Most people don't know shit about political realities. Dawkins admitted that on this he doesn't know shit. Would that everyone was careful as he was here.
Dawkins falls on his own sword? How wrong you are here! He didn't respond to a question in which he had little knowledge of. There's nothing wrong with that. Maybe the religions of the world need to take a leaf out of his book! Dawkins has never claimed to be the saviour of the world with all the solutions! He knows he isn't. That's admirable when you consider what politicians try to do. He just states things as they are, i.e people dont do evil in the name of atheism! that is true!
(cont) So, did a perfect God choose the wrong word (circle vs sphere), or did the "divinely-inspired" translators make a mistake? Pick your poison.
The biblical authors were fallible humans who relied on prevailing cosmological viewpoint of the Egyptians/Babylonians (flat earth, w/dome-shaped firmament to which Sun/Moon/stars were affixed on tracks, etc) .
(cont)"they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. Plugging the meaning of "sphere" into every passage that gh occurs will result in awkward interpretations."
Looking to the bible as a source of accurate scientific knowledge is even more foolish than reading journals from the 1800's.
"The phrase of Isaiah 40:22, "the circle of the earth" is very controversial. The first interpretation says that the word "circle" means "sphere" indicating that the earth is a sphere. This view seems most unlikely since the Hebrew word gh means "circle," and it seems very remote that it means "sphere" because there is a better Hebrew word for "sphere," rwd. In Isaiah 22:18 the word rwd is translated "ball." If the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere
an ethist can not talk about moral issues, because for something to be moral, has to be giiven by a moral law maker, who has to be transendent to us, other way would be humans telliing humans what to do, base oon their one perception of what is right or wrong, in that way it will have no value
@albusai You've identified the exact problem with religion: it assumes we're feeble-minded idiots who cannot discriminate right from wrong without some magical Uber Authority to tell us what to do, how to think, etc.
Never heard of Code of Hammurabi (famous for "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth")? It's Man's first recorded law, written in Babylon where they worshiped Marduk, a "pagan" God. Not a big fan of democracy or civil/criminal law? None appeal to the Bible, but do provide moral law.
Any theist who thanks God for his wonderful creations (citing a laundry list, eg Sun, Moon, stars, food, water, animals, etc) is simply a pantheist who's degenerated to "one-stop shopping": replacing one God with what ancient Greeks credited to many (Apollo, Artemis, Demeter, Zeus, etc).
It must've been hard to keep track of which God did what (you can just hear it: "Wait, i forgot: who's the God of volcanos?"), so monotheism made religion possible for even the dullest mind!
@smooth, the Earth is not "round" or a "circle" (2D shape), but a SPHERE, a 3D object! Ancient cosmologists thought it was flat, not spherical, so the Bible is WRONG, as you are, not comprehending the difference btwn circle & sphere. try deeper breathing: I fear ur brain must be oxygen-deprived
@AdamSlowHandSmith You clearly haven't studied ancient Hebrew/Aramaic have you, the language in which the old testament was written. I suggest you study the grammar first. That said I'm not here to be insulted and you clearly lack that ability to intelligently debate without getting hot headed and arrogant...like so many YouTube keyboard warriors. I will withdraw from spending any more of my time with you.
@smooth, I said i don't believe in invisible BEINGS: oxygen and gravity are not BEINGS, & I sure don't pray to them or thank them for allowing me to bask in their power and glory.
Further, there is strong conclusive EVIDENCE for their existence, which can be confirmed experimentally.
...and to put the record straight, Richard Dawkins IS NOT AN ATHEIST. He has rethought his ideas with the benefit of greater knowledge and now claims to be an agnostic. This is often the result when an intellect that is couple with a modicum of humility comes head to head with truth...truth will always have the effect of winning over those who are able to discern that knowledge and understanding is never finite but progressive. Next step Richard......we are waiting!
Wow that's the biggest stretch I've seen yet. It means nothing whatsoever Prof. Dawkins is British and has no knowledge of the situation and is wisely choosing not to comment on a subject in which he has no expertise. Pretty simple,
Your fallacy is assuming that replacing religion requires the solution to every problem. Mr Dawkings was gracious enough to admit that he had nothing to add.
@johnny1893 If I had spent the best part of my life trying to argue against the existence of an intelligent creator then I would for sure choose my words a little more intelligently than Dawkins. I will go back to my bible and its time served wisdom and you can go back to your philosophers and their supercilious reasonings that won't benefit you in any manner or form.
@smoothflamenco LOL believe what you want idiot, anyway you sound too much stupid to understand evolution or anything not comming from a preacher's mouth.
You are a typical christian.
''Would you ignore the existence of oxygen or gravity because you can't visibly see it Adam''
Yes stupid, look! I drop something on the ground. Gravity or god?
Hey I just used a lighter. Burning oxygen or a manifestation of god?
@johnny1893 Why does it upset you so much what I believe....I am that important to you? why are you so bitter and venomous? Anger is a sign of weakness and the cause of all of mankind's failings...just calm down my friend.
this was actually a smart move for dawkins and atheism. instead of coming up with a bullshit comment or answer he truthfully told everyone he was not fully aware of the situation and so he doesnt have enough knowledge to fully develop an opinion on the topic. now thats logic
@Cory, so one needs to devote a life-time to studying all myths and sacred texts from ancient and extant cultures (think Joseph Campbell, who did exactly that) in order to conclude that they're myths? That's nonsense.
If you postulate that invisible beings exist, the onus is on YOU to prove it, not me to disprove it.
@AdamSlowHandSmith Would you ignore the existence of oxygen or gravity because you can't visibly see it Adam, that would be foolishness wouldn't it? Throughout human history man has demonstrated respect for many things that he couldn't see and new little of...only with discovery came the greater wisdom that the natural laws of science were in place for out benefit and these needed to be acknowledged..............
@smoothflamenco Talking of myths.Until the 15th century scholarly wisdom believed the earth was flat yet some 3,500 years earlier the Psalmist stated that it was round! How much more enlightened would the scholarly be if they actually payed attention to Gods word and the scientific wisdom it contains rather then their own often ignorant and foolish notions. On account of being "ancient" the Bible is "time served". I wonder how many of your "modern" philosophical works will last the test of time?
@Cory, you'll never see RD debate theology because as a biologist there is essentially nothing scientific for him to address! He WILL debate evolution (a concept from biology), but a similar lack of subject matter knowledge doesn't keep theologians from getting in on an evo debate!
I'll often ask creationists what their opinion on "dark matter" or string theory is: then when I get a blank stare, I'll point out how everybody feels entitled to form an opinion on evo without researching, but are
You make a mistake... and it's almost silly. Proposing an answer does not grant a solution -- it can even cause damage and more harm. To propose a solution, you need knowledge or else you are giving it a blind shot -- and lucky you if you hit the target, but awful you if you miss it.
Essentially, that's what religion is: a blind shot. Even a partial consideration of facts and a very limited amount of knowledge would do far more good than it could ever deal and, this, without the harm it spreads
So because a scientist who isn't well versed in the topic of discussion doesn't assert that he can offer a valid opinion = atheists can never have an opinion? Wow. This is why people laugh at theists.
I grew up as a Christian when I was a kid and even I think the person who created this post is a nutter. Having said that there are unfortunately many like him/her. I'm not anti-religion, I just think logic and science should play a larger part in religious interpretation. Also Dawkins can't contribute on an Australian immigration debate without knowing the context and therefore he made the right call on that. He made he right call.
This is what differs atheists from creationists: we can admit that we don't know everything. Dawkins didn't answer the question about Australian immigration because he didn't think he was well-informed enough about the subject.
lol! Dawkins didn't "fall on his sword": he said he didn't have enough information to make an intelligent comment. What was he SUPPOSED to do, in your book? BS?
And that's the difference between scientists and non-scientists: the former don't try to BS their way thru life when dealing with unknowns, much less claim to KNOW the "truth". The "fuel" of science is unanswered challenging mysteries, as these give a reason to go to the lab every day (my sympathies if your job is rather mundane)....
@AdamSlowHandSmith I think the point was that Dawkins is awfully opinonated about abstract subjects he demonstrably knows nothing about (such as religion) when it suits him to be, but when it comes to actual feet-on-the-ground social issues he has nothing to say and no solutions... except to have a positive emotional reaction to what a RABBI said. LoL.
@CoryTheRaven RD has a distaste for theology, analogous to "advanced unicorn studies". It's all fiction, so why act like it's a legitimate topic for scientific study? Granted, Joseph Campbell made a career teaching World mythology, and sociologists study cultures, etc. But a "doctor of divinity" degree (do they grant divining rods at commencement)?
RD has enuf religious knowledge to ID a sham/scam, & doesn't engage in pointless "how many angels can sit on head of pin" theological discussions
@AdamSlowHandSmith That was merely an elaborate attempt to justify not only why it's okay not to know anything about subjects on which you voice an opinion, but why it's okay not to WANT to know anything about subjects on which you voice an opinion.
There is really no way around it, no matter how self-righteously one tries to position themselves as above the subject on which they dwell. You are defending anti-intellectualism. You are defending ignorance...
@AdamSlowHandSmith ...In other words, if you are going to debate theology, then YES you need to know theology. If you really think it is so far beneath you that you don't need to know anything about it, then shut up. If you are going to take it upon yourself to speak about it, then yes you must learn it.
This principle is true of every subject and it should astonish me that it even has to be said. Once again: if you are going to talk about something, then yes you need to know about it.
@Cory, he doesn't have to disagree with the Rabbi on ALL points? That would be foolish.
And do you want to compare what religion and science has done respectively to alleviate Mankind's suffering (eg medicine vs prayer)? I hope you're not going down THAT road, because it's a no-winner. Religion says "God will fix everything, so why tamper with God's will?".
And that's the problem: religion encourages going with the flow non-thinking vs solving the World problems in the here and now.
@AdamSlowHandSmith I also hope you're not going down that route, because it is rather embarassing for you. For example, it is very simple to read the Christian Gospels and find the passages advising concern and compassion for one another. Or Buddha's teachings on the alievation of suffering. It would be easy to just Google religious charity organizations. Your idea of what "religion" says (which one?) is a strawman charicature at best.
Dawkins did give an opinion, deferring to the approach that he stated was well communicated by his colleagues. Deference does NOT equate to no ideology or ideas. Someone here has a serious case of sour grapes.
The uploader must be either extremely stupid or inversely intelligent to lure people with a faulty premise, tricking us into reading their tripe... if only they knew the damage they were doing to their own religion and children's faith in the process.. what's left of it. :`(
Richard Dawkins said he dislikes politics, can't you just leave it at that rather than calling him stupid just because he doesn't have a solution to a political problem? You are so fucking closed-minded.
Why does it matter to anyone belief system if Richard Dawkins doesn't believe. Why do people come across as though the only way their beliefs would be valid is if they can get him to change or look foolish in his beliefs. My belief is life is a much bigger process than just this time or space, and each of us will try many things along the way. He needs to be there for his stage of the journey just as I need to be where I've chosen to be at my stage. I accept him just I wish to be accepted.
This is hilarious. I'm scouring youtube to try and find a video of a creationist ACTUALLY beating Dawkins in a debate and it doesn't exist. Only misleading titles, and when you click on the video the dislike bar is overwhelmingly huge or it's disabled because the poster knows his video is deceiving.
Good one creationists, keep trying even though you know you will fail.
So basically Dawkins is saying that logically Atheist dont do bad things because they have no religion over them to tell them what is immoral? Not sure if I am understanding him right but if that is what he means thats just illogical.
@unknownandaguy Thats not even close to what he is saying. He says that not believing in a god has no effects on whether you do good or bad. Morals and belief in a god are separate things. For example, Atheists can still give money to charity because they have love for their fellow man and want to contribute to human well-being. There are bad atheists like Stalin and good ones like bill gates. As well there are bad christians like the crusaders and good ones like mother Theresa.
A bit more research? My friend, you need to do a lot more research... That you cannot soundly interpret Dawkins' clearly reasoned response is an embarrasement to yourself and the clear absence of logic in your conclusions here is criminal. I think you should clean the splinters from under your nails - the ones from the bottom of the barrel you are so desperately scraping.
So... Dawkins not having enough information on the subject to make an informed opinion somehow equals having no ideas on how to solve any issues whatsoever? I don't know what planet you are from, but here on Earth that doesn't make any sense.
Dawkins said that he did not know enough about the situation to offer an opinion. Would you prefer that he act like most people and offer an uninformed opinion?
I used to be an atheist myself, but I am a scientist, my message is based on current study and research, Read the given website in flesh: godsurety . org .Listen to the educated people. Mr dawkins has stopped studying, He wants to make MONEY out of low mentality mass, who hate the feeling of "somebody great" naturally "wired" in their brain. Otherwise, his "God Delusion" will be out of business even "God" has been proven Scientifically and it is > F.O.C, Update yourself : godsurety . org
This is the story of a tiny little leech living inside the intestines of an atheist, who stood up on his tiny little soap box and announced to all the other leeches, that there is no such thing as a human being. And furthermore, it is not up to this tiny little leech to prove his blind faith assumed position, it is up to the other leeches claiming there is a human to prove there is one or else, there is no human being. ATHEISM=OBVIOUS LIE; no human could possibly remotely know there is no God
As far as Science is concerned, nobody should ignore the Ultimate Role of Evolution of Languages and Evolution of Religions in Major Evolution of Mankind. Survival of the Fittest of Mankind relies 100% on both evolutions as both are part of the Major Evolution by means of Natural Selection in working order. For both that make us all "Human” now. Otherwise all of you remain “Ape”like look, because nobody realizes that Sexual Activity between closest family members is "Technically Incorrect" .
Survival of the Fittest of Mankind relies 100% on both evolutions as both are part of the Major Evolution by means of Natural Selection in working order. For both that make us all Human” now. Otherwise all of you remain Apelike look, because nobody realizes that Sexual Activity between closest family members is technically incorrect.
I also like how he mentions that he's got more videos and will post them after he has done a bit more research... (2 years ago) Seems like that research and you didn't agree.
Please, I hope the OP of this video is NOT a "Christian." I can see why so many people think poorly of we Christians, if people like this are the only examples they are exposed to.
Atheist Rules NOTHING, World Scientists Rule, Visit The Website in flesh, type godsurety . org directly on your browser, Science has proven that "God" does exist, yes, the One who made decision to put everything in order so that we see it as it is, we are meant to have a freewill to make any "Individual Selection". Spread The News to all Your Friends. get F.O.C Update of Science, Mr Dawkins is sooooooooooo out of date, backward, stupid, as Old saying: little knowledge is dangerous.
"Is there a logical pathway from religious faith or belief in an atheistic faith and doing bad things? Yes. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, were atheists. They had faith in an atheistic ideology and from that belief in their own minds they logically committed mass murder.
@bb1111116 They did not do what the did because they were atheists. They didnt draw the mental pathway of "well im atheist and i believe theres no god so i have to do these horrible things to get power." They did what they did in the name of communism and what they felt was the proper way to lead their countries. Theres a difference between having a belief (or not having a belief) and then doing something bad, and actually doing something bad BECAUSE of that belief.
@bigandbeasty69; Some drew a mental pathway of "I'm an atheist and i believe that Karl Marx, the atheist, is infallible and that Pol Pot, his follower, is also infallible and based on the atheistic ideology of these leaders, we need to commit mass murder". It is a fact that some people in Cambodia used this line of reasoning.
The same type of reasoning can be used by religious fanatics, that religious leaders are infallible which can justify committing atrocities.
@Menegoth The word fundament means bum - the thing you sit on .You were saying you thought atheists could have no basis for being moral. I was just suggesting you sat on that
@Menegoth Nah. But Jesus said "By their fruits you shall know them" There have been many great and good atheists and equally some bad Christians. I guess Jesus meant people should rcognised for what they are, morally speaking, not for what they profess to beleive.
@Menegoth No fundaments for morality? That is just straight-down insulting. Any positive constructive morality found in any religion is very basic and in fact inherent to our species, biologically. Not because some book provided is with it, but because it is a product of the slow, gradual evolution of our species.
I am a theist and I fully agree that obviously Dawkins, who usually comments way the hell beyond his level of competence was right to beg off on this one. He says enough utter nonsense in supporting mindless materialism, views that show up in analysing his mindless materialist answers.
Why in the world is this video being thumbed down? Honestly what the fuck? Some arguments were a little weak but mostly it genuinely showed that Dawkins has nothing to contribute to the political arguments of our time unless it's about religion. You can't just deny evidence if it's not in you favor. That's like tripping over a banana peel and simply denying it ever took place.
Problem 1: He doesn't say all ideology is evil, he says Christianity has parts of it that directly lead to doing bad things. By this he means things in the old testament that require stoning and give laws for slavery and how you may beat your wife.
Problem 2: Atheism is not an ideology. A lack of belief in something does not equate to an ideology. I do not believe that a small tea-pot orbits the earth. That lack of belief does not mean I am part of an ideology.
Quote" there is no purpose to life, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA and is everythings purpose for living." Richard Dawkins.
No wonder he couldnt answer the question, by his own ideology he has NO MORAL OPINION , good and evil do not exist !
It's like asking a good politician an advanced maths problem. Why would a biologist attempt to answer a seemingly political question? Quite stupid if you ask me.
I believe that Human Beings are an accident of Nature and I also believe Life as we know it is rare to the point if there are others out there like us there would be less than planets in our solar system. Now 10,000 years is a good round number to say we started as a species to ask Questions and seek answers (excuse the irony). Now in terms of imigration as a Zoologist why doesn't he say that for every species including our own there are always subspecies Ours live in Third World countries!
I watched this. Typical creationists Cherry pick the good bits and forget the bad bits. The bible has genecide homophobia, slavery. You are doing the same thing. Atheism means no belief in the supernatural myth of the bible. They did not start wars because they are atheists they started for political reasons. Can you say that about the fights between Muslims and Christians. Throw away these fairy stories, they are not a source of morals.
I'm a young life creationist who totally disagrees with Richard's neo darwinism but really. This video misrepresents what's happening. The dude was justified in declining to comment on a question he felt was adequately answered. He even sympathized with the rabbi. On both sides we should be more fair in our critiques.
Ideology and Religion are two separate things. I.e there are plenty of ideologies that have nothing to do with religion, such as many political ideologies. I'd also like to point out that an ideology is not inherently good, just because it's an ideology. National Socialism (or Nazism, if you will) was, to put it midly, perhaps not the most "good" of ideologies... especially when it comes to ethics and morality.
"Richard Dawkins loves to point out in history on all the wrongs of Religion, does not admit the wrongs of Atheism."
Correlation does not imply causation
Dawkins' example demonstrates religious people have often done wrong for religious reasons that does NOT equal atheism is the cause of all non-religious wrong-doing
Ergo your point is moot and the premise flawed you now need to fix it to create a new hypothesis, one that actually works (IMO you can't)
notice how this video cuts in to Dawkins speaking MID SENTENCE. Makes you wonder whether to poster wants us to see him make his point out of context jst incase we might actually agee with his argument..
I wish Richard Dawkins would stress this fact more, i heard him say only once that "Atheism is not something you belive in, its something you DONT belive in".
Athism is not a set of belifs, its a disbelif in god. And nothing more.
I think i know the point you where trying to make with this video...but it wasn't very clear and the rolling text should have been more clear.
I think your point was he stated he could logically link evil and religion but not Atheism and religion..yet a minute late said that he agreed with a rabbi. Which was kind of ironic...but as it was only a few minutes of film it was hard to get the full picture... still worth making.
Richard Dawkins: "I can't be sure God does not exist" March 1st 2012
He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.
Woops, seems darwinists better rethink what they profess to be "science".
Dawkins didnt know anything about the situation. How can you possibly ask him to give an account of something he doesn't know alot about? Ask him about evolution amd see what kind of a response you get eh
@Hypertask Anyone with an ounce of logic should be able to see the hoax this man represents. If you buy into his pitch you are not a logical person. This makes any conversation a person of the dawkin's mindset pointless akin to trying to teach a dog how to speak english. It is that extreme. If your wish is to be separated from God, you will get your wish upon physical death. BELIEVE me, you're in for a shock. The spirit world is very real and you're treading on more danger than you can imagine.
You went to a great deal of trouble to make this video only to prove that Dawkins knows to shut up when he is asked an opinion on something that he does not know about.
most of the world knows instinctively God is real...my mother and wife know there is a Creator thru direct exp and to me He is the ultimate mystery...I hope atheists don't totally close their minds to the possibility
@lynnethc There obviously is no instinctive belief in a creator, people are simply taught about it from a very young age. If it were instinctive, we also wouldn't have multitudes of entire cultures with religions that do not follow a god (e.g. Buddhism or Taoism).
@DTaureli...I was never taught anything about God...most people I have talked to believe and throughout history humans have sensed there is more than physical world which explains the belief inGod over the millenia...medicine men an Hindu sadhus are known for healing and going w/o food and water
@leonetski Way to immediately contradict yourself. You were "never taught anything about God" and yet most of the people you have talked to "have sensed there is more than physical world which explains the belief inGod". You learn from the people around you, no explicit teaching is required!
@Hypertask i hear a lot of 1 + 1 = 3 "logic" here but i truly was never taught anything as in a teacher or parent who brainwashed me, that is my point but you decided to take it further
@helpmetony nope, none at all, but good try. A religious person should be the last to comment on the constitution of a non-religious person. I suppose that is part of your team's gig though, spouting nonsense and all. If you believe what you say, convince me. Where does faith enter my picture?
@helpmetony False. Atheism is a lack of "faith" in things. It is believing things based on reason and empirical evidence and, in the lack of evidence for something, not jumping to "well it was magic." e don;t have all the answers yet, true, but that doesn't mean that magic beings and magical people are responsible for it. Much more likely is that there are natural processes driving everything in the universe.
@WCAOANProductions I agree with you that natural process is more than likely what drives the universe. Although I have a feeling that we may differ on each others interpretation of what we deem as "natural".
Richard was perfectly in his right to decline from commenting on something he knew nothing about. Nor did he say that he was unmoved by the situation. He just could not comment on something that he has no information about.
He is a brit, on the other side of the world, a zoologist, not a human rights worker in Australia.
If you asked a Rabbi in the USA about the life cycle of british bats and he said he had no opinion, would that make religion stupid?
another example of theists desperate to find anything to bash atheism. Even not commenting on something is a bad thing now it seems in the eyes of theists.
Atheism is not a worldview, philosophy or religion. That does not mean Atheists don't have morals, or philosophies or solutions to problems.
Your text below the video shows you fail to grasp even a basic understanding of our position and attempt to strawman it with this crap.
What a stupid video!!! Dawkins declined to comment on something he is not fully informed and this is somehow wrong?!? Atheists don't claim knowledge when it is not warranted - that's actually a good thing.
@whiteliketar launching a pitiful ad hominem attack doesn't make you right; Salman Rushdie could attest to that. Thankfully, conduct of the sort isn't permitted in debates between intelligent people.
So it's considered "falling on your own sword" for a biologist to choose not to make a hasty, uninformed remark about a political affair in a foreign country?
So I guess I would be falling on my own sword as a computer hardware engineer, living in America, to refrain from making a political comment on the Japanese embassy hostage crisis in Peru from 1996?
ngjimmy? is it a hearing problem or an understanding problem you suffer from? Dawkins expressed he is not familliar with the situation in Australia, hence he refrain from commenting.
The man refused to comment on something he had no knowledge of because his opinion wouldn't be valid....you should try this the next time you think to make a video.
uncle charles is one hell of a fruit..
RexisAZero 7 hours ago
How the twirling fuck did I subscribe to you? This is a shabby hatchet-job.
aiyic 20 hours ago
Most people don't know shit about political realities. Dawkins admitted that on this he doesn't know shit. Would that everyone was careful as he was here.
blackacidlizzard 20 hours ago
...I hope you soon realise how stupid this video is.
m88888 2 days ago
@gwgplaya, only more conclusions?
Even theists disagree on religious "truth", where each claims to be the one "true" religion, the only true path to God. That's blind FAITH.
And that's the difference w/ science: it demands verifiable testable evidence, not unsupported hypotheses/theories, lest of all FAITH.
AdamSlowHandSmith 3 days ago
Dawkins falls on his own sword? How wrong you are here! He didn't respond to a question in which he had little knowledge of. There's nothing wrong with that. Maybe the religions of the world need to take a leaf out of his book! Dawkins has never claimed to be the saviour of the world with all the solutions! He knows he isn't. That's admirable when you consider what politicians try to do. He just states things as they are, i.e people dont do evil in the name of atheism! that is true!
SC75116 3 days ago 6
Hello! Conscience! We have it too, most psychologically normal humans do...
GumpAnarchy 3 days ago
@GumpAnarchy false
gwgplaya 3 days ago
@gwgplaya Heck, even a judge has to explain their thinking when they issue their ruling.
Your "argument" seems to be missing an argument, much less supporting facts? Care to explain, or should we just take your word as edict?
AdamSlowHandSmith 3 days ago
@AdamSlowHandSmith lol take my word. lol athiesm is an excuse for not bieng able to comprehend the truths of religion
gwgplaya 3 days ago
(cont) So, did a perfect God choose the wrong word (circle vs sphere), or did the "divinely-inspired" translators make a mistake? Pick your poison.
The biblical authors were fallible humans who relied on prevailing cosmological viewpoint of the Egyptians/Babylonians (flat earth, w/dome-shaped firmament to which Sun/Moon/stars were affixed on tracks, etc) .
AdamSlowHandSmith 4 days ago
(cont)"they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. Plugging the meaning of "sphere" into every passage that gh occurs will result in awkward interpretations."
Looking to the bible as a source of accurate scientific knowledge is even more foolish than reading journals from the 1800's.
AdamSlowHandSmith 4 days ago
@smooth, from bibleandscience dotcom:
"The phrase of Isaiah 40:22, "the circle of the earth" is very controversial. The first interpretation says that the word "circle" means "sphere" indicating that the earth is a sphere. This view seems most unlikely since the Hebrew word gh means "circle," and it seems very remote that it means "sphere" because there is a better Hebrew word for "sphere," rwd. In Isaiah 22:18 the word rwd is translated "ball." If the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere
AdamSlowHandSmith 4 days ago
an ethist can not talk about moral issues, because for something to be moral, has to be giiven by a moral law maker, who has to be transendent to us, other way would be humans telliing humans what to do, base oon their one perception of what is right or wrong, in that way it will have no value
albusai 4 days ago
@albusai You've identified the exact problem with religion: it assumes we're feeble-minded idiots who cannot discriminate right from wrong without some magical Uber Authority to tell us what to do, how to think, etc.
Never heard of Code of Hammurabi (famous for "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth")? It's Man's first recorded law, written in Babylon where they worshiped Marduk, a "pagan" God. Not a big fan of democracy or civil/criminal law? None appeal to the Bible, but do provide moral law.
AdamSlowHandSmith 3 days ago
Any theist who thanks God for his wonderful creations (citing a laundry list, eg Sun, Moon, stars, food, water, animals, etc) is simply a pantheist who's degenerated to "one-stop shopping": replacing one God with what ancient Greeks credited to many (Apollo, Artemis, Demeter, Zeus, etc).
It must've been hard to keep track of which God did what (you can just hear it: "Wait, i forgot: who's the God of volcanos?"), so monotheism made religion possible for even the dullest mind!
AdamSlowHandSmith 5 days ago
@smooth, the Earth is not "round" or a "circle" (2D shape), but a SPHERE, a 3D object! Ancient cosmologists thought it was flat, not spherical, so the Bible is WRONG, as you are, not comprehending the difference btwn circle & sphere. try deeper breathing: I fear ur brain must be oxygen-deprived
AdamSlowHandSmith 5 days ago
@AdamSlowHandSmith You clearly haven't studied ancient Hebrew/Aramaic have you, the language in which the old testament was written. I suggest you study the grammar first. That said I'm not here to be insulted and you clearly lack that ability to intelligently debate without getting hot headed and arrogant...like so many YouTube keyboard warriors. I will withdraw from spending any more of my time with you.
smoothflamenco 4 days ago
@smooth, I said i don't believe in invisible BEINGS: oxygen and gravity are not BEINGS, & I sure don't pray to them or thank them for allowing me to bask in their power and glory.
Further, there is strong conclusive EVIDENCE for their existence, which can be confirmed experimentally.
AdamSlowHandSmith 5 days ago
...and to put the record straight, Richard Dawkins IS NOT AN ATHEIST. He has rethought his ideas with the benefit of greater knowledge and now claims to be an agnostic. This is often the result when an intellect that is couple with a modicum of humility comes head to head with truth...truth will always have the effect of winning over those who are able to discern that knowledge and understanding is never finite but progressive. Next step Richard......we are waiting!
smoothflamenco 5 days ago
Wow that's the biggest stretch I've seen yet. It means nothing whatsoever Prof. Dawkins is British and has no knowledge of the situation and is wisely choosing not to comment on a subject in which he has no expertise. Pretty simple,
mtao32 5 days ago
Your fallacy is assuming that replacing religion requires the solution to every problem. Mr Dawkings was gracious enough to admit that he had nothing to add.
KaraokeSpainPuntoCom 5 days ago
Because science isn't about speaking without evidence, he did what any reasonable scientist would do, not speak if he didn;t know enough about it.
linkrulesx10 6 days ago
Did I really hear him say "sure as hell"...and people think this man possesses great intellect!
smoothflamenco 6 days ago
@smoothflamenco Really? That's the best you can find? Please STFU and go back to your bible, you can't think for yourself.
johnny1893 5 days ago
@johnny1893 If I had spent the best part of my life trying to argue against the existence of an intelligent creator then I would for sure choose my words a little more intelligently than Dawkins. I will go back to my bible and its time served wisdom and you can go back to your philosophers and their supercilious reasonings that won't benefit you in any manner or form.
smoothflamenco 5 days ago
@smoothflamenco LOL believe what you want idiot, anyway you sound too much stupid to understand evolution or anything not comming from a preacher's mouth.
You are a typical christian.
''Would you ignore the existence of oxygen or gravity because you can't visibly see it Adam''
Yes stupid, look! I drop something on the ground. Gravity or god?
Hey I just used a lighter. Burning oxygen or a manifestation of god?
johnny1893 5 days ago
@johnny1893 Why does it upset you so much what I believe....I am that important to you? why are you so bitter and venomous? Anger is a sign of weakness and the cause of all of mankind's failings...just calm down my friend.
smoothflamenco 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@smoothflamenco Why does it upset you so much what Richard Dawkins believe....
Just another bigot, seriously STFU and go back to your bible
''You clearly haven't studied ancient Hebrew/Aramaic have you, the language in which the old testament was written.''
So what? Idiot, you are the angry emotional loser here, look:
''That said I'm not here to be insulted and you clearly lack that ability to intelligently debate without getting hot headed and arrogant...''
Why are you so bitter and venomous?
johnny1893 4 days ago
@smoothflamenco Also, I'm not you friend...
johnny1893 4 days ago
this was actually a smart move for dawkins and atheism. instead of coming up with a bullshit comment or answer he truthfully told everyone he was not fully aware of the situation and so he doesnt have enough knowledge to fully develop an opinion on the topic. now thats logic
XxBrostepxX 6 days ago 4
@Cory, so one needs to devote a life-time to studying all myths and sacred texts from ancient and extant cultures (think Joseph Campbell, who did exactly that) in order to conclude that they're myths? That's nonsense.
If you postulate that invisible beings exist, the onus is on YOU to prove it, not me to disprove it.
AdamSlowHandSmith 6 days ago
@AdamSlowHandSmith Would you ignore the existence of oxygen or gravity because you can't visibly see it Adam, that would be foolishness wouldn't it? Throughout human history man has demonstrated respect for many things that he couldn't see and new little of...only with discovery came the greater wisdom that the natural laws of science were in place for out benefit and these needed to be acknowledged..............
smoothflamenco 5 days ago
@smoothflamenco Talking of myths.Until the 15th century scholarly wisdom believed the earth was flat yet some 3,500 years earlier the Psalmist stated that it was round! How much more enlightened would the scholarly be if they actually payed attention to Gods word and the scientific wisdom it contains rather then their own often ignorant and foolish notions. On account of being "ancient" the Bible is "time served". I wonder how many of your "modern" philosophical works will last the test of time?
smoothflamenco 5 days ago
@Cory, you'll never see RD debate theology because as a biologist there is essentially nothing scientific for him to address! He WILL debate evolution (a concept from biology), but a similar lack of subject matter knowledge doesn't keep theologians from getting in on an evo debate!
I'll often ask creationists what their opinion on "dark matter" or string theory is: then when I get a blank stare, I'll point out how everybody feels entitled to form an opinion on evo without researching, but are
AdamSlowHandSmith 6 days ago
You make a mistake... and it's almost silly. Proposing an answer does not grant a solution -- it can even cause damage and more harm. To propose a solution, you need knowledge or else you are giving it a blind shot -- and lucky you if you hit the target, but awful you if you miss it.
Essentially, that's what religion is: a blind shot. Even a partial consideration of facts and a very limited amount of knowledge would do far more good than it could ever deal and, this, without the harm it spreads
KrugmanTheKing 1 week ago
So because a scientist who isn't well versed in the topic of discussion doesn't assert that he can offer a valid opinion = atheists can never have an opinion? Wow. This is why people laugh at theists.
ehipassiko 1 week ago
I grew up as a Christian when I was a kid and even I think the person who created this post is a nutter. Having said that there are unfortunately many like him/her. I'm not anti-religion, I just think logic and science should play a larger part in religious interpretation. Also Dawkins can't contribute on an Australian immigration debate without knowing the context and therefore he made the right call on that. He made he right call.
Manseb 1 week ago
This is what differs atheists from creationists: we can admit that we don't know everything. Dawkins didn't answer the question about Australian immigration because he didn't think he was well-informed enough about the subject.
najhoant 1 week ago
The like/dislike bar proves one thing. Youtube is a haven for atheists
kb24crazylaker 1 week ago
0:13 "sure as hell there is" See everyone he knows its true LOL
kb24crazylaker 1 week ago
lol! Dawkins didn't "fall on his sword": he said he didn't have enough information to make an intelligent comment. What was he SUPPOSED to do, in your book? BS?
And that's the difference between scientists and non-scientists: the former don't try to BS their way thru life when dealing with unknowns, much less claim to KNOW the "truth". The "fuel" of science is unanswered challenging mysteries, as these give a reason to go to the lab every day (my sympathies if your job is rather mundane)....
AdamSlowHandSmith 1 week ago
@AdamSlowHandSmith I think the point was that Dawkins is awfully opinonated about abstract subjects he demonstrably knows nothing about (such as religion) when it suits him to be, but when it comes to actual feet-on-the-ground social issues he has nothing to say and no solutions... except to have a positive emotional reaction to what a RABBI said. LoL.
CoryTheRaven 1 week ago
@CoryTheRaven RD has a distaste for theology, analogous to "advanced unicorn studies". It's all fiction, so why act like it's a legitimate topic for scientific study? Granted, Joseph Campbell made a career teaching World mythology, and sociologists study cultures, etc. But a "doctor of divinity" degree (do they grant divining rods at commencement)?
RD has enuf religious knowledge to ID a sham/scam, & doesn't engage in pointless "how many angels can sit on head of pin" theological discussions
AdamSlowHandSmith 6 days ago
@AdamSlowHandSmith That was merely an elaborate attempt to justify not only why it's okay not to know anything about subjects on which you voice an opinion, but why it's okay not to WANT to know anything about subjects on which you voice an opinion.
There is really no way around it, no matter how self-righteously one tries to position themselves as above the subject on which they dwell. You are defending anti-intellectualism. You are defending ignorance...
CoryTheRaven 6 days ago
@AdamSlowHandSmith ...In other words, if you are going to debate theology, then YES you need to know theology. If you really think it is so far beneath you that you don't need to know anything about it, then shut up. If you are going to take it upon yourself to speak about it, then yes you must learn it.
This principle is true of every subject and it should astonish me that it even has to be said. Once again: if you are going to talk about something, then yes you need to know about it.
CoryTheRaven 6 days ago
@Cory, he doesn't have to disagree with the Rabbi on ALL points? That would be foolish.
And do you want to compare what religion and science has done respectively to alleviate Mankind's suffering (eg medicine vs prayer)? I hope you're not going down THAT road, because it's a no-winner. Religion says "God will fix everything, so why tamper with God's will?".
And that's the problem: religion encourages going with the flow non-thinking vs solving the World problems in the here and now.
AdamSlowHandSmith 6 days ago
@AdamSlowHandSmith I also hope you're not going down that route, because it is rather embarassing for you. For example, it is very simple to read the Christian Gospels and find the passages advising concern and compassion for one another. Or Buddha's teachings on the alievation of suffering. It would be easy to just Google religious charity organizations. Your idea of what "religion" says (which one?) is a strawman charicature at best.
CoryTheRaven 6 days ago
This video made no sense.
You are retarded.
JT777 1 week ago
Dawkins did give an opinion, deferring to the approach that he stated was well communicated by his colleagues. Deference does NOT equate to no ideology or ideas. Someone here has a serious case of sour grapes.
charadester 1 week ago
The uploader must be either extremely stupid or inversely intelligent to lure people with a faulty premise, tricking us into reading their tripe... if only they knew the damage they were doing to their own religion and children's faith in the process.. what's left of it. :`(
Vids4UNI 1 week ago
Eugenics and the New World Order?
Ap0lly0n7 1 week ago
"After doing a bit more research" Like as opposed to none at all.
Dgoosh1000 1 week ago
Nothing matters when you're dead. Atheists and believers alike will leave this world and all that was done will cease to matter or will it? O_o
Loadedone82 1 week ago
Richard Dawkins said he dislikes politics, can't you just leave it at that rather than calling him stupid just because he doesn't have a solution to a political problem? You are so fucking closed-minded.
PaladinswordSaurfang 1 week ago
Why does it matter to anyone belief system if Richard Dawkins doesn't believe. Why do people come across as though the only way their beliefs would be valid is if they can get him to change or look foolish in his beliefs. My belief is life is a much bigger process than just this time or space, and each of us will try many things along the way. He needs to be there for his stage of the journey just as I need to be where I've chosen to be at my stage. I accept him just I wish to be accepted.
1234tfd 1 week ago
This is hilarious. I'm scouring youtube to try and find a video of a creationist ACTUALLY beating Dawkins in a debate and it doesn't exist. Only misleading titles, and when you click on the video the dislike bar is overwhelmingly huge or it's disabled because the poster knows his video is deceiving.
Good one creationists, keep trying even though you know you will fail.
exploremagic23 1 week ago
So basically Dawkins is saying that logically Atheist dont do bad things because they have no religion over them to tell them what is immoral? Not sure if I am understanding him right but if that is what he means thats just illogical.
unknownandaguy 1 week ago
@unknownandaguy Thats not even close to what he is saying. He says that not believing in a god has no effects on whether you do good or bad. Morals and belief in a god are separate things. For example, Atheists can still give money to charity because they have love for their fellow man and want to contribute to human well-being. There are bad atheists like Stalin and good ones like bill gates. As well there are bad christians like the crusaders and good ones like mother Theresa.
3002321542 1 week ago
@unknownandaguy you were correct about one thing: you are not understanding him right.
retromelon123 1 week ago
shithouse
atheistausmoot 1 week ago
A bit more research? My friend, you need to do a lot more research... That you cannot soundly interpret Dawkins' clearly reasoned response is an embarrasement to yourself and the clear absence of logic in your conclusions here is criminal. I think you should clean the splinters from under your nails - the ones from the bottom of the barrel you are so desperately scraping.
TheWatcherBeneath 1 week ago
well that was a complete waste of time. cheers for nothing. why don't you debate the things he said rather then the things he didn't.
mundarda 1 week ago
So... Dawkins not having enough information on the subject to make an informed opinion somehow equals having no ideas on how to solve any issues whatsoever? I don't know what planet you are from, but here on Earth that doesn't make any sense.
Nanofuture87 1 week ago
Dawkins said that he did not know enough about the situation to offer an opinion. Would you prefer that he act like most people and offer an uninformed opinion?
I think that Dawkins did the correct thing.
kshackleton 1 week ago
3 minutes and 23 seconds of life wasted watching this video. Cheers.
togjuice 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I used to be an atheist myself, but I am a scientist, my message is based on current study and research, Read the given website in flesh: godsurety . org .Listen to the educated people. Mr dawkins has stopped studying, He wants to make MONEY out of low mentality mass, who hate the feeling of "somebody great" naturally "wired" in their brain. Otherwise, his "God Delusion" will be out of business even "God" has been proven Scientifically and it is > F.O.C, Update yourself : godsurety . org
Ordeal1000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ngjimmy
Logic demands the burden of proof rests upon the shoulders of the person(s) that make a claim.
For example, if I say gods exist, then logically? i am responsible for proving my claim.
Another example, If I say an invisible blue monkey is above your head, AGAIN, I (NOT YOU) am responsible for proving my claim.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF OF ANY STUPID CLAIM SOMEONE MAKES, DOES
NOT REST UPON ANYONE ELSE'S SHOULDERS
YOU MADE AN ARGUMENT BASED ON THE CLAIM THAT GODS EXIST,
PROVE IT.
yourtreat2 1 week ago
What's the point of this again?
jazzgtrplayer 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is the story of a tiny little leech living inside the intestines of an atheist, who stood up on his tiny little soap box and announced to all the other leeches, that there is no such thing as a human being. And furthermore, it is not up to this tiny little leech to prove his blind faith assumed position, it is up to the other leeches claiming there is a human to prove there is one or else, there is no human being. ATHEISM=OBVIOUS LIE; no human could possibly remotely know there is no God
richardaberdeen 1 week ago
As far as Science is concerned, nobody should ignore the Ultimate Role of Evolution of Languages and Evolution of Religions in Major Evolution of Mankind. Survival of the Fittest of Mankind relies 100% on both evolutions as both are part of the Major Evolution by means of Natural Selection in working order. For both that make us all "Human” now. Otherwise all of you remain “Ape”like look, because nobody realizes that Sexual Activity between closest family members is "Technically Incorrect" .
Ordeal1000 1 week ago
Survival of the Fittest of Mankind relies 100% on both evolutions as both are part of the Major Evolution by means of Natural Selection in working order. For both that make us all Human” now. Otherwise all of you remain Apelike look, because nobody realizes that Sexual Activity between closest family members is technically incorrect.
Ordeal1000 1 week ago
Wow. Uploader is possibly, legitimately, legally retarded...keep on truckin little guy
Pheonix2022 1 week ago
I also like how he mentions that he's got more videos and will post them after he has done a bit more research... (2 years ago) Seems like that research and you didn't agree.
Xezukaful 1 week ago
Please, I hope the OP of this video is NOT a "Christian." I can see why so many people think poorly of we Christians, if people like this are the only examples they are exposed to.
YouTube is the worst sample pool for any group.
TheHorta 1 week ago
This video uploader is fucking retarded... give him some slack!
Xezukaful 1 week ago
you are very deluded my friend.
tazzron 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheist Rules NOTHING, World Scientists Rule, Visit The Website in flesh, type godsurety . org directly on your browser, Science has proven that "God" does exist, yes, the One who made decision to put everything in order so that we see it as it is, we are meant to have a freewill to make any "Individual Selection". Spread The News to all Your Friends. get F.O.C Update of Science, Mr Dawkins is sooooooooooo out of date, backward, stupid, as Old saying: little knowledge is dangerous.
Ordeal1000 1 week ago
"Is there a logical pathway from religious faith or belief in an atheistic faith and doing bad things? Yes. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, were atheists. They had faith in an atheistic ideology and from that belief in their own minds they logically committed mass murder.
bb1111116 1 week ago
@bb1111116 They did not do what the did because they were atheists. They didnt draw the mental pathway of "well im atheist and i believe theres no god so i have to do these horrible things to get power." They did what they did in the name of communism and what they felt was the proper way to lead their countries. Theres a difference between having a belief (or not having a belief) and then doing something bad, and actually doing something bad BECAUSE of that belief.
bigandbeasty69 1 week ago
@bigandbeasty69; Some drew a mental pathway of "I'm an atheist and i believe that Karl Marx, the atheist, is infallible and that Pol Pot, his follower, is also infallible and based on the atheistic ideology of these leaders, we need to commit mass murder". It is a fact that some people in Cambodia used this line of reasoning.
The same type of reasoning can be used by religious fanatics, that religious leaders are infallible which can justify committing atrocities.
bb1111116 1 week ago
@bb1111116 What atheist ideology could possibly lead someone to murder? How can disbelief in the supernatural lead to mass murder?
dominatein08 1 week ago
@dominatein08 Because you have no fundaments for morality.
Menegoth 1 week ago
@Menegoth I can assure you I do have buttocks but I I don't rely on them for my moral compass. I just sit on them.Perhaps you should do the same
235saphire 1 week ago
@235saphire And what's that supposed to mean? Speak sense.
Menegoth 1 week ago
@Menegoth The word fundament means bum - the thing you sit on .You were saying you thought atheists could have no basis for being moral. I was just suggesting you sat on that
235saphire 1 week ago
@235saphire Hilarious. And do you have an actual argument too?
Menegoth 1 week ago
@Menegoth Nah. But Jesus said "By their fruits you shall know them" There have been many great and good atheists and equally some bad Christians. I guess Jesus meant people should rcognised for what they are, morally speaking, not for what they profess to beleive.
235saphire 1 week ago
@Menegoth No fundaments for morality? That is just straight-down insulting. Any positive constructive morality found in any religion is very basic and in fact inherent to our species, biologically. Not because some book provided is with it, but because it is a product of the slow, gradual evolution of our species.
gerby90 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dominatein08 wrote; "What atheist ideology could possibly lead someone to murder?"
An atheistic ideology which believes in the infallibility of Karl Marx, as interpreted by Pol Pot and his followers.
bb1111116 1 week ago
I am a theist and I fully agree that obviously Dawkins, who usually comments way the hell beyond his level of competence was right to beg off on this one. He says enough utter nonsense in supporting mindless materialism, views that show up in analysing his mindless materialist answers.
Youdamana 1 week ago
Why in the world is this video being thumbed down? Honestly what the fuck? Some arguments were a little weak but mostly it genuinely showed that Dawkins has nothing to contribute to the political arguments of our time unless it's about religion. You can't just deny evidence if it's not in you favor. That's like tripping over a banana peel and simply denying it ever took place.
spamqad 2 weeks ago
@spamqad He isn't a politician, he is a Zoologist
smallvillewanabe123 1 week ago
lets dislike this vedeo....
abnerely 2 weeks ago
your video editing and the idea behind the video in general makes absolutely no sense.
alphafour 2 weeks ago
What a spurious connection. Falling on his sword and having nothing to say bear extreme differences.
alphaenemy 2 weeks ago
I think we should all speak ideologically about topics we know nothing about. I can't get enough of that in the media these days.
Less intellectual honesty, more opinion and feeling-based debates please..
fjoo 2 weeks ago
So me not collecting stamps leads to evil and terrible things???
How if i may ask?
baldurus1 2 weeks ago
Problem 1: He doesn't say all ideology is evil, he says Christianity has parts of it that directly lead to doing bad things. By this he means things in the old testament that require stoning and give laws for slavery and how you may beat your wife.
Problem 2: Atheism is not an ideology. A lack of belief in something does not equate to an ideology. I do not believe that a small tea-pot orbits the earth. That lack of belief does not mean I am part of an ideology.
In closing...WOW. lolol
DanceDiggy 2 weeks ago
w w w.youtube.com/watch?v=IuK3d0GPh5U
kaychikybabexo 2 weeks ago
Holy crap. How was this a fail in any way by Professor Dawkins? You are really, really reaching here....
hardcoregmr4lyf 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Quote" there is no purpose to life, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA and is everythings purpose for living." Richard Dawkins.
No wonder he couldnt answer the question, by his own ideology he has NO MORAL OPINION , good and evil do not exist !
MrMaxTruth 2 weeks ago
It's like asking a good politician an advanced maths problem. Why would a biologist attempt to answer a seemingly political question? Quite stupid if you ask me.
TheSheepwall 2 weeks ago
Wow this is the stupidest video I have ever watched
oneoneonetwo 2 weeks ago
I believe that Human Beings are an accident of Nature and I also believe Life as we know it is rare to the point if there are others out there like us there would be less than planets in our solar system. Now 10,000 years is a good round number to say we started as a species to ask Questions and seek answers (excuse the irony). Now in terms of imigration as a Zoologist why doesn't he say that for every species including our own there are always subspecies Ours live in Third World countries!
2490debrick 2 weeks ago
Not sure if video uploader is trolling or just stupid.
destroyallhaha 2 weeks ago
I watched this. Typical creationists Cherry pick the good bits and forget the bad bits. The bible has genecide homophobia, slavery. You are doing the same thing. Atheism means no belief in the supernatural myth of the bible. They did not start wars because they are atheists they started for political reasons. Can you say that about the fights between Muslims and Christians. Throw away these fairy stories, they are not a source of morals.
elsbymike 2 weeks ago
you're a fucking idiot mate.
leakeg 2 weeks ago
I'm a young life creationist who totally disagrees with Richard's neo darwinism but really. This video misrepresents what's happening. The dude was justified in declining to comment on a question he felt was adequately answered. He even sympathized with the rabbi. On both sides we should be more fair in our critiques.
parraphrase 2 weeks ago 2
Ideology and Religion are two separate things. I.e there are plenty of ideologies that have nothing to do with religion, such as many political ideologies. I'd also like to point out that an ideology is not inherently good, just because it's an ideology. National Socialism (or Nazism, if you will) was, to put it midly, perhaps not the most "good" of ideologies... especially when it comes to ethics and morality.
ZedCactus 2 weeks ago
@ngjimmy
"Richard Dawkins loves to point out in history on all the wrongs of Religion, does not admit the wrongs of Atheism."
Correlation does not imply causation
Dawkins' example demonstrates religious people have often done wrong for religious reasons that does NOT equal atheism is the cause of all non-religious wrong-doing
Ergo your point is moot and the premise flawed you now need to fix it to create a new hypothesis, one that actually works (IMO you can't)
HTH Understanding
bluesman979 2 weeks ago
is this the best you've got? it's a desperate last hope attempt at hanging on for dear life.......i laugh at you
ppauly 2 weeks ago
what a silly way of understanding things this video is.
caferenato 2 weeks ago
theism is also ideology-less.
MetalDoneMoreForME 2 weeks ago
@MetalDoneMoreForME
errrr......you're kidding right......
ftyror 2 weeks ago
@ftyror no.
MetalDoneMoreForME 2 weeks ago
@MetalDoneMoreForME
seriously man just think about it for five minutes before posting such vacuous, uncritical crap...
ftyror 1 week ago
@ftyror what are you talking about?
MetalDoneMoreForME 1 week ago
They asked him on his opinion on the situation in Australia, not in the UK, he said he does not know enough about the Australian situation
masseur10 2 weeks ago
please let people finish statements in your videos
masseur10 2 weeks ago
EPIC FAIL
TriathDreamer 2 weeks ago
notice how this video cuts in to Dawkins speaking MID SENTENCE. Makes you wonder whether to poster wants us to see him make his point out of context jst incase we might actually agee with his argument..
AlfredJewe1l 2 weeks ago
I wish Richard Dawkins would stress this fact more, i heard him say only once that "Atheism is not something you belive in, its something you DONT belive in".
Athism is not a set of belifs, its a disbelif in god. And nothing more.
Jonayofsweden 2 weeks ago
I think i know the point you where trying to make with this video...but it wasn't very clear and the rolling text should have been more clear.
I think your point was he stated he could logically link evil and religion but not Atheism and religion..yet a minute late said that he agreed with a rabbi. Which was kind of ironic...but as it was only a few minutes of film it was hard to get the full picture... still worth making.
aaronstately 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Dawkins: "I can't be sure God does not exist" March 1st 2012
He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.
Woops, seems darwinists better rethink what they profess to be "science".
Meathead36 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Meathead36 2 weeks ago
His only PRO is his arrogance, which will only work on the gullible and low self esteemed.
Meathead36 2 weeks ago
Dawkins didnt know anything about the situation. How can you possibly ask him to give an account of something he doesn't know alot about? Ask him about evolution amd see what kind of a response you get eh
LeazesFoster 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hypertask Anyone with an ounce of logic should be able to see the hoax this man represents. If you buy into his pitch you are not a logical person. This makes any conversation a person of the dawkin's mindset pointless akin to trying to teach a dog how to speak english. It is that extreme. If your wish is to be separated from God, you will get your wish upon physical death. BELIEVE me, you're in for a shock. The spirit world is very real and you're treading on more danger than you can imagine.
Meathead36 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Meathead36 2 weeks ago
You went to a great deal of trouble to make this video only to prove that Dawkins knows to shut up when he is asked an opinion on something that he does not know about.
nsugathadasa 2 weeks ago 17
@nsugathadasa Which clearly is something the creator of this video does not know.
:)
MegaSolipsist 1 week ago
@nsugathadasa Stop white-knighting, faggot
InternetGang 1 week ago
so what is the problem with someone declining to talk about something he admits he is not knowledgeable on?
levin86osu 3 weeks ago 6
most of the world knows instinctively God is real...my mother and wife know there is a Creator thru direct exp and to me He is the ultimate mystery...I hope atheists don't totally close their minds to the possibility
lynnethc 3 weeks ago
@lynnethc There obviously is no instinctive belief in a creator, people are simply taught about it from a very young age. If it were instinctive, we also wouldn't have multitudes of entire cultures with religions that do not follow a god (e.g. Buddhism or Taoism).
DTaurelion 3 weeks ago 3
@DTaureli...I was never taught anything about God...most people I have talked to believe and throughout history humans have sensed there is more than physical world which explains the belief inGod over the millenia...medicine men an Hindu sadhus are known for healing and going w/o food and water
leonetski 3 weeks ago
@leonetski Way to immediately contradict yourself. You were "never taught anything about God" and yet most of the people you have talked to "have sensed there is more than physical world which explains the belief inGod". You learn from the people around you, no explicit teaching is required!
Hypertask 2 weeks ago
@Hypertask i hear a lot of 1 + 1 = 3 "logic" here but i truly was never taught anything as in a teacher or parent who brainwashed me, that is my point but you decided to take it further
leonetski 2 weeks ago
@helpmetony nope, none at all, but good try. A religious person should be the last to comment on the constitution of a non-religious person. I suppose that is part of your team's gig though, spouting nonsense and all. If you believe what you say, convince me. Where does faith enter my picture?
rypaz87 3 weeks ago
@0:12 love how he says "Sure As Hell"
1KillerBitch 3 weeks ago 2
looks like more religious stupidity again !!
hoggy226 3 weeks ago 3
Your upload just made me hate religious people ever so slightly more. Thanks.
TheShikobe 3 weeks ago 2
haha this was hilarious!!! good stuff moron.
halflifeproductionz 3 weeks ago
Fail. Way to completely misinterpret reality.
7CATALYST25 3 weeks ago 41
@7CATALYST25 Good point, isn't misinterpreting reality necessary for religion?
nebogipfel11 1 week ago
it still takes faith to be an atheist
helpmetony 3 weeks ago
@helpmetony False. Atheism is a lack of "faith" in things. It is believing things based on reason and empirical evidence and, in the lack of evidence for something, not jumping to "well it was magic." e don;t have all the answers yet, true, but that doesn't mean that magic beings and magical people are responsible for it. Much more likely is that there are natural processes driving everything in the universe.
WCAOANProductions 3 weeks ago
@WCAOANProductions I agree with you that natural process is more than likely what drives the universe. Although I have a feeling that we may differ on each others interpretation of what we deem as "natural".
I
helpmetony 3 weeks ago
please remember not all Christians are like the uploader. Both sides have mega idiots.
iShags89 3 weeks ago
LAAAAAAAAAME
brentalfloss 3 weeks ago
I think watching this video made my IQ drop by 1%.
Filiforme 3 weeks ago
Richard was perfectly in his right to decline from commenting on something he knew nothing about. Nor did he say that he was unmoved by the situation. He just could not comment on something that he has no information about.
He is a brit, on the other side of the world, a zoologist, not a human rights worker in Australia.
If you asked a Rabbi in the USA about the life cycle of british bats and he said he had no opinion, would that make religion stupid?
Dawkins was being honest.
AMomentOfClarity2011 3 weeks ago 69
another example of theists desperate to find anything to bash atheism. Even not commenting on something is a bad thing now it seems in the eyes of theists.
Atheism is not a worldview, philosophy or religion. That does not mean Atheists don't have morals, or philosophies or solutions to problems.
Your text below the video shows you fail to grasp even a basic understanding of our position and attempt to strawman it with this crap.
AMomentOfClarity2011 3 weeks ago 2
he did the responsible thing and not comment on an issue he has no knowledge of...
FesteringFiesta 3 weeks ago
I don't see how Dawkins failed here? So he didn't comment because its not his area of knowledge, get over yourself!
crazymanlargemarge 3 weeks ago
What a stupid video!!! Dawkins declined to comment on something he is not fully informed and this is somehow wrong?!? Atheists don't claim knowledge when it is not warranted - that's actually a good thing.
Anduril919 3 weeks ago
@whiteliketar launching a pitiful ad hominem attack doesn't make you right; Salman Rushdie could attest to that. Thankfully, conduct of the sort isn't permitted in debates between intelligent people.
Benes911 3 weeks ago
@334286 we're well aware that atheism is a minority opinion, but the iconoclastic ideas have proven to be the more valuable in various cases.
Benes911 3 weeks ago
your an idiot
tomphillips987654321 3 weeks ago
The phrase "the wrongs of atheism" from your description may be the stupidest four words I have ever seen strung together.
kellygiz 3 weeks ago 2
So it's considered "falling on your own sword" for a biologist to choose not to make a hasty, uninformed remark about a political affair in a foreign country?
So I guess I would be falling on my own sword as a computer hardware engineer, living in America, to refrain from making a political comment on the Japanese embassy hostage crisis in Peru from 1996?
EpicPhalosophy 3 weeks ago 2
well, at least the comment-section is still up...
ikwillet 3 weeks ago
ngjimmy? is it a hearing problem or an understanding problem you suffer from? Dawkins expressed he is not familliar with the situation in Australia, hence he refrain from commenting.
Paxmax 3 weeks ago
The man refused to comment on something he had no knowledge of because his opinion wouldn't be valid....you should try this the next time you think to make a video.
Azrael1486 3 weeks ago