My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of Darwinian theory we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories. Richard Dawkins.
To know of the great influence of heredity and environment is not to excuse immoral behavior but to understand it better and to begin to apply better remedies, treatments and justice. For example, to give parole or a short imprisonment instead of death for stealing a loaf of bread, seems good to me.
A God whose behavior is just too weird to explain except by "greatly diminished capacity" or malevolence is not for me. Most advancement of reason and morality have come from the more secular minds and communities of the past 500 years. Yes even scientific studies contribute to a better explanation of human sickness, behavior, and morality. The facts derived from the study of identical twins alone show the enormous impact heredity has on mankind.
Atheists may not follow an absolute morality and sometimes today's accepted morality has become too unhinged. But anyone who follows the Bible to the letter is a cretin. Reason things out, debate and discuss morality and change the laws but don't just accept the weird Biblical morality of slavery, inequality for women, stoning and killing of bad children .. of non-virgin brides .. and of those who work Sabbath. Just to name a few of the wretched teachings found in the Bibles.
he talked about the punishments, things that had to be done for "sin" or whatever you want to call apostasy and adultery and all that. but i really feel that Jesus changed all that, at least for Christians. These things do not happen in the church any more. just wanted to say that. i just want to know where morality comes from. i personally don't think that morality can evolve with the rest of life. any information anyone would like to share? i mean this in a non offensive way
If there is no God, then there are no absolute morality, simple. It's all relative. Each person decides what is wrong and what is right.
So a murderer is not wrong, a rapist is not wrong, a thief is not wrong. Infact, that would mean what Hitler and Stalin did was not wrong. Because it's all relative. Each person/society decides what's right and wrong.
This is what atheists don't understand.
I for one believe there are absolutes. And all of the above examples are absolutely wrong.
@natenation You missed the point. We have come a long way since we became a secular society and not despite the fact we live in one. Morals have changed for the better.
Dr Liane Young proved that morality, as Jeremy Bentham suspected, is due to our natural repulsion to purposefully causing the suffering of another being.
We evolved this because, well, we HAD to to have gotten this far. There was selection pressure for it. Those that act 'morally' survive better than those that do not.
Richard Mutha Fuckin Dawkins son! Why do religous people bother to ask him anything? Further more, Why does this fuckin silly notion of morality from the bible keep coming up? People like Richard and Bill Maher are unarguably more moral than their counter parts like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible. Papacy cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
its funny i just barely stumbled on this guy but his views and philosophy i exactly identical to what i believe in!!! and besides i dont read philosophy books to comee up with my own i think philosophy should be a personal realization or your truth based on truth, science, and personal experience once you follow that basic formula... youll see that your point of view would match all those renowned thinkers and philophers.
Before you (audience) sheep clap (I assume these sheep can stand on their hind hoofs), you should realise 'rational discussion' is a nice, fuzzy buzz word that makes everyone feel nice but actually doesn't mean anything.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
1) Lunchtime discussion on Oxford on the 'Oxford Debate'
2) "Is God a Delusion?" lecture with panel response (unless Dawkins shows up to debate!)
Run, Dawkins, run!! Keep running from Dr. Craig, from debate, from truth. That's the best thing you can do to keep your followers!!!!!!!!
In case you followers don't know, he's been avoiding Dr. Craig, for he... is afraid to death of debating him!!! LOL... Even an atheist publicly accused him of cowardice!!!
Dawkins has followed the advice of his late colleague Stephen Jay Gould and refused to participate in formal debates with creationists because "what they seek is the oxygen of respectability", and doing so would "give them this oxygen by the mere act of engaging with them at all." He suggests that creationists "don't mind being beaten in an argument. What matters is that we give them recognition by bothering to argue with them in public.
@Teeteejay000 My dear naive friend... He won't debate ANYBODY WHO COULD PUBLICLY SHOW HIS IGNORANCE because this way he doesn't have to present arguments to catch less educated minds.
@feanando As much as I don't have evidence that's the reason why he would withdraw himself, you don't have any too. We can't read his mind, unless he admits it, and we couldn't even trust that.
So I'm going to stick with the hypothesis that he is either avoiding him because he's lazy to discuss it with him/didn't notice the 'Dr Craig'. Also, show evidence that proves Dawkins was in the same room as the instigator of the debate.
@feanando If you want to see craig refuted I would reccomend th1swasatriumph he has a whole series devoted to either mocking stupid things craig says or refuting the intelligent things.
Hey guys, I am the one who pressed the 'dislike' button for the above video. Am I the only person who dislikes the theme brought forward in the above video?
Ask yourself: If evolution theory is true, how come scientists cannot create simple life forms from non-living matter?
@Porsche918 To hell with America and their atheist european friends. Hopefully American soldiers will get killed in the Middle East whether their atheists or not. You're American, right?
@Invesigator if the big bang theory is true, how come scientists can't create mini universes in their labs? That's equivalent to what you're asking. Just because scientists don't have the means to reproduce something they discover in nature doesn't mean it's not real.
@Invesigator Evolution is the process of how living things change over time. It is NOT the process of how life began. My car runs by burning gasoline, it starts with a electrical spark. These are two different properities of the universe. One starts, the other continues. Just be because we don't know the spark does not disprove what we have observed. We aren't sure 100% on how the moon was formed, but that doesn't disprove its existence.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Evolution theory is insufficient in describing the origins of human beings. Would you believe that a computer system came about without a designer? The human brain is many times a more complex system than a computer system.
@Invesigator Interesting. You don't understand evolutionary theory, yet you feel qualified to debunk it? Please. Evolution is a proven fact, with alarming amounts of evidence. If you think it's not, then provide a reasonable experiment that proves that it fails. Otherwise, your opinion weighs nothing.
@Invesigator I can meet the designer of a computer system before I die. I can understand how he did what he did by looking at the circuits and code. The computer system is probably full of bugs. The human body is full of bugs as well, can we assume then that God is not perfect?
@Invesigator Yes, nature is our designer, not god. But thank you for giving us three loosely based sentences on something other than what this video is about.
@Invesigator your comment reads "i am personally convinced that their must have been a designer, my friends and colleagues also agree. I cannot conceive of something that is beyond my cognitive abilities, therefore i condemn science as fraudelent banter". Your comment is an opinion, nothing more. So is mine in fact, but i like mine better :)
@Invesigator Evolution doesn't speak to the origin of life, but on the evolution of life (that's why it's called evolution). As to the evolution of the brain, if you understood how evolution worked, it is an elegantly simple solution.
@Invesigator if this is the best question that you can come up with...I am not impressed. But here's a question for you: if God is almighty, can he create a rock so heavy that he himself can not lift it ??
Just before 1:38 Dawkins lists a host of virtues which he claims are recent and and started by secular atheism. In other words he is praising western syphilisation for distancing itself from religious morality and endorsing atheism. This leads us to ask: Is religiosity OR western secularism responsible for starting the following wars: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia?
It only takes one to destroy a theory. ok here is my one ‘If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…’
Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.
@jchassy You're taking the word of a sick man as how all atheists think? You're also admitting to agree that people only do good out of fear in spending eternity in hell. That, sir/miss, is not the definition of good. A good person will do good, regardless of the existence of a god to punish you. If that fails, we have the police and prisons that make up stay accountable. What would you have said if Dahmer had said "God told me to kill these people." I'm sure the old "Not a true scottsman".
@gfaraj no I'm not saying that people don't only do good that believe in god or a higher I'm just disproving the statement dawkins said that only atheist always provide good such as he claimed that the change in morality of how we treat humans and animals were the thoughts of atheist and only atheist there by saying that only an atheist can only produce good.
@jchassy Is that really what you got out of the video? You apparently did not understand what he said, not even one bit. He's arguing against religious absolute moralities, arguing that morality has been changing through time by secularism and reason (not atheism) and that he wants a morality that is "thought-out, reasoned, argued, discussed". In other words: let's stop getting our morality from a highly outdated book. Times change and we can certainly do better.
@gfaraj I agree with that. He still shouldn't have leaned towards the way that only atheist can only do goo when I think that not only group of people can make good it has to be the whole entire world to join together and make good or change the morality of life as we know it.
In typical atheist fundie fashion, Dawkins begins with ancient Biblical code to gather an emotion response from his audience rather that meet the question posed. Claims on absolute morality no more badly flawed than culturally relatvistic claims if they too stand up to critical scrutinty, appealing to universal truth. His video is nothing but equivocation and blowing smoke up asses. Or arses.
"In typical atheist fundie fashion, Dawkins begins with ancient Biblical code to gather an emotion response from his audience rather that meet the question posed. "
I think you are missing the point. The point is that when you don't discuss WHY things are moral or immoral, you get situations like that. Where things are moral "just 'cause." That shouldn't be the way that rational human beings conduct themselves.
@silentdrowning Question: Without religion where do we get an absolute morality?
Answer: I don't think morality should be absolute, I think that it should be thought about, questioned, put under scrutiny. Further, you ignore the parts of religious scripture that by today's standards would be deemed unacceptable, which by definition of an absolute morality (i.e. a morality that cannot be questioned or challenged) could have only been acquired by secular means.
His "rolling consensus" paradigm is a followup to his laundry list of ancient penal code examples. This doesn't relate to, at all, to the ? of absolute morality--an error of reasoning on Dawkins part. A sleight of hand that avoids the possibility of absolute morality that transcends reasonable, culturally, meted out forms of punishment/reward from critical analysis.
Watch again. The choice of punishment/reward from moral secular reasoning is still derived from absolute assumptions.
Dawkins is confusing the question posed about the viability of absolute morality with that of the exercise of punishment. His textual examples highlight exercises of punishment (based on notions of absolute morality) which can change, but he doesn't create a an argument for, nor does he defeat, the possibility of absolute morality. Rhetoric fail.
@silentdrowning Actually, *YOU* are confusing the question. "Would it not be an irrational leap of faith for an atheist to decide between right and wrong?" Dawkins expertly demonstrates that any claims of an existing absolute morality are badly flawed and that secular moral philosophy is a far more rational way of determining right and wrong.
Except he does do that. He makes the case for a dynamic and relative system of morality that is based on a rolling consensus and subject to continual criticism. He argues that at any given point in time, what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' should be the product of contemporary intellectual debate. Therefore, there is no 'absolute' morality that transcends time and cultures.
Comment removed
DIEGOPSYCHE 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of Darwinian theory we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories. Richard Dawkins.
DerektheDuctTape 3 weeks ago
Love the captions
jonzadamonza 1 month ago
Comment removed
DIEGOPSYCHE 1 month ago
@DIEGOPSYCHE not sure if you're "trolling" or just being dumb as fuck
aNxello 2 weeks ago
Very well said, could not have put it better.
MatPav2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MatPav2 I used to be an atheist. I'm now Catholic (about 2 years, now).
"Atheist to Catholic: 11 Stories of Conversion" by Rebecca V. Cherico is a worthwhile read.
megaead69 1 month ago
To know of the great influence of heredity and environment is not to excuse immoral behavior but to understand it better and to begin to apply better remedies, treatments and justice. For example, to give parole or a short imprisonment instead of death for stealing a loaf of bread, seems good to me.
11xzxzxz 2 months ago
A God whose behavior is just too weird to explain except by "greatly diminished capacity" or malevolence is not for me. Most advancement of reason and morality have come from the more secular minds and communities of the past 500 years. Yes even scientific studies contribute to a better explanation of human sickness, behavior, and morality. The facts derived from the study of identical twins alone show the enormous impact heredity has on mankind.
11xzxzxz 2 months ago
Atheists may not follow an absolute morality and sometimes today's accepted morality has become too unhinged. But anyone who follows the Bible to the letter is a cretin. Reason things out, debate and discuss morality and change the laws but don't just accept the weird Biblical morality of slavery, inequality for women, stoning and killing of bad children .. of non-virgin brides .. and of those who work Sabbath. Just to name a few of the wretched teachings found in the Bibles.
11xzxzxz 2 months ago
It's about moral absolutes. If there is no God, then atheist have to be moral relativist.
natenation 2 months ago
he talked about the punishments, things that had to be done for "sin" or whatever you want to call apostasy and adultery and all that. but i really feel that Jesus changed all that, at least for Christians. These things do not happen in the church any more. just wanted to say that. i just want to know where morality comes from. i personally don't think that morality can evolve with the rest of life. any information anyone would like to share? i mean this in a non offensive way
bmac111260 2 months ago
If there is no God, then there are no absolute morality, simple. It's all relative. Each person decides what is wrong and what is right.
So a murderer is not wrong, a rapist is not wrong, a thief is not wrong. Infact, that would mean what Hitler and Stalin did was not wrong. Because it's all relative. Each person/society decides what's right and wrong.
This is what atheists don't understand.
I for one believe there are absolutes. And all of the above examples are absolutely wrong.
natenation 2 months ago
@natenation You missed the point. We have come a long way since we became a secular society and not despite the fact we live in one. Morals have changed for the better.
internetloevmachine 2 months ago
What an intelligent and articulate man! :)
SweetMintPie555 3 months ago
i can do whatever i want murder someone who says thats wrong
WatchYoFucknLanguage 4 months ago
Dr Liane Young proved that morality, as Jeremy Bentham suspected, is due to our natural repulsion to purposefully causing the suffering of another being.
We evolved this because, well, we HAD to to have gotten this far. There was selection pressure for it. Those that act 'morally' survive better than those that do not.
seansalvador1 4 months ago
Richard Mutha Fuckin Dawkins son! Why do religous people bother to ask him anything? Further more, Why does this fuckin silly notion of morality from the bible keep coming up? People like Richard and Bill Maher are unarguably more moral than their counter parts like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.
FreeMindedAthiest 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hello if your a UK citizen and believe that evoloution should be taught earlier in schools please copy this addres into your browser
epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/19119
lsynno 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible. Papacy cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
Comment removed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
its funny i just barely stumbled on this guy but his views and philosophy i exactly identical to what i believe in!!! and besides i dont read philosophy books to comee up with my own i think philosophy should be a personal realization or your truth based on truth, science, and personal experience once you follow that basic formula... youll see that your point of view would match all those renowned thinkers and philophers.
iyot1020 4 months ago
Just like the word 'actually' in my last sentence lol.
RAD88 4 months ago
Before you (audience) sheep clap (I assume these sheep can stand on their hind hoofs), you should realise 'rational discussion' is a nice, fuzzy buzz word that makes everyone feel nice but actually doesn't mean anything.
RAD88 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
Well dodged Dawkins.
jonnycwilson 5 months ago
@jonnycwilson I'm confused. Are you trying to say that he avoided actually answering the question?.. because that would be very silly.
iseefurtherthanyou 5 months ago in playlist More videos from tpr007
England - Tue Oct 25, 2011
1) Lunchtime discussion on Oxford on the 'Oxford Debate'
2) "Is God a Delusion?" lecture with panel response (unless Dawkins shows up to debate!)
Run, Dawkins, run!! Keep running from Dr. Craig, from debate, from truth. That's the best thing you can do to keep your followers!!!!!!!!
In case you followers don't know, he's been avoiding Dr. Craig, for he... is afraid to death of debating him!!! LOL... Even an atheist publicly accused him of cowardice!!!
feanando 5 months ago
@feanando stfu, troll. idiotic religious nut.
iseefurtherthanyou 5 months ago in playlist More videos from tpr007
@iseefurtherthanyou Love you too, pal...
feanando 5 months ago
@feanando
Dawkins has followed the advice of his late colleague Stephen Jay Gould and refused to participate in formal debates with creationists because "what they seek is the oxygen of respectability", and doing so would "give them this oxygen by the mere act of engaging with them at all." He suggests that creationists "don't mind being beaten in an argument. What matters is that we give them recognition by bothering to argue with them in public.
Teeteejay000 5 months ago
@Teeteejay000 My dear naive friend... He won't debate ANYBODY WHO COULD PUBLICLY SHOW HIS IGNORANCE because this way he doesn't have to present arguments to catch less educated minds.
And, of course, because he is a coward.
feanando 5 months ago
@feanando As much as I don't have evidence that's the reason why he would withdraw himself, you don't have any too. We can't read his mind, unless he admits it, and we couldn't even trust that.
So I'm going to stick with the hypothesis that he is either avoiding him because he's lazy to discuss it with him/didn't notice the 'Dr Craig'. Also, show evidence that proves Dawkins was in the same room as the instigator of the debate.
My dear unstable friend.
Teeteejay000 5 months ago
@Teeteejay000 Nice belief! LOL... You are a believer!!! So stable!!!! LOL...
feanando 5 months ago
@feanando If you want to see craig refuted I would reccomend th1swasatriumph he has a whole series devoted to either mocking stupid things craig says or refuting the intelligent things.
JimothyMcgee 3 months ago
@JimothyMcgee Shit, man... you made me waste my time. Your friend asked a quotation to prove the claim that "evil exists"...
feanando 3 months ago
i hate stacked audiences like that
DeviousInco 5 months ago
i love this man
725672567256 5 months ago
Morality: doing what is right, regardless of what your told
Religion: doing what your told, regardless of what is right
herbs772 5 months ago 31
@herbs772 Damn, that's Brilliant...
railstoruin 5 months ago
@herbs772 Religion: doing what is right for your own personal gain
DangerMickey 1 month ago
Chuck Norris Goes to bed wearing Dawkins pyjamas
darkrx777 5 months ago 2
"Off come the glasses..." hahaha well done.
TheoBrixtonTheKid 6 months ago
i was waiting for him to say you are fired ^.^
SaudiMajix 6 months ago
OWNED
GrandTheftAuto4Films 6 months ago
pwned
offsetsammy 6 months ago
Hey guys, I am the one who pressed the 'dislike' button for the above video. Am I the only person who dislikes the theme brought forward in the above video?
Ask yourself: If evolution theory is true, how come scientists cannot create simple life forms from non-living matter?
Invesigator 6 months ago
@Invesigator Look up miller-urey experiment.
boomheadshot191 6 months ago
@Invesigator I disliked it too just to make you feel like less of a special faggot.
Porsche918 6 months ago
@Porsche918 What is your reason for disliking the video, faggot?
Invesigator 6 months ago
@Porsche918 To hell with America and their atheist european friends. Hopefully American soldiers will get killed in the Middle East whether their atheists or not. You're American, right?
Invesigator 6 months ago
@Invesigator if the big bang theory is true, how come scientists can't create mini universes in their labs? That's equivalent to what you're asking. Just because scientists don't have the means to reproduce something they discover in nature doesn't mean it's not real.
offsetsammy 6 months ago
@Invesigator Just because they havent yet doesnt mean its not possible. Your absolutionist mindset is what keeps you in the stoneages.
GrandTheftAuto4Films 6 months ago
@Invesigator Evolution is the process of how living things change over time. It is NOT the process of how life began. My car runs by burning gasoline, it starts with a electrical spark. These are two different properities of the universe. One starts, the other continues. Just be because we don't know the spark does not disprove what we have observed. We aren't sure 100% on how the moon was formed, but that doesn't disprove its existence.
Rogersmith026 6 months ago
@Invesigator
If the earth is real then how come scientists cannot create another earth *folds arms*
Cha4k 6 months ago
off comes the glasses...
xxxxcryptlordxxxx 6 months ago 3
It's sad that there are so many morons in this world that he has to point this out.
PicklesReallySuck 6 months ago 2
When Dawkins removes his glasses, you know that there is going to be a Hitch-Slap in progress.
awaizy 6 months ago 7
a drubbing
moneycrab 6 months ago
FINISH HIM!!
gladefoam 6 months ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Evolution theory is insufficient in describing the origins of human beings. Would you believe that a computer system came about without a designer? The human brain is many times a more complex system than a computer system.
Invesigator 6 months ago
@Invesigator Interesting. You don't understand evolutionary theory, yet you feel qualified to debunk it? Please. Evolution is a proven fact, with alarming amounts of evidence. If you think it's not, then provide a reasonable experiment that proves that it fails. Otherwise, your opinion weighs nothing.
gfaraj 6 months ago 2
@Invesigator I can meet the designer of a computer system before I die. I can understand how he did what he did by looking at the circuits and code. The computer system is probably full of bugs. The human body is full of bugs as well, can we assume then that God is not perfect?
gfaraj 6 months ago
@Invesigator Evolution theory has nothing to do with the abiogenesis etc.
PicklesReallySuck 6 months ago
@Invesigator This non-sequitur argument is a perfect example of the argument from creationists. Thank you for providing it.
tpr007 6 months ago 24
@Invesigator Yes, nature is our designer, not god. But thank you for giving us three loosely based sentences on something other than what this video is about.
TheColbearRepoorer 6 months ago
@Invesigator your comment reads "i am personally convinced that their must have been a designer, my friends and colleagues also agree. I cannot conceive of something that is beyond my cognitive abilities, therefore i condemn science as fraudelent banter". Your comment is an opinion, nothing more. So is mine in fact, but i like mine better :)
725672567256 5 months ago
@Invesigator Evolution doesn't speak to the origin of life, but on the evolution of life (that's why it's called evolution). As to the evolution of the brain, if you understood how evolution worked, it is an elegantly simple solution.
mikepictor 5 months ago
@Invesigator if this is the best question that you can come up with...I am not impressed. But here's a question for you: if God is almighty, can he create a rock so heavy that he himself can not lift it ??
*ba dum tss*
anteracmacash 5 months ago
@Invesigator
So with your logic... 1. Men are human. 2. Mary is human. 3. Therefore, Mary is a man.
Hm...
codeythesilent 5 months ago
@Invesigator In your opinion of course.
FreeMindedAthiest 4 months ago
@Invesigator
Synthetic(man made) vs observed naturally occurring chemical reactions and organic reproduction.
TheMrgoku1985 3 months ago
Just before 1:38 Dawkins lists a host of virtues which he claims are recent and and started by secular atheism. In other words he is praising western syphilisation for distancing itself from religious morality and endorsing atheism. This leads us to ask: Is religiosity OR western secularism responsible for starting the following wars: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia?
Invesigator 6 months ago
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: Europe is an atheist and immoral continent that hates Islam.
Invesigator 6 months ago
It only takes one to destroy a theory. ok here is my one ‘If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…’
Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.
jchassy 6 months ago
@jchassy You're taking the word of a sick man as how all atheists think? You're also admitting to agree that people only do good out of fear in spending eternity in hell. That, sir/miss, is not the definition of good. A good person will do good, regardless of the existence of a god to punish you. If that fails, we have the police and prisons that make up stay accountable. What would you have said if Dahmer had said "God told me to kill these people." I'm sure the old "Not a true scottsman".
gfaraj 6 months ago
@gfaraj no I'm not saying that people don't only do good that believe in god or a higher I'm just disproving the statement dawkins said that only atheist always provide good such as he claimed that the change in morality of how we treat humans and animals were the thoughts of atheist and only atheist there by saying that only an atheist can only produce good.
jchassy 6 months ago
@jchassy Is that really what you got out of the video? You apparently did not understand what he said, not even one bit. He's arguing against religious absolute moralities, arguing that morality has been changing through time by secularism and reason (not atheism) and that he wants a morality that is "thought-out, reasoned, argued, discussed". In other words: let's stop getting our morality from a highly outdated book. Times change and we can certainly do better.
gfaraj 6 months ago
@gfaraj I agree with that. He still shouldn't have leaned towards the way that only atheist can only do goo when I think that not only group of people can make good it has to be the whole entire world to join together and make good or change the morality of life as we know it.
jchassy 6 months ago
Why doesn't god regrow arms and legs of people who lost arms and legs?
God must hate amputees because god only seems to cure only diseases and other simple things.
.
Enlightenment777 6 months ago
If religion is important for morality, then why doesn't your pet dog kill and eat you?
Enlightenment777 6 months ago
In typical atheist fundie fashion, Dawkins begins with ancient Biblical code to gather an emotion response from his audience rather that meet the question posed. Claims on absolute morality no more badly flawed than culturally relatvistic claims if they too stand up to critical scrutinty, appealing to universal truth. His video is nothing but equivocation and blowing smoke up asses. Or arses.
silentdrowning 6 months ago
@silentdrowning
"In typical atheist fundie fashion, Dawkins begins with ancient Biblical code to gather an emotion response from his audience rather that meet the question posed. "
I think you are missing the point. The point is that when you don't discuss WHY things are moral or immoral, you get situations like that. Where things are moral "just 'cause." That shouldn't be the way that rational human beings conduct themselves.
biscuithammer00 6 months ago 2
@silentdrowning
And in typical religious fashion you ignore every valid point he makes.
DudeSpectre 6 months ago 2
@silentdrowning Question: Without religion where do we get an absolute morality?
Answer: I don't think morality should be absolute, I think that it should be thought about, questioned, put under scrutiny. Further, you ignore the parts of religious scripture that by today's standards would be deemed unacceptable, which by definition of an absolute morality (i.e. a morality that cannot be questioned or challenged) could have only been acquired by secular means.
authorless 6 months ago
DAYUM SON.
IamDizZzy 6 months ago
His "rolling consensus" paradigm is a followup to his laundry list of ancient penal code examples. This doesn't relate to, at all, to the ? of absolute morality--an error of reasoning on Dawkins part. A sleight of hand that avoids the possibility of absolute morality that transcends reasonable, culturally, meted out forms of punishment/reward from critical analysis.
Watch again. The choice of punishment/reward from moral secular reasoning is still derived from absolute assumptions.
silentdrowning 6 months ago
So which one do you shit from now, kid?
makapav 6 months ago
Oh shit son, that must have hurt.
thequeenofspades 6 months ago 4
All the good atheists are British. :D
Task5003 6 months ago
@Task5003 What, no Sam Harris?
deathfromabove66 6 months ago
Comment removed
Task5003 6 months ago
Oh shit, I forget all about him and Daniel Dennett.
OK, maybe not *all* the good atheists are British... :3
Task5003 6 months ago
Dawkins is confusing the question posed about the viability of absolute morality with that of the exercise of punishment. His textual examples highlight exercises of punishment (based on notions of absolute morality) which can change, but he doesn't create a an argument for, nor does he defeat, the possibility of absolute morality. Rhetoric fail.
silentdrowning 6 months ago
@silentdrowning Actually, *YOU* are confusing the question. "Would it not be an irrational leap of faith for an atheist to decide between right and wrong?" Dawkins expertly demonstrates that any claims of an existing absolute morality are badly flawed and that secular moral philosophy is a far more rational way of determining right and wrong.
BAM! Sup son!
Crioca 6 months ago 2
@silentdrowning You're an idiot. Watch the video again and this time pay attention.
zzFallens 6 months ago
@silentdrowning
Except he does do that. He makes the case for a dynamic and relative system of morality that is based on a rolling consensus and subject to continual criticism. He argues that at any given point in time, what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' should be the product of contemporary intellectual debate. Therefore, there is no 'absolute' morality that transcends time and cultures.
But cool story bro.
cerebrallawlsy 6 months ago 5
Dawkins FTW!!!!
jelxym 6 months ago
It's like watching a teacher teach a student a really hard lesson. Oh.. it's EXACTLY like that actually. :D
dummychaos 6 months ago 2
Pwn'd. lol
Valthepixie 6 months ago
You tell'em, Richard!
Turandot29 6 months ago
*Takes off the glasses*
Hillarious :D
naida42 6 months ago
he's absolutely right
Reiff444 6 months ago
Like a boss.
Xamaza 6 months ago 67
Boohya in your face ;)
annata12 6 months ago
FUCK yeah!
M3t4lManiac 6 months ago 49
@M3t4lManiac You don't want theists to be right because you do not want to be held accountable for your crimes in this world. Am I right?
Invesigator 6 months ago
@Invesigator No. But I'm guessing you're used to that.
M3t4lManiac 6 months ago