Is God a Delusion?3/12

[mahmoudyzadeh]

i just skipped thef irst two vids and went straight to Bill Cooke - I can't be arsed to listen to WLC's pointless drivel for the nth time.

[alifeofreason]

@mahmoudyzadeh It wouldn't be so bad if WLC didn't say the same exact thing every debate.

[PolishedLake]

@mahmoudyzadeh lol did u just say pointless drivel? he had like 20 points. he also used a visual power POINT as an aid.

[ndockett81]

If God is a "human invention" we invented a rather odd "god." At least the one that is most widely accepted. This god demands total self sacrifice and with the two greatest commandments being to love him most, and to love your neighbor as yourself.

If I created a god, it would like more like the genie from Aladdin granting me whatever I wanted.

[ArchRascal]

As an ignostic, I think Cooke's opening statement is excellent. He clearly defines the argument and specifically notes the logical problems with fundamentalist belief systems.

[ArchRascal]

@Kep0v In fact, you ironically define your own ignorance with your reply. Ignosticism and agnosticism are two different positions.

[dannywizz]

Im into military history and I raised my eyebrows when he said "2000 years ago the world was a more primitive place". If you read history you get humbled cause guys like Sun Tzu, Aristotles etc lived thousands of years ago. And they were certainly not primitive. I would argue that that the debaters and philosphers of today are not in the same class. So todays society is really primitive in someways.

This Bill Cook guy is really counter arguing himself.

[ginganz13]

@dannywizz - well if it wasnot the same and definintely wasn't more advanced how is that wrong?

2000 years later we had Nietsczhe, Russel, Popper, Satre, Jung, Freud. You don't have an argument.

[dannywizz]

@ginganz13 I just think we should be humble, show respect to history. You know, the guys that lived during the middle ages were, without doubt, less advanced than the romans or the ancient chinese.

His comment is refuting the knowledge of people only 2000years ago when we know that, in fact, the people were more advanced in some ways than we are today.

I can give you an example of cooking, people today use pre mixes, 100 years ago people actually cooked from scratch.

We need to be respectful.

[ginganz13]

@dannywizz - How do you show defferential esteem to history?

guys in the middle ages survived with less technology available to them than the Romans or Chinese - by your example this makes them more advanced.

Knowledge cannot be refuted by definition, if your ideas about the world are wrong then you have either belief or delusion, not knowledge. We definitely have a vastly greater understanding about the world than we did 2C ago.

[dannywizz]

@ginganz13 Oh really! So you defend his statement, just as well as in 2000years people will call you my friend primitive.

[ginganz13]

@dannywizz Defend? Not really - More like expanded upon it. If the human race is still arround in 2000 years they can say what they like. Wether they are right or wrong can only have consequences for them.

2k yrs isn't long enough for noticeable natural genetic development, the only thing that will have changed is knowledge, the amount and what they do with it.

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

"...if this is the case, arguments can actually distract you from God.."

right. forget reason, and go with your delusions.

and that's from a person who argues that faith is reasonable! I can't blame Dawkins for not wanting to debate this deranged FaithHead.

[terminat1]

@AgeOfReasonXXI So, what is your reason for believing atheism is reasonable? Evil in the world, suffering of hell, etc., etc.? Because I know you don't have a scientific reason for rejecting God.

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

@terminat1 Ockham's razor. if we don't need god to explain any phenomena (try to think of a single phenomenon for which we once had a scientific explanation and now we have a religious one), the 'god hypothesis' is simply shaved by Ockham's razor, i.e. to postulate Yahweh is gratuitous.

and the fact that this doesn't disprove Yahweh is irrelevant, in the same way being unable to disprove Zeus is irrelevant if it can be shown that postulating him is gratuitous

[terminat1]

@AgeOfReasonXXI You have to admit, though, that science is far from explaining everything. How can nature explain itself? Does the painting paint itself?

Sure, science explains much, but it still cannot explain how complexity comes from nothing, or chance processes create order. All of that is beyond what science is able to explain.

I think a sole Designer is simpler than the many universes theory, or the idea of something coming from nothing, but I guess that's subjective.

[salaino1452]

@AgeOfReasonXXI occam's razor actually works the other way... if i were to accept an atheistic world view i would have to come up with evolution, the big bang, time relativity (in order to avoid the kalam cosmological argument) and whole bunch of other stuff in order to explain how we come into being... whereas a simple "in the beginning God created everything" would suffice if i were to accept a theistic world view...

[carryall69]

wow.. bill cooke is very impressive. strong and clear voice, great speech..

[masteroftheobvious86]

This Cooke fellow doesn't seem to really address Craig's points, or at least, the topic at hand. He just...seems to rant a bit. Bit sad really.

[JusJuiceIt]

@masteroftheobvious86

i dont no if you've seen any other Dr. Craig debate but all his opponents are like that!

[BassP86]

@masteroftheobvious86

Bill Cooke claimed that Craig wanted the debate to go his way, so he wanted to talk about he thought was the real issue instead. Cooke unfortunately fails to read up on church history with the claims he was making. He's a smart guy, but VERY ignorant, plus he has no idea how broad a topic it is that he wanted to get into. This is why more and more atheists are getting upset with prominent atheists who debate Craig. They try to resort to their last defense: red herrings.

[wigglesza]

How can you have religion without God?

[twikiriwhi]

Cook is trying to tell us The Christian Idea that Humans are more important than animals is wrong...then went out and ate Fish and chips! He would value Man a the same level as Fish.

[omnissient]

@benjmann2 People filter out what they dont want to hear. People dont want to hear that they are wrong. But that doesnt usually involve not realising they are being talked to. I realise you are talking, i dont deny your existence. I just think you re wrong.

And i also listen to what people claim what God says to them. It matches so strangely the mind set of the people reporting it and so little what seems what an omnipotent being would say.

[7tylerjb]

@omnissient Read the bible, believe in Jesus, and you will be saved. Stop with your little atheist arguments which make no sense. Jesus loves you man.

[omnissient]

@7tylerjb condescending little moron troll go f4ck yourself

[omnissient]

"for thos who listen..." nice trick. Just turn it around on the atheist and blame him for not listening. Do you think that if God spoke to me i wouldnt listen? Of course i would. Everyone would. Its just not happening.

[longlivethemorrow]

Craig delivers the most compelling arguments for the logical, rational reasoning of a belief in God. If and when he were to incorperate the David Sereda/pseudo-Buddhist "zero-conflict law", he would be the closest ever to examine the true Theory Of Everything, or the Unified Field theory. Those who believe otherwise hate the IDEA of a "Christian God", which blinds them from the TRUTH of the "Scientific God".

[7tylerjb]

@longlivethemorrow I couldn't agree anymore. I think atheists are afraid to believe in God thinking it will somehow be a waste of time in their only life.

[CliffStamp]

@7tylerjb Most would agree that it is a waste of time, however I do not think all atheists are afraid of the belief. Most would note that even if that were true and they were afraid and that fear was so strong that it compelled them, they would have no idea which God is the one they should worship to get rid of the fear as so many of them say if you don't pick them you are eternally condemned.

[HerrVonManstein]

Craig is just a despicable little WORM crawling at the feet of his God, trying to fill his empty existence with a "relationship" with him. and when asked about the barbarism of the Old Testament God, the contemptible little nothing called w.craig states that his God is not bound by morality he imposes on his subjects - so the murderer (God) has the moral right to command us not to murder!

[amoebafrog]

@HerrVonManstein "Craig is just a despicable little WORM"

And what a wonderful person you are! Given the choice, I think I'll be a worm too!

[HerrVonManstein]

@amoebafrog which choice? whether to crawl like a worm at your god's feet? well, if that's what you choose - worm you are. just like that maggot w.craig.

[quarky1948]

The astounding stupidity of constantly using the word "facts" when referring to biblical accounts which are at best hearsay points to the delusional conditions of the christian mind. Also note that if the chances of a universe are so unlikely then the chances of a christian god are infinitly higher.... That a man is capable of assigning human characteristics to such a god is all the more rediculous...sheesh!!!

[awesomewelles90]

@quarky1948 Historical facts. "rediculous"?

[quarky1948]

@awesomewelles90 ..... Biblical accounts of miracles such as walking on water etc are not historical facts. Like the whole of the bible they are man made scribblings without any factual basis. If it says in my scrapbook that aliens landed in our garden last year, this is just as reliable material...ok.

[Dejan2116]

Bill Cook's argument that one cannot tell the true God apart from the many conceptions of God is ludicrous nonsense, and if he were to do a bit of thinking he would know it too! All one has to do is ask which God is consistent with the laws of logic, morality, science, and metaphysics, for instance, and automatically the God of the Bible is the only God that fits the picture, not false conceptions of God, in Hinduism, for example, who contradicts all the laws of logic/ morality that we live by.

[GrotesqueKevin]

Bill Cooke in this debate is assuming that Darwinism is true. Darwinist "Evolution" is a hypotheses, not a fact. And I might add, a hypotheses backed up by a-lot of money, but little amount of evidence.

[ginganz13]

The theory of evolution is now far more extensive than when Darwin & others first proposed its basic tennets. Macro & Micro evolution has been observed, proven & documented in peer reviewed journals. Its rules have been sucessfully applied in useful real practices from computing to farming.

In the same period religious ideology still has found no evidence at all for its claims, its hypocrisy has been exposed but it still manages to create conflict, division & suffering.

[GrotesqueKevin]

@ginganz13 You are wrong,Yes"Micro Evolution"has been observed,all it is a variation of a specific species,example,a bulldog & a pit-bull, they are different, but both dogs."Macro Evolution"Is one species turning into an other,example,a fish turning into a reptile.There has not been one documentation of one species turning into an other,we have never observed one type of species turning into a new type of speciesNeither do we have any legit fossils of transitional forms of one species to another

[GrotesqueKevin]

@ginganz13

Neither do we have any documentation of positive mutation within any species, and most important of all, there has been we have never observed or documented any mutations that create new adaptations (example, a rat grows wings), but only mutation witch mutate already existing material (example, a cow grows an extra leg)

[ddisil]

careful study has shown even less evidence for evolution. I have tired before to have an intelligent conversation about the plethora of evidence against evolution. (most recently a article in Nature that says the chimp Y chromosome is drastically different from the human Y chromosome). Typically, I have found that giving a factual critique of evolution is greeted by evolutionists ignoring the facts and calling people that disagree with them "ignorant".

[red2seata]

@GrotesqueKevin hurr durr no transitional fossils

[MrGrandDragon]

The Atheist is stupid...

Lets not forget qualitative assumptions by scientist suggest it took unconscious evolution 99.9% of Earths time to achieve a conscious creation. So yes, indeed what it has managed to mutate and churn out today DESERVES to be respected

We are to be grateful and humble to All mighty God

[MagnumDB]

Why are you judging, MrGrandDragon? Don't you read your bible? Do not judge, or you too will be judged (Matthew 7:1) So therefor, I judge you to be ignorant, and luckily for me, your God isn't real - so this doesn't pertain to me. The bible may not speak out against correcting people, but your first sentence is only judgement. And it's against your religion.

[MrGrandDragon]

We all Judge

I am not a Christian, I don't read pseudo historical accounts of zealous Jews unless I have to...

[MagnumDB]

Well I'm glad to hear your view on pseudo historical accounts of zealous Jews unless you have to. Though I respectfully disagree that we are to be grateful and humble to all mighty god. I understand that may open a debate already fought over numerous times.

[pyVlad]

Erm... quoi? Single cells classify as consciousness. Even if they weren't, multi-cellular organisms evolved much longer ago than 0.1% of the Earth's history ago.

[normskis69]

Absolutely.

There's far more evidence in the Sumerian gods of 5000 years ago. They also knew more about the Universe than the bible writers.

[larry2299]

I couldn't agree with you anymore.

[MrGrandDragon]

The most evidence we have for a proper prophet is Mohammed (pbuh).

And that isn't me being bias or irritating, its simply a fact.

[Birdieupon]

"why take so long to put the icing on the cake?" he says?

Cakes take longer to bake than to ice!!

Arguments like these don't make God less likely, they just make him more mysterious.

[porkyo123]

I couldn't agree more! Also, I believe we shouldn't be trying to explain God with our foolish little brain,and that includes Dr Craig. Maybe God is beyond thought?

[groundhog0339]

The problem with this response to Craig is that the professor is not an atheist. He is a hard agnostic. He does not see enough evidence for god's existence and so is suspending judgment.

[hisdoodnes]

During Craig's explaination about an explaination bit Dawkins bit was saying that a designer /creator is not a simple answer. Secondly he says that string theory suggests there can be an obscene amount of universes and then the fine tuned odds are oscene so maybe through odds it was bound to happen (string theory isn't perfect though). He also doesn't understand the big bang theory and doesn't know of Hawking's work. Also the Jesus story? c'mon do we really need to go over this again?

[groundhog0339]

I see. So rather than going with "a creator designed it", we're going with, "There are a near infinite number of universes" therefore eventually it was bound to happen.

There is a classic argument: "if enough monkeys typed on keyboards, they'd eventually reproduce Shakespeare."

When the experiment was done (in smaller part) something unexpected happened. The monkeys rarely typed. Rather, they defecated and chewed on the keyboards. The moral? Time is irrelevant. Intelligence matters.

[somor98]

As I said. The evidence is in the first two parts.

[somor98]

Craig is a moron. He just gave evidence of that in the first parts.

[Hustada]

Hey deus, I sent you some links. Check them out if you get some free time. I think weve said about all we can say on a youtube comment section.

[DeusMerdaeEst]

I'll have a look at that.

[Hustada]

Google 'Dietrich Bonhoeffer' regarding Nazi's and christianity.

[Hustada]

Quote by Sir Arthur Keith who was a British anthropologist and athiest.

"The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution"

[DeusMerdaeEst]

I prefer to quote from the source, from the man himself, if you don't mind.

[Hustada]

I guess im just curious where your moral standards are derived from and why anyone should put yours above their own? Even hitler.

[Hustada]

Have you looked at the life of Christ? Nothing but loving others and sacrifice. Its funny how you conviently ignore verses that dont serve your purpose.

[DeusMerdaeEst]

You suffer from cognitive dissonance. How can you ignore the intolerance and the bloodshed and pick only the good bits? Isn't the bible supposed to be the word of god, and therefore truth?

And yes, I have looked at the life of Christ.

Jesus taught that we are to fear Him, "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28).

If christ would live on earth, people would break his windows.

[DeusMerdaeEst]

How the hell can anyone say the bible is a source of good morality? Read it and weep.

[Hustada]

Wow, thanks for enlightening us Deus. Im curious how you can invoke a moral law to live by. Apparently you didnt even watch the video. If God is the lawgiver then you cant condemn him as he IS the truth himself. If he's not then there really is no basis for you to be telling others what is right and what is wrong. Youre morals are no different or higher than someone else's who may disagree with you. I have heard your speech countless times. Its not orginal at all and can be explained.

[DeusMerdaeEst]

I'm not telling others what is right and wrong, the bible is. I've just showed you what the bible thinks is morally correct behavior. You can try to shift focus to loving Jesus, but you can't ignore that what the bible teaches in terms of morality, is a a neverending pile of intolerance, punishment and bloodshed.

I don't get my morality from ancient scripture - I am a rational, free thinking, decent human being.

[Hustada]

Based on? Cognitive dissonance? Whatever you say man. Im not trying to shift the focus. Im trying to get at the REAL meaning of the bible which is Gods love for mankind, so much that he would die for them. Thats what Im getting at. You nitpick and then take verses completely out of context and expect people to be like "okay, I guess youre right". Its a juvenile arugment thats been used countless times. Since you ignored 3/4 of my last post Ill say it again. Watch the video.

[DeusMerdaeEst]

In what context would you like to see the death penalty for gay people, adulterers, people that work on the sabbat and believers in other invisible beings?

In Hitler's book Mein Kampf he says some pretty disturbing things about the Jews. Apart from that, he seems like a very nice guy. Should we just ignore the Jew remarks - we don't want to be nit-picking, do we?

I did watch the video - I watched the complete series. It was very amusing. Did you listen to both speakers, or just one?

[Hustada]

Then youll see that Bill Cooke didnt even defend the position he was there to debate. He actually danced around the issue and ended up bringing up arguments that had nothing to do with what the debate was supposed to be about. You also would have notice that Dr. Craig brought up a moral law. In that, IF hitler had been successful, then his actions would have still been wrong even if he brainwashed everyone into thinking he was right. In a relative society, you cant really say hitler was wrong.

[DeusMerdaeEst]

It's popular among Christian apologists to claim that Hitler, the Nazis, and the Holocaust are all consequences of atheism, secularism, and liberalism. Such arguments fly in the face of reality: Adolf Hitler regularly proclaimed his faith in God, Nazi ideology was committed to supporting Christianity (on its terms, of course), and Nazi anti-Semitism was firmly grounded in Christian anti-Semitism.

[DeusMerdaeEst]

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Can you explain what a 'relative' society is?

[Hustada]

Saying something and doing it are completely different things. Do you think Jesus, a jew, and the majority of the early New Testament Christians who were mostly jews as well would even remotely agree with Adolph Hitlers actions or his book for that matter? You are extremely ignorant if you think so. No offense intended. Those arguments dont fly in the face of reality at all. Nothing in the new testament even remotely agrees with Hitler's ideals. Give it a rest man.

[DeusMerdaeEst]

26. After God killed Korah, his family, and 250 innocent bystanders, the people complained saying, "ye have killed the people of the Lord." So God, who doesn't take kindly to criticism, sends a plague on the people. And "they that died in the plague were 14,700." Numbers 16:41-50

27. God shows us how to make new friends by saying : "The stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death." Numbers 18:7

[Hustada]

All you can say is that Hitler's view differs from yours. Remember, Hitler thought what he was doing was the right thing. And he convinced thousands of others that it was too. If he had convinced the whole world for arguments sake, would his actions still be wrong? Certainly not from an evolutionary standpoint of survival of the fittest where the Nazis would have simply been the victors and the jews the losers. Nothing more.

[DeusMerdaeEst]

24. "And when the people complained, it displeased the Lord: and the Lord heard it." (He had his hearing aid on.) He then burned the complainers alive. That'll teach them. Numbers 11:1

25. God punishes the children for the failings of their great-great grandfathers. Numbers 14:18

[DeusMerdaeEst]

22. Don't touch or "go in to see when the holy things are covered." God kills people who touch or look at covered holy things. Numbers 4:15, 20

23. God tells the people to expel from camp "every leper, every one that hath an issue, and whoever is defiled by the dead." So by God's instructions, the sick are abandoned and left to suffer and die alone. Numbers 5:1-4

[DeusMerdaeEst]

14. "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." Couldn't we try spanking first? Leviticus 20:9

15. Both parties in adultery shall be executed. Leviticus 20:10

16. If a man has sex with his father's wife, kill them both. Leviticus 20:11

17. If a man "lies" with his daughter-in-law, then both must be killed. Leviticus 20:12

18. If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. Leviticus 20:13

[Hustada]

Whats up with the crowd? People keep laughing at both speakers.

[DeusMerdaeEst]

Anyone who has read the Old Testament must admit that Christianity and morality have no connection whatsoever.

[Hustada]

Thats, odd, Ive read it and havent got that impression at all.

[DeusMerdaeEst]

Then I'm afraid you didn't read it very well, or your sense of morality is.

1. God kills everyone (men, women, children!, infants!, newborns!) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining "fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven." Well, almost everyone -- he spares the "just and righteous" Lot and his family. Genesis 19:24

God decides to kill Moses because his son had not yet been circumcised. Exodus 4:24-26

[DeusMerdaeEst]

3. God will kill the Egyptian children to show that he puts "a difference between the Egyptians and Israel." Exodus 11:7

4. Any person or animal that touches Mt. Sinai shall be stoned to death or "shot through." Exodus 19:12-13

5. God gives instructions for killing and burning animals. He says that if we will make such "burnt offerings," he will bless us for it. What kind of mind would be pleased by the killing and burning of innocent animals? Exodus 20:24

[DeusMerdaeEst]

6. A child who hits or curses his parents must be executed. Exodus 21:15, 17

7. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Exodus 21:24-25

8.If an ox gores someone due to the negligence of its owner, then "the ox shall be stoned, and his owner shall be put to death.". Exodus 21:29

9."Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death." Is it really necessary to kill such people? Couldn't we just send them to counseling or something? Exodus 22:19

[DeusMerdaeEst]

10. "He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." If this commandment is obeyed, then the four billion people who do not believe in the biblical god must be killed. Exodus 22:20

11. Wash up or die. Exodus 30:20-21

12. Those who break the Sabbath are to be executed. Exodus 31:14

13. Whoever works, or even kindles a fire, on the Sabbath "shall be put to death." Exodus 35:2-3

[DeusMerdaeEst]

19. If you "lie" with your wife and your mother-in-law (now that sounds fun!), then all three of you must be burned to death. Leviticus 20:14

20. People with "familiar spirits" (witches, fortune tellers, etc.) are to be stoned to death. Leviticus 20:27

21. God tells the Israelites to make slaves out of their neighbors and their families. The "heathens" and "strangers" are to be their possessions forever. Leviticus 25:44-46

[ColoradoMikeyS]

If your God feeds the poor and heals the sick then your God must not exist.

[6gording6]

Atheism is like the one who denies saint Nicholas ever existed,when all proves he was real.

[ColoradoMikeyS]

Who cares if Saint Nicholas ever existed or not? The belief in God is what's dangerous.

[6gording6]

It depends what god you are talking about.My God is one who feeds the poor and heals the sick.They are other gods who my God hates such as those who sacrificed humans and children so that the sun may rise and stupid stuff like that,my God hated them because they killed humans for false gods who never gave them any of it.Either way my God is love,one who wants to benefit people not destroy them.N dont confuse OT with NT

[invanorm]

Isn't the notion that other people worship different gods to the same extent you do to yours enough proof that your god is no different to the thousands of others. Who are you to say that your god is one true one, when every other god is just as plausible - or perhaps I should say, just as implausible.