Richard Dawkins: The Changing Moral Zeitgeist (1/2)

[jackanoryjames]

Chapter seven has got to be (for me at-least) the most thought provoking chapter in his book...

Truly excellent...

[markusboyd3]

Join the zeitgeist movement if you are sick of bigotry, corruption, and debt!!!

[FranciscoKGuerreiro]

Let´s go dawkins...free thinking society...

[paolo27th]

Wait, what did she do for 2 months in the mountains?

[dkan3]

Jesus loves you all!

[Deshara218]

Exept for the hundreds of millions who he's banished to Hell to be punished forever.

[dkan3]

no HE love but HE is also just. HE established the law and apart from him you are under it. And if you die having not trusted Jesus to forgive your sin... yes you are sent to hell

[Deshara218]

Exactly. He has created a system knowing that there will be hundreds of other religions with exactly the same amount of proof (none) behind them that all claim to be real, knowing that because of this, millions will be eternally punished. Your god is responsible for every moment of suffering any human being has, whether or not he gave us the illusion of choice, because the right choice is non-beleif until given proof.

Faith is ignorance, and can't, by definition, be defended.

[dkan3]

really read the history of the Bible and the new testament 99.5% pure is pretty good. There is proof for Jesus Christ as God... you just ignore it. To say none you will have to discount all the historical accuracies of the Bible

[Deshara218]

Well what historical accuracies are those? You mean the one where it claims Jesus is from Nazareth, a town that recent acheological findings shows didn't exist at the time, but did 300 years later, when the bible was written..?

And even so, almost every other religion has historical accuracies, so if I must account for what Christianity got right, you have to account for what ever other religion got right.

But I concede to ask you what proof there is that Jesus is god.

[dkan3]

Lol really are you sure Nazareth never existed? And second you are being historically inaccurate and dishonest the Bible wasnt written 300 years after the death of Christ... it was written within 61 AD and 100 AD if you read the text you might know... You should know that if you were historically honest... Also you must take cities of Arad, Bethel, Capernaum, ephesus, jericho, ninveh, shechem, susa all archaelogical findings.Josephus, mentions Christ and is

[Deshara218]

I didn't say never, I said didn't at the time.

And yes, I'm willing to grant that the cities in it exists, and that Jebus existed. You can't go anywhere with that, unless you are going to aknowledge equally every other refernace every other religion makes that is true as proof of it's truth.

[BKF666]

dkan3--

"really read the history of the Bible and the new testament 99.5% pure is pretty good."

I would like to know what is 99.5% pure? Please where do you get your statistics? Is this a feeling you have? Have you actually read the bible and new testament in full?

[dkan3]

Lol yeah i have read the Bible. And even time magazine asserts to the historicity of the NT. There are 5800 original manuscripts and the closest thing is the iliad with the earliest copy coming 500 years later and being 95% pure.

[apocalypseap]

"And even time magazine asserts to the historicity of the NT"

Appeal to Dubious Authority.

"95% pure"

What the fuck does "pure" mean in that context? The problem with you people is you never explain anything and you're always vague. That's why you're a joke.

[dkan3]

//What the fuck does "pure" mean in that context? The problem with you people is you never explain anything and you're always vague. That's why you're a joke.//

Ad hominem and very non sequitur...

Pure means textually identical :) smile you look very smart right about now...LOL

[apocalypseap]

"Ad hominem"

Ad hominem is when you substitute an argument for a personal attack and I did no such thing -- so you're either dumb or a liar. Oh and what I just did isn't ad hominem, either.

"and very non sequitur..."

You mean how you go from "nature exists" to "god must have done it"? That'd be a non-sequitur. You can't just claim I used a non-sequitur, not point out what it is and expect people to believe you. Kinda suspicious.

[apocalypseap]

"Pure means textually identical"

So what? Even if it was 100% pure, that wouldn't give any merit to its authenticity as a collection of historically accurate works whatsoever. Oops -- maybe I used too many "big words" for you. I'll dumb it down for you if you can't understand.

Oh and I love how you retards are still stuck on definitions and never move onto the "evidence" for your ridiculosities that you say you have plenty of but never seem to say what it is or say "the bible" or "nature" rofl

[apocalypseap]

"There is proof for Jesus Christ as God"

No, there isn't. There's nothing.

"you just ignore it"

Yeah like i just ignore all the great evidence for the invisible pink unicorn. Clearly.

The gospels are fiction.

[dkan3]

I would like you to enlighten me that YOU know without the shadow of a doubt that gospel are fiction? Again, due to history everyone agrees that Jesus did walk this earth... all you need to do to disprove Christianity is find His bones...why haven't they? If you ignore the historicity of Jesus so also you must ignore Julius Caesars accounts, Alexander the Great, and Homer especially

[apocalypseap]

"I would like you to enlighten me that YOU know without the shadow of a doubt that gospel are fiction?"

Just like I know that the easter bunny, santa and unicorns aren't real.

"Again, due to history everyone agrees that Jesus did walk this earth"

No they don't. The gospels are the only supposed (unreliable) 3rd or 4th-hand accounts. There is not a single shred of text written about jesus during or shortly after his time, so lol@you.

[apocalypseap]

"all you need to do to disprove Christianity is find His bones"

LMAO. Omf did you seriously type that? Holy shit that is a comedy gem. So stupid that it's funny.

"If you ignore the historicity of Jesus so also you must ignore Julius Caesars accounts, Alexander the Great, and Homer especially"

No, I don't. They didn't claim to be sons of "god." They didn't claim to do any miracles. It also doesn't matter if they existed or not, either. That is irrelevant. The words remain.

[papasitoman]

why does disproving a claim fall to the person or persons being told of it?

If I accuse a person of stealing, I have to prove it because I made the claim. It is therefore up to me.

There are obviously ancient cities mentioned in the bible but so what? That has nothing to do with miraculous claims made by christians or written in the bible. If a scientist claims an experiment works and others can do it then great. If he then claims he can levitate that doesn't mean we automatically believe him.

[JKeats82]

HEAVENS NO!

Jesus may very well have been real! But could he have been a simple MAN, a human, not the son of God? Could not myth or legend or the human tendancy to glorify individuals beyond the scope of their actual persons' be the root of Jesuss' fame?

Jesus could be, and most likely is, a simple ideological construct of the best traits of humanity; mean't to inspire and provide direction for people. A very simple comparison could be the mythology of Santa Claus, to inspire goodness.

[JamesHolman1000]

@Deshara218 The Bible says that God weeps for his creations. He wants everyone to go to Heaven. There Bible is a very scientifically accurate book. Look up the evidence. God bless you.

[TheFlashandFriends]

@Deshara218 you're funny

[oswald420]

physically?

[Sailwa]

You have got to be shitting me.

[Flyborg]

That was pretty much my thought. :)

[slithzerikai]

what a fucktard! Dawkins is a genius :)

[logansGT]

Don't hold back, eazyejrjr, tell us how you really feel.

[DevJL]

jesus 4 cock ;]

[brian1james2dillon3]

Yousorry unfortunate induvidual, get a real education. start with rudimentary english before you dare offer a comment on biology & physics.

[mrasmussen10]

I was being facetious. I thought this was obvious with such over the top comments.

[chosetec]

@mrasmussen, it's hard to tell honesty from satire, when it comes to fundamentalism.

[mrasmussen10]

If you evilutionists are so smart than tell me this. the earth and all the plannats are round so if they wernt created than thay would all be like blobs with no partickuler shape. Ya that,s rihgt I just proved the existance of God. All you sinnars repent for your sins or you will burn in hell forever and ever.

God loves you.

[Illiknight40]

uh buh????

[CharlesVarney]

Enjoyable! Though, do people still use that argument? In any case, jolly good comment. ;-)

[bizair2008]

Yeh. It's called physics. But then you don't known what physics mean do you?

[thescottishJimmy]

dude learn to use a dictionary or in the very least a spell checker.

[mrasmussen10]

physics isent reel. God moves thangs around and all that to make it look cool so that peaple can enjoy the world around them. Sciance and evilution are fak and dont exist, it's just sumthang stupid eliterate peaple beleve in.

[Lohitaksha]

The planets are just stars that moved. The stars are tiny lights to illuminate the night. Along with the sun and moon, they are attached to the dome (firmament) over the flat earth. The only blob "with no partickuler shape" is the creator who lives above the dome.

[domrio]

Gravity...

[relipolenvi2]

that is a fair question: That's because of the nature of gravity. You can think of gravity as a force that points inward toward the center of the planet. Of course, planets are not perfect spheres because mountains and valleys and even skyscrapers are all deviations from the spherical shape. But, as planets get larger, gravity gets stronger, until eventually large objects on the surface are crushed under their own weight. Planets stay about spherical because any large deviations are crushed.

[lothrazar]

the bible self pwns, just like scientology

[mrasmussen10]

lothrazar I am affended by your comment. This just prooves thers a war agenst Christianity going on. I am smarter than all of you put together. I graduated with ohners from Jerry Falwels liberty universaty and studied creation science for years and came up with my own explanasion for why evilution is wrong. sciance for the way you know it dusent exist any way.

[relipolenvi2]

may I ask for your explanation disproving evolution? I've been doing a lot of reading recently - from books written by evolutionary biologists and those written by theists like yourself (I assume). And I can see some holes in the theory of evolution so, please, I'm open to what you've got that could disprove it because, though there are holes, they're not big enough to thrown the entire theory away just yet. Look forward to your theory. :D