Do you believe all the hype that you claim for yourself? No challenge on youtube? Well, coming from someone like me who's been bitchslapping arrogant christians like you for 15 years son, a challenge from me would be something that you could not even stand. I got a little challenge for you, explain to me how can an all good God send humans to hell? Answer that pal!!
CerrunosisGod. The "hype" has some substance. And no, there's been no serious challenge from any atheist on YT. All of them either are too ignorant of the facts or they ignore them, or they resort to ad hominem attacks, at which point they get blocked. Arrogant Christians? Who? 15 years? Like me? I doubt it. There are not multitudes of Christians like me who not only read an English Bible, but who also can read the original languages. So, if you really want to walk that road...LOL.
Bro, I understand what your trying to accomplish by preaching the truth concerning The Lord. However, you are making Christians and God look foolish with this act. If you want to debate and destroy false doctrine, do so with the actual Holy Spirit and the Word of God. God gives the believer the knowledge to understand scripture and that's the blessing in it's self. My brother people (especially atheist) are laughing at you not listening. Give God the Glory without the worldly act.
Holyboy1978. I don't think you fully understand. You may believe that I am making Christians and God look foolish with this act, but that's your opinion that has little basis in the facts. You do not know the personal messages I get from people who get the point that while I do the Road Warrior "act," I DO know what I'm talking about, and I am trying to impart knowledge and dispel misunderstanding. No, they are listening and sometimes laughing WITH me, as many have told me.
Again, Holyboy1978, I understand what you THINK is happening, but you really need to back up and realize that your opinion is not based in the facts. I know. I get the messages from people who get the point, laugh with me, but ask serious question because they know I do know my stuff. The "act" honors Mike "Hawk" Hegstrand, who gave his life to Christ before he died in 2003. But it also gets people to WATCH, whereas if I just wore a shirt and tie, they most likely would click another video.
And, by the way, I am not being something I am not. In Scripture we are actually called ot be "warriors" (soldiers)for Christ who "fight the good fight" of faith, who "wrestle" against princiipalities and powers, and who earnestly contend (fight) for the faith (2 Tim. 2:3; 1 Tim. 6:12; Eph. 6:12; Jude 3). I don't mind you looking from the outside, but look with clear and Biblical vision. Paul did all he could to reach the lost (1 Cor. 9:22). No different here as the Christian Road Warrior.
biglisaannfan. And I guess it's true that I have proven or debunked anything in this SERIES simply because you claim it? LOL. Your claim is the real joke.
GodKillerAtheist. You are not even in the warrior's weigh class. You can't handle the warrior. Stick to silly "blaspemous" videos before you get your feelings hurt BEFORE I quote one Scripture.
LOL you're so silly I think you watch too much pansy wrestling HAHA
well quote vague passages all you want they don't have any real meaning since the bible is a dumping ground for old superstitious myth and nonsense ...Enjoy a life wasted on a fairy tale of afterlife
GodKillerAtheist. Your mere claim that the video is "all" hype and no substance is a mere unsupported claim, especially since this is an unfinished SERIES. LOL.
There is not really any meat and potato in your personal attacks either
Did Jesus tell you how to do come backs because that one was so feather weak I think the only way you could win is by blocking me. That would really show me how strong your deity isn't =D
Perhaps you should finish your series before replying to comments then....
Glad you enjoyed my blasphemous videos On your advice alone I will continue to make them!!!
Before even thinking of "debating" me on this, it would probably be wise for you to view the entire series first. Clueless moron? Really? So are you trying to say that atheists do not engage in what can rightly be called propaganda? I know of atheists who have taken other atheists to task on their flawed logic, so perhaps your ignorance of the topic is showing. I would gladly acknowledge truth from anyone - IF it's truth. But I will not call a lie truth and vice versa.
I'm not sure you should be putting yourself up for a battle of wits with prof dawkins. You didn't say anything worth listening to. Even you distort the bible, you don't follow it to the letter do you? Do you eat pork, for instance? You have an extremely high opinion of yourself. Perhaps you should get a job, that's ten minutes of my life that I'll never get back.
andywaggott. I could take Dawkins on my faith any day, as he knows little to nothing about it. I said nothing worth listening to? Because you say so? LOL. I distort the Bible? No, I understand it better than YOU do because I read and understand it in context. Eat pork? Yes I do - now go read 1 Timothy 4:3-5. No, I don't have an "extremely high opinion" of myself. Appearance is not everything. No one forced you to watch, so I don't want to hear that crap about time out of your life.
Well, if you're interested in the facts instead of atheist propaganda, you should watch more. But if you want the status quo, which seems to be the case from your subs, then by all means bypass the series.
What's really sad, gkc0803, is that you know obviously know little to nothing about Christianity or demographics or logic. Being an "Oxford" professor does not mean you don't make logical errors (as Dawkins does) or that he is immune to errors of fact (which Dawkins is not). You simply don't know what you're talking about.
Dawkins has plenty of bad arguments, I expected you to point some of them out. You didn't do anything except take his general argument without any of his evidence (I've seen the full root of all evil documentary, he does follow that up with evidence) and then you just dismiss it without any of your own evidence.
Attack Dawkins' evidence with some of your own or no one will take you seriously.
What a waste, I want those ten minutes of my life back.
Scammanator...This is a series, and in it I DO point out his bad arguments. No one made you watch, so I don't want to hear that "I want those ten minutes of my life back" crap. Watch the series and learn.
The texts are contradictory. Like, God loves all of his children but at the same time he hates lesbians and gays.
It is poisonous if you adhere strictly to its guidelines like in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (KJV) it says that if a child is disobedient then the parents should stone him to death and I didn't take it out of context or "distort" the passage in any way check it yourself.
you presented such a small amount of evidence and the rest was your subjective analysis.
subreg123. Only on superficial reading do the texts seem contradictory. There is no text saying God "hates lesbians and gays." God hates SIN, ALL of it. You miss the point of Deut. 21:18-21. The kind of son in that instance would most likely cause great harm to the community (like becoming a murderer or thief or rapist). We know this even today, that those who can't accept authority usually fight against ALL authority. The principle stands today. I believe this is a SERIES, so state tuned
subreg123. Why? Because it's wrong and people are trying to push immorality on people? How would you feel if thieves started trying to make stealing "legal"? Wouldn't you fight against it? You would if you had sense. God created capital punishment for a good reason. And no, I made no hasty generalization. I made a valid point based on the text and life experience. People who rebel against parental authority will most likely rebel against ANY authority, resulting in criminal activity.
but theres no proof of gays becoming rapists and murderers. how abt this though. christian have a higher crime rate, lower standard of living and health rates while atheist countries such as the netherlands have lower crime and higher health.
also a survey done on american prisons shows that atheists make up only 0.2% of the inmates. if you want to refute this by doubting the population of atheists in america, youd be stupid. they comprise 20% of the population.
Zoaguyver...Please don't give me that crap from biased and skewed stats about Christians having a higher crime rate and surveys on American prisons where ANYONE will claim to be "Christian" based on PRIOR background or family history, NOT on genuine faith in Christ. The criminals are not true Christians, as our faith precludes most crimes. I'm not saying Christians cannot commit crime, but our faith teaches against them and thus true believers are more likely NOT to.
You make some very good points. Richard Dawkins knows very little about religion and is not spaking from a firm understanding of religion or religious faith. I would like to give your video 5 stars. Great video.
lmao this is so funny i think you are a great comedy writer. but when are you going to come up with another character? you cant just coast on the crazy christian forever.
adamdabester...I appreciate the nod on comedy, but the main purpose of my videos is not comedy. I think it is good for people to get both Gospel truth in humorous form. Even Jesus had a sense of humor, although many don't see it that way. How funny is it to think of people with planks in their eyes trying to "help" people get specks out of theirs? (Matt. 7:3-5). LOL. As for another character, I don't plan on being one, but I will impersonate others in time.
Your not helping your cause with this video. It was basically bashing Richard Dawkins instead of you proving your claims of the bible being perfect and literal.
usmc2dbones...It's good you have an opinion, but it is not based on facts and evidence. I am bashing the falsehoods being spread by Dawkins, who, like many atheists, distorts the Bible to make his logically and Biblically flawed arguments. My series exposes his nonsense.
wretcher...Berlinski being a fellow of the DI has NOTHING to do with my point. So stop with the straw man, red herring arguments. Neither Denton nor Berlinski have religious reasons for having issues with evolution. And I never cited Denton as a "creationist," as I KNOW he is not one. You really need to get your facts straight before making comments. Your claims about Denton being part of the DI are also questionable.
It's odd how you categorize my discrediting your only sources as "straw men." I'm pointing out that there are 0 credible sources for ID. All of them are religiously driven. There are no "secular" scientists that I know of that publicly argue against evolution that are not funded by either DI or Templeton. And what took you so long to respond? I thought you'd given up... I don't even really remember what we were talking about, plus the fact that your comment suppression makes me unable to find..
wretcher, You discredited nothing. They by their own admission are not religiously driven. Denton is on believer, and neither is Berlinski. What took me so long? I overtly post on my main channel why I can't respond quickly to posts. I simply don't have the time. I don't "suppress" comments but they don't appear until I approve them based on how YT operates the system.
1. No one is "begging the question. Your mere claim that either "creationism" or "ID" have been "Debunked thoroughly" reflects your bias and ignorance moreso than the facts in the case.
2. A biased and/or ignorant court does not the truth make. I am not the deluded one.
wretcher...YT has two features that help in tracking comments. One of them is that they place a follow-up comment underneath a main comment. The other is the ability to scan through all the comments and look at them. Don't have time for a "recap."
dhartin, with this comment you are bordering on finding your way into the block zone. I have plenty of facts if you would pay attention and stop blindly following Dawkins.
dhartin...If all you got are wild assertions and insults, you have no clue what "debate" is, let alone have the ability to engage in it. I lay down facts about the fallacious nature of the arguments of Dawkins, and no one can refute them.
Ask some of the silent atheists who can't refute a thing I've argued. Then ask yourself WHY they are silent. Then, manhunt48, you will have the answer to your question.
Well i've refuted many things you've stated, and replied to of your comments and you've stayed silent. So i don't don't have an anser to my question. The aguements you make are rather laughable.
LOL...manhunt48...You must understand the illogic of thinking that just because you claim you have refuted many things I've stated does not prove it. Since I am a graduate student working on my third degree, I don't have time to respond to all comments, and some don't even require a response and are TRULY laughable.
let me assure you no points make are "laughable" and have a background in solid scientific/ historical knowledge. My arguments are also generally in reply to your messages to one of your comments so they show up nasty spot. Also there's the fact that other believers that must of seen the comment have no response.
However I must applaud you for being one of the few believers who hasn't stomped out any notion of free speech and do reply to some comments.
emptyquarter1...Actually, I'm talking the truth and the problem is you DON'T seem to know it. Wake up and smell what the warrior is cookin, and it smells like atheistic nonsense! What a rushhhhh!
relic1076...This is not satire. It is a mixture of serious refutation and joking, because some of the stuff that comes out of the mouths of atheists is TOO funny.
i'm sorry, i thought that you were debunking atheism? (which you clearly cannot) all you have managed to do is bash Dawkins with dumb claims. such as "he distorts the bible". which he never has, he says it like it is. and i have been watching his stuff for awhile now. so don't imitate him like he is some dumbass. and also, we all know that your so called "logical fallacy" that you have claimed doesn't mean anything! he has studied it, he knows his stuff!! also your voice is annoying as hell.
Heyyy...erkmedia...It is obvious to the warrior that you don't know the Bible and how Dawkins and other atheists distort it. And YOU don't tell the warrior what to do. I'll impersonate the silly Dawkins as a want, because he is indeed silly with his attempts to talk about a topic he has NO expertise on. Others like Alister McGrath have called Dawkins on his errors. You might want to do some research instead of just kicking your legs up and being a blind cheerleader for Dawkins.
Davotheravo123. I don't know if science and probability are on your side as you assert, but the fact remains that those who try to argue against the Bible and Christianity rarely understand either very well. As for Krishna and Zeus, I don't think either can compare to the power and longevity of the Bible and the God of it.
On the contrary, Hinduism is widely regarded as the oldest organised religion. As for not understanding the bible, I know enough about it to understand how a) tyrannical and horrible God is in the old testament and b) how incredibly un-authoritative the new testament is regarding the life of Jesus.
Davotheravo123...The age of anything is not proof of much, as that is close to the Ab Annis fallacy. As for the Bible, by your comments I can see that a) you believe a stereotypical, ignorance-based idea about the God of the Old Testament, and b) you have a flawed and superficial understanding of the New Testament and the life of Jesus.
Have you read the bible? God does some pretty horrendous things to innocent people. Like that guy who got stoned for gathering sticks on the wrong day. Or the city where every living thing was to be slaughtered (women, children, even animals). I understand enough about the new testament to know that it was altered in order to make it fit with old testament prophecies (birth in bethlehem etc). Also, I was merely pointing out that you are wrong to say that Yahweh is older than Krishna.
LOL...Have I read the Bible? I actually study the original languages of Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek. Innocent people? By whose standard? If you're going to make assertions against the Bible, it would be nice if you reference specific passage so we can see the contexts of them. As for the New Testament, there has been no unknown alterations that adversely affect our major doctrines. Where are you getting this disinformation? And I never claimed Yahweh was "older" than Krishna...
I'm sorry. I watched this video by mistake. I thought this was someone who knew what they were talking about and that this might actually be interesting. I was wrong and it's just another dumb/boring/believer that only believes without evidence.
Tylonous...What evidence? The evidence all around you that is verified by science that the God of the Bible exists and has made the world so that it reflects His glory (Rom. 1:20; Psalm 19:1-4). Today we have unbelieving scientists like Dr. Mike Denton and others who will attest to the design features in this world in detail. We have longtime atheists like Anthony Flew who are now convinced by scientific evidence that there is a Designer. Wake up and smell the evidence "coffee."
Amen! That's exactly what I try to tell atheists. I recently learned that if they don't take heed to it but change the subject and continue to rebel against God, take Jesus' advice and "don't cast your pearls to the swine" (Matt. 7:6).
Is this guy for real? What a joke. Ha yea im sure you red The God Delusion, you wouldnt understand a single word in that book you dumbass. How does having more books on theology then biology make theology not idiotic. This vid made me a little bit more atheist.
LBTennis, you might want to stick to tennis, since it is obvious you don't know reason or theology. I not only understand "The God Delusion" but I'm in the process of writing refutation points. Dawkins is by no means the most rational and reasonable or even knowledgeable atheist.
You're spending a lot of time making a show but not getting anywhere in terms of simple and rational thinking. So, thank you for the good laugh but, I'm sorry, nothing impressive coming from your side. Dawkins still retains the title.
why do i have to wait 4 minutes for you to get to the freaking (i usually cuss but I understand you have sensitive ears) point, I'd love to debate you and show you how stupid your points are but it just takes too long to find out what your talking about.
dhartin...No, I did not delete your comment, unless your comment(s) violated my rules. You only assume "censorship." Monitoring and moderating comments is not censorship and it by no means shows weakness.
Heyyy...dhartin...I don't tell you how to do videos, and therefore you have no authority to tell me. I'll take as little or much time as I want to make whatever points (humorous or otherwise) that I want. No one is forcing you to watch.
Actually, kubush, your knowledge of science is wanting. Soft parts do fossilize at times. I do not need what some term "absolute proof" of God. But some in science want "absolute proof." The problem is, we work in society every day (flying on planes, driving cars) without absolute proof of things like a sober pilot and co-pilot and a car that is safe to drive. If we can have "faith" in those areas, we can have "faith" when it comes to God as well.
I saw you respond to someone else saying "mountains of evidence" is a fallacy, so I'll go ahead and address it to you (even though you might suppress it, but I don't care; that just shows you're weak to me).
The scientific method works on disproving things. For 150 years, scientists have tried disproving evolution (i.e. by attempting to find an alternate explanation for the human's combined 2nd chromosome). Guess what, they haven't been able to. Why? Because it's an excellent model that fits.
wretcher...I have no clue where you get your information, but scientists don't try to "disprove" evolution. If anything, those entrenched in the system try everything in their power to prove it, even when the evidence is mostly circumstantial or even faked (remember Piltdown man?). A combined 2nd chromosome does not conclusively prove anything except that chromosomes were combined. To argue WHY is to speculate. So don't even try to argue about the scientficic method. I know it well.
You, in the same breath, say that you understand the scientific method and then say that scientists don't try to disprove evolution. That in and of itself shows me that your entire argument is an argument from ignorance, where you don't understand the opposition, nor do you try, because it offends your literalist beliefs. The scientific method relies on falsifiability, the act of proving something wrong. Funny that you bring up the stereotypical piltdown man, which was declined by science.
No, wretcher, if there is one thing I am not, it is ignorant. So I would advise you to not make false claims, as they are a violation of my clearly posted rules. I understand the "opposition" all too well, as I have been studying the subject (creation/evolution) for quite some time now. There are scientists who do not hold my "literalist beliefs" who support my position. As for Piltdown man, you are wrong. Scientists took about 35 years to finally prove Piltdown a fraud. Why? Blind belief.
Additionally, the combined 2nd chromosome DOES in fact show huge support for evolution. Why? Because great apes have one more chromosome than us; if there was no combined chromosome, there could've been no scientific way to argue that there was a common ancestor between them. But, in fact, there is. Granted, at this point I'm already aware that I'm talking to someone who's so ignorantly entrenched in his beliefs that no matter what proof I give, you'll say it's not there. Or is there something?
No, wrether, the combined 2nd chromosome does NOT show "huge support for evolution." It is, again, CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence, just like the fact that apes and humans have 2 arms and legs and two eyes. That is simply a non sequitur based on wishful evolutionary thinking. There are perhaps other reaons for the combined 2nd chromosome, but those are not entertained. It MUST be "evolution." Not so. And this is not about being "ignorantly entrenched" in belief...
...as there are scientists who do not hold my beliefs who also do not buy into the circumstantial and speculative "evidence" for evolution. So don't come at me with the old "ignorantly entreched beliefs" canard. It is not a valid argument.
1. The only theory that has completely explained any of the evidence is evolution (this includes the futile attempts of ID/creation to bastardize the scientific method).
2. The scientists who do not buy into evolution exist in a smaller percentage than there are historians who deny the Holocaust. All of them do it for religious reasons, and not scientific reasons (the Discovery Institute, for example).
wrether...Point 1 contains the assumption that the "only" theory that has "completely" explained the evidence is evolution. Problem is, the ASSUMPTION of evolution is used to argue for it in this case to begin with. It's called petitio principii.
2. Numbers don't dictate truth. And again it appears you are woefully ignorant on this issue. All of them do NOT disagree with evolution for religious reasons. The Discovery Institute is NOT a religious agency. You are clearly misinformed.
And just to give you two examples. Dr. Michael Denton has NO religious reasons for disagreeing with major evolutionary claims. Dr. David Berlinski also has no "religious" reasons. In fact, there are many scientific reasons for not accepting evolution, as revealed by Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, Dr. Gary Parker and others. So you're not going to get away with playing the game that it's only "religious" folks who have "religious" reasons who have problems with evolutionary theory. That won't fly.
Also, could you get rid of the approval pending? It's demeaning to those who wish to have a free discussion, and says that you'd rather suppress free speech than allow all sides of a debate to be heard (e.g. just the ones you approve!). Thanks.
No, wretcher, I cannot get rid of the pending approval. I allow my "friends" to post freely, but other must be approved due to the fact that I have young kids who sometimes view my videos, and I don't allow vulgar or racially prejudice language on my pages. All sides are heard, as long as they follow the rules clearly posted on my channel.
wretcher...No, we do not ignore blatant fact. WE disregard alleged facts and speculation pushed off as facts. You say "0.15%" of scientists are creationists? Really? Based on what source? And even if that were true, there shouldn't be ANY who are creationists if the facts are so clear. What's really idiotic is comparing evolution with walking. Faulty analogy fallacy.
Yes, yes you do ignore blatant fact. You treat your holy book as a literal truth even though 150 years worth of evidence have piled up in favor of evolution, and not a single iota of evidence has surfaced for creation.
I also find it hysterical that, beyond the fact that you attempt to argue for a side which has been legally declared scientifically incorrect, you bring up the logical fallacy that perfectly debunks it, as well; argument from authority is all the bible has. No facts. None.
wretcher...The more you post, the more it seems you are woefully misinformed. You have not read ANY creation or Intelligent Design literature, have you? Or, if you did, you simply dismissed what you read. Regardless, Michael Denton is not a creationist, and he has made many valid points, one of which was to point out that much of evolution is based on circumstantial evidence. As for that legal argument, you might want to check the facts in that case. A biased judge who ignored facts.
I actually wrote an article about judge Jones' ID ruling, and as a part of my research I read his entire judgment. So I know bias when I see it. Bias does not determine truth, especially when the judge, as was true in this case, was ignorant of the facts himself. The Bible has plenty of facts. You simply have not researched them. So let's not pretend, wretcher, that what you have not researched amounts to "no facts." Ignorance is not "no facts."
Actually, kubush, that's part of the myth. Evolution does NOT have "mountains" of evidence. Circumstantial evidence that can apply to a Creator just as well as to evolution, or even moreso to a Creator or Designer, is not impressive or "mountains." There are former evolutionists who are now creationists.
LOL...thecrowing07. You need credentials if you are going to speak on religion and know what you're talking about. Or, at the very least, you need to have studied to some degree. Dawkins is woefully ignorant of basics, like many atheists, and there is no excuse for it. And there is no valid comparison of "Harry Potter" to the Bible. That is patently absurd.
And as for Dawkins, I know the Bible and Christian theology better than you and him and Harris and Hitchens combined. LOL...take that nonsense somewhere else.
look i dont see how confront unbelievers and sinners in this way would bring them to christ man we got to show the love of christ also show them there wrong and show them the way by the grace of god leave the wrath to God because taking it in to your own hands you become fools I know you read your word man.
YAUS00...I think you might want to pay more attention to the substance of the things I point out rather than the wrestler act I put on for a reason. Love is not defined by how "sweet and flowery" we look or talk. Case in point, have a look at what Paul said in Acts 13:6-12. Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment, as Jesus said in John 7:24.
Good...My videos do contain substance and arguments, most of which do not get addressed by Dawkins fans. So stay tuned and perhaps you can pick up some helpful facts.
Actually, the problem is not Bible thumping. The problem is Biblical ignorance. I am far from uneducated, but I guess that's part of your problem, MSW...lack of discernment.
babyriches...You have no clue. You might want to pay attention to the meaning of the word "series." The real disgrace is your lack of understanding here.
I'm 7 minutes and 25 seconds in, and every time I think your going to make an intellectual statement in rebuttal to Dawkins, you always sway away from it.
It typicaly seems to go something like this:
1. "Dawkins is stupid, he distorts things."
2. "Dawkins is learning big words"...what?
3. "Dawkins doesn't do his homework"
But you have yet to have said a single thing to dispute Dawkins. Cool personality you got there, cool image, but please, stay out of this subject.
Actually, lost, it is Dawkins is the one who needs to stay out of this subject, as he has zero expertise in it. There is a reason why this is a SERIES. Whatever is not fully dealt with in no. 1 will be gotten to in 2, 3, 4, 5 and so on. The word "series" does have a meaning, so you might want to jot that down and pay attention.
You do realize that Professor Dawkins is indeed a Professor at Oxford University? I don't think I need to go any further on the required qualifications to be a Professor at such a University. Dawkins is considered to be Britain's most Intellectual individual, he is well educated in areas of Philosophy and reason. He has traveled the world, interviewing countless individuals on their beliefs in various religions. I wish you luck in debunking a man of Dawkins stature.
lostm0ments. I don't care where he's a "professor" at. He's still woefully ignorant and even stupid when it comes to the Bible and Christian theology. His ability to "reason" is questionable, as others have pointed out as well. The person needing "luck" when it comes to Christian doctrine is Dawkins. I have education, study, and the Spirit. Luck not needed.
Well there are men with credentials who have degrees. Like the former Atheist who was a collegue of Richard Dawkins at the University of Oxford. He wrote the Dawkins dellusion. He mentions why he left atheism.
GoStealth...Dawkins has NO credentials to talk about the Bible and theology. As for mine? First, been a Christian since 1983. Been studying the Bible seriously for over 15 years, including learning ancient Greek back in 94, and teaching it in a Bible school setting, and over the Internet. Studied some Hebrew with Jews in NYC. Have two Bachelors degrees, one of which is in Theology. Presently working on a Masters. And I left out all the "work" I've done to help people.
Assuming you produce your videos with the hope that someone actually watches them, might I suggest that you simply get to your point and spare everyone the theatrics?
I suffered through 5 minutes and all I know for sure is that you've read about 100 pages of Dawkins's book, and don't like it. I can't even tell if the god you are defending is yahweh or the flying spaghetti monster.
Well, not that your opinion has any validity, but since I have over 40,000 video view, I believe "someone" is watching a good deal. If you can't tell if the God I am defending is Yahweh or the "flying spaghetti monster," I suggest you do some soul-searching because the problem lies not in my videos but in the mirror. As for te theatrics, they stay because I'd rather have them than to be boring as hell, as many on YT are.
I mean, come on...you gotta be kidding me, liberty2001. My intro clearly says I am the "Christian Road Warrior" not "flying spagetti monster warrior." LOL. Wise up or learn how to read.
Bad grammar? You gotta be kidding me. I am more educated in things Biblical than you, and I am probably more educated than you are in general. Not that this means anything, but I take offense to claims like yours, especially as I am working on my third degree. LOL.
I got through about 2 minutes of your video before realizing that this is embellished nonsense. You arrive at no logical conclusion, using circular logic to reaffirm your beliefs that were bred into you not by rational thought, but by religious institution. No doubt you'll later on in the video attempt to refute evolution, perhaps calling out the usual predictable creationist arguments, but those are completely irrelevant anyway; there are thousands of transitional forms, and more. Stop trying.
wretcherwreth...Nice that you can make unsupported claims, but how about dealing with the issues? If you want to talk about no logical conclusions and circular logic, talk to the king of that - Dawkins. Thousands of transitional forms? LOL. Name one. Oh, but don't forget...animals in the past were composed of more than just bones, so any "transition" will be speculative at best...as admitted by evolutionary molecular biologist, Mike Denton. But go ahead...make my day!
Unsupported? You're a creationist, that means you're automatically incorrect. Creationism has been proven incorrect hundreds of times by scientists shredding the "theory" of genesis apart bit by bit. That includes Hovind's pseudoscience hypothesis about the world being surrounded by water.
And sure,
Pakicetus --> Aetiocetus --> Gray Whale
Reptile --> Archaeopteryx--> Bird
And LOL, that you would call Mike Denton an evolutionist! He's a creationist.
wretcher...Yes, unsupported. I'm automatically incorrect? LOL. That is irrational nonsense. There are many scientists who ARE creationists. You might want to look up Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, a man with 3 doctorates in science. And no, Mike Denton is not a "creationist." You need to do some credible research. And as for your alleged transitionals, LOLOL...standard stuff that doesn't prove a thing. No soft parts...no absolute proof.
Let me get this straight: You think that your assumption that there are more books on theology than biology proves to Mr. Dawkins that theology is, in fact, a valid field of study?
Theology is a joke. Everything you conclude is based on the assumption that what you read is truth. You can't study God if there's no proof he even existed.
StewieSwan. First of all, it is not an assumption. Second, I did not say the number of books by itself proves theology is a valid field of study. Finally, just as in biology, graduate degrees are offered in theology. Dawkins, like yourself, uses circular reasoning to come to the false conclusion that it is not a valid field of study. There is proof God exists. You and Dawkins simply either ignore it or rationalize it away. There are people who deny the Holocaust. Why? Lack of evidence?LOL.
You are hopeless man. I had no circular reasoning. I simply said that you can't study something if it might not even exist. You are just coming to conclusions that can never be tested or proven. And you're saying that there is proof that God exists? Really? Come on man, a smart guy like you shouldn't have to lie. I'm done with this, because you are obviously deluded to assume what you know is truth. I will not say God doesn't exist (like Dawkins), but I do not believe he does.
Religious studies are just an arts study. Arts is no truth, it is studying unfixed points that could have multiple perspectives and involve just arguments. Of course you can get graduate studies in theology but all you do is study an non-rigourous document versus say a science field such as Biology which would have a solid plateau of evidence versus. Some people deny in modern society that the holocaust was cause they were raised to ignore it which is just another version of Dawkins' claims.
What the heck are you talking about, Entertainmentwf? Arts is no truth? Really now? All we study is "non-rigourous document"? You clearly have not even been to a theological library and picked up a Greek lexicon or grammar, or worse yet a scholarly critical commentary with both lexical and grammatical evidences. LOL. As for the Holocaust, my point is that people can even deny undeniable evidence if they desire. So some pretend to want "evidence" but they really could care less.
That's a good question, JoebWebb. You may have to clarify your question a little, but basically I can say this. The God of the Bible is a God of intellect and reason, and therefore it makes sense that we ourselves (being made in His image) can use intellect and reason. Logic is the study of right reason. And if God is a God of reason, then the Bible should contain both truth and reason, which it does. Does that help?
You didn't "debunk" anything. You just talk in circles and say nothing of substance. You showed a random clip and then talked about nothing for a while, THEN said you can take "such and such" out of context from the bible.
And about a comment from above:
If you're ok with misreading the Bible based on laziness and ignorance, then I would reconsidered who is the "mad man" or "terrorist."
So if one does not believe in the bible, one is a mad man?
@onyxxx101 That's right. Because of people like YOU who have no substantive argument or point to make. LOL.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
why are ratings disabled? doesn't look too good with all thumbs down, huh?
tylerleebash 1 year ago 25
@tylerleebash Actually, your assumptions are not valid. Why are you preoccupied with unimportant things? That speaks volumes.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
The you suffer the consequences, ptb363.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
Do you believe all the hype that you claim for yourself? No challenge on youtube? Well, coming from someone like me who's been bitchslapping arrogant christians like you for 15 years son, a challenge from me would be something that you could not even stand. I got a little challenge for you, explain to me how can an all good God send humans to hell? Answer that pal!!
CerrunosisGod 2 years ago 5
CerrunosisGod. The "hype" has some substance. And no, there's been no serious challenge from any atheist on YT. All of them either are too ignorant of the facts or they ignore them, or they resort to ad hominem attacks, at which point they get blocked. Arrogant Christians? Who? 15 years? Like me? I doubt it. There are not multitudes of Christians like me who not only read an English Bible, but who also can read the original languages. So, if you really want to walk that road...LOL.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
And, by the way, if you wish to continue posting on my pages, you need to drop the foul language. First and last warning.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
Bro, I understand what your trying to accomplish by preaching the truth concerning The Lord. However, you are making Christians and God look foolish with this act. If you want to debate and destroy false doctrine, do so with the actual Holy Spirit and the Word of God. God gives the believer the knowledge to understand scripture and that's the blessing in it's self. My brother people (especially atheist) are laughing at you not listening. Give God the Glory without the worldly act.
Holyboy1978 2 years ago
Holyboy1978. I don't think you fully understand. You may believe that I am making Christians and God look foolish with this act, but that's your opinion that has little basis in the facts. You do not know the personal messages I get from people who get the point that while I do the Road Warrior "act," I DO know what I'm talking about, and I am trying to impart knowledge and dispel misunderstanding. No, they are listening and sometimes laughing WITH me, as many have told me.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
Sir, your making Christians look foolish by being something your not.
If you want to debate and destroy false doctrine, do it with the actual Holy Spirit and the Word of God, but without the act my brother.
All people (especially atheist) are laughing at you, not listening
God has given you the gift to speak truth, not to be some worldly road warrior. Be yourself and let God receive the glory
"This is not a dis, just a bro in Christ looking from the outside "
Blessings in your studying
Holyboy1978 2 years ago
Again, Holyboy1978, I understand what you THINK is happening, but you really need to back up and realize that your opinion is not based in the facts. I know. I get the messages from people who get the point, laugh with me, but ask serious question because they know I do know my stuff. The "act" honors Mike "Hawk" Hegstrand, who gave his life to Christ before he died in 2003. But it also gets people to WATCH, whereas if I just wore a shirt and tie, they most likely would click another video.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
And, by the way, I am not being something I am not. In Scripture we are actually called ot be "warriors" (soldiers)for Christ who "fight the good fight" of faith, who "wrestle" against princiipalities and powers, and who earnestly contend (fight) for the faith (2 Tim. 2:3; 1 Tim. 6:12; Eph. 6:12; Jude 3). I don't mind you looking from the outside, but look with clear and Biblical vision. Paul did all he could to reach the lost (1 Cor. 9:22). No different here as the Christian Road Warrior.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
biglisaannfan. And I guess it's true that I have proven or debunked anything in this SERIES simply because you claim it? LOL. Your claim is the real joke.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
You are an idiot. You did not prove anything. In fact you do more to support Dawkins then anyone.
ZogsEnemy 2 years ago
ZogsEnemy. Calling me names is what proves nothing. You obviously didn't view the whole incomplete series. Typical.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
I'll debate you any time on my channel since you censor yours because your fake god is too weak to handle an atheist youtube post =D
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
GodKillerAtheist. You are not even in the warrior's weigh class. You can't handle the warrior. Stick to silly "blaspemous" videos before you get your feelings hurt BEFORE I quote one Scripture.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
LOL you're so silly I think you watch too much pansy wrestling HAHA
well quote vague passages all you want they don't have any real meaning since the bible is a dumping ground for old superstitious myth and nonsense ...Enjoy a life wasted on a fairy tale of afterlife
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago 5
Again, GKA, no more needs to be said but "LOL." You make the warrior laugh.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
Your approval only comments and pointless ad-hominem attacks make people giggle at how weak your Religion really is =D
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago 37
LOL. Your assumptions reveal much.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
This video is all hype no substance ...yawn.
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
GodKillerAtheist. Your mere claim that the video is "all" hype and no substance is a mere unsupported claim, especially since this is an unfinished SERIES. LOL.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
There is not really any meat and potato in your personal attacks either
Did Jesus tell you how to do come backs because that one was so feather weak I think the only way you could win is by blocking me. That would really show me how strong your deity isn't =D
Perhaps you should finish your series before replying to comments then....
Glad you enjoyed my blasphemous videos On your advice alone I will continue to make them!!!
Well take care then
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago 3
GodKillerAtheist. LOL. That's all that needs to be said. You're no match for the warrior. I recommend Romper Room.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
i would much like to debate you on this but i find anyone who uses the term "atheist propaganda" too be much of a clueless moron.
you just like hearing your own voice so you keep talking. youd never acknowledge anything i have to say so its pointless arguing with you.
Zoaguyver 2 years ago
Before even thinking of "debating" me on this, it would probably be wise for you to view the entire series first. Clueless moron? Really? So are you trying to say that atheists do not engage in what can rightly be called propaganda? I know of atheists who have taken other atheists to task on their flawed logic, so perhaps your ignorance of the topic is showing. I would gladly acknowledge truth from anyone - IF it's truth. But I will not call a lie truth and vice versa.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
proxelies. I have one thing to say to this vacuous quote. Faulty analogy fallacy.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
Idiot!
Marlac59 2 years ago 2
Block zone!
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
Xianity belongs in the garbage bag with all the world's religions.
dsteitz1 2 years ago 3
dsteiz1...You have said nothing.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
I'm not sure you should be putting yourself up for a battle of wits with prof dawkins. You didn't say anything worth listening to. Even you distort the bible, you don't follow it to the letter do you? Do you eat pork, for instance? You have an extremely high opinion of yourself. Perhaps you should get a job, that's ten minutes of my life that I'll never get back.
andywaggott 2 years ago
andywaggott. I could take Dawkins on my faith any day, as he knows little to nothing about it. I said nothing worth listening to? Because you say so? LOL. I distort the Bible? No, I understand it better than YOU do because I read and understand it in context. Eat pork? Yes I do - now go read 1 Timothy 4:3-5. No, I don't have an "extremely high opinion" of myself. Appearance is not everything. No one forced you to watch, so I don't want to hear that crap about time out of your life.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
This is a satire. I hope...
ClumsyRoot 2 years ago 5
No, it is not satire. You'd know that if you paid attention to the series, ClumsyRoot.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
I asked because I was trying to decide whether to watch more of the series. I think I've seen enough.
ClumsyRoot 2 years ago
Well, if you're interested in the facts instead of atheist propaganda, you should watch more. But if you want the status quo, which seems to be the case from your subs, then by all means bypass the series.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
What's really sad, gkc0803, is that you know obviously know little to nothing about Christianity or demographics or logic. Being an "Oxford" professor does not mean you don't make logical errors (as Dawkins does) or that he is immune to errors of fact (which Dawkins is not). You simply don't know what you're talking about.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
this was total CRAP i thought you where gonna say something important
syndrome73 2 years ago 32
LOL...Funny, that's what I say about Dawkins and his blind followers all the time.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
No, really, I agree with sybndrome73.
Dawkins has plenty of bad arguments, I expected you to point some of them out. You didn't do anything except take his general argument without any of his evidence (I've seen the full root of all evil documentary, he does follow that up with evidence) and then you just dismiss it without any of your own evidence.
Attack Dawkins' evidence with some of your own or no one will take you seriously.
What a waste, I want those ten minutes of my life back.
Scammanator 2 years ago 3
Scammanator...This is a series, and in it I DO point out his bad arguments. No one made you watch, so I don't want to hear that "I want those ten minutes of my life back" crap. Watch the series and learn.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
The texts are contradictory. Like, God loves all of his children but at the same time he hates lesbians and gays.
It is poisonous if you adhere strictly to its guidelines like in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (KJV) it says that if a child is disobedient then the parents should stone him to death and I didn't take it out of context or "distort" the passage in any way check it yourself.
you presented such a small amount of evidence and the rest was your subjective analysis.
subreg123 2 years ago 2
subreg123. Only on superficial reading do the texts seem contradictory. There is no text saying God "hates lesbians and gays." God hates SIN, ALL of it. You miss the point of Deut. 21:18-21. The kind of son in that instance would most likely cause great harm to the community (like becoming a murderer or thief or rapist). We know this even today, that those who can't accept authority usually fight against ALL authority. The principle stands today. I believe this is a SERIES, so state tuned
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
So then why do people fight so much to keep gay and lesbian marriage illegal?
What happened to the loving God? I thought he was the good shepherd who finds and leads back the straying lambs not pelts them with stones.
So pretty much God is for capital punishment right?
That is too much of a hasty generalization, just because a person resents authority does not mean they will kill people or rape.
I will, I find these debates really interesting. by the ways it's stay tuned not state.
subreg123 2 years ago 2
subreg123. Why? Because it's wrong and people are trying to push immorality on people? How would you feel if thieves started trying to make stealing "legal"? Wouldn't you fight against it? You would if you had sense. God created capital punishment for a good reason. And no, I made no hasty generalization. I made a valid point based on the text and life experience. People who rebel against parental authority will most likely rebel against ANY authority, resulting in criminal activity.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
but theres no proof of gays becoming rapists and murderers. how abt this though. christian have a higher crime rate, lower standard of living and health rates while atheist countries such as the netherlands have lower crime and higher health.
also a survey done on american prisons shows that atheists make up only 0.2% of the inmates. if you want to refute this by doubting the population of atheists in america, youd be stupid. they comprise 20% of the population.
Zoaguyver 2 years ago 3
Zoaguyver...Please don't give me that crap from biased and skewed stats about Christians having a higher crime rate and surveys on American prisons where ANYONE will claim to be "Christian" based on PRIOR background or family history, NOT on genuine faith in Christ. The criminals are not true Christians, as our faith precludes most crimes. I'm not saying Christians cannot commit crime, but our faith teaches against them and thus true believers are more likely NOT to.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
well i've heard some stupid people on youtube but wow...
southpawOO7 2 years ago 3
Hey, Dawkins may be wrong, but don't call him stupid, southpawOO7. LOL
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
You make some very good points. Richard Dawkins knows very little about religion and is not spaking from a firm understanding of religion or religious faith. I would like to give your video 5 stars. Great video.
phlewis86 2 years ago
lmao this is so funny i think you are a great comedy writer. but when are you going to come up with another character? you cant just coast on the crazy christian forever.
adamdabester 3 years ago
adamdabester...I appreciate the nod on comedy, but the main purpose of my videos is not comedy. I think it is good for people to get both Gospel truth in humorous form. Even Jesus had a sense of humor, although many don't see it that way. How funny is it to think of people with planks in their eyes trying to "help" people get specks out of theirs? (Matt. 7:3-5). LOL. As for another character, I don't plan on being one, but I will impersonate others in time.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Your not helping your cause with this video. It was basically bashing Richard Dawkins instead of you proving your claims of the bible being perfect and literal.
usmc2dbones 3 years ago
usmc2dbones...It's good you have an opinion, but it is not based on facts and evidence. I am bashing the falsehoods being spread by Dawkins, who, like many atheists, distorts the Bible to make his logically and Biblically flawed arguments. My series exposes his nonsense.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
wretcher...Berlinski being a fellow of the DI has NOTHING to do with my point. So stop with the straw man, red herring arguments. Neither Denton nor Berlinski have religious reasons for having issues with evolution. And I never cited Denton as a "creationist," as I KNOW he is not one. You really need to get your facts straight before making comments. Your claims about Denton being part of the DI are also questionable.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
It's odd how you categorize my discrediting your only sources as "straw men." I'm pointing out that there are 0 credible sources for ID. All of them are religiously driven. There are no "secular" scientists that I know of that publicly argue against evolution that are not funded by either DI or Templeton. And what took you so long to respond? I thought you'd given up... I don't even really remember what we were talking about, plus the fact that your comment suppression makes me unable to find..
wretcherwretch 3 years ago
wretcher, You discredited nothing. They by their own admission are not religiously driven. Denton is on believer, and neither is Berlinski. What took me so long? I overtly post on my main channel why I can't respond quickly to posts. I simply don't have the time. I don't "suppress" comments but they don't appear until I approve them based on how YT operates the system.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
1. No one is "begging the question. Your mere claim that either "creationism" or "ID" have been "Debunked thoroughly" reflects your bias and ignorance moreso than the facts in the case.
2. A biased and/or ignorant court does not the truth make. I am not the deluded one.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
... out what you're responding to makes it even harder. Recap?
wretcherwretch 3 years ago
wretcher...YT has two features that help in tracking comments. One of them is that they place a follow-up comment underneath a main comment. The other is the ability to scan through all the comments and look at them. Don't have time for a "recap."
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
dhartin, with this comment you are bordering on finding your way into the block zone. I have plenty of facts if you would pay attention and stop blindly following Dawkins.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
dhartin...If all you got are wild assertions and insults, you have no clue what "debate" is, let alone have the ability to engage in it. I lay down facts about the fallacious nature of the arguments of Dawkins, and no one can refute them.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Ask some of the silent atheists who can't refute a thing I've argued. Then ask yourself WHY they are silent. Then, manhunt48, you will have the answer to your question.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Well i've refuted many things you've stated, and replied to of your comments and you've stayed silent. So i don't don't have an anser to my question. The aguements you make are rather laughable.
manhunt48 3 years ago
LOL...manhunt48...You must understand the illogic of thinking that just because you claim you have refuted many things I've stated does not prove it. Since I am a graduate student working on my third degree, I don't have time to respond to all comments, and some don't even require a response and are TRULY laughable.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
let me assure you no points make are "laughable" and have a background in solid scientific/ historical knowledge. My arguments are also generally in reply to your messages to one of your comments so they show up nasty spot. Also there's the fact that other believers that must of seen the comment have no response.
However I must applaud you for being one of the few believers who hasn't stomped out any notion of free speech and do reply to some comments.
manhunt48 3 years ago
Stupid comment, FloydsterUtube. And now you have to chill in the block zone.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
emptyquarter1...Actually, I'm talking the truth and the problem is you DON'T seem to know it. Wake up and smell what the warrior is cookin, and it smells like atheistic nonsense! What a rushhhhh!
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
This is satire... right? It's an honest question. I can't tell if you're serious or joking.
relic1076 3 years ago
relic1076...This is not satire. It is a mixture of serious refutation and joking, because some of the stuff that comes out of the mouths of atheists is TOO funny.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
i'm sorry, i thought that you were debunking atheism? (which you clearly cannot) all you have managed to do is bash Dawkins with dumb claims. such as "he distorts the bible". which he never has, he says it like it is. and i have been watching his stuff for awhile now. so don't imitate him like he is some dumbass. and also, we all know that your so called "logical fallacy" that you have claimed doesn't mean anything! he has studied it, he knows his stuff!! also your voice is annoying as hell.
erkmedia 3 years ago
Heyyy...erkmedia...It is obvious to the warrior that you don't know the Bible and how Dawkins and other atheists distort it. And YOU don't tell the warrior what to do. I'll impersonate the silly Dawkins as a want, because he is indeed silly with his attempts to talk about a topic he has NO expertise on. Others like Alister McGrath have called Dawkins on his errors. You might want to do some research instead of just kicking your legs up and being a blind cheerleader for Dawkins.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
I bet this is censored.
Davotheravo123 3 years ago
Davotheroavo123....I bet you're wrong. LOL.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Well science and probability are on my side. I suppose we could all be wrong about Krishna or Zeus. Very unlikely though.
Davotheravo123 3 years ago
Davotheravo123. I don't know if science and probability are on your side as you assert, but the fact remains that those who try to argue against the Bible and Christianity rarely understand either very well. As for Krishna and Zeus, I don't think either can compare to the power and longevity of the Bible and the God of it.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
On the contrary, Hinduism is widely regarded as the oldest organised religion. As for not understanding the bible, I know enough about it to understand how a) tyrannical and horrible God is in the old testament and b) how incredibly un-authoritative the new testament is regarding the life of Jesus.
Davotheravo123 3 years ago
Davotheravo123...The age of anything is not proof of much, as that is close to the Ab Annis fallacy. As for the Bible, by your comments I can see that a) you believe a stereotypical, ignorance-based idea about the God of the Old Testament, and b) you have a flawed and superficial understanding of the New Testament and the life of Jesus.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Have you read the bible? God does some pretty horrendous things to innocent people. Like that guy who got stoned for gathering sticks on the wrong day. Or the city where every living thing was to be slaughtered (women, children, even animals). I understand enough about the new testament to know that it was altered in order to make it fit with old testament prophecies (birth in bethlehem etc). Also, I was merely pointing out that you are wrong to say that Yahweh is older than Krishna.
Davotheravo123 3 years ago
LOL...Have I read the Bible? I actually study the original languages of Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek. Innocent people? By whose standard? If you're going to make assertions against the Bible, it would be nice if you reference specific passage so we can see the contexts of them. As for the New Testament, there has been no unknown alterations that adversely affect our major doctrines. Where are you getting this disinformation? And I never claimed Yahweh was "older" than Krishna...
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
...Although, theologically speaking, it is indeed true that Yahweh has been in existence for eternity while Krishna was invented much later.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
I'm sorry. I watched this video by mistake. I thought this was someone who knew what they were talking about and that this might actually be interesting. I was wrong and it's just another dumb/boring/believer that only believes without evidence.
Tylonous 3 years ago
Sorry, Tylonous, but the dumb/boring stuff comes from the unbelievers who disbelieve without or despite evidence.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
What evidence? I haven't seen any. If you show me I'll certainly believe.
Tylonous 3 years ago
Tylonous...What evidence? The evidence all around you that is verified by science that the God of the Bible exists and has made the world so that it reflects His glory (Rom. 1:20; Psalm 19:1-4). Today we have unbelieving scientists like Dr. Mike Denton and others who will attest to the design features in this world in detail. We have longtime atheists like Anthony Flew who are now convinced by scientific evidence that there is a Designer. Wake up and smell the evidence "coffee."
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Amen! That's exactly what I try to tell atheists. I recently learned that if they don't take heed to it but change the subject and continue to rebel against God, take Jesus' advice and "don't cast your pearls to the swine" (Matt. 7:6).
christopherwalkins 2 years ago
Is this guy for real? What a joke. Ha yea im sure you red The God Delusion, you wouldnt understand a single word in that book you dumbass. How does having more books on theology then biology make theology not idiotic. This vid made me a little bit more atheist.
LBTennis 3 years ago
LBTennis, you might want to stick to tennis, since it is obvious you don't know reason or theology. I not only understand "The God Delusion" but I'm in the process of writing refutation points. Dawkins is by no means the most rational and reasonable or even knowledgeable atheist.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
You're spending a lot of time making a show but not getting anywhere in terms of simple and rational thinking. So, thank you for the good laugh but, I'm sorry, nothing impressive coming from your side. Dawkins still retains the title.
MACSHUNDESS 3 years ago
MAC...No, Dawkins never had a title. My unfinished series will demonstrate that conclusively.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Such poor production and after 2 minutes of wasteful introduction, I decided to post this instead of watching the rest.
Boo on your format.
illuzion30 3 years ago
illuzion30...I guess when you have no substance to add to a discussion or topic, all you can to is make empty assertions about format. LOL.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
why do i have to wait 4 minutes for you to get to the freaking (i usually cuss but I understand you have sensitive ears) point, I'd love to debate you and show you how stupid your points are but it just takes too long to find out what your talking about.
dhartin 3 years ago
dhartin...You couldn't debate the warrior if you tried and had Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris helping you. LOL.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
did you delete my comment? you don't know what debate is, censoring your opposition only shows weakness.
dhartin 3 years ago
dhartin...No, I did not delete your comment, unless your comment(s) violated my rules. You only assume "censorship." Monitoring and moderating comments is not censorship and it by no means shows weakness.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Heyyy...dhartin...I don't tell you how to do videos, and therefore you have no authority to tell me. I'll take as little or much time as I want to make whatever points (humorous or otherwise) that I want. No one is forcing you to watch.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
lol.. u should say "the road warrior's back.. black and on the attack" ...lol.. good video bro
mrfiji84 3 years ago
Heyyy...mrfiji84, I think I might use that one...."back on the attack"....LOL.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Dawkins wins.You lose.If only in light of your idiotic persona.
daddyrizla 3 years ago 5
LOL. You make the warrior laugh.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Actually, kubush, your knowledge of science is wanting. Soft parts do fossilize at times. I do not need what some term "absolute proof" of God. But some in science want "absolute proof." The problem is, we work in society every day (flying on planes, driving cars) without absolute proof of things like a sober pilot and co-pilot and a car that is safe to drive. If we can have "faith" in those areas, we can have "faith" when it comes to God as well.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
I saw you respond to someone else saying "mountains of evidence" is a fallacy, so I'll go ahead and address it to you (even though you might suppress it, but I don't care; that just shows you're weak to me).
The scientific method works on disproving things. For 150 years, scientists have tried disproving evolution (i.e. by attempting to find an alternate explanation for the human's combined 2nd chromosome). Guess what, they haven't been able to. Why? Because it's an excellent model that fits.
wretcherwretch 3 years ago
wretcher...I have no clue where you get your information, but scientists don't try to "disprove" evolution. If anything, those entrenched in the system try everything in their power to prove it, even when the evidence is mostly circumstantial or even faked (remember Piltdown man?). A combined 2nd chromosome does not conclusively prove anything except that chromosomes were combined. To argue WHY is to speculate. So don't even try to argue about the scientficic method. I know it well.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
You, in the same breath, say that you understand the scientific method and then say that scientists don't try to disprove evolution. That in and of itself shows me that your entire argument is an argument from ignorance, where you don't understand the opposition, nor do you try, because it offends your literalist beliefs. The scientific method relies on falsifiability, the act of proving something wrong. Funny that you bring up the stereotypical piltdown man, which was declined by science.
wretcherwretch 3 years ago
No, wretcher, if there is one thing I am not, it is ignorant. So I would advise you to not make false claims, as they are a violation of my clearly posted rules. I understand the "opposition" all too well, as I have been studying the subject (creation/evolution) for quite some time now. There are scientists who do not hold my "literalist beliefs" who support my position. As for Piltdown man, you are wrong. Scientists took about 35 years to finally prove Piltdown a fraud. Why? Blind belief.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Additionally, the combined 2nd chromosome DOES in fact show huge support for evolution. Why? Because great apes have one more chromosome than us; if there was no combined chromosome, there could've been no scientific way to argue that there was a common ancestor between them. But, in fact, there is. Granted, at this point I'm already aware that I'm talking to someone who's so ignorantly entrenched in his beliefs that no matter what proof I give, you'll say it's not there. Or is there something?
wretcherwretch 3 years ago
No, wrether, the combined 2nd chromosome does NOT show "huge support for evolution." It is, again, CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence, just like the fact that apes and humans have 2 arms and legs and two eyes. That is simply a non sequitur based on wishful evolutionary thinking. There are perhaps other reaons for the combined 2nd chromosome, but those are not entertained. It MUST be "evolution." Not so. And this is not about being "ignorantly entrenched" in belief...
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
...as there are scientists who do not hold my beliefs who also do not buy into the circumstantial and speculative "evidence" for evolution. So don't come at me with the old "ignorantly entreched beliefs" canard. It is not a valid argument.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
See, the problem with that argument is two-fold:
1. The only theory that has completely explained any of the evidence is evolution (this includes the futile attempts of ID/creation to bastardize the scientific method).
2. The scientists who do not buy into evolution exist in a smaller percentage than there are historians who deny the Holocaust. All of them do it for religious reasons, and not scientific reasons (the Discovery Institute, for example).
Counter those points, please!
wretcherwretch 3 years ago
wrether...Point 1 contains the assumption that the "only" theory that has "completely" explained the evidence is evolution. Problem is, the ASSUMPTION of evolution is used to argue for it in this case to begin with. It's called petitio principii.
2. Numbers don't dictate truth. And again it appears you are woefully ignorant on this issue. All of them do NOT disagree with evolution for religious reasons. The Discovery Institute is NOT a religious agency. You are clearly misinformed.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
And just to give you two examples. Dr. Michael Denton has NO religious reasons for disagreeing with major evolutionary claims. Dr. David Berlinski also has no "religious" reasons. In fact, there are many scientific reasons for not accepting evolution, as revealed by Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, Dr. Gary Parker and others. So you're not going to get away with playing the game that it's only "religious" folks who have "religious" reasons who have problems with evolutionary theory. That won't fly.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Also, could you get rid of the approval pending? It's demeaning to those who wish to have a free discussion, and says that you'd rather suppress free speech than allow all sides of a debate to be heard (e.g. just the ones you approve!). Thanks.
wretcherwretch 3 years ago
No, wretcher, I cannot get rid of the pending approval. I allow my "friends" to post freely, but other must be approved due to the fact that I have young kids who sometimes view my videos, and I don't allow vulgar or racially prejudice language on my pages. All sides are heard, as long as they follow the rules clearly posted on my channel.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
wretcher...No, we do not ignore blatant fact. WE disregard alleged facts and speculation pushed off as facts. You say "0.15%" of scientists are creationists? Really? Based on what source? And even if that were true, there shouldn't be ANY who are creationists if the facts are so clear. What's really idiotic is comparing evolution with walking. Faulty analogy fallacy.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Yes, yes you do ignore blatant fact. You treat your holy book as a literal truth even though 150 years worth of evidence have piled up in favor of evolution, and not a single iota of evidence has surfaced for creation.
I also find it hysterical that, beyond the fact that you attempt to argue for a side which has been legally declared scientifically incorrect, you bring up the logical fallacy that perfectly debunks it, as well; argument from authority is all the bible has. No facts. None.
wretcherwretch 3 years ago
wretcher...The more you post, the more it seems you are woefully misinformed. You have not read ANY creation or Intelligent Design literature, have you? Or, if you did, you simply dismissed what you read. Regardless, Michael Denton is not a creationist, and he has made many valid points, one of which was to point out that much of evolution is based on circumstantial evidence. As for that legal argument, you might want to check the facts in that case. A biased judge who ignored facts.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
I actually wrote an article about judge Jones' ID ruling, and as a part of my research I read his entire judgment. So I know bias when I see it. Bias does not determine truth, especially when the judge, as was true in this case, was ignorant of the facts himself. The Bible has plenty of facts. You simply have not researched them. So let's not pretend, wretcher, that what you have not researched amounts to "no facts." Ignorance is not "no facts."
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Actually, kubush, that's part of the myth. Evolution does NOT have "mountains" of evidence. Circumstantial evidence that can apply to a Creator just as well as to evolution, or even moreso to a Creator or Designer, is not impressive or "mountains." There are former evolutionists who are now creationists.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
LOL...thecrowing07. You need credentials if you are going to speak on religion and know what you're talking about. Or, at the very least, you need to have studied to some degree. Dawkins is woefully ignorant of basics, like many atheists, and there is no excuse for it. And there is no valid comparison of "Harry Potter" to the Bible. That is patently absurd.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
And as for Dawkins, I know the Bible and Christian theology better than you and him and Harris and Hitchens combined. LOL...take that nonsense somewhere else.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
look i dont see how confront unbelievers and sinners in this way would bring them to christ man we got to show the love of christ also show them there wrong and show them the way by the grace of god leave the wrath to God because taking it in to your own hands you become fools I know you read your word man.
YAUS00 3 years ago
YAUS00...I think you might want to pay more attention to the substance of the things I point out rather than the wrestler act I put on for a reason. Love is not defined by how "sweet and flowery" we look or talk. Case in point, have a look at what Paul said in Acts 13:6-12. Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment, as Jesus said in John 7:24.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
i watched more of your videos andf i see what you mean
YAUS00 3 years ago
Good...My videos do contain substance and arguments, most of which do not get addressed by Dawkins fans. So stay tuned and perhaps you can pick up some helpful facts.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
This is why Americans have such a bad reputation around the world. Too many Bible-thumping uneducated, moronic twits like you run amok.
MSW121185 3 years ago
Actually, the problem is not Bible thumping. The problem is Biblical ignorance. I am far from uneducated, but I guess that's part of your problem, MSW...lack of discernment.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Oh dear.Extremely predictable religious comeback.You dont even dispute anything that Dawkins says.
Give it up Lord boy you're a disgrace.
babyriches 3 years ago
babyriches...You have no clue. You might want to pay attention to the meaning of the word "series." The real disgrace is your lack of understanding here.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
I'm 7 minutes and 25 seconds in, and every time I think your going to make an intellectual statement in rebuttal to Dawkins, you always sway away from it.
It typicaly seems to go something like this:
1. "Dawkins is stupid, he distorts things."
2. "Dawkins is learning big words"...what?
3. "Dawkins doesn't do his homework"
But you have yet to have said a single thing to dispute Dawkins. Cool personality you got there, cool image, but please, stay out of this subject.
Regards,
~lostm0ments
lostm0ments 3 years ago
Actually, lost, it is Dawkins is the one who needs to stay out of this subject, as he has zero expertise in it. There is a reason why this is a SERIES. Whatever is not fully dealt with in no. 1 will be gotten to in 2, 3, 4, 5 and so on. The word "series" does have a meaning, so you might want to jot that down and pay attention.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
You do realize that Professor Dawkins is indeed a Professor at Oxford University? I don't think I need to go any further on the required qualifications to be a Professor at such a University. Dawkins is considered to be Britain's most Intellectual individual, he is well educated in areas of Philosophy and reason. He has traveled the world, interviewing countless individuals on their beliefs in various religions. I wish you luck in debunking a man of Dawkins stature.
Regards,
~lostm0ments
lostm0ments 3 years ago
lostm0ments. I don't care where he's a "professor" at. He's still woefully ignorant and even stupid when it comes to the Bible and Christian theology. His ability to "reason" is questionable, as others have pointed out as well. The person needing "luck" when it comes to Christian doctrine is Dawkins. I have education, study, and the Spirit. Luck not needed.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
You can always "delete inappropriate Comments" or "Block Users"
GoStealthOnEm 3 years ago
Which can take forever depending on how many comments are made, and how long it's been since I've checked my pages.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Well there are men with credentials who have degrees. Like the former Atheist who was a collegue of Richard Dawkins at the University of Oxford. He wrote the Dawkins dellusion. He mentions why he left atheism.
SnakeCIA1 3 years ago
SnakeCIA1...I am guessing you mean Alister Mcgrath. I know of him and have some of his works. Your point is?
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
And ... I would stay & play ... but I find it COWARDLY to use "Comments Pending Approval."
GoStealthOnEm 3 years ago
You can find it "cowardly" by your speculative view, but you don't have all the facts. So, your speculation is meaningless.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
So, CRoadW ...
Since you're questioning the credentials of "Richard Dawkins" ... what are YOUR credentials?
GoStealthOnEm 3 years ago
GoStealth...Dawkins has NO credentials to talk about the Bible and theology. As for mine? First, been a Christian since 1983. Been studying the Bible seriously for over 15 years, including learning ancient Greek back in 94, and teaching it in a Bible school setting, and over the Internet. Studied some Hebrew with Jews in NYC. Have two Bachelors degrees, one of which is in Theology. Presently working on a Masters. And I left out all the "work" I've done to help people.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
GoStealthOnEm...it may be "NO FUN" but it keeps things from getting out of hand, and keeps stupid comments from being posted.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Assuming you produce your videos with the hope that someone actually watches them, might I suggest that you simply get to your point and spare everyone the theatrics?
I suffered through 5 minutes and all I know for sure is that you've read about 100 pages of Dawkins's book, and don't like it. I can't even tell if the god you are defending is yahweh or the flying spaghetti monster.
liberty2001 3 years ago
Well, not that your opinion has any validity, but since I have over 40,000 video view, I believe "someone" is watching a good deal. If you can't tell if the God I am defending is Yahweh or the "flying spaghetti monster," I suggest you do some soul-searching because the problem lies not in my videos but in the mirror. As for te theatrics, they stay because I'd rather have them than to be boring as hell, as many on YT are.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
I mean, come on...you gotta be kidding me, liberty2001. My intro clearly says I am the "Christian Road Warrior" not "flying spagetti monster warrior." LOL. Wise up or learn how to read.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
You have bad grammar my uneducated friend.
SnakeCIA1 3 years ago
Bad grammar? You gotta be kidding me. I am more educated in things Biblical than you, and I am probably more educated than you are in general. Not that this means anything, but I take offense to claims like yours, especially as I am working on my third degree. LOL.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
I got through about 2 minutes of your video before realizing that this is embellished nonsense. You arrive at no logical conclusion, using circular logic to reaffirm your beliefs that were bred into you not by rational thought, but by religious institution. No doubt you'll later on in the video attempt to refute evolution, perhaps calling out the usual predictable creationist arguments, but those are completely irrelevant anyway; there are thousands of transitional forms, and more. Stop trying.
wretcherwretch 3 years ago
wretcherwreth...Nice that you can make unsupported claims, but how about dealing with the issues? If you want to talk about no logical conclusions and circular logic, talk to the king of that - Dawkins. Thousands of transitional forms? LOL. Name one. Oh, but don't forget...animals in the past were composed of more than just bones, so any "transition" will be speculative at best...as admitted by evolutionary molecular biologist, Mike Denton. But go ahead...make my day!
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Unsupported? You're a creationist, that means you're automatically incorrect. Creationism has been proven incorrect hundreds of times by scientists shredding the "theory" of genesis apart bit by bit. That includes Hovind's pseudoscience hypothesis about the world being surrounded by water.
And sure,
Pakicetus --> Aetiocetus --> Gray Whale
Reptile --> Archaeopteryx--> Bird
And LOL, that you would call Mike Denton an evolutionist! He's a creationist.
As for the bones thing.. lol.
wretcherwretch 3 years ago
wretcher...Yes, unsupported. I'm automatically incorrect? LOL. That is irrational nonsense. There are many scientists who ARE creationists. You might want to look up Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, a man with 3 doctorates in science. And no, Mike Denton is not a "creationist." You need to do some credible research. And as for your alleged transitionals, LOLOL...standard stuff that doesn't prove a thing. No soft parts...no absolute proof.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Are you Tay Zonday's older brother?
CthulhuIsTheAnswer 3 years ago
Cthulhuls...who the heck is Tay Zonday?
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
luke02caleb05...I suggest you ask this question by private message since it is not related to the video topic.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Let me get this straight: You think that your assumption that there are more books on theology than biology proves to Mr. Dawkins that theology is, in fact, a valid field of study?
Theology is a joke. Everything you conclude is based on the assumption that what you read is truth. You can't study God if there's no proof he even existed.
StewieSwan 3 years ago
StewieSwan. First of all, it is not an assumption. Second, I did not say the number of books by itself proves theology is a valid field of study. Finally, just as in biology, graduate degrees are offered in theology. Dawkins, like yourself, uses circular reasoning to come to the false conclusion that it is not a valid field of study. There is proof God exists. You and Dawkins simply either ignore it or rationalize it away. There are people who deny the Holocaust. Why? Lack of evidence?LOL.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
You are hopeless man. I had no circular reasoning. I simply said that you can't study something if it might not even exist. You are just coming to conclusions that can never be tested or proven. And you're saying that there is proof that God exists? Really? Come on man, a smart guy like you shouldn't have to lie. I'm done with this, because you are obviously deluded to assume what you know is truth. I will not say God doesn't exist (like Dawkins), but I do not believe he does.
StewieSwan 3 years ago
Religious studies are just an arts study. Arts is no truth, it is studying unfixed points that could have multiple perspectives and involve just arguments. Of course you can get graduate studies in theology but all you do is study an non-rigourous document versus say a science field such as Biology which would have a solid plateau of evidence versus. Some people deny in modern society that the holocaust was cause they were raised to ignore it which is just another version of Dawkins' claims.
Entertainmentwf 3 years ago
What the heck are you talking about, Entertainmentwf? Arts is no truth? Really now? All we study is "non-rigourous document"? You clearly have not even been to a theological library and picked up a Greek lexicon or grammar, or worse yet a scholarly critical commentary with both lexical and grammatical evidences. LOL. As for the Holocaust, my point is that people can even deny undeniable evidence if they desire. So some pretend to want "evidence" but they really could care less.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
How do you apply your knowledge of logic to attempt to understand the Bible?
JoeBWebb 3 years ago
That's a good question, JoebWebb. You may have to clarify your question a little, but basically I can say this. The God of the Bible is a God of intellect and reason, and therefore it makes sense that we ourselves (being made in His image) can use intellect and reason. Logic is the study of right reason. And if God is a God of reason, then the Bible should contain both truth and reason, which it does. Does that help?
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Etcher, you make me laugh. LOLOL. Have fun in the block zone.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
I want my 9 min and 58 seconds back.
You didn't "debunk" anything. You just talk in circles and say nothing of substance. You showed a random clip and then talked about nothing for a while, THEN said you can take "such and such" out of context from the bible.
And about a comment from above:
If you're ok with misreading the Bible based on laziness and ignorance, then I would reconsidered who is the "mad man" or "terrorist."
So if one does not believe in the bible, one is a mad man?
Nigel526 3 years ago