interesting that Dawkins has enough time to chat to this man [who isn't a Bishop, Cardinal etc] but is just "TOO BUSY" to speak to Dr Craig for that very reason???
@AliT1995 Strange that this is not the reason that Dawkins himself cites as to why he will not debate with Craig. I suspect that even Dawkins knows that Craig is NOT a fool. if he were then it would be easy to debunk him by debate?
I love the way Richard Dawkins looks personally affronted, offended and hurt whenever anyone challenges science or logical thinking. Richard Dawkins is WELL into science
"It concerns me deeply and I will continue to pray for you my friend" => whenever you see this kind of statement coming from the Christians, you know they have nothing better else to say, and the argument is over.
I am also sure that I am going to put down both you AND your religion.
Why the imagery? Why the heart that is breaking? Is this really what it is? In what sense is this a God, is it anything greater than it being real?
You haven't the stomach to do the things you assert to speak of. You wrap it in serenity, the grace of God.. but really a shred of real honesty would kick you square in the face.
Peace and love are over rated if you build them up to magic levels.
Mackay: "We can't know anything about anything because we weren't there. But the Bible is the word of the creator of the universe, and everything in it is true, except for the things I don't like, but that isn't relativism, because it's all metaphor anyway"
Dawkins: "The evidence suggests that evolution is true. If you have evidence to the contrary I and the rest of the scientific world will give you a heroes welcome"
Mackay: "Evidence? What evidence do you have that God DIDN'T do it?"
these two are operating on two completely different wavelengths, their perception and angle on the subject isnt reconcilable. Both of them had a valid point, but as for evidence, John Mackay didnt address that one bit, this wasnt intended to be a philosophical debate, as John Mackay treats it as. John had a moderately decent PHILOSOPHICAL point, but not scientific one.
@nukker7 That may be, but I can still throw in my two cents, and common sense. Which makes MORE sense. A scientific explanation backed up by proven facts for everything in the known universe, or a book telling you a man in the sky ripped a rib out of a man to make a woman. Speaking of which, how DID Adam and eve's children have children, since you are obviously a biblical expert.
@Burntshmallow First of all. I am not trying to put your thoughts down. You and I don't agree but, that is okay as far as I'm concerned. I will say that, as John explains, all this evidence has been influenced by man. The tools made to test (date) these findings were made by man as well.
Your next thought is that the book was written by man. Back in the biblical day, everyone had scribes. These people would write down what the person was saying which puts us back at square1
@Burntshmallow As far as Adam and Eve and their children. To put myself in the past would be to speculate and that is where my and your faith come into play. I have faith in the Bible and believe in the word of God.
You can't seriously claim that all thoughts about the past are speculation.. simply by virtue of the fact that we weren't there.
How do we know the sun was there 1000 years ago. We weren't there. And it is possible there has been a giant conspiracy to make us believe the sun is older than the Earth.
But ALL the evidence suggests it was there.
Just like with evolution.
We've OBSERVED evolution occuring, you know that right?
@Absiintheee Well then, here is your chance! You can win $250,000 if you have empirical evidence for evolution. Not microevolution....(ie: wolf and a dog still make a dog) Congratulations! You are the only one in the world that can prove it!
Hovind twists the definition of evolution, so that is contingent upon explaining where the ENTIRE UNIVERSE and the concept of time came from.
He is basically saying that in order to prove the veracity of the claim that evolution has occured on earth, we must be able to explain why the universe exists in the first place.
A. Ridiculous. Assertion.
But this gets to the root of the matter for you Christians doesn't it? The whole univerise! It had to have been God.
@Absiintheee You obviously have not followed Kent or his son. You are spouting off random assertions that mean nothing other than an attempt to dissect the core of the christian religion. You have squirmed all around the point at hand to only point fingers at God. That is your right. It was given to you by our God. It concerns me deeply and I will continue to pray for you my friend. (BTW, I am sure you will try to put down either myself or my religion; Whatever helps you cope)
Except.... the notion of one thing causing another thing.. is a very human notion when you really think about it.
To state that the universe, which is to say space, energy, matter, time.. etc.. must have a cause, is utterly fatuous, because the concept of "cause" arose from those conditions.
We just don't know "why" the universe exists.
But people are certainly trying.. yet here you are spouting non sequiturs, and acting like you've contributed anything of value.
@Absiintheee Maybe you get nothing from this today.....Maybe one day you may. If that day ever comes. What a rejoiceful day that will be. Quit trying to prove yourself. There is an all perfect God that has a heart that is breaking for you. Mine breaks for you as well.
@nukker7 Maybe one day you will get NOTHING from this. Maybe one day it may. If that day ever comes, what the fuck?
...The fuck?
Howling question Am I Good?
Cast the fear in a light that flatters you.
Tell me how moral you are.
-----------------------------------
See how utterly fatuous that is to do? If you do it, you are certain of it.. But it's all faith any way isn't it, the real question is who are we... (Good reason to let yourself off the hook)
@MrLucifure the bible is composed of books/scrolls/manuscripts of things that were written in the past or carried down by oral tradition, i would recommend that you look into the history and see how accurate it really is
@MrLucifure Actually he didn't say that. He simply pointed out that the science of origins requires faith no matter what you believe, because none of us were there to see it happen. As opposed to operational science where we can observe how things are working. He would fully acknowledge that his belief in the Bible is 'faith based'.
Think I'll believe the smart guys in lab coats rather than a book written in the bronze age. A book that says all animals were in walking distance of Noah's house.
Just tonight I watched this John Mackay debate a Dr. Dan Ryder from the University of British Columbia. Mr. Mackay's logic is terribly flawed; he argued God is real because the bible, the living word of God, says he is. I've never seen a supposedly educated person rely on such terrible circular logic. He may as well have stated "God exists because God exists." For anyone interested the debate will continue online for a two week period starting in February if anyone wants me to post the link.
It's funny when people argue about the existence of god, because creationists say that atheists will burn in hell. But he'll doesn't exist. Just like god.
@RosesTimes "The creationists are right that, if genuinely irreducible complexity could be properly demonstrated, it would wreck Darwin's theory. Darwin himself said as much: 'If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.' Darwin could find no such case, and nor has anyody since Darwin's time."
@RosesTimes Didn't say it did, I personally think it destroys religion than evolution. I see the theory of evolution when I see apes, monkeys, chimps in the zoo practically reflecting human characteristics.
this idiot is talkin to dawkins like dawkins is the idiot, i feel like killing him haha idiots like him make me so angry but its my countries fault (england) we did send all are criminals to his country no wonder hes a fuckin idiot his ancestors were all fuckin stupid criminals who got caught
MacKay's must be one of the most desperate attempts to cling on to insane beliefs. When he's confronted with the apparent absurdity of his position, he responds by trying to argue that all positions are equally absurd (which is of course not something he actually believes).
If it were written in the bible that two plus two becomes five, no doubt these morons would have believed it too. I'm sure they would have found a way to prove that too!
John Mackay: "(Jesus said) You don't believe Moses - you don't believe me" Ironic, isn't it, that the story of Moses and Exodus has recently been demonstrated to be fiction? Interestingly though, this discovery also provides a cautionary tale to Mackay against believing things that you can't confirm because you weren't there (though of course he can still believe it because his denial of evidence is a "faith position") - ironies everywhere. Good theology uses much larger logical circles to lie.
All have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then hell. That's not Gods will. He suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His life's blood so He could legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from your sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your salvation
This Mackay is the very same John Mackay who accused a former member of Answers in Genesis (a widow called Margaret Buchanan) of being a witch, demonically possesing cats and gifts(?) and also falsley accused her of necrophilia with her dead huband's corpse(!!) This man is a dishonest sick bastard! How can anyone take anything this man says seriously.
Dawkins was unable to do anything with him. He's weak. Only the weak views Dawkins as some kind of champion of logic. Mackay does a great job of refuting Dawkins here. He keeps saying,"the whole of science." there is no such thing. It erroneously implies that all scientists, everywhere, interpret all of the data in the exact same way. This we know is false. Dawkins is an idiot....and a coward for ducking Craig.
@revlooshin there is a difference in saying ive got science at my back, and knowing about it, then not knowing. Dawkins certainly knows, and you have not seen the big errors this wannabe-santa has. Certainly if you look at facts and not facts. Data is something that cant be interprited in only ONE way, if it cant be interprited in one way, its philosophy.
@revlooshin Actually, I've posted hundreds of reasonable arguments while blind creationists like you stick your fingers in your ears and say "lalala I'm not listening! I'm right and you're wrong!" so now I've just given up talking reason to you people...
@PaladinswordSaurfang Bro, I'm not trying to debate creationism vs evolution here with you, or anybody else. I simply commented on this video and how Dawkins is weak and ineffective in his attempt to corner and belittle Mackay. For example, Dawkins first says that all different dating methods give the same info. When challenged 'slightly' he wavers and says,"Oh, okay...well, they overlap. that's it, they overlap." So either he tried to sneak in a lie, or he's just plain weak, like i said. LOL!
2) Besides, Dawkins is open to at least one form of creationism/intelligent design, himself. He has publicly said it's an 'intriguing possibility' that beings from an advanced civilization somewhere in the universe (what many would call 'gods') seeded life to the earth. Though there is no science to back this idea he calls it 'an intriguing possibility', but he scorns the idea of God. So he shows what drives his sentiment. His hatred of religion, not facts, is what really shapes his worldview.
3) This is why I have absolutely NO respect for the man. He's going around on a crusade, spewing hatred and propaganda, but he's intellectually and morally duplicitous and disingenuous about his true motives. He is more than willing to take on Bishops, Popes, Cardinals and Kirk Cameron in a public debate. But the likes of a worthy opponent like William Lane Craig, or other scientists with a differing view, he cowers from. He is showing his true colors. He's a coward. Very Overrated.
@revlooshin He's an atheist activist, he doesn't debate with any christian because he will have to lower to their level, and even when he wins the debate it won't make him look any better. Dawkins said that he wished christians were more reasonable but the fact is, most of them are as illogical as this guy he's talking to now. As an activist, his aim is to debunk the most common christian arguments and expose how religion affects society.
@revlooshin Also, it's more about how knowledgable, reasonable and logical you are, and the arguments you make, rather than whether you're a coward or not. Many christians are just completely arrogant, and the sad thing is, you respect them for their arrogance. They go around shoving their beliefs in everyone's face. They want to indoctrinate everyone with their own beliefs, yet they won't even consider questioning their own. PS. Craig's arguments have been debunked.
@revlooshin Wow... if you think admitting something is a possibility means you're open to intelligent design, you are seriously retarded. Almost all atheists will admit that pretty much everything is a POSSIBILITY, because we are reasonable enough to admit we don't know many things. The fact that many christians say they KNOW God exists without evidence just shows how deluded they are! Yes, Dawkins is an open-minded man, but no, he won't fall that low...
@revlooshin There are so many things wrong with this John Mackey guy. He's completely fucked up in the head, he's arrogant, he knows no science and yet you decide to criticise Dawkins!? Also, he said "they overlap" because Mackey was being a complete smartass and wouldn't just see the point Dawkins was trying to make. He only said it to get Mackey to agree with him so he could continue with his point...
By the mans own logic the distance from there to New York could have well been 7 yards in the past....because it takes faith to establish that the present measurement has anything to do with the past one.
@repticman123 your right he wasn't there, but God was and if a being that can not tell lies tells you something you best believe it because it has no other option but to be true. and if you are going to ask how i know that God cannot tell lies it is because lies are a perversion of truth there only exists truth within God by his nature thus making the ability for prevision nonexistent.
Atheism is religion. Dawkins is using reason in order to establish a transcendental purpose. Augustine picks up on this too, he says that all people by their nature are religious.
@sukka113 Atheism is not religion, and people by their nature are not religious. Everyone is born non-religious and then with dogma and religious indoctrination as children they are led like unassuming sheep to believe.
Richard Dawkins can't seem to accept that empirical facts can only say how probable something is. This creationist is right in saying you have to start from abduction in order to say how old the earth is.
if that guy was borned during the middle ages he would work a part time job as a beheader for the curch.. Glad people like that don't got much power anymore. And people are starting to stop takin them serious:) Go go dawkins
From a nihilist perspective, i could kind of agree with some of the creationists´s arguments (NOT to say i am religious or a theist), In the end, nothing could, or ever will be proven true. I think science tells us statistics, not laws (for there are no such things).
@anicia55 Issac Newton was Historically documented. What they are arguing about is speculation based on evidence. you are comparing apples and oranges
@greenlanternjmp wrong. methods like c14 are even more trustworthy than just a human documentation of something. so the human documentation of newton is less trustworthy than the age of a piece of bone or something like that proven by c14.
@greenlanternjmp "Issac Newton was Historically documented" => so is Allah, Zeus, Thor, Ganesh...and if I start writing about my Flying Spaghetti Monster, and convince enough people to follow it, that will be part of historical document too.
Oh for fucks sake , I was going to say something intelligent to support Dawkins ,but I will just continue drinking and ignore this stupid cunt who thinks that you have to directly observe something in order to conclude it happened.
@MrPashable To whom do you refer, the idiot Mackay in the video or this Tourettes' victim below called Recordbhoy. his name suggests some sort of Irish connection so I presume he is some sort of retarded catholic fuckwit who was abused by his priest as a child and has been consumed with hate and mental difficulties ever since. Sad case really.
I got to the end. And oh my gosh. Dinos co-existing with humans? Please tell me that no one honestly believes that. If they do, then I think I have lost all hope in humanity.
Oh, well, since John Mackay did his own geological research then why are we still carbon (and the others) dating? I mean, how can we possibly argue with THE John Mackay? The omniscient Aussie?
@SpencerBenedict2nd I don't want to live forever, thanks. Life becomes meaningless as it approaches infinity. It is only its brevity and finality that makes it worth living at all.
@dmmchn "We used to believe the earth was flat."-dmmchn
>Bunkum. All the jesuit "flat earth" propaganda did not come about until during the renaissance as a means to promote confusion about earthly landscape features of the antediluvian age. Counter Reformation propaganda is to thank for the spawning of the "Flat Earth Society" bunkum.
To know the concept of a flat earth (one in which we could sail off the edge) was never a common belief, one only has to look at ancient Grecian Atlas statues!
@dmmchn "We used to believe the earth was flat."-dmmchn
>And we still know earth use to be flat. For nearly 1,700 years the earthly landscape was flat during the antediluvian age. Don't get me wrong, the planet was and always has been a spherically round mind you. Globular if you will. But it's surface was indeed flat, with no high elevated mountains or deep sunken valleys.
But then of course, the historic catastrophic Great Flood of 2348 B.C. came along and changed all that.
In the course of providence, when famine and plagues visit a nation for sin, children suffer in the common calamity. In this case parents are punished in their children; and for children dying before actual sin, full provision is made as to their eternal happiness, by the mercy of God in Christ.
FINIS
P.S. Don't ever question God again. Your a modern fool to do it.
@SpencerBenedict2nd There is no god to speak of, and I will question all of them as I see fit.
All that you posted is meaningless drivel designed to make what is really an unethical action (wholesale slaughter) seem like some kind of moral cleansing. God still created those people and knew, at "genesis", how they would behave.
I'm sure Hitler believe the same. I'm sure Pol Pot beleived the same. Yet you would call them amoral atheists for acting in such a way.
@dmmchn "I'm sure Hitler believe the same. I'm sure Pol Pot beleived the same. Yet you would call them amoral atheists for acting in such a way."-dmmchn
>Hitler was no atheist. He was born and raised Roman Catholic. His father Alois is buried in a catholic cemetery. Hitler was a "good" practicing Catholic (receiving weekly blasphemous catholic communion) and was brought to power by Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) to act as frontman and scapegoat for Vatican's 20th century Inquisition.
@dmmchn "I'm sure Pol Pot beleived the same. Yet you would call them amoral atheists for acting in such a way."-dmmchn
>Pol Pot was also a papal puppet who aided in carrying out the Vatican's Cambodian buddhist purging atrocities under the direction and command of Cardinal Spellman and Jesuit Superior General (a.k.a. Black Pope) Pedro Aruppe.
The so-called Vietnam "War" was a cloak for Vatican Rome's Vietnam Crusade of Indochina buddhists throughout Vietnam, Thailand, Laos and Cambodia.
@SpencerBenedict2nd It's actually funny, because a universe without god, although it seems meaningless, is not as meaningless as one that has a god. Your own personal experience is nothing, it has no inherent meaning.
All you can do is hope to supplicant yourself before your god, which, amusingly, you can't be sure you're doing correctly. And even then, your existence is not one of personal glory, it is one of glory to god. Your life has no meaning, and I'm an atheist. Sad.
>Why do flip-flop so much? I have witnessed you, on several occasions, share with others your belief of not knowing if God exists or not. So what are you? An agnostic or an atheist? And yes, this is, quite "sad".
@dmmchn "Your own personal experience is nothing, it has no inherent meaning."-dmmchn
>Speak for yourself. The meaning of life is to pass the test and be blessed with a ticket to enter Gods Kingdom and be graced with the rewards of heaven.
"... hope to supplicant yourself before your god, which, amusingly, you can't be sure you're doing correctly."-dmmchn
>INCORRECT. He left for every one of us, a set of detailed instructions. All one has to do is read them and abide. "Sad" you won't.
The female children were spared, who, being brought up among the Israelites, would not tempt them to idolatry. The whole history shows the hatefulness of sin, and the guilt of tempting others; it teaches us to avoid all occasions of evil, and to give no quarter to inward lusts. The women and children were not kept for sinful purposes, but for slaves, a custom every where practised in former times, as to captives.
@dmmchn "Keeping just the virgin females after razing a town? How moral."-dmmchn
Numbers 31 (N)
"18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."-Nu 31:18
The sword of war should spare women and children; but the sword of justice should know no distinction, but that of guilty or not guilty. This war was the execution of a righteous sentence upon a guilty nation, in which the women were the worst criminals.
For this action I account simply on the principle that God, who is the author and supporter of life, has a right to dispose of it when and how he thinks proper; and the Judge of all the earth can do nothing but what is right.
Wesley's Notes
... by their horrid crimes, and therefore it is not strange, nor unjust, that God, the supreme Lord of all mens lives, who as he gives them, so may take them away when he pleaseth,
"17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him."-Nu 31:17
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
...and as the adulterers had been put to death, so now the adulteresses; or they were ordered to, be slain, even all of them, lest they should entice the children of Israel to uncleanness, and so to idolatry again:
... and is a sin highly offensive to him, being greatly derogatory to his honour and glory: and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord; for that sin; and in that plague died 24,000 persons, Numbers 25:9.
Geneva Study Bible
Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD for worshipping of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
The Midianites sent their women into the camp of Israel, and allure them to uncleanness, and so draw them into idolatry, which counsel they followed and it succeeded; for, by this means, they were brought to commit trespass against the Lord by worshipping Baalpeor, the god of the Moabites and Midianites; whereby they transgressed the commandment of God, which forbid them having and worshipping any other gods besides him,
"Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD."-Nu 31:16
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
"Caused" ... to commit trespass - More literally, "became to the children of Israel for a cause (or, incitement) of treachery to the Lord."
The Midianites seem to have been the principal instigators of the infamous scheme of seduction, planned to entrap the Israelites into the double crime of idolatry and licentiousness. This, in fact, was a religious war, undertaken by the express command of God against idolaters, who had seduced the Israelites to practise their abominations.
Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
The Campaign. "The revenge of the children of Israel" was revenge for the wickedness which the tribes of the Midianites who dwelt on the east of Moab (see at Numbers 22:4) had practised upon the Israelites, by seducing them to the idolatrous worship of Baal Peor. This revenge is called the "revenge of Jehovah" in Numbers 31:3, because the seduction had violated the divinity and honour of Jehovah.
"1And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people."-Nu 31:1-2
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
"Avenge" - For the injury they had done them, by sending their daughters among them, who enticed them to commit uncleanness with them, and then drew them into the worship of their idols, which brought the wrath of God upon them, and for which 24,000 persons were slain.
Their wars were begun and carried on expressly by Divine direction, and they were enabled to conquer by miracles. Unless it can be proved that the wicked Canaanites did not deserve their doom, objectors only prove their dislike to God, and their love to his enemies. Man makes light of the evil of sin, but God abhors it. This explains the terrible executions of the nations which had filled the measure of their sins.
All who, without commission from God, dare to execute private revenge, and who, from ambition, covetousness, or resentment, wage war and desolate kingdoms, must one day answer for it. But if God, instead of sending an earthquake, a pestilence, or a famine, be pleased to authorize and command any people to avenge his cause, such a commission surely is just and right. he Israelites could show such a commission, though no persons now can do so.
@dmmchn "Keeping just the virgin females after razing a town? How moral."-dmmchn
Numbers 31 (C) 17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Now, ye who be so bold and careless as to judge G_d's actions shall seek the wisdom to understand. Stick around friend, and you may learn something. . .
@dmmchn "Keeping just the virgin females after razing a town? How moral."-dmmchn
(please keep in mind that i realize you have no desire to understand, so this effort is really for others who care to)
Numbers 31 (B)
16Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
@dmmchn "Keeping just the virgin females after razing a town? How moral."-dmmchn
AND THIS TROUBLES YOU, WHY? Allow me to help you understand what you can not see.
Numbers 31 (A)
1And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people. 3And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.
@Recordbhoy "Judge not, that ye be not judged.For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
@SpencerBenedict2nd There is a difference between accepting a previous proof and translating information to suit your agenda. The bible and its interpretation is an exercise in language; science is an exercise in data.
Do you understand mathematics? Do you believe that calculus works?
Can you PROVE irrefutably that it works? Yes, but the proof is very, very long. The point of learning is to build on prior knowledge.
Our geocentric solar system is another universal truth of which the majority are unaware. Research the history of when, how and why the heliocentricity hoax came about. No less than 4-6 months of study should suffice.
FACT: NASA is using equations derived from a geocentric universe in order to launch our satellites.
@SpencerBenedict2nd No, they're using equations derived from the idea that the satellite is effectively "a part" of the earth.
There is plenty, plenty, plenty of data that proves a heliocentric solar system. The fact that you would deny it just to believe in the bible more makes it extremely difficult to take anything you say remotely seriously.
@dmmchn "No, they're using equations derived from the idea that the satellite is effectively "a part" of the earth."-dmmchn
>Maybe you did not compute what i informed you of. Here, i'll state it again. NASA is using equations derived from a geocentric universe in order to launch our satellites. This is a plain and simple fact. Twisting it is vain and futile.
"There is plenty, plenty, plenty of data that proves a heliocentric solar system."-dmmchn
This has been flagged as spam show
No matter how much evidence and fact you place before these people, they will always deny it. They're frightened...
greeeeeg2 1 day ago
McKay: "Your a religious man!"
Dawkins blushes FTW
I saw McKay speaking a while ago, and he dominated.
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus would actually slap his creationist face, telling him he shouldn't be so fucking bigot.
MyBottletree 2 days ago
Comment removed
MyBottletree 2 days ago
I cant believe an asshat like that goes around school preaching for his bullshit wich he claim is true based on his faith, CRAZZZZZZZZZZZZZY
SnowboarddLifestyle 6 days ago
Surprised to see a creationists who isn't American.
UndefinedVideos0 1 week ago
@UndefinedVideos0
Anyone is susceptible to misinformation, we need to stop characterising anyone of a particular race or whatever, by the numerous morons amongst them.
AlfTheTroll 2 days ago
Dawkins: "Just been having a look at your little pamphlet, don't have time to read it" lol!
Bless him!, ... can't blame him for having a little dig now & then, particularly with such an obnoxious twat as Mackay.
PiskieBenWa 1 week ago
interesting that Dawkins has enough time to chat to this man [who isn't a Bishop, Cardinal etc] but is just "TOO BUSY" to speak to Dr Craig for that very reason???
indianslummer 1 week ago
@indianslummer Because Dr. Craig is a truly blind idiot. He has such horrible morals and a bigoted view of evolution.
AliT1995 1 week ago
@AliT1995 Strange that this is not the reason that Dawkins himself cites as to why he will not debate with Craig. I suspect that even Dawkins knows that Craig is NOT a fool. if he were then it would be easy to debunk him by debate?
indianslummer 1 week ago
candygram for Mr Mongo
phillNWUK 1 week ago
OMG HE LIKES CHARLES LYELL JUST STFU NOW! UGGGGGG WE FREAKING GET IT!!!!!!!!!
awesomeskier12345 2 weeks ago
I love the way Richard Dawkins looks personally affronted, offended and hurt whenever anyone challenges science or logical thinking. Richard Dawkins is WELL into science
FrogsCock 2 weeks ago
"It concerns me deeply and I will continue to pray for you my friend" => whenever you see this kind of statement coming from the Christians, you know they have nothing better else to say, and the argument is over.
Casshyr 2 weeks ago 2
I am also sure that I am going to put down both you AND your religion.
Why the imagery? Why the heart that is breaking? Is this really what it is? In what sense is this a God, is it anything greater than it being real?
You haven't the stomach to do the things you assert to speak of. You wrap it in serenity, the grace of God.. but really a shred of real honesty would kick you square in the face.
Peace and love are over rated if you build them up to magic levels.
Tell me how moral you are.
Absiintheee 3 weeks ago
@nukker7 Ahhh, I get you! Trollolol...
Burntshmallow 3 weeks ago
Mackay: "We can't know anything about anything because we weren't there. But the Bible is the word of the creator of the universe, and everything in it is true, except for the things I don't like, but that isn't relativism, because it's all metaphor anyway"
Dawkins: "The evidence suggests that evolution is true. If you have evidence to the contrary I and the rest of the scientific world will give you a heroes welcome"
Mackay: "Evidence? What evidence do you have that God DIDN'T do it?"
*sigh*
Absiintheee 3 weeks ago
these two are operating on two completely different wavelengths, their perception and angle on the subject isnt reconcilable. Both of them had a valid point, but as for evidence, John Mackay didnt address that one bit, this wasnt intended to be a philosophical debate, as John Mackay treats it as. John had a moderately decent PHILOSOPHICAL point, but not scientific one.
Blake4014 3 weeks ago
mackay 1 -0 dawkins
TheFRAMECube 3 weeks ago
@TheFRAMECube agreed!!!!!
nukker7 3 weeks ago
@nukker7 cant remember what u r agreeing to
TheFRAMECube 3 weeks ago
@nukker7 So.. You're running because you don't know the answer? Good! I win once again.
Burntshmallow 3 weeks ago
@Burntshmallow :)
nukker7 3 weeks ago
@nukker7 That may be, but I can still throw in my two cents, and common sense. Which makes MORE sense. A scientific explanation backed up by proven facts for everything in the known universe, or a book telling you a man in the sky ripped a rib out of a man to make a woman. Speaking of which, how DID Adam and eve's children have children, since you are obviously a biblical expert.
Burntshmallow 3 weeks ago
@Burntshmallow First of all. I am not trying to put your thoughts down. You and I don't agree but, that is okay as far as I'm concerned. I will say that, as John explains, all this evidence has been influenced by man. The tools made to test (date) these findings were made by man as well.
Your next thought is that the book was written by man. Back in the biblical day, everyone had scribes. These people would write down what the person was saying which puts us back at square1
nukker7 3 weeks ago
@nukker7
Do you understand how painstakingly, and rigorously the body of knowledge we have about the natural world was put together?
How we have studied millions of plant and animal species, sequenced their DNA, combed the surface of the Earth..
And what alternative are you suggesting? God?
So.. The earth was here then God just appeared life randomly at one point? Or did animals evolve but he put humans here..?
What explanatory value are you offering other than just "God"
Absiintheee 3 weeks ago
@Burntshmallow As far as Adam and Eve and their children. To put myself in the past would be to speculate and that is where my and your faith come into play. I have faith in the Bible and believe in the word of God.
nukker7 3 weeks ago
@nukker7
You can't seriously claim that all thoughts about the past are speculation.. simply by virtue of the fact that we weren't there.
How do we know the sun was there 1000 years ago. We weren't there. And it is possible there has been a giant conspiracy to make us believe the sun is older than the Earth.
But ALL the evidence suggests it was there.
Just like with evolution.
We've OBSERVED evolution occuring, you know that right?
It is as close to fact as say.... gravity...
Absiintheee 3 weeks ago
@Absiintheee Well then, here is your chance! You can win $250,000 if you have empirical evidence for evolution. Not microevolution....(ie: wolf and a dog still make a dog) Congratulations! You are the only one in the world that can prove it!
nukker7 3 weeks ago
@nukker7
You and I both know that the rules of that challenge are PATENTLY absurd
Absiintheee 3 weeks ago
@nukker7
Hovind twists the definition of evolution, so that is contingent upon explaining where the ENTIRE UNIVERSE and the concept of time came from.
He is basically saying that in order to prove the veracity of the claim that evolution has occured on earth, we must be able to explain why the universe exists in the first place.
A. Ridiculous. Assertion.
But this gets to the root of the matter for you Christians doesn't it? The whole univerise! It had to have been God.
Absiintheee 3 weeks ago
@Absiintheee You obviously have not followed Kent or his son. You are spouting off random assertions that mean nothing other than an attempt to dissect the core of the christian religion. You have squirmed all around the point at hand to only point fingers at God. That is your right. It was given to you by our God. It concerns me deeply and I will continue to pray for you my friend. (BTW, I am sure you will try to put down either myself or my religion; Whatever helps you cope)
nukker7 3 weeks ago
@nukker7
Except.... the notion of one thing causing another thing.. is a very human notion when you really think about it.
To state that the universe, which is to say space, energy, matter, time.. etc.. must have a cause, is utterly fatuous, because the concept of "cause" arose from those conditions.
We just don't know "why" the universe exists.
But people are certainly trying.. yet here you are spouting non sequiturs, and acting like you've contributed anything of value.
"God did it"
Absiintheee 3 weeks ago
@Absiintheee Maybe you get nothing from this today.....Maybe one day you may. If that day ever comes. What a rejoiceful day that will be. Quit trying to prove yourself. There is an all perfect God that has a heart that is breaking for you. Mine breaks for you as well.
nukker7 3 weeks ago
@nukker7 Maybe one day you will get NOTHING from this. Maybe one day it may. If that day ever comes, what the fuck?
...The fuck?
Howling question Am I Good?
Cast the fear in a light that flatters you.
Tell me how moral you are.
-----------------------------------
See how utterly fatuous that is to do? If you do it, you are certain of it.. But it's all faith any way isn't it, the real question is who are we... (Good reason to let yourself off the hook)
How moral are you?
Absiintheee 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Absiintheee "But ALL the evidence suggests it was there." Key work is suggests, there is your faith. Looks like we are both people of faith.
nukker7 3 weeks ago
@nukker7 Hmm, yes, but nobody else is of you.
Burntshmallow 4 weeks ago
@Burntshmallow You may be telling the truth but, I dont ask that of anyone here.
nukker7 3 weeks ago
These fuckers need to stop claiming evolution and atheism as faith.
WolfgangBrozart 4 weeks ago
I love how Creatards are always so fucking stupid and how the rational scientist arguing with them highlights it
Rdburnzy 1 month ago
Good job Mackay! I am a christian and creationist and love Jesus Christ!
And proud of it!
nukker7 1 month ago
@nukker7 No one in it's right state of mind can actually think Mackay did a good job. He spews the same shit over and over and over.
olwerXL 3 weeks ago
@olwerXL Maybe we just share different points of view. I just agree with him.
nukker7 3 weeks ago
@nukker7 I don't know about you but I'd rather have facts than fiction.
olwerXL 3 weeks ago
He says that people cant tell things about the past. So how can the people who wrote the Holy Bible write about something that happened in the past?
MrLucifure 1 month ago 4
@MrLucifure the bible is composed of books/scrolls/manuscripts of things that were written in the past or carried down by oral tradition, i would recommend that you look into the history and see how accurate it really is
Austintaylorjaney 1 month ago
@MrLucifure Actually he didn't say that. He simply pointed out that the science of origins requires faith no matter what you believe, because none of us were there to see it happen. As opposed to operational science where we can observe how things are working. He would fully acknowledge that his belief in the Bible is 'faith based'.
braidyjk 2 weeks ago
@MrLucifure They didn't, they were there.
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 day ago
@theP3rSonhuRocks Nope...how could that possibly be true?
pezus 4 hours ago
@pezus How couldn't that be possible? Do tell... History places them there what evidence would you have to say otherwise?
theP3rSonhuRocks 1 hour ago
Think I'll believe the smart guys in lab coats rather than a book written in the bronze age. A book that says all animals were in walking distance of Noah's house.
debrainwasher1 1 month ago 9
@debrainwasher1 and a book that says that bats are birds.
MetalDoneMoreForME 2 weeks ago
@RosesTimes How did life originate?
BoyJewish 1 month ago
Ever notice all hard core atheists are short men?
BoyJewish 1 month ago
Just tonight I watched this John Mackay debate a Dr. Dan Ryder from the University of British Columbia. Mr. Mackay's logic is terribly flawed; he argued God is real because the bible, the living word of God, says he is. I've never seen a supposedly educated person rely on such terrible circular logic. He may as well have stated "God exists because God exists." For anyone interested the debate will continue online for a two week period starting in February if anyone wants me to post the link.
14injav29 1 month ago 2
It's funny when people argue about the existence of god, because creationists say that atheists will burn in hell. But he'll doesn't exist. Just like god.
Davethepenquin 1 month ago
@Davethepenquin How did life originate?
BoyJewish 1 month ago
@RosesTimes Ignorant for reading Dawkins, oh how pathetic and desperate you are. I wouldn’t want to speak to a deluded brainwashed idiot.
RobZombieIsAGod 1 month ago
This guy John Mackay totally destroyed big dome Dawkins!
paulod27 1 month ago
Quoted from Richard Dawkins The God Delusion.
RobZombieIsAGod 1 month ago
@RosesTimes "The creationists are right that, if genuinely irreducible complexity could be properly demonstrated, it would wreck Darwin's theory. Darwin himself said as much: 'If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.' Darwin could find no such case, and nor has anyody since Darwin's time."
RobZombieIsAGod 1 month ago
@RobZombieIsAGod What evolved first...hearts...blood...or blood vessels?
BoyJewish 1 month ago
@RosesTimes I'm not a scientist.
RobZombieIsAGod 1 month ago
@RosesTimes Didn't say it did, I personally think it destroys religion than evolution. I see the theory of evolution when I see apes, monkeys, chimps in the zoo practically reflecting human characteristics.
RobZombieIsAGod 1 month ago
I want to see John Mackay's reaction to dinosaurs fossils, bet he must be dumbfounded. I feel bad for creationists because they're trapped.
Richard Dawkins on Creationists "Deluded beyond the point of perversion."
RobZombieIsAGod 1 month ago
@RobZombieIsAGod Your name is false
quote55 1 month ago
@quote55 My name is a lighthearted joke on Gods you cretin. Come back when you know a little context and don't just assume. Sit down.
RobZombieIsAGod 1 month ago
@RobZombieIsAGod Rob Zombie suckada cocka
quote55 1 month ago
@quote55 "suckada cocka" learn some English you illiterate baboon.
RobZombieIsAGod 1 month ago
Why does this guy seem to think he's winning this argument? Mate, nobody out-reasons Richard Dawkins...
Edukate95 1 month ago
this idiot is talkin to dawkins like dawkins is the idiot, i feel like killing him haha idiots like him make me so angry but its my countries fault (england) we did send all are criminals to his country no wonder hes a fuckin idiot his ancestors were all fuckin stupid criminals who got caught
J0nnyCArr 1 month ago
There's a guy who came up with a word that lots of scientists use, and he was a christian, therefore all science is based on christianity. QED.
dsaxton1 1 month ago
MacKay's must be one of the most desperate attempts to cling on to insane beliefs. When he's confronted with the apparent absurdity of his position, he responds by trying to argue that all positions are equally absurd (which is of course not something he actually believes).
dsaxton1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard's level of patience is about 10 fold that of mine... I would've walked away the moment he said, "it starts with faith".
chicagonative17 1 month ago
Comment removed
chicagonative17 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If it were written in the bible that two plus two becomes five, no doubt these morons would have believed it too. I'm sure they would have found a way to prove that too!
tensorbundle 1 month ago
Comment removed
tensorbundle 1 month ago
Comment removed
tensorbundle 1 month ago
John Mackay: "(Jesus said) You don't believe Moses - you don't believe me" Ironic, isn't it, that the story of Moses and Exodus has recently been demonstrated to be fiction? Interestingly though, this discovery also provides a cautionary tale to Mackay against believing things that you can't confirm because you weren't there (though of course he can still believe it because his denial of evidence is a "faith position") - ironies everywhere. Good theology uses much larger logical circles to lie.
kelco93 1 month ago
Comment removed
kelco93 1 month ago
Well MacKay, did Jesus really die for your sins? How do you know - you weren't there!!! LOSER!!!
franknhonest 1 month ago
MacKay is a silly buffoon. Let's all hope he kicks the bucket sometime SOON.
franknhonest 1 month ago
All have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then hell. That's not Gods will. He suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His life's blood so He could legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from your sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your salvation
mamainmancj 1 month ago
@mamainmancj Cool story bro
Stoigen86 1 month ago
@Stoigen86 shh don't incourage him
MrBrew4321 1 month ago
@Never3rd lolll atheists are as peaceful as Jesus-The Irony!
Megapolable 2 months ago
Australia, so disappointed ><
shave23 2 months ago
This Mackay is the very same John Mackay who accused a former member of Answers in Genesis (a widow called Margaret Buchanan) of being a witch, demonically possesing cats and gifts(?) and also falsley accused her of necrophilia with her dead huband's corpse(!!) This man is a dishonest sick bastard! How can anyone take anything this man says seriously.
rossini55 2 months ago 2
Comment removed
revlooshin 2 months ago
Dawkins was unable to do anything with him. He's weak. Only the weak views Dawkins as some kind of champion of logic. Mackay does a great job of refuting Dawkins here. He keeps saying,"the whole of science." there is no such thing. It erroneously implies that all scientists, everywhere, interpret all of the data in the exact same way. This we know is false. Dawkins is an idiot....and a coward for ducking Craig.
revlooshin 2 months ago
@revlooshin there is a difference in saying ive got science at my back, and knowing about it, then not knowing. Dawkins certainly knows, and you have not seen the big errors this wannabe-santa has. Certainly if you look at facts and not facts. Data is something that cant be interprited in only ONE way, if it cant be interprited in one way, its philosophy.
RawSwedishMeatball 2 months ago
@revlooshin Fuck you, blind creationist.
PaladinswordSaurfang 2 months ago
@PaladinswordSaurfang typical atheist retort. something with "fuck" in it. lol. never fails.
revlooshin 2 months ago
@revlooshin Actually, I've posted hundreds of reasonable arguments while blind creationists like you stick your fingers in your ears and say "lalala I'm not listening! I'm right and you're wrong!" so now I've just given up talking reason to you people...
PaladinswordSaurfang 2 months ago
@PaladinswordSaurfang Bro, I'm not trying to debate creationism vs evolution here with you, or anybody else. I simply commented on this video and how Dawkins is weak and ineffective in his attempt to corner and belittle Mackay. For example, Dawkins first says that all different dating methods give the same info. When challenged 'slightly' he wavers and says,"Oh, okay...well, they overlap. that's it, they overlap." So either he tried to sneak in a lie, or he's just plain weak, like i said. LOL!
revlooshin 2 months ago
2) Besides, Dawkins is open to at least one form of creationism/intelligent design, himself. He has publicly said it's an 'intriguing possibility' that beings from an advanced civilization somewhere in the universe (what many would call 'gods') seeded life to the earth. Though there is no science to back this idea he calls it 'an intriguing possibility', but he scorns the idea of God. So he shows what drives his sentiment. His hatred of religion, not facts, is what really shapes his worldview.
revlooshin 2 months ago
3) This is why I have absolutely NO respect for the man. He's going around on a crusade, spewing hatred and propaganda, but he's intellectually and morally duplicitous and disingenuous about his true motives. He is more than willing to take on Bishops, Popes, Cardinals and Kirk Cameron in a public debate. But the likes of a worthy opponent like William Lane Craig, or other scientists with a differing view, he cowers from. He is showing his true colors. He's a coward. Very Overrated.
revlooshin 2 months ago
@revlooshin He's an atheist activist, he doesn't debate with any christian because he will have to lower to their level, and even when he wins the debate it won't make him look any better. Dawkins said that he wished christians were more reasonable but the fact is, most of them are as illogical as this guy he's talking to now. As an activist, his aim is to debunk the most common christian arguments and expose how religion affects society.
PaladinswordSaurfang 2 months ago
@revlooshin Also, it's more about how knowledgable, reasonable and logical you are, and the arguments you make, rather than whether you're a coward or not. Many christians are just completely arrogant, and the sad thing is, you respect them for their arrogance. They go around shoving their beliefs in everyone's face. They want to indoctrinate everyone with their own beliefs, yet they won't even consider questioning their own. PS. Craig's arguments have been debunked.
PaladinswordSaurfang 2 months ago
@revlooshin Wow... if you think admitting something is a possibility means you're open to intelligent design, you are seriously retarded. Almost all atheists will admit that pretty much everything is a POSSIBILITY, because we are reasonable enough to admit we don't know many things. The fact that many christians say they KNOW God exists without evidence just shows how deluded they are! Yes, Dawkins is an open-minded man, but no, he won't fall that low...
PaladinswordSaurfang 2 months ago
@revlooshin There are so many things wrong with this John Mackey guy. He's completely fucked up in the head, he's arrogant, he knows no science and yet you decide to criticise Dawkins!? Also, he said "they overlap" because Mackey was being a complete smartass and wouldn't just see the point Dawkins was trying to make. He only said it to get Mackey to agree with him so he could continue with his point...
PaladinswordSaurfang 2 months ago
By the mans own logic the distance from there to New York could have well been 7 yards in the past....because it takes faith to establish that the present measurement has anything to do with the past one.
1337Ideaman 2 months ago
A: "Ok, Mr Mackay, where do you get your evidence from?"
Q: A book called the "The Holy Bible"
ahhhhhhhhhhh, let move on shall we!
nathanmarto 2 months ago
6 or 7000 years? Egyptians have underwear older than that.
fdasherv 2 months ago 7
"I wasn't there and you weren't there"
So you were there when your God supposedly created everything?
What a dumbass.
repticman123 2 months ago 4
@repticman123 your right he wasn't there, but God was and if a being that can not tell lies tells you something you best believe it because it has no other option but to be true. and if you are going to ask how i know that God cannot tell lies it is because lies are a perversion of truth there only exists truth within God by his nature thus making the ability for prevision nonexistent.
Austintaylorjaney 1 month ago
There is no evidence for evolution, none at all..
adelaide102 2 months ago in playlist aaproject
Atheism is religion. Dawkins is using reason in order to establish a transcendental purpose. Augustine picks up on this too, he says that all people by their nature are religious.
sukka113 2 months ago
@sukka113 Atheism is not religion, and people by their nature are not religious. Everyone is born non-religious and then with dogma and religious indoctrination as children they are led like unassuming sheep to believe.
therunningtap 2 months ago
Richard Dawkins can't seem to accept that empirical facts can only say how probable something is. This creationist is right in saying you have to start from abduction in order to say how old the earth is.
sukka113 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This guy is retarded.
Casshyr 2 months ago
if that guy was borned during the middle ages he would work a part time job as a beheader for the curch.. Glad people like that don't got much power anymore. And people are starting to stop takin them serious:) Go go dawkins
Norwayflex89 2 months ago
you can see dawkins wanting to punch this guy in the face.
halflifeproductionz 2 months ago
From a nihilist perspective, i could kind of agree with some of the creationists´s arguments (NOT to say i am religious or a theist), In the end, nothing could, or ever will be proven true. I think science tells us statistics, not laws (for there are no such things).
lifevt94hellotoworld 2 months ago
I'm surprised Mackay mentions Isaac Newton as if his existence was a matter of fact. He wasn't there to observe him, after all.
anicia55 2 months ago 36
@anicia55 you will be judged by our lord Anicia55
hazardjaytee 2 months ago
@anicia55 What's even more surprising is that Isaac Newton was a creationist.
flameboy1236 2 months ago
@anicia55 i see wat u did there... lmao
THUMBxUPxWHORE 2 months ago
@anicia55 Issac Newton was Historically documented. What they are arguing about is speculation based on evidence. you are comparing apples and oranges
greenlanternjmp 1 month ago
@greenlanternjmp wrong. methods like c14 are even more trustworthy than just a human documentation of something. so the human documentation of newton is less trustworthy than the age of a piece of bone or something like that proven by c14.
plushylive 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@greenlanternjmp "Issac Newton was Historically documented" => so is Allah, Zeus, Thor, Ganesh...and if I start writing about my Flying Spaghetti Monster, and convince enough people to follow it, that will be part of historical document too.
Casshyr 1 month ago
Mackay is a member of the SS
Stubbornly Stupid
tellnet 2 months ago
Dawkins is heavily medicated in this video... how else can he just stand there and listen to this nutter without falling over?!
SierraSierraFoxtrot 2 months ago 34
@SierraSierraFoxtrot lol, taking "Ibproven" no doubt.(spellcheck)
breaneainn 2 months ago
Mackay grasping for straws.
LloydChristmas777 3 months ago
Oh for fucks sake , I was going to say something intelligent to support Dawkins ,but I will just continue drinking and ignore this stupid cunt who thinks that you have to directly observe something in order to conclude it happened.
ilikezappa 3 months ago
@MrPashable To whom do you refer, the idiot Mackay in the video or this Tourettes' victim below called Recordbhoy. his name suggests some sort of Irish connection so I presume he is some sort of retarded catholic fuckwit who was abused by his priest as a child and has been consumed with hate and mental difficulties ever since. Sad case really.
CalumGilhooly 3 months ago
I got to the end. And oh my gosh. Dinos co-existing with humans? Please tell me that no one honestly believes that. If they do, then I think I have lost all hope in humanity.
Phantomwrks 3 months ago
Oh, well, since John Mackay did his own geological research then why are we still carbon (and the others) dating? I mean, how can we possibly argue with THE John Mackay? The omniscient Aussie?
Phantomwrks 3 months ago
@Phantomwrks, He did his own research. That ends all debates. Leave money under pillow.
LloydChristmas777 3 months ago
Half the comments on this video make me despair for humanity.
ianchard 3 months ago
@ianchard Atheism does that to me too
Recordbhoy 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd I don't want to live forever, thanks. Life becomes meaningless as it approaches infinity. It is only its brevity and finality that makes it worth living at all.
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn "We used to believe the earth was flat."-dmmchn
>Bunkum. All the jesuit "flat earth" propaganda did not come about until during the renaissance as a means to promote confusion about earthly landscape features of the antediluvian age. Counter Reformation propaganda is to thank for the spawning of the "Flat Earth Society" bunkum.
To know the concept of a flat earth (one in which we could sail off the edge) was never a common belief, one only has to look at ancient Grecian Atlas statues!
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@dmmchn "We used to believe the earth was flat."-dmmchn
>And we still know earth use to be flat. For nearly 1,700 years the earthly landscape was flat during the antediluvian age. Don't get me wrong, the planet was and always has been a spherically round mind you. Globular if you will. But it's surface was indeed flat, with no high elevated mountains or deep sunken valleys.
But then of course, the historic catastrophic Great Flood of 2348 B.C. came along and changed all that.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@dmmchn
Numbers 31 (P)
In the course of providence, when famine and plagues visit a nation for sin, children suffer in the common calamity. In this case parents are punished in their children; and for children dying before actual sin, full provision is made as to their eternal happiness, by the mercy of God in Christ.
FINIS
P.S. Don't ever question God again. Your a modern fool to do it.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd There is no god to speak of, and I will question all of them as I see fit.
All that you posted is meaningless drivel designed to make what is really an unethical action (wholesale slaughter) seem like some kind of moral cleansing. God still created those people and knew, at "genesis", how they would behave.
I'm sure Hitler believe the same. I'm sure Pol Pot beleived the same. Yet you would call them amoral atheists for acting in such a way.
dmmchn 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmmchn "I'm sure Hitler believe the same. I'm sure Pol Pot beleived the same. Yet you would call them amoral atheists for acting in such a way."-dmmchn
>Hitler was no atheist. He was born and raised Roman Catholic. His father Alois is buried in a catholic cemetery. Hitler was a "good" practicing Catholic (receiving weekly blasphemous catholic communion) and was brought to power by Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) to act as frontman and scapegoat for Vatican's 20th century Inquisition.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmmchn "I'm sure Pol Pot beleived the same. Yet you would call them amoral atheists for acting in such a way."-dmmchn
>Pol Pot was also a papal puppet who aided in carrying out the Vatican's Cambodian buddhist purging atrocities under the direction and command of Cardinal Spellman and Jesuit Superior General (a.k.a. Black Pope) Pedro Aruppe.
The so-called Vietnam "War" was a cloak for Vatican Rome's Vietnam Crusade of Indochina buddhists throughout Vietnam, Thailand, Laos and Cambodia.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd It's actually funny, because a universe without god, although it seems meaningless, is not as meaningless as one that has a god. Your own personal experience is nothing, it has no inherent meaning.
All you can do is hope to supplicant yourself before your god, which, amusingly, you can't be sure you're doing correctly. And even then, your existence is not one of personal glory, it is one of glory to god. Your life has no meaning, and I'm an atheist. Sad.
dmmchn 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmmchn "... and I'm an atheist. Sad."-dmmchn
>Why do flip-flop so much? I have witnessed you, on several occasions, share with others your belief of not knowing if God exists or not. So what are you? An agnostic or an atheist? And yes, this is, quite "sad".
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmmchn "Your own personal experience is nothing, it has no inherent meaning."-dmmchn
>Speak for yourself. The meaning of life is to pass the test and be blessed with a ticket to enter Gods Kingdom and be graced with the rewards of heaven.
"... hope to supplicant yourself before your god, which, amusingly, you can't be sure you're doing correctly."-dmmchn
>INCORRECT. He left for every one of us, a set of detailed instructions. All one has to do is read them and abide. "Sad" you won't.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@dmmchn
Numbers 31 (O)
The female children were spared, who, being brought up among the Israelites, would not tempt them to idolatry. The whole history shows the hatefulness of sin, and the guilt of tempting others; it teaches us to avoid all occasions of evil, and to give no quarter to inward lusts. The women and children were not kept for sinful purposes, but for slaves, a custom every where practised in former times, as to captives.
CONTINUED
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@dmmchn "Keeping just the virgin females after razing a town? How moral."-dmmchn
Numbers 31 (N)
"18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."-Nu 31:18
The sword of war should spare women and children; but the sword of justice should know no distinction, but that of guilty or not guilty. This war was the execution of a righteous sentence upon a guilty nation, in which the women were the worst criminals.
CONTINUED
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@dmmchn
Numbers 31 (M)
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
For this action I account simply on the principle that God, who is the author and supporter of life, has a right to dispose of it when and how he thinks proper; and the Judge of all the earth can do nothing but what is right.
Wesley's Notes
... by their horrid crimes, and therefore it is not strange, nor unjust, that God, the supreme Lord of all mens lives, who as he gives them, so may take them away when he pleaseth,
CONTINUED
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@dmmchn
Numbers 31 (L)
"17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him."-Nu 31:17
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
...and as the adulterers had been put to death, so now the adulteresses; or they were ordered to, be slain, even all of them, lest they should entice the children of Israel to uncleanness, and so to idolatry again:
CONTINUED
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@dmmchn
Numbers 31 (K)
... and is a sin highly offensive to him, being greatly derogatory to his honour and glory: and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord; for that sin; and in that plague died 24,000 persons, Numbers 25:9.
Geneva Study Bible
Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD for worshipping of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
CONTINUED
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@dmmchn
Numbers 31 (J)
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
The Midianites sent their women into the camp of Israel, and allure them to uncleanness, and so draw them into idolatry, which counsel they followed and it succeeded; for, by this means, they were brought to commit trespass against the Lord by worshipping Baalpeor, the god of the Moabites and Midianites; whereby they transgressed the commandment of God, which forbid them having and worshipping any other gods besides him,
CONTINUED
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@dmmchn
Numbers 31 (I)
"Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD."-Nu 31:16
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
"Caused" ... to commit trespass - More literally, "became to the children of Israel for a cause (or, incitement) of treachery to the Lord."
CONTINUED
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@dmmchn
Numbers 31 (H)
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
The Midianites seem to have been the principal instigators of the infamous scheme of seduction, planned to entrap the Israelites into the double crime of idolatry and licentiousness. This, in fact, was a religious war, undertaken by the express command of God against idolaters, who had seduced the Israelites to practise their abominations.
CONTINUED
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@dmmchn
Numbers 31 (G)
Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
The Campaign. "The revenge of the children of Israel" was revenge for the wickedness which the tribes of the Midianites who dwelt on the east of Moab (see at Numbers 22:4) had practised upon the Israelites, by seducing them to the idolatrous worship of Baal Peor. This revenge is called the "revenge of Jehovah" in Numbers 31:3, because the seduction had violated the divinity and honour of Jehovah.
CONTINUED
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@dmmchn
Numbers 31 (F)
"1And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people."-Nu 31:1-2
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
"Avenge" - For the injury they had done them, by sending their daughters among them, who enticed them to commit uncleanness with them, and then drew them into the worship of their idols, which brought the wrath of God upon them, and for which 24,000 persons were slain.
CONTINUED
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@dmmchn
Numbers 31 (E)
Their wars were begun and carried on expressly by Divine direction, and they were enabled to conquer by miracles. Unless it can be proved that the wicked Canaanites did not deserve their doom, objectors only prove their dislike to God, and their love to his enemies. Man makes light of the evil of sin, but God abhors it. This explains the terrible executions of the nations which had filled the measure of their sins.
CONTINUED
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@dmmchn
Numbers 31 (D)
All who, without commission from God, dare to execute private revenge, and who, from ambition, covetousness, or resentment, wage war and desolate kingdoms, must one day answer for it. But if God, instead of sending an earthquake, a pestilence, or a famine, be pleased to authorize and command any people to avenge his cause, such a commission surely is just and right. he Israelites could show such a commission, though no persons now can do so.
CONTINUED
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@dmmchn "Keeping just the virgin females after razing a town? How moral."-dmmchn
Numbers 31 (C) 17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Now, ye who be so bold and careless as to judge G_d's actions shall seek the wisdom to understand. Stick around friend, and you may learn something. . .
CONTINUED
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@dmmchn "Keeping just the virgin females after razing a town? How moral."-dmmchn
(please keep in mind that i realize you have no desire to understand, so this effort is really for others who care to)
Numbers 31 (B)
16Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
CONTINUED
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@dmmchn "Keeping just the virgin females after razing a town? How moral."-dmmchn
AND THIS TROUBLES YOU, WHY? Allow me to help you understand what you can not see.
Numbers 31 (A)
1And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people. 3And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.
CONTINUED
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
what an idiot
ripsticklord 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Recordbhoy "Judge not, that ye be not judged.For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
dmmchn 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd There is a difference between accepting a previous proof and translating information to suit your agenda. The bible and its interpretation is an exercise in language; science is an exercise in data.
Do you understand mathematics? Do you believe that calculus works?
Can you PROVE irrefutably that it works? Yes, but the proof is very, very long. The point of learning is to build on prior knowledge.
Wait.. heliocentric? You're a geocentricist???
dmmchn 3 months ago
@dmmchn
Our geocentric solar system is another universal truth of which the majority are unaware. Research the history of when, how and why the heliocentricity hoax came about. No less than 4-6 months of study should suffice.
FACT: NASA is using equations derived from a geocentric universe in order to launch our satellites.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd No, they're using equations derived from the idea that the satellite is effectively "a part" of the earth.
There is plenty, plenty, plenty of data that proves a heliocentric solar system. The fact that you would deny it just to believe in the bible more makes it extremely difficult to take anything you say remotely seriously.
dmmchn 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmmchn "No, they're using equations derived from the idea that the satellite is effectively "a part" of the earth."-dmmchn
>Maybe you did not compute what i informed you of. Here, i'll state it again. NASA is using equations derived from a geocentric universe in order to launch our satellites. This is a plain and simple fact. Twisting it is vain and futile.
"There is plenty, plenty, plenty of data that proves a heliocentric solar system."-dmmchn
>There is plenty, all wrong proving nothing.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago