... maybe he's not that much of an idiot. If he actually believes what he is saying, then he would be a moron. An illogical moron. How can you say there is no God? What proof do you have that God does not exist? Atheism is impossible if held positively. Atheism only exists in a vacuum. It must disprove theistic proofs. It can't prove itself true. Its a very weak place to be intellectually.

[kevio74]

@miket1m why must atheism disprove anything?

religion doesn't have to prove the existence of god.. which is why you have a thing called faith.

and what are these theistic proofs you mention? i'm very interested to know what they are.

[aizlumzan]

dawkins hu akbar

[kevio74]

an evil atheist isnt proof of god.. so why are people like stalin always dragged up.

does an evil theist prove that god does not exist.? of course not

. and thats why i dont drag up people like thomas more (who was made a saint by the way).

you can not use the acts of people to prove or disprove god.

all anyone can do is look at science, philosophy and religion, and make up their own minds.

and if god exists, im sure he'll deal with us atheists in his/her own way.

[fotm1]

@kevio74 Stalin wasn't brought up to prove God. Stalin was brought up to prove that atheism is NOT JUST a "non-belief" operating in a vacuum. That atheism CAN do very bad things. That it can become "religious" and that many atheists use the "non-belief" argument as a shield to hide behind while their atheism motivates them to do harm. It might be by just being mean, violating people in some way - or murdering millions.

[kevio74]

@fotm1 atheism is non-belief and nothing more. stalin would have been a power hungry dick no mater what.

also, if some atheists want to harm others, does that make atheism a bad idea?

if so, then Marshall Herff Applewhite, Fred Phelps, thomas more, pope john the 22nd and a number of pedophilles must mean the same for christianity.

you cant trash an entire philosophy/ religion because of a few bad apples

one more thing. i've yet to find an atheist that uses "comment approval" why do you?..

[fotm1]

@kevio74 Atheists tend to allow a total free-for-all on their comments and don't care about obscenity. The really popular ones rarely even look at their comments or reply. I have over 4,000 subscribers and over 700 videos. I leave comments on for a few weeks, then shut them off. I could never keep up. I have a life outside of YouTube. I moderate them because I'm not going to allow certain things. You can see that I approve dissenting comments, even some vulgar, even some stupid.

[kevio74]

@fotm1 i saw that you approve opposing views, which is why i asked. thank for answering.

i've met some people that believe all atheists are evil, or that evil people are evil because they are atheist.

i know you dont agree with the atheist philosophy. but what are your views on atheist people?

[fotm1]

@kevio74 Atheists are people to whom God has not revealed Himself yet. It is GOD's job to convert you, not mine. I don't want blind faith, we don't teach that. We teach RELATIONSHIP, not religion. We pray and stuff happens. You can't "convert" by force of arms OR intellect. It's a recipe for disaster. That is part of what Dawkins is doing. Trying to intellectualize people into atheism or raise them up into it from birth. It's wrong when religionists do it & wrong when Dawkins does the inverse.

[fotm1]

@kevio74 Evil is real. And it uses people - sometimes televangelists, priests, used car dealers, politicians, drug dealers, & sometimes atheists. I can separate the voice that whispers to do evil FROM the person being whispered to. I don't like it that some people give in to it - and we teach them to resist it. Just like we teach them to hear the voice of God and obey it.

There is a secular approach that talks about "inner critic" & "inner coach". Works good & it's real, just named wrong.

[kevio74]

@fotm1 i think i see what your saying, that because i treat people how i would like to be treated, thats actually god telling me to be like that?

i have kind of a problem with this kind of though (if thats what you meant). a lot of people give god the credit for skills they have spent years mastering, or for good thing that they have done. this does not sit right with me. but even worse are the people that blame the devil for bad and evil things they did. this is vile and cowardly.

[snakebitgoat]

Gandhi was a Hindu AND religious, sorry Dawkins. For a Dr. You don't know the simplest things. Also quit weaseling out of atheists past. EVERY idealology has bad apples, including your own

[oftenlostinwhat]

just play the whole thing and cut your bullshit black screens, he owned that guy

[oftenlostinwhat]

lol at theist trying, and the holocaust was caused by religion :/

[muaythaijunky]

i also see it bad when people have to do comment approvals. its like calling the thought police. saying that i would hope that you get rid of that sort of thing.

[muaythaijunky]

i dont think any one should be upset that this guy is asking valid questions. just answer them and defend dawkins if you must or dont. i dont think it changes or effects being atheist in any way. he merely questions his "if" sayings. i think the main thing here is the fact richard wants to get rid of religion and its a very strong stand point and should be questioned.

[fotm1]

@muaythaijunky Yeah! What he said!

[Tyj150]

If you believe in nothing how can it motivate you to do good or bad? It really comes down to the morality of the individual. Religion can literally influence people to kill for its preservation and perpetuation. For example the crusades and modern day radical Muslims.

[MzHellinahandbasket]

I stopped the video at the ludicrous "test", "make sure first" and "is it too much to ask?" portion due to rank hypocrisy as one may level the same questions towards the religious. Though it's good to see that the religious can feel as annoyed at the lack of proof as non-believers can. Way to go. :)

[MrEnlightenup]

in the affairs of the world men are saved not by faith,but the lack of it. a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence....religion is all bunk..thomas edison...have a darwin day

[truevoiceofsanity]

Likewise, its unclear whether Cortez's genocide of the Aztecs was motivated by Christinaity or not. One can say that the genocide in the Sudan sounds like it was motivated by fundamentalist Islam but hard to say. The killings in Rowanda were by Christians o Christians motivated by NATIONALISM. The Spanish killed Muslims because if religion. ... Why 100,000,000? Our technology is better today and popuations are more. Kublai Khann had relilgion killing everybody ...

[truevoiceofsanity]

Stalin wasn't motivated by his disbelief in God. Marxism is actually a virtual religion or idealogy in itself. The truth is, he subverted that and made himself a God but it would be proper to blame Marxism rather than atheism here. Hitler believed in the supernatural and was influenced by Christian anti-jewish pograms of the past. He remained in the catholic church but he was a pagan. Hitler;s motive was nationalism

[MrEnlightenup]

keep makeing excuses for god if thats what works for you and all the deluded christians.there is a plaque in this country and it is called mass delusion.work and buy bread,and you will eat...,pray for bread and you will starve.

[fotm1]

@MrEnlightenup I know that's not true. I pray in enough bread to feed 5,000 people every month! NO WAY can you convince me prayer doesn't work!

[MrRazzeldazzel88]

@fotm1 wow... prayer works... LOL funny stuff dude. keep it up

[floydnelson92]

@fotm1 I bet that if you stopped praying it will still continue to happen. Is it really prayer that is the cause or does it happen regardless and you pray? Prayer works because God exists. God exists because prayer works. Beware of circular logic; test prayer. Try praying for God to clearly demonstrate the levitation of a specific object, which you know violates physics, within a certain time period for the purpose of providing substantial evidence for the existence of God; it won't happen.

[MrEnlightenup]

ok lets talk about god,6,ooo,ooo jews gave there best jewish prayers on the way to the ovens,4,000 people at the towers ,i was there and saw myself with my eyes what happen.the people jumping,god did not give them wings,they just splat on the concreat...everyone was praying,they still died...on a liter note texas gov gets 7,000 to pray for rain did it rain,i got rain in florida...now does prayer work,and dont tell me god works in mysterious way cuz im not buying that.

[fotm1]

@MrEnlightenup Prayer isn't an automatic. Prayer doesn't FORCE God's hand. How many people DIDN'T go to the ovens? How many people DIDN'T die in the towers because God told them not to go to work that day? How RIGHTEOUS were the people praying? I've already got a video about what was wrong with Rick Perry's prayer meeting. I already said it was a dud. Bowing your head DOES NOT force God to obey YOU. There's more to it than that.

If you're going that way, does answered prayer prove God?

[MzHellinahandbasket]

The cowardly pending approval. Not too sure in your beliefs are you that you can't face a response. Yet, you allow yourself the right to say what you will about Dawkins. Typical cowardly hypocrisy. :)

[fotm1]

@MzHellinahandbasket Being sure has nothing to do with it. I'm not going to allow limitless profanity on my channel. You can clearly see that I approve dissenting comments. I have over 700 videos. I can't keep up. So they get uploaded, comments run wide open unless it's something that draws trolls, then by approval - and after a few weeks, shut down completely. There's NO WAY I could even read, much less moderate and respond to, all the comments on 700+ videos. I do have a life outside of this.

[thejacalofskaro74]

I really can't be bothered. Just suffice it to say that you sir are a prick. You know why I think this.

[fotm1]

@thejacalofskaro74 Yeah, I know. Cause satan is your daddy.

[thejacalofskaro74]

@fotm1 Yep, as expected.

[fotm1]

@thejacalofskaro74 Well, you know why I think this. I'm just being consistent with your view of me.

[thejacalofskaro74]

@fotm1 *sigh* Believe whatever you want, I really don't give a toss, just don't screw others over with it. By the way, I love the hyperbole.

[MrEnlightenup]

there is no way you can get a body count on the amount of people that have died due to religion.the spaniards wipe out the aztek,the mayas,many cultures wipe out that worship in there own way,but they were converted to christianity or die.the dark ages,the crusades.look at irland..this has been going on since religion was invented,and its still going on today .in africa woman and children are rape in the name of god.so how do you put up a few nut jobs to centerys of persicusion from the church.

[fotm1]

@MrEnlightenup OK, there were only like 3500 deaths in Northern Ireland. The vast majority (50% to 85%) of the indigenous population of the Americas died from disease, not forced conversion. So many of the things you describe are about power, control, greed - and have nothing whatsoever to do with God. If I kill someone and say I did it in the name of "MrEnlightenup" does that make you wicked? Is it even true? Or is it just a dodge to do what I want and pass the buck?

[MrEnlightenup]

do you have any idea how much money the prosperity pimps have raped the poor people....do you know about the dark ages,the misionary that killed and wiped out culture from other countrys in the name of a book that was writen,well no one knows by who but it look like sheep herders wrote the bible.the pimps have jet planes,a car for everyday of the week,plus they always think they are above the law,raping the poor and trying to get their last dime.yes religion works for satan

[fotm1]

@MrEnlightenup YES, religion DOES work for satan. That's why I'm trying to do what I can to completely eradicate it from the face of the earth. But you're not talking about JESUS, you're talking about "Churchianity." Don't blame Jesus for the pimps. They did that totally against what Jesus wanted.

And even so, NO WAY does that add up to 100 million dead people from Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao.

[MrEnlightenup]

religion is the reason for more wars,death.rape,murder,manipul­ation,deceitfulness,false propets and on and on..lets see warren jeffs,david koresh,jim jones,fred phelps benny hinn and all the prosperity gospel..yes religion works..they all have a special corner in hell next tojerry falwell,and oral roberts...

[fotm1]

@MrEnlightenup But... that's just not true. Atheists killed over 100 MILLION people in the last 100 years. How many people have Fred Phelps and Benny Hinn killed? Atheists made more Christian martyrs in the last 100 years than the previous 1900 COMBINED! You don't think there is a special place in hell for Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot? How many people did the "false prosperity gospel" of atheistic Communism kill? How much wealth stolen?

I don't think you're seeing straight.

[leojologs]

thanks for posting this... i really learned a lot today.

also a weird attitude of atheists, they were like all-knowing.

[leojologs]

its pretty funny haha...

i suppose he also have a strong spirit of pride in himself, the man was just going to the point of the bloody century and he's like, dont tell me your getting at stalin and hitler with a rising tone of voice.. and when asked with different question he never listens and still speaks of what science was. i dont really believe science can measure or explain everything, it can explain most things, but when you try to explain and to limit the power God? = dead end. God bless

[agentssith]

Moron, all hierarchical systems harken back to primordial primate alpha-culture. This includes both religion and government.

Atheism does not believe in alpha-systems. PERIOD. Elitists cannot be atheists for example because they believe they themselves are the alpha. THERE IS NO ALPHA in atheism. This is the last word.

[fotm1]

@agentssith No, THIS is the last word. THIS. See?

[Brandoncurrent]

If everyone lisson to Jesus there would be no wars no wars no fights nothing bad at all name one think bad that would come from loving your neighbor and enemy. Matter of fact right here there wouldn't even be enemies we wouldn't have any disagreements. That's why heaven is perfect but Hell is the lack of God. Doug makes a good point If you got rid of the blievers in christ who would take care of the sick in the Christian hospitals when you don't have Christian hospitals.

[Brandoncurrent]

This ones from me who would feed the hungry. You wouldn't have Doug or I anymore.Another Question what is good and evil to an Athist because the only book I know that states every form of Good and evil is in the bible but were is your athist study book. I would like to konw how you want us to be so we can be perfect. Because the only one I know which has done so is JESUS :)!!!

[proatheism]

It's not that Dawkins laid out evidence that atheism had nothing to do with it. It is that there is no evidence to support atheism was the cause. Atheism is harmless because it is a non-belief (and no assertion that it is a positive one is going to derail that, it is only the lack of belief in any god). Since you are making the positive assertion that atheism did cause him to do non desirable things. You have the burden of proof to prove it was.

[fotm1]

@proatheism That's the same dodge you guys always use!! It's NONSENSE! Ask Christians in Russia if they were tortured for months or years in prison JUST to get them to deny Christ and accept atheism - and released if they did. Look up Richard Wurmbrand's testimony. Look up Enver Hoxha.

Dawkins is making a POSITIVE ASSERTION - "Atheism is innocent. It had NOTHING to do with those deaths." The burden of proof is on HIM because COMMON SENSE is clear that it was a MAJOR component.

[proatheism]

@fotm1

In both cases there was far more than the variable of atheism involved. They believed in a social unity. It could have been any ideology, but you cannot blame the ideologies themselves. Be it Marxism, communism, socialism, or atheism.

[fotm1]

@proatheism That's convenient. So now they are ALL harmless? NONE of those ideologies motivated behavior? Then how can you blame religion for anything?

At least it's nice that you agree that atheism is an ideology, not just a non-belief. It's appropriately placed in that list with Marxism and the others. At least that's honest.

[proatheism]

@fotm1

Yes the ideas are harmless. Just because people that wanted social unity hijacked them and forced others does not mean the ideas hijacked are to blame. An ideology can be blamed if the members do something in the name of the ideology and can point as to why their ideology promoted the action. Marxism, communism, and socialism are just socioeconomic positions. If someone killed someone else and happened to be a communist that doesn't mean communism lead them to it.

[proatheism]

@fotm1

The same does with atheism. It is just a position on the existence of a god. Why no broaden and say industrialized countries have killed billions? Does that mean industrialization is to blame? Of course not, because it is simply an economic model a country follows.

I consider atheism no more an ideology than non-stamp collecting, but that discussion is neither fruitful or worthy.

[fotm1]

@proatheism You're right, it's unfruitful. But have you extended this out? Why say religion is a danger or needs to be eliminated, when you've just said that ALL ideologies are in and of themselves harmless? Why does Dawkins think religion is dangerous, but atheism is benign? He must not see it your way. Why have gun control if guns don't kill people - PEOPLE kill people? Why not have people control? I'm not sure you're really thinking this thru. SOMETHING has to be responsible.

[proatheism]

@fotm1

I never said religion needs to be eliminated or all ideologies are harmless. Some religious texts call for non desirable actions where atheism does not. I could not care less if Dawkins and I agree on something. Gun control is implemented to hinder someone wanting to kill. The something responsible is different in each case. In the case were you said atheism did non desirable acts it was a want to have social unity. That desire for forced social unity I find responsible.

[bigbotty1938]

Dont worry, every person that believes he is a god will soon meet GOD, cant wait til that day, i bet you Pontius Pilate standing in front of Jesus will be more nervous than Jesus was in front of him. How can someone not believe in God? i KNOW there is a God, but even if i didnt, i would rather believe and go to heaven then not believe and find out i was wrong. if there is no God, there is no purpose, no judgement, no reason to do whats right? yea, we all came from a great explosin

[bigbotty1938]

Dont worry, every person that believes he is a god will soon meet GOD

[Proghead88]

2) continued: If French hospitals stopped existing, most of the sick in France would die. But you're creating an artificial scenario where a hole is created and now it's the atheist's job to save the day. If for some reason all the religious medical institutions disappeared, well the rest of society would have to adjust to fill the gap, but it would take a long time. The point is we NEED hospitals, regardless of their inspiration, religious or not. He meant that it wouldn't make a difference.

[Proghead88]

Ok, here are the problems with your comments: 1) "probably" is what people use when they have an open mind and don't claim to know it all. You should respect that. Also, you can check polls, studies and compare certain aspects of society between two contries (one very religious, one not). I'm not going to think all this out for you. I gave you a freebie. Google. 2) How many people would be dead would be irrelevant. How many people would be dead if french hospitals stopped existing, for example?

[Raidoton]

Hitler was neither a christian nor an atheist, but he was a believer... And he used religion to kill millions. Religion can be easily used as a tool to do evil, atheism doesn't.

[fotm1]

@Raidoton Stalin and Mao and others used atheism to kill 100 million. All you got is words. I have a gazillion dead Russians and Chinese Christians. Deny it all you want. It was a part of the motivator behind those murders.

[Raidoton]

@fotm1 You can't use atheism to kill anybody. How can a lack in deities lead to murder? Stalin clearly was an atheist, but his Anti-Theism leaded to his actions because he himself wanted to be worshiped, not his atheism.

[Gnomefro]

@fotm1 "Stalin and Mao and others used atheism to kill 100 million."

"Atheism" can't motivate any action, because it's not a belief. Just like not believing in fairies can't make you do anything at all. People act on their positive beliefs, and Stalin and Mao had such beliefs in spades, in the form of the ideological apparatus we call "communism" not "atheism". Your assertion of motivation is simply completely illogical. What they believed was that religion stood in the way of communism.

[fotm1]

@Gnomefro Atheism is NOT a non-belief. It is a positive assertion, "There is no God." And it's very likely to be combined with another positive assertion, "Anyone that believes in a God is deluded." And fairly quickly that leads to, "Anyone that believes in a God is in our way." And you get control of the machinery of government & you're just a tiny leap away from exterminating everyone in your way. But DO NOT fall for the lie that atheism can be factored OUT of Communism. It's all one package.

[Proghead88]

@fotm1 Do me a favor and look up Atheism on the dictionary. You're looking WAAAAAYYYYY too deep into the meaning of the word. I don't have to say there is 100% no god. MOST atheists simply say "god is about as likely to exist as santa claus". How you get from saying "Santa probably doesn't exist" to "Anyone that believes in Santa should die" is a really stupid leap of logic. Get my point?

[fotm1]

@Proghead88 See, that is your ONLY line of defense. Without that one argument, "It's a non-belief & could never motivate anything," you would HAVE to take responsibility for all kinds of things you want no part of. You blame "religionists" for wars because their "faith" is INEXTRICABLE from the horrors they caused, but your "faith" couldn't possibly do that. Yet it's motivating Dawkins & others to work for a world w/out religion. And motivates a smarmy, self-righteous attitude pretty regularly.

[hector3222]

@fotm1 " Atheism is NOT a non-belief. It is a positive assertion"

Come on please, you are a smart enough guy to know this is not at least always correct. Most atheists are so called -weak atheists- which just means their not buying what your selling, the proof presented does not convince them there is a god. There ARE strong atheists which make the positive assertion, and there are reasonable arguments for this actually, but a quick wiki search should clear this up.

[fotm1]

@hector3222 It's not about "smart". I know perfectly well what you SAY it is. That's just not what it LOOKS LIKE. Your theory & words DO NOT trump reality.

I'm glad you admit that there are "strong atheists" out there. By that I think we mean that they are aggresively defending atheism, having conferences, lobbying government, putting out ad campaigns, & maybe even persecuting or mocking religionists. IS THEIR ATHEISM MOTIVATING THEM? If not, what?

Our disagreement is how MANY there are.

[hector3222]

@fotm1 "I'm glad you admit that there are "strong atheists" out there. By that I think we mean that they are aggresively defending atheism, having conferences, lobbying government, putting out ad campaigns"...

No that is not what is meant by the term "strong atheist" strong atheists posit the positive assertion that there are no Gods - which as you say requires evidence. "Weak" atheists simply do not find the evidence for gods convincing.

[hector3222]

@fotm1

BTW. Dawkins is a weak atheist.

He is also an anti-theist - ie he is glad there is no good evidence for your god because he finds his character objectionable

[proatheism]

@fotm1

When my religious friend whom I regard as very good at defending his faith pointed me to your channel I expected much better of you.

Atheism is the non belief in gods not belief there is no gods. You then went into a slippery slope fallacy all the way to communism. Belief in god has nothing to do with your social, political, or economic position. 

[fotm1]

@proatheism I know the party line. I know what you want to believe about your "faith". It's just not LOOKING like that.

Let's try it this way. Jesus said certain things. People who SAY they love Jesus are often hypocrites, liars, abusers, greedy, & more. When they try to "convert" you to what Jesus said, you know their WORDS don't line up with REALITY. You see the wickedness they do & justify with their faith - so you know their philosophy is VOID. The "ideal" of atheism is FAR from reality.

[proatheism]

@fotm1

It brings no weight to me if Christians are hypocrites are not. I not only deny your psycho analysis, but you know nothing of me to do so. It doesn't matter if every Christian lied, stole, and killed. It is only the evidence that matters.

[fotm1]

@proatheism RIGHT! The evidence is clear to me (and pretty much anybody else that isn't being defensive) that atheism played a part in the deaths of 100 million people. I'm confronted nearly DAILY by aggresive, self-righteous atheists that feel a need to convert me (for my good) to their non-belief system. They DEFINE themselves by their atheism & think about it all day long. They wear it proudly & beat people with it. Then YOU tell me that it could NEVER motivate anybody. I'm not feeling it.

[proatheism]

@fotm1

People are willing to have discussions on their beliefs and they may even try to push you into theirs, but to say that it could lead to killing is a huge stretch. I for one am neutral when it comes to which is better Linux or Windows (I am a computer science major). I see people bantering all the time in lab. Almost yelling matches can sometimes break out, but does that mean they would kill each other. Surely nobody would think so.

[freestuffetd]

@fotm1 they also killed atheist. Religion had nothing to do with it.

[fotm1]

@freestuffetd Bull. 

[Cafeeine]

Atheism is hardly unique. You lack a belief in glorp (a fictitious entity I just invented) Does your lack of belief in glorp coerce you into any actions, at all? Of course not. The only difference with atheism is that theism is ubiquitous, so we stand out more.

[Cafeeine]

The point that any good done is also incidental to atheism is a fair one, but irrelevant. No one is claiming that atheism causes good deeds, just that atheists can in fact be good people, contrary to the religious assertion that we are all depraved sinners that can do no good.

[Cafeeine]

The point of intent is paramount. Most of the good and evil in the world by both theists and atheists is unrelated to either religion or atheism. There are logical pathways from religion to do harm. There are no logical pathways to do harm simply from atheism.

[Cafeeine]

For the record, I don't think you maliciously edited the video (Ive seen it before) although you misrepresented RD in your comments.

The "Allahu Dawkins" did bothered me. Its "Dawkins ackbar!" I shout before I disembowel Christians with a rusty spoon :P

[DeimosSaturn]

Aren't religious people supposed to embrace humility, not mock people for being uncertain?

Btw, richard dawkins is not the "head of atheism". He's a biologist with an opinion that free-thinkers should be more open and out.

[fotm1]

@DeimosSaturn I'm not mocking. I'm urging him to come to scientific conclusions based on real evidence before he tries something like ridding the world of religion! I'm pointing out how much of what he believes is wishful thinking & philosophy, not science as he claims. That "free-thinker" is all about squelching free-thinkers that disagree with him. He is the KING of mocking people. He even mocks the "free-thinker" Stalin and insults his flavor of atheism. Called him evil! (very unscientific)

[DeimosSaturn]

@fotm1 He's not trying to rid the world of religion. His books, which I haven't read, but I know what they are about, urge people to stand up to religion. He blames many of the problems of the world on religion, which I disagree with partially. I see religion as a symptom of a larger problem, which is the proliferation of psychopathic cult leaders such as politicians, priests, and pundits.

And I'll point out again, Dawkins is a scientist with an opinion. So what exactly is YOUR point?

[fotm1]

@DeimosSaturn That's he's not being "scientific" at all. And is, in fact, a rabidly evangelical atheist philosopher masquerading as a scientist. That he dismisses other people's words, but relies on his own to defend himself. That he is under a delusion & will pretty much accept ANY answer to the questions of the universe so long as it doesn't outrightly challenge Darwin OR require a God. Oh, and that's he's not a particularly good scientist OR philosopher (or debater).

Am I being unfair?

[Cafeeine]

@fotm1 Dawkins does not claim the expertise he has as a biologist gives him the same authority when he speaks of religion, and few of the people who agree with him think so.

Dawkins has made his case against religion in his books and in several interviews, debates and essays. For you to pick one interview and rag on him because he gave a terse answer is disingenuous of you.

[DeimosSaturn]

@fotm1 He is a scientist, but you can't apply science to epistemology, math, art, or unfalsifiable claims. And unfortunately for YOU (not the scientists), the claim that a god exists or created the universe is unfalsifiable. As for him being "evangelical", I just have to wonder, why is it necessarily a bad thing for an atheist to spread rational alternatives to superstition, but it's okay for christians to go selling their unproven unprovable snake oil door to door?

So yes, you are being unfair.

[fotm1]

@DeimosSaturn I didn't say there was anything wrong with being "evangelical"! It's just that to be that flies in the face of the argument that it is simply NOT stamp collecting. I think atheists ought to just be HONEST and drop the "non-belief" argument and fess up to the reality that the DO want to urge others to "wise up" and they DO want to affect laws and other things. But they are HIDING behind a cardboard wall with this non-belief thing. If atheism does harm, OWN IT! That's what I did.

[DeimosSaturn]

@fotm1 Atheism and free-thinking are two different but not mutually exclusive ideas. Atheism is by definition nothing more than 1 answer to 1 question. It is the END POINT in a line of reasoning, it is not a STARTING point. Free thinking is the starting point, It is an attitude of fearless questioning. Not being afraid of this made-up threat of eternal torture to analyze a set of beliefs/claims. THAT is what atheists are evangelizing. They are NOT telling people "stop believing in god" they are

[DeimosSaturn]

they are telling people to "think for yourself, question everything, re-evaluate all values". You confuse the way christians operate with the way atheists operate. You go door to door telling people to just accept a claim on blind faith. The free thinker goes door to door telling people to question things, do their own research, educate themselves, think critically, doubt everything, come to their own conclusions. Most of the time, christians have already been primed by their parents to

[DeimosSaturn]

just accept what they tell you or else you'll get in trouble.

[fotm1]

@DeimosSaturn Ok, and you're missing what I've said. I do NOT believe God should be accepted on blind faith. That is not what I did and not what I teach here. And I AM a free thinker and truth seeker - and I FOUND the Truth. I didn't find what I wanted so as to avoid hell. I don't even think in those terms! Frankly, I EXPECT hell. It doesn't matter where God sends me, He is still real and worthy of my obedience. It would HUMANISM to obey God so as to avoid hell or gain heaven!

[Gnomefro]

@fotm1 "I'm urging him to come to scientific conclusions based on real evidence before he tries something like ridding the world of religion!"

Real evidence like the least religious countries on earth universally being the most peaceful and functional? The evidence is easily available, and amusingly, I'm pretty sure Dawkins discusses this in the God Delusion. Even if he doesn't(I can't be bothered to check), this relationship has been well documented by many other atheists.

[fotm1]

@Gnomefro Yeah, the atheists that IGNORE the "least religious countries" of Russia and China that killed 100 million! It's clearly self-serving drivel. You looks to handful of tiny Nordic countries (with high suicide rates by the way) and very little religion, but you IGNORE the outright aggresively atheistic countries that butcher millions. And then call it scientific.

[proatheism]

@fotm1

You have fallen to show a cause effect for your position. And have you compiled religious countries and how many they killed and looked at all the data? I expect you have only really looked into one side of the data.

[fotm1]

@proatheism I HAVE looked at both sides. But the numbers are SO overwhelming that there's no comparison. The atheistic governments killed more people than both World Wars combined. It was the bloodiest century in all of human history. More Christians were martyred for their faith than the previous 1900 years COMBINED. The burden is on YOU to show me why tens of millions of my brothers & sisters were killed by atheists, but I should still trust you and believe that atheism is "safe."

[Gnomefro]

@fotm1 "That "free-thinker" is all about squelching free-thinkers that disagree with him."

What Dawkins and many others insist on is that people must have reasons for what they believe. You are not a "free thinker" if you simply toss moronic ideas out there without evidence or reason and you have no reason to expect to be respected if you can't back up your opinion. All religions are in this category and therefore - at best - can't be distinguished from lies.

[Gnomefro]

@fotm1 I suppose you could sum his position up as calling for humanity to start caring about what's true, and take the next step towards this by actually having real discussions about what is and isn't real, and what we do and don't consider to be beneficial to us. Blind faith has no place in such discussions, because nobody can relate to other people's unfounded claims. It can never produce agreement yet is perfectly capable of producing conflict.

[fotm1]

@Gnomefro I'm really getting tired of you call me an irrational moron. I CANNOT relate your unfounded claim that there is no God. It's just not rational! Your blind faith in such a thing has no place in a discussion. I am person with ABUNDANT evidence in my life to prove God. I am convinced beyond ANY shadow of turning. No torture could change my mind. It is NOT blind faith.

But your blind faith in atheism only produces conflict! You need PROOF there is no God before you call me a moron.

[bugsz1]

Nuts anyone?

[BibleTruth9]

Great video brother. Ive always seen Dawkins as a fast talking, no point kinda guy. He uses big words to sound smart, but I think you've exposed him for is foolishness. Dawkins is no more then a fast talking Politician for Atheism.



[LogicalStatements1]

Fail

[LogicalStatements1]

Lol first you mock his "probably" and then you use a "maybe". LMAO

[fotm1]

@LogicalStatements1 The difference is, I said, "Maybe Richard Dawkins knows something." He said, "Probably the world would be better off without religion." And he has made clear that he WANTS to destroy religion and is living a life consistent with his words. My "maybe" doesn't imply any destructive action to others. It's simply a confirmation of his own uncertainty.

But way to get hung up on the fine print and miss the whole point! Very atheistically consistent of you. ;-)

[Cafeeine]

@fotm1 Dawkins' "perhaps" is an indicator of intellectual honesty, that acknowledges that knowledge is tentative. It doesn't negate reaching a conclusion of the facts already at our disposal and taking action towards it. There is no hypocrisy here, at least on the part of RD.

[LogicalStatements1]

@fotm1 Lol , you manage to miss the whole point of what Richard Dawkins talks about , you see him as a threat , very religiously consistent of you , ya know like all those religious wars , you still don't understand what atheism means LOL you know the definition but you don't understand it.

[QuestionForAtheists]

A question for atheists. In a world where there's no proof of God's existence or of life after death; how will you explain to your children why you brought them into the world and why they should die?

[NonnyMus1]

@ddmissions1 There is no god, yet somehow, we are not ants. We are humans. And there is still good and evil. Most humans instinctively know what is evil: harming other living things, enjoying harming them, stealing necessities from others, oppressing others, etc. Most people know what good is: loving one another, helping those in trouble, granting equal rights to all (not just the ones you like), etc.

A person without god tends to do what they choose, and what they choose tends to be good.

[NonnyMus1]

@NonnyMus1 P.S. Please learn a lot more physics and biology before you attempt to match up a philosophical concept such as evil and a scientific concept such as chaos or order. Thanks!

[IsaacBG84]

@NonnyMus1

"A person without god tends to do what they choose, and what they choose tends to be good. "

Indeed...but also is a secondary path, the evil one that many people choose to folow and we can see the devastating effect in our world today. The Bible tells us that the heart of man tend to be evil rather than good and it has a corrupted nature from birth that doenst help him to make the right choice, anyway even if we "behave" at some point of our live it doenst compensate the evil in us

[NonnyMus1]

Ummm... "creatively" editing some of Dawkins' interviews with other questions doesn't prove anything except that you have edited some of Dawkins' interviews. And I really don't understand the second paragraph of your description. Are you saying that atheism is a religion or are you saying that we should make it a religion or what? And I don't see how the second sentence follows from the first. I'm plenty motivated, so... huh?

[fotm1]

@NonnyMus1 First of all, I didn't "creatively edit" anything. That interview was one continuous sitdown and all I did was pause at certain points and interject. I did NOT have him answering different questions, nor did I delete any of his responses. There was nothing dishonest done with the video itself, just pauses to comment. You can find it in its entirety online.

And my point is that, for many, atheism has ALREADY become a self-made, quasi-religion despite all objects to the contrary.

[Telamnar]

@ddmissions1 Oh, boy.

Humans are animals by the scientific definition. If nothing else you might want to learn a bit about that.

[NonnyMus1]

@Telamnar Yeah, you have to start *REALLY* basic with the religious nuts. Think kindergarden. This is a group of people who call ancient stories "fact" and documented history "fantasy". Their argument style often degenerates into a "Oh yeah, well you're a poopyhead" kind of tantrum.

So, think kindergarden level. That's been my experience, anyway.

[Telamnar]

@NonnyMus1 Ditto, almost entirely. Sad, isn't it...

[NonnyMus1]

@Telamnar Yes.

[PopeThunder]

@NonnyMus1 I hear the same thing about atheist nuts.  On its own, the video makes good arguments.

[wordword31]

Wonderful, but you need a narrator.