There are absolutely NO historians contemporary with this supposed "Dawkins" who suggest that he was actually a living, breathing person. He's obviously an amalgamation of stories about biologists and Atheists that are widely-spread in secular Europe. His followers who claim to have seen him were probably having mass hallucinations. Furthermore, they claim to follow his teachings, but I've met Theists who know more about biology than some Atheists! Grow up! There is no Richard Dawkins!
YOU HEAR ME? IT CAME OUT OF NOTHING, AND IT CREATED ITSELF!
AND IF YOU DON´T BELIEVE THAT, THEN YOU´RE INTECTUALLY INFERIOR! YOU HEAR ME! iNFERIOR YOU ARE!
AND WHEN THE UNIVERSE CAME OUT NOTHING, ALIENS ALSO CAME OUT OF NOTHING, AND SEEDED THE SHIT ON EARTH, THAT GAVE BIRTH TO LIFE, WHICH THEN EVOLVED FROM DEAD MATTER INTO WALKING, TALKING, THINKING AND FEELING HUMAN BEINGS!
LOL i thought we refuted that a 1000 times already, but ok fine we´ll explain it again to you douchebags.
Obviously, assuming God, would mean that God has no beginning, no ending, exists outside of time for He created time itself, and who´s NONEXISTENCE is impossible.
God is not created, he is the eternal trancedent uncaused cause; everything that ever was, and everything that ever will be.
``1 day is as a 1000 years, and a 1000 years is as one day for the LORD´´ 2 Peter 3:8
@tjobv Judging by your posts you believe in God. Going by your language (calling other people names) that belief doesn't seem to mean much to you, at least in terms of how you treat others. The God I believe in asks us to love our neighbour as ourselves. Or didn't you read that part?
Well now, im not calling people names in the sense that they actually might be emotionally hurt, i try to show them how incredibly stupid their beliefes are... That´s something different.
´´´to love our neighbour as ourselves´´
Well guess what, i do love them as myself, and THAT´S WHY i try to grab them by shoulders and shake them around! Smack em their faces! WAKE UP! WAKE UP! REPENT! BE REBORN! TURN TO GOD!
But these people won´t listen, it´s pride that blinds them..
@tjobv : Ah yes. Calling your opponent a douchebag wins the argument every time! ;) Oh I bow before thee in your everlasting wisdom! Or not...
An no, quoting an old book (aka the bible) will not convince someone like me who believes that the bible is just that. An old book.
You believe that god is outside the need for explanation because it is, well, god. I don't see why that is a valid argument? If I say I believe in invisible unicorns, do that exempt me from having to argue for that?
@tjobv : The problem is that your idea of the concept of a god is the idea of god as an excuse for ignorance. I say "I don't know". In reality you do the same, you just decided to call it "god" cause someone taught you to. There might be a god, there might be an invisible teacup rotating around Mars. Who knows? I don't. However, and this is the important part, I see no reason to go around believing in one or the other thing. Since there is no way for me to know, I simply ignore the concept.
False. The fact that you say something like this shows your arrogance.
´´I simply ignore the concept.´´
LOL! Then why the fuck are you here debating genius?!?!
The questions wether God exists or not is the most important questions for humanity, and the fact that you are here debating shows that you see it as important as well.
´´Since there is no way for me to know´´
Yes there is SMARTASS, by using logic and reason!
Maybe aliens or the green spaghetti monster seeded us here!!! Ever thought of that? I hadn't but Dorkins did LOL watch?v=cjGahWsPSlQ&feature=channel_video_title
There's no reason to over complicate things by postulating Dawkins as the author of The God Delusion it could very well be the case that the book has simply always existed or perhaps it came into being without a cause.
@HrMerrlol I just think this is such a potentially powerful opportunity that it should be more prayerfully pursued. As soon as Biblical principals are left in the dust, one loses the power of God in one's ministry, and WLC has no power on his own to take on the forces of Satan. We do not fight against flesh and blood- God could allow Dawkins to receive some hellish arguments and publicly tear down everything that WLC has started. To believe otherwise is foolish.
I remember seeing Dawkins in the late 80s doing lectures on BBC "The Institute of Christmas Lectures" or something and couldn't believe the indoctrination; and the bile and spite every time he mentioned creationists. One day he's going to stand before God who most certainly exists and he's not going to be able to speak a word because he'll know how guilty he is for betraying those kids and he'll understand Righteousness and be so ashamed.
I'm sure that show The Atheist Experience is probably going to try to defend Dawkin's existence, but everyone knows that there is ZERO evidence that Richard Dawkins exists.
From what I've seen, Craig will likely have no one to debate as they're all backing out - I could've used an anthropomorphic metaphor, but chose to imply it instead.
Nice. Is Richard Dawkins a member of the Atheist Church? That really cracks me up. Chapter 4: Why there almost certainly isn't a God. That's not exactly an atheist stand point, is it? Shouldn't he be saying: "There is no God and here's the logic to prove it."?
@BogusDonut One this is for sure, Dawkins' courage doesn't exist. You see, I'm a strong a-dawkinist, so I'm 101% sure there is no Dawkins' courage at all. But I would love for this Flying Dawkins Monster to prove me wrong on October 25th 2011.
@agardebring ...yes my friend, I have read the entire bible all the way through several times. This is how I know it is true, for faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. It is mankind who are full of lies and contradictions, but not the Word of God. I pray you would taste and see that the Lord is good too! May God bless you!
@GaryLyons : I have read the bible to. For me it was a rather inconsistent and illogical book displaying a rather unpleasant, vindictive and jealous figure called "god". The weirdest thing of all is perhaps how this infallible god-figure suddenly change it's mind in the new testament. The bible makes no sense whatsoever and is all in all a rather unpleasant read. (unpleasant in the way this god-figure acts).
@agardebring ..Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. He does not change His mind in the New Testament. As far as you not understanding His Word. I point you to 1 Corinthians 2:14 - "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to Him, and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned."
@GaryLyons : Well. That is just illogical. My mind is a logical mind, which perhaps is why I have never been able to understand the concept of a "god". A bible verse saying god/jesus didn't change his mind don't change the actual text of the old and new testament...
Quoting bible verses makes no difference for someone who do not believe in the bible. It is just a verse from a book. What effect to verses from the Quran or the Bhagavad-Gita have on you? The same apply to the bible for me.
@agardebring ...No one has to change what the Old and New Testament's say to know that it is the exact same God. Verses from the Quaran have no effect on me because they are not rooted in the truth. Only the truth can reach that part of a man or woman's heart and expose God's grace and goodness. Jesus is the truth my friend, may God bless you!
@BogusDonut "hapter 4: Why there almost certainly isn't a God. That's not exactly an atheist stand point, is it? Shouldn't he be saying: "There is no God and here's the logic to prove it."?
Uhm. No? The thing is, you cannot prove that something do NOT exist. It is only possible to prove that something DO exist. Considering you do not seem aware of this very basic fundamental part of the principles of science your critique fall quite flat... Now prove to me there are no invisible pink unicorns.
@agardebring I should have said evidence rather than proof. He certainly didn't do that. Actually I am aware of the principles of scientific inquiry; it's a shame so many scientists ignore them and even lie about evidence and fudge the data. I would say something about grammar and language too, but... it might fall flat.
@BogusDonut : I think the important point to make is that science and belief are two fundamentally different idea-systems. In science you can't prove the non-existence of something. And therefore, as a logical conclusion, you can't take the lack of proof of non-existence as a proof of existence.
Religions are belief systems. You are supposed to *believe*. Not prove or disprove. For me the concept of religion is very strange.
@agardebring You misrepresented me there. I said evidence. Obviously, if there was proof one way or the other Dawkins would have to find something more productive to do with his life. It's funny that atheists and Darwinian evolutionists seem to think they are something other than believers in one thing or not in another. To be an atheist, you have to choose to believe there is no god. You can't prove it, so therefore you simply make a choice on what you prefer. cont...
@BogusDonut : "To be an atheist, you have to choose to believe there is no god". Well, not really. By the same logic everyone choose not to believe in invisible pink unicorns or any other unprovable concept you might come up with. You have chosen not to believe in Allah or Thor. Personally I am not an atheist but an ignostic (note: not Agnostic) which is what makes most sense to me.
@agardebring Most atheists choose to deny God for one simple reason; pride. They don't like the idea of being responsible to someone so much greater than themselves that He can never be wrong. This also means they owe Him everything; their lives, money, praise, worship (that one really sticks in their throats).
@BogusDonut : Pride? Well, no. As someone who do not belive in such a contept as a "god" I can assure you that this is not the case. My experience is rather that people that have not been taught to believe (meaning: their parents were not religious) in general are not religious. People that are taught to be religious are on the other hand very often religious. Please understand that pride has nothing to do with it. In that case, pride would be what kept you from believing in Thor or Allah.
@agardebring I wasn't pointing a finger at you. I was speaking generally about prideful reasons. I don't know you, so would never be so arrogant as to say what your motivations are in any area of life. There are millions of people who have have become "religious" who have been anything but faithful in their lives and come from all sorts of backgrounds. This is one of Dawkins weaker arguments, in my opinion. There are also many Jews and Muslims who have been converted to Christianity.
@BogusDonut : Of course there are many Jews and Muslims who have converted to Christianity. As there are Christians who have converted to Islam or Judaism. Or atheists who have become Buddhists. I don't really see where you are going with this?
@agardebring For a Jew or Muslim to convert to Christianity is a very serious thing. Many Muslim converts have been killed for it and many Jews are being persecuted for it. Also, there is a massive movement in UK prisons. It would seem that those who know they are sinners and not self-righteous are more likely to seek God. One last thing: over 48 million Christians have been martyred (put to death for their faith, not died killing others), 50% of those in the 20th century alone.
@BogusDonut : Yes, of course people have been killed for their religion. Most kinds or religions. People also get killed for *not* having a religion. This apply to most theistic systems and also some political systems.
@agardebring Yes, it's true that the lack of proof of non-existence does not conclusively prove existence. Here's the rub, the evidence is all around you that God does exist. The philosophy of "atheism" tries to use science to disprove God and fails. The universe sprang out of nothing for no reason at all and life began somehow, but there is no God. Oh yeah, we have a bunch of fossils and we can make up some marvelous stories about what they mean, but we can't recreate it. HMMM
"the evidence is all around you that God does exist".
Not really. Only if you have the preconception of the concept of a god.
"The philosophy of "atheism" tries to use science to disprove God and fails".
Well, no. Science do not care about religion. Science simply looks at the world and tries to draw conclusions from it. If science found proof of a god science would find a proof for god. It has not.
@agardebring 1. Really, by looking at the evidence around you, that the structure of the atom, the amazing intricacy of the single cell life, the vast array of the stars in the heavens all of these things that have that look to them that they have been assembled by some intelligence does not give you pause to think that there is a God?
2. Perhaps you need to go back to reading school, I said that atheists try to use science for their own philosophical ends.
1. No. Quite the opposite. The universe is far to complex and strange, far to many things are done in suboptimal ways to draw the conclusion that there was a conscious mind behind it. For me, it is instead one of the strongest proofs for evolution.
2. Considering I am not an atheist but an Ignostic I have to let the atheists speak for themselves.
@agardebring far to many things are done in suboptimal ways
That comment is based on what evidence, suboptimal for your tastes. The universe and life is just one big accident that just kept perfecting itself is the best answer?
I think the word you're looking for is agnostic. You seem to have an awful lot of faith that God does not exist. Are you sure you're not an atheist?
@Dante666 :What about goose bumps? An evolutionary remnant from the time when we had fur (they are amongst other things used to raise fur - making an animal appear larger, this is why we get goose bumps when we are afraid). No purpose today. We have structures in our genes that were once used to produces enzymes to process vitamin C. Most other animals have this ability but somewhere in history a mutation disbled the gene – leaving behind remnants as junk DNA. Or the appendix? I could go on..
@agardebring That's purely speculation in terms of goose bumps. Furthermore, goose bumps in humans are also symptoms of certain diseases, thus it would be obvious where their purpose is beyond that of raising fur. For the vitamin C-processing, what benefit would there be in having that gene activated? Have you weighed the cost, i.e. the disadvantages of the activation of that gene? There is no such thing as "junk DNA". There are other possible functions for the appendix, and I, too, could go on.
@Dante666 : ..which brings me to other questions. Why do people get sick? Why are our defences not perfect? And how can god have made us in such a way that some of us become homosexual, yet homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of the judging Jahve? (and no, homosexuality is not a "choice").
And if god is perfect, yet we are made in his image, how can god be perfect? The whole theological concept of Christianity is just so very very weird to me.
@agardebring Because sickness is created as a natural part of this world. Without disease, there wouldn't be population control; furthermore, disease is largely due to bacteria, which is also beneficial in certain areas.. Our defenses are not perfect because they were never meant to be perfect. And no, homosexuality is not a sin, but it is homosexual behavior that is condemned. Like how it's not a sin to be heterosexual, but adultery is condemned.
@Dante666 : So basically anything that is not perfect is created not perfect because god thought it best? And yet again, we are created in god:s image, and god is supposed to be perfect... Logical?
Yes, bacteria is beneficial in certain areas, but not all areas. This is apparently the way god made things. Why? Population control? Well, god could have made us less horny...
Homosexuality is common in the animal world. Why is it only a sin when humans do it? Why did god create us that way?
@agardebring Yes, because your idea of "perfect" may be flawed in ways which you are unaware of. For example, chickens have as part of their genetic code a "switch" that enables them to have reptilian teeth, but that mutation is fatal. God is perfect, but we are not. I am not quite getting your argument about God's image.
If God made us less horny, then we would have population crisis in the other direction, which cannot be remedied by outside intervention.
@Dante666 : Could god not had made us just "horny enough"? He is perfect and infallible isn't he? Seems like a problem he should be able to solve then... Why will he let innocent babies die of famine? Why will he let earthquakes and tornadoes devastate lives? If I believed in god I would have trouble sleeping at night, knowing that the guy upstairs is very far from being a nice guy...
@agardebring And God did solve that problem in the way it is now. It is our fault that babies die of famine. Earthquakes and tornadoes are a natural part of this world.
@agardebring There are also many things common in the animal world, such as murdering the infants of a rival, cannibalism, murder for amusement (as documented among chimpanzees and dolphins), etc. Furthermore, homosexual acts among male animals are a form of communicating dominance, i.e. the alpha male is on top of the lesser male, literally and figuratively. We may be born with a particular orientation, but that does not mean we are free to act upon our orientation as we please.
@Dante666 : I hope that by this you do not mean to compare murder/cannibalism (truly horrendous acts) with homosexuality (something that I have absolutely no problem with).
It is a good thing that you accept that there is homosexuality among animals (and no, it is not as simple as claiming it is always about dominance, it is clearly not), which should also mean that you accept that homosexuality among humans is as natural. So, again, why did god make us that way, if he do not condone it?
@agardebring Yes, actually, homosexuality among male animals is always about assertion of dominance. Homosexuality is fine, but not homosexual acts. I thought I made that clear enough in my previous reply.
@Dante666 : Show me the science. Or am I supposed to take your word for it? Homosexual acts is part of being homosexual, just like heterosexual acts is part of being heterosexual. Homosexual behavior has been observed in about 1500 species, from primates to gut worms. I find it somewhat interesting that you "know" that in every single instance these are "dominance" related..
@agardebring In addition to that, what the west thinks of as "homosexuality" may simply be a matter of social expectations, e.g. the holding of hands is perceived to be "homosexual" in western societies, but it is perfectly acceptable as non-homosexual activity in eastern societies. A sense of admiration may also be perceived wrongly as homosexual orientation even if the attraction is not sexual. Being more comfortable and sociable around one's own gender does not make one a homosexual.
@Dante666 : Of course not, and that was not what I was talking about. I am talking about sexual attraction. Due to modern technology we can see what is going on nowadays, and it is clear that homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality is mostly genetic. Many people who are in fact bisexual decide to be hetero, due to norms in society.
@agardebring Us being made in God's image doesn't mean that we are perfect mirror images of God. Why can't God be perfect? I do not know where you get your theological concept of Christianity. What are your reference materials for understanding Christianity?
@Dante666 : My reference material is that old book we call the bible... I am simply pointing out another of the many - for me at least - illogical concepts in the monotheistic worship of Jahve.
However, if you decide beforehand that god is "perfect and infallible", then of course, by definition, there can be nothing illogical about it... Even though different parts of the bible contradict themselves..
@agardebring Other than the Bible? You do know that the Bible was not originally written in English, right? That's why we use concordances. So, tell me, which parts of the Bible do you think contradict themselves?
@BogusDonut : Atheist church? Atheist means A-Theist. As in "non-theist" or, "the lack of belief in a god". Note the difference. Atheists do not say "I believe there is no god". They say "I do not believe there is a god", much in the same way one might say "I do not believe in invisible teacups".
@agardebring I know how stupid it sounds, but there actually is the First Church of Atheism - I want to hear the hymns. I am well aware of what atheist mean, thanks all the same.
@BogusDonut . I do now knot of the "First Church of Atheism". Sounds like a play on words/play on concepts rather than being an actual belief system but as an Ignostic I still find it to be a weird concept. If you do not believe in a god, why use the same concepts?
@RetSquid : Yes, "the denial of the existence of god" is the reason I am not an atheist but an ignostic. Being an atheist means that you have accepted the question of the existence of a god within a certain belief system as a valid question that merits a response. For me the question of the existence of a god (per definition) is meaningless. There is no coherent definition of the concept and I am therefore not able to form any meaningful reply.
FINALLY! Someone who actually understands the terms involved! If you watch some of Dr. William Lane Craig's videos he does have a definition of God, basically a maximally great being.
@RetSquid : Well, the problem is this: Why should I take Dr. Lane Craig as an authority that can provide me with a definition of god? There are millions upon millions of people in the world who claim to provide a definition of god. And there are a lot of gods to! Not a single one of them can give a reasonable argument why his/her definition has more merit than any other. And this is where my problem with the concept comes in. Please understand that I am basing this only on logic, not feeling.
"Why should I take Dr. Lane Craig as an authority that can provide me with a definition of [G]od?"
He is one of the foremost philosophers in this field, and the definition seems to be simple and reasonable. Is there a better definition of God out there?
@RetSquid : That he is "one of the foremost philosophers in this field" makes no difference from a purely logical standpoint. The definition of which philosopher is "the foremost" is subjective reasoning based on feelings. I can get awed and moved by listening to inspiring lecturers and scientists (more seldom philosophers I have to admit). That doesn't mean I base my world view on them. How did the universe come into being? I don't know. And I see no reason to put "god" in place of not knowing.
Dawkins can make all TV apperances, speeches at atheist/humanist gatherings and write as many books he wants TRYING to debunk Biblical Christianity...but all that means NOTHING if he doesn't have the balls to have an honest and intellectual debate with Mr. Craig.
I like chicken
jdpazmino2010 4 months ago
should be more correct to say to "start worrying, you're all going to hell?"
n987 4 months ago
This is on so many levels, hilarious. The title is pretty good counter-joke to what they use.
MrVirtualCoder 4 months ago
Richard Flawkins.
Marcell2aG 4 months ago
Dawkins has been real quite, His books should be thrown in the fiction section.
SylvanSage 4 months ago
The bus advert is hilarious!
xtrashed 4 months ago
Comment removed
JWHurwitz 4 months ago
Comment removed
JWHurwitz 4 months ago
Comment removed
JWHurwitz 4 months ago
There are absolutely NO historians contemporary with this supposed "Dawkins" who suggest that he was actually a living, breathing person. He's obviously an amalgamation of stories about biologists and Atheists that are widely-spread in secular Europe. His followers who claim to have seen him were probably having mass hallucinations. Furthermore, they claim to follow his teachings, but I've met Theists who know more about biology than some Atheists! Grow up! There is no Richard Dawkins!
JWHurwitz 4 months ago 7
- Wait, if Dawkins is not real. who wrote The God Delusion book?
- Well Dawkind did!
- But who created Dawkins?
- Dawkins was always here!
- OK, so according to occam's razor dawkins is too complex and unnecessary, so we can just assume that The god Delusion wrote itself
gogolplex74 4 months ago 9
THE UNIVERSE CAME OUT OF NOTHING!
YOU HEAR ME? IT CAME OUT OF NOTHING, AND IT CREATED ITSELF!
AND IF YOU DON´T BELIEVE THAT, THEN YOU´RE INTECTUALLY INFERIOR! YOU HEAR ME! iNFERIOR YOU ARE!
AND WHEN THE UNIVERSE CAME OUT NOTHING, ALIENS ALSO CAME OUT OF NOTHING, AND SEEDED THE SHIT ON EARTH, THAT GAVE BIRTH TO LIFE, WHICH THEN EVOLVED FROM DEAD MATTER INTO WALKING, TALKING, THINKING AND FEELING HUMAN BEINGS!
THAT´S WISDOM! THAT´S TRUTH!
tjobv 4 months ago
@tjobv Ok, thanks dude.
HrMerrlol 4 months ago
@tjobv : Who created the creator?
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring
LOL i thought we refuted that a 1000 times already, but ok fine we´ll explain it again to you douchebags.
Obviously, assuming God, would mean that God has no beginning, no ending, exists outside of time for He created time itself, and who´s NONEXISTENCE is impossible.
God is not created, he is the eternal trancedent uncaused cause; everything that ever was, and everything that ever will be.
``1 day is as a 1000 years, and a 1000 years is as one day for the LORD´´ 2 Peter 3:8
tjobv 4 months ago
@tjobv Judging by your posts you believe in God. Going by your language (calling other people names) that belief doesn't seem to mean much to you, at least in terms of how you treat others. The God I believe in asks us to love our neighbour as ourselves. Or didn't you read that part?
nanagaga2001 4 months ago
@nanagaga2001
Well now, im not calling people names in the sense that they actually might be emotionally hurt, i try to show them how incredibly stupid their beliefes are... That´s something different.
´´´to love our neighbour as ourselves´´
Well guess what, i do love them as myself, and THAT´S WHY i try to grab them by shoulders and shake them around! Smack em their faces! WAKE UP! WAKE UP! REPENT! BE REBORN! TURN TO GOD!
But these people won´t listen, it´s pride that blinds them..
tjobv 4 months ago
@tjobv : Ah yes. Calling your opponent a douchebag wins the argument every time! ;) Oh I bow before thee in your everlasting wisdom! Or not...
An no, quoting an old book (aka the bible) will not convince someone like me who believes that the bible is just that. An old book.
You believe that god is outside the need for explanation because it is, well, god. I don't see why that is a valid argument? If I say I believe in invisible unicorns, do that exempt me from having to argue for that?
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring
That being said, you don´t need, as Dr. Craig explains, and explanation of the explanation, in order to have a logical explanation SMARTASS...
Somebody knocks on the door. You say: ´´Who´s is it´´?
I say to you: ``Nobody, for we don´t know who created the knocker, therefore the knock on the door probably created itself´´.
That doesn´t sound very logical now does it agardebring?
Please come up with some hard hitting arguments next time....
tjobv 4 months ago
@tjobv : The problem is that your idea of the concept of a god is the idea of god as an excuse for ignorance. I say "I don't know". In reality you do the same, you just decided to call it "god" cause someone taught you to. There might be a god, there might be an invisible teacup rotating around Mars. Who knows? I don't. However, and this is the important part, I see no reason to go around believing in one or the other thing. Since there is no way for me to know, I simply ignore the concept.
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring
´´cause someone taught you to´´
False. The fact that you say something like this shows your arrogance.
´´I simply ignore the concept.´´
LOL! Then why the fuck are you here debating genius?!?!
The questions wether God exists or not is the most important questions for humanity, and the fact that you are here debating shows that you see it as important as well.
´´Since there is no way for me to know´´
Yes there is SMARTASS, by using logic and reason!
tjobv 4 months ago
Maybe aliens or the green spaghetti monster seeded us here!!! Ever thought of that? I hadn't but Dorkins did LOL watch?v=cjGahWsPSlQ&feature=channel_video_title
elsewherebeats1 4 months ago
if a dawkins exists, then who created this dawkins? answer that!
gerinja 4 months ago
Sirs, if you are viewing this you are the resistance.
mtaob90 4 months ago
Comment removed
mtaob90 4 months ago
There's no reason to over complicate things by postulating Dawkins as the author of The God Delusion it could very well be the case that the book has simply always existed or perhaps it came into being without a cause.
scar504 4 months ago
@scar504 certainly not an intelligent cause.
Galmozzi99 4 months ago 3
Hmmm...this smacks of pride. Careful WLC! Let no man think he stands, lest he fall!
MrNoelJMIS 4 months ago
@MrNoelJMIS Just a bit of fun, really. I think it's great!
HrMerrlol 4 months ago
@HrMerrlol I just think this is such a potentially powerful opportunity that it should be more prayerfully pursued. As soon as Biblical principals are left in the dust, one loses the power of God in one's ministry, and WLC has no power on his own to take on the forces of Satan. We do not fight against flesh and blood- God could allow Dawkins to receive some hellish arguments and publicly tear down everything that WLC has started. To believe otherwise is foolish.
MrNoelJMIS 4 months ago 2
@MrNoelJMIS WLC didn't have a hand in this poster as I understand it.
arktheball 4 months ago
@arktheball I would imagine that's probably true. :)
MrNoelJMIS 4 months ago
If you see Dawkins latest appearance at Bill O´Reilly, you´ll see that he is way less assertive and aggressive, which he was before.
He´s understandig more and more that the logical arguments for Theism are overwhelmingly better then the arguments for Atheism.
Guy is losing his confidence in his beliefs....
tjobv 4 months ago
I remember seeing Dawkins in the late 80s doing lectures on BBC "The Institute of Christmas Lectures" or something and couldn't believe the indoctrination; and the bile and spite every time he mentioned creationists. One day he's going to stand before God who most certainly exists and he's not going to be able to speak a word because he'll know how guilty he is for betraying those kids and he'll understand Righteousness and be so ashamed.
BogusDonut 4 months ago
Dawkins' courage does not exist, LOL .
walkingphilosopher 4 months ago
"There is probably no God so stop worrying and go kill 30,000,000 people. I know I found it immensely pleasurable."
-Stalin
MPaulHolmes 4 months ago 11
I'm sure that show The Atheist Experience is probably going to try to defend Dawkin's existence, but everyone knows that there is ZERO evidence that Richard Dawkins exists.
Bigjon145 4 months ago
you have 777 videos on your site at this momment. lol lucky you, i only have like 5
Dwrancho144 4 months ago
Dawkins is the ultimate Boeing 707.
LittleSn00py 4 months ago 2
@ 2:41 "Luke, very ignorant I am." LOLOLOLOLOL! Dawkins would make a cute Yoda. ;P
ubermechazillatron 4 months ago
I cannot know for certain but I think Dawkins is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
EmceeBorg 4 months ago
@EmceeBorg LOL.
MPaulHolmes 4 months ago
The one guy who disliked this must be Hitchens, because doggins almost certainly doesn't exist.
1GodOnlyOne 4 months ago 5
@1GodOnlyOne Personally, I think it might be the Flying Dawkins Monster who did the thumbs down.
drcraigvideos 4 months ago 19
@drcraigvideos Well, you don't have to prove that didn't happen, because everyone knows you can't prove a negative, right?
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
1GodOnlyOne 4 months ago
@drcraigvideos
Or perhaps it was the "Magic Man in the Mud".
karozans 4 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne lol
RedSun875 4 months ago
There's probably no Dawkins -- just an empty chair to match the empty skull of the atheist.
PS -- I love the way the announcer says his name -- Dorkins! LOL
1GodOnlyOne 4 months ago
From what I've seen, Craig will likely have no one to debate as they're all backing out - I could've used an anthropomorphic metaphor, but chose to imply it instead.
BogusDonut 4 months ago
Nice. Is Richard Dawkins a member of the Atheist Church? That really cracks me up. Chapter 4: Why there almost certainly isn't a God. That's not exactly an atheist stand point, is it? Shouldn't he be saying: "There is no God and here's the logic to prove it."?
BogusDonut 4 months ago 7
@BogusDonut One this is for sure, Dawkins' courage doesn't exist. You see, I'm a strong a-dawkinist, so I'm 101% sure there is no Dawkins' courage at all. But I would love for this Flying Dawkins Monster to prove me wrong on October 25th 2011.
drcraigvideos 4 months ago 10
@BogusDonut not quite, an atheist believes in no God. That's quite distinct from stating their is no God as a matter of fact.
toppledgod 4 months ago
@toppledgod Yeah, I got that. But don't you find it rather ironic to be the world's most famous atheist and to write a chapter with that title?
BogusDonut 4 months ago
@BogusDonut I think it'd be arrogant not to, but that's just my opinion.
toppledgod 4 months ago
@BogusDonut I meant there not their. Doh!
toppledgod 4 months ago
@BogusDonut ...logic actually proves God and disproves atheism. No wonder Psalm 14:1 says - "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"
GaryLyons 4 months ago
@GaryLyons : Logic has nothing do to with the bible. In fact, the bible is full of illogical contradictions. Did you even read the bible?
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring ...yes my friend, I have read the entire bible all the way through several times. This is how I know it is true, for faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. It is mankind who are full of lies and contradictions, but not the Word of God. I pray you would taste and see that the Lord is good too! May God bless you!
GaryLyons 4 months ago
@GaryLyons : I have read the bible to. For me it was a rather inconsistent and illogical book displaying a rather unpleasant, vindictive and jealous figure called "god". The weirdest thing of all is perhaps how this infallible god-figure suddenly change it's mind in the new testament. The bible makes no sense whatsoever and is all in all a rather unpleasant read. (unpleasant in the way this god-figure acts).
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring ..Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. He does not change His mind in the New Testament. As far as you not understanding His Word. I point you to 1 Corinthians 2:14 - "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to Him, and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned."
GaryLyons 4 months ago
@GaryLyons : Well. That is just illogical. My mind is a logical mind, which perhaps is why I have never been able to understand the concept of a "god". A bible verse saying god/jesus didn't change his mind don't change the actual text of the old and new testament...
Quoting bible verses makes no difference for someone who do not believe in the bible. It is just a verse from a book. What effect to verses from the Quran or the Bhagavad-Gita have on you? The same apply to the bible for me.
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring ...No one has to change what the Old and New Testament's say to know that it is the exact same God. Verses from the Quaran have no effect on me because they are not rooted in the truth. Only the truth can reach that part of a man or woman's heart and expose God's grace and goodness. Jesus is the truth my friend, may God bless you!
GaryLyons 4 months ago
@GaryLyons I think you have me mistaken for an atheist. I'm a theist.
BogusDonut 4 months ago
@BogusDonut "hapter 4: Why there almost certainly isn't a God. That's not exactly an atheist stand point, is it? Shouldn't he be saying: "There is no God and here's the logic to prove it."?
Uhm. No? The thing is, you cannot prove that something do NOT exist. It is only possible to prove that something DO exist. Considering you do not seem aware of this very basic fundamental part of the principles of science your critique fall quite flat... Now prove to me there are no invisible pink unicorns.
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring I should have said evidence rather than proof. He certainly didn't do that. Actually I am aware of the principles of scientific inquiry; it's a shame so many scientists ignore them and even lie about evidence and fudge the data. I would say something about grammar and language too, but... it might fall flat.
BogusDonut 4 months ago
@BogusDonut : I think the important point to make is that science and belief are two fundamentally different idea-systems. In science you can't prove the non-existence of something. And therefore, as a logical conclusion, you can't take the lack of proof of non-existence as a proof of existence.
Religions are belief systems. You are supposed to *believe*. Not prove or disprove. For me the concept of religion is very strange.
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring You misrepresented me there. I said evidence. Obviously, if there was proof one way or the other Dawkins would have to find something more productive to do with his life. It's funny that atheists and Darwinian evolutionists seem to think they are something other than believers in one thing or not in another. To be an atheist, you have to choose to believe there is no god. You can't prove it, so therefore you simply make a choice on what you prefer. cont...
BogusDonut 4 months ago
@BogusDonut : "To be an atheist, you have to choose to believe there is no god". Well, not really. By the same logic everyone choose not to believe in invisible pink unicorns or any other unprovable concept you might come up with. You have chosen not to believe in Allah or Thor. Personally I am not an atheist but an ignostic (note: not Agnostic) which is what makes most sense to me.
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring Most atheists choose to deny God for one simple reason; pride. They don't like the idea of being responsible to someone so much greater than themselves that He can never be wrong. This also means they owe Him everything; their lives, money, praise, worship (that one really sticks in their throats).
BogusDonut 4 months ago
@BogusDonut : Pride? Well, no. As someone who do not belive in such a contept as a "god" I can assure you that this is not the case. My experience is rather that people that have not been taught to believe (meaning: their parents were not religious) in general are not religious. People that are taught to be religious are on the other hand very often religious. Please understand that pride has nothing to do with it. In that case, pride would be what kept you from believing in Thor or Allah.
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring I wasn't pointing a finger at you. I was speaking generally about prideful reasons. I don't know you, so would never be so arrogant as to say what your motivations are in any area of life. There are millions of people who have have become "religious" who have been anything but faithful in their lives and come from all sorts of backgrounds. This is one of Dawkins weaker arguments, in my opinion. There are also many Jews and Muslims who have been converted to Christianity.
BogusDonut 4 months ago
@BogusDonut : Of course there are many Jews and Muslims who have converted to Christianity. As there are Christians who have converted to Islam or Judaism. Or atheists who have become Buddhists. I don't really see where you are going with this?
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring For a Jew or Muslim to convert to Christianity is a very serious thing. Many Muslim converts have been killed for it and many Jews are being persecuted for it. Also, there is a massive movement in UK prisons. It would seem that those who know they are sinners and not self-righteous are more likely to seek God. One last thing: over 48 million Christians have been martyred (put to death for their faith, not died killing others), 50% of those in the 20th century alone.
BogusDonut 4 months ago
@BogusDonut : Yes, of course people have been killed for their religion. Most kinds or religions. People also get killed for *not* having a religion. This apply to most theistic systems and also some political systems.
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring Yes, it's true that the lack of proof of non-existence does not conclusively prove existence. Here's the rub, the evidence is all around you that God does exist. The philosophy of "atheism" tries to use science to disprove God and fails. The universe sprang out of nothing for no reason at all and life began somehow, but there is no God. Oh yeah, we have a bunch of fossils and we can make up some marvelous stories about what they mean, but we can't recreate it. HMMM
MrItchyElbow 4 months ago
@MrItchyElbow :
"the evidence is all around you that God does exist".
Not really. Only if you have the preconception of the concept of a god.
"The philosophy of "atheism" tries to use science to disprove God and fails".
Well, no. Science do not care about religion. Science simply looks at the world and tries to draw conclusions from it. If science found proof of a god science would find a proof for god. It has not.
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring 1. Really, by looking at the evidence around you, that the structure of the atom, the amazing intricacy of the single cell life, the vast array of the stars in the heavens all of these things that have that look to them that they have been assembled by some intelligence does not give you pause to think that there is a God?
2. Perhaps you need to go back to reading school, I said that atheists try to use science for their own philosophical ends.
MrItchyElbow 4 months ago
@MrItchyElbow :
1. No. Quite the opposite. The universe is far to complex and strange, far to many things are done in suboptimal ways to draw the conclusion that there was a conscious mind behind it. For me, it is instead one of the strongest proofs for evolution.
2. Considering I am not an atheist but an Ignostic I have to let the atheists speak for themselves.
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring far to many things are done in suboptimal ways
That comment is based on what evidence, suboptimal for your tastes. The universe and life is just one big accident that just kept perfecting itself is the best answer?
I think the word you're looking for is agnostic. You seem to have an awful lot of faith that God does not exist. Are you sure you're not an atheist?
MrItchyElbow 4 months ago
@agardebring Suboptimal? How so? What would you change in order for it to be "more" optimal?
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 :What about goose bumps? An evolutionary remnant from the time when we had fur (they are amongst other things used to raise fur - making an animal appear larger, this is why we get goose bumps when we are afraid). No purpose today. We have structures in our genes that were once used to produces enzymes to process vitamin C. Most other animals have this ability but somewhere in history a mutation disbled the gene – leaving behind remnants as junk DNA. Or the appendix? I could go on..
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring That's purely speculation in terms of goose bumps. Furthermore, goose bumps in humans are also symptoms of certain diseases, thus it would be obvious where their purpose is beyond that of raising fur. For the vitamin C-processing, what benefit would there be in having that gene activated? Have you weighed the cost, i.e. the disadvantages of the activation of that gene? There is no such thing as "junk DNA". There are other possible functions for the appendix, and I, too, could go on.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 : ..which brings me to other questions. Why do people get sick? Why are our defences not perfect? And how can god have made us in such a way that some of us become homosexual, yet homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of the judging Jahve? (and no, homosexuality is not a "choice").
And if god is perfect, yet we are made in his image, how can god be perfect? The whole theological concept of Christianity is just so very very weird to me.
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring Because sickness is created as a natural part of this world. Without disease, there wouldn't be population control; furthermore, disease is largely due to bacteria, which is also beneficial in certain areas.. Our defenses are not perfect because they were never meant to be perfect. And no, homosexuality is not a sin, but it is homosexual behavior that is condemned. Like how it's not a sin to be heterosexual, but adultery is condemned.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 : So basically anything that is not perfect is created not perfect because god thought it best? And yet again, we are created in god:s image, and god is supposed to be perfect... Logical?
Yes, bacteria is beneficial in certain areas, but not all areas. This is apparently the way god made things. Why? Population control? Well, god could have made us less horny...
Homosexuality is common in the animal world. Why is it only a sin when humans do it? Why did god create us that way?
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring Yes, because your idea of "perfect" may be flawed in ways which you are unaware of. For example, chickens have as part of their genetic code a "switch" that enables them to have reptilian teeth, but that mutation is fatal. God is perfect, but we are not. I am not quite getting your argument about God's image.
If God made us less horny, then we would have population crisis in the other direction, which cannot be remedied by outside intervention.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 : Could god not had made us just "horny enough"? He is perfect and infallible isn't he? Seems like a problem he should be able to solve then... Why will he let innocent babies die of famine? Why will he let earthquakes and tornadoes devastate lives? If I believed in god I would have trouble sleeping at night, knowing that the guy upstairs is very far from being a nice guy...
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring And God did solve that problem in the way it is now. It is our fault that babies die of famine. Earthquakes and tornadoes are a natural part of this world.
Dante666 4 months ago
@agardebring There are also many things common in the animal world, such as murdering the infants of a rival, cannibalism, murder for amusement (as documented among chimpanzees and dolphins), etc. Furthermore, homosexual acts among male animals are a form of communicating dominance, i.e. the alpha male is on top of the lesser male, literally and figuratively. We may be born with a particular orientation, but that does not mean we are free to act upon our orientation as we please.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 : I hope that by this you do not mean to compare murder/cannibalism (truly horrendous acts) with homosexuality (something that I have absolutely no problem with).
It is a good thing that you accept that there is homosexuality among animals (and no, it is not as simple as claiming it is always about dominance, it is clearly not), which should also mean that you accept that homosexuality among humans is as natural. So, again, why did god make us that way, if he do not condone it?
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring Yes, actually, homosexuality among male animals is always about assertion of dominance. Homosexuality is fine, but not homosexual acts. I thought I made that clear enough in my previous reply.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 : Show me the science. Or am I supposed to take your word for it? Homosexual acts is part of being homosexual, just like heterosexual acts is part of being heterosexual. Homosexual behavior has been observed in about 1500 species, from primates to gut worms. I find it somewhat interesting that you "know" that in every single instance these are "dominance" related..
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring In addition to that, what the west thinks of as "homosexuality" may simply be a matter of social expectations, e.g. the holding of hands is perceived to be "homosexual" in western societies, but it is perfectly acceptable as non-homosexual activity in eastern societies. A sense of admiration may also be perceived wrongly as homosexual orientation even if the attraction is not sexual. Being more comfortable and sociable around one's own gender does not make one a homosexual.
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 : Of course not, and that was not what I was talking about. I am talking about sexual attraction. Due to modern technology we can see what is going on nowadays, and it is clear that homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality is mostly genetic. Many people who are in fact bisexual decide to be hetero, due to norms in society.
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring Us being made in God's image doesn't mean that we are perfect mirror images of God. Why can't God be perfect? I do not know where you get your theological concept of Christianity. What are your reference materials for understanding Christianity?
Dante666 4 months ago
@Dante666 : My reference material is that old book we call the bible... I am simply pointing out another of the many - for me at least - illogical concepts in the monotheistic worship of Jahve.
However, if you decide beforehand that god is "perfect and infallible", then of course, by definition, there can be nothing illogical about it... Even though different parts of the bible contradict themselves..
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring Other than the Bible? You do know that the Bible was not originally written in English, right? That's why we use concordances. So, tell me, which parts of the Bible do you think contradict themselves?
Dante666 4 months ago
@BogusDonut : Atheist church? Atheist means A-Theist. As in "non-theist" or, "the lack of belief in a god". Note the difference. Atheists do not say "I believe there is no god". They say "I do not believe there is a god", much in the same way one might say "I do not believe in invisible teacups".
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring I know how stupid it sounds, but there actually is the First Church of Atheism - I want to hear the hymns. I am well aware of what atheist mean, thanks all the same.
BogusDonut 4 months ago
@BogusDonut . I do now knot of the "First Church of Atheism". Sounds like a play on words/play on concepts rather than being an actual belief system but as an Ignostic I still find it to be a weird concept. If you do not believe in a god, why use the same concepts?
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring I agree. Monkey see, monkey do if you'll pardon the pun.
BogusDonut 4 months ago
@agardebring That is quite the roundabout way of saying the same thing.
Dante666 4 months ago
@agardebring
"'Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Agnostic is a lack of belief, either way, of God.
If you can say, "It is possible God exists." you are not an Atheist.
RetSquid 4 months ago
@RetSquid : Yes, "the denial of the existence of god" is the reason I am not an atheist but an ignostic. Being an atheist means that you have accepted the question of the existence of a god within a certain belief system as a valid question that merits a response. For me the question of the existence of a god (per definition) is meaningless. There is no coherent definition of the concept and I am therefore not able to form any meaningful reply.
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring
FINALLY! Someone who actually understands the terms involved! If you watch some of Dr. William Lane Craig's videos he does have a definition of God, basically a maximally great being.
RetSquid 4 months ago
@RetSquid : Well, the problem is this: Why should I take Dr. Lane Craig as an authority that can provide me with a definition of god? There are millions upon millions of people in the world who claim to provide a definition of god. And there are a lot of gods to! Not a single one of them can give a reasonable argument why his/her definition has more merit than any other. And this is where my problem with the concept comes in. Please understand that I am basing this only on logic, not feeling.
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring
"Why should I take Dr. Lane Craig as an authority that can provide me with a definition of [G]od?"
He is one of the foremost philosophers in this field, and the definition seems to be simple and reasonable. Is there a better definition of God out there?
RetSquid 4 months ago
@RetSquid : That he is "one of the foremost philosophers in this field" makes no difference from a purely logical standpoint. The definition of which philosopher is "the foremost" is subjective reasoning based on feelings. I can get awed and moved by listening to inspiring lecturers and scientists (more seldom philosophers I have to admit). That doesn't mean I base my world view on them. How did the universe come into being? I don't know. And I see no reason to put "god" in place of not knowing.
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring
OK Spock, you don't feel that decades of experience means anything. Go watch his videos and learn.
RetSquid 4 months ago
@RetSquid : I think I prefer Star Trek yes.. ;)
agardebring 4 months ago
@agardebring
Even Spock believed there was more to life than logic....
RetSquid 4 months ago
@agardebring Because the God of the Bible is the most consistent with the world we live in.
Dante666 4 months ago
777 videos!!!
r0baa 4 months ago
Leonard, congratulations by the Craig's videos.
FlavioFlavio285 4 months ago
Richard Dawkins is a great rhetoric darwinist, when he meets a great challenger, he runs aways.
FlavioFlavio285 4 months ago 10
Dawkins can make all TV apperances, speeches at atheist/humanist gatherings and write as many books he wants TRYING to debunk Biblical Christianity...but all that means NOTHING if he doesn't have the balls to have an honest and intellectual debate with Mr. Craig.
POC777 4 months ago
Comment removed
FlavioFlavio285 4 months ago