There's something, I dunno, 'sneaky' about educated people who hold to their faith and entertain such logical fallacies. Im a high school drop out and those type of errors are immediately apparent to me. must be a part of the brain they dont use.
Oh dear oh dear all atheists that believed in their creator the singularity and insulted them that said it wasn't science please feel free to feel humiliated and misled
, I have changed my mind: I still believe that the universe had a beginning, but that it was not a singularity."
Stephen Hawking the Hawking page-online
paragraph 14-scroll down.
Well done Stephen you have seen the light lets hope all the people duped by you and dawkins for years do as well
i assume you mean the one where some woman calls in and asks him some screwed up question and he pauses before answering it. Then they cut to a different scene where it seems he's avoiding it.
He's already addressed this. He paused because he realized at that point that he was tricked into the interview under false pretenses and was decided how he wanted to handle the situation. He DID respond to the woman, but they don't show that.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Gentlemen do you believe in anything eternal or does it all boil down to reductionism? Also I'm sure the ones opposing Dr. Lennox have never taken the time to listent to him speak, he's currently doing a lecture series now and I urge you to go to Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Podcast and listen to just two hours of him. I'm sure with your mind that wants to learn, CAN learn a few things from Dr.Lennox. I pray God changes your heart.
Thanks for the filming, I appreciate you taking the risk :-) Some remarks on your reason for questioning Lennox logic:
1. Descartes has shown, that nothing besides my own existence is certain. Many other philosophers have followed and postulated numerous aprioric systems. From this point of view, you can call any worldview that involves statements about outside yourself a faith. Since the word propably wasn't defined in the debate, I don't think you should use this as a point against lennox.
2. The point Lennox is making there is one of the most discussed topics of philosophy. Many atheists shared the believe, that a functional understanding of moral is it's intellectuatl end. This is the reason why many formal systems of moral were written down in the last 200 years (f.e. Singer, Hoerster) with which most athiest wouldn't agree either because some of the consequences of those systems are against ones feeling for moral. Even if you don't agree, he can claim reason to his argument.
3. If coming spontaneously into existence is a typical behaviour of matter, then we should be able to observe it today. But the law of constant energy seems well affirmed. There are exceptions in quantum theory, but all in all Lennox can safely assume energy doesn't spontaneously come to existence, while Dawkins can't do the same with god. This is why atheists usualy believe on or the other form of an eternal universe or multiversums. Sorry for any english mistakes! criticism is welcome.
I disagree on all of your points. The first two because you are over-complicating the point Lennox was trying to make. That aside. You are incorrect on the third. Check out vacuum fluctuations. And to correct you further, it's more correctly described as the Law of the Conservation of mass-energy. Mass HAS been known to convert to energy and energy to mass. If you don't believe me, two words...atom bomb.
He's a philosopher, he knows all those systems. I think we can safely assume he meant more by it than what dawkins means with "blind faith" since Dawkins is a biologist. And if not, it's still important for the use of the word evidence and should be considered.
Third point: In german it's the law of constant energy, which obviously equals mass: e=mc^2. I already mentioned vacuum fluctuations, it's the quantum pehonmenom I was talking about. But you miss to point out how this affects my argument.
It still seems that your 3 reasons for questioning his logic are based on a questionable interpretation of lennox words. And you try to refute my third argument by detailing my points. Even though I already pointed out the common atheistic solutions for this problem.
first and foremost here...the question was asked to DAWKINS about HIS definitions and the phrases used in his book. Lennox doesn't get to change the definitions because he feels like it.
MORESO...you admit that vacuum fluctuations happen, yet don't admit that you were incorrect in saying that matter can't be produced from energy.
1. I wasn't there, but since dawkins has always ignored epistemology and aprioric philosophical systems, there sure is a need to change the definitions away from what he is using if you want a serious debate.
2. I never said that of course. I just assumend you knew that what is a valid argument for matter is also a valid argument for energy due to the formula I mentioned later. Read my post again. So now you suggest that vacuum fluctuations are the reason for the bi-bang setup?
no one said that vacuum fluctuations caused the Big Bang...I said that they show that matter can come from "apparently" nothing...due to the shifting of energy to matter. But I'm glad to see you admit that you're counterclaims were based on an ignorant position of the original question. Again, when put into the context of the debate, my point stands strong.
Of course energy AND matter need to come to existence if you want to prove your point. And if vacuum fluctuation is just shifting energy to matter, then you just lost your argument. Same with the other 2. I've observed quite often now that atheism comes from a lack of understanding what science is and a lack of knowledge of the science after the quantum revolution. Same here, you obviously know the law of constant energy/matter but didn't understand it's meaning for our argument.
We don't have any evidence that gods don't spontaneously come to existence or are outside time. But we do have evidence pointing to this direction for matter and time. So from a first view Lennox argument is more valid than Dawkins. There would be some smart ways to counter my argument, but you missed them all.
"We don't have any evidence that gods don't spontaneously come to existence or are outside time." - That is the most intellectually dishonest response you could have possibly given. There is no evidence that gods DO come to existence PERIOD or exist AT ALL. There's no NEED to counter your argument any other way because it's HOLLOW.
You misunderstood. If vacuum fluctuation is just shifting energy to matter,then your problem isn't solved. According to the law of constant energy and matter, energy or matter don't come to existence, they just change. So your argument is based on a mistake. Quantum fluctuations change the situation a bit since there energy actualy is produced.But still Lennox argument is more valid, because the chanced of quantum fluctuations are so small and the energy is usualy destroyed again within moments.
I enjoyed your video, just had one quick correction; there were signs stating no cameras or recordings devices as I wanted to do the same as you and decided not to be cause of the signs.
the only signs I saw stated that THEY were filming and that YOU were giving your permission to be used in THEIR film...I saw nothing on the doors, halls, or entrances that stated this...where do you recall them being?
The signs were on the top of small brass looking posts. A regular sized sheet of paper was in bracket on top of the post. I think it said something about cell phones as well.
I recall signs like you describe...they were the signs I mentioned already. (to the best of my memory) it said, "The God Delusion Debate is being filmed by Fixed Point Foundation. By entering into this theatre you are giving your permission for your likeness to be used by Fixed Point Foundation as part of the event. Please turn off all cellphones."
At every other event I've ever been to, the tickets themselves had "no cameras or personal video recording" on them. They all also made an announcement before hand that "any footage used without the expressed written consent..." This event did none of that. However, on the radio broadcast they did...of course the people in the hall didn't hear the radio broadcast.
He is a man of science and reason that shows us how science works to disprove anything the bible says... and answers questions like "how are we here?" etc etc
A pope... is elected by men to be the messenger between man and "god" he needs no qualifications... just be up for a bit of nazi-ism
Dawkins was of set up, but he always sticks it out 'till the end, despite being outnumbered and ambushed. Because, as Colbert would say, he's the husky out in front, leaving his opponents just far enough behind that they can get a good look at his swinging sack.
Welcome to my world-LoL. Birmingham is a beautiful place and there are some wonderfully intelligent people here, but you have to practically wade through the multitudes of idjits to find them. Thanks for sharing the info and the video!
Hummm. Thought about what I wrote and decided I needed to clarify my comment. The folks here in Bham are very friendly people who are as well educated as everyone else. Its just that its pretty churchy here and many of those folks can act like idjits about their religious beliefs, sometimes. --there, that's better. : )
oh no, he did just fine. They tried their best to set him up (at least it appears that way), but he still hammered Lennox. I'm going to do a full review video soon. Meanwhile, check out the audio files on Dawkins's website and hear it for yourself. (link in the description box)
Awsome,Atheism will continue to grow,reality is a constant unrelenting force,truth cannot be silenced,even though they would not let richard say much they still made some christians think,big mistake,thinking leads to atheism
Awesome video... even though both of my predictions about it's content were wrong... neither god nor the gay Spartans showed up. But Dawkins is pretty cool though.
I can't believe Richard agreed to the 'debate' typical of religious folks not giving you a chance to discuss and have an actual dialogue, but only want their ideas to be heard.... Anyways congrats on the 300th video, hope to see more!
I thought Richard Dawkins said that he would never do debates with Christians. Oh well. Anyway, you outdone yourself. 5 stars. I'd give you 10 if it was possible. And this is coming from a THEIST!
Great 300th vid. Congratulations! Any possibility of a transcription in the description box? It was a little hard to make out the conversation? (Sorry . . . old guy here, with bad ears).
I was a little dissapointed to see that it was a debate (in my absurd mind, I thought he actually visited you in your house... >_> yes I know I'm retarded). But still, that was a great video and I really want to see how that debate ended up.
Also, the acting in the beginning was halarious. I'm surprised you didn't throw in a "niggah", "son", "boi", "dawg", or other urban lingo into it xD
Damn, I would have drove to Birmingham from Biloxi to see Richard Dawkins, and would have paid top dollar! :( I need to keep in touch with Blair Scott so I can get the 411 on the atheist goings on in the deep south! There are literally 13 churches within 2 miles of my house in Mississippi! Blah....
Just email me at alabamaatheist @ gmail . com and I'll put you on my mailing list. There are several groups now in MS, so just let me know where you are at and I'll get you in touch with the right group!
It's rational to have "faith" in the fact that you are loved by another human, whom you can see, touch, hear and interact with, therefore it is rational to have faith in an invisible sky daddy who is said to him murdered some 2,000,000 in his own holy book and has no evidence of existence whatsoever.
the pet blessing thing was great. I will be laughing all day at that. It's not a debate if you can't respond. wtf?? Dawkins is like a kitten shredding the sheer weak curtains that were this guys arguement. Great vid!! happy 300th!
Isnt it amazing that such a highly qualified mathematician could have such appaulling loic skills when it comes to god. He just started talking nonsence.
He has faith that his wife loves him? That is ridiculous. His marriage must be in an appauling state if that is true.
I have another clip from it where Dawkins gives his intro/background which I'll post...it was 2 hours long, so my battery wouldn't have made it through the whole thing.
How you can say that I don't understand the issue without having listened my argument? Is not that the same arrogance that religious fundamentalists show?
Anyway, congratulations for your 300 video. This month I will have the chance to listen Christopher Hitchens in Iowa.
I said that if you think that atheism is a faith, then you don't have an understanding of the issue...BECAUSE the issue of faith is believing in SOMETHING without proof. NOT believing that same something doesn't need proof, just lack of it. It's NOT FAITH. If this ISN'T your argument, then it doesn't apply to you. If it is, then it does.
So basically, however learned the believer is, he still has no more than the basic logic fallacies based on playing games with semantics, arguments from personal ignorance and ad hominems, hm? Well, at least he did go easy on the ad hominems.
Was Lennox really a creationist? Or was he simply a Christian? It would be hard to believe that with all that schooling (some even having to do with science) he could get so far without accepting evolution, even as a theistic evolutionist.
no, he accepts evolution and (best I could tell) Big Bang Theory...he just sticks "god" at the beginning. I'm going to do a full review of the debate in an upcoming video.
KICK ASS!!! I wish I could've been there!! I think the debate makes it very obvious that theists have no good arguments. (Faith in your wife?) This is one small step for Alabama.
Yeah I totally agree it was a cheap shot and mainly aimed at getting a laugh out of the audience. It's stuff like that which makes me turn off atheist/theist debates, because it's obvious the theist doesn't have any real hard hitting questions.
The argument from complexity: The universe is so incredibly complex that it must require a creator. God; on the other hand, is so incredibly more complex that it doesn't require a creator. Hmm...
There's something, I dunno, 'sneaky' about educated people who hold to their faith and entertain such logical fallacies. Im a high school drop out and those type of errors are immediately apparent to me. must be a part of the brain they dont use.
Noah2112 1 year ago
Oh dear oh dear all atheists that believed in their creator the singularity and insulted them that said it wasn't science please feel free to feel humiliated and misled
, I have changed my mind: I still believe that the universe had a beginning, but that it was not a singularity."
Stephen Hawking the Hawking page-online
paragraph 14-scroll down.
Well done Stephen you have seen the light lets hope all the people duped by you and dawkins for years do as well
robertfusion 1 year ago
I'd love to see the whole debate...
ShadowAlin 2 years ago
I'd laugh if Jesus suddenly showed up in the middle of that debate.
peacebwithu97 2 years ago
hah too bad he doesnt exist
chinesemonkey19 2 years ago 2
Lack of notice does NOT impair copyright.
WetlandsRemediation 3 years ago
hay kingheathan whats up with this dawkins stumped crap?
slayer0311 3 years ago
i assume you mean the one where some woman calls in and asks him some screwed up question and he pauses before answering it. Then they cut to a different scene where it seems he's avoiding it.
He's already addressed this. He paused because he realized at that point that he was tricked into the interview under false pretenses and was decided how he wanted to handle the situation. He DID respond to the woman, but they don't show that.
KingHeathen 3 years ago
Do you know of a link where I could watch the whole debate?
lamarrt123 3 years ago
omg there are more churches than gas stations around where i live
burnenstuff 3 years ago
hi king. Look out behind you from 0:15 to 0:36. There's a tornado forming. Just looking out for you.
Jwhitmor 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Gentlemen do you believe in anything eternal or does it all boil down to reductionism? Also I'm sure the ones opposing Dr. Lennox have never taken the time to listent to him speak, he's currently doing a lecture series now and I urge you to go to Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Podcast and listen to just two hours of him. I'm sure with your mind that wants to learn, CAN learn a few things from Dr.Lennox. I pray God changes your heart.
honkeybreath 4 years ago
Thanks for the filming, I appreciate you taking the risk :-) Some remarks on your reason for questioning Lennox logic:
1. Descartes has shown, that nothing besides my own existence is certain. Many other philosophers have followed and postulated numerous aprioric systems. From this point of view, you can call any worldview that involves statements about outside yourself a faith. Since the word propably wasn't defined in the debate, I don't think you should use this as a point against lennox.
chekkr 4 years ago
2. The point Lennox is making there is one of the most discussed topics of philosophy. Many atheists shared the believe, that a functional understanding of moral is it's intellectuatl end. This is the reason why many formal systems of moral were written down in the last 200 years (f.e. Singer, Hoerster) with which most athiest wouldn't agree either because some of the consequences of those systems are against ones feeling for moral. Even if you don't agree, he can claim reason to his argument.
chekkr 4 years ago
3. If coming spontaneously into existence is a typical behaviour of matter, then we should be able to observe it today. But the law of constant energy seems well affirmed. There are exceptions in quantum theory, but all in all Lennox can safely assume energy doesn't spontaneously come to existence, while Dawkins can't do the same with god. This is why atheists usualy believe on or the other form of an eternal universe or multiversums. Sorry for any english mistakes! criticism is welcome.
chekkr 4 years ago
I disagree on all of your points. The first two because you are over-complicating the point Lennox was trying to make. That aside. You are incorrect on the third. Check out vacuum fluctuations. And to correct you further, it's more correctly described as the Law of the Conservation of mass-energy. Mass HAS been known to convert to energy and energy to mass. If you don't believe me, two words...atom bomb.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
He's a philosopher, he knows all those systems. I think we can safely assume he meant more by it than what dawkins means with "blind faith" since Dawkins is a biologist. And if not, it's still important for the use of the word evidence and should be considered.
Third point: In german it's the law of constant energy, which obviously equals mass: e=mc^2. I already mentioned vacuum fluctuations, it's the quantum pehonmenom I was talking about. But you miss to point out how this affects my argument.
chekkr 4 years ago
It still seems that your 3 reasons for questioning his logic are based on a questionable interpretation of lennox words. And you try to refute my third argument by detailing my points. Even though I already pointed out the common atheistic solutions for this problem.
chekkr 4 years ago
first and foremost here...the question was asked to DAWKINS about HIS definitions and the phrases used in his book. Lennox doesn't get to change the definitions because he feels like it.
MORESO...you admit that vacuum fluctuations happen, yet don't admit that you were incorrect in saying that matter can't be produced from energy.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
1. I wasn't there, but since dawkins has always ignored epistemology and aprioric philosophical systems, there sure is a need to change the definitions away from what he is using if you want a serious debate.
2. I never said that of course. I just assumend you knew that what is a valid argument for matter is also a valid argument for energy due to the formula I mentioned later. Read my post again. So now you suggest that vacuum fluctuations are the reason for the bi-bang setup?
chekkr 4 years ago
no one said that vacuum fluctuations caused the Big Bang...I said that they show that matter can come from "apparently" nothing...due to the shifting of energy to matter. But I'm glad to see you admit that you're counterclaims were based on an ignorant position of the original question. Again, when put into the context of the debate, my point stands strong.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Of course energy AND matter need to come to existence if you want to prove your point. And if vacuum fluctuation is just shifting energy to matter, then you just lost your argument. Same with the other 2. I've observed quite often now that atheism comes from a lack of understanding what science is and a lack of knowledge of the science after the quantum revolution. Same here, you obviously know the law of constant energy/matter but didn't understand it's meaning for our argument.
chekkr 4 years ago
"Of course energy AND matter need to come to existence if you want to prove your point."
Then, so does God. The rest of your comments are unsupported.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
We don't have any evidence that gods don't spontaneously come to existence or are outside time. But we do have evidence pointing to this direction for matter and time. So from a first view Lennox argument is more valid than Dawkins. There would be some smart ways to counter my argument, but you missed them all.
chekkr 4 years ago
"We don't have any evidence that gods don't spontaneously come to existence or are outside time." - That is the most intellectually dishonest response you could have possibly given. There is no evidence that gods DO come to existence PERIOD or exist AT ALL. There's no NEED to counter your argument any other way because it's HOLLOW.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
You misunderstood. If vacuum fluctuation is just shifting energy to matter,then your problem isn't solved. According to the law of constant energy and matter, energy or matter don't come to existence, they just change. So your argument is based on a mistake. Quantum fluctuations change the situation a bit since there energy actualy is produced.But still Lennox argument is more valid, because the chanced of quantum fluctuations are so small and the energy is usualy destroyed again within moments.
chekkr 4 years ago
"energy or matter don't come to existence, they just change." Exactly, they are neither created nor destroyed.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Lucky! You got to see a Dawkins debate live! (Even if it was fixed)
CentabyteZero 4 years ago
I would pay my entire student loan to see a debate with Dawkins vs some religious guy! You have no idea how jealous I am of you right now!
AmethystPanther 4 years ago
I enjoyed your video, just had one quick correction; there were signs stating no cameras or recordings devices as I wanted to do the same as you and decided not to be cause of the signs.
wingfjm 4 years ago
the only signs I saw stated that THEY were filming and that YOU were giving your permission to be used in THEIR film...I saw nothing on the doors, halls, or entrances that stated this...where do you recall them being?
KingHeathen 4 years ago
The signs were on the top of small brass looking posts. A regular sized sheet of paper was in bracket on top of the post. I think it said something about cell phones as well.
wingfjm 4 years ago
I recall signs like you describe...they were the signs I mentioned already. (to the best of my memory) it said, "The God Delusion Debate is being filmed by Fixed Point Foundation. By entering into this theatre you are giving your permission for your likeness to be used by Fixed Point Foundation as part of the event. Please turn off all cellphones."
KingHeathen 4 years ago
At every other event I've ever been to, the tickets themselves had "no cameras or personal video recording" on them. They all also made an announcement before hand that "any footage used without the expressed written consent..." This event did none of that. However, on the radio broadcast they did...of course the people in the hall didn't hear the radio broadcast.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
I wish I could have seen that debate, Dawkins is the man.
TheKidFrom13thStreet 4 years ago 2
Awesome.
AtheistAaron 4 years ago
This is the Dawkins ass kissing club, right?
Got the right place, right?
TheRetardWhisper 4 years ago
Hey, count me in. Dawkins rocks!
cryptographix 4 years ago 3
What do you mean by 'ass kissing'?
tingtangs 4 years ago
Is richard dawkins like a pope to atheist lol ?
Ishimaru4Death 4 years ago
Pope? No, but definitely akin to a "rock star" status. I'd prefer to think of it like a star player on a team.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
haha... no?
He is a man of science and reason that shows us how science works to disprove anything the bible says... and answers questions like "how are we here?" etc etc
A pope... is elected by men to be the messenger between man and "god" he needs no qualifications... just be up for a bit of nazi-ism
Grosz 4 years ago
Dawkins was of set up, but he always sticks it out 'till the end, despite being outnumbered and ambushed. Because, as Colbert would say, he's the husky out in front, leaving his opponents just far enough behind that they can get a good look at his swinging sack.
antierratum 4 years ago
I wish I had your accent. People say I sound like a Californian.
skyfire1 4 years ago
great video. you were right KingHeathen, how are you going to top this on the 400th?! start brainstorming at once!
xxxjppjxxx 4 years ago
Welcome to my world-LoL. Birmingham is a beautiful place and there are some wonderfully intelligent people here, but you have to practically wade through the multitudes of idjits to find them. Thanks for sharing the info and the video!
phenixwryter 4 years ago
Hummm. Thought about what I wrote and decided I needed to clarify my comment. The folks here in Bham are very friendly people who are as well educated as everyone else. Its just that its pretty churchy here and many of those folks can act like idjits about their religious beliefs, sometimes. --there, that's better. : )
phenixwryter 4 years ago
LMAO @ supex!
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Suh-weeeet! :-)
breath888 4 years ago
So, Dawkins didn't do very well.
themaxxxi 4 years ago
oh no, he did just fine. They tried their best to set him up (at least it appears that way), but he still hammered Lennox. I'm going to do a full review video soon. Meanwhile, check out the audio files on Dawkins's website and hear it for yourself. (link in the description box)
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Ah, okay, I guess I missunderstood it.
themaxxxi 4 years ago
Awsome,Atheism will continue to grow,reality is a constant unrelenting force,truth cannot be silenced,even though they would not let richard say much they still made some christians think,big mistake,thinking leads to atheism
gaathiestsociety 4 years ago
Sweet video!
JenJuvenile 4 years ago
Awesome video, man.
DblOSmith 4 years ago
Awesome!
I'm actually in the middle of reading The God Delusion for the first time right now. Great video man!
inthisholyreality 4 years ago 2
brilliant video, excellent guests.
Heres to 300 more
TheFarcicalCourt 4 years ago
wow, great video. +10 for getting dawkins to say "hello heathens".
overtheunder 4 years ago 3
Congrats on number 300. I should pull my finger out and post the videos I have been planning for ages....
askegg 4 years ago
Awesome video... even though both of my predictions about it's content were wrong... neither god nor the gay Spartans showed up. But Dawkins is pretty cool though.
jussts 4 years ago
KingHeathen! This was an awesome 300th video!
I hope you've got more of it to come???
very nice!
dfarmer1584 4 years ago
Damn right, you're jealous...."Eh eh eh...I got 1400 subscribers before you"...YEAH BIATCH...DAWKINS SAID MY CATCH PHRASE...SUCK IT!!
JK...you da man.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Nice video! I thought I'd never see or hear Richard Dawkins say anything of the type for as long as I live. Did you bribe him to say that? ;p
NaoTio 4 years ago
I am nothing short of envious KH. AWESOME 300th video indeed!
rg470dude 4 years ago
Beautiful!
kornfanphx 4 years ago
I'm jealous,
You actually got to see Richard Dawkins!
Great 300th video,
Glad to have people like you on YouTube.
jscience 4 years ago
I can't believe Richard agreed to the 'debate' typical of religious folks not giving you a chance to discuss and have an actual dialogue, but only want their ideas to be heard.... Anyways congrats on the 300th video, hope to see more!
matereymate 4 years ago 2
Dude!!!!! Dawkins said Hello heathens!!! Fucking cool!
Crosisborg 4 years ago 6
Wow, you are very lucky King. I wonder if Dawkins will come to Missouri?
hanzo138 4 years ago
WOW.How awesome is that.Congrats on number 300 KH.Lets see 300 more.
LONGBOW0808 4 years ago
That video is awesome on many levels.
LordDurendal 4 years ago
LOL Cool, you got dawkins to say "Hello Heathens"! How cool is that?
dechha1981 4 years ago 2
Hello heathens!
hehehehhe
healthyaddict 4 years ago
wasn't that great?! It's not an offer to father my children, but hey...I was honored that he would do it for me. ;)
KingHeathen 4 years ago
It was still epic! =)
healthyaddict 4 years ago
Great 300th video! Here's to another 300!
I was kinda expecting a 300(the movie) reference.
THIS IS SPARTA!! LOL.
MrMaCheesemo 4 years ago
he just said "hello heathens"? how did he know you weren't going to take the clip and use it in a smear campaign?
r9nger0ver 4 years ago
he could tell that I was super mega cool and knew that my greatness wouldn't allow me to do him any harm as one genius to another....
that plus I was with the entire NAFA group, so that carries some cred with it. It did take a little convincing...I was so stoked when he agreed.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
BTW, everyone!
The debate is available to watch at richarddawkins(.)net just click the link in the "featured" list.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
thanks
wynjones1 4 years ago
I thought Richard Dawkins said that he would never do debates with Christians. Oh well. Anyway, you outdone yourself. 5 stars. I'd give you 10 if it was possible. And this is coming from a THEIST!
UltimoJ 4 years ago
He said he wouldn't do debates with creationists. And thanks.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Is this the same event that HealthyAddict posted videos about?
Brianj1234 4 years ago
no...hers was something very different with Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens (I think).
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Great 300th vid. Congratulations! Any possibility of a transcription in the description box? It was a little hard to make out the conversation? (Sorry . . . old guy here, with bad ears).
Largo64 4 years ago
OMG, KING HEATHEN...FINALLY OUT OF THE HEATHEN'S LAIR! DAYLIGHT! Lol, great vid.
HumbleYankee 4 years ago 4
Here's another post that was done "19 seconds ago" and it's showing as spam but isn't. YT, has something weird going on.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Great video.
DeathOfApathy 4 years ago
W00t gratz dude nice vid
fixed debates R00x lol sorry but Dawkins had it coming if he was going to appear in the bible state ( one should expect a fixed debate there )
JaqueOlantern 4 years ago
oh, he still got his point across...I'll do another video where I cover the topics and responses and such.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
I was a little dissapointed to see that it was a debate (in my absurd mind, I thought he actually visited you in your house... >_> yes I know I'm retarded). But still, that was a great video and I really want to see how that debate ended up.
Also, the acting in the beginning was halarious. I'm surprised you didn't throw in a "niggah", "son", "boi", "dawg", or other urban lingo into it xD
Crawler101010101 4 years ago
Spot the church is a game my daughter and I play regularly when we come to America
Ashetheraven 4 years ago
1) I'm jealous.
2) I mean REALLY jealous!
3) That's a 5 in ANYONE's money.
4) Bet that will be edited to Hell in favor of the creationist.
5) Bravo! (But I'm still sick with jealousy.)
philhellenes 4 years ago
nice nice nice :)
savyer 4 years ago
I must admit, the first time I saw the alabamaatheists url, I thought the Alabama Theists had spelled their name wrong.
jeremebp 4 years ago
Great video!
brrrdman85 4 years ago
Can you get your animals circumsized there? :) :)
It would be funny watching a rabbi chase a squirrel...
thefakeyeti 4 years ago 4
Damn, I would have drove to Birmingham from Biloxi to see Richard Dawkins, and would have paid top dollar! :( I need to keep in touch with Blair Scott so I can get the 411 on the atheist goings on in the deep south! There are literally 13 churches within 2 miles of my house in Mississippi! Blah....
HitchensFanatic 4 years ago
Just email me at alabamaatheist @ gmail . com and I'll put you on my mailing list. There are several groups now in MS, so just let me know where you are at and I'll get you in touch with the right group!
blairscott 4 years ago
Faith doesnt mean truth
Raiders1393 4 years ago 2
Now that was a worthy 300th video.
Thank you KingHeathen, keep up the good work.
DeletedDelusion 4 years ago
man, the crowd seemed like a pack of christian loving heyenas just from that footage.
tarotfest 4 years ago 2
It was about a 70/30 split of Christians to atheists.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
30 percent Atheist in the Bible belt, amazing.
Ender1zero1 4 years ago
Not that I think 30 percent of anywhere in the bible belt is Atheist, it's just amazing that that many came out for a debate.
Ender1zero1 4 years ago
It's rational to have "faith" in the fact that you are loved by another human, whom you can see, touch, hear and interact with, therefore it is rational to have faith in an invisible sky daddy who is said to him murdered some 2,000,000 in his own holy book and has no evidence of existence whatsoever.
I don't see the logical connection.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago 3
"hello Heathens" LMAO. hahahahahhaha
"Faith is evidence based" Bhahahahahhaha
Thanks for sharing!
xJediHowieX 4 years ago
Wish I was there! Awesome!!
dankwilliams 4 years ago
Do you have more debate footage?
dankwilliams 4 years ago
I have one more clip I'm going to post from it.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
u got 2 meet dakins!!! dam i wish i waz u
skaterasshole1234567 4 years ago
"that's not faith"
"yes it is"
what a 'debate'
lolz
r9nger0ver 4 years ago
well, I hate to be blunt but that was like..... for me, can't imagine how it was for you...
CONGRATS
: )
thequestionmarkofGod 4 years ago
A great 300th video! You actually met Richard Dawkins, life is grand!!
geroldkid 4 years ago
the pet blessing thing was great. I will be laughing all day at that. It's not a debate if you can't respond. wtf?? Dawkins is like a kitten shredding the sheer weak curtains that were this guys arguement. Great vid!! happy 300th!
nadiaTeeze 4 years ago
Isnt it amazing that such a highly qualified mathematician could have such appaulling loic skills when it comes to god. He just started talking nonsence.
He has faith that his wife loves him? That is ridiculous. His marriage must be in an appauling state if that is true.
pdoeman 4 years ago
hey king,
any plans on releaseing the full vid of that bebate? or was it really even worth it?
lostorfound19 4 years ago
I have another clip from it where Dawkins gives his intro/background which I'll post...it was 2 hours long, so my battery wouldn't have made it through the whole thing.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Amazing! I so should of driven the 8 hours to see this. Great Video. The shout out from Dawkins was awesome.
CaptainSam000 4 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
KingHeathen, have you seen my video that features patcondell, inmendham, PaulsEgo and yourself?
About Atheism being a faith, that is one of the many aspects of the message I'm trying to convey in my videos.
Greetings.
roberto8ag 4 years ago
No I haven't but if you think that it is, then you obviously don't understand the issue.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
How you can say that I don't understand the issue without having listened my argument? Is not that the same arrogance that religious fundamentalists show?
Anyway, congratulations for your 300 video. This month I will have the chance to listen Christopher Hitchens in Iowa.
roberto8ag 4 years ago
I said that if you think that atheism is a faith, then you don't have an understanding of the issue...BECAUSE the issue of faith is believing in SOMETHING without proof. NOT believing that same something doesn't need proof, just lack of it. It's NOT FAITH. If this ISN'T your argument, then it doesn't apply to you. If it is, then it does.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
So basically, however learned the believer is, he still has no more than the basic logic fallacies based on playing games with semantics, arguments from personal ignorance and ad hominems, hm? Well, at least he did go easy on the ad hominems.
XGralgrathor 4 years ago
I just uploaded a video response with my argument.
roberto8ag 4 years ago
Was Lennox really a creationist? Or was he simply a Christian? It would be hard to believe that with all that schooling (some even having to do with science) he could get so far without accepting evolution, even as a theistic evolutionist.
cda6590 4 years ago
no, he accepts evolution and (best I could tell) Big Bang Theory...he just sticks "god" at the beginning. I'm going to do a full review of the debate in an upcoming video.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
errr nvm you posted while i was watching the video lmao
lostorfound19 4 years ago
KICK ASS!!! I wish I could've been there!! I think the debate makes it very obvious that theists have no good arguments. (Faith in your wife?) This is one small step for Alabama.
Ryansarcade9 4 years ago 2
It's a cheap shot to compare faith in someone's love for one another to faith in GOD.
cda6590 4 years ago
Especially when we don't have faith. We learn to trust people better as we get to know them, and we get to see first hand if they are honest with us.
Ryansarcade9 4 years ago
Yeah I totally agree it was a cheap shot and mainly aimed at getting a laugh out of the audience. It's stuff like that which makes me turn off atheist/theist debates, because it's obvious the theist doesn't have any real hard hitting questions.
Crawler101010101 4 years ago
The argument from complexity: The universe is so incredibly complex that it must require a creator. God; on the other hand, is so incredibly more complex that it doesn't require a creator. Hmm...
cda6590 4 years ago
Of course!
How can you exist forever without being really really really smart, only smart matter can exist forever.
adahn2006 4 years ago
You son of a bitch! You have no idea how jealous I am right now.
RobertlewisIR 4 years ago 2
Birmingham is a nice place (if you ignore all the churches, but since we both live in the bible belt, that shouldn't be hard).
I'm surprised Dawkins would agree to a debate so obviously weighted against him.
dragon2wolf 4 years ago
Cool dude!
keithrockerboblewis 4 years ago
I wish i could have been there, Congrats on your video KH i think im the first to see it WOOT!
WtfJuju 4 years ago
wrong...
WtfJuju 4 years ago
i cant hear what he says at the very end when everyone laughs
Juggaloserialeater 4 years ago
Congrats man, keep up the good work!
rkzenrage 4 years ago