"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"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
Atheism is now "trendy" and "cool" which is why the hipsters have gone mad for it even though they really don't even know what that implies. Of course this cheapens it for those who have considered their position (theist or atheist). But then why be so small minded as to need a label for your life either way ? Let the hispters fade (and they eventually will when something "cooler" comes along) and then lets have a conversation.
@bowiemott i have noticed this too, most athiests havent even read the origin of species, yet they defend the theory of evolution to the end, because richard dawkins told them its true, or whoever they listen too, its sad really, its the same as a christian who believes every word of the bible with no evidence, most athiests are just following the popular athiests on television with no evidence at all. they have faith in scientists the same as religion has faith in there priest.
@Bouser Is dawkins himself ot a scientist, therefore listening to him and reading his books would hardly be the same as a christian following the word of the bible and dawkins books are backed with large amounts of evidence
@Bouser One thing you should realise about science is that the truth always wins in the end. The reason for this is that to make a scientific claim you must have evidence ie, your claim must be testable. Every new idea in science is tested and is not accepted as true until sufficient evidence is provided. You can have faith in science because science simply seeks the truth. It is impossible to find evidence that religion is valid so your faith is forever blind.
@bowiemott i'll disagree with atheism because hipsters are heavily involved...when you disagree with christianity because of the red necks that are just as heavily involved. geher!
@lloydgar01 You could be bisexual? Just thought i'd throw that in!
I'm not atheist, I think you have to be incredibly bleak to say there's absolutely nothing but science holding reality together. I'm not religious either, it doesn't seem to promote thinking outside "the box". I practice astral projection and lucid dreaming and I have to say both have had a profound impact on my spiritual insight and beliefs. It has to be experienced.
Atheism is still a cult, albeit aimed at "logical" thinkers.
@ChainsawGutsFuck you could be bisexual, absolutely. fence sitting is fine.
and it's not that science is holding reality together: it's that science is holding our understanding of reality together. science isn't the universe, it's just a measurement of the universe.
and as it's true that there are those who practice upon their own beliefs (such as yourself) and those who follow an organised religion; and it's true that certain atheisms are becoming organised in their ways.
@lloydgar01 Ultimately, i've always thought it more important that an individual believes in what they truly believe in. By that I mean not believing what they are told is right even if they don't agree with it, or just going along with whichever group's largest - but asking questions and trying to find what makes the most sense to them, no matter how "utlandish it might sound to anyone else. And then keeping that to themselves, not trying to "convert" others. I see that as a sign of weakness.
it's great for people to let their ideas out and have them argued upon. that's one of the ways we evolve our ideals of where we come from and how we should morally act.
Science is dogmatic by solely relying on the limited five human senses in its observations alone. It not only can't answer truths in human morality, justice, emotions and ones self awareness as an individual with free-will; it discounts all of these carte blanc as mere biochemical illusions via a limited world-view. If bacteria had it's own logic & reason then used the scientific method how would they perceive the same world we live in with their senses, would we be mindless to them? Cont>
Cont> Science is just as presumptuous a human proposition and just as dogmatic and limited as a truth seeking method as a false religion. Science is only a sub-set of human philosophy but it's proposition as the sole truth mechanism discounts the very notion of truth in humanity and philosophy as no more than biochemical illusory. In this world-view philosophy has birthed a god called science which has proven it's own mother to be a myth! Cont>
Cont> Science can try to discover what we are as humans within are own very limited view by our five senses alone but it can never inform us of who we are with this method. Are we made in God's image or evolution's freak of nature? It is just as self-evident as ourself itself is that who we are as mankind is solely God's intent and will and not the science of man's reasoning without heeding one's soul in the balance to judge!
@WILLTHEWGMAN actually, science takes into consideration (see quantum physics) that what we see and percieve is not absolute, but rather most likely. this text you're reading now most likely exists, and it most likely exists within the vicinity you're looking at; the likeliness of it being 3cm, 5cm, etc...away from where you're looking exponentially declines. this is just a theory, which means we have sub-atomic evidence of it, but no proof as of yet.
@WILLTHEWGMAN and fyi, science was founded by fundamentalist atheists to disprove religion and god, and to ONLY let us see and accept things within the 4 dimensions we perceive. lol
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
See Hitchens lose in debate at WWWW . SHOCKAWENOW . N E T The crowd actually starts laughing at his stall and evasion tacticts. Even atheists admit he lost this debate to a much wiser Christian theist.
"Doctor?" "Scientist?" What a joke; this guy is an imbecile. It is especially funny that he completely missed the point, misunderstood, and inadvertently agreed with Dawkins.
I'm an atheist, and I picked my morals up from life experiences not from a god. I'm from the south religious people are everywhere, and to me christians and religious people in general are some of the most morally corrupt people I've ever seen in my life.
@mmawilldesha Damn straight, nearly all of the christians in my community are gossiping, lying hypocrites who get made at others for gossiping or lying
Burton Russell, An atheist said... “I find my own views quite incredible, because I cannot live as though ethical values were simply a matter of my personal taste. But I do not know the solution to my predicament". By his own admission his views left him insufficient in the area of morality. Mackie, and atheist, said that the idea of morality is so complex that aside from a personal God there is no way to explain it. Science itself is insufficent to provide solid ideas for a livable society.
RD says @ 1:38 "I've got a whole chapter in my book though I don't have time to read from" - which is code for "go buy my book". Its interesting that authors , be they atheist, christian, or muslim, will still hawk their book at every opportunity.
@bowiemott People are going because they are interested in the speakers or the topic, he is saying if you are interested in what he's talking about, there's more about it in his book. Nothing wrong with this.
@Bernardatious Well, they don't, they are concepts that we as a fairly highly evolved primate species have come up with so as to differentiate between those actions which we view as being beneficial in some way "good", in other words and detrimental in other ways "evil". Those concepts of good and evil are entirely subjective, what is evil to some may be good to others and vice versa.
@420HashSmoker You're right. Good and evil don't exist in any absolute sense. "Good" and "evil" are just terms we use to describe what we subjectively view as beneficial or harmful. They are just personal biases.
@SHIBBYiPANDA Its definitely not enough for me lol. Think about it. If morals are simply a human bias, then Adolf Hitler has his own bias and Mother Theresa has her own bias. Neither of them are right or wrong in any absolute sense. Hitler slaughters people: Mother Theresa saves them. Nobody has any right to tell them that they were right or wrong.
@Bernardatious Yes. But right and wrong can only apply within a set, given, context.. So if the context question is "was Hitler acting in his own best self interest or the human race's best self interest?" you can easily still say "no" and if the question is if what he did was right or wrong within that context, you can say he was wrong. Conversely, if the question was, "within the context of how to best damage the human race, was hitler right?" you'd easily say he was in the right there.. LOL!
@heptadecagon he explains morality from the perspective of why he would do it for selfish reasons, in other words, unless it affects him somehow, it is irrational.
@teachingsonheaven I looked at the video again, and I don't see where he does this, would you give the time in the video where he starts? I will give answers your other comments, which I have been thinking about, but I haven't finished them. Very likely some time this week.
@teachingsonheaven First, my apologies for my tardiness, I was occupied with other obligations and have also I fallen sick. I've looked at the video again, and I can find no spot where he says this. (cont'd)
@teachingsonheaven Dawkins doesn't say it's OK to be moral because of the prospect of future benefit, he says that it's possible for such behavior in early times to have become internalized in our genes and thus formed the foundation, or served as a stepping stone, to modern morality. At the end of the video he clearly states that he agrees with the questioner that the source of morality is a difficult question, but "thank goodness we are" moral the way we are. (cont'd)
@teachingsonheaven When he says it is contemptible to be moral for God, he means that if the only reason one has for being moral is fear of God, then that is contemptible. That is, if the only reason one is moral is fear of punishment, in this case by God, then that is contemptible.
@teachingsonheaven Much of the morality the Bible preaches is rather harsh, like the killing of adulterers and homosexuals, and God's example is often appalling by today's standards. Consider for example, holding humanity for ransom until Jesus died a barbaric death for the mistake of the newly created and knowledge thirsty Adam and Eve, which God surely knew was going to happen anyway.
@heptadecagon Yes, in the old testament. But not the new,..the old testament was aimed at bringing a law to the Jewish people, not the world. Although they may be very strict rules, at that time for those people it was needed. I dont really care what the Oxford dictionary says, because it is not the actual meaning obviously.
@teachingsonheaven "Yes, in the old testament. But not the new." I have a serious question, not rhetorical. I'm genuinely curious. Where does it say in the NT that the Jewish laws do not apply to the world, and don't apply now? (cont'd)
@teachingsonheaven I'm not sure that it's obviously not the meaning. According to the OED, hypocrisy means "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform." (cont'd)
@teachingsonheaven By not forgiving Adam and Eve and imposing such a strict penalty (again, death by slow torture) on them and every human being that ever lived and live today, and then preaching forgiveness in the form of Jesus, is hypocrisy, extreme hypocrisy. If that doesn't convince you, then consider the definition of hypocrite in the Gospels, suggested by Jesus' proclamation, "may the sinless one cast the first stone." (cont'd)
@teachingsonheaven For the sake of clarity, if Jesus preaches forgiveness, and God punished humanity for eating from the tree of knowledge, again, by giving them the death penalty after a lifetime of torture, for (if we take Bible estimates of the age of the world seriously) about 2000-3000 years, then I think that qualifies as hypocrisy of the highest order.
@teachingsonheaven Jesus, who was supposedly God incarnate, preached forgiveness to humans, but clearly this didn't apply to God closer to the beginning of time. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, God is a hypocrite, and considering the scale of time and suffering incurred, an extreme, extreme hypocrite.
@teachingsonheaven Throwing us out of paradise and giving Adam and Eve the death penalty after an extended period of slow torture (that is, aging), and doing the same to every human being who came after them, who had nothing to do with their mistake, I think makes clear that God is a dictator of unimaginable brutality, infinitely many orders of magnitude worse than the worst human that ever lived.
@heptadecagon that is because you look from the perspective of pure logical scrutiny without bringing any heart to your equation, if you actually opened to the whole thing, you would not be so ridged.
@teachingsonheaven I think I am "bringing my heart into [my] equation." I am considering the suffering of every human being who has ever lived and is living right now, who suffer because of God's brutal oppression, only part of which, but a quite serious part, I've already outlined. I think you should try to notice that by easily dismissing God's crimes, you are complicit, have closed your heart to his victims, of which you are one, and have become his lackey.
@heptadecagon but if you are saying "gods crimes" I assume you are refering to that which has been done in the name of God, since you yourself do not believe in God. If that is true, then you are right...many things have been done in the name of God that were not the work of God. There have however been instances such as the old testament when it IS the will of God, these situations are far thinking ones, that eventually benefit more than they harm. This of course is not provable.
@teachingsonheaven No, by "God's crimes," I don't mean those that have been committed by humans in his name, I mean those God himself has committed. I'm pretty sure I've made clear from my extensive comments that God is guilty of crimes against humanity. You're right, I don't believe God exists, but I am assuming he does for the sake of argument, because I know you believe he exists. (cont'd)
@teachingsonheaven To be sure, I'm not trying to prove to you he doesn't exist, I'm trying to prove to you that even if he does, and if the Bible gives an accurate account of him, he is not the source of morality. (cont'd)
@teachingsonheaven "these situations are far thinking ones, that eventually benefit more than they harm" Again, you're right, this is of course not provable. One can finesse any event or action in this way.
@teachingsonheaven Consider Bertrand Russell's video on smoking. Most people would say that smoking is unhealthy, but Russell said, in jest of course, that he feels he owes his life to smoking, because of an airplane accident in which the smokers were spared and the nonsmokers drowned. This was a result of how they were divided on the airplane.
@teachingsonheaven Consider Bertrand Russell's video on smoking. Most people would say that smoking is unhealthy, but Russell said, in jest of course, that he feels he owes his life to smoking, because of an airplane accident in which the smokers were spared and the nonsmokers drowned. This was a result of how they were divided on the airplane.
@teachingsonheaven Jesus died, supposedly satisfying God and absolving us, but we didn't go back to the garden. This, however, is a minor afterthought.
@heptadecagon Jesus died and benefits those who believe in him and have a relationship with his spirit, those people enter into a very different experience of life.
@teachingsonheaven I stated why Jesus died: to absolve humanity from sin, supposedly caused by the fall in the Garden of Eden. You have only said that Jesus died and then stated what he does when others "believe in him." As far as I know, a proper response would have given evidence for why my statement is incorrent. You are not doing this, but bringing in a new, unrelated claim. If this is what you really mean, then that is the logical fallacy, "red herring," or "changing the subject." (cont'd)
@teachingsonheaven If by bringing this claim in, you are trying to tell me or others that one should believe in Jesus because of the positive results it brings, then that is the fallacy, "Appeal to Consequences of a Belief," or "Wishful Thinking." Consequences of a belief do not affect the truth of a belief.
@heptadecagon this dimension of experience, is somewhat like falling in love. Sometimes it does not appear to have a logic, something of the heart so to speak. Therefore as I have said, in order to experience it, and know for certain of its validity, one cannot remain satisfied by mere intelectual speculation. Although you make points that are valid, I do not row with you on intelectual points because your system has already denied the spirit where God is seen.
@teachingsonheaven Again, we are not talking about your experience, which I do not deny. We are disputing why Jesus died on the cross. You have not responded to my comment, only tried to change the subject.
@teachingsonheaven Again, we are not talking about your experience, which I do not deny. We are disputing why Jesus died on the cross. You have not responded to my comment, only tried to change the subject.
@teachingsonheaven OK, if you would like to talk about your experience, then let's talk about it. How do you know definitively that it is God inspiring it? Such experiences are reported in several religions, notably the Hindu and Buddhist. Bhakti yogis, for example, reach such states through spiritual practice on love of a deity. Details on Wikipedia, and google "bhakti yoga christianity" for more interesting articles. (cont'd)
@teachingsonheaven If you are using your experience to justify your belief in God, then that is a fallacy called Post hoc, or "Questionable cause." It's possible your state of mind was caused by one point meditation on Jesus or God in prayer, the way it is caused in other religions but in slightly different form. This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, only that your experience isn't evidence for his existence.
@teachingsonheaven As you know, I refer to fallacies often. In case you're not familiar with them and are curious, please look at this list: nizkor org /features/fallacies
@teachingsonheaven The Sermon on the Mount and some of the other sayings of Jesus preach love, but I'm pretty sure Dawkins would say what is inspiring from those writings is inspiring for secular reasons, not because God or Jesus said them. Other religions and cultures have had similar rules, which Dawkins says. From my own knowledge, Buddhism preached love somewhat similarly to Jesus, before Jesus. (Google metta sutta.)
@teachingsonheaven Dawkins is a scientist and so likely would accept his incorrectness if one showed evidence invalidating his idea, which he says is an idea, and not the answer. For an interesting discussion on this question between Dawkins and the ethicist Peter Singer, please go to /watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU and start from 11:45.
The man is an idiot. Where do we get our Morality from, and extremely complicated question. I have a whole chapter of it in the book, blah blah blah MONEY. It is called a CONSCIENCE MORON. When God created man he gave him a conscience so even if I am on a deserted island stranded, I have the built in code inside of me placed by God to distinguish right from wrong. The man is a total joke. He needs a whole chapter to explain what the Bible states in a couple of sentences.Money = Athesim
'I except (???) the bible because it is true' = 'I accept the Koran because I know it is true' = 'I accept holy book 'x' because it is true'. Yawn, yawn.
This same scientist who attended the lecture came to the same conclusion and became a Jehovah's Witness. People get their morality from the Genetic code called a conscience that God gave man, Dawkins you fool. Quoting the Bible, "The fool has said in his heart there is no God." Dawkins is indeed a fool.
@BikersFromIreland "This same scientist who attended the lecture came to the same conclusion and became a Jehovah's Witness. People get their morality from the Genetic code called a conscience that God gave man, Dawkins you fool." You don't give us any way to verify this. Maybe you believe it, but how can we believe it, or even take it seriously, without evidence? That you suggest we believe these scientists intuitions without supporting evidence is the logical fallacy, "Appeal to authority."
@BikersFromIreland Why do you take the Bible as an axiom? If you want us to take it seriously, then please tell us why we should we trust it as much as you do. If you can't do that, we will never agree. I would have to disagree with arguments based on axioms I'm not compelled to accept.
@heptadecagon FIRST OFF YOU APPROACHED ME. I did not approach you. I make personal comments to the video how I believe. If you do not share my views keep them to yourself, but, please to not comment me. You can make your own comments without BEING PERSONAL. I except the Bible because it is true, and people like Dawkins are a dime a dozen and have existed for thousands of years. They are all dead and gone now, and NOBODY remembers their names. But the WHOLE WORLD knows JESUS CHRIST.
@BikersFromIreland "FIRST OFF YOU APPROACHED ME. I did not approach you." Yes, that's true. You were making comments on Youtube. I think you should expect that anyone will comment on what you say here, especially if your arguments are not logical or don't seem logical, or if they think you are being verbally abusive.
@BikersFromIreland I don't think I've been "personal" while making comments. I haven't called you names or attacked your character. I've attacked only your ideas. You, however, have called me an imbecile and a fool, and said I have no intellect. If by "being personal," you mean one should attack that character of another, then I agree: one shouldn't "be personal" when making comments.
@BikersFromIreland Consider also that if you are going to ask someone else not to "be personal," then you should do it yourself. Recall the Gospels. Jesus also said this: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her," and "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
@BikersFromIreland I asked, "why is the bible true?" and you replied, "I except the Bible because it is true." We are disputing the truth of the Bible, so just saying you accept the Bible because it is true is a mistake of reasoning. It is another logical fallacy called "begging the question" or "circular reasoning."
@heptadecagon I have no idea what in he world you are talking about, your using, ad hominem in your reasoning. Please be precise in your questioning, because your tiring me out with your mundane understanding.
@BikersFromIreland Yes, it is extremely unfortunate for anyone to be dying of cancer, but everyone dies, and cancer doesn't discriminate. It kills both atheists and Christians, many of whom will also be forgotten someday. That they are going to die and be forgotten doesn't mean that they're wrong. That someone dies of cancer doesn't mean anything this person has said is wrong.
@heptadecagon Your opinions are yours, and I do not have to debate with you like ping pong. You are arrogant and self-opinionated. So, please refrain from any discussions with me. Pearls before swine. You either except the word of God or you don't. Nothing more needs to be said. One does not have to prove to others of his existence. You either do or don't, that decision will rest between you and God's judgment.
@BikersFromIreland "You are arrogant and self-opinionated." How have I been that? One could put forth a very good argument based on the comments you've made here that you have acted arrogantly and have been self-opinionated.
"Pearls before swine." Again, this is more belittling, but you still give no argument.
Why should I "refrain from discussions" with you after you've insulted and belittled me?
@BikersFromIreland "One does not have to prove to others of his existence."
You base your arguments on the existence of God and demand that others believe you. If you want to convince anyone who doesn't already believe in God, then the burden of proof of God's existence rests on you. If you want to speak only to believers, then you've incorrectly picked where to post your comments.
Another fallacy here: "the Appeal to Ridicule." Ridicule is not evidence for an argument, and is certainly not evidence for ordering me to shut up. Again, why should I listen to you, especially if you only insult and express contempt for me?
@heptadecagon Answer the questions that perplex all scientists, atheists, that you have conveniently deviated from my previous comments. People that applaud Dawkins are people with Bubble cum brains, who Idol worship people who like to have their ears tickled. Hitchens is dying of cancer and soon will be dead, and the remembrance of him will be forgotten in the next five years. The same will be of Dawkins.
@BikersFromIreland I haven't answered your questions because you haven't asked me any real ones during our exchange. Notice also that you haven't answered any of my extensive comments, only replied with contempt, insults, logical fallacies, and unsubstantiated or poorly substantiated assertions. Anyway, I don't want to avoid a question. If you'd like, please ask me one of those questions that "perplex all scientists, atheists."
@BikersFromIreland "...people like Dawkins are a dime a dozen and have existed for thousands of years. They are all dead and gone now, and NOBODY remembers their names. But the WHOLE WORLD knows JESUS CHRIST."
You've again committed a fallacy here. Fame and tradition aren't evidence for truth.
Dawkins cannot answer it. Then in the early 1970's. I attended a lecture by a famous Russian scientist and professor. He stated that living organisms cannot be a result of random mutations and natural selection. Someone in the audience where the answer lay. The professor took a small Russian Bible from his jacket, held it up, and said, "Read the Bible-the creation story in Genesis in particular." More and more scientists are agreeing that it makes more sense.
@BikersFromIreland I looked at the rest of the article, and it only quotes this scientist's intuitions: "It really made no sense" or "The Bible book of Genesis, he felt, made much more sense" or "more and more scientists are agreeing that it makes more sense." I think many people would have trouble believing that last statement without evidence. It never points us to evidence or presents a compelling argument.
A LEADING RUSSIAN SCIENTIST MADE THE STATEMENT: "How, "I wondered, 'could synapses and the genetic programs underlying them be products of mere chance?' It really made no sense to me.
@BikersFromIreland You never told us which scientist said this, but some googling reveals that this is from the "Awake!" magazine, a publication of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
I just want to point out that Dawkins refers to it as "Our Darwinian past" as if we are no longer subject to the frugality of Evolution... if he thinks we're going to somehow "rise above" evolution to a point we're no longer affected by it, he is dead wrong. Evolution is the very reason our economic systems and just about our entire way of life will fail in a short time (time in evolutionary terms)
@tinkerthinker1. Regarding morality and the golden rule. People still shoot at each other, capitol punishment, etc. Survival of the species is the reason, its the evolutionary drive keeping our species alive. As for a source for the "golden rule" 50K years ago, its evident in the survival of the species. Fighting for land, food, women, etc. is survival of the species within a tribe, killing one another for no reason benefits the specie in no way.
1. What is immoral about Jesus Christ? Dawkins himself refers to the "golden rule" - which came not from "moral philosophers" but straight from the words of Jesus in the Bible.
2. "moral purely because of what they think God might do if they're not...surveillance camera in the sky." Dawkins makes much use of "strawman" arguments - commonly acknowledged to be fallacious.
@tinkerthinker1 Jesus did not invent the "Golden Rule." That is a concept that has been with humanity as far back as recorded history. Confucius and Buddha both taught the "Golden Rule" 500 years before Jesus is reputed to have walked the Earth.
@svanhoosen It is true that Jesus did not invent the concept. But he certainly taught it and lived it. I was simply pointing out that Dawkins contradicts himself in calling Christianity immoral, then citing as a basic moral principle something that Jesus affirmed, attributing it to "moral philosophers." Remember that most of the moral influences in the Western world originate from the Judeo-Christian tradition, whether Dawkins wants to admit it or not. The GR is most famously attributed to Jesus
@tinkerthinker1 The "Golden Rule" is most famously attributed to Jesus by Christians, to Muhammad by Muslims, and to every other religious leader or teacher by their particular followers. In truth, it is an intuitive concept that surely was known by early humans 50,000 years ago, just as it is even understood by many other animals. Attempting to attribute it to your particular deity is fallacious.
@svanhoosen I agree with the first half of your statement. But my point still holds. These "moral philosophers" of the Western world - modern Western Europe and North America-belong to a culture that was rooted in Christianity, just as Indian culture was rooted in Hinduism, and Arabic culture is still rooted in Islam. Not everything that is intuitive was stated and practiced by the ancients...and certainly not by Neanderthals!What sources can you cite about the Golden Rule being known 50k ago?
@tinkerthinker1 I think it almost a surety that 50000 year old human ancestors followed the "golden rule" because it is intuitive to how we deal with one another, and a requirement for successful family and village groups. It is so intuitive, it can be observed to take place with many other animals, such as dolphins and chimpanzees.
@svanhoosen@svanhoosen Unfortunately, there is no basis for your "surety." I agree that it is possible that it was practiced - in a limited, primitive way. But the Al Quaeda pilots sure weren't thinking that when they drove into the towers! What about the gangs in our inner cities?
Furthermore, there is a difference between intuitive actions and articulated rules.
We've gone far from the original topic. But I think I've made my point.
@svanhoosen Also, Jesus (the Jew) derived it from the book of Leviticus (approx. 1200-1600 BC) in the Bible, which is older than Confucius or Buddha. This is probably the oldest positive rendering of the GR.
@svanhoosen Those injunctions need to be understood in the socio-historical context. Consider: As today's Americans talk about the Golden Rule, they shoot at enemies in war, support capital punishment, and kill their children and their elderly. For anyone genuinely interested in understanding Leviticus, I would gladly explain.
@svanhoosen Also, your trying to discredit the book of Leviticus takes nothing away from the fact that it is probably the oldest written statement of the Golden Rule.
Perhaps its just because, as humans, who can reason, we long ago found that if we treated other people nicely they would treat us nicely. Maybe its just simpler then scientists and social scientists think. If You wanted to be treated nicely the most logical way of achieving this would to be treat others nicely. Murders and unmoral people, usually have some sort of psychological disorder, that prevents them from thinking this way or are overall paranoid about other people.
Notice how, implcitly in his viewpoint is that the modern, Western world is superior - and that more 'primitive' societies are implcitly less moral - because they haven't 'evolved' in to Western sociteies. Actually, there's no basis for this - smaller social groups, like tribes, often have a highly complex moral structure - sometimes MORE complex than Western society, not less. Prf Dawkins view simply re-asserts old, culture-centric biases - and applies evolution to society, like Marx did.
Yeah, the deep, deep issue here is that what he's positing isn't 'Darwinian' - that falsely ascribes a scientific basis to a highly controversial and heaviliy critiqued social science. The idea of interactionism as a basis for social morality is deeply problematic because, naturally, the basis of our interactions are governed by pre-extant social morality or rules - so it's not clear that this theory in any way explains the origin of morality - like many of Dawkins's ideas, it's a bit tautology.
@Thimbledunk No. He is presenting the results of (1) Game Theory which shows that an approximation to altruism is optimal behavior in interactions between players that interact repeatedly - such as members of small communities. (2) biological conclusion that altruism is genetically optimal between individuals who are related. He does not claim modern society is superior, but only that it involves many interactions with people who are not related and not likely to meet again, cf to primitive ones
Hi bangNL94 - I think, like a of people in the academic world, he's representing a growing viewpoint that Prf Dawkins, although brilliant in his own field, isn't justified - academically - in some of the other things that he's presenting, as the young man says, with this kind of 'veneer' that they are 'science'. His explanation of cultural interaction as a source of morality is a key example - a highly flawed argument is presented as 'Darwinian' - i.e. scientific.
Whereas in the social science world - which, don't forget, that's what Prf Dawkins is doing here - NOT biology - that idea has been shown to not explain morality at all. Another key example is 'memes' - which natural scientists think are great because they fit in with a natural science viewpoint. But from the view where it counts - the people who really understand those ideas and their flaws - social scientists - the idea is a fairly meaningless tautology, presented with the veneerof 'science'.
Moral rules evolve as social memes. Moral rules that lead societies to the greatest economic efficiency start dominating and replacing other morals. Think of no killing, no theft and no coercion. Individuals obey moral rules because (1) they were raised that way. (2) Advocating personal hypocrisy is not in ones self-interest. (3) Ostracism of immoral behaving people is very effective. Dawkins is actually being immoral by supporting a coercive state and taxation (7:30).
Some instincts developed in creatures that started to live peacefully in social groups and reproduced more than those that didn't, and those instincts became hardwired into our brains as base of social interaction. The morals as we know them today are the combined result of hardwired tendencies towards some behavior patterns and the teachings of our parents, for the moment child differentiates himself from parents it starts to learn "morals" from interaction.
All I got out of this from Dawkins was this: I don't know why we are moral, but thank goodness that we are. I obey the Golden Rule, and that is why I am moral. If I don't want to live in an immoral world, then I must not be immoral. This is somewhat irrational though, so I don't know. Ask a moral philosopher. Oh yeah, and by the way, religion sucks.
@tylerpotts5478 Is there a problem with most of those statements?Are you saying you're only moral because you fear punishment from God or only moral because you expect to be rewarded once you see God in heaven?Most of us are moral because we wouldn't want someone else acting immorally to our detriment.
Oh yeah if you are moral because you expect to be rewarded you might as well rape and pilliage now.The bible states that good deeds will not get you into heaven.Only accepting jesus.Sick right?
I've never understood how or why people try to answer metaphysical questions with evolution. evolution only deals with the observable world.
What observable proof do scientists have that morality way back over a million years ago, was based and founded on survival?
The proof cannot come from the way things are "now", but from over a million years ago. It was obviously a process. One must demonstrate the process that occurred in order to show how morality came about, the way we know it today.
@destine4hope@destine4hope Hi. Please see the 4th or 5th video in my favorites: Evolutionary Roots for morality." When you do, I'd like you to recognize that "if" we don't socially merge in one big group, we shall destroy the earth and meet our demise as a species. There are many "altruistic" genes/people that recognize this; please see where I'm coming from. With that said, recognize that our economic system is TOTALLY decoupled from this and that we must change it.
Evolution, at least to the extent that it was moving more rapidly, was in a time when we lived in small groups. It's too specific to be a misfiring. If one man approaches you on the street asking for help, you might help him. If two men approach you, you think you're getting robbed, or it would be too burdensome to help two. Plus it would seem entirely advantageous to welcome fresh genes into an otherwise isolated group.
The bible condemns homosexuality, and just about everything else...obey the laws of the bible; KILL unruly children, KILL witches, KILL unfaithful wives etc etc . Why can't you follow the laws of god as set out in the bible, you backsliding hypocrites! Get out there, and do a bit of slaying and killing in the name of the one true god, who MUST be obeyed. How DARE you pick and choose (sorry; 'interpret') which rules to follow??
I'm pretty sure jesus was gay. Always had a lot of butch guys around him, and occasionally kissed them, and perhaps went a 'bit further'...if you know what I mean! Anyone who thinks that a guy who has sex with another, perhaps in a lasting relationship, is morally worse than a believer who would rather a million people died of aids than wear a condom, is an intellectual faggot. (We eat faggots with onions in the UK). Any connection between the bible and morality escapes me, and most others.
Repeat: Mr. Dawkins has never studied the Bible with the spirit of God, so he will never grasp the understanding of the Bible, of this simple fact, nor the spirit thereof. God only gives his spirit to those who believe.
And so I repeat: Mr. Dawkins, must have never heard of the human conscience. What a ridiculous childish fairy tale comment. "Our morality comes from our Darwarian heritage." The man is a fool. The Bible is very clear on on the creation of a human conscience. Man even without the law present (the Bible) man will be governed by the law within himself, because, God has written the law (good vs. bad) into our hearts, which is, the human conscience.
Part 2: The only purpose it fulfills is the self-gratification of the individuals who write the books, and line their pockets with the funds they generate from the sell of their books. The world needs to stand united against the filthy JEW and stop them once in for all.
Jeremiah 8:9; "Wise people are put to shame, confused, and trapped. They have rejected the word of the LORD. They don't really have any wisdom. Psalm 53:1; "For the choir director: A meditation; a psalm of David. Only fools say in their hearts, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and their actions are evil; not one of them does good!"
Part 2: The man has never studied the Bible with the spirit of God, so he will never grasp the understanding of the Bible, of this simple fact, nor the spirit thereof. God only gives his spirit to those who believe. (correction)
I call Mr. Dawkins a fool, not with insulting disrepect, but, repeating what the God of Bible stated: 'The fool has said in his heart that there is no God."
Part 1: Mr. Dawkins, must have never heard of the human conscience. What a ridiculous childish fairy tale comment. "Our morality comes from our Darwarian heritage." The man is a fool. The Bible is very clear on on the creation of a human conscience. Man even without the law present (the Bible) man will be governed by the law within himself, because, God has written the law (good vs. bad) into our hearts, which is, the human conscience.
Repeat: P. 1 I am not even disgusting any subject with you because you are a imbecile, and you are with out any logical merit. You total persona is founded on the insulting and belittling of others. When one has to resort to retort and the innuendo's of slander, and vulgar commentary, then one has no choice but to desist communication with such a person and association with such a person, or one will become a mirror image of that person.
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"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd you know what? you're right. the theory of evolution was set up to disprove god and the teachings of the bible...ROFL
lloydgar01 6 days ago
@lloydgar01 Do you always make a habit of showing people how uninformed, misinformed, and naive you are?
SpencerBenedict2nd 6 days ago
The leader athiests know the science, the follower athiests are just as stupid as the religious followers. Learn for yourself noobs.
Bouser 4 months ago
Atheism is now "trendy" and "cool" which is why the hipsters have gone mad for it even though they really don't even know what that implies. Of course this cheapens it for those who have considered their position (theist or atheist). But then why be so small minded as to need a label for your life either way ? Let the hispters fade (and they eventually will when something "cooler" comes along) and then lets have a conversation.
bowiemott 4 months ago
@bowiemott i have noticed this too, most athiests havent even read the origin of species, yet they defend the theory of evolution to the end, because richard dawkins told them its true, or whoever they listen too, its sad really, its the same as a christian who believes every word of the bible with no evidence, most athiests are just following the popular athiests on television with no evidence at all. they have faith in scientists the same as religion has faith in there priest.
Bouser 4 months ago
@Bouser Is dawkins himself ot a scientist, therefore listening to him and reading his books would hardly be the same as a christian following the word of the bible and dawkins books are backed with large amounts of evidence
GregMonster17 3 months ago
@Bouser One thing you should realise about science is that the truth always wins in the end. The reason for this is that to make a scientific claim you must have evidence ie, your claim must be testable. Every new idea in science is tested and is not accepted as true until sufficient evidence is provided. You can have faith in science because science simply seeks the truth. It is impossible to find evidence that religion is valid so your faith is forever blind.
gus577 1 week ago
@bowiemott I think thats ridiculous I can't think of a single person who is an atheist simply because it would be considered "cool"
GregMonster17 3 months ago
@bowiemott i'll disagree with atheism because hipsters are heavily involved...when you disagree with christianity because of the red necks that are just as heavily involved. geher!
lloydgar01 1 week ago
@lloydgar01 Atheism is the new homo - if you're not atheist, you're BANG WRONG!
ChainsawGutsFuck 1 week ago
@ChainsawGutsFuck that's not true at all. if you're not homosexual, then you're heterosexual.
If you're not atheist, then you have another take on reality.
Atheism's stance isn't against the idea of a deity, it's against the idea of a mass controlling, moral demeaning theocracy.
lloydgar01 6 days ago
@lloydgar01 You could be bisexual? Just thought i'd throw that in!
I'm not atheist, I think you have to be incredibly bleak to say there's absolutely nothing but science holding reality together. I'm not religious either, it doesn't seem to promote thinking outside "the box". I practice astral projection and lucid dreaming and I have to say both have had a profound impact on my spiritual insight and beliefs. It has to be experienced.
Atheism is still a cult, albeit aimed at "logical" thinkers.
ChainsawGutsFuck 6 days ago
@ChainsawGutsFuck you could be bisexual, absolutely. fence sitting is fine.
and it's not that science is holding reality together: it's that science is holding our understanding of reality together. science isn't the universe, it's just a measurement of the universe.
and as it's true that there are those who practice upon their own beliefs (such as yourself) and those who follow an organised religion; and it's true that certain atheisms are becoming organised in their ways.
lloydgar01 6 days ago
@lloydgar01 Ultimately, i've always thought it more important that an individual believes in what they truly believe in. By that I mean not believing what they are told is right even if they don't agree with it, or just going along with whichever group's largest - but asking questions and trying to find what makes the most sense to them, no matter how "utlandish it might sound to anyone else. And then keeping that to themselves, not trying to "convert" others. I see that as a sign of weakness.
ChainsawGutsFuck 5 days ago
@ChainsawGutsFuck i agree mostly with you.
it's great for people to let their ideas out and have them argued upon. that's one of the ways we evolve our ideals of where we come from and how we should morally act.
lloydgar01 4 days ago
Science is dogmatic by solely relying on the limited five human senses in its observations alone. It not only can't answer truths in human morality, justice, emotions and ones self awareness as an individual with free-will; it discounts all of these carte blanc as mere biochemical illusions via a limited world-view. If bacteria had it's own logic & reason then used the scientific method how would they perceive the same world we live in with their senses, would we be mindless to them? Cont>
WILLTHEWGMAN 5 months ago
Cont> Science is just as presumptuous a human proposition and just as dogmatic and limited as a truth seeking method as a false religion. Science is only a sub-set of human philosophy but it's proposition as the sole truth mechanism discounts the very notion of truth in humanity and philosophy as no more than biochemical illusory. In this world-view philosophy has birthed a god called science which has proven it's own mother to be a myth! Cont>
WILLTHEWGMAN 5 months ago
Cont> Science can try to discover what we are as humans within are own very limited view by our five senses alone but it can never inform us of who we are with this method. Are we made in God's image or evolution's freak of nature? It is just as self-evident as ourself itself is that who we are as mankind is solely God's intent and will and not the science of man's reasoning without heeding one's soul in the balance to judge!
WILLTHEWGMAN 5 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN actually, science takes into consideration (see quantum physics) that what we see and percieve is not absolute, but rather most likely. this text you're reading now most likely exists, and it most likely exists within the vicinity you're looking at; the likeliness of it being 3cm, 5cm, etc...away from where you're looking exponentially declines. this is just a theory, which means we have sub-atomic evidence of it, but no proof as of yet.
lloydgar01 1 week ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN and fyi, science was founded by fundamentalist atheists to disprove religion and god, and to ONLY let us see and accept things within the 4 dimensions we perceive. lol
lloydgar01 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
paying taxes is not moral
bluntpunk83 6 months ago
See Hitchens lose in debate at WWWW . SHOCKAWENOW . N E T The crowd actually starts laughing at his stall and evasion tacticts. Even atheists admit he lost this debate to a much wiser Christian theist.
shockofgod 6 months ago
"Doctor?" "Scientist?" What a joke; this guy is an imbecile. It is especially funny that he completely missed the point, misunderstood, and inadvertently agreed with Dawkins.
undisputedgreatest 7 months ago in playlist The Four Horsemen: Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens & Dennett
I'm an atheist, and I picked my morals up from life experiences not from a god. I'm from the south religious people are everywhere, and to me christians and religious people in general are some of the most morally corrupt people I've ever seen in my life.
mmawilldesha 7 months ago
@mmawilldesha Damn straight, nearly all of the christians in my community are gossiping, lying hypocrites who get made at others for gossiping or lying
thorsday121 7 months ago
Burton Russell, An atheist said... “I find my own views quite incredible, because I cannot live as though ethical values were simply a matter of my personal taste. But I do not know the solution to my predicament". By his own admission his views left him insufficient in the area of morality. Mackie, and atheist, said that the idea of morality is so complex that aside from a personal God there is no way to explain it. Science itself is insufficent to provide solid ideas for a livable society.
whatchandstudy7 8 months ago
@whatchandstudy7 So the views of one atheist immediately mean we all believe that? Thanks for stereotyping us.
thorsday121 7 months ago
RD says @ 1:38 "I've got a whole chapter in my book though I don't have time to read from" - which is code for "go buy my book". Its interesting that authors , be they atheist, christian, or muslim, will still hawk their book at every opportunity.
bowiemott 8 months ago
@bowiemott People are going because they are interested in the speakers or the topic, he is saying if you are interested in what he's talking about, there's more about it in his book. Nothing wrong with this.
Kosiguru 6 months ago in playlist The Four Horsemen: Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens & Dennett
HERE IS A VID THAT ADDRESSES THE SECOND GUY'S QUESTION ALMOST PERFECTLY: "Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions"
NiNj4xNUTZz 9 months ago
Religious people make my brain hurt :(
CornishRicky 9 months ago 28
@CornishRicky Yes...and they make my penis soft.
This guy asking the question is a worthless dipshit. Completely worthless.
undisputedgreatest 7 months ago in playlist The Four Horsemen: Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens & Dennett
@CornishRicky Dont worry. Your reason makes their brains hurt even more.
Saufm 6 months ago
A Good answer to this question youtube.com/watch?v=EGy_mGogXxM
whatchandstudy7 9 months ago
Notice at the end he almost said thank god;
"Thank... goodness we are."
Pantsicm 10 months ago
@Pantsicm So...?
TheAryonB 10 months ago
@Pantsicm
He was pausing to highlight the pun. "thank goodness we are good". You see?
CornishRicky 9 months ago
If there is no God, good and evil don't exist.
Bernardatious 11 months ago
@Bernardatious Well, they don't, they are concepts that we as a fairly highly evolved primate species have come up with so as to differentiate between those actions which we view as being beneficial in some way "good", in other words and detrimental in other ways "evil". Those concepts of good and evil are entirely subjective, what is evil to some may be good to others and vice versa.
420HashSmoker 11 months ago
@420HashSmoker You're right. Good and evil don't exist in any absolute sense. "Good" and "evil" are just terms we use to describe what we subjectively view as beneficial or harmful. They are just personal biases.
Bernardatious 11 months ago 28
@Bernardatious it's sad that that isn't enough for some people..
SHIBBYiPANDA 9 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA Its definitely not enough for me lol. Think about it. If morals are simply a human bias, then Adolf Hitler has his own bias and Mother Theresa has her own bias. Neither of them are right or wrong in any absolute sense. Hitler slaughters people: Mother Theresa saves them. Nobody has any right to tell them that they were right or wrong.
Bernardatious 8 months ago
@Bernardatious Yes. But right and wrong can only apply within a set, given, context.. So if the context question is "was Hitler acting in his own best self interest or the human race's best self interest?" you can easily still say "no" and if the question is if what he did was right or wrong within that context, you can say he was wrong. Conversely, if the question was, "within the context of how to best damage the human race, was hitler right?" you'd easily say he was in the right there.. LOL!
SHIBBYiPANDA 8 months ago
@Bernardatious and there is no god...
420HashSmoker 11 months ago
@Bernardatious "If there is no God, good and evil don't exist."
Good and evil are subjective terms-- For instance why was slavery considered acceptable 2000 years ago and not today.
If there is a God he has done alot of evil things
badpanda84 9 months ago
He says that it is contemptable to be moral for god, but it is ok to be moral for indirectly selfish reasons...that is not rational.
teachingsonheaven 1 year ago
@teachingsonheaven ... Where does Dawkins say that it's OK to be moral for indirectly selfish reasons?
heptadecagon 1 year ago
@heptadecagon he explains morality from the perspective of why he would do it for selfish reasons, in other words, unless it affects him somehow, it is irrational.
teachingsonheaven 1 year ago
@teachingsonheaven I looked at the video again, and I don't see where he does this, would you give the time in the video where he starts? I will give answers your other comments, which I have been thinking about, but I haven't finished them. Very likely some time this week.
heptadecagon 1 year ago
@teachingsonheaven First, my apologies for my tardiness, I was occupied with other obligations and have also I fallen sick. I've looked at the video again, and I can find no spot where he says this. (cont'd)
heptadecagon 11 months ago
@teachingsonheaven Dawkins doesn't say it's OK to be moral because of the prospect of future benefit, he says that it's possible for such behavior in early times to have become internalized in our genes and thus formed the foundation, or served as a stepping stone, to modern morality. At the end of the video he clearly states that he agrees with the questioner that the source of morality is a difficult question, but "thank goodness we are" moral the way we are. (cont'd)
heptadecagon 11 months ago
@teachingsonheaven When he says it is contemptible to be moral for God, he means that if the only reason one has for being moral is fear of God, then that is contemptible. That is, if the only reason one is moral is fear of punishment, in this case by God, then that is contemptible.
heptadecagon 11 months ago
the thing is, morality as taught in the bible is not simply 'be nice' it is to love
which is very different. I think perhaps love slips by one who is so convinced that every human is innately selfish
teachingsonheaven 1 year ago
@teachingsonheaven Much of the morality the Bible preaches is rather harsh, like the killing of adulterers and homosexuals, and God's example is often appalling by today's standards. Consider for example, holding humanity for ransom until Jesus died a barbaric death for the mistake of the newly created and knowledge thirsty Adam and Eve, which God surely knew was going to happen anyway.
heptadecagon 1 year ago
@heptadecagon Yes, in the old testament. But not the new,..the old testament was aimed at bringing a law to the Jewish people, not the world. Although they may be very strict rules, at that time for those people it was needed. I dont really care what the Oxford dictionary says, because it is not the actual meaning obviously.
teachingsonheaven 1 year ago
@teachingsonheaven "Yes, in the old testament. But not the new." I have a serious question, not rhetorical. I'm genuinely curious. Where does it say in the NT that the Jewish laws do not apply to the world, and don't apply now? (cont'd)
heptadecagon 11 months ago
@teachingsonheaven I'm not sure that it's obviously not the meaning. According to the OED, hypocrisy means "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform." (cont'd)
heptadecagon 11 months ago
@teachingsonheaven By not forgiving Adam and Eve and imposing such a strict penalty (again, death by slow torture) on them and every human being that ever lived and live today, and then preaching forgiveness in the form of Jesus, is hypocrisy, extreme hypocrisy. If that doesn't convince you, then consider the definition of hypocrite in the Gospels, suggested by Jesus' proclamation, "may the sinless one cast the first stone." (cont'd)
heptadecagon 11 months ago
@teachingsonheaven For the sake of clarity, if Jesus preaches forgiveness, and God punished humanity for eating from the tree of knowledge, again, by giving them the death penalty after a lifetime of torture, for (if we take Bible estimates of the age of the world seriously) about 2000-3000 years, then I think that qualifies as hypocrisy of the highest order.
heptadecagon 11 months ago
@teachingsonheaven Jesus, who was supposedly God incarnate, preached forgiveness to humans, but clearly this didn't apply to God closer to the beginning of time. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, God is a hypocrite, and considering the scale of time and suffering incurred, an extreme, extreme hypocrite.
heptadecagon 1 year ago
@teachingsonheaven Throwing us out of paradise and giving Adam and Eve the death penalty after an extended period of slow torture (that is, aging), and doing the same to every human being who came after them, who had nothing to do with their mistake, I think makes clear that God is a dictator of unimaginable brutality, infinitely many orders of magnitude worse than the worst human that ever lived.
heptadecagon 1 year ago
@heptadecagon that is because you look from the perspective of pure logical scrutiny without bringing any heart to your equation, if you actually opened to the whole thing, you would not be so ridged.
teachingsonheaven 1 year ago
@teachingsonheaven I think I am "bringing my heart into [my] equation." I am considering the suffering of every human being who has ever lived and is living right now, who suffer because of God's brutal oppression, only part of which, but a quite serious part, I've already outlined. I think you should try to notice that by easily dismissing God's crimes, you are complicit, have closed your heart to his victims, of which you are one, and have become his lackey.
heptadecagon 11 months ago
@heptadecagon but if you are saying "gods crimes" I assume you are refering to that which has been done in the name of God, since you yourself do not believe in God. If that is true, then you are right...many things have been done in the name of God that were not the work of God. There have however been instances such as the old testament when it IS the will of God, these situations are far thinking ones, that eventually benefit more than they harm. This of course is not provable.
teachingsonheaven 11 months ago
@teachingsonheaven No, by "God's crimes," I don't mean those that have been committed by humans in his name, I mean those God himself has committed. I'm pretty sure I've made clear from my extensive comments that God is guilty of crimes against humanity. You're right, I don't believe God exists, but I am assuming he does for the sake of argument, because I know you believe he exists. (cont'd)
heptadecagon 11 months ago
@teachingsonheaven To be sure, I'm not trying to prove to you he doesn't exist, I'm trying to prove to you that even if he does, and if the Bible gives an accurate account of him, he is not the source of morality. (cont'd)
heptadecagon 11 months ago
@teachingsonheaven "these situations are far thinking ones, that eventually benefit more than they harm" Again, you're right, this is of course not provable. One can finesse any event or action in this way.
heptadecagon 11 months ago
@teachingsonheaven Consider Bertrand Russell's video on smoking. Most people would say that smoking is unhealthy, but Russell said, in jest of course, that he feels he owes his life to smoking, because of an airplane accident in which the smokers were spared and the nonsmokers drowned. This was a result of how they were divided on the airplane.
heptadecagon 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@teachingsonheaven Consider Bertrand Russell's video on smoking. Most people would say that smoking is unhealthy, but Russell said, in jest of course, that he feels he owes his life to smoking, because of an airplane accident in which the smokers were spared and the nonsmokers drowned. This was a result of how they were divided on the airplane.
heptadecagon 11 months ago
@teachingsonheaven Jesus died, supposedly satisfying God and absolving us, but we didn't go back to the garden. This, however, is a minor afterthought.
heptadecagon 1 year ago
@heptadecagon Jesus died and benefits those who believe in him and have a relationship with his spirit, those people enter into a very different experience of life.
teachingsonheaven 1 year ago
@teachingsonheaven I stated why Jesus died: to absolve humanity from sin, supposedly caused by the fall in the Garden of Eden. You have only said that Jesus died and then stated what he does when others "believe in him." As far as I know, a proper response would have given evidence for why my statement is incorrent. You are not doing this, but bringing in a new, unrelated claim. If this is what you really mean, then that is the logical fallacy, "red herring," or "changing the subject." (cont'd)
heptadecagon 11 months ago
@teachingsonheaven If by bringing this claim in, you are trying to tell me or others that one should believe in Jesus because of the positive results it brings, then that is the fallacy, "Appeal to Consequences of a Belief," or "Wishful Thinking." Consequences of a belief do not affect the truth of a belief.
heptadecagon 11 months ago
@heptadecagon this dimension of experience, is somewhat like falling in love. Sometimes it does not appear to have a logic, something of the heart so to speak. Therefore as I have said, in order to experience it, and know for certain of its validity, one cannot remain satisfied by mere intelectual speculation. Although you make points that are valid, I do not row with you on intelectual points because your system has already denied the spirit where God is seen.
teachingsonheaven 11 months ago
@teachingsonheaven Again, we are not talking about your experience, which I do not deny. We are disputing why Jesus died on the cross. You have not responded to my comment, only tried to change the subject.
heptadecagon 11 months ago
@teachingsonheaven Again, we are not talking about your experience, which I do not deny. We are disputing why Jesus died on the cross. You have not responded to my comment, only tried to change the subject.
heptadecagon 11 months ago
@teachingsonheaven OK, if you would like to talk about your experience, then let's talk about it. How do you know definitively that it is God inspiring it? Such experiences are reported in several religions, notably the Hindu and Buddhist. Bhakti yogis, for example, reach such states through spiritual practice on love of a deity. Details on Wikipedia, and google "bhakti yoga christianity" for more interesting articles. (cont'd)
heptadecagon 11 months ago
@teachingsonheaven If you are using your experience to justify your belief in God, then that is a fallacy called Post hoc, or "Questionable cause." It's possible your state of mind was caused by one point meditation on Jesus or God in prayer, the way it is caused in other religions but in slightly different form. This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, only that your experience isn't evidence for his existence.
heptadecagon 11 months ago
@teachingsonheaven As you know, I refer to fallacies often. In case you're not familiar with them and are curious, please look at this list: nizkor org /features/fallacies
heptadecagon 11 months ago
@teachingsonheaven The Sermon on the Mount and some of the other sayings of Jesus preach love, but I'm pretty sure Dawkins would say what is inspiring from those writings is inspiring for secular reasons, not because God or Jesus said them. Other religions and cultures have had similar rules, which Dawkins says. From my own knowledge, Buddhism preached love somewhat similarly to Jesus, before Jesus. (Google metta sutta.)
heptadecagon 1 year ago
@teachingsonheaven Dawkins is a scientist and so likely would accept his incorrectness if one showed evidence invalidating his idea, which he says is an idea, and not the answer. For an interesting discussion on this question between Dawkins and the ethicist Peter Singer, please go to /watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU and start from 11:45.
heptadecagon 1 year ago
The man is an idiot. Where do we get our Morality from, and extremely complicated question. I have a whole chapter of it in the book, blah blah blah MONEY. It is called a CONSCIENCE MORON. When God created man he gave him a conscience so even if I am on a deserted island stranded, I have the built in code inside of me placed by God to distinguish right from wrong. The man is a total joke. He needs a whole chapter to explain what the Bible states in a couple of sentences.Money = Athesim
BikersFromIreland 1 year ago
'I except (???) the bible because it is true' = 'I accept the Koran because I know it is true' = 'I accept holy book 'x' because it is true'. Yawn, yawn.
derek24hudson 1 year ago
This same scientist who attended the lecture came to the same conclusion and became a Jehovah's Witness. People get their morality from the Genetic code called a conscience that God gave man, Dawkins you fool. Quoting the Bible, "The fool has said in his heart there is no God." Dawkins is indeed a fool.
BikersFromIreland 1 year ago
@BikersFromIreland "This same scientist who attended the lecture came to the same conclusion and became a Jehovah's Witness. People get their morality from the Genetic code called a conscience that God gave man, Dawkins you fool." You don't give us any way to verify this. Maybe you believe it, but how can we believe it, or even take it seriously, without evidence? That you suggest we believe these scientists intuitions without supporting evidence is the logical fallacy, "Appeal to authority."
heptadecagon 1 year ago
@BikersFromIreland Why do you take the Bible as an axiom? If you want us to take it seriously, then please tell us why we should we trust it as much as you do. If you can't do that, we will never agree. I would have to disagree with arguments based on axioms I'm not compelled to accept.
heptadecagon 1 year ago
@heptadecagon FIRST OFF YOU APPROACHED ME. I did not approach you. I make personal comments to the video how I believe. If you do not share my views keep them to yourself, but, please to not comment me. You can make your own comments without BEING PERSONAL. I except the Bible because it is true, and people like Dawkins are a dime a dozen and have existed for thousands of years. They are all dead and gone now, and NOBODY remembers their names. But the WHOLE WORLD knows JESUS CHRIST.
BikersFromIreland 1 year ago
@BikersFromIreland "FIRST OFF YOU APPROACHED ME. I did not approach you." Yes, that's true. You were making comments on Youtube. I think you should expect that anyone will comment on what you say here, especially if your arguments are not logical or don't seem logical, or if they think you are being verbally abusive.
heptadecagon 1 year ago
@BikersFromIreland I don't think I've been "personal" while making comments. I haven't called you names or attacked your character. I've attacked only your ideas. You, however, have called me an imbecile and a fool, and said I have no intellect. If by "being personal," you mean one should attack that character of another, then I agree: one shouldn't "be personal" when making comments.
heptadecagon 1 year ago
@BikersFromIreland Consider also that if you are going to ask someone else not to "be personal," then you should do it yourself. Recall the Gospels. Jesus also said this: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her," and "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
heptadecagon 1 year ago
@BikersFromIreland I asked, "why is the bible true?" and you replied, "I except the Bible because it is true." We are disputing the truth of the Bible, so just saying you accept the Bible because it is true is a mistake of reasoning. It is another logical fallacy called "begging the question" or "circular reasoning."
heptadecagon 1 year ago
@heptadecagon I have no idea what in he world you are talking about, your using, ad hominem in your reasoning. Please be precise in your questioning, because your tiring me out with your mundane understanding.
BikersFromIreland 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BikersFromIreland Do you know what ad hominem is? Please tell me how I've used it. This question and request should be precise enough for you.
"Please be precise in your questioning, because your tiring me out with your mundane understanding."
Notice, you just committed a form of ad hominem, "ad hominem abusive."
heptadecagon 1 year ago
@BikersFromIreland Yes, it is extremely unfortunate for anyone to be dying of cancer, but everyone dies, and cancer doesn't discriminate. It kills both atheists and Christians, many of whom will also be forgotten someday. That they are going to die and be forgotten doesn't mean that they're wrong. That someone dies of cancer doesn't mean anything this person has said is wrong.
heptadecagon 1 year ago
@heptadecagon Your opinions are yours, and I do not have to debate with you like ping pong. You are arrogant and self-opinionated. So, please refrain from any discussions with me. Pearls before swine. You either except the word of God or you don't. Nothing more needs to be said. One does not have to prove to others of his existence. You either do or don't, that decision will rest between you and God's judgment.
BikersFromIreland 1 year ago
@BikersFromIreland "You are arrogant and self-opinionated." How have I been that? One could put forth a very good argument based on the comments you've made here that you have acted arrogantly and have been self-opinionated.
"Pearls before swine." Again, this is more belittling, but you still give no argument.
Why should I "refrain from discussions" with you after you've insulted and belittled me?
heptadecagon 1 year ago
@BikersFromIreland "One does not have to prove to others of his existence."
You base your arguments on the existence of God and demand that others believe you. If you want to convince anyone who doesn't already believe in God, then the burden of proof of God's existence rests on you. If you want to speak only to believers, then you've incorrectly picked where to post your comments.
heptadecagon 1 year ago
@BikersFromIreland "You either do or don't, that decision will rest between you and God's judgment."
You've committed yet another fallacy here: "Appeal to Fear."
heptadecagon 1 year ago
@heptadecagon BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH, Shut up, ohhh please.
BikersFromIreland 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BikersFromIreland "BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH, Shut up, ohhh please."
Another fallacy here: "the Appeal to Ridicule." Ridicule is not evidence for an argument, and is certainly not evidence for ordering me to shut up. Again, why should I listen to you, especially if you only insult and express contempt for me?
heptadecagon 1 year ago
@heptadecagon Answer the questions that perplex all scientists, atheists, that you have conveniently deviated from my previous comments. People that applaud Dawkins are people with Bubble cum brains, who Idol worship people who like to have their ears tickled. Hitchens is dying of cancer and soon will be dead, and the remembrance of him will be forgotten in the next five years. The same will be of Dawkins.
BikersFromIreland 1 year ago
@BikersFromIreland I haven't answered your questions because you haven't asked me any real ones during our exchange. Notice also that you haven't answered any of my extensive comments, only replied with contempt, insults, logical fallacies, and unsubstantiated or poorly substantiated assertions. Anyway, I don't want to avoid a question. If you'd like, please ask me one of those questions that "perplex all scientists, atheists."
heptadecagon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BikersFromIreland "...people like Dawkins are a dime a dozen and have existed for thousands of years. They are all dead and gone now, and NOBODY remembers their names. But the WHOLE WORLD knows JESUS CHRIST."
You've again committed a fallacy here. Fame and tradition aren't evidence for truth.
heptadecagon 1 year ago
Dawkins cannot answer it. Then in the early 1970's. I attended a lecture by a famous Russian scientist and professor. He stated that living organisms cannot be a result of random mutations and natural selection. Someone in the audience where the answer lay. The professor took a small Russian Bible from his jacket, held it up, and said, "Read the Bible-the creation story in Genesis in particular." More and more scientists are agreeing that it makes more sense.
BikersFromIreland 1 year ago
@BikersFromIreland I looked at the rest of the article, and it only quotes this scientist's intuitions: "It really made no sense" or "The Bible book of Genesis, he felt, made much more sense" or "more and more scientists are agreeing that it makes more sense." I think many people would have trouble believing that last statement without evidence. It never points us to evidence or presents a compelling argument.
heptadecagon 1 year ago
@BikersFromIreland It is misleading the reader by giving a scientist's feelings as evidence instead of facts.
heptadecagon 1 year ago
A LEADING RUSSIAN SCIENTIST MADE THE STATEMENT: "How, "I wondered, 'could synapses and the genetic programs underlying them be products of mere chance?' It really made no sense to me.
BikersFromIreland 1 year ago
@BikersFromIreland You never told us which scientist said this, but some googling reveals that this is from the "Awake!" magazine, a publication of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
heptadecagon 1 year ago
I just want to point out that Dawkins refers to it as "Our Darwinian past" as if we are no longer subject to the frugality of Evolution... if he thinks we're going to somehow "rise above" evolution to a point we're no longer affected by it, he is dead wrong. Evolution is the very reason our economic systems and just about our entire way of life will fail in a short time (time in evolutionary terms)
tantrangle 1 year ago
@tantrangle Lol you are an idiot. He had no such implication.
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
@Grimmjow567 I know, I just wanted to get that off my chest.
tantrangle 1 year ago
@tantrangle Fair enough.
Grimmjow567 1 year ago
needing to be around kin to evolve morals is bullshit.
AllOtherNamesTaken2 1 year ago
He couldnt answer the second question. interesting
sparkuhlism 1 year ago
@sparkuhlism what question was that?
ccollymore 1 year ago
@tinkerthinker1. Regarding morality and the golden rule. People still shoot at each other, capitol punishment, etc. Survival of the species is the reason, its the evolutionary drive keeping our species alive. As for a source for the "golden rule" 50K years ago, its evident in the survival of the species. Fighting for land, food, women, etc. is survival of the species within a tribe, killing one another for no reason benefits the specie in no way.
strikenetter 1 year ago
1. What is immoral about Jesus Christ? Dawkins himself refers to the "golden rule" - which came not from "moral philosophers" but straight from the words of Jesus in the Bible.
2. "moral purely because of what they think God might do if they're not...surveillance camera in the sky." Dawkins makes much use of "strawman" arguments - commonly acknowledged to be fallacious.
tinkerthinker1 1 year ago
@tinkerthinker1 Jesus did not invent the "Golden Rule." That is a concept that has been with humanity as far back as recorded history. Confucius and Buddha both taught the "Golden Rule" 500 years before Jesus is reputed to have walked the Earth.
svanhoosen 1 year ago
@svanhoosen It is true that Jesus did not invent the concept. But he certainly taught it and lived it. I was simply pointing out that Dawkins contradicts himself in calling Christianity immoral, then citing as a basic moral principle something that Jesus affirmed, attributing it to "moral philosophers." Remember that most of the moral influences in the Western world originate from the Judeo-Christian tradition, whether Dawkins wants to admit it or not. The GR is most famously attributed to Jesus
tinkerthinker1 1 year ago
@tinkerthinker1 The "Golden Rule" is most famously attributed to Jesus by Christians, to Muhammad by Muslims, and to every other religious leader or teacher by their particular followers. In truth, it is an intuitive concept that surely was known by early humans 50,000 years ago, just as it is even understood by many other animals. Attempting to attribute it to your particular deity is fallacious.
svanhoosen 1 year ago
@svanhoosen I agree with the first half of your statement. But my point still holds. These "moral philosophers" of the Western world - modern Western Europe and North America-belong to a culture that was rooted in Christianity, just as Indian culture was rooted in Hinduism, and Arabic culture is still rooted in Islam. Not everything that is intuitive was stated and practiced by the ancients...and certainly not by Neanderthals!What sources can you cite about the Golden Rule being known 50k ago?
tinkerthinker1 1 year ago
@tinkerthinker1 I think it almost a surety that 50000 year old human ancestors followed the "golden rule" because it is intuitive to how we deal with one another, and a requirement for successful family and village groups. It is so intuitive, it can be observed to take place with many other animals, such as dolphins and chimpanzees.
svanhoosen 1 year ago
@svanhoosen @svanhoosen Unfortunately, there is no basis for your "surety." I agree that it is possible that it was practiced - in a limited, primitive way. But the Al Quaeda pilots sure weren't thinking that when they drove into the towers! What about the gangs in our inner cities?
Furthermore, there is a difference between intuitive actions and articulated rules.
We've gone far from the original topic. But I think I've made my point.
tinkerthinker1 1 year ago
@svanhoosen Yes, they did, its survival of the species and it can be observed in all other animals, hence the reason they exist.
strikenetter 1 year ago
@svanhoosen It's still true that Dawkins contradicts himself. He may be a famous scientist. But a philosopher he is not!
tinkerthinker1 1 year ago
@svanhoosen Also, Jesus (the Jew) derived it from the book of Leviticus (approx. 1200-1600 BC) in the Bible, which is older than Confucius or Buddha. This is probably the oldest positive rendering of the GR.
tinkerthinker1 1 year ago
@tinkerthinker1 Leviticus taught the Golden Rule? Is that the same Leviticus that also taught:
Death to homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13)
Death to fortune tellers (Leviticus 20:27)
Death for cursing ones parents (Leviticus 20:9)
Death for adultery (Leviticus 20:10)
Death for sex before marriage (Leviticus 21:9)
Sounds a bit contradictory to me. "Golden Rule" and "Kill kill kill kill kill" aren't very compatible.
svanhoosen 1 year ago
@svanhoosen Those injunctions need to be understood in the socio-historical context. Consider: As today's Americans talk about the Golden Rule, they shoot at enemies in war, support capital punishment, and kill their children and their elderly. For anyone genuinely interested in understanding Leviticus, I would gladly explain.
tinkerthinker1 1 year ago
@svanhoosen Also, your trying to discredit the book of Leviticus takes nothing away from the fact that it is probably the oldest written statement of the Golden Rule.
tinkerthinker1 1 year ago
Perhaps its just because, as humans, who can reason, we long ago found that if we treated other people nicely they would treat us nicely. Maybe its just simpler then scientists and social scientists think. If You wanted to be treated nicely the most logical way of achieving this would to be treat others nicely. Murders and unmoral people, usually have some sort of psychological disorder, that prevents them from thinking this way or are overall paranoid about other people.
MasonicEyes 1 year ago
@MasonicEyes
And it seems it is always unmoral people who end up writting "holy books" and founding religions.
Lathox 1 year ago
Notice how, implcitly in his viewpoint is that the modern, Western world is superior - and that more 'primitive' societies are implcitly less moral - because they haven't 'evolved' in to Western sociteies. Actually, there's no basis for this - smaller social groups, like tribes, often have a highly complex moral structure - sometimes MORE complex than Western society, not less. Prf Dawkins view simply re-asserts old, culture-centric biases - and applies evolution to society, like Marx did.
Thimbledunk 1 year ago
Yeah, the deep, deep issue here is that what he's positing isn't 'Darwinian' - that falsely ascribes a scientific basis to a highly controversial and heaviliy critiqued social science. The idea of interactionism as a basis for social morality is deeply problematic because, naturally, the basis of our interactions are governed by pre-extant social morality or rules - so it's not clear that this theory in any way explains the origin of morality - like many of Dawkins's ideas, it's a bit tautology.
Thimbledunk 1 year ago
@Thimbledunk No. He is presenting the results of (1) Game Theory which shows that an approximation to altruism is optimal behavior in interactions between players that interact repeatedly - such as members of small communities. (2) biological conclusion that altruism is genetically optimal between individuals who are related. He does not claim modern society is superior, but only that it involves many interactions with people who are not related and not likely to meet again, cf to primitive ones
postorm 1 year ago
I wonder how Dawkins' talking actually convinced that Theist in the beginning more and more that God exists. o.o
bangNL94 1 year ago
Hi bangNL94 - I think, like a of people in the academic world, he's representing a growing viewpoint that Prf Dawkins, although brilliant in his own field, isn't justified - academically - in some of the other things that he's presenting, as the young man says, with this kind of 'veneer' that they are 'science'. His explanation of cultural interaction as a source of morality is a key example - a highly flawed argument is presented as 'Darwinian' - i.e. scientific.
Thimbledunk 1 year ago
Whereas in the social science world - which, don't forget, that's what Prf Dawkins is doing here - NOT biology - that idea has been shown to not explain morality at all. Another key example is 'memes' - which natural scientists think are great because they fit in with a natural science viewpoint. But from the view where it counts - the people who really understand those ideas and their flaws - social scientists - the idea is a fairly meaningless tautology, presented with the veneerof 'science'.
Thimbledunk 1 year ago
Moral rules evolve as social memes. Moral rules that lead societies to the greatest economic efficiency start dominating and replacing other morals. Think of no killing, no theft and no coercion. Individuals obey moral rules because (1) they were raised that way. (2) Advocating personal hypocrisy is not in ones self-interest. (3) Ostracism of immoral behaving people is very effective. Dawkins is actually being immoral by supporting a coercive state and taxation (7:30).
alalelalex 1 year ago
i dont know if Dawkins is right... but i have faith and thats all that matters :)
blacklittletom 1 year ago
What you guys think of this?
Some instincts developed in creatures that started to live peacefully in social groups and reproduced more than those that didn't, and those instincts became hardwired into our brains as base of social interaction. The morals as we know them today are the combined result of hardwired tendencies towards some behavior patterns and the teachings of our parents, for the moment child differentiates himself from parents it starts to learn "morals" from interaction.
McAnkkuli 1 year ago
The second guy was pretty funny
TheXeroSkill 1 year ago
All I got out of this from Dawkins was this: I don't know why we are moral, but thank goodness that we are. I obey the Golden Rule, and that is why I am moral. If I don't want to live in an immoral world, then I must not be immoral. This is somewhat irrational though, so I don't know. Ask a moral philosopher. Oh yeah, and by the way, religion sucks.
tylerpotts5478 1 year ago
@tylerpotts5478 Is there a problem with most of those statements?Are you saying you're only moral because you fear punishment from God or only moral because you expect to be rewarded once you see God in heaven?Most of us are moral because we wouldn't want someone else acting immorally to our detriment.
Oh yeah if you are moral because you expect to be rewarded you might as well rape and pilliage now.The bible states that good deeds will not get you into heaven.Only accepting jesus.Sick right?
gamesmaster35 1 year ago
I've never understood how or why people try to answer metaphysical questions with evolution. evolution only deals with the observable world.
What observable proof do scientists have that morality way back over a million years ago, was based and founded on survival?
The proof cannot come from the way things are "now", but from over a million years ago. It was obviously a process. One must demonstrate the process that occurred in order to show how morality came about, the way we know it today.
destine4hope 1 year ago
@destine4hope @destine4hope Hi. Please see the 4th or 5th video in my favorites: Evolutionary Roots for morality." When you do, I'd like you to recognize that "if" we don't socially merge in one big group, we shall destroy the earth and meet our demise as a species. There are many "altruistic" genes/people that recognize this; please see where I'm coming from. With that said, recognize that our economic system is TOTALLY decoupled from this and that we must change it.
blaziermissy 1 year ago
Evolution, at least to the extent that it was moving more rapidly, was in a time when we lived in small groups. It's too specific to be a misfiring. If one man approaches you on the street asking for help, you might help him. If two men approach you, you think you're getting robbed, or it would be too burdensome to help two. Plus it would seem entirely advantageous to welcome fresh genes into an otherwise isolated group.
albinoman13bt 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawkins seems to agree with Dostoevsky. Without God ANYTHING is permissible! What a disgusting thought.
awesomewelles90 2 years ago
The bible condemns homosexuality, and just about everything else...obey the laws of the bible; KILL unruly children, KILL witches, KILL unfaithful wives etc etc . Why can't you follow the laws of god as set out in the bible, you backsliding hypocrites! Get out there, and do a bit of slaying and killing in the name of the one true god, who MUST be obeyed. How DARE you pick and choose (sorry; 'interpret') which rules to follow??
derek24hudson 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure jesus was gay. Always had a lot of butch guys around him, and occasionally kissed them, and perhaps went a 'bit further'...if you know what I mean! Anyone who thinks that a guy who has sex with another, perhaps in a lasting relationship, is morally worse than a believer who would rather a million people died of aids than wear a condom, is an intellectual faggot. (We eat faggots with onions in the UK). Any connection between the bible and morality escapes me, and most others.
derek24hudson 2 years ago
'In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God."
Darwin, Francis, The Life of Charles Darwin. London: Tiger Books,1995, 55.
BikersFromIreland 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Repeat: Mr. Dawkins has never studied the Bible with the spirit of God, so he will never grasp the understanding of the Bible, of this simple fact, nor the spirit thereof. God only gives his spirit to those who believe.
BikersFromIreland 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And so I repeat: Mr. Dawkins, must have never heard of the human conscience. What a ridiculous childish fairy tale comment. "Our morality comes from our Darwarian heritage." The man is a fool. The Bible is very clear on on the creation of a human conscience. Man even without the law present (the Bible) man will be governed by the law within himself, because, God has written the law (good vs. bad) into our hearts, which is, the human conscience.
BikersFromIreland 2 years ago
I believe this should be every honest sincere human beings honest crusade to stop the plight of this evil race of JEW parasites once and for all.
BikersFromIreland 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Part 2: The only purpose it fulfills is the self-gratification of the individuals who write the books, and line their pockets with the funds they generate from the sell of their books. The world needs to stand united against the filthy JEW and stop them once in for all.
BikersFromIreland 2 years ago
Jeremiah 8:9; "Wise people are put to shame, confused, and trapped. They have rejected the word of the LORD. They don't really have any wisdom. Psalm 53:1; "For the choir director: A meditation; a psalm of David. Only fools say in their hearts, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and their actions are evil; not one of them does good!"
BikersFromIreland 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Part 2: The man has never studied the Bible with the spirit of God, so he will never grasp the understanding of the Bible, of this simple fact, nor the spirit thereof. God only gives his spirit to those who believe. (correction)
BikersFromIreland 2 years ago
I call Mr. Dawkins a fool, not with insulting disrepect, but, repeating what the God of Bible stated: 'The fool has said in his heart that there is no God."
BikersFromIreland 2 years ago
Comment removed
BikersFromIreland 2 years ago
Comment removed
BikersFromIreland 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Part 1: Mr. Dawkins, must have never heard of the human conscience. What a ridiculous childish fairy tale comment. "Our morality comes from our Darwarian heritage." The man is a fool. The Bible is very clear on on the creation of a human conscience. Man even without the law present (the Bible) man will be governed by the law within himself, because, God has written the law (good vs. bad) into our hearts, which is, the human conscience.
BikersFromIreland 2 years ago
Comment removed
BikersFromIreland 2 years ago
HispanicIsNotARace1: Please seek help, you have a major enferiority complex, and I suggest you please go to a psychiatrist.
BikersFromIreland 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Repeat P.2 So, to refrain from becoming a mirror image of you (imbecile) I will desist any debates with you.
BikersFromIreland 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Repeat: P. 1 I am not even disgusting any subject with you because you are a imbecile, and you are with out any logical merit. You total persona is founded on the insulting and belittling of others. When one has to resort to retort and the innuendo's of slander, and vulgar commentary, then one has no choice but to desist communication with such a person and association with such a person, or one will become a mirror image of that person.
BikersFromIreland 2 years ago